Political Stumping

I usually don't stump for specific political organizations, but two interesting recent events in U.S. politics have inspired me to do just that.

The first was something President Obama said in his 2010 State Of The Union address: "...if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know."

A young doctor by the name of Dr. Margaret Flowers took Obama at his word and went to the White House with a letter addressed to the President describing why in her opinion a single-payer approach to health care would fulfill all of his stated requirements. Not only did the President not accept her letter, Dr. Flowers was eventually arrested for trying to deliver the letter to him.

Dr. Flowers isn't some lunatic nutcake. She is a physician who's vision of health care is, as she states in her letter, supported by 65% of the American public and 59% of physicians. So she has some clout and evidence to back up her theories.

Now, if by what Flowers means by "single-payer" health care is meant "free (for the patient), universal, publicly-funded health care", I, too, support the validity of such an idea, and I signed the “Open Letter to President Obama to Support Single-Payer Health Care,” which can be found on the Physicians for a National Health Program website, and, if you agree with me, I urge you to do the same, seeing as though Obama has so much as said that he would consider such ideas. I thought he was open to the single-payer idea from the start, but obviously I was wrong or a lone physician wouldn't have felt the need to get arrested trying to deliver the idea to him.

In my opinion any government that gives the well-being of money priority over the well-being of its citizens should be ashamed of itself. Just as it is my opinion any government that allows even one of its citizens to live in poverty should be ashamed of itself. These are just my opinions though.

The other interesting recent event is the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the details of which can be found here.

How any person can call himself a conservative, say that they are against the status quo of big money influence in politics, and then support this ruling is beyond me. What this ruling says, amongst other things, is that if a wealthy corporation has the money to support a political cause in an advertisement or "movie" during primetime television, then the right to free speech applies to the corporation. If an unwealthy corporation, or group, or organization, or individual would like to support a political cause in an advertisement or "movie" during primetime television but doesn't have the financial means to do so, then said group or individual needs to either shut up (at least in their hopes of making their case on primetime TV in competition with the corporation), or bust out their soapbox and go to some streetcorner (or lonely website outpost) somewhere and scream "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" to anyone who'll listen. Said people who are all probably lunatic nutcases like Dr. Flowers.

This ruling is about free speech. Conservatives say it supports free speech, liberals, like me, say it stifles it. I heard one liberal TV pundit ask a conservative TV pundit, if corporations are people why don't you support an electoral system in which corporations are afforded the right to vote as well? The conservative conveniently skirted this question.

Anyways, I signed the Move To Amend's "Motion to Amend" the U.S. Constitution to make it clear that corporations are not human beings, nor were they ever intended to be by our founding fathers. If you agree with me, I urge you to sign it too.

"Socialized Democracy"?

a question for conservatives (including president obama): is it "socialized democracy" when every american, regardless of their financial income, has the right to an equal vote? why is the concept that every american, regardless of their financial income, should have the right to equal healthcare, called "socialized healthcare"? if the equal right to vote is called "democracy", shouldn't the equal right to healthcare be called "democratic healthcare"? and another question for conservatives: if you were to have our government force people to pay money for healthcare, shouldn't you support the concept that our government should force people to pay money to vote?

Karen Ignagni Is A Spawn Of Satan

Read this article to find out how health insurance industry lobbyist Karen Ignagni is almost single-handedly preventing free universal health care in America from becoming a reality.

I already wrote, in a previous blog entry, that President Obama never wanted universal health care in the first place. The House bill (which contains a "public option", Baucus' Senate Finance Committee bill doesn't) will only cover 97% of those eligible, far from universal.

Both of these "health care reform" bills contain a mandate that people must buy health insurance. Such a mandate will insure that the health insurance industry will have millions of new customers, putting billions more into the pockets of health insurance industry executives, employees, and lobbyists. Money will continue to be seen as more valuable than people.

As long as people have to pay money to insurers and providers for health care, some people will be able to afford it, and some people wont. Some people will receive health care, and some won't. Some people will live, and others will die unnecessarily.

The only way to "keep the health insurers honest" is to get rid of the health insurance industry entirely! Let the health insurance industry executives, employees, and lobbyists get their greed on in some other industry, like the music business!

Conservatives Say It's Their Turn For Empowerment?

I suppose it remains to be seen if Rep. Joe Wilson's "emotional" heckling of the President, and the conservative opposition to real health care reform, is rooted in racism (also, here), but nobody, conservatives and Republicans (is there a difference?) included, can deny that the conservative movement and the Republican worldview in general is historically rooted in the racism, sexism, homophobia, bigotry, intolerance, and hatred of anyone who thinks and/or looks different than they do, experienced in America during the last 200+ years.

If the conservatives and Republicans could have their way, slavery would still be legal, people who aren't white would have to sit at the back of buses, wouldn't be able share drinking fountains with white people, and wouldn't be able to eat at certain restaurants, people who have political beliefs on the left end of the spectrum wouldn't be able to find work, women wouldn't be able to vote, and gays and lesbians wouldn't be able to marry (ooops, still working on that last one).

Conservative Americans have a lot to thank American liberals for, but when it comes to defending their stance against many of President Obama's ideas, conservatives will always have to contend with the history of intolerance perpetuated, historically, by themselves.

Obama Never Wanted Universal Healthcare In The First Place

First it was called universal healthcare, then "single payer system", then a "public option", now the "public option" apparantly is barely even an option.

I think its important for everybody, especially Democrats, and especially everyone who voted for him, to know that Obama never supported universal healthcare in the first place. If he had he wouldn't be giving up on it so easily.

Republicans and Democrats are too beholden to the health insurance scam's...urm...industry's money for any true "change" to come about.

Its important for everyone to realize that all those highly upset and passionate folks at these public forums who are taking up arms against what they see as death panels, torts, brainwashing, socialism, and fascism are not speaking from their hearts. They are bought and paid for by a very defensive health insurance industry that is very, very protective of its mass quantities of wealth, a cache of cash that now looks to get even larger without a "public option" being available.

The health of U.S. citizens will continue to be linked first to monetary profit and least to true concern for the well-being of people created equally under God.

I was watching one of these health-care town hall meetings on T.V. last week and one of these birther anti- health reform/fascist/socialist/death panel/brainwashing/abortion/choice of doctor pro- tort reform people declared "I'm not evil!"

If she wasn't so evil to begin with why did she feel the need to assure everyone of her lack of evil-ness? Methinks you protest too much.

Terrorism & Faith In A Post-Bush World

I could criticize until I'm blue in the face the word "terrorism" as it is used to describe a supposed statement of fact.

For example, the word "terrorism" is entirely subjective, that what is to us an evil act requiring a just response on our part is to the recipients of our just response an act of terrorism that requires a just response on their part, eg. the Palestinians on what they see as the taking of their land by Israel. So the outline defining "terrorism" is not so easy to draw.

Or that the word "terrorism" is just a word used to scare people into forgetting, or not seeing, that the "war on terrorism" is not a "new kind of war" we're fighting, but a war in the most traditional sense, with the same money being spent, the same pockets being lined, and the same lives being lost.

However, all of these arguments have been made before by people much more practiced on the subject than I.

One of the predictable results of the "dumbing down" of political discourse practiced by the Bush administration is that people became, well, dumber when it came to analyzing truth from fiction in world affairs.

I swear I can sometimes see President Obama bristle when using the term "Homeland" (as opposed to "national", or "our nation's", cf. "Homeland Security"), a euphemism created by Bush and his advisers to better characterize our nation post 911. To any Jew (such as myself) the use of the term holds too many echoes of the concept of the "heimat" of Nazi Germany and everything that word implies (nationalism, rejection of foreign people and culture, rejection of foreign ideas, etc...). The word "Homeland" then smacks of manipulation and propaganda and was utilized by Bush exactly for that purpose (and, unfortunately, I fear the word is here to stay).

But what I can't understand is Obama's embracing of the "faith-based" initiative, a notion interpreted by even some religious people, such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, as a way for certain members of government to justify lessening government support of education and health care. As the Chicago Tribune noted last July, even Obama has had mixed results applying these initiatives in his home state.

What I wonder about is, is Obama embracing the "faith-based" to appease his radical religious constituents? Or his "fiscally conservative" constituents? Or does he really believe in the ability of such programs to bring a balanced education to people in a way our government should but doesn't?

Before accepting or rejecting (in Obama's case, apparantly, accepting) whether or not faith-based programs do work, one should define what "faith" means, which is exactly what proponents of "faith-based" programs don't want people to do.

Having "faith" implies a connection to the otherworldly, a position or circumstance that the worldly, language, intellect, materialism, cannot help us achieve. Having faith implies that there is something out there that is beyond language, and that a belief in such is dependent not on reasoned thought but on something that cannot be described.

But, as we are humans, we can only reach the otherworldly through the worldly, and that's why any profession of faith, or profession of "faith based" initiatives, must be rooted in intellectual thought.

So, I just hope that when Obama says he supports "faith based initiatives" he is honest with himself about exactly what it is he is supporting, the genuine belief in something greater than us all, or a vial of snake oil passed off as holy water in order to save a couple of pennies.

Barack Obama's America and the 12-Step Program

If George Bush's America was the corrupt and narcissistic money, power, oil, violence, and greed-addicted junkie always looking for a fix, Barack Obama's America is an addict in recovery, searching for peace and wishing to do whatever she can to better her ways and live a clean and healthy life.

So, then, here are the 12-Steps for the recovery of America, courtesy Alcoholics Anonymous.

1. America admits she is powerless over money, power, oil, violence, and greed—that her life has become unmanageable.

2. America comes to believe that a Power greater than herself can restore her to sanity.

3. America makes a decision to turn her will and her life over to the care of God as she understands Him.

4. America makes a searching and fearless moral inventory of herself.

5. America admits to God, to herself, to another human being, and to another country, the exact nature of her wrongs.

6. America is entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

7. America humbly asks Him to remove her shortcomings.

8. America makes a list of all persons and countries she had harmed, and becomes willing to make amends to them all.

9. America makes direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

10. America continues to take personal inventory and when she is wrong promptly admits it.

11. America seeks through prayer and meditation to improve her conscious contact with God as she understands Him, praying only for knowledge of His Will for her and the power to carry that out.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, she tries to carry this message to other money, power, oil, violence, and greed-addicted countries, and to practice these principles in all her affairs.

Good luck America! See you at the next meeting!

Tired Of Living Like This

Every morning I wake up and read the news about yet another person we gave our trust to who turns out to be completely corrupt.

Blagojevich claiming that what he did was within the parameters of the law?

Did you read Obama's response? "under the current circumstances it is difficult for the governor to effectively do his job and serve the people of Illinois"...I'll say! Ludicrous!

Today Chase offered the laid-off Chicago factory workers $400,000 to help pay their severance. Here's some money now shut up!

Now B of A has pledged to give the workers an additional loan "to be negotiated".

And this after hundreds of people marched on the B Of A Chicago offices.

Blagojevich said a few days ago he was suspending all state business with B Of A. What a saint!

Why was he doing business with B Of A in the first place? Hmmmm.

In other news, depite everything that has been going on lately here, Merrill Lynch & Co Chief Executive John Thain has suggested to directors that he get a 2008 bonus of as much as $10 million!! WTF!

What year are we living in? Is this the middle ages?

Why can't we evolve people!

Please come to the next Spain show in February, it'll be a doozy!