Let's admit that despite all the media hype, there is one thing that George Bush did not destroy when he left office: comedy. If anything, Republicans out of power are even funnier than Republicans in power...
I'd like to go back to the beginning of the year and remind everyone that when Barack Obama, an actual college professor, replaced George Bush, an actual chimp--commentators announced that comedians would be out of a job.
Well, they were wrong. Everyone is out of a job.
So, yes, Bush was a sweet target. But, it turns out there were plenty of ridiculous Republicans behind him that we just couldn't see. His stupid "star doth shone too brightly."
To wit, the year began with Obama's State of the Union speech, rebutted by teenage governor Bobby Jindal. Who was the great hope of the party. But, when Americans saw him that fateful night, their thought wasn't "A new leader for a new time," it was "Good God, Mad magazine has outsourced Alfred E. Newman."
Now, after Jindal flamed out, the Republicans still needed a fresh new face. So they got Dick Cheney. Who, for a while, popped up on TV more often than the GEICO lizard to demand he be given proper credit for torture. Not that I'm comparing Cheney to the GEICO lizard. One's a cold-blooded reptile and the other is the GEICO lizard.
Now, after Cheney came that exciting new group of Obama critics known as "the birthers." Or as they used to be called, "the Klan."
And after them came Governor Mark Sanford. All over Argentina. Yes, this is truly a bizarre year for Republicans. Their sex scandals were with women.
Well, soon it was tax time, and the "teabaggers" filled the streets, purple with rage that their taxes under Obama had STAYED EXACTLY THE SAME OR GONE DOWN!!!
Yes, the "teabaggers," who started a movement and in the process sullied the name of a perfectly good gay sex act--that's right, when the year started, "teabagging" was a phrase that referred to dangling one's testicles in someone else's face. And they managed to turn it into something gross and ridiculous.
This is also the year that conservatives taught us that there's only one kind of racism left in America, and that's reverse racism. It was inspiring to see white men finally stand up to the oppressive, rigged system that has forced them to live in a hopeless cycle of wealth and opportunity.
And, speaking of opportunity, have you heard this broad? [Michelle Bachman]? The floor of a cave called. It wants its bat shit back.
And, speaking of bat shit, to reiterate my theme, if Obama hadn't been elected, would we have ever seen Glenn Beck cry on TV? On a park bench while masturbating, sure, but not on TV. And was there any better TV than watching this weepy, wonderful special-needs cousin of Rush Limbaugh? Angry one moment, then frightened, scolding, sobbing. We loved him because we've all known someone just like him. Usually an ex-girlfriend.
If you're so against government run health care, introduce a bill to end Medicare. Put up or shut up. We're sick of people that want the government to keep its hand off your Medicare. Put your money where your mouth is and pass a bill to end Medicare. Then we'll see what seniors have to say about you when they find out what you actually stand for.
Plus, I don't have much time to sit on the internet and pretend my rambling matters.
I'm a liberal. I have my hands full with working, studying, reading and feeling empathy.
Peace out, FnG and LC and the actual socialists on the site. You're the only cool ones on here. Fuck everyone else.
If anyone wants it, they can take over the socialist party page i made on here. Get my email address from LC and I'll give you the password to the page. Or just make a new one if you want. If any socialists are staying on u4prez, keep the socialist party alive here and everywhere you go. I'll be keeping the socialist spirit alive elsewhere.
Keep the socialist spirit alive and never give up, comrades.
Comrades, we should be proud that we abhore war, poverty, tyranny and the capitalist system that creates them. Be proud and keep the red flag waving.
Trent Lott must think he's living in a nightmare. More than one week has passed since his segregationist cheerleading at Strom Thurmond's century celebration, and the chorus of anti-Lottism has swelled ever louder. Conservatives in particular can't scream loud enough. William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, called Lott's comments "thoughtless" and told CBS's "Early Show" audience on December 12 that "Trent Lott shows such a lack of historical understanding that I think it would be appropriate for him to offer to step down." And conservative pundit Peggy Noonan told Chris Matthews this Sunday, "I am personally tired of being embarrassed by people ... who don't get what the history of race in America is, what integration has meant, what segregation was. I'm tired of being embarrassed by Republicans ... who don't get it."
It's a nice sentiment, and, if conservatives are serious about it, they might want to direct their attention one state to Lott's east, home of Alabama Republican Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III. His record on race arguably rivals that of the gentleman from Mississippi--and yet has elicited not a peep of consternation from the anti-racist right.
Sessions entered national politics in the mid-'80s not as a politician but as a judicial nominee. Recommended by a fellow Republican from Alabama, then-Senator Jeremiah Denton, Sessions was Ronald Reagan's choice for the U.S. District Court in Alabama in the early spring of 1986. Reagan had gotten cocky by then, as more than 200 of his uberconservative judicial appointees had been rolled out across the country without serious opposition (this was pre-Robert Bork). That is, until the 39-year-old Sessions came up for review.
Sessions was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. The year before his nomination to federal court, he had unsuccessfully prosecuted three civil rights workers--including Albert Turner, a former aide to Martin Luther King Jr.--on a tenuous case of voter fraud. The three had been working in the "Black Belt" counties of Alabama, which, after years of voting white, had begun to swing toward black candidates as voter registration drives brought in more black voters. Sessions's focus on these counties to the exclusion of others caused an uproar among civil rights leaders, especially after hours of interrogating black absentee voters produced only 14 allegedly tampered ballots out of more than 1.7 million cast in the state in the 1984 election. The activists, known as the Marion Three, were acquitted in four hours and became a cause c?l?bre. Civil rights groups charged that Sessions had been looking for voter fraud in the black community and overlooking the same violations among whites, at least partly to help reelect his friend Senator Denton.
On its own, the case might not have been enough to stain Sessions with the taint of racism, but there was more. Senate Democrats tracked down a career Justice Department employee named J. Gerald Hebert, who testified, albeit reluctantly, that in a conversation between the two men Sessions had labeled the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) "un-American" and "Communist-inspired." Hebert said Sessions had claimed these groups "forced civil rights down the throats of people." In his confirmation hearings, Sessions sealed his own fate by saying such groups could be construed as "un-American" when "they involve themselves in promoting un-American positions" in foreign policy. Hebert testified that the young lawyer tended to "pop off" on such topics regularly, noting that Sessions had called a white civil rights lawyer a "disgrace to his race" for litigating voting rights cases. Sessions acknowledged making many of the statements attributed to him but claimed that most of the time he had been joking, saying he was sometimes "loose with [his] tongue." He further admitted to calling the Voting Rights Act of 1965 a "piece of intrusive legislation," a phrase he stood behind even in his confirmation hearings.
It got worse. Another damaging witness--a black former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama named Thomas Figures--testified that, during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he "used to think they [the Klan] were OK" until he found out some of them were "pot smokers." Sessions claimed the comment was clearly said in jest. Figures didn't see it that way. Sessions, he said, had called him "boy" and, after overhearing him chastise a secretary, warned him to "be careful what you say to white folks." Figures echoed Hebert's claims, saying he too had heard Sessions call various civil rights organizations, including the National Council of Churches and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, "un-American." Sessions denied the accusations but again admitted to frequently joking in an off-color sort of way. In his defense, he said he was not a racist, pointing out that his children went to integrated schools and that he had shared a hotel room with a black attorney several times.
During his nomination hearings, Sessions was opposed by the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, People for the American Way, and other civil rights groups. Senator Denton clung peevishly to his favored nominee until the bitter end, calling Sessions a "victim of a political conspiracy." The Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee finally voted ten to eight against sending Sessions to the Senate floor. The decisive vote was cast by the other senator from Alabama, Democrat Howell Heflin, a former Alabama Supreme Court justice, who said, "[M]y duty to the justice system is greater than any duty to any one individual."
None of this history stopped Sessions's political ascension. He was elected attorney general in 1994. Once in office, he was linked with a second instance of investigating absentee ballots and fraud that directly impacted the black community. He was also accused of not investigating the church burnings that swept the state of Alabama the year he became attorney general. But those issues barely made a dent in his 1996 Senate campaign, when Heflin retired and Sessions ran for his seat and won.
Since his election as a senator, Sessions has not done much to make amends for his past racial insensitivity. His voting record in the Senate has earned him consistent "F"s from the NAACP. He supported an ultimately unsuccessful effort to end affirmative action programs in the federal government (a measure so extreme that many conservatives were against it), he opposed hate-crimes laws, and he opposed a motion to investigate the disproportionate number of minorities in juvenile detention centers. Says Hillary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington bureau, "[Sessions's] voting record is disturbing. ... He has consistently opposed the bread-and-butter civil rights agenda." But it has been on judicial nominees that Sessions has really made a name for himself. When Sessions grabbed Heflin's Senate seat in 1996, he also nabbed a spot on the Judiciary Committee. Serving on the committee alongside some of the senators who had dismissed him 16 years earlier, Sessions has become a cheerleader for the Bush administration's judicial picks, defending such dubious nominees as Charles Pickering, who in 1959 wrote a paper defending Mississippi's anti-miscegenation law, and Judge Dennis Shedd, who dismissed nearly every fair-employment civil rights case brought before him as a federal district court judge. Sessions called Pickering "a leader for racial harmony" and a "courageous," "quality individual" who was being used as a "political pawn." Regarding Shedd, he pooh-poohed the criticism, announcing that the judge "should have been commended for the rulings he has made," not chastised.
And yet, despite his record as U.S. Attorney, attorney general of Alabama, and senator, Sessions has never received criticism from conservatives or from the leadership of the Republican Party. President Bush even campaigned for him in the last election. It's true, of course, that Sessions isn't in a leadership position, like Lott. But, if conservatives are serious about ending the perception that the GOP tolerates racism, they should look into his record as well. After all, if Noonan and friends are really "tired of being embarrassed" by this kind of racial insensitivity, they can't just start yelling once the news hits the stands.
Excerpt from "Senator Jeff Sessions, With a Questionable Racist Past, Becomes the GOP's Point-Man for Confirmation Hearings for Next Supreme Court Justice" By Janet Shan Black Political Thought
Twenty-three years ago he was engaged in the fight of his life. He was appointed a U.S. attorney in Alabama in 1981 and was nominated to become a U.S. District judge by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. J. Gerald Hebert, a career Justice Department lawyer, testified that Sessions had once called the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union "un-American" and "Communist-inspired." He said that they "forced civil rights down the throats of people." He sealed his own fate by saying such groups could be construed as "un-American" when "they involve themselves in promoting un-American positions" in foreign policy. He is said to have made remarks that he thought the Ku Klux Klan wasn't so bad until he found out that some of them smoked marijuana. He said these comments were made in jest. Right.
Sessions faced a heated round of questioning from Sen. Edward Kennedy, who called him "a throwback to a shameful era," and our current Vice President, Joe Biden. How ironic. The committee held four hearings during one of which Sessions pleaded that "I am not a racist." Hebert also testified that Sessions had called a white civil rights lawyer a "disgrace to his race" for litigating voting rights cases. His nomination failed in committee on a 10 to 8 vote, with Specter joining the nominee's original patron, Sen. Howell Heflin (D-Ala.) in dooming the nomination. In 1994, Sessions won a state attorney general's race, and then won election to the Senate in 1996 after Heflin retired.
I recently wrote a blog discussing Jeff Session's fear that Sonia Sotomayor's race would affect her rulings on the bench. (In the blog I questioned why Sotomayor's religious beliefs were not held up to the same scrutiny, a valid point.)
Hawk and Friday said that Sessions actually only said that some of her comments were racist.
Friday made a blog where he accused me of lying.
Here is a video of Jeff Sessions not only questioning some of Sotomayor's "racist" remarks, but (just as I said) showing his fear that Sotomayor's experiences as a Latina woman may influence her rulings on the bench.
Friday, you are the biggest douche bag on u4prez....I mean in the universe.
I recently wrote a blog discussing Jeff Session's fear that Sonia Sotomayor's race would affect her rulings on the bench. (In the blog I questioned why Sotomayor's religious beliefs were not held up to the same scrutiny, a valid point.)
Hawk and Friday said that Sessions actually only said that some of her comments were racist.
Friday made a blog where he accused me of lying.
Here is a video of Jeff Sessions not only questioning some of Sotomayor's "racist" remarks, but (just as I said) showing his fear that Sotomayor's experiences as a Latina woman may influence her rulings on the bench.
Friday, you are the biggest douche bag on u4prez....I mean in the universe.
The controversy surrounding Sonia Sotomayor has calmed down, but race continues to be a major issue as it always has been in America.
Senators, talk show hosts and American citizens were stuck on Sonia Sotomayor's race and what he experience as a latina woman would have on her rulings in the Supreme Court. Sonia Sotomayor is also a Catholic. No one asked if her Catholic beliefs would have an effect on her judgements. In fact, seven of our Supreme Court justices are Christians. Why did no one ask if a the judges' religions would have an effect on their rulings? Is it because people hope that religion, especially the Christian religion, does have an effect on rulings? If so, then decisions based one experience related to race obstruct the rule of law no more than religious beliefs do.
Or does religion just not matter? Why does race matter but religion doesn't?
People are born with a skin color. No one picks their race. However, people do choose to follow religious doctrine. Of course maybe people feel their religion is like their race. Once one is indoctrinated with a set of beliefs, it may be very difficult and sometimes impossible to leave religion behind even if a person wants to.
I think race should matter less than religion. No one chooses their race, but everyone chooses to follow their religion for one reason or another.
I feel that it is down right racist to judge anyone, including a politican based on their skin color.
But when I'm voting for a congressman, a senator or the President of the United States, I believe I have every right to judge someone based on their religious beliefs.
In June 2008, Sarah Palin said "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,"
If a political candidate believes that God is telling elected officials to wage wars, I have every right to blatantly not vote for them for this reason.
There is large branch of Christianity that believes we are living in the end times. They believe in an apocalpytic prophesy that would only seem to render fixing longer term problems useless.
If someone believes the world is going to end, and that global warming is just a natural part of Revelation, I have evry right to not vote for them and profess that it is for that reason.
This is not the same as being a racist. People don't choose their race. People choose their religion.
Religion is not something many people take lightly. If someone believes the problems we face today are just the pre-show for rigt wing Christians to be saved by a Hummer-drivin, AK-47 carrying Jesus, I doubt they can put it out of their mind while making policy decisions. I hope that one day the race issue will be replaced by the religion issues. Instead of judging people based on their skin color, we will judge them based on what they believe.
Here's a great article to crush a huge chunk of the nonsense conservatives throw at the public option.
The Public Plan Option and the Big Government Conservatives By Dean Baker
We all know that there are basic philosophical differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe that the government can be used to improve the lives of ordinary people. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that the government should redistribute money to the wealthy. This philosophical difference has come through very clearly in the debate over giving people the option to buy into a publicly run health insurance plan.
Since the conservatives are not honest enough to own up to their true principles in this case, it is worth briefly recapping the argument they put up as a cover. The conservatives claim that if people are given the option to buy into a public plan, then so many people will choose to do so, that it will drive the private plans out of business. The country will then be stuck with only a government-run insurer and patients will have no choice. This will be bad news, because the government can't do a good job providing the American people with health insurance.
The logic of this one is more than a bit difficult to follow. We are supposed to be worried because people will freely choose to go with a government-run insurance system that is badly run and inefficient rather than private insurers. Do the conservatives think that we cannot trust people to make their own choices about health insurance? Is this yet another case of nanny-state conservatives who want to step in to prevent people from making choices that they think are bad for them?
But, wait. The conservatives argue that the public plan will be subsidized by the government. This means that it won't be fair competition; the government plan will enjoy subsidies that will allow it to charge less than private insurers, therefore, people will buy into the public plan rather than private insurers.
This is a little better than the conservatives' stupid-patient theory, but not much. First, if the government-run plan is really as bad as the conservatives want us to believe, then it would take some pretty large subsidies to allow it to compete with those clever boys running private insurance plans. People will not fly an airline that doesn't get them to their destination or buy a computer that does not work.
If a government-run insurance plan is really a bad plan, then it will simply go out of business unless there are truly massive subsidies. To get people to buy into the bad public plan rather than the high quality private plans, we would probably have to give them subsidies of at least $1,000 per person. After all, health care is important to people.
This brings us to the conservatives' stupid-voter theory. There is nothing in any of the plans on the table that provides any subsidy whatsoever to the public plan. So, at the moment, subsidies are nowhere in sight. However, the conservatives argue that somehow, somewhere, Congress will slip in subsidies to the tune of at least $200 billion a year ($2 trillion over a 10-year budget horizon) to support a public plan that provides bad insurance.
Where would the $200 billion a year come from? Would Congress raise taxes by this amount and the public would just go along because it thinks it is important to subsidize its bad public plan? Alternatively, would they just let the deficit explode?
Again, this is a possibility, but in spite of all the rhetoric about the fiscal irresponsibility of Congress, it generally has kept deficits within reason, except to finance wars and to deal with the economic disaster created by rich bankers. There really is no precedent for Congress running up huge deficits to fund a bloated social program, especially one that is presumably unpopular because it provides bad coverage. The conservatives' story here is not a slippery slope scenario, but rather a huge, hidden grand canyon. Yes, it could be there; we just have no evidence for it.
Yet, it gets even worse. Even when we have the huge public plan that has displaced the private competition because of its huge subsidies, there is still the possibility that new competition will come up in the future. In other words, if we have this hopelessly inefficient bureaucratic monster of a health care system that is killing off our loved ones, why wouldn't some clever entrepreneurial type set up a new well-run private plan to offer a real alternative? Certainly, there are many people who would be willing to pay far more than $1,000 a year extra to get decent insurance rather than the monster portrayed by conservatives. In short, even if the big bad public plan managed to use huge taxpayer subsidies to drive out the competition, this would just be a temporary situation. In a dynamic market, new insurers will step in to fill the gap, unless the conservative vision also has Congress outlawing competition altogether at some future date.
Of course, at this point, we are dealing with something entirely fictional that has nothing to do with any proposal currently being debated. The bottom line is that the conservative position is that there are people getting rich running private insurance companies and they want to protect this situation long into the future.
I hear a lot of conservatives claiming that Barack Obama is oppressing the population. I'd like to know how. Today, Kempite told me that people that believe Obama is oppressing the population are not crazy as I had said they are. Kempite went on to say that there is a feeling that Obama is oppressing America just as King George oppressed the Colonists before the Revolutionary War. Sorry, but I have to call batshit like I see it.
So folks, I implore you. If you believe Obama is the King George tyrant so many claim he is, please explain why. Please explain why I am less free or more oppressed now than I was on December 31, 2008.
Please, no bullshit. If this is your opinion, atleast have the spine to give a straight forward reason.
A Sign of the Times By Paul Begala September 13, 2009
The sign said it all. It was not some last-minute message some meth addict scrawled in crayon on a scrap of cardboard. No, this sign was professionally printed. White block letters on a blue background, the four-word message was in all caps. Someone had to have thought this through. Someone wrote it, edited it, planned it, designed it, ordered it, paid for it. Someone approved it, printed it, distributed it. And then someone thought this was a message he or she wanted to convey to the world. Thank goodness someone had the courage to take a photo of it, and then Huffington Post had the guts to post it on its home page.
The sign made me nauseous, made me embarrassed, made me wonder if at long last there is no decency on the far right. The sign said:
"BURY OBAMACARE WITH KENNEDY"
Oh, I get it. Sen. Kennedy is dead, and these slugs want health care reform to be dead too. That is so clever.
Fourteen days after Edward Kennedy was laid to rest in the company of his fellow American heroes in Arlington, right-wing hate-mongers decided to use his burial to make a cheap point about their opposition to health care reform.
What would they have done if liberals had printed signs that equated Ronald Reagan's burial with the hoped-for death of George W. Bush's plan to privatize Social Security? Or Bill Buckley's painful passing with the GOP's loss of the White House in 2008? Or the demise of my right-wing former colleague Bob Novak with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts? You can't imagine that, can you? Because, while we progressives have our moments of frustration and our occasional lack of couth, there is nothing I can think of that compares to the sick, savage sign that the teabaggers were waving in Washington.
The inmates have taken over the asylum. The ever-sunny Reagan is dead. The congenial Buckley is dead. The old-school conservative Novak is dead as well. In their place is the party of Joe the Shouter and Joe the Plumber and Sarah the Death Panel Screecher.
They hate Pres. Obama - even though he has bent over backwards to accommodate Republicans. They hate tax increases - even though the Democrats have cut taxes for 95% of Americans. They hate health care reform - even though Ted Kennedy fought his whole life to get them the same health care millionaires like him already had.
There was not, to my knowledge, a sign that said, "Let's Bury Medicare," even though Medicare is precisely the sort of single-payer, government-run, socialized health insurance the whack-jobs say they hate. Nor did I hear about a sign that said, "Let's Bury Tricare," although the military health system is as socialized as Britain's, its beneficiaries (including, according to Newsweek, Congressclown Joe Wilson of South Carolina) are very happy with their socialized health care. Nary a sign, so far as I know, decried the Bush prescription drug entitlement, even though it ballooned the deficit, enriched the pharmaceutical companies and furthered the supposed slide toward socialism. Nor, I'm told, were there any signs criticizing the $2 trillion Mr. Bush's unjust, unwarranted, unwise war in Iraq will cost our children and grandchildren. Nor ever a single sign about the Bush tax cuts, which helped squander the Clinton surplus. If this were about fiscal policy, the protests would have happened long ago.
These tea parties are, at least for some, more about hate than high-minded debate. Anyone who needed proof need look no further than the sign captured in the photo on the front page of the Huffington Post.
Most of you know that recently White House environmental advisor, Van Jones resigned from his poisition. From the Republican outcry, one would've though that Van Jones mugged an old lady...or wished a Muslim a happy holiday.
But why was Mr. Jones put in a position where he felt he had to resign?
Van Jones has the radical past of an insane extremist. In 2004 he...signed a position questioning the Bush administration's involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Naive maybe, but radical? Even though the 9/11 truth theory belongs in the same bucket of batshit as the birthers' theory, this is no cause for resignation.
But what I think really upset Republicans is that fact that Van Jones once said that Republicans are "assholes." You know it's a slow news day when stating the obvious gets you on the nightly news.
The attack against Van Jones was lead by Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Glenn Beck (also known as Glenif*ck). I wonder why the alleged independent rushed to so viciously deffend Republicans. I wonder if Beck would've been this angry is Karl Rove said Democrats are assholes. But that's besides the point.
Why didn't the White House stand up for Van Jones? Why is the White House letting Glenn Beck dictate?
I don't blame Jones for letting some insults fly. The man is frustrated that even though the Republicans are in the minority, they are still running the show.
But you have to give the Republicans credit. Whether they are the majority or the minority, they get shit done whether it's good or bad. The Republicans got every policy they wanted during the Bush years, and now with a minority in the House and Senate and a Democrat in the White House, Republicans are still getting everything they want.
With the Democrats in control of the White House and both houses of Congress, the Republicans have been able to force a presidential advisor to resign, damage the health care bill beyond real reform and kill energy reform.
But maybe all the credit isn't due to the Republicans. Maybe Republicans are so good at getting things done because the Democrats are such pussies. That's right. I said it. Democrats are pussies. I hope Glenn Beck doesn't call for my resignation!
Democrats need to grow some balls or ask Republicans to borrow theirs. If the Democrats don't push through real reform now, then when?
The Obama administration needs to put the audacity back in the hope. The year is almost up, and I have yet to see change I can believe in, and I'm running out of hope.
This is my statement concering the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and the party of which I am a member, the Socialist Party.
I would like to start this off with a quotation of one of my greatest heroes. These few lines were written over 100 years ago and are still relevant today and there I could not write a better introduction for this blog, so I will quote a few lines from one of my heros before I begin my writings:
"The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles.
With either of those parties in power one thing is always certain and that is that the capitalist class is in the saddle and the working class under the saddle.
Under the administration of both these parties the means of production are private property, production is carried forward for capitalist profit purely, markets are glutted and industry paralyzed, workingmen become tramps and criminals while injunctions, soldiers and riot guns are brought into action to preserve “law and order” in the chaotic carnival of capitalistic anarchy.
Deny it as may the cunning capitalists who are clear-sighted enough to perceive it, or ignore it as may the torpid workers who are too blind and unthinking to see it, the struggle in which we are engaged today is a class struggle, and as the toiling millions come to see and understand it and rally to the political standard of their class, they will drive all capitalist parties of whatever name into the same party, and the class struggle will then be so clearly revealed that the hosts of labor will find their true place in the conflict and strike the united and decisive blow that will destroy slavery and achieve their full and final emancipation.
In this struggle the workingmen and women and children are represented by the Socialist party and it is my privilege to address you in the name of that revolutionary and uncompromising party of the working class." -Eugene V. Debs, 'The Socialist Party and the Working Class' (1904)
Let us first consider the Republican Party. The Republican Party is capitalist to the core. The Republican Party has no use for workers except to exploit them, or to pretend to be their ally in hopes of gaining the working peoples' vote. Then, once they assume power, they will break up strikes, halt the growth of wages, push the tax burden further onto the working class and make it easier for the wealthiest to evade taxes and send jobs to distant lands where there are few or no labor laws or human rights. The Republican Party is the enemy of the working people. Why would the average person support the Republican Party? The Republican Party does nothing but masquerade as the party of the folks while it does everything it can to crush the interest of those same regular joe's they pander to during election time. It boggles the mind that a party can run openly on a platform of corporatism, tax breaks for the wealthiest and the set back of the progress of the working class and still manage to gain the votes of the working people.
Now, let us consider the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party, unlike the Republican Party, does not tend to openly campaign on corporatism. The Democratic Party sells itself as the progressive party and the working man's party. I will give credit where credit is do. Many Democrats are progressives and do work for the interests of the working class. Howevere, most of this party is made up of centrist and conservatives who are capitalist to the core. The Democrats are able to gain a large base by running campaigns with progressive stances on the issues and by throwing bones to the working class. But they don't hestate to compromise with the Republicans, and they are surley not the opponents if capitalism. Some Democrats are for the working people, but the party is general supports the same anti-labor policies as the Republicans. How can working people be fooled into voting for the Democratic Party? The Democrats had their day as the regular peoples' party, but what have they done recently? They've joined the Republican Party is pandering to the wealthiest, bailing out big corporations and killing true health care reform. It's tiem to stop being fooled by the Democrats.
And now, let us consider the Socialist Party. The Socialists hate to hide their beliefs. We are firmly opposed to the capitalist system and we seek to end the wage-slavery that is its mechanism and the poverty that is its by-product. The Socialist Party is not ambiguous about its stances on the issues. We take the progressive stance on all issues. We build our platform around the interests of the working class. We do not work against the interest of the working people, and we do not compromise with the capitalists. The Socialist Party is the only party of and for the people.
In closing, the Republicans and the Democrats have become so simmilar in their desire to oppose the interests of the working class and to incessantly appease the capitalist class that there is now way to tell them apart, and no need to. The Republican and Democratic Parties are not parties for the people. They speak for the few and oppose the interests of the many. The Socialist Party, on the other hand, is always for progress and is always for the working people.
I would like to end this writing with one more quote from our comrad, Eugene Debs.
"Every sympathizer with labor, every friend of justice, every lover of humanity should support the Socialist party as the only party that is organized to abolish industrial slavery, the prolific source of the giant evils that afflict the people. ...The overthrow of capitalism is the object of the Socialist party. It will not fuse with any other party and it would rather die than compromise." -Eugene V. Debs, 'The Socialist Party and the Working Class' (1904).
I remember hearing "This Land is Your Land" frequently at school when I was younger. In elementary school, they would play a patriotic song then we would say the pledge of allegiance. It wasn't untill much later that I learned that the famous folk musician, Woody Guthrie, had written the song.
Being a musician myself, I decided to learn some of Guthrie's music. Among the songs I decided to learn was "This Land is Your Land". I found that the song is longer than just the few verses we sang at school. I found that this song was not even a truly patriotic song. I am under the impression that "This Land is Your Land" is a criticism of America more than a patriotic anthem. I often wonder how many people know that the socialist Woddy Guthrie is the author or "This Land is Your Land." I often wonder how many people are aware of all of the lyrics. So here they are if you never heard the entire song. You may not think this to be so patriotic anymore.
This Land Is Your Land By Woody Guthrie
Chorus: This land is your land, this land is my land From California, to the New York Island From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters This land was made for you and me
As I was walking a ribbon of highway I saw above me an endless skyway I saw below me a golden valley This land was made for you and me
Chorus
I've roamed and rambled and I've followed my footsteps To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts And all around me a voice was sounding This land was made for you and me
Chorus
The sun comes shining as I was strolling The wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling The fog was lifting a voice come chanting This land was made for you and me
Chorus
As I was walkin' - that dusty highway I saw a sign that said- "private property" But on the other side .... it didn't say nothin Now that side was made for you and me!
Chorus
In the squares of the city - In the shadow of the steeple In the relief office- I saw my people And some were stumbling- and some were wondering If this land was made for you and me
The first "Labor Day" in America was in 1882. The holiday did not become a national holiday untill years later.
While you're out enjoying your day off, eating hot dogs and drinking beer, remember what the labor movement has done for you.
The labor movement brought you the 8 hour work day, the 5 day work week, and institutionalized vacations as well as many other workers' rights in America.
But don't forget the socialist roots of labor day.
Though the holiday was first celebrated in in 1882, it wasn't untill 1894 that President Grover Cleveland declared Labor Day a national holiday.
President Grover Cleveland ordered soliders to break up the Pullman Strike of 1894. After he broke up the strike, President Cleveland made reconcilliation with labor into a top political priority. That is when he declared Labor Day to be an official national holiday.
The Pullman Strike involved 250,000 workers in 27 states. The leader of the strike was none other than American Railway Union leader and Socialist Party presidential candidate, Eugene V. Debs.
Thanks to the workers who participated in the Pullman Strike, and to the leadership of card carrying socialist Eugene V. Debs, Labor Day has become one of America's most celebrated holidays.
Science –noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. 6. a particular branch of knowledge. 7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
Scientific Method –noun a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.
It seems to me that science has become the enemy of the right wing. Scientific facts like global climate change and evolution are being politicized. Science is not faith, and it is not politics.
Science is the study of the world around us and interpretation of the knowlege gained throuhg observation and experimentation. There is no room for faith in science. Unlike religion, science requires observation and tests to form an opinion. Religion relies almost exclusivley on faith. Not the same thing.
Science has become politicized by the right wing. I can't help but wonder if the reason for the resistance to the evidence of climate change isn't the fact that Al Gore became an advocate of the fight against climate change. The right wing would rather disagree with Al Gore than work to preserve our planet. When did sustaing human life become a liberal idea?
And evolution. Evolution is complex yet simple. Ideas about the mechanisms of evolution are very complex, but the concept of the biological proecess of evolution is pretty simple. And yes, there is a mountain of evidence to demonstrate that life has evolved, is evolving and will evolve in the future. It's not rocket science, but it is science.
When did gathering knowledge about the world through observation and experimentation become a liberal thing?
It seems that, to most conservatives, if the facts contradict our beliefs then the facts must be wrong. I don't get it.
Global warming and evolution are not controversies among scientists. They are only controversies among people who are unaware of the evidence, or who are resistant to it.
I had to do a little venting there. But before I go, let me give you some numbers.
97% of climatologists believe that global warming is real and that humans are playing a role.
This is by far the best recrnt article about the public health care option. I had to post it. This is specifically for the opponents of the public option. There are some things you should know.
The Public Option is Popular, Moral and Inexpensive, Therefore it Must Die By Bob Cesca Sptember 2, 2009
Attention politicians and traditional media people. Important announcement.
Is everyone with me? Chuck Todd: stop applying your beard rouge and pay attention. Bartiromo: leave the cork on the fork.
Okay, here we go.
The public health insurance option as defined in both the Senate HELP bill and the House bill (HR 3200) is not a far-left liberal proposal. A far-left liberal proposal would actually be a single-payer plan. The public option is actually a program supported by almost everyone, despite the misleading way it's currently being discussed by Republicans, town hall wingnuts, cable news "smackdown" panelists and other very serious members of the Washington establishment.
To wit, David Brooks' column the other day urged the president to reconnect with "the center" on issues like healthcare reform, and to also exercise more "fiscal restraint." Naturally, Brooks isn't prescribing this approach in a vacuum. It's all over Washington, including within certain corridors at the White House.
And it only takes a few minutes of cable news viewing to arrive at the assumption that the "centrist" position on healthcare reform, according to Brooks and other establishment people, is a bill without a public option. The health insurance lobby in collusion with both the corrupt and spineless Blue Dogs and the lying hacks who control the cartoonish Republican Party have successfully convinced large chunks of Washington that the public option is some sort of ultra-left concoction manufactured inside the secret underground Wellstone Memorial Lib-ratory located beneath Howard Dean's cavernous walk-in Birkenstock closet.
The reality, however, is that a healthcare reform bill with a robust public option is both extraordinarily popular and fiscally responsible, while, on the other hand, the kind of "centrist" bill that David Brooks wants is actually more expensive and generally more corrupt. In other words, a bill without the public option can hardly be called "centrist" by any definition of the term.
If Brooks wants "fiscal restraint," as he writes in his column, he'd endorse the public option. What I'm about to write is old news, but with the apparent prevalence of breaking news stories on cable news about bears wandering into suburban swimming pools, I suppose it's easy for people to forget. Nevertheless, here it is. You may recall that the CBO scored the Kennedy HELP bill as costing around $1 trillion over ten years. But that was an early version of the bill without a public option included. What did the bill cost with the public option inserted into the mix?
$400 billion less.
Less!
The public option reduced the price tag of the HELP bill by $400 billion. By Grabthar's Hammer, what a savings.
How is this not indicative of fiscal restraint and centrist politics, Mr. Brooks? The public option is the very definition of fiscal restraint and anyone who opposes the inclusion of the public option in a final healthcare reform bill is actually in favor of spending more money -- not less. To the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.
Additionally, I'm not aware of any centrist voters who are particularly in love with the idea of a healthcare reform bill that contains mandates but no public option escape hatch. As I wrote last week, this is without question a transparent, massive and compulsory government handout to corporate criminals.
Such a bill would require us to buy a policy from a private health insurer -- the same corporations that are currently denying coverage to paying customers and literally getting away with murder; the same type of corporation that randomly tripled my monthly premium, forcing me to either cancel my policy or go out of business. Every American citizen would be mandated by law to pump their cash into a system that's inherently corrupt and, from a production standpoint, wholly worthless. The public option, though, would provide an option of good conscience for those of us who find it morally repugnant to financially support the private insurers.
The convergence of government power and corporate greed is centrist? Really? Once again, the public option solves the problem.
And then there are the polls. Last week, the AARP published the results of a poll showing 79 percent of the American people support "a new federal health insurance plan that individuals could purchase." Unless 79 percent of the American people are far-left liberals, this poll indicates that the public option enjoys support from practically everyone. 61 percent of Republicans support the public option. 80 percent of independents. Literally, the "centrists."
The latest SurveyUSA poll, meanwhile, showed that 77 percent of Americans think it's important "to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance." When the same question was asked by NBC News back in June, the poll showed 76 percent support. Virtually unchanged, even with all the coverage of the screeching tea party hooples last month.
There's no ambiguity here. The public option is resoundingly popular, fiscally conservative and morally sound. It's centrist, it's liberal, it's conservative. Unless you don't believe in, you know, numbers.
As for the president, his position on healthcare reform generally hasn't changed since the campaign. The public option, cost controls, insurance reform, revenue neutral, and so forth have all been part of his healthcare reform plan. The "centrists" who supported the president were well aware of what the president had in mind for healthcare. So the current policy shouldn't be a surprise.
Incidentally, Brooks also wrote about a reconciliation vote on healthcare alienating "the center." Believe me, no one other than junkies and wonks will care about the parameters of a reconciliation vote. In fact, I would wager that most Obama voters in "the center" don't even really know what reconciliation is. And if they're told, my hunch is their reaction will be, "A simple majority? What's wrong with that?"
I don't claim to know what David Brooks' actual motivation might be, but if I had to guess I would wager that it has much to do with a dishonest attempt to recalibrate the scales on healthcare reform. To redefine known reality in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. While the numbers show every reason for there to be almost unanimous support for the public option, the best way to diminish its support is to peg it as somehow fringe, scary, shrill and out of the mainstream, and to subsequently define the "center" as essentially what we've been hearing from the wingnut right. The ultimate goal achieved in this process is to give cover to Republicans and conservadems who have corporate mafia dons they're required to vigorously stroke.
I can only recall the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq when the establishment press and most of Washington got it so wrong. Deliberately or accidentally -- it doesn't matter. It's wrong and it's deceptive. And they're doing it all over again.
What we can conclude at this point is that the press and the far-right have managed to largely change the terms of the debate without regards to reality. Knowing this, we have a couple of months here to set the record straight and to achieve a robust, affordable, portable and reliable public health insurance plan. Considering the dishonesty and insanity of the opposition, it ought to be a winnable fight.
Alright Washington people, you're dismissed. Except for you, Bartiromo. You need to go here and learn about Medicare before you go on television and make an ass of yourself again.
MoveOn.org has been sending emails to their members asking them to hold vigils for health care which were to take place across the country on Wednessday September, 3 wherever they could be held. The vigils were an attempt to show law makers that their is massive public support for health care reform. One of the vigils scheduled to take place just a hop, skip and a jump from my town in Altoona, PA was cancelled due to death threats from opponents of health care reform. The Altoon Mirror reports:
"Rod Hill of Duncansville didn't get to tell his story quite in the way he expected Wednesday evening at the commercial complex anchored by the Hampton Inn and Cracker Barrel restaurant.
Hill was among a group set to give examples to illustrate the need for health care reform, as the local version of candlelight vigils held nationwide under the sponsorship of MoveOn.org and other groups.
But a rash of phone calls allegedly threatening boycotts of businesses connected with the complex - and an alleged death threat - led to a late withdrawal of permission for the event from landowner Greg Morris.
The ensuing cancellation by local organizer Peggy DiVentura was late enough that about 40 people showed up anyhow, resulting in some heated exchanges between those who came for the vigil and counter demonstrators.
After 45 minutes, Logan Township police shooed away those in attendance, citing concerns by management officials at the Cracker Barrel and Hampton.
Hill got to tell his story to a reporter anyway: About his wife's miscarriage several years ago, their insurance company denying payment for a drug to prevent another miscarriage when she got pregnant again, and the $180 prescription cost they couldn't afford.
A month after the denial, she had a second miscarriage.
When he called the insurance company to vent his distress, an employee replied, "Sir, I'm sorry, but I'm just a guy sitting in a cubicle," he said.
The barrage of calls followed a preview story in Monday's Mirror about the vigil, stating it would take place in front of Cracker Barrel, which DiVentura named only to provide attendees with a landmark.
Those calls seemed to come from anti-reform extremists, and they led to Internet blogging that threatened loss of business for the chain nationally, Morris said.
Cracker Barrel management in Tennessee got in touch, urging a change in venue, so DiVentura accepted Morris' offer to relocate nearby to the parking lot next to former Don Pablo's restaurant, provided the bankrupt company's management gave permission - which it did, Morris said.
Nevertheless, "threatening" calls continued Wednesday, and when Hilton Inc., which owns the Hampton Inn, asked him to withdraw permission, he reluctantly gave in, apologizing to DiVentura for the late notice, said Morris, who explained that he can see both sides of the health care debate.
There were fears among the businesses - which include UBS Financial Services and his own Morris Management - for the safety of employees and customers and over possible loss of business, according to Morris.
One caller to Morris' firm said someone would end up dead if the vigil were held, Morris said. Another threatened to throw bricks through his windows, he said.
Morris initially gave permission for the rally based on a misunderstanding of DiVentura's intentions, he said.
He knew the vigil had to do with stories of "people who had died," but didn't realize it was about health care and those who'd died for lack of it - assuming instead it was a memorial for those who died in the current Middle East wars, he said.
DiVentura said she explained to the Morris organization that it was a health care-related event.
Logan Township police didn't receive reports of the death threat, and so weren't investigating, said Chief Ron Heller.
Blair County Democratic Committee Vice Chairwoman Ann Rosenhoover was skeptical about the withdrawal of permission.
"Money talks," she said.
She wondered if there would have been a cancellation if the other side had wanted to hold a rally there.
The Rev. MaryRuth Smith of Altoona came to the vigil based on her belief that "reform is a moral and ethical obligation," and because she thinks the current system is "insurance for the rich or people who don't lose their jobs."
Health care is a right, not a privilege, she said.
Reformers "need to push back" against opponents who've dominated town hall meetings and promoted misconceptions like reform equals death for "grandma," said Mark Brown of Altoona, who spoke loudly in the direction of counter demonstrators holding an anti-abortion banner." (full article at http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/i d/522184.html)
Conservatives like to claim that there isn't public support for health care reform, but such an assretion is blatantly false. Here is one example where people were going to get together for a peaceful demonstration in support of the health care reform bill, and it had to be cancelled due to violent threats from the opposition. So much for free expression.
This isn't an isolated incident. At Sen. Bob Casey's town hall meeting, I talked to a member of "Health Care for America Now" who told me she hoped Casey's town hall didn't get as wild as Sen. Arlen Specters had because she said because of the behavior of health care opponents she was "never so terrified" in her life.
Maybe, just maybe we would see more public support for health care reform if the right wing didn't disrupt demonstrations with threats of violence and violent behavior. Crushing political speech with scare tactics...isn't that called TERRORISM?
Now is the time that proponents of health care reform have to fight back against the opposition, and Democrats need to stand their ground on health care and push reform, including a public option, through congress and into law.
If the vigil in Altoon had been a demontsrtaion against health care reform, it probably would have went on as scheduled. Had an anti-reform demonstraion been crushed by death threats from the other side, conservatives would be freaking out about the fascist liberal. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh would devote a week to attacking free-speech hating liberals who stopped an anti-reform vigil in a litle Pennsylvnaia town.
We can take comfort in the fact that those of us who support health care are on the moral and logical side of the debate. And we can take pride that it is the opposition who has resorted to deception, lies and terrorism to get their way. But one thing we can't take comfort in is the fact that the President is thinking about throwing out the public option. CALL YOUR SENATORS AND CONGRESSMEN! PUSH HEALTH CARE REFORM THROUGH!
The opposition surley isn't holding back. Let's get on the ball people. Call your Senators and Congressmen and tell them the support for health care reform is here and we demand it NOW!
While I was browesing the internet, I just so happened to stumble upon an aryicle from the BBC New shich reads:
"Villagers, many straight from their farms, and armed with machetes, sticks and axes, are shouting and crowding round in a big group in Kenya's fertile Kisii district.
I can't see clearly what is going on, but heavy smoke is rising from the ground and a horrible stench fills the air.
More people are streaming up the hill, some of them with firewood and maize stalks.
Suddenly an old woman breaks from the crowd, screaming for mercy. Three or four people go after her, beat her and drag her back, pushing her onto - what I can now see - is a raging fire.
I was witnessing a horrific practice which appears to be on the increase in Kenya - the lynching of people accused of being witches.
I personally saw the burning alive of five elderly men and women in Itii village." (read the entire article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8119201.stm)
Reading this article was horrifying. I thouhg to myself how terrible it must be to live in such a primitive culture that is supersticious enough to believe in witches, and even burn them alive. Then I rememberd that only a few hundred years ago, witches were being burned alive right here in the United States.
Everyone has read all about the Salem Witch Trials. We all know about how the Puritans viciously bruned alive anyone accused of being a witch (unless they agreed to pay a small fee, of course).
But one thing I don't remember hearing too much about in school was the huge factor that religion played in the whole ordeal. Back in those days, and especially in Massachusetts, there was no real separation of church and state. In the New World, Christian doctrine was the law. In fact, the legislature of Massachusetts Bay accepted The Cambridge Platform, Chapter 17, point 8 in 1651. It read:
"8. Idolatry, Blasphemy, Heresy, venting corrupt & pernicious opinions, that destroy the foundation, open contempt of the word preached, prophanation of the Lords day, disturbing the peaceable administration & exercise of the worship & holy things of God, & the like, are to be restrayned, & punished by civil authority."
Though I don't recall particular emphasis being placed on religion's involvement in the witch trials, it was surley a huge factor. The Puritans burned alive those they deemed "witches" who were said to be the lovers of Satan or the Devil. This of course comes straight from the Bible and was enforced by the court. Obviously religion can have tremendous consequences when it is used to govern.
But later on, the American Revolution was won and America finally got its separation of church and state, right? Well, not so much. Many specificlaly religiou laws stayed on the books fro quite some time after, though most of them are not still laws today.
Thinking about theocracy in history reminded me of the early Church who carried out inquisitions against "heretics." Christianity had become the dominant religion in the world and world leaders were making Christianity the official religion and law of the day. Sometimes, the Church had more power than even the kings and emporors, and they used it. The Church tortured and murdered anyone who didn't adhere to the dogma the Church taught. No freedom of religion or separation of church and state in those days.
Thinking of the horrific events that are happening in Africa now, and that have happened in the past here on this very continent where your ass is now seated got me to thining about other places that rule with religion. The middle east.
The Middle East is plagued with Sharia Law and Muslim traditions. Even in places that aren't openly theocratic, Islam is basically the law. Beatings, rapes and murders are all carried out in the name of Allah. Many fundamentalist Muslims are even taking the fight to the "infidels" in the west because they want to kill the non-believers and establish an Islamic world.
The actions of fundamentalist Muslims are especially alarming to fundamnetalist Christians in America. I seem tof requently hear people say the our Christian nation has to crush "the Muslims", often leaving out the word "terrorist" which is who we are fighting. America is fighting terrorists, not Muslims as a whole. And the simple fact alone that many fundamnetalist Christians are lumping all Muslims under one banner (just as fundamentalist terrorist muslims lump all Christians under one banner) is quite scary.
So what's this have to do with anything?
History and the current goings-on of Africa the Middle East must serve to remind us as Americans that we can not allow any religion to take on a governing role. Maybe I have just begun realizing it over the past few years, but it seems that the Christian church (evangelicals in particular) are growing (which isn't really any concern to me. they can have whatever religion they want) but they are grasping for more and more political power.
Anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear knows that the Church is trying to acquire more and more political power, and some are even using issues like abortion, gay marriage, and the millitant Islam movement to win people over to their side.
We must remember that America is a place for freedom of religion and separation of church and state. We cannot allow religion or a church to take political power, lest we end up like Medieval Europe, Colonial America, present day Kenya or the current Middle East.
Yesterday, I re-read Daniel DeLeon's "Is Socialism Practical?" and the ideas he wrote so long ago inspired me to write this as my own personal expansion for 2009.
Capitalists love to talk about how socialism is a dead philosphy and has lost to capitalism. But in reality, capitalism is slowly making concessions to socialism in such a manner that capitalism will soon be dead.
Are all of the labor laws that have been passed not concessions by capitalism to the labor movement?
The minimum wage and the 40 hour work week are all concessions of capitalism to the labor movement.
The ability of labor unions to sustain themselves are another vitory over capitalism.
Progressive taxes are another small victory for the labor movement.
All laws regulating business and providing rights for working people are concessions of capitalism and victories for socialism.
The creation of the SEC and all other bussiness-regulating government agencies are all victories for socialism.
The recessions, which seem to occur every decade, force capitalism to look istelf in the mirror and admit that it is a fraud. Time and time again, businesses collapse, and the government must step in to save the free market from completley crumbling. The fact that the market cannot sustain itself for longer than a few years without crashing forces capitalism to admit that it is a fraud.
We, the people, have taken the terminally ill system of capitalism and hooked it up to life support so it will not fail. If the capitalist system were so great, it would not collapse once a decade and it would not require the tax payers to save it. The free market system is not viable. It is a fraud. This is a victory for socialists.
In Iraq, soldiers have been killed in their showers by electricution because the companies that did the work wanted to save some money, so they did cheap and inefficient jobs which ultimatley resulted in the deaths of the people deffending their right to prosper. This is an abomination. Not only do the capitalist start wars to expand and protect their capital...they kill the soldiers protecting their "free market" along their path of making more money. This horror, tragic as it may be, is a victory for socialism. We as socialists abhore war, and we find all of this behavor disgusting. Once again, the socialists are on the high road. This is a victory to us.
Though totally eliminating poverty may be as near an impossible task as one could dream, capitalism creates poverty as a necessary by-product. When only so much money exists, many must have little so a few can have much. Capitalism creates poverty as an essential eliment of the system. The socialists seek to eliminate poverty. We can take pride in the fact that we find poverty to be something we wish to eliminate while the capitalists welcome it as a means for the few to become wealthy. We as socialists are on the high road, and this is another victory for us.
There are those that free up the markets and turn a blind eye to the capitalists and let them do as they please. And what happens? Their business collapse and put millions of people out of work, and cripples the American economy. Capitalism proves itself that Marx was right when he said "if you give them too much rope, they'll hang themselves." Another victory for socialism.
Comrades, don't be discourage by the capitalists. Socialism is still alive and well, and still earning victories over the capitalists. We are still fighting the good fight, and we are winning.
I hear it all the time. They say, "We can't let the crazy socialists take over with their 'trickle down poverty'."
They say other things too. Like, "If the socialists take over, they'll throw the Constitution right out the window. They'll demonize anyone who doesn't agree with them. They'll start all kinds of wars, then they'll bankrupt the country. Forget about habeus corpus or any other human rights you want when the socialists take over."
Well, I'm here to tell you that you don't have to wait for the Socialists to take power for these things to happen. The parties you've elected to power over the last ten years already did these things.
That's right. There's no need to wait for the socialists to take power to get some "trickle down poverty." Over the last 8 years, the rich-poor divide has grown larger than ever in history.
And there is no need to worry about the Socialists throwing the Constitution out the window. The Republicans and Democrats already did it. Remember the PATRIOT Act? Yes, sadly, it's true. Over the past 8 years, due process, free speech and our other constitutional rights have been thrown out by the ruling parties.
And the Socialists don't need to demonize dissent. It's already been done. For eight years of Bush, the right wing screamed that anyone who disagreed with Bush policy was un patriotic, unamerican, and maybe even a terrorist. They told the liberals to shur their mouths and fall in line. Love it or leave it, you hippie scum!
But really, don't worry about the Socialists taking over and starting warfare all over the world. The Republicans and Democrats have exhausted the millitary by dropping off soldiers all over the world whether they should be there or not, so frankly, we couldn't start more wars if we wanted to.
And oh, I know you think we sociaists would bakrupt the country, but you've got it all wrong. We don't want to do that, and even if we did, that ship has sailed. The wreckless spending that the Republicans and Democrats have done over the last 9 years has put our great great great grandchildren so far into debt, we want to try avoid adding to it.
And don't worry. We don't want to throw out your human rights, or your habeus corpus. And we couldn't if we wanted to. Thanks to the two ruling parties, your phones can be tapped, and you can be searched without a warrant. You can be arrested without charges, held without a trial and tortured.
...When the Socialists take power, they'll void the Constitution, demonize dissesnt, start wars, bankrupt the country, spy on you, search you without a warrant, have you arrested without charges, held without a trial and tortured. ...Oh, wait. That's what's been happened the last 10 years.
But everything I mentioned above are strawman arguements. It's easier for the capitalists to paint the socialists as authoritarian monsters rather than debate our stances on the actual issues.
In fact, as Socialists, we value the rights granted to us by the Constitution.
Trickle down poverty? We have no need for that. The Socilaist Party seeks to end poverty and allow everyone to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness no matter what their job is.
We socialists want to create a real democracy by ending the corporate strangle hold that big business has on our government. We went to eliminate the power of big business with their expensive lobbyists and make elected officals responsible to the people, and the people alone.
We socialists loathe war. We want to end all of the needless war that plagues our planet.
We value human rights, and we believe that everyone should be free. We value all people no matter what their class status is, or what country they're from.
We as socialists seek to create a better world in the best way we know how. By eliminating the corporate boot that is on the people's neck, and by giving the power to the people.
In the past, I had read excerpts from Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason", and I have recently begun reading the book in its entirety. The preface of the book is possibly the most important part of it.
The introduction to "The Age of Reason" is mostly applied to religion (the subject of the book) but is obviously relevant to every issue.
Opinions change all the time when we are open minded. I have met people who were not socialists when I first came to know them, but have become socialists after we had discusses economics and politics extensivley.
I was once a proponent of strict gun control, but have since change my opinion greatly after debating with people who disagreed with my opinion.
Sometimes arguements get so heated that we close our minds and insist on sticking to our opinions no matter what, even in the face of indisputable evidence.
So I'd like to pass on the intro of Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason" for anyone who may not have read it or considered it in the past. I think these ideas are relevant not only to religious discussion, but to discussion and debates on all issues.
The Age of Reason By Thomas Pain 1794
Introduction
TO MY FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
I PUT the following work under your protection. It contains my opinions upon Religion. You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.
The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.
Recently, Erock has come down on those of us who voted for Obama as being fooled by his speeches of hope and change. The masses voted for the guy with the better platformed. Go figure. Turned out the politican was lying. Big surprise.
But when I questioned who Erock voted for, he boasted that the guy he voted for would have the debt under control and have our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan realy soon. The guy he voted for is Chuck Baldwin of the Constitutionalist Party.
When I asked Erock why he would vote for a Confederate sympathizer who verges on the ideals of theocracy, he said he was just throwing his vote away on a silly candidate. Seems odd that he would first boast that his candidate would've been so much better than Barack Obama, then says he was just tossing away his vote. And why not toss it away on someone who is not a racist or an extremist? Or why not make the ultimate protest and not vote at all.
But no, Erock voted for a guy who is basically a racist theocrat. I knew the gist of who the guy is but I did a little research on him to find out a little about him in his own words. This article was written by Baldwin himself, and shocked me. This piece is about Ted Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. In the 2002 article, Baldwin bashes Bush for calling Ted Kennedy "a good man" (not such a big deal imho). Baldwin then goes on to say that Martin Luther King, Jr. Is certainly no hero.
While I aknowledge King's faults, I find it shocking that someone would claim that his short comings are so much greater than his good works that he is not a hero.
DISCLAIMER: I obviously do not agree with Mr. Baldwin's opinions in thsi article. Just posting it.
The President's Strange Heroes By Chuck Baldwin
Food For Thought From The Chuck Wagon January 25, 2002
President George W. Bush has a propensity to lavish praise upon those who are the least deserving of it. This is very unfortunate, because it sends the message that people who break the rules and behave badly will still be honored. Furthermore, it tells people who try diligently to keep the rules and live honorably that there is no reward for doing so.
Just recently, Bush heaped acclaim and accolades upon Martin Luther King, Jr. Bush said King "brought much good into the world." He further said, "America is a better place because he (King) was here, and we will honor his name forever." Bush then announced that the Department of Education would establish the "Martin Luther King Jr. Scholars Program to promising students all across America." However, is King deserving of the accolades heaped upon him? The answer is "no."
King admitted to numerous adulterous affairs. Like Bill Clinton, King was a prolific philanderer. He spent the night before his murder with two women, and then fought with a third, knocking her across the bed. Obviously, the "non-violent" preacher did not practice what he preached!
Furthermore, a reluctant media was forced to acknowledge that King had plagiarized his Ph.D. thesis at Boston University. Can you imagine how the press (or even President Bush) would handle that story if the guilty party were anyone else?
As a minister of the Gospel, King was an apostate. Although raised in a fundamentalist home, he rejected the training of his youth and came to renounce the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith. He rejected Christ's deity, His virgin birth, and His physical resurrection. He also rejected the authority and inspiration of the Holy Bible.
It is also true that the F.B.I. has a dossier on King that is a mile long. King's coziness with communists and Marxists is undeniable. Martin Luther King, Jr. brought havoc and unrest to America as few men have ever done. One look at the plight of black families today reveals that his legacy is one of destruction not healing. Bush's praise of King is hollow and hypocritical. If Bush really wants to emulate King's legacy, heaven help us!
Another strange hero of the president is Senator Ted Kennedy. Bush recently said to Kennedy, "Mr. Senator, not only are you a good senator, you're a good man." Bush also said, "I've come to admire him (Kennedy)." These statements are so appalling it turns the stomach!
To call Kennedy "a good man" borders on blasphemy! Does anyone remember the name Mary Jo Kopechne? She was the young campaign worker who Kennedy, after a night of drunken revelry, left in the back seat of his Oldsmobile Eighty Eight to slowly drown as the car plunged to the bottom of an estuary near Chappaquiddick Island. Any other person would have been charged with some form of murder and put in prison. How can President Bush say he "admires" such a man? I doubt that the President would feel the same way if the girl at the bottom of that body of water had been one of his daughters.
Furthermore, Kennedy's record in the U.S. Senate reveals that he is one of the most liberal senators the country has ever had. His record on abortion, gay rights, gun control, big government spending, etc. reeks with liberalism and socialism. Again, how can Bush say that Kennedy is "all right"? How can he extend presidential praise upon such a man?
America has produced many genuine heroes; however, King and Kennedy are not among them, and the President is wrong to pretend that they are.
President Barack Obama ran his campaign on a fairly progressive platform. Of course, when he was elected, he quickly moved to the center and even tried to include Republicans in his administration (i.e. Secretary of Deffence Gates and Ambassador to China, former governor Jon Huntsman).
Aside from pulling Republicans into his cabinet, President Obama has gone above and beyond what anyone expected in his attempts at bipartisanship, and he's been rejected at every turn.
Health care is very important, and Obama can't afford to compromise real reform just to make Republicans happy. It's clear that the GOP is not interested in any true reform of the healthcare industry. Yet, Obama continues to reach out for a bipartisan bill. If Obama keeps making concessions to the Republicans, there won't be anything left in the bill at all.
Obama ran for president on a progressive platform, and one of his main issues was health care reform. On November 4th, 2008, the American people voted for change and gave Obama a mandate to govern. It's true. Obama won the election by millions and millions of votes because the people liked him and his platform. One of the main issues he campaigned on was health care reform, and we voted for it. Now the President needs to give us what we voted for, and one thing the majority of America voted for is health care reform because what he'd doing now-playing ring around the rosie with the opposition-isn't change, and it isn't what we voted for. It's politics as usual. Obama is going to have to get over the fact that not everyone os going to like him. He's got to push health care through even though it will upset some people. The insurance companies, Republican politicians and the people who want the government out of medicare cannot be the reason Obama doesn't push this bill through. Obama has to get serious about bringin change to America and about passing real health care refrom.
So how does Obama get health care passed?
He needs to take a few lessons from one man who knew what he wanted, and fearlessly fought for his ideas at all costs. Obama needs to learn from one man who, in the face of millions trying to stop him, enacted his policies without compromise or apology. That man is George W. Bush.
Yes, Obama has to learn from Bush. The Democrats currently hold large majorities in the House and Senate. There is no reason why Obama can't push health care though. If you'll recall, The Republicans did control the Senate for 6 years of Bush's term, but not with a 60-40 majority. Yet, somehow Bush managed to push huge budgets, huge deficits, pre-emptive war, deregulation and the PATRIOT Act (among other bad policies) with little to no compromise, and no apology. George Bush had terrible ideas, but he pushed them through at all costs. And when anyone tried to stop him, he insisted that the Iraq War was God's work.
Now it's time for Obama to get tough, and force health care through the House and Senate. The people voted in record numbers for Barack Obama, who promised us health care reform. Obama got the mandate, and now it's time to deliver. Obama needs to push health care through, and I would love to hear him go on television and say, "God told me to pass health care."
Ted Kennedy and the Missing National Conversation By Arianna Huffington
"Something died in America," said civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis of Robert F. Kennedy's untimely death. "Something died within all of us."
Watching the snippets of Ted Kennedy's speeches playing again and again on cable and online reminds us of something else that has died in America: the national conversation about what the Bible calls "the least among us."
It's been missing for a while. Kennedy's passing reminds us how much we need to revive it -- and make it central to the political debate.
For over four decades, Kennedy, in his words and his actions, forced us to question how we, as a nation, were treating the poor, the forgotten, the working families struggling to make ends meet. He gave voice to the voiceless, refusing to let us forget about their plight.
"Programs may sometimes become obsolete," he said during his stirring speech at the 1980 Democratic convention, "but the ideal of fairness always endures. Circumstances may change, but the work of compassion must continue... The poor may be out of political fashion, but they are not without human needs."
As our economic crisis -- yes, the one that has come to an end for Wall Street but not the rest of America -- threatens to turn the American Dream into a living nightmare for millions of our citizens, those human needs are more pressing than ever. And the work of compassion more necessary than ever. There is a newfound urgency to Ted Kennedy's message.
His best speeches always spoke to our idealism, calling us to tap into the better angels of our nature. The passion that Kennedy brought to the fight for America's underprivileged reminds me of the story of abolitionist Wendell Phillips, who, after making an impassioned speech condemning slavery, was asked, "Wendell, why are you so on fire?" Phillips looked at his friend and said: "Brother, I'm on fire because I have mountains of ice before me to melt."
Kennedy was all about melting the icy mountains of indifference. And he set about doing it both with fiery rhetoric and hard-fought legislation.
Ted Kennedy has been a force behind many of the legislative milestones of the last half century, from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (introduced by his brother, JFK, before he was killed) to the Serve America Act of 2009 that bears his name, and which increases the number of people able to take part in national service programs.
And, of course, he has been at the forefront of health care legislation, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which covers more than seven million children from low-income families.
Kennedy has been fighting to guarantee every American access to affordable, quality health care for forty years. Writing about that battle this summer, he called it the "cause of my life." "It has never been merely a question of policy," he said, "it goes to the heart of my belief in a just society."
It remains to be seen whether the praise being lavished on Kennedy from both sides of the aisle will, as some hope, make the passage of real health care reform more likely or if it will merely lead to bestowing on him the dubious honor of having a gutted-in-the-name-of-bipartisanship bill named after him.
"The dream shall never die," Kennedy famously said in 1980. But the ranks of the poor have grown to over 38 million. And downward mobility -- the antithesis of the American Dream -- has become reality for hundreds of thousands of middle class families. We need to make sure that the focus on them, revived via the retrospectives on Ted Kennedy's work and words, doesn't fade away as soon as the tributes are over.
A couple weeks ago, Wiz insisted I explain my religious beliefs when we were discussing some political issue. For some reason, Wiz is obsessed with religion. And last night, he posted a blog that basically said that atheists and agnostics need to unite with Christians to crush the threat of the evil ol' muslims.
This is my official response.
From hereafter, I will use the term "The Church" to refer to the organized followers of Pauline Christianity(This includes the Catholics as well as most other mainstream denominations. You may not like the term, or the lumping together, but the denominations are so similar that for the sake of this blog I will refer to them as "the Church". Sorry if I offended any denomination.) I'l specify when talking about a particular sect of Christians. So here it is.
Wiz wrote a blog whcih basically demonized the Muslim faith in general, rather than the sect of violent fundamentalists which seek power through violence. He further suggested that other faiths or people of of no faith should allign themselves with the Church in order to defeat the Muslim "threat."
I declined the invitation to join the church in their battle against the muslims on the grounds that I refuse to join one historically violent group to defeat another. If that's the game, I'm not playing.
It's no secret that there are a lot of Muslims who love the idea of Jihad, and are committing acts of violence for power. It's no secret that muslims have done this in the past...just like other religions have.
What Wiz refuses to realize is that while the Muslims seem to be the big scary threat today, not long ago the Christians were the big scary threat to the world. The Inquistitions and the Crusades resulted in the loss of thousands and thousands of innocent lives.
Today, it's the Muslims that want to kill all the non-believers, but the Church has had a history of torturing and murdering heretics. And it wasn't a fringe that committed these atrocities. It was the early Catholic Church...the one true church who built a religion on the peaceful teachings of Jesus, then turned around and murdered the heretics.
"That's ancient history," one may say. A few hundred years ago, right here in America, Christians were burning witches at the stake.
Even today, there are groups of Christians who use violence to push their religion. Notably, the Army of God and Lambs of Christ honored the murderer of Dr. George Tiller as a hero.
This is not to say that all Christians are violent, just as not all Muslims are violent. My point to Wiz is that I refuse to join one violent Church to fight another.
But it doesn't stop there. In recent times, the Catholic Church has been steeped in a sexual abuse scandal, and it is only the shear volume of sex abuse cases that have protected them. It's like if you default on one mortgage, you're a debtor and we take your house. If you default on 1,000 mortgages, you get a bailout. And of course, after the sex scandal, the Catholic Church was ready to be infalliable again. The infalliability of the Catholic Church perplexes me. And recently, the Catholic Church has declared that Limbo doesn't actually exist anymore. It's easy to say something doesn't exist when you made it up in the first place. And of course, even though the Catholic Church got something as drastic as Limbo wrong, they're ready to get back to being infalliable.
My point is, all three of the main monotheistic religions have caused their share of problems and still do. Each of these faiths have sincere followers who practice their religion peacefully, but the faithful cannot ignore the reality of their respective religion's past.
This is the reason I refute Wiz's allegation that Islam is such a monumental threat, and that everyone need allign with the church to crush Islam.
And while I'm on the subject of religion, I'll briefly explain my religion to you Wiz, since you want to know.
I was raised in a Protestant home, went to Sunday school when I was little and occaisonally went to church in the years following. Religion wasn't much to me. I was a believer, but outside of that, I didn't pay much attention. A couple of years ago, my parents began attending church regularly, and being a believer, I decided I'd go with them. I loved it. I became so interested in Christianity that I decided to begin to research it's roots. How did it start? Where did we get the Bible? What might Jesus have been like as a human being? And so on. (If you liem hotdogs, don't learn how they're made.)
About this time, I met a woman of about 60 yeard of age, who is employed at the same company as I am. At some point, she and I struck up a conversation about religion. I told her I had begun researching my Protestant faith. This person who I call a sort of mentor grdaually over time began explainging different interpretations of Christ than I was used to, and different spiritual philosophies in general. She has studied religion for a long time and is very knowledgable. Eventually, seh introduced me to something I had had an interest in due to the Natice blood in my family, Native America spirituality.
Native American spitituality is a religion of sorts. It has special ceremonies and and a belief in one all powerful creator. Though it is it's own religion, the Native philosophy could easily incorporate teachings of any other peaceful religion. I won't go into detail on Native Spirituality other than to say it is a peaceful, tolerant religion which advocates the belief in one all powerful Creator (difine the Creator how you will) and a deep respected for Earth Mother.
I began attending Native pipe ceremony as often as possible and reading anything and everythign I could about Jesus and the history of Christianity. I especially like the Gnostic gospels. I also began learning Hindu and Buddhist teachings. I am always reading something about spirituality, especially books about Jesus Christ, my Lord. I have taken a liking to Gnostic Christian teachings. Buddhism and Hinduism also have some great teachings, though I cannot reconcile my belief in one Creator with the many Gods of Hinduism. The religion still holds truths such as reincarnation, Karama, peace and tolerance. I believe that most religions have some truth, but no one religion has ALL the truth.
As to the Bible... I do not believe the Bible to be the literal or inspired word of God. I believe it to be a book written by humans containing many truths and some untruths. I don't really study the Old Testament because I believe in an all loving and all merciful God, not the wrathful, violent and vengeful God of the Old Testament. By examining the Gospels, one can fidnt he truths of Christ's teachings, the truth that he is a divine messenger of God as well as other truths.
These aren;t my complete thoughts on religion, or a complete explanation of my religious beliefs. This is just a brief response to Wiz. I refuse to discuss religiou beliefs with closed minded people who are so set in their ways that they refuse to aknowlege the validity of the beliefs of those who do no adhere to their personal dogma. So if you want to discuss religous ideas, I'm all for it. But if you're close minded and are happy believing that the Bible is the literal word of God and the rest of us are fools, then don't bother talking to me about it. That is all.
Pathologizing Conservatism Is it an unfortunate evolutionary hold over or the product of a bad upbringing? By Ronald Bailey
At the recent conference in Chicago of the Association of Politics and Life Sciences, a panel on "Biobehaviorial Approaches to Politics" addressed the important question: What is wrong with people who disagree with the mainstream of American academic social scientists? Nancy Meyer-Emerick, an assistant professor of public administration at Cleveland State University, made a presentation on "Evolutionary Perspectives on the Authoritarian Personality."
Professor Meyer-Emerick wants to know if there are genetic tendencies that promote what she dubs "authoritarianism." She defines this distasteful quality through the work of University of Manitoba associate professor of psychology Robert Altemeyer. He's developed a helpful questionnaire, the Right Wing Authoritarian (RWA) Scale, to identify those harboring authoritarian tendencies.
According to Professor Altemeyer, right-wing authoritarians are cognitively rigid, aggressive, and intolerant. They are characterized by steadfast conformity to group norms, submission to higher status individuals, and aggression toward out-groups and unconventional group members. On the RWA Scale, subjects are asked to agree or disagree with statements like: "Some of the worst people in our country nowadays are those who do not respect our flag, our leaders and the normal way things are supposed to be done" and "There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps." Guess which one RWAs tend to agree with?
Meyer-Emerick notes that high RWAs perceive the world as a significantly more dangerous place than those who score low. High RWAs are more submissive to government authority and indifferent to human rights. They also tend to be more hostile and more highly punitive toward criminals, and more racially and ethnically prejudiced—and religious!—to boot. In the United States, guess what? Republicans cluster at the high end of the RWA Scale whereas Democrats range across the scale.
Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley essentially confirmed this view with an meta-analysis of scores of academic studies on conservative political attitudes last year. In the study, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," the Berkeley researchers found common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include: fear and aggression, dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, uncertainty avoidance, need for cognitive closure, and terror management that causes conservatives to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of their cherished world views. The researchers did half-heartedly assure readers that their findings do not mean that "conservatism is pathological or that conservative beliefs are necessarily false, irrational, or unprincipled."
Altemeyer, inventor of the RWA Scale, believes that there is no such thing as a Left Wing Authoritarian. "I do not think 'an authoritarian impressively like the authoritarian on the right' reposes on the left end of the RWA scale. Rather the contrary," Altemeyer declared. In fact, Altemeyer finds that low RWAs are "fair-minded, even-handed, tolerant, nonaggressive persons...They score low on my prejudice scale. They are not self-righteous; they do not feel superior to persons with opposing opinions."
Another panelist, Charles Anthony Smith, a lawyer and Ph.D candidate in political science at the University of California at San Diego, explored evolutionary biology explanations for how these unsavory RWAs arose in our midst. In his talk, "Law, Leadership, and Lords: Machiavellian Intelligence and the Role of Obedience in Collective Action," Smith suggested that the propensity to obey would be adaptive in either attacking or defending groups. Those groups which could more quickly be organized to defend themselves would be more likely to survive. A deliberative outlook under such circumstances would be an evolutionary disadvantage. Smith believes that this evolutionary tendency toward obedience can explain a host of behaviors, including the initial rise of theocracies in which leaders manipulated the propensity to obey by claiming that the gods had given them the divine right to rule.
Smith believes this tendency also explains the "rallying around" effect that occurs during attacks and wartime. Smith noted that polls taken on September 7-10, 2001, gave President Bush only a 51 percent approval rating, whereas his approval rating had jumped to 81 percent on September 15. The same phenomenon occurred after the Oklahoma City bombing under President Clinton and after the Marine barracks were blown up in Lebanon under President Reagan. He asked the not-unreasonable question, "Why do we rally around [them] when our leaders fail?" Smith evidently believes that evolution has hardwired humans to react that way.
In contrast to Smith's suggestion that certain tendencies might be hardwired into human beings, Altemeyer believes that children learn right-wing tendencies through harsh discipline from their parents. However, studies looking at identical twins reared apart back up the notion that political attitudes are heritable. They find that on average, about 60 percent of the individual differences that we observe in scores on a version of the Wilson-Patterson Conservatism Scale (WPC) are attributable to genetic individual differences. The WPC is a catch phrase test in which subjects are asked to indicate whether they approve of various topics, such as the death penalty, X-rated movies, women's liberation, foreign aid, abortion and so forth by circling YES or NO. Obviously, such tests have no ability to handle nuances, or grapple with the reasons someone might have for harboring attitudes that the researcher dubs "conservative," or even "authoritarian." (One suspects the researchers don't think there could be such reasons, at least not intellectually serious ones.)
Whether it be an unfortunate evolutionary holdover or a mental disease transmitted by our parents—the science is apparently still up in the air—academic researchers have surely amassed enough evidence of psychopathology that conservatism can listed in the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Reasonable people, such as the distinguished academic researchers cited here, will no doubt agree that until effective treatments can be developed, we should reconsider whether sufferers of conservatism, like other mental defectives, should be allowed freely to exercise the franchise.
Taking Women's Rights Seriously By Gordon Brown and Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf
The sustained degradation and subjugation of girls and women remains the world's most pervasive human rights violation.
Today, well over 100 million are 'missing' because of increased mortality from inequality and neglect and the majority of the 2.4 million victims of human trafficking, which treats people as products, are female. In its numbers and scale, the systematic discrimination outstrips even the wholesale abuses of the 18th and 19th century slave trade, which we today deplore as an obscene example of inhumanity from another era.
Yet, in supposedly civilised and enlightened times, girls and women around the world suffer unimaginable atrocities: forced marriage, rape, mutilation and death in pregnancy and childbirth. In Sierra Leone, a woman has a one in six chance of dying in childbirth in her lifetime -- a grotesque transformation of what should be the happiest time in a family's life into one of the most dangerous. Discrimination also means girls and women are more likely to be in poverty, denied schooling, deprived of health care, excluded from political and economic decision-making and die young.
In their important new book, Half The Sky, Pulitzer Prize winners Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn tell very human stories of this abuse, discrimination and neglect. They argue that more girls have been murdered in the last 50 years simply because of their gender than all the people slaughtered in all the genocides. It is a conclusion which shames the modern world because, like slavery, this oppression is officially-sanctioned.
So a great challenge faces humankind: to match the abolition of slavery with the global emancipation of girls and women. This is not just moral reparation -- though it certainly is that -- rather, a fundamental empowerment essential for creating fairer, stronger and safer societies across the continents.
And it is in the interests of boys and men to do everything in their power to unleash the potential of girls and women and to champion their rights, because without their contribution we are all the poorer. So we will not rest until boys and men are persuaded to join our cause and therefore change their lives and our world.
Girls and women emancipated -- claiming and exercising power -- have made an enormous difference to their communities and the world. Enfranchisement also means more pressure to deal with the big issues affecting us all -- women, men and children alike -- transforming lives on the way. Nobel Peace Prize winner Wangari Maathai has drawn attention to climate change with her Green Belt Movement. Cory Aquino brought democracy to the Philippines, while Aung Sang Suu Kyi continues to stand as a beacon of hope for the people of Burma. Their examples inspire us all and show that we cannot afford to let a future leader fail to emerge because she was never given the chance.
So in Liberia a nationwide network is giving rural women a voice from local to national to international level. A government-private sector partnership is also giving adolescent girls in urban centres, who missed out on a formal education, skills for the job market so that they can support their children.
We are clear that women are key to meeting the enormous challenges facing the international community. Thirty years ago this December, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. And next year marks the 10th anniversary of UN Resolution 1325 acknowledging the effects of war on girls and women and enhancing their participation in conflict resolution. As these landmarks loom, it is imperative that we drive forward the emancipation agenda globally.
The UN has a leading role, yet its response has been too fragmented and has lacked coherence. In 2006 a High Level Panel recommended a new, powerful agency that could empower women throughout the world.
Its creation has been delayed too long.
It must be urgently established with strong, high-level leadership to support national efforts and strengthen co-ordination of the UN's collective resolve to improve the lives of girls and women.
As evidence of Britain's commitment we will at least double the UK's core funding for the UN's work on women's equality through this new body, once established. We will also work tirelessly over the next three weeks to help make the agency a reality by the end of this current session of the General Assembly.
One of the new agency's key roles must be to address violence against women. We welcome the call by the Secretary-General for all member states to address the use of sexual violence in conflict situations.
Liberia is working closely with other African countries to establish the Angie Brooks Center, developing women's leadership skills around peace and security and ensuring that concrete action is taken on UNSCR 1325.
And all UK-led programmes tackling security and justice, particularly in conflict and post-conflict situations, will include support to girls and women affected by violence.
And because we know that keeping a girl in school is the best way to keep her safe and her community prospering, the UK and Liberia will give strong support to a major campaign being launched in October. Centered around the FIFA World Cup, it will help bridge the funding gap which denies most poor children -- and especially girls -- a basic education.
The experience in health, as in education, is that when fees are charged, girls and women are disproportionately deprived of essential care. So at next month's UN General Assembly there will be a major event to improve the health of women and children, including support for free access to quality services. This will build on the work of the Taskforce on Innovative Financing for Health Systems, of which we were both members.
Global economic and social progress lies in every country empowering their female populations, with full participation in economic and political decision-making essential.
It is impossible today to imagine that the slave trade could have been tolerated by the world for so long. So our duty is to deny future historians the opportunity to question how this generation allowed and participated in the abuse and suppression of girls and women.
New Rule: No Shame in Being the Sorry Party By Bill Maher www.huffingtonpost.com
New Rule: If Mitt Romney, Karl Rove and Sarah Palin all think America has never done anything wrong, we must be doing something wrong. Look at them: an empty suit, an empty heart and an empty head. It looks like the news team on Good Morning Hell. And what they've been competing about lately is who would not apologize the most. America is infallible, and apologies are horrible things that must never, ever be given. Except by me when I make a joke about the Pope. "We're perfect -- deal with it," is their new handshake. But I say, what's wrong with America occasionally saying, "I'm sorry"? Because these are the three sorriest white people I've ever seen.
If in your eyes America can do no wrong, you should really look into Lasik surgery. There's the rational, mature assessment of our country: that it's a great nation -- especially if you like fried foods -- but it also has its faults. And then there's the Republican view: that it's perfect and pure in every way and it's always right all the time, just like Leviticus and Ronald Reagan.
If the founders were alive today, Republicans would be giving them shit because the Preamble to the Constitution says, "In order to form a more perfect union? Hello, it's already perfect! Why are you suggesting American apologetics, Ben Franklin?"
One of the things that makes Republicans furious about our current president is their idea that Obama is always apologizing for America's biggest mistakes. Unlike President Bush. Who was one of America's biggest mistakes.
In his first week as president, Obama did an interview with Arab TV in which he said, "We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect." Thought crime! And then he went to Cairo and violated one of those absolute eternal rules the Right Wing is always making up out of thin air: "The president must never apologize on foreign soil. Lest our allies begin to doubt that we're assholes. "
But what did Obama actually say to make Karl Rove's head explode and the popcorn fly out? Cover your children's ears: When he was asked if he believed in American exceptionalism, he said he did, the same way "the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks in Greek exceptionalism." Yes, our so-called president actually said people in other countries might like their countries better. I was so shocked I nearly dropped the Bible I was using to help me masturbate into my gun.
In her farewell speech -- if only -- Sarah Palin kept telling us "how she's wired." Now I'm not a doctor, or an electrician -- but this is faulty wiring, this worldview that, in her words, "we should never apologize for our country." Really? Never? Not for slavery? Or Japanese internment camps, or if we tortured the wrong guy at Guantanamo? The Indians? Nothing, Sarah? "The Real Housewives of Atlanta"? Shouldn't John McCain apologize for... you?
When did intractability become a virtue? Mitt Romney's new book is called No Apology: The Case For American Greatness. You can find it at Borders, in the "Suck-Up" section. It's such a perfect title, combining paranoia with arrogance: "No one has yet asked me to apologize but, if someone ever does, fuck them."
Conservatives think apologizing is a sign of weakness. It's what liberal pussies do, when they're not busy driving electric cars and feeling empathy. When in fact it's the weak and the scared who are too insecure to apologize. Apologies are actually a sign of strength. That's why six-year-olds hate them.
In Rwanda, after a genocide that killed a million people, they set up special courts where people stood up and said, "Hey, sorry I macheted your entire family. My bad." And believe it or not, in most cases, that was enough. That's the power of an apology. A recent study reveals that doctors who are willing to apologize to patients for their mistakes are sued for malpractice about half as much as doctors who aren't willing to apologize.
Apologies can do great things, and they can enable great things. And if you still don't believe me, I have three words for you: make-up sex.
Bill Maher is the host of HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, Fridays at 10:00 p.m. Eastern Time on HBO. Guests on this week's program include Jay Leno, Chuck Todd, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Sam Harris and Jeremy Scahill.
by Robert L. Borosage, Co-Director of the Campaign for America’s Future August 18, 2009
The editors of the Wall Street Journal say that the public option in health care reform has been "sent to the death panel." Obama "concedes" the public option, reports the Financial Times. Even liberals seem to agree. The public option is "all but gone," writes Bob Herbert of the New York Times. The American Prospect's Mark Schmitt mourns its "likely death."
Nonsense. There is no reason to exaggerate the strength of the small tong of conservative Democrats and claque of obstructionist Republicans standing in the way of reform. Here's the reality:
Offering a public plan as a choice to compete with the private insurance companies has continued strong support in polling. President Obama favors it. The Democratic leadership in both the House and the Senate support it. More importantly, a majority of legislators in the House and a broad majority of Democrats in the Senate will vote for it. Needless to say, the activist base of the party thinks it vital.
The only question is whether a small minority of Democrats in the Senate will dig themselves into such a rabid fever that they would sabotage health care reform itself to stop the public option. Whether their animus derives from ideology or insurance company contributions, it is inconceivable that a handful of Blue Dogs in the House or conservative Dems in the Senate would block the president's key reform to make their point. It would also be suicidal, for if 1994 is any indication, Democrats -- particularly those from more conservative districts -- will pay a harsh price at the polls in 2010 if they fail to pass reform.
Citizens can help concentrate their minds. Legislators have heard from the screamers in the town meetings. They've been besieged by legions of insurance company lobbyists. They've comforted seniors terrified by the lies being peddled. Now it is time for them to hear from the majority of citizens, and the vast majority of Democratic voters who want health care reform that works, one that includes both a public plan as an option to compete with the insurance companies, and the lower drug prices that will result from enabling Medicare to use its buying power to gain discounts for patients.
There are a lot of talking heads out arguing that the "left" shouldn't be so extreme as to risk health care reform by insisting on the public option or the lifting of the absurd ban on negotiating lower drug prices. The reality is exactly the reverse. It is the handful of Blue Dogs and conservative Democrats in the House and Senate that are standing in the way of the majority in favor of a comprehensive plan. The question isn't whether the progressive majority is unreasonably resisting reform to save the public option. The question is whether a small minority of conservative Democrats will sabotage reform simply to stop the public option.
Substantively, passing health care reform without a public plan to compete with the insurance companies makes no sense. As Jonathan Walker details, it would be an insurance company bonanza, as the government requires the uninsured to get health insurance - supplying the companies with millions of young and healthy customers - while eliminating the option of a competing government run plan that, in Obama's words, can "keep the insurance companies honest." For a country that must get health care costs under control, reform without the government plan as an option is irresponsible.
Similarly, President Obama and virtually every Democrat in Congress were right to campaign against the obscene provision in the prescription drug plan, the iconic symbol of the corrupt Republican Congress, that actually prohibits Medicare from negotiating lower prices for drugs. Democrats cannot pass reform without erasing that folly, and gaining lower drug prices for seniors on Medicare and for taxpayers paying much of the tab.
Politically, comprehensive reform can pass only if Democrats unite. The effort to gain bipartisan support was torpedoed by the leading Republican negotiator, Senator Charles Grassley, when he revealed his is true colors by embracing the vicious inanity about "death panels." He aligned himself with the wingnuts, and there is simply no reason or way to negotiate with lunacy. The only thing Senator Max Baucus has achieved with his supposed negotiations is endless delay. The only thing he promises is more delay. Conservative Dems now are trotting out an ill-defined national co-op as an alternative to the public option. Most experts dismiss this as unworkable. More to the point, the Republican National Committee scorns it as a "government take over of health care." Negotiations and concessions have produced zero Republican commitments to join reform.
Instead it is time for Democrats to unite and move. Pass a bill out of the House and put it before the Senate with the president behind it. Push the minority of Democrats standing in the way to join the majority. Then let Republicans try to filibuster it. Even if against parts of the bill, no Democrat with a working frontal lobe will vote for the filibuster and join Republicans to deny the president a majority vote on this critical reform. If Kennedy and Byrd are unable to vote, then we'll need two Republicans. The few that haven't gone over to pure obstruction will have to decide if they are prepared to stop a vote on reform. If the filibuster is defeated, then we just need 50 votes to pass the bill - and there is no reason why a bill with a robust public option and lower prescription drug prices can't gain 50 votes from Democrats in the Senate.
Admittedly this is still a heavy lift. But the reality is that a plan without a public option cannot and should not get through the Congress. Over 60 House Progressives have made it clear that they won't vote for a plan without a robust public option. That isn't not a minority standing against reform; it is a minority expressing the majority opinion in the House, the party, and the country. (To support the progressive legislators that are leading this go here.)
Why would a handful of Blue Dogs get in the way of a unified position? A government plan as an option isn't a difficult political vote. The hard choice is voting for any comprehensive reform -- and they will pay a much higher political price for failing to produce than for voting for a public option. The only reason to block a plan is either ideological rigidity, or the corrupting influence of insurance company contributions. In this circumstance, citizen mobilization can help educate the recalcitrant on the need to join the president and the majority of the party.
Less than a Full Loaf
Some reporters suggest that Obama is signaling that he's ready to abandon the public plan. In fact, Obama has been consistent. He has argued for the public option, while stating that he's prepared to negotiate any part of the deal to get majority support for something that works. He's for a public option, but it isn't a deal breaker for him.
Former President Bill Clinton came to the Netroots Nation convention last week. He was in his full glory - smart, funny, wounded, a repository of policy and politics. His core message was that it is "imperative for the Democrats to pass a health care bill now," telling bloggers that "the president needs your help and the cause needs your help." Since we need reform to pass, he argued, we can't let the perfect be enemy of the good. So Clinton urged the liberal activists to keep fighting for what they want, but be ready to accept "less than a full loaf." This is a message better delivered by the former president to his old Blue Dog and New Dem gang - to the handful of conservative Dems standing in the way, not to folks supporting the broad majority in agreement with the president.
And Clinton inadvertently sent the bloggers a very different message. Lane Hudson interrupted his speech to challenge him on the unconscionable "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military. Clinton's famed temper flared as he defended himself:
"You wanna talk about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I'll tell you exactly what happened. You couldn't deliver me any support in the Congress and they voted by a veto-proof majority in both houses against my attempt to let gays serve in the military, and the media supported them. They raised all kinds of devilment. And all most of you did was to attack me instead of getting some support in the congress. Now, that's the truth."
Well, not quite, since many of the bloggers in the audience were teenagers or younger when this debate took place. But the former president provided clear strategic insight for the current moment. We don't want a former President Obama to say, a decade from now, that the reason we didn't get a public option was that we "couldn't deliver" any support for him in the Congress. It's time to deliver that support.
So no surrender; no retreat. Don't start embracing "half a loaf," or thumb-sucking about the reasons for the demise of the public option. Real reform has the support in the country, the Democratic Party, the House of Representatives and the White House. It has support of a majority of Democrats in the Senate. Now it is time to deliver the president the votes he needs for the public option he favors. Full court press on the handful of Democrats that are standing in the way, and then real pressure on the two or three Republicans who have yet to surrender to the obstructionist extremes of their party.
Pull out the stops. Do whatever you can think about doing to weigh in at this time - and then enlist your friends to join you. We are very close. We don't have to overcome a presidential veto, or the opposition of the congressional leadership. All we need to do is to get Democrats and a couple Republicans to commit to giving the president a majority vote on this critical reform, and then get 50 members of the Senate to join the majority of the House in supporting it. Forget the naysayers. This is in reach. Let's make it happen.
By Lincoln Mitchell, Assistant Professor in the Practice of International Politics, Columbia University
One of the mantras of the opposition to meaningful health reform has been a fear of a government takeover of the health care sector. This fear is expressed virtually nonstop on talk radio, the right wing blogosphere, Fox News and at town hall meetings across the country. As we know, for better or for worse, the Obama administration is not proposing a government takeover of the entire health care system, but overstatement and exaggeration is unavoidable in these kinds of debates.
The image of government takeover of health care is meant to strike fear into good market oriented Americans who believe the government can do nothing right, particularly in an area as difficult, personal and important as health care. The fear of government involvement in any aspect of our life is a deeply held American value which allows us to continue to believe in the myth of small government. It is any easy fear to exploit even when speaking to people who have good jobs because they studied at public universities, know their parents have enough to eat because of social security, drive to work on federally funded highways and generally live in the 21st century industrialized world.
Nonetheless, opponents of health care reform believe fear of government involvement in health care to be something shared by all Americans. Before we collectively start quaking in fear of a government takeover of health care it might make sense to slow down and consider that a fair amount of our health care system already has strong government involvement.
Old people, some poor people and veterans already have government supported health care through Medicare, Medicaid and various veterans benefits. These programs are, of course, far from perfect, but they are pretty good. While many seniors would like to see Medicare reformed, it is rare to see senior citizens, or organizations of senior citizens call for abolishing Medicare. Similarly, many veterans, some who served decades ago rely on veteran's hospitals for an important part of their health care. My father is a veteran who voices more than the occasional criticism of the US government, but I have never heard him say that he wishes veterans didn't get any health care or that the government should close the veterans hospitals.
Senior citizens and veterans are both well organized and powerful interest groups, representing tens of millions of Americans, but government involvement in the health care sector has hardly caused any pubic outrage among these two key constituent groups. On the contrary, both usually push very hard for the expansion of Medicare and veterans benefits. If the American people really wanted government out of the health care industry, or if the government was unable to play a useful and positive role in the delivery of health care, it is pretty likely that these groups would have made a lot of noise about this issue years ago, but they have not.
Medicaid recipients are not as well organized as either veterans or senior citizens, but recipients of Medicaid very rarely argue for weaker Medicaid programs or less involvement by the government in providing health care services. Again, the opposite is true. Recipients of Medicaid have often shown a preference for bigger programs with more government involvement.
Medicare, Medicaid and veterans' benefits have become an indispensible part of our health care system providing valuable services and benefits to people, many of whom would have very few health care options were it not for these government programs. This is something which should be kept in mind when scare tactics about government takeover of health care are used. These programs also demonstrate the inaccuracy, or perhaps nuttiness, of some of the more outlandish claims about Obama's proposed programs. For example, if the government were really going to ration health care or set up "death panels" as part of government health care programs, wouldn't the government have started by doing these things to the poor, the elderly or disabled veterans-precisely the people who rely on the government for health care today.
The Obama administration, of course, is not proposing a full government takeover of the health care system, but they are proposing increased government involvement in health care. An incremental change of this kind, while likely to make a tremendous difference in the lives of some, although unfortunately probably not all, of those currently uninsured, is simply not a radical measure. It does not represent a new way of paying for health care services in the US, but a readjustment to the relative balance of the public and private sectors in health care and a way to leave fewer people with no health care at all, which is what most Americans really fear.,
Many issues are being debated about a public healthcare option. There is one question that has been neither clearly asked nor clearly answered. So I'm going to ask it here in the form of a short story.
Feel free to answer here. But you need not even post your answer here. Just go look into the mirror, think about this question, and answer it yourself.
John is a 37 year old American citizen, born and raised in the US of A. He works a minimum of 40 hours a week, plus over time when he can get it, to support his family. Joe hasn't missed a day of work in years. Tired or energetic, upbeat or rundown, sick or well, John always shows up and gets the job done.
John is your typical American man. Works full time, supports his family, pays his taxes and loves to spend time with his wife and children. Occaisonally, John takes out a little time for himself to kick back and watch a good football game, or go to a car show with some old friends.
Recently, John was diagnosed with a brain tumor. The brain tumor will kill John if it isn't removed, but the doctors are optimistic because the tumor is completley opperable.
The bad news is, John doesn't have health insurance, and he can't afford the expensive opperation. John is depressed. His siter died a few years ago because her insurance didn't cover her "pre-existing condition", and a freind of his recently died because he didn't have health insurance and couldn't afford a costly procedure he needed.
John knows he is going to die because he has no health insurance and cannot afford the opperation.
Here's the question: Why is it okay for John to get a death sentence because he doesn't have health insurance?
Go look into your mirror and answer the question. If you decide to answer here, no bullshit. Answer the question.
I hear conservatives constantly calling Obama an elist, and calling the liberal base elitists. The accused usually ignore or refute the label. I embrace it.
I am an elitist. I do no want the everyday people to run the country. I want the everyday people to elect those that run the country, but I don't want Joe the Pumber to be President or governor or senator.
I want intelligent and educated leaders. There's nothing wrong with not having a college degree. Non-college grads perform essential jobs in society. But when it comes to the governor or the president, I want an educated person to take that role. What's wrong with wanting a real intellectual to run things?
I don't want the average person to be the president because frankly, the average person doesn't know much. I want a Harvard grad, law professor like Obama to be president. Not a hockey mom like Sarah Palin.
It's sad to say, but the average American is ignorant and we can't have an ignorant president. Trust me. We did that in 2000 and 2004, and it didn't go over well.
Although roughly 90% of all scientists believe that global climate change is a threat to humans, 35% of Americans think climate change is still a controversy among scientists
Two thirds of Americans want creationism taught in science class along side evolution. 35% of Americans want to replace teaching evolution with teaching creationism.
11% of Americans believe Obama is not a native born American citizen. 12% say they are unsure. That's 23% of Americans who either don't believe, or doubt that the President was born in America. 28% of Republicans believe Obama was not born in America, and 30% of Republicans are undecided on the matter.
I could go on for days about the high percentage of Americans that aren't oo bright, but I'll just stop here. But let me leave you with this.
This is the main reason why it's clear that many Americans are stupid. 23% of Americans want to see Obama's birth certificate, but I don't see anyone asking to see Sarah Palin high school diploma.
In conclusion, I'm proud that I prefer intelligent, informed, educated leaders to ignorant hillbillies who run for office.
So don't be mad that I don't want one of the folks running the country. Let the folks vote, but let our choices be the intellectuals, not the ignorant.
I hear conservatives constantly calling Obama an elist, and calling the liberal base elitists. The accused usually ignore or refute the label. I embrace it.
I am an elitist. I do no want the everyday people to run the country. I want the everyday people to elect those that run the country, but I don't want Joe the Pumber to be President or governor or senator.
I want intelligent and educated leaders. There's nothing wrong with not having a college degree. Non-college grads perform essential jobs in society. But when it comes to the governor or the president, I want an educated person to take that role. What's wrong with wanting a real intellectual to run things?
I don't want the average person to be the president because frankly, the average person doesn't know much. I want a Harvard grad, law professor like Obama to be president. Not a hockey mom like Sarah Palin.
It's sad to say, but the average American is ignorant and we can't have an ignorant president. Trust me. We did that in 2000 and 2004, and it didn't go over well.
Although roughly 90% of all scientists believe that global climate change is a threat to humans, 35% of Americans think climate change is still a controversy among scientists
Two thirds of Americans want creationism taught in science class along side evolution. 35% of Americans want to replace teaching evolution with teaching creationism.
11% of Americans believe Obama is not a native born American citizen. 12% say they are unsure. That's 23% of Americans who either don't believe, or doubt that the President was born in America. 28% of Republicans believe Obama was not born in America, and 30% of Republicans are undecided on the matter.
I could go on for days about the high percentage of Americans that aren't oo bright, but I'll just stop here. But let me leave you with this.
This is the main reason why it's clear that many Americans are stupid. 23% of Americans want to see Obama's birth certificate, but I don't see anyone asking to see Sarah Palin high school diploma.
In conclusion, I'm proud that I prefer intelligent, informed, educated leaders to ignorant hillbillies who run for office.
So don't be mad that I don't want one of the folks running the country. Let the folks vote, but let our choices be the intellectuals, not the ignorant.
The conservatives are largley represented by the Republican Party in America. You would think that after 8 years of gigantic retarded disaters created by the Republican president, and supported by the Republican congress, that the people would have had enough of the conservatives.
But, no. So many working people continue to support a party that screws them over. The Republicans are the party that shifts the tax burden from your employer to you. They are the ones that nominated in 2008, a man that would happily keep the working class in Iraq for 100 years (by his own admission).
The Republicans constantly trick the working people into voting for them. Somehow, they have managed to talk the working people into war, and out of healthcare.
But I've realized that Republicans have crutches they lean on to keep themselves up. They can only trick Americans into voting against their own economic interests for so long, but they can scare them into voting for them forever.
Scaring people into thinking that the Democrats are going to take away your guns and your religion are the main crutches the GOP uses to rally its base. But hating immigrants and gays are another part of their allure to so many people.
Guns, religion, gay bashing, hatred against immigrants and war mongering is how the Republicans sustain their party.
Then when it comes to economics, they use fear. They tell their members that if they vote for tax cuts for themselves instead of for their employers, Stalin is going to take over and put them in concentration camps.
But I got some good news, people. The Republican party is standing on the crutches of fear. They are offering no real ideas of their own. All they can do is promote fear about losing your guns and religion and having the gays and immigrants take over the world while they tell the masses that America will become Stalin's Russia if the people actually vote for THEIR OWN economic interests rather than the interests of the wealthiest people.
But I predict that once the lies and propoganda about healthcare are crushed, and once the economy picks back up, the Republicans will be in a world of trouble.
But the Democrats have to act. You have to crush the outrageous assertions about healthcare, and you have to stand united behind a public option. You've got to get a timetable for Iraq and do the things Obama campaigned on. Democrats have to step up and bring the fight. Latley, the Democrats are beginning to look like the new Republicans, but they can turn it around before it's too late.
The problem with you Democrats is that you are too weak. The Republicans had terrible ideas like premptive war and deregulation, but they pushed them through regardless of public opinion, the constitution or the geneva conventions. Democrats needs to step it up before its too late.
The American people elected Obama with a mandate because of his platform if healthcare, ending the war, fighting climate change and making the economy work for working people again. Get back on that, and push for it fiercley. Now is the time.
The Republicans are on the crutches of fear about guns, religion, gays, immigrants and communism. They have no actual opposition. Democrats need to step up and push the progressive platform Obama campaigned on. Stop being so pragmatic. Learn from Bush's mistakes, but pick up his attitude. "We won, and we're going to do it our way!"
I'm all for questioning authority of all kinds, but I'm not ana narchist. Government can screw up; there's no doubt about it. But the government can also play a good role in society. Let's examine how government plays a good role in everyday life. The following article comes from a site I stubled across called simply, www.governmentisgood.com Give the article a chance. Conservatives keep bashing the government, ignoring the good things it does. So hear me out. The article reads:
A Day in Your Life
Though we usually fail to notice it, government programs and policies improve our daily lives in innumerable ways.
Ask yourself this question: “What has government done for me lately?” If you are like most Americans, you will probably answer: “Not much.” Many people feel like they pay a lot in taxes but don't really get anything back from government. Surveys show that 52% of Americans believe that “government programs have not really helped me and my family.”1 But let’s see if that is really true. Let’s examine a typical day in the life of an average middle-class American and try to identify some of the ways that government improves that person’s life during that 24-hour period.
6:30 a.m. You are awakened by your clock radio and listen for a few minutes to the news before getting up. But you can listen to your favorite station only because the Federal Communications Commission brings organization and coherence to our vast telecommunications system. It ensures, for example, that radio stations do not overlap and that stations signals are not interfered with by the numerous other devices – cell phones, satellite television, wireless computers, etc. – whose signals crowd our nation’s airwaves.
6:35 a.m. Like 17 million other Americans, you have asthma. But as you get out of bed you notice that you are breathing freely this morning. This is thanks in part to government clean air laws that reduce the air pollution that would otherwise greatly worsen your condition.
6:38 a.m. You go into the kitchen for breakfast. You pour some water into your coffeemaker. You simply take for granted that this water is safe to drink. But in fact you count on your city water department to constantly monitor the quality of your water and to immediately take measures to correct any potential problems with this vital resource.
6:39 a.m. You flip the switch on the coffee maker. There is no short in the outlet or in the electrical line and there is no resulting fire in your house. Why? Because when your house was being built, the electrical system had to be inspected to make sure it was properly installed – a service provided by your local government. And it was installed by an electrician who was licensed by your state government to ensure his competence and your safety.
6:45 a.m. You sit down to breakfast with your family. You are having eggs – a food that brings with it the possibility of salmonella poisoning, a serious food-borne illness affecting tens of thousands of Americans every year. But the chance of you getting sick from these eggs has now been greatly reduced by a recently passed series of strict federal rules that apply to egg producers.
7:00 a.m. You go into your newly renovated bathroom – one of a number of amenities that you enjoy in your house. But the fact that you can even own your own house is something made possible by government. Think about this: “ownership” and “private property” are not things that exist in nature. These are legal constructs: things created by laws that are passed and enforced by government. You couldn’t even buy your home without a system of commercial laws concerning contracts and a government that ensures that sales contracts are enforced. So the fact that you live in your own home is, in part, a benefit of government and the rule of law.
7:01 a.m. Government also helps you own your house in more than the legal sense. On a more practical level, the federal government actually gives you money every year to help pay for your house. It’s called a mortgage interest tax deduction and it is one of the larger benefit programs run by the federal government – amounting to over $60 billion dollars a year. You can also deduct any real estate taxes you pay. These largely overlooked subsidy programs have enabled millions of people to buy their first home or to move up to a larger home than they could afford otherwise.
7:02 a.m. Back in the bathroom. You use the toilet and flush it. Your local government then takes care of transporting this waste, treating it, and disposing of it in an environmentally responsible manner – all without a second thought by you.
7:20 a.m. As you are getting dressed, a glance outside the window shows some ominous clouds. You check the weather on your TV. All these weather forecasts are made possible by information gathered and analyzed by the National Weather Service, a government agency. Everyday, on your behalf, it takes in 190,000 weather observations from surface stations, 2,700 from ships, 115,000 from aircraft, 18,000 for buoys, 250,000 from balloons, and 140 million from satellites – all just to help you plan what to wear and make sure you don’t get stuck in a snow storm. And oh yes, this agency may save your life with its hurricane and tornado warnings.
7:30 a.m. Before you leave home, you take your pills to control your high blood pressure. But how do you know that this medicine is safe or effective? Without the testing required by the Food and Drug Administration, you wouldn’t. And without the vigilance of the FDA, you could easily fall victim to unscrupulous marketers of unsafe and worthless medicines.
7:45 a.m. You put a couple of letters in your mailbox. For less than the price of a cup of coffee, a government employee will come to your house, pick up the letters, and have them delivered in a few days to someone on the other side of the country. A pretty good deal.
7:50 a.m. You and your child walk across the lawn to your car and arrive without getting dog poop on your shoes. A small but welcome achievement that is made possible now by a local law that requires people to clean up after their pets. Also, the reason your neighborhood is not plagued by stray cats and dogs is that your local Animal Control officer is on the job dealing with this constant problem.
7:52 a.m. You help your young child into your car and you pull out of your driveway. You have now entered an experience that is improved by government in almost more ways that you can count. Driving your car is inherently dangerous. But it is made immensely safer by government laws and regulations, such as those mandating child safety seats and the use of seat belts – rules that have saved tens of thousands of lives. Driving down the street is also made much safer by a local government that enforces traffic laws and discourages people from driving too fast or driving drunk. Most state governments also minimize your risk of being run into by someone driving on bald tires or with faulty breaks by requiring regular inspections of all vehicles. And state drivers license examinations ensure that all drivers are at least minimally competent and can actually see the road. In addition, if you are hit by another car, the potentially disastrous costs of an accident are covered because the government requires that all drivers to have auto insurance. In fact, without this extensive network of government laws and regulations covering automobiles and driving, it would be foolish for us to ever venture out on the road.
8:15 a.m. You drop your child off at day-care. It took a long search to find a good program and it is an expensive one, but it is worth it so you can feel confident that your child is in a safe, nurturing, and stimulating environment while you are at work. One of the reasons you can afford this program is the $3,000 child care tax credit you get from the federal government every year. Equally important, your child benefits from the fact that most state governments now enforce day-care requirements for group size, ratios of children per staff member, teacher training, nutrition, health, safety, and space requirements. 8:35 a.m. Your trip on the freeway is much safer due to federal restrictions on the number of hours that truck drivers can operate their vehicles without resting. Thousands of people die every year from truck-related traffic accidents, but it would be much worse without these regulations that keep sleepy truck drivers off the road.
8:55 a.m. You arrive at work and take the elevator. You just assume that the elevator is safe; and it is, thanks in part to the annual elevator inspections conducted by your state government. It is probably nothing you will appreciate until the next time the elevator breaks down with you inside, and that makes you think a bit more about the reliability of elevators.
9:00 a.m. While at work, your rights and wellbeing are constantly protected by a wide-ranging network of federal and state laws. The Occupation Safety and Health Act works to protect you from unsafe and unhealthy work conditions. Federal law protects you from workplace discrimination based on race, gender, religion, national origin, or disability. State laws may also require your employer to purchase worker’s compensation insurance so that you are covered in case you are injured on the job
Noon. For lunch you have your usual sandwich and microwaveable cup of soup. But why did you choose that particular soup? Perhaps because it was low in salt and fat. But how do you know that? Because the government requires all food packaging to have a truthful and easily readable panel on the label that supplies you with the nutritional information necessary to make a good choice. Food companies tell you what they want you to know about their products, but the Food and Drug Administration’s labeling requirements tell you what you need to know to eat in a healthy way.
How do you know the lettuce in your sandwich is not laced with unhealthy doses of pesticides? Because the Department of Agriculture has developed and is enforcing uniform standards for pesticide residue on raw foods.
Microwave ovens are potentially very dangerous machines, but you can use this one with confidence because of detailed government regulations that limit the maximum amount of radiation leakage and mandate two different safety interlocks that prevent its operation with the door ajar or open.
12:45 p.m. After lunch, you walk to a nearby ATM and get some cash out of your account – and your money is actually there. That wasn't always true during the economic depression of the 1930s when many banks failed. But your money is safe -- as it was during the recent financial and banking crisis -- because the government guarantees your deposits. In addition, those pieces of paper you put in your wallet are only worth something thanks to the federal government. Our monetary system is entirely a government creation, and the value of money is only maintained because the government regulates the money supply and protects it from counterfeiters. Quite an important service really.
1:00 p.m. Back at work you hear rumors about a new downsizing plan being talked about by management – a fairly typical occurrence in these days of heightened national and international corporate competition. You know your job is one that could be lost, but you also know that you will be eligible for state-mandated unemployment insurance should that happen. This is just another way that government helps you to cope with the economic risks and uncertainties of a modern economy.
3:00 p.m. On a break, you call your elderly mother in the hospital to check on how she is recovering from her broken hip. Thanks to Medicare, her medical expenses are covered and she does not have to worry about this becoming a financial disaster for her. Thanks to the federal Family and Medical Leave act, you will also have the right to take several days off to tend to your mother when she comes home from the hospital
3:10 p.m. You call to arrange for a physical therapist to work with your mother when she comes out of the hospital, and again this is paid for by Medicare. And you can be reasonably confident that she will get good therapy because your state Department of Health has a program of examining and licensing these therapists in order to ensure the quality of their work.
5:00 p.m. You leave work—thanks to the government-mandated 40-hour workweek. Labor Department regulations prevent your company from making you work past 5:00 unless it pays you overtime.
5:15 p.m. You stop at a local gas station to fill up. The very fact that this oil company offers this gas to you for sale is dependent on the existence of certain government laws. This company would not do business in your town without a legal system that assures them that you will pay for any gas you pump into your car. This economic exchange – like buying your house – would not be taking place without a system of statutory and common law that protects private property and regulates sales transactions. This simple sale is covered by Article Two of the Uniform Commercial Code – dozens of pages of laws that regulate every phase of a transaction for the sale of goods and provide remedies for problems that may arise.
5:15 p.m. You pump 15 gallons of 87 octane gas into your car and pay for it. But how do you know that you really got 15 gallons, and not 14½? And that the gas was actually 87 octane? This is only ensured by the presence of that little sticker on the gas pump that shows that a worker from your city’s Division of Weights and Measures has inspected the pump and the gas. These public employees make sure that you get what you pay for – from a pound of sliced turkey breast to a carat of diamond – by constantly testing and inspecting all commercial meters and scales, and by verifying the accuracy of checkout scanners. This is a crucial service, since more than half of the income of the average family is used to purchase necessities bought by weight or measure or scanned at a checkout station.
5:15 p.m. How do you know the price you are paying for this gasoline is a fair and competitive one? In many states, the Department of Attorney General has been responsible for finding and prosecuting cases of price manipulation and price fixing by oil companies and distributors.
5:30 p.m. As you drive home, you notice the tree-lined streets and the nice houses in your neighborhood – generally a pretty good place to live. Thanks again to government. Without zoning rules, you might have an auto body shop or a fast-food outlet move in next door. Or worse yet, a fertilizer plant or a toxic waste site. But there are no noxious smells in the air, no excessive and dangerous traffic on your street – thanks to your government. Pleasant and livable neighborhoods are only possible with extensive government planning and zoning regulation.
5:35 p.m. As you approach your house, you see your child coming down the sidewalk. The government-provided sidewalk. The sidewalk that allows your child to walk to the neighbor’s house down the street to play with a friend without the risk of being hit by a car.
5:45 p.m. You go for a jog in your local public park.
6:30 p.m. You take your family out for dinner at a local pizza restaurant. You enjoy a good meal and no one gets sick from E. coli or other food-borne illnesses. This is in large part because your local government conducts regular inspections of all food establishments to protect the health of customers.
7:30 p.m. Back at your house. You settle in for a quiet evening at home – one that is undisturbed by those annoying telemarketers calling you up to try to sell you something. This is because you have signed up with a state or federal no-call registry – a government service now enjoyed by over 60 million Americans.
8:00 p.m. You do a quick check of your e-mail – just one of the many services you enjoy over the internet everyday. We all tend to think of the internet as the product of those talented and imaginative entrepreneurs in the high-tech companies. But the internet actually began with government programs that created ARPANET and later NSFNET, early computer networking systems that developed the software and networking infrastructure that form the foundations of today’s internet. The government also helped to fund research that led to web browsers like Internet Explorer and search engines like Google.
11:00 p.m. You go to bed. During your sleep, you are protected by a smoke detector that your city requires to be installed in every residence. Maybe you would have bought one of these yourself, but this law helps to ensure that everyone is protected from the dangers of fire.
4:00 a.m. You are asleep in your comfy bed. Unlike that time you stayed in a small inn in Costa Rica, where you were woken up regularly at 4 in the morning by the roosters crowing in the neighborhood. By law, no one can keep roosters in your neighborhood and so you remain in blissful slumber.
So goes your typical day as an average middle-class American – if you happen to be paying attention to all the different ways that government laws and programs help you lead a better life. For most of us, thinking about our day this way is a real eye-opener. We like to see ourselves as rugged individualists, leading our lives without any help from anyone, especially government. But this is an illusion. As we have just seen, the reality is completely different. We are constantly benefiting from a variety of government laws and programs. Federal, state, and local government employees are literally working around the clock to make our lives better in innumerable ways. Ironically, even those conservatives who complain that they don’t want government “interfering” in their lives depend heavily and repeatedly on government throughout their day. And the examples described earlier are only a small sample of the many ways that government programs improve our lives. They do not even include many of the most important services of government, such as preventing economic depressions, catching criminals, caring for our fragile ecosystem, dispensing justice, thwarting terrorist attacks, and eradicating deadly diseases.
The article is lenghty, and you can read the rest at the url if you want to.
DISCLAIMER: I am opposed to all forms of theocracy.
I often hear the right wing laying claim to "Judeo-Christian values." But I find conservative economic ideals to be anything but Judeo-Christian in nature. The capitalist system relies on the the love of money, which Jesus says is the root of all sorts of evil.
Reading through the Bible, I have found a few verses from the Old and New Testaments which provide Judeo-Christian framework for socialism.
"This is what the LORD has commanded: 'Each one is to gather as much as he needs. Take an omer [a] for each person you have in your tent.' "
The Israelites did as they were told; some gathered much, some little. And when they measured it by the omer, he who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little. Each one gathered as much as he needed." -Exodus 16:16-18
"All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." -Acts 2:44-45
"After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need." -Acts 4:31-35
DISCLAIMER: I am opposed to all forms of theocracy.
I often hear the right wing laying claim to "Judeo-Christian values." But I find conservative economic ideals to be anything but Judeo-Christian in nature. The capitalist system relies on the the love of money, which Jesus says is the root of all sorts of evil.
Reading through the Bible, I have found a few verses from the Old and New Testaments which provide Judeo-Christian framework for socialism.
"This is what the LORD has commanded: 'Each one is to gather as much as he needs. Take an omer [a] for each person you have in your tent.' "
The Israelites did as they were told; some gathered much, some little. And when they measured it by the omer, he who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little. Each one gathered as much as he needed." -Exodus 16:16-18
"All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." -Acts 2:44-45
"After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need." -Acts 4:31-35
Because conservatives went from being blind sheep under the Bush administration, to anarchists under Obama, I had to post this again.
"Republicans must stop pitting the American people against the government. Now, last week, we heard a speech from future Republican leader and present awkward douchebag Bobby Jindal. Now, Bobby said that government is lame, but Americans can do anything. And he kept repeating it: Americans can do anything; Americans can do anything. And then he clicked his heels and poof! there was just a cobra. I kid Bobby! Oh, please...He's actually quite charming in a "Revenge of the Nerds" kind of way.
And he began his speech last week with the story that every immigrant tells about going to an American grocery store for the first time and being overwhelmed with the endless variety on the shelves. And this was just a 7-Eleven. Wait until he sees a Safeway. You're wounded, I know. I'll make it up to you after the show.
The thing is that endless variety only exists because Americans pay taxes to a government which maintains roads, irrigates fields, oversees the electrical grid and everything else that enables the modern American supermarket to carry 47 varieties of frozen breakfast pastry.
Of course it's easy to tear government down. Ronald Reagan used to say, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language were, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" But, that was before, "I'm Sarah Palin, now show me the launch codes."
You know, the stimulus package was attacked as "typical tax-and-spend," you know, like repairing bridges is left-wing stuff. "Ooh, there the liberals go again, always wanting to get across the river."
Folks, the people are the government. The first responders who put out your fires? That's your government. The ranger who shoos pedophiles out of the park restroom. The postman who delivers your porn. I mean, how stupid is it when people say, "Oh, yeah, that's all we need, the federal government telling Detroit how to make cars, or Wells Fargo how to run a bank. You want them to look like the post office?" Yeah, actually.
You mean the place that takes a note in my hand in L.A. on Monday and gives it to my sisters in New Jersey on Wednesday for 42 cents? Well, let me be the first to say, I would be thrilled if America's health care system was anywhere near as functional as the post office.
Truth is, recent years have made me much more wary of government doing the opposite, of stepping aside and letting unregulated, private enterprise run things it is plainly too greedy to trust with, like Wall Street, like rebuilding Iraq, like the way Republicans always frame the health care debate by saying, "Health care decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not government bureaucrats," leaving out the fact that health decisions aren't made by doctors, patients or bureaucrats. They're made by insurance companies.
Insurance companies, which are a lot like hospital gowns: chances are your ass isn't covered." Bill Maher March 11, 2009
One of the most repeated criticism of universal health care is “Why should I have to pay for healthcare for lazy bums without jobs. I have healthcare. Let them get a job and buy their own.” But like most arguments against universal healthcare, this one has no value. It’s just more bullshit that the right wing spits out just so they can stick to their platform of opposing anything sane, rational and good. The particualr arguement I am adressing may sound good to the heartless, soulless vampires that think freedom means putting human health up for sale...but as usual, facts destroy another right wing arguement.
Let me give you some numbers. (based on the most recent numbers I found. It’s possible there are newer figures out there that I missed, and if there are, I’m sure they’re higher and better support my argument than the numbers I have here.)
A recent study says that based on the recession alone (not typical job loss), 57-60 Million people will have lost their health insurance by 2010. In 2006 alone, 1.3 million WORKERS lost their health insurance
Eight in ten uninsured people are from working families.
Even if employees are offered coverage on the job, they can’t always afford their portion of the premium. Health insurance premiums have increased 119 percent for employers since 1999 and employee spending for health insurance coverage (employee’s share of family coverage) has increased 117 percent between 1999 and 2008.7
Rapidly rising health insurance premiums are the main reason cited by all small firms for not offering coverage. Health insurance premiums are rising at extraordinary rates. The average annual increase in inflation has been 2.5 percent while health insurance premiums for small firms have escalated an average of 12 percent annually
The high cost of health care can damage the overall economic well-being of families. One in three low-income parents without coverage report medical bills have a major financial impact on their families.11
These stats came from nchc.org
Now here’s a good article from the commonwealthfund.org
Overview The economic downturn is forcing working families across the United States to make tough financial choices, often involving sacrificing needed health care and health insurance. Using data from four years of the Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey, this report examines the status of health insurance for U.S. adults under age 65 and the implications for family finances and access to health care. Insurance coverage deteriorated over the past six years, with declines in coverage most severe for moderate-income families. As result, more families are experiencing medical bill problems or cost-related delays in getting needed care. In 2007, nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults, or an estimated 116 million people, struggled to pay medical bills, went without needed care because of cost, were uninsured for a time, or were underinsured (i.e., were insured but not adequately protected from high medical expenses).
Executive Summary A perfect storm of negative economic trends is battering working families across the United States. The federal minimum wage is now three dollars an hour lower, in real terms, than it was 40 years ago; gas and food prices are soaring; home values are declining; growth in health care costs is far outstripping income growth; and people are increasingly going without the protection of health coverage—nearly 9 million have lost their health insurance since 2000. Families are facing financial crises and are forced to make hard choices among life's necessities, often sacrificing health care and health insurance along the way.
Using data from four years of the Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey—2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007—this report examines the status of health insurance for U.S. adults under age 65 and the implications for family finances and access to health care. Insurance coverage deteriorated over the past six years, with declines in coverage most severe for moderate-income families. The share of insured adults who spend more than 5 percent or 10 percent of income on health care and insurance rose across all income groups between 2001 and 2007. As a result, the number of underinsured adults (i.e., those with health coverage that does not adequately protect them from high medical expenses) climbed to 25 million people in 2007, up from 16 million in 2003.
More adults are struggling to pay their medical bills and are accumulating medical debt over time. Forty-one percent of working-age adults, or 72 million people, reported a problem paying their medical bills or had accrued medical debt, up from 34 percent, or 58 million, in 2005. An additional 7 million adults 65 and older also reported bill or debt problems. (See the companion issue brief, Seeing Red: The Growing Burden of Medical Bills and Debt Faced by U.S. Families.) This increase occurred across all income groups but families with low and moderate incomes were particularly hard hit: more than half of adults with incomes under $40,000 reported problems with their medical bills in 2007. Underinsured adults or those with gaps in their health insurance reported the highest rates.
Declining insurance coverage and rising health care costs are likely contributing to skimping on needed care. The share of U.S. adults reporting that the costs of health care prevented them from getting needed care increased from 29 percent in 2001 to 45 percent in 2007. Reports of cost-related access problems rose across all income groups and among both insured and uninsured adults.
All told, in 2007 nearly two-thirds of adults, or 116 million people, were either uninsured for a time during the year, were underinsured, reported a problem paying medical bills, and/or said they did not get needed health care because of cost
Key findings of the survey include: Rising Numbers of Adults Go Without Health Insurance Coverage
In 2007, more than one-quarter (28%) of U.S. adults, or an estimated 50 million people, were uninsured for some time during the past year. This is up from 24 percent of adults, or 38 million people, who were uninsured for part of 2001. Families with incomes under $20,000 report the highest uninsured rates: half went without insurance for a time during 2007. The coverage gap between low-income and moderate-income families is narrowing. In 2007, 41 percent of adults in families earning between $20,000 and $40,000 reported a time uninsured, up from 28 percent of those in families earning between $20,000 and $35,000 in 2001.
Americans Are Spending Large Shares of Income on Health Care
The proportion of adults—both insured and uninsured—that spent large shares of their income on out-of-pocket medical expenses and premiums climbed between 2001 and 2007. One-third of adults spent 10 percent or more of their income on health insurance and health care, up from 21 percent in 2001 (Figure ES–1). Adults in all income groups spent more on health care. More than half of adults in families with incomes under $20,000 and more than one-third of adults earning between $20,000 and $60,000 spent 10 percent or more of their income on health care. Among those earning between $40,000 and $60,000, the rate doubled from 18 percent in 2001 to 36 percent in 2007. The number of adults under age 65 who have such high out-of-pocket costs (excluding premiums) relative to their income that they are effectively underinsured increased from 9 percent to 14 percent, or to 25 million people, between 2003 and 2007
Many Adults Have Problems Paying Their Medical Bills
Forty-one percent of working-age adults, or 72 million people, reported problems paying their medical bills or were paying off accrued medical debt during the past year, up from 34 percent or 58 million people in 2005 (Figure ES-2). Adults with gaps in health insurance coverage or those underinsured were most at risk of medical bill problems—about 60 percent reported medical bill problems, more than double the rate of those who had adequate insurance all year (26%). Forty-nine million people, or 28 percent of the population, said they were paying off medical debt in 2007, up from 21 percent in 2005. Of those, one-quarter (24%) were carrying $4,000 or more in debt and 12 percent had $8,000 or more. Adults who experienced medical bill problems faced dire financial problems: 29 percent were unable to pay for basic necessities like food, heat, or rent because of their bills; 39 percent used their savings to pay bills; and 30 percent took on credit card debt.
High Cost of Health Care Leading Adults to Avoid Needed Medical Care
The share of adults who reported problems getting needed health care because of costs increased dramatically between 2001 and 2007, rising to 45 percent, up from 29 percent. More than 70 percent of adults with gaps in their health insurance coverage reported not getting needed health care because of cost, up from just over half in 2001. Among adults with chronic health problems, more than 60 percent who were uninsured any time during the year and 46 percent who were underinsured reported skimping on medications for their conditions because of cost, compared with 15 percent of those with adequate health insurance. About a third or more of adults with chronic conditions who were uninsured any time or underinsured went to an emergency room or stayed overnight in a hospital for their condition, compared with 19 percent of adequately insured adults
People with Gaps in Coverage and Inadequate Coverage Experience Inefficient Care
One-third (34%) of adults reported they experienced one of three care coordination problems: test results or medical records not being available at the time of a scheduled appointment, receiving duplicate medical tests, and experiencing delays in being notified about abnormal lab or diagnostic test results.
Conclusion The evidence paints a vivid portrait of the U.S. health care system as experienced by families with low and moderate incomes. Health insurance is often unaffordable or unavailable, health care costs claim a growing share of household budgets, and rising numbers of people are underinsured. At the same time, medical debt mounts, people—even those with chronic illnesses—skimp on prescription drugs and needed care, individuals experience poorly coordinated health care, and adults lack confidence they will be able to afford high-quality health care in the future.
In this presidential election year, majorities of voters are voicing their dissatisfaction with the health care system. The presidential candidates and policymakers at the federal and state levels have responded with proposals and new universal coverage laws. With working families in crisis from a combination of faltering job and income security and a dramatic acceleration in the cost of basic life necessities, the time has never been more urgent for policymakers to forge ahead on solutions to the nations' worsening health insurance problem.
Citation S. R. Collins, J. L. Kriss, M. M. Doty, and S. D. Rustgi, Losing Ground: How the Loss of Adequate Health Insurance Is Burdening Working Families: Findings from the Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Surveys, 2001–2007, The Commonwealth Fund, August 2008
(that article might be easier to read on the site since formatting on blogs sucks so here's the url at the bottom)
Is Health Care Reform About to Go the Way of No Child Left Behind? By Arianna Huffington
The White House is in full scramble mode, trying to walk back last week's reports that the administration had struck a deal with Big Pharma promising to remove from its health care overhaul the ability of Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices.
But they can't walk back two essential facts: 1) the drug industry has drawn an $80 billion line in the sand -- that's the maximum amount of cost cutting it'll accept before withdrawing its support for health care reform, and 2) during the campaign Obama promised to repeal the ban on negotiating with drug companies, predicting it would result in as much as $310 billion in savings.
So even if the White House didn't explicitly promise to take price negotiations off the table, by agreeing to Big Pharma's $80 billion ceiling they've effectively done just that (the $150 million ad campaign the drug industry has promised to run in support of the president's health care plan only adds to the stench).
And if the right to negotiate drug prices is dead, so is the chance for meaningful reform.
The White House has now shown itself willing to cave on the two essential elements of real health care reform -- drug price negotiations and having a public option.
Both are crucial to containing costs. The right to negotiate drug prices is how free markets operate -- taking advantage of economies of scale and the bargaining power that comes with bulk purchasing. To give this up should be abhorrent to anyone who believes in a functioning capitalist system, as opposed to what we are increasingly becoming: an oligarchy of powerful interests. In the same way, having a public option is the only meaningful way to provide competition leading to lower insurance costs.
Giving us health care reform without those key ingredients is like serving a PBJ sandwich without the peanut butter or the jelly.
This white-bread-only reform makes no sense practically -- or politically. Health care reform that doesn't contain costs is destined to fail -- arming the GOP with a powerful "I told you so" cudgel to swing in 2010 and 2012.
Making matters worse, the chance to enact meaningful change doesn't come along often. And when the opportunity is squandered, it is lost for a long, long time. When reform that isn't reform passes, people check it off their list and move on -- and we are left with worse-than-no-reform boondoggles like No Child Left Behind and Bush's Medicare drug plan.
Robert Reich called the White House/Big Pharma deal -- or its wink-wink, no-deal-here equivalent -- "extortion."
For me, it's emblematic of precisely what Obama promised to put an end to: politics as usual where, as Frank Rich put it, "the American game is rigged" and (quoting Obama himself) the system is in hock to "the interests of powerful lobbyists or the wealthiest few" who have "run Washington far too long."
And it's not like the drug industry somehow pulled a fast one on the president. During the 2008 campaign, Obama was unequivocal on the issue. Here are some of the flashback quotes we put together for HuffPost's Obama vs. Obama story:
-- "Congress exempted Medicare from being able to negotiate for the cheapest available price. And that was a profound mistake."
-- "We will break the stranglehold that a few big drug and insurance companies have on the health care market."
-- "We're not going to get change unless we can overcome the resistance the drug companies, the insurance companies, the HMOs, those who are making a major profit from the system currently."
And from his campaign documents:
Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices.... Barack Obama and Joe Biden will repeal the ban on direct negotiation with drug companies and use the resulting savings, which could be as high as $310 billion, to further invest in improving health care coverage and quality. "We'll tell the pharmaceutical companies 'Thanks but no thanks for overpriced drugs,'" Obama said in October. "We'll let Medicare negotiate for lower prices." From now on shall we just assume that "thanks but no thanks" really means "thanks"?
Obama also promised to hold all negotiations on C-SPAN. He hasn't. Instead we've had a week of White House statements, followed by anonymous White House briefings, followed by contradictory anonymous White House briefings, accompanied by the PhRMA drug lobbyists touting their agreement, followed by the lobbyists issuing "no comment" comments on their agreement, followed by the lobbyists walking back their touting of their agreement.
The health care industry has hired more than 350 former members of Congress and government staffers to lobby their former colleagues, and is spending around $1.4 million a day trying to maintain the status quo. Looks like it will be money well spent. With price control negotiations and the public option circling the drain, their victory is near complete.
The third fundamental element of real cost containment is getting serious about prevention -- shifting the focus of our health care system from treating sickness to preventing illness. As Einstein put it: "Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them." That's why HuffPost is committed to pursuing new lines of thinking on the health care debate -- including the importance of making changes to the lifestyle choices that greatly impact our health.
To this end, we are delighted to welcome Dr. Dean Ornish as our Medical Editor. He's a pioneer in promoting lifestyle changes and prevention as a path to better health, and will be writing both about personal health issues and about moving prevention front and center in the ongoing health care debate. See his latest post here. He'll also be recruiting writers with a wide range of perspectives on how to achieve wellness. This is a vital debate to have, because we clearly cannot continue down the current costly and inefficient health care path.
Remember when Obama kept presenting the fact that he hadn't been in Washington very long as a virtue? If real health care reform dies -- and the death of real health care reform is completely consistent with a Rose Garden signing ceremony of a "reform bill" -- I guess it will show that even six months in Washington is too long.
Small government, less spending, upholding the Constitution. These are the things I keep hearing Republicans, conservatives (whatever) saying lately.
I started paying attention to politics a little around the 2000 election, though I was pretty young and didn’t know much about it. The election controversy kinda got me started into examining politics. So I haven’t been around for a long time. I missed Goldwater, the Kennedy’s, and Reagan and was too young to be aware of the Clinton presidency at the time. But I read. I read a lot about these magical times when conservatives had a philosophical basis rooted deep in Judeo-Christian ethics, and when they supported small government, small spending, a free market, and a conservative interpretation of the constitution.
Had I not gone back and done my research, I never would have known that’s what conservatives were about.
You see, I became aware of politics during the Bush presidency. Under the Bush admin., the Republicans, conservatives (whatever) supported George Bush whole heartedly. I remember them attacking the opposition as “unpatriotic” and I remember them demonizing dissent. Agree or disagree, you better support the President or you’re with the terrorist. That was the feeling one got, especially if you were on the receiving end of Republican jaw flappin’.
Bush expanded the government, spent lots of money, racked up huge deficits, and basically repealed the Bill of Right. The Republicans, and most all of the Democrats went along with this for a while. Some of the Democrats turned against Bush while some stuck to his side. The Republicans? They stuck with Bush all the way. Their verbal attacks on the opposition only grew fiercer. Yes, it was hard to tell what the word “conservative” meant at one time, and what the Republican Party had stood for not long prior to Bush.
But for eight years the Republicans supported Bush’s big spending, big deficits, expansion of federal power and his repealing of the Bill of Rights.
2008-- Enter: a black Democrat with a funny name.
The Republican Party went berserk.
“He pals around with terrorists! He’s a muslim! He’s a communist! He’s a Kenyan!”
The accusations were insane. Then the guy won by 10 millions votes, and that really made Republicans insane.
“ACORN forged 10 million votes!” “…ATLEAST 10 million! Probably more!” “He’s a Kenyan.” “He’s a socialist!”
Shortly before, opposing the President’s policies meant you were unpatrioctic, and you were possibly on the terrorists side. Now, opposing the President is so wonderful that conservatives come up with one made a bullshit reason to hate him after another.
And now that Obama is president, the same people that supported Bush’s outrageous spending and deficits for eight years and calling for fiscal conservatism and reducing g the deficits. They’re really freaking out about it.
After Bush successfully repealed the Bill of Rights, with the Republicans full support, it’s do or die to protect the Constitution from Obama.
The same people that stood behind Bush as he expanded the power of the Federal government more than any president since Nixon (maybe more than Nixon) are calling for small government. Some are even calling for an end to most federal programs.
Just a question to ask. Where were you when Bush was going out of control? Where were you when he was doing the exact opposite of everything you claim to believe in? Where were you when Bush was “destroying America”?
You were voting twice for him and demonizing anyone that opposed you. That’s where you were.
So please, don’t get too upset if the sane people don’t jump every time you accuse Obama of some new bullshit you made up. Please excuse us if we call you batshit insane hypocrites.
It’s not Obama’s policies you hate. You loved big spending, big deficits and big government under Bush. I’m not sure why you hate Obama so much. But it’s getting tired.
And you’re continuing demonization of the left wing is getting tired too.
Every day to more and more people who aren’t part of the tiny bitter fringe that you think speaks for America, you’re just appearing to have personality disorders. You have no ideology. Some of you are ignorant, some of you are insane, and some of you are just assholes.
Socialism has gotten a bad name in America over the past 100 years. But it hasn't always been that way. Under the leadership of Euegen V. Debs, the Socialist Party had councilmen, mayors and congressmen. Euegen V. Debs, along with his Socialist Party and IWW supporters like Helen Keller, helped to bring socialist ideas to mainsteam America. But those ideas were brought here long before by immigrants who started forming unions. Eventually, those socialist union workers were able to get better working conditions (working conditions were intolerable in many cases in the early 20th century), and the eight hour work week among other things. But over time, the capitalists have given socialism a bad name by attatching the word to people like Joseph Stalin an their totalitarian governments. Capitalists never want to talk about democratic socialism, or it's supporters like Helen Keller, Mark Twain, Albert Einstein and Martin Luther King Jr. No. Better to scare the ignorant masses into thinking socialism and stalinism are the same thing.
Socialism is the movement of the working people. We socialists believe that all workers have value. The college graduate wouldn't have a place to work if the maitenance people and the custodians didn't keep the building in working condition, and the maintainance people and custodians wouldn't have a building to work in without the college graduate. We believe that because all workers are essential to society, that none should receieve meager wages and little to no benefits. Is it ok for certain professions to command a higher wage than others? Absolutley. But we also believe that all workers deserve a good days wage for a good days work. We don't believe in the arbitrary wages decided by the big wigs so they can make the most profits possible. "People before profits" is one of our slogans.
The Democrats and the Republicans have their respective members tricked into believing that they are the party of the people. They aren't. They're the parties of the few. They're the parties that look out for the wealthiest first, and throw and occaisonal bone to the masses to keep them sedated. When the Democrats and Republicans create polcies to appease their campaign financers and lobbyists, democracy cannot be achieved.
The Socialist Party believes there is no room for corporate influence in a true democracy. We believe elected officials should be responsible to the people, and the people alone. We socialists believe in a true democracy, a radical idea in America, where elected officials actually answer to the people and not to lobbyists and big corporations.
It's no secret that the Republican Party is a party for the rich. Only the most blinded grassroots members actually believe the Republicans are for the little guy.
The big problem is the Democrats, who have millions of working people and millions of liberals convinced that they are the progressive party and the party of the working man. They aren't.
Here's an example why. Everyone knew that the Republicans would vote down healthcare reform, whether it were Obama's plan, Kucinich's plan, or any other plan which would allow everyone to have affordable healthcare. We knew conservatvies would strike this down if they got the chance.
But the Democrats have large majorities in the House and Senate, and if they wanted to, they could push healthcare through with zero Republican votes. Yes, the Republicans are voting against healthcare, but lack of Democratic support is the reason no healthcare reform will pass right now.
The Democrats and the Republicans can promote corporate interest while convincing the masses to vote for them. They convince the working people that they are the parties that represent the average person, and thus convince the people to vote against their own economic interests and for the economic interest of big business.
Yes, the Deocrats and Republicans have talked us into war, and out of healthcare. They've talked the masses into free money and huge tax cuts for the rich, and healthcare prices that continue to soar for the working people.
I'm here to tell you that the Socialist Party is not the party of Stalinism. It is the party of Democracy. We are not the party of big business and beurocrats. We are the party of the average people. We are the real progressive party, and the real party of and for the people.
I invite all of you liberals, moderates and conservatives to take a stand. Take a stand for your own economic interest. Take a stand for social progress. Join the Socialist Party and give the boot to the corrupt, beurocratic, corporatist two party system.
Abandon the strawman arguements and propoganda against socialism and come find out what socialism is all about. Check out the U4Prez Socialist Party page. Check out the page of the Socialist Party USA. Find out what true democratic socialist values are. Take a stand for yourselves and your fellow man. Join the Socialist Party!
Arch posted this on a caucus, but I wanted to post it here as a blog:
Just because a country elects a smart president doesn't make it a smart country. A few weeks ago I was asked by Wolf Blitzer if I thought Sarah Palin could get elected president, and I said I hope not, but I wouldn't put anything past this stupid country. It was amazing - in the minute or so between my calling America stupid and the end of the Cialis commercial, CNN was flooded with furious emails and the twits hit the fan. And you could tell that these people were really mad because they wrote entirely in CAPITAL LETTERS!!! It's how they get the blood circulating when the Cialis wears off. Worst of all, Bill O'Reilly refuted my contention that this is a stupid country by calling me a pinhead, which A) proves my point, and B) is really funny coming from a doody-face like him.
Now, the hate mail all seemed to have a running theme: that I may live in a stupid country, but they lived in the greatest country on earth, and that perhaps I should move to another country, like Somalia. Well, the joke's on them because I happen to have a summer home in Somalia... and no I can't show you an original copy of my birth certificate because Woody Harrelson spilled bong water on it.
And before I go about demonstrating how, sadly, easy it is to prove the dumbness dragging down our country, let me just say that ignorance has life and death consequences. On the eve of the Iraq War, 69% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11. Four years later, 34% still did. Or take the health care debate we're presently having: members of Congress have recessed now so they can go home and "listen to their constituents." An urge they should resist because their constituents don't know anything. At a recent town-hall meeting in South Carolina, a man stood up and told his Congressman to "keep your government hands off my Medicare," which is kind of like driving cross country to protest highways.
I'm the bad guy for saying it's a stupid country, yet polls show that a majority of Americans cannot name a single branch of government, or explain what the Bill of Rights is. 24% could not name the country America fought in the Revolutionary War. More than two-thirds of Americans don't know what's in Roe v. Wade. Two-thirds don't know what the Food and Drug Administration does. Some of this stuff you should be able to pick up simply by being alive. You know, like the way the Slumdog kid knew about cricket.
Not here. Nearly half of Americans don't know that states have two senators and more than half can't name their congressman. And among Republican governors, only 30% got their wife's name right on the first try.
Sarah Palin says she would never apologize for America. Even though a Gallup poll says 18% of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth. No, they're not stupid. They're interplanetary mavericks. A third of Republicans believe Obama is not a citizen, and a third of Democrats believe that George Bush had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, which is an absurd sentence because it contains the words "Bush" and "knowledge."
People bitch and moan about taxes and spending, but they have no idea what their government spends money on. The average voter thinks foreign aid consumes 24% of our federal budget. It's actually less than 1%. And don't even ask about cabinet members: seven in ten think Napolitano is a kind of three-flavored ice cream. And last election, a full one-third of voters forgot why they were in the booth, handed out their pants, and asked, "Do you have these in a relaxed-fit?"
And I haven't even brought up America's religious beliefs. But here's one fun fact you can take away: did you know only about half of Americans are aware that Judaism is an older religion than Christianity? That's right, half of America looks at books called the Old Testament and the New Testament and cannot figure out which one came first.
And these are the idiots we want to weigh in on the minutia of health care policy? Please, this country is like a college chick after two Long Island Iced Teas: we can be talked into anything, like wars, and we can be talked out of anything, like health care. We should forget town halls, and replace them with study halls. There's a lot of populist anger directed towards Washington, but you know who concerned citizens should be most angry at? Their fellow citizens. "Inside the beltway" thinking may be wrong, but at least it's thinking, which is more than you can say for what's going on outside the beltway.
And if you want to call me an elitist for this, I say thank you. Yes, I want decisions made by an elite group of people who know what they're talking about. That means Obama budget director Peter Orszag, not Sarah Palin.
Which is the way our founding fathers wanted it. James Madison wrote that "pure democracy" doesn't work because "there is nothing to check... an obnoxious individual." Then, in the margins, he doodled a picture of Joe the Plumber.
Until we admit there are things we don't know, we can't even start asking the questions to find out. Until we admit that America can make a mistake, we can't stop the next one. A smart guy named Chesterton once said: "My country, right or wrong is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying... It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'" To which most Americans would respond: "Are you calling my mother a drunk?"
By Bill Maher
Bill Maher is the host of HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher." "Real Time" airs Fridays at 10 P.M. Eastern time
The Socialist Party USA's 2008 Presidental candidate, Brian Moore, has made a number of statements over the past year saying that Barack Obama is no socialist. While Moore had went on record as saying he agrees with soem of Obama's positions, Moore insists that Obama's policies are not socialist. Moore has called Obama a "corporatist" in the past. Anyone that knows where the Socialist Party USA, Democratic Socialists of America et al. stand on the issues know that Obama is no socialist. Anyone that understands what socialism actually is knows that Obama is no socialist.
But most importantly, we socialists know that Obama is no socialists.
Now, I hear moderate and conservatives criticizing socialism everyday, usually with strawman arguements. And the far right insists on calling Obama a socialist. The demonization of the word "socialist" and it's application to Barack Obama is nothing more than a scare tactic used to push the uniformed further from Obama. I implore you to ask your conservative Uncle Bob exactly what socialism is, and where American socialists stand on the issues the next time he calls Obama a "socialist." I bet Uncle Bob doesn't know. Do I think Uncle Bob is uniformed because he's not a socialist? Absolutley not. Do I think he is uniformed because he doesn't like Barack Obama? Absolutley not. I bet he's uniformed because he thinks Obama is a socialist.
As a socialist myself, and the unofficial chairman of the U4pRez Socialist Party, I am herby making a public statement concerning Barack Obama. Barack Obama is no socialist. He is not one of us. Barack Obama has not made any real steps to placing the means of production and distribution of goods into the hands of the workers. President Obama does not support a single payer healthcare system, and he has continued the corporate welfare policies begun by the Bush administration last year. Verily I say unto my fellow socialists, Barack Obama doesn't agree with us on too many issues, and on those he does, he has not made any real effort at bringing change we can believe in.
The U4Prez Socialist Party officially distances itself from President Obama because he is not a socialist, and he does not push a socialist agenda.
Do many of us like Barack Obama? Sure. Do we hope he has a successful presidency? Absolutley. We wish President Obama the best of luck in fixing the many problems our nation faces. We do, however, recognize that Barack Obama is not a socialist and we refuse to support him as such.
We as socialists believe that major change must take place in America in order to create a radical democracy which places the workers lives under their own control and releases corporate America's stranglehold from the neck of the masses.
By JEAN H. LEE, Associated Press Writer Jean H. Lee, Associated Press Writer – Tue Aug 4, 5:44 pm ET SEOUL, South Korea – North Korean leader Kim Jong Il issued a "special pardon" freeing two jailed American journalists after talks with former U.S. President Bill Clinton, North Korea's official news agency announced Wednesday.
Clinton, who arrived in North Korea Tuesday on an unannounced visit, met with the reclusive and ailing Kim for talks described by Pyongyang as "exhaustive." It was Kim's first meeting with a prominent Western figure since his reported stroke nearly a year ago.
The release of Laura Ling and Euna Lee, who were arrested March 17 near the China-North Korea border, was a sign of North Korea's "humanitarian and peace-loving policy," the Korean Central News Agency reported.
State media said Clinton apologized on behalf of the women and relayed President Barack Obama's gratitude. The report said the visit would "contribute to deepening the understanding" between North Korea and the U.S.
U.S. officials said there was no indication that Clinton's private plane has departed Pyongyang, despite a report by KCNA that it had left. The U.S. officials, who described the sensitive schedule on condition of anonymity, said Clinton's mission was expected to wrap up in the early morning in Pyongyang — early evening EDT — and that he hoped to bring the two journalists with him.
While the White House emphasized the private nature of Clinton's trip, his landmark visit to Pyongyang to free the Americans was a coup that came at a time of heightened tensions over North Korea's nuclear program.
The meeting also appeared aimed at dispelling persistent questions about the health of the authoritarian North Korean leader, who was said to be suffering from chronic diabetes and heart disease before the reported stroke.
Kim smiled broadly for a photo standing next to a towering Clinton. He was markedly thinner than a year ago, with his graying hair cropped short. The once-pudgy 67-year-old, who for decades had a noticeable pot belly, wore a khaki jumpsuit and appeared frail and diminutive in a group shot seated next to a robust Clinton.
North Korea accused Ling, 32, and Lee, 36, both of former Vice President Al Gore's Current TV media venture, of sneaking into the country illegally in March and engaging in unspecified "hostile acts." The nation's top court sentenced them in June to 12 years of hard labor.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urged North Korea last month to grant them amnesty, saying they were remorseful and their families were anguished by their detention.
The journalists' release followed weeks of quiet negotiations between the State Department and the North Korean mission to the United Nations, said Daniel Sneider, associate director of research at Stanford University's Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center.
Clinton "didn't go to negotiate this, he went to reap the fruits of the negotiation," Sneider said.
Pardoning Ling and Lee and having Clinton serving as their emissary served both North Korea's need to continue maintaining that the two women had committed a crime and the Obama administration's desire not to expend diplomatic capital winning their freedom, Sneider said.
"Nobody wanted this to be a distraction from the more substantially difficult issues we have with North Korea," he said. "There was a desire by the administration to resolve this quietly and from the very beginning they didn't allow it to become a huge public issue."
The families of Ling and Lee said they were "overjoyed" by the pardon.
"We are so grateful to our government: President Obama, Secretary Clinton and the U.S. State Department for their dedication to and hard work on behalf of American citizens," the families said in a statement. "We especially want to thank President Bill Clinton for taking on such an arduous mission and Vice President Al Gore for his tireless efforts to bring Laura and Euna home.
"We are counting the seconds to hold Laura and Euna in our arms," the statement said.
Lee, a South Korean-born U.S. citizen, is the mother of a 4-year-old. Ling, a California native, is the younger sister of Lisa Ling, a correspondent for CNN as well as "The Oprah Winfrey Show" and "National Geographic Explorer."
They were arrested as they reported about the trafficking of women. It's unclear if they strayed into the North or were grabbed by aggressive border guards who crossed into China but recent statements suggested they admitted to deliberately crossing into the country.
The Committee to Protect Journalists also welcomed their release.
North Korean state media said Clinton and Kim held wide-ranging talks, adding that Clinton "courteously" conveyed a verbal message from Obama.
In Washington, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs denied Clinton went with a message from Obama. "That's not true," he told reporters.
"While this solely private mission to secure the release of two Americans is on the ground, we will have no comment" until the mission is complete, Gibbs said in a statement. "We do not want to jeopardize the success of former President Clinton's mission."
Clinton was accompanied by John Podesta, his one-time White House chief of staff, who also is an informal adviser to Obama.
Clinton was accorded honors typically reserved for heads of state. Senior officials, led by Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan, who also serves as the regime's chief nuclear negotiator, met his private unmarked plane as it arrived Tuesday morning.
Video from the APTN television news agency showed Clinton exchanging warm handshakes with officials and accepting a bouquet of flowers from a schoolgirl.
Kim later hosted a banquet for Clinton at the state guesthouse, Radio Pyongyang and the Korean Central Broadcasting Station reported. The VIPs and Kim posed for a group shot in front of the same garish mural depicting a stormy seaside landscape that Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, posed for during her historic visit to Pyongyang in 2000.
Clinton is relatively well-regarded in North Korea, mostly for a less-bellicose attitude toward the country during his administration.
Just last month, North Korea's Foreign Ministry had harsh words for his wife, describing her as "a funny lady" who sometimes "looks like a primary schoolgirl and sometimes a pensioner going shopping."
In the past, envoys have been dispatched to Pyongyang to secure the release of Americans. In the 1990s, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a congressman at the time, went twice on similar missions: in 1994 to arrange the freedom of a U.S. pilot whose helicopter strayed into North Korean airspace and again two years later to fetch an American detained for three months on spying charges.
Richardson, Clinton and Gore, Clinton's vice president, had all been named as possible envoys to bring back Lee and Ling. However, the decision to send Clinton was kept quiet, revealed only when he turned up Tuesday in Pyongyang.
The trip was reminiscent of one 15 years ago by former President Jimmy Carter when Clinton was in office, also at a time of tensions over North Korea's nuclear program.
Carter's visit — he met with Kim Jong Il's father, the late Kim Il Sung — helped thaw the deep freeze in relations with the Korean War foe and paved the way for discussions on nuclear disarmament. Clinton later sent Albright to Pyongyang for talks with Kim in a high point in the often rocky relations with North Korea.
Discussions about normalizing ties went dead when George W. Bush took office in 2001 with a hard-line policy on Pyongyang. The Obama administration has expressed a willingness to hold bilateral talks — but only within the framework of the six-nation disarmament talks in place since 2003.
North Korea announced earlier this year it was abandoning the talks involving the two Koreas, Japan, Russia, China and the U.S. The regime also launched a long-range rocket, conducted a nuclear test, test-fired a barrage of ballistic missiles and restarted its atomic program in defiance of international criticism and the U.N. Security Council.
Last month, the U.S. Navy tailed a North Korean cargo ship as it sailed south suspected of carrying cargo banned under a U.N. resolution on board until the vessel turned around and returned to port.
Kim inherited leadership of impoverished North Korea upon his father's death in 1994, 20 years after being anointed the heir apparent. Kim has not publicly named his successor but is believed to be grooming his third son, 26-year-old Jong Un, to take over.
It's been about 9 months since the election, and Republicans are still crying about Obama. I wouldn't mind so much had they not won a shady election in 2000 and for the next 8 years labeled anyone who opposed Bush as "unpatriotic". That's right. Remember everytime a liberal complained about Bush and you said "love it or leave it", or when you had those pictures of the baby crying that said "Official seal of the Democratic Party"?
Well, now it's you who is crying. And you're not crying because Obama won a shady election. And you're not crying because you disagree with a war he started. You're crying about him using ACORN to forge 10 million undisputed ballots, even though you criticized Al Gore for demanding a recount in 2000. You're crying about him being born in Kenya.
You're crying because the guy in office isn't like you, if you know what I'm saying. He's "different" from you. Get it? It may be uncomfortable to talk about, but come on. We can be open about this. You dislike Obama for something he can't help. He's smarter than you. Yes, the Republcans would've loved to elect and another illiterate dumb ass to pick up where Bush left off, but the guy that graduated at the top of his Harvard class won instead and you're pissed.
Don't get me wrong. I disagree with a lot of Obama's policies, but he did win the election fair and square. He is a natural born American citizen, and he is smart. And the angry Republican antics went from being funny, to pathetic, to down right annoying, to dangerous. Hopefully all this made up bullshit about Obama will be squashed before it turns into another Whitewater.
______________
H ere's something from November that says it all better than I could...
"Now that you've lost, Republicans have to agree not to waste everyone's time spending the next four years screaming for investigations of Barack Obama over made-up bullshit. Let's not kid ourselves. The hardcore Republican base is like a stalker; rejection just makes them crazier. You think Matt Drudge was a vindictive prick before? His headline Wednesday morning was, "Senior Citizen and Woman Beaten by Black Man." You see, because McCain is old and then there was the woman, and Obama is a black man. And wait till you see Ann Coulter's new book, How to Field Dress a Liberal.
You know, there's loyal opposition and then there's just opposition. Let's not do the '90s again, except for the part where we have peace and prosperity. You know, there was an entire industry back then dedicated to making Bill Clinton's life miserable over expensive haircuts and old land deals and the Lincoln Bedroom and getting blown. But this ain't the '90s. We've got two wars, a melting planet, and the only thing keeping the economy from total collapse is Sarah Palin shopping sprees.
So, you know what phrase I don't want to hear used frivolously for the next four years whenever Barack Obama forgets to put the kids in the car seat? "Disrespect for the rule of law." Dick Cheney ordered prisoners tortured by name. That ship has sailed.
I don't want to hear Sean Hannity say that, "Barack Obama announced that his daughters would be getting a puppy. A puppy from where? Probably a Chihuahua that came in from Mexico illegally. And how do we know this isn't a dog that pals around with terriers?"
You know, when Obama starts a pre-emptive war, and then f*cks it up, and makes torture our official policy and outs a CIA agent, and purges U.S. Attorneys, and tries to put his cleaning lady on the Supreme Court--and doesn't act on global warming, and appoints as the head of FEMA an ex-dildo salesman who was his college roommate--you know, that kind of stuff, believe me, I'll be with you. But, until then, I don't want to see Republicans freaking out if Obama isn't singing the National Anthem loud enough, or they find out he gets his suits made in France.
If he puts a moon roof in the presidential limo, he's not making himself Fuhrer; he's just trying to get the smell of stupidity out of the seats.
And, mostly, I don't want to hear about ACORN. Your guy lost by eight million votes. Just because you don't know any black people doesn't mean they don't exist.
So, that's it. No special prosecutors, no trumped up investigations. If Republicans really want to look into something for the next four years, my suggestion: try a mirror." -Bill Maher November 7, 2008
FACT: Between 18,000 and 20,000 Americans die every year due to treatable problems simply because they have no health insurance. That's about 2 people every hour.
FACT: America is the ONLY industrialized nation without a universal healthcare system.
FACT: Medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in America. Over 60% of bankruptcies in America are linked to medical expenses.
FACT: The World Health Organization ranks America 37th in the world for overall healthcare. France ranks at number 1. Other countries to rank ahead of America include Portugal and Saudi Arabia
FACT: America spends twice the amount of money on healthcare as most other nations, yet America's system still falls behind 36 other nations.
FACT: America ranks 20th in life expectancy
FACT: Insurance companies hire people to figure out ways to deny coverage to their customers.
FACTS about the dreaded Canadian healthcare system:
Canada's taxes are almost equal to America's taxes although Canada's are slightly higher.
31% of every dollar spend on American healthcare goes towards paper work, CEO salaries and profit. Canada opperates with a 1% overhead.
America spends 17% of its GDP on healthcare, and 15% of citizens have no healthcare and millions more have inadequate healthcare. Canada spends 10% of its GDP on healthcare and everyone is covered.
In Canada, the government gets no say in who gets healthcare and how they get it.
In Canada, there is no waiting period for emergency or primary medical care. Longer waits can occur for radition therapy though this is because of a shortage of radiotherapists and is not related to money.
Many Canadians do come to America for medical procedures. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to medical care that is necessary, not experiemntal and not available in Candada, it is covered fully by Canada's healthcare system.
Most Canadian doctors are self employeed, and do not answer to the government.
Never underestimate the ability of a tiny fringe group of losers to ruin everything.
For the last couple of weeks, we've all been laughing heartily at the wacky antics of the "birthers" -- the far-right goofballs who claim Barack Obama wasn't really born in Hawaii and therefore the job of president goes to the runner-up, former Miss California Carrie Prejean.
Also, when Obama was sworn in as president, he forgot to give his answer in the form of a question.
And yet, every week, the chorus of conservatives demanding to see his birth certificate grows. It's like they're the Cambridge police, Obama's in his house -- the White House -- and they need to see some ID.
And there's nothing anyone can do to convince these folks. You could hand them, in person, the original birth certificate and have a video of Obama emerging from the womb with Don Ho singing in the background ... and they still wouldn't believe it.
Which raises the question: Why, in this country, is it always the religious right that won't take anything on faith?
So far, the reaction from Democrats is to laugh this off, and I understand why. If you seriously believe that President Obama is an African sleeper spy, get out of your chat room and have your house tested for lead.
But we live in America, and in America, if you don't immediately kill arrant nonsense, no matter how ridiculous, it can grow and thrive and eventually take over, like crab grass or reality shows about fat people.
This flap might be a deluded right-wing obsession that is a total waste of time, but so was Whitewater, and look where that ended up. A handful of Republican operatives, enraged at Bill Clinton's unprecedented economic growth and budget surpluses, found a woman named Paula Jones, which led to a woman named Monica Lewinsky, which gave me enough material to eventually be able to buy a big house in Bel-Air. Which I'm still conflicted about.
More recently we had the Swift Boat allegations against John Kerry, in which Kerry was accused of volunteering to serve in Vietnam so he could jump in front of a bullet so he could get a medal and then throw it away to satisfy his urge to insult real Americans. This was so stupid that Kerry refused to even discuss it.
And we all know how well that worked out.
And once these stories get out there, they're hard to stamp out because our media do such a lousy job of speaking truth to stupid. Vietnam, Iraq and the Spanish-American War were all sold on lies that were unchallenged or even abetted by the media. Clinton got impeached and Kerry got destroyed in large part because the media didn't have the guts to say, "This is nonsense."
Lou Dobbs has been saying recently that people are asking a lot of questions about the birth certificate. Yes, the same people who want to know where the sun goes at night.
And Lou, you're their new king.
That's why it's so important that we the few, the proud, the reality-based attack this stuff before it has a chance to fester and spread. This isn't a case of Democrats versus Republicans. It's sentient beings versus the lizard people, and it is to them I offer this deal: I'll show you Obama's birth certificate when you show me Sarah Palin's high school diploma. -Bill Maher July 31, 2009
You know, I keep posting things like this because its nice to have an actual liberal deffending actual liberal ideas. Sure, we have guys like Dennis Kucinich and Noam Chomsky, but no one will give them the time of day. I'm glad we actuall have atleast one actual liberal that gets to speak out. So here is this.
"Not everything in America has to make a profit. You know, if conservatives get to call universal healthcare "socialized medicine," I get to call private, for-profit healthcare "soulless, vampire bastards making money off human pain."
Now, I know what you're thinking: But, Bill, the profit motive is what sustains capitalism! Yes, and our sex drive is what sustains the human species. But we don't try to f*ck EVERYTHING. It's okay for some things to remain non-profit. Just like when it comes to sexual relations, some people are off limits, like your cousin or your sister...or, if you're a leading Republican, your wife.
Now, it wasn't that long ago that when a kid in America broke his leg, his parents took him to the local Catholic hospital, the nun stuck a thermometer in his ass, the doctor slapped some plaster on his ankle and you were done. The bill was $1.50, plus you got to keep the thermometer.
But, like everything else that's good and noble in life, some bean-counter decided that hospitals could also be big business. So, now they're not hospitals anymore. They're Jiffy Lube's with bedpans. The more people who get sick and stay sick, the higher their profit margins. Which is why they're always pushing the Jell-O.
Did you know that the United States is ranked 50th in the world in life-expectancy? And the 49 loser countries where they live longer than us, oh, it's hardly worth it; they may live longer, but they live shackled to the tyranny of non-profit healthcare. Here in America, you're not coughing up blood, little Bobby; you're coughing up freedom.
The problem with President Obama's healthcare plan isn't socialism. It's capitalism. When did the profit motive become the only reason to do anything? When did that become the new patriotism? "Ask not what you could do for your country, ask what's in it for Blue Cross-Blue Shield."
And it's not just medicine. Prisons also used to be a non-profit thing. And for good reason. Who the hell wants to own a prison? By definition, you're going to have trouble with the tenants. It is not a coincidence that we outsourced running prisons to private corporations, and then the number of prisoners in America skyrocketed. There used to be some things we just didn't do for money.
Did you know, for example, that there was a time when being called a "war profiteer" was a bad thing? FDR said he didn't want World War II to create one millionaire. But, I'm guessing Iraq has made more than a few executives at Halliburton into billionaires.
Halliburton sold soldiers soda for $7.50 a can! They were honoring 9/11 by charging like 7-Eleven. Which is wrong. We're Americans. We do not fight wars for money. We fight them for oil.
And my final example of the profit motive screwing something up that used to be good when it was non-profit? TV news! You know, I heard all the news anchors this week talk about how much better the news coverage was back in Cronkite's day. And I thought, gee, if only you were in a position to do something about it.
But, maybe they aren't. Because this isn't Cronkite's day, when delivering the news was considered a loss leader and a civic duty. Making money was the job of "The Beverly Hillbillies." And now that we have reporters moving to Alaska and hanging out with the Palin family, the news is "The Beverly Hillbillies" -Bill Maher July 24, 2009
This is important for all Americans, but especially to a few here on u4prez who claim to be true to the Constitution at all times.
We all know that States get to make certain laws that the fed. can't touch. But the Constitution is the supreme law of the land which supercedes all other laws.
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides for guaranteed privileges and immunities of citizenship, due process and equal protection.
The Fourteenth Amendment: Section 1 reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It couldn't be anymore clear: No State shall deny any person equal protection.
Yet many states still prohibit same-sex marriage.
It has been estimated that marriage law provides as many as 1,324 civil protections. But still, many states still deny equal protection under marriage laws as provided by the 14th amendment.
The Federal government also violates the 14th amendment with DOMA.
It's time to stand by the clear words of the Constitution and legalize same sex marriage in all 50 states.
I know the self proclaimed "conservative constitutionalists" will be the first to support this.
<< Home