By Jamie York
Bill Clinton told columnist Joe Klein that the biggest mistake he made with his health care reform proposal was his support for universal coverage (Time, 8/10/09, p. 35.). The insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists were ruthless and had a well-directed campaign against universal coverage. Clinton was blindsided and had thought he had no choice but to cower and try to sneak away from the fight as the lobbyists got their message across in the media while the voices of single payer advocates were drowned out. While Clinton may think that advocating single payer insurance was a mistake, I think it was his finest hour. His mistake was not that he supported single payer, but that he failed to stand up for single payer as logical and viable. He didn’t even try to fight the insurance lobby. “Hillary, “ he cried, “help me Hillary!” And so the insurance industry reformed itself and “managed care” came into being. At that time there were 33 million people without health coverage and today there are 47 million. So much for reform.
Today, as we witness the political fight over Obama’s health reform plan, it is clear that the insurance company lobbyists do not want any health care reform. Period. These companies pay out millions to get their point of view heard in the mass media, using any scare tactics they can think of. They are against Obama’s plan because they may lose some of their profits if the government insurance option turns out to be better and more affordable than their profit taking system. Obama, while admitting that single payer makes the most sense, turned against his senses and decided to play politics and get what he can get.
I am glad that the American colonists did not simply decide to get what they could get from the British occupiers. They declared their independence and fought for what they wanted. We don’t have the fight in us anymore, I guess. We send our kids off to die in foreign nations while the military contractors reap millions in profits. We sit and watch TV as one constitutional right after another is systematically rendered obsolete by imperial presidents like George W. Bush. We watch events unfold in news soundbytes not in in-depth discussion. If even half of us one day decided to skip work until we have single payer health care, we would have it. No question about it. Compared with the 19th and 20th century fight for better wages, shorter workdays, and for the right to organize labor unions, a general strike is about as American as you can get. Political divisions keep us from communicating and organizing, but when we get to the point where we see ourselves as human beings in a common struggle for things that make sense, for programs that work for the common good and general welfare, then we will begin to communicate with each other. There comes a point where the common good of the people must take precedence over unregulated profit taking. Health care is a birthright.
The insurance company lobby money is paying for a major PR campaign now under way to scare gullible seniors into thinking that the government will have them put to death if they have a terminal illness. This line is being spread around by the conservative bloggers and radio and TV hosts -- the usual unreliable suspects in the media. The truth is that Obama has called for more openness in discussing end of life wishes with doctors. Few people make their wishes known in living wills because the end of life options are just not discussed routinely now as they should be. Again, it is just common sense to be prepared so that your family is aware of your wishes, but the insurance lobby is using the old media formula that keeps Americans in tow time and time again -- repetition, repetition, repetition. If you tell a lie often enough and loud enough, it will soon be accepted as the truth. We are so gullible it is pathetic.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Health care debate: It's all about the money
By Jamie York
Obama’s “public” insurance plan is not single-payer. Not even close. “Public plan” is a carefully chosen title that likely originated in a PR firm somewhere. Remember, perception is everything in politics. The word “public” brings to mind words like “we” and “us,” words that make us think the plan might be something we would like.
But hold on there, Hoss. First of all, Obama’s plan is a law requiring that everyone have insurance. All 47 million people who do not have health insurance will be required to have it. From this starting point -- and never mind for now that different states have different mandates as well -- it is just a matter making things fit, of twisting and tugging, pushing and pulling, and figuring out just how private insurance companies will fit into this cesspool too kindly referred to as a "system." If you already have insurance through an employer, then you will keep that insurance, no matter how good or how lousy it is. Dental and eye care are usually treated separately in employer health policies -- although they without question affect one’s overall health and should be included. If you have a stroke or some long-term affliction, don’t expect any insurance plan to cover you without a limit. You may be covered to a point, but read the fine print. You will likely have to buy a separate policy for long-term care as well as dental and eye care.
Here is how the “public plan” is shaping up: If you do not have insurance now, you or your employer will be given a choice between private insurance and government-run insurance. This is being portrayed as “competition” between private insurers and the government to “keep private insurers honest.” There is no way of telling right now what will be included in the final draft of the plan, as there is so much insurance industry lobbying going on to influence the outcome. According to Bill Moyers,(7/10/09, PBS) “three out of four of the big health firms lobbying on Capitol Hill have former members of Congress or government staff members on their payroll -- more than 350 of them -- and they’re all fighting hard to prevent a public plan, at a rate in excess of $1.4 million a day.” Wow, how do common people compete with that?
If you are one of the 47-million Americans without health insurance now, you are probably out of work, earn a low wage, or your employer does not provide insurance. In other words, you can’t afford it even if it were offered by your employer. In that case, the public plan is shaping up so that the government will subsidize an insurer for the amount you cannot afford. If you are employed, this will likely be done through your employer, which will have to compare prices of public and private insurers then choose a plan. The government will subsidize the insurer and your employer will take the rest out of your check to pay the balance. Put your calculators away, though; you won’t even see the money.
If you already have private insurance through an employer or you get Medicare or Medicaid, then your insurance may not change. But look for substantial rate increases because, after all, someone will have to pay the costs of implementing the public plan. Why not you? Remember, the private insurance industry -- or “mafia,” as I call them -- is not in the health care business; they do not exist as a public service so we can be happy, healthy citizens. Make no mistake: They are in the money-making business, just like a bank, and will continue to make decisions about your health based on what is economical for them. Expensive treatments and tests, chronic illnesses, and long-term care may not be covered. Your claims may be denied. Expensive medications you need may be limited or denied. Or you may be arbitrarily dropped from coverage.
Now, if you are “truly needy” (as President Ronald Reagan was fond of saying around the same time he declared that a dollop of catsup on a school-lunch tray counts as a second vegetable) then you will get Medicaid under the public plan. About 14 million truly needy people would qualify for Medicaid immediately. But there will also be a sizable group of homeless and undocumented workers falling through the cracks without any insurance at all. Will they get emergency care? Will they be put in prison for failing to obtain insurance? Under single-payer, if you need treatment you get it for the simple reason that you are human and living in the United States. Not so with the public plan. The for-profit insurance mafia remains in control because President Obama said the system is already in place and would be too difficult to change.
This part really chaps my hide. Too difficult, you say? You’ve got to be kidding! These are Americans you are talking to here, Mr. President. We may be grossly undereducated about our own history as a nation, but we don’t give up just because something is deemed too difficult by a career politician. Generally speaking, if a proposal cannot be completed within an election cycle, then it is deemed too difficult for politicians to accomplish. Politicians see progress in terms of their own election cycle. Programs that pay-off in months rather than years get the top priority, even though they are not best for the nation. But of course, the health care “debate” is not about what is best for the nation. It is not even about compromise. But it is about who has the most money to spend. “That’s how it works,” Moyers continues. “And it works that way because we let it. The game goes on and on and the insiders keep dealing themselves winning hands. Nothing will change -- nothing -- until the money lenders are tossed out of the temple, the ATMs are wrested from the marble halls, and we tear down the sign they’ve placed on government -- the one that reads. ‘For Sale.’” If the insurance mafia is against the public plan, which would leave them basically intact and in control, then the boat they really want to sink is single-payer.
The start-up costs for single-payer will be large, but it will save money in the long run. In a single-payer system, we will all be covered from the cradle-to-the-grave. Expanded Medicare-for-all. Everyone in, no one out! Single-payer will eliminate the health insurance mafia and patient billing. Job markets will be shifted. People will have to be re-trained. Hospitals will have full staffs to reduce the RN-to-patient ratio. Nursing homes, too -- now owned by private owners trying make a profit -- will benefit by hiring enough staff to properly care for this growing population as the baby boomers begin to reach old age. Opponents of single-payer say that it is “socialism.” They say that a socialist will be standing between you and your doctor making sure that he or she practices medicine to their satisfaction. That is what insurance companies do now, so this image is turned on its head and used as a scare tactic for people who have been taught the ignorant notion that socialism always has to be something bad that restricts freedom just because it cuts off the flow of money to greedy insurers.
Don’t expect the media to provide you with fair and accurate information regarding health care options up for consideration. Turn on just about any cable channel and you will see ad after ad telling you which drugs to ask your doctor for. The stations are heavily invested in the insurance mafia system and do not want to lose this lucrative source of revenue. Same is true for magazines you might find on the newsstand. Ad after ad from Big Pharma. Even groups like AARP will not provide complete, fair information. AARP is deep into the insurance business, from its famous Hartford auto insurance plans, to Geico, Foremost and New York Life. You don’t bite the hand that feeds you -- not for truth, not for fairness, and certainly not because it is the right thing to do. It’s all about the money, folks. Money, money, money.
Obama’s “public” insurance plan is not single-payer. Not even close. “Public plan” is a carefully chosen title that likely originated in a PR firm somewhere. Remember, perception is everything in politics. The word “public” brings to mind words like “we” and “us,” words that make us think the plan might be something we would like.
But hold on there, Hoss. First of all, Obama’s plan is a law requiring that everyone have insurance. All 47 million people who do not have health insurance will be required to have it. From this starting point -- and never mind for now that different states have different mandates as well -- it is just a matter making things fit, of twisting and tugging, pushing and pulling, and figuring out just how private insurance companies will fit into this cesspool too kindly referred to as a "system." If you already have insurance through an employer, then you will keep that insurance, no matter how good or how lousy it is. Dental and eye care are usually treated separately in employer health policies -- although they without question affect one’s overall health and should be included. If you have a stroke or some long-term affliction, don’t expect any insurance plan to cover you without a limit. You may be covered to a point, but read the fine print. You will likely have to buy a separate policy for long-term care as well as dental and eye care.
Here is how the “public plan” is shaping up: If you do not have insurance now, you or your employer will be given a choice between private insurance and government-run insurance. This is being portrayed as “competition” between private insurers and the government to “keep private insurers honest.” There is no way of telling right now what will be included in the final draft of the plan, as there is so much insurance industry lobbying going on to influence the outcome. According to Bill Moyers,(7/10/09, PBS) “three out of four of the big health firms lobbying on Capitol Hill have former members of Congress or government staff members on their payroll -- more than 350 of them -- and they’re all fighting hard to prevent a public plan, at a rate in excess of $1.4 million a day.” Wow, how do common people compete with that?
If you are one of the 47-million Americans without health insurance now, you are probably out of work, earn a low wage, or your employer does not provide insurance. In other words, you can’t afford it even if it were offered by your employer. In that case, the public plan is shaping up so that the government will subsidize an insurer for the amount you cannot afford. If you are employed, this will likely be done through your employer, which will have to compare prices of public and private insurers then choose a plan. The government will subsidize the insurer and your employer will take the rest out of your check to pay the balance. Put your calculators away, though; you won’t even see the money.
If you already have private insurance through an employer or you get Medicare or Medicaid, then your insurance may not change. But look for substantial rate increases because, after all, someone will have to pay the costs of implementing the public plan. Why not you? Remember, the private insurance industry -- or “mafia,” as I call them -- is not in the health care business; they do not exist as a public service so we can be happy, healthy citizens. Make no mistake: They are in the money-making business, just like a bank, and will continue to make decisions about your health based on what is economical for them. Expensive treatments and tests, chronic illnesses, and long-term care may not be covered. Your claims may be denied. Expensive medications you need may be limited or denied. Or you may be arbitrarily dropped from coverage.
Now, if you are “truly needy” (as President Ronald Reagan was fond of saying around the same time he declared that a dollop of catsup on a school-lunch tray counts as a second vegetable) then you will get Medicaid under the public plan. About 14 million truly needy people would qualify for Medicaid immediately. But there will also be a sizable group of homeless and undocumented workers falling through the cracks without any insurance at all. Will they get emergency care? Will they be put in prison for failing to obtain insurance? Under single-payer, if you need treatment you get it for the simple reason that you are human and living in the United States. Not so with the public plan. The for-profit insurance mafia remains in control because President Obama said the system is already in place and would be too difficult to change.
This part really chaps my hide. Too difficult, you say? You’ve got to be kidding! These are Americans you are talking to here, Mr. President. We may be grossly undereducated about our own history as a nation, but we don’t give up just because something is deemed too difficult by a career politician. Generally speaking, if a proposal cannot be completed within an election cycle, then it is deemed too difficult for politicians to accomplish. Politicians see progress in terms of their own election cycle. Programs that pay-off in months rather than years get the top priority, even though they are not best for the nation. But of course, the health care “debate” is not about what is best for the nation. It is not even about compromise. But it is about who has the most money to spend. “That’s how it works,” Moyers continues. “And it works that way because we let it. The game goes on and on and the insiders keep dealing themselves winning hands. Nothing will change -- nothing -- until the money lenders are tossed out of the temple, the ATMs are wrested from the marble halls, and we tear down the sign they’ve placed on government -- the one that reads. ‘For Sale.’” If the insurance mafia is against the public plan, which would leave them basically intact and in control, then the boat they really want to sink is single-payer.
The start-up costs for single-payer will be large, but it will save money in the long run. In a single-payer system, we will all be covered from the cradle-to-the-grave. Expanded Medicare-for-all. Everyone in, no one out! Single-payer will eliminate the health insurance mafia and patient billing. Job markets will be shifted. People will have to be re-trained. Hospitals will have full staffs to reduce the RN-to-patient ratio. Nursing homes, too -- now owned by private owners trying make a profit -- will benefit by hiring enough staff to properly care for this growing population as the baby boomers begin to reach old age. Opponents of single-payer say that it is “socialism.” They say that a socialist will be standing between you and your doctor making sure that he or she practices medicine to their satisfaction. That is what insurance companies do now, so this image is turned on its head and used as a scare tactic for people who have been taught the ignorant notion that socialism always has to be something bad that restricts freedom just because it cuts off the flow of money to greedy insurers.
Don’t expect the media to provide you with fair and accurate information regarding health care options up for consideration. Turn on just about any cable channel and you will see ad after ad telling you which drugs to ask your doctor for. The stations are heavily invested in the insurance mafia system and do not want to lose this lucrative source of revenue. Same is true for magazines you might find on the newsstand. Ad after ad from Big Pharma. Even groups like AARP will not provide complete, fair information. AARP is deep into the insurance business, from its famous Hartford auto insurance plans, to Geico, Foremost and New York Life. You don’t bite the hand that feeds you -- not for truth, not for fairness, and certainly not because it is the right thing to do. It’s all about the money, folks. Money, money, money.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Twitter, #iranelection and the pitfalls of Groupthink
By Jamie York
While I wholeheartedly support genuine movements for freedom and democracy anywhere in the world, I find it interesting that so many Americans have jumped on the #iranelection bandwagon without taking the time to learn about Iran, its culture, its mullahs (supreme leaders), its wars, and its history with the United States.
Groupthink is a decision-making process that occurs when an idea is put forth and becomes publicly accepted without proof. Groupthink is like an intellectual snowball effect carried from person to person with little, if any, firsthand knowledge or scientific scrutiny. The effect of Groupthink is that it makes the quest for historical truth that much harder when people already accept a given idea as the truth. Ordinarily, one would gather information from first-hand sources, then form an opinion and subject it to examination and reexamination. Groupthink forgoes this process and leads directly to an opinion.
Fact: There has been no vote recount in Iran and the winner of the election is still in dispute. This is really all we can be certain about right now, so I cannot make a valid determination about what is happening in Iran in regard to the election results; rather, this is a quick-and-dirty examination of the process through which unconfirmed information received worldwide attention and force-fed public opinion.
There is some suspicion -- although this idea does not get through in the massive tweets -- that the George W. Bush’s CIA had a hand in supporting Mousavi, who now claims election fraud and victory over Ahmadinejad, even though no proof has been offered that either candidate won the election. The Supreme leader, Ayatullah Ali Khamenei, the mullah who has the real power in Iran, quickly declared Ahmadinejad the winner, then Mousavi supporters claimed the election was rigged and demanded a new election. State forces, controlled by Khamenei, then attacked a group of Mousavi supporters and #iranelection became the top trending topic on Twitter.
Twitter, a real-time microblogging site where users publish 140-character tweets that can be read anywhere in the world where someone has an internet connection, including on cell phones, can spread information rapidly. Users can attach links and photos and state a brief opinion. The hashtag #iranelection takes the Twitter users to a page where all of the tweets using that hashtag can be found. I left the page untouched and unrefreshed for just a few minutes and had a backlog of more that 1,000 tweets. It would be impossible for one person to keep up with this amount of information, but it gives you an idea how rapidly information -- true or not -- can be disseminated via Twitter, as well as Facebook and YouTube.
Youtube videos from Iran are often uploaded from cell phone cameras. The videos show various scenes, usually with some kind of action or violence. Sometimes there is Farsi being spoken in the background, but many have no commentary, so the viewer is left to decide what the scene depicts without actually having been there to witness it. Comments are then made about about the video and some people post links to the video on Twitter and Facebook. Once there, the videos receive additional commentary, then are reposted and retweeted countless times. Some are even broadcast via CNN, although, to CNN’s credit, they do say that the information is unconfirmed. Citizen journalism is a powerful tool, but the content must still be judged critically and confirmed.
According to Time Magazine (June 29, 2009), “it is impossible for an outsider, in Iran for 10 days, to sift through the governmental opacity, the contradictory demonstrations, and predict what comes next.” Yet, by reading a few Tweets and turning our icons green, we jump on the Groupthink bandwagon in cheering for Mousavi and “freedom.” But, when pressed, no one seems to know of any reforms Mousavi has advocated. No one seems to know what kind of president he would be or how he would treat his opposition. While Mousavi was Prime Minister, thousands of political prisoners were executed and hundreds of striking workers were jailed or beaten. Has he changed? Will he continue to assert Iran’s right to build a nuclear power reactor in spite of warnings from the United States and Israel? Will he assume more state power now in the hands of the religious mullahs? No one has these answers, but one thing is certain in the wake of the violence: the mullahs will go to great lengths to preserve their power.
While I wholeheartedly support genuine movements for freedom and democracy anywhere in the world, I find it interesting that so many Americans have jumped on the #iranelection bandwagon without taking the time to learn about Iran, its culture, its mullahs (supreme leaders), its wars, and its history with the United States.
Groupthink is a decision-making process that occurs when an idea is put forth and becomes publicly accepted without proof. Groupthink is like an intellectual snowball effect carried from person to person with little, if any, firsthand knowledge or scientific scrutiny. The effect of Groupthink is that it makes the quest for historical truth that much harder when people already accept a given idea as the truth. Ordinarily, one would gather information from first-hand sources, then form an opinion and subject it to examination and reexamination. Groupthink forgoes this process and leads directly to an opinion.
Fact: There has been no vote recount in Iran and the winner of the election is still in dispute. This is really all we can be certain about right now, so I cannot make a valid determination about what is happening in Iran in regard to the election results; rather, this is a quick-and-dirty examination of the process through which unconfirmed information received worldwide attention and force-fed public opinion.
There is some suspicion -- although this idea does not get through in the massive tweets -- that the George W. Bush’s CIA had a hand in supporting Mousavi, who now claims election fraud and victory over Ahmadinejad, even though no proof has been offered that either candidate won the election. The Supreme leader, Ayatullah Ali Khamenei, the mullah who has the real power in Iran, quickly declared Ahmadinejad the winner, then Mousavi supporters claimed the election was rigged and demanded a new election. State forces, controlled by Khamenei, then attacked a group of Mousavi supporters and #iranelection became the top trending topic on Twitter.
Twitter, a real-time microblogging site where users publish 140-character tweets that can be read anywhere in the world where someone has an internet connection, including on cell phones, can spread information rapidly. Users can attach links and photos and state a brief opinion. The hashtag #iranelection takes the Twitter users to a page where all of the tweets using that hashtag can be found. I left the page untouched and unrefreshed for just a few minutes and had a backlog of more that 1,000 tweets. It would be impossible for one person to keep up with this amount of information, but it gives you an idea how rapidly information -- true or not -- can be disseminated via Twitter, as well as Facebook and YouTube.
Youtube videos from Iran are often uploaded from cell phone cameras. The videos show various scenes, usually with some kind of action or violence. Sometimes there is Farsi being spoken in the background, but many have no commentary, so the viewer is left to decide what the scene depicts without actually having been there to witness it. Comments are then made about about the video and some people post links to the video on Twitter and Facebook. Once there, the videos receive additional commentary, then are reposted and retweeted countless times. Some are even broadcast via CNN, although, to CNN’s credit, they do say that the information is unconfirmed. Citizen journalism is a powerful tool, but the content must still be judged critically and confirmed.
According to Time Magazine (June 29, 2009), “it is impossible for an outsider, in Iran for 10 days, to sift through the governmental opacity, the contradictory demonstrations, and predict what comes next.” Yet, by reading a few Tweets and turning our icons green, we jump on the Groupthink bandwagon in cheering for Mousavi and “freedom.” But, when pressed, no one seems to know of any reforms Mousavi has advocated. No one seems to know what kind of president he would be or how he would treat his opposition. While Mousavi was Prime Minister, thousands of political prisoners were executed and hundreds of striking workers were jailed or beaten. Has he changed? Will he continue to assert Iran’s right to build a nuclear power reactor in spite of warnings from the United States and Israel? Will he assume more state power now in the hands of the religious mullahs? No one has these answers, but one thing is certain in the wake of the violence: the mullahs will go to great lengths to preserve their power.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The smiling new face of foreign affairs
By Jamie York
Wingnut Newt Gingrich suggested that President Obama showed weakness when he smiled and shook hands with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Must a president be cold and unsmiling when conducting foreign affairs? Is a gruff, rough & tumble demeanor the sort of image that the United States needs to portray in the world? That may be the Bush/Cheney approach, but you gain more respect with a smile than a scowl. You can smile and be friendly without being perceived as a wimp, especially when you are confident in your positions. While I may disagree with President Obama on policy issues, I have more respect for him than I did for anyone in the previous administration.
Wingnut Newt Gingrich suggested that President Obama showed weakness when he smiled and shook hands with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Must a president be cold and unsmiling when conducting foreign affairs? Is a gruff, rough & tumble demeanor the sort of image that the United States needs to portray in the world? That may be the Bush/Cheney approach, but you gain more respect with a smile than a scowl. You can smile and be friendly without being perceived as a wimp, especially when you are confident in your positions. While I may disagree with President Obama on policy issues, I have more respect for him than I did for anyone in the previous administration.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Special Prosecutor needed after release of "torture memos'
By Jamie York
The Obama administration did the right thing in releasing the "torture memos" from the Bush administration and they should be applauded for it. However, the Department of Justice failed to call for an independent special prosecutor to investigate the memos. Learning the truth is one thing, but failing to hold individuals responsible for wrong-doing is quite another matter. How do we justify letting public officials off the hook for possible crimes when common citizens are expected to either follow the “rule of law” or risk going to prison. Public officials should not be above the law or given immunity for crimes. In the coming days and weeks, we will learn more about these torture memos and how public officials violated the Geneva Conventions and International Law.
The Obama administration did the right thing in releasing the "torture memos" from the Bush administration and they should be applauded for it. However, the Department of Justice failed to call for an independent special prosecutor to investigate the memos. Learning the truth is one thing, but failing to hold individuals responsible for wrong-doing is quite another matter. How do we justify letting public officials off the hook for possible crimes when common citizens are expected to either follow the “rule of law” or risk going to prison. Public officials should not be above the law or given immunity for crimes. In the coming days and weeks, we will learn more about these torture memos and how public officials violated the Geneva Conventions and International Law.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Obama has missed an opportunity to do the right thing on Cuba
By Jamie York
Obama’s much anticipated changes to U.S.-Cuba policy have turned out to be much ado about nothing. While changes in family remittances, unlimited travel to and from the island to visit relatives, and increased telecommunications are positive steps, the economic blockade remains intact. The “wet foot/dry foot” policy of instant citizenship for those who make the treacherous 90-mile trip to U.S. soil remains in place, as does the cruel, inhuman policy of using food and medicine as political weapons. So, too, remains the policy of interfering with the right of other nations to do business with Cuba.
Thus far in his presidency, Obama has proven to be a status quo politician interested in propping up capitalist banking and corporate interests while working people take a back seat. On Cuba policy, he is playing south Florida politics very effectively and will likely win some supporters in the next election cycle, but his slogan of “Change We Can Believe In” has been forgotten in regard to Cuba. Supporters of normalizing relations between the U.S. and Cuba must continue to encourage Congress to do what Barack Obama has failed to do. Sadly, Obama has missed an opportunity to do something positive and right for human relations in the world. I remain optimistic that Obama will come around. After all, he said we would not stand idly by while injustice happens in the world, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt. For now.
Obama’s much anticipated changes to U.S.-Cuba policy have turned out to be much ado about nothing. While changes in family remittances, unlimited travel to and from the island to visit relatives, and increased telecommunications are positive steps, the economic blockade remains intact. The “wet foot/dry foot” policy of instant citizenship for those who make the treacherous 90-mile trip to U.S. soil remains in place, as does the cruel, inhuman policy of using food and medicine as political weapons. So, too, remains the policy of interfering with the right of other nations to do business with Cuba.
Thus far in his presidency, Obama has proven to be a status quo politician interested in propping up capitalist banking and corporate interests while working people take a back seat. On Cuba policy, he is playing south Florida politics very effectively and will likely win some supporters in the next election cycle, but his slogan of “Change We Can Believe In” has been forgotten in regard to Cuba. Supporters of normalizing relations between the U.S. and Cuba must continue to encourage Congress to do what Barack Obama has failed to do. Sadly, Obama has missed an opportunity to do something positive and right for human relations in the world. I remain optimistic that Obama will come around. After all, he said we would not stand idly by while injustice happens in the world, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt. For now.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The "War on Piracy"
By Jamie York
[Somalia is one of the poorest nations on Earth and it has no functioning government. Organized factions compete against each other for what wealth and food they can find and as part of this competition they have reportedly taken to the seas to loot whatever ship passes their way. Anything of value is taken, from jewelry to food to whatever cargo the ship may be carrying. Even the entire ship! Loot or starve is basically a way of life. These are some of the “pirates” we hear so much about lately, so now we have to ask, what if Obama declared a war on piracy? Oh yeah, and western nations are rumored to be dumping tons of nuclear waste into the sea off the Somali coast. And Somali volunteers are rumored to be trying to stop this illegal dumping by chasing down ships. Hmmm...makes you wonder what’s really up, doesn’t it? Taking hostages is always wrong, but we need an investigation into this allegation of nuclear dumping as well.]
Obama: Mr. Bush, I have a problem. What should I do about the pirates?
Bush: The Pirates? You gotta love that Duke guy. He’s a a lefty though and I don’t like lefties. Hehehe.
Obama: No, no, not the Pittsburgh Pirates, sea pirates. SEA PIRATES.
Bush: I understand, I understand. I’m an understander. hehehe I loved Hook, didn’t you? Dustin Hoffman looked just like a pirate but I don’t like Hollywood. Too many lefties hehehe.
Obama: Should I declare war on the pirates? That is what I wanted to ask you.
Bush: I would, hehehe. Back in my day we had a war on the terrorists. You remember that? I said we would smoke ‘em outta their holes and that’s what we did! We smoked ‘em! Hehehe. Right outta their holes hehehe.
Obama: I remember that! You were a regular John Wayne. But what about the pirates? Should I declare a “War on Piracy”?
Bush: What’s that Darkie? Hehehe Can I call you Darkie? Stretch is already taken, hehehe, or Dark Man. Can I call you Dark Man?
Obama: No! How about Barack? You can call me Barack. Or Mr. President. Can you be serious for a moment? What should I do about the pirates?
Bush: Hehehe, you’re pretty funny there Dark Man. I like a man with humor. Ya gotta have humor hehehe.
Obama: George, PLEASE!
Bush: OK, OK. Yeah, declare a war on the pirates. Just make an announcement from the Oval Office, sitting behind my desk, uh, your desk. The media love that, you know, makes you look presidential hehehe. They eat it up. But you gotta look at the camera. That’s the hard part. Hehehe Dick yelled at me for not looking hehehe You know Dick?
Obama: Yes, yes, of course I know Dick. Is there anything else I should do?
Bush: Maybe you could have a parrot on your shoulder hehehe. Everyone knows that pirates have parrots.
Obama: Thanks for speaking with me, sir. I will consider your advice.
Bush: You do that, Dark Man, hehehe [Obama exits]
Voice from closet: Can I come out now? Is he gone, son?
Bush: Yes, yes Poppy, come on out hehehe I had him going didn’t I hehehe
Bush Sr.: You did great son. He won’t do anything and when the media find out we’ve been dumping nuclear waste there he will get all the blame. Then we can get Jeb in the White House. This is the New World Order, son, and Democrats and environmentalists are not welcome!
Bush: Hehehe, Hehehehehe
[Somalia is one of the poorest nations on Earth and it has no functioning government. Organized factions compete against each other for what wealth and food they can find and as part of this competition they have reportedly taken to the seas to loot whatever ship passes their way. Anything of value is taken, from jewelry to food to whatever cargo the ship may be carrying. Even the entire ship! Loot or starve is basically a way of life. These are some of the “pirates” we hear so much about lately, so now we have to ask, what if Obama declared a war on piracy? Oh yeah, and western nations are rumored to be dumping tons of nuclear waste into the sea off the Somali coast. And Somali volunteers are rumored to be trying to stop this illegal dumping by chasing down ships. Hmmm...makes you wonder what’s really up, doesn’t it? Taking hostages is always wrong, but we need an investigation into this allegation of nuclear dumping as well.]
Obama: Mr. Bush, I have a problem. What should I do about the pirates?
Bush: The Pirates? You gotta love that Duke guy. He’s a a lefty though and I don’t like lefties. Hehehe.
Obama: No, no, not the Pittsburgh Pirates, sea pirates. SEA PIRATES.
Bush: I understand, I understand. I’m an understander. hehehe I loved Hook, didn’t you? Dustin Hoffman looked just like a pirate but I don’t like Hollywood. Too many lefties hehehe.
Obama: Should I declare war on the pirates? That is what I wanted to ask you.
Bush: I would, hehehe. Back in my day we had a war on the terrorists. You remember that? I said we would smoke ‘em outta their holes and that’s what we did! We smoked ‘em! Hehehe. Right outta their holes hehehe.
Obama: I remember that! You were a regular John Wayne. But what about the pirates? Should I declare a “War on Piracy”?
Bush: What’s that Darkie? Hehehe Can I call you Darkie? Stretch is already taken, hehehe, or Dark Man. Can I call you Dark Man?
Obama: No! How about Barack? You can call me Barack. Or Mr. President. Can you be serious for a moment? What should I do about the pirates?
Bush: Hehehe, you’re pretty funny there Dark Man. I like a man with humor. Ya gotta have humor hehehe.
Obama: George, PLEASE!
Bush: OK, OK. Yeah, declare a war on the pirates. Just make an announcement from the Oval Office, sitting behind my desk, uh, your desk. The media love that, you know, makes you look presidential hehehe. They eat it up. But you gotta look at the camera. That’s the hard part. Hehehe Dick yelled at me for not looking hehehe You know Dick?
Obama: Yes, yes, of course I know Dick. Is there anything else I should do?
Bush: Maybe you could have a parrot on your shoulder hehehe. Everyone knows that pirates have parrots.
Obama: Thanks for speaking with me, sir. I will consider your advice.
Bush: You do that, Dark Man, hehehe [Obama exits]
Voice from closet: Can I come out now? Is he gone, son?
Bush: Yes, yes Poppy, come on out hehehe I had him going didn’t I hehehe
Bush Sr.: You did great son. He won’t do anything and when the media find out we’ve been dumping nuclear waste there he will get all the blame. Then we can get Jeb in the White House. This is the New World Order, son, and Democrats and environmentalists are not welcome!
Bush: Hehehe, Hehehehehe
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Dear Mr. President: You are 0-2. What's it gonna be?
By Jamie York
OK, Mr. Obama, you have my heartfelt congratulations! A Chicago grassroots organizer is now president of the United States. That is a major accomplishment in and of itself. It is early in your presidency and I am pleased that you have dealt with some of the worst offenses of the Bush administration through executive orders, but I must say that your larger policies concern me greatly. GREATLY.
First, there is the matter of privacy vs. warrantless wiretapping and electronic spying on Americans. Your Department of Justice, Mr. President, not only supports but goes beyond the Bush administration in preventing government accountability for willful violations of the law regarding COINTELPRO-style electronic eavesdropping. Your DOJ recently argued that the U.S. possesses “sovereign immunity” from misconduct lawsuits. Yet you pledged government accountability during the campaign. Strike one.
Then there is the matter of giving away billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to the same capitalist bankers that helped loot the public treasury in the first place. They must be laughing all the way out of the bank while our money goes to offshore accounts just as fast as they get their grubby hands on it. I got news for you: giving money to the banks is not going to stop the coming depression.
It seems to me that someone with ties to the Chicago grassroots community would bail out the unemployed and working poor first so that people do not lose their homes to the Wall Street thieves; to make sure that everyone has adequate food and access to health care whether they have a job with benefits or not. As you know, companies are laying off employees, eliminating health benefits, cutting back on retirement, and reducing hours in order to save money. What are people supposed to do? Starve? Turn to crime? Strike two.
Now I hear that you are asking Congress for more than $83 billion for continuing the Bush wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I remember very clearly what you said during the campaign and I even made a ringtone out of it so everyone I am around is reminded as well: “When I am elected president I am going to end this war in Iraq and bring our troops home.” (Crowd cheers.) $83 billion will bring the total amount of money wasted on war up to $1 trillion.
One Trillion Dollars. That is One Thousand Billion Dollars! Or One Million Million Dollars! And there is no end in sight because you cannot fight a cowardly hit-and-run tactic like terrorism no matter how many people you kill and no matter how much money you spend in trying. Of course, the money enriches the military contractors who constantly lobby for more money. But the American people suffer; the Iraqi people suffer; and the Afghani people suffer. Osama bin Laden could have been captured years ago if Bush would have asked for the world’s help rather than insisting that the United States did not need help -- and then talking crazy about smoking evil-doers out of their holes. Bush was like a bad cartoon.
One Thousand Billion Dollars wasted while states scramble to find money to pay state employees, pay unemployment benefits, and pay for educating our children while teachers have to meet the unfunded burden of No Child Left Behind. States like Ohio are even looking at gambling to bring us out of of debt, as if the Wall Street gamblers have not done enough damage. Now the rich and super-rich casino operators will be holding us by the ankles and shaking us to make sure they get all of our money.
Casinos to pay for educating our children? What kind of craziness is this? Does this make sense to a Chicago grassroots organizer? Is this the way the United States should be operating? Isn’t there a more fair and equitable -- indeed, a more reasonable -- economic system that we could work toward? Shouldn’t we be making 5, 10, and 20-year plans in order to ensure that human beings are able to have a job, decent housing, health, dental and eye care, safe food, and clean air and drinking water? What has happened to our priorities in a nation that espouses freedom and democracy, yet leaves its citizens’ dreams at the mercy of the market?
Socialism may seem like a dirty word to the Wall Street bankers, casino operators, military contractors, FOX News anchors, and other assorted con men and thieves who now thrive in the every-man-for-himself jungle of international capitalism. But a nation can have both personal freedom and genuine democracy and take care of citizen needs. It’s not that hard. You nationalize the banks, utilities, oil companies, health care conglomerates and other major industries then run them in the public interest, not for private profit. You eliminate the profit-taking at the top and reinvest at the bottom. Imagine a wellness-based single payer health care system free of insurance tycoons who now have the audacity to step in and change a doctor’s orders because it would interfere with their profits? No more of that nonsense.
This does not mean that the United States become the Soviet Union. No one wants that. We make our own brand of socialism based upon our long-held belief in liberty and justice for all. We do not restrict personal freedom; we expand it. We welcome those immigrants now living and working in our nation by giving them the opportunity for citizenship. We pay everyone a living wage, provide expanded Medicare for all citizens, make sure that schools are fully funded, and we invest in green technologies to provide millions of jobs and get away from fossil fuels. We invest in rebuilding our dilapidated water and sewer systems, our bridges, our railroads, our inner cities. We develop high-speed rail. We use science to find new ways to improve our lives through research and development. We change outdated laws that now keep many non-violent offenders in prison and we use community policing and community corrections to focus on genuine rehabilitation rather than prison warehousing. We get government out of citizens’ bedrooms by permitting marriage unions between same sex couples.
Which road should a Chicago grassroots organizer choose? A road to individual prosperity and full-employment or the same old road where the rich man plays while the little man pays? We can rebuild our infrastructure or watch it crumble as roving gangs go from neighborhood to neighborhood stealing whatever they can. We can rethink our priorities on taking care of ourselves as citizens or we can watch our prisons become the number one industry in the nation. We can develop new green transportation now or do nothing as gas prices skyrocket to $10 or more per gallon.
Strike three? Let’s be real before you swing at the next pitch. The United States is a mess and there are no easy solutions or quick fixes. This ain’t McDonald’s. Social and economic change takes time and a willingness to sacrifice now so that future generations will not have to. Rebuilding infrastructure takes time, perhaps even more than one generation. Can we accept a way of life in which we may not see the benefits in our lifetime? It takes time to convert from a “me” society that leads the world in the consumption of fossil fuels to a “we” society that has a low carbon footprint. Until we can produce millions of electric commuter cars, we may even have to ration gas at some point, making sure that fuel goes to farmers and distribution outlets before personal use in automobiles.
Many sacrifices, some of which are unpredictable now, must be made so that our grandchildren and great-grandchildren can live in a humane nation that prioritizes its needs and produces to meet those needs. If we fail to act soon, our children will be living in a fascist dictatorship where nothing is provided or guaranteed by government, including Social Security; where fuel is unavailable and food is not affordable for most people; where brown-outs and blackouts are commonplace as the electric grid fails from the lack of upkeep; where clean drinking water is unavailable because polluters have lobbied against regulations that impede their profit-taking; where few people can afford health insurance and those without the ability to pay up front are turned away by armed hospital guards. This is not science fiction. This is a glimpse at the future unless we, collectively, as citizens, demand of our leaders that we take a different road now.
Which road should a former grassroots organizer choose? The count is 0-2.
OK, Mr. Obama, you have my heartfelt congratulations! A Chicago grassroots organizer is now president of the United States. That is a major accomplishment in and of itself. It is early in your presidency and I am pleased that you have dealt with some of the worst offenses of the Bush administration through executive orders, but I must say that your larger policies concern me greatly. GREATLY.
First, there is the matter of privacy vs. warrantless wiretapping and electronic spying on Americans. Your Department of Justice, Mr. President, not only supports but goes beyond the Bush administration in preventing government accountability for willful violations of the law regarding COINTELPRO-style electronic eavesdropping. Your DOJ recently argued that the U.S. possesses “sovereign immunity” from misconduct lawsuits. Yet you pledged government accountability during the campaign. Strike one.
Then there is the matter of giving away billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to the same capitalist bankers that helped loot the public treasury in the first place. They must be laughing all the way out of the bank while our money goes to offshore accounts just as fast as they get their grubby hands on it. I got news for you: giving money to the banks is not going to stop the coming depression.
It seems to me that someone with ties to the Chicago grassroots community would bail out the unemployed and working poor first so that people do not lose their homes to the Wall Street thieves; to make sure that everyone has adequate food and access to health care whether they have a job with benefits or not. As you know, companies are laying off employees, eliminating health benefits, cutting back on retirement, and reducing hours in order to save money. What are people supposed to do? Starve? Turn to crime? Strike two.
Now I hear that you are asking Congress for more than $83 billion for continuing the Bush wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I remember very clearly what you said during the campaign and I even made a ringtone out of it so everyone I am around is reminded as well: “When I am elected president I am going to end this war in Iraq and bring our troops home.” (Crowd cheers.) $83 billion will bring the total amount of money wasted on war up to $1 trillion.
One Trillion Dollars. That is One Thousand Billion Dollars! Or One Million Million Dollars! And there is no end in sight because you cannot fight a cowardly hit-and-run tactic like terrorism no matter how many people you kill and no matter how much money you spend in trying. Of course, the money enriches the military contractors who constantly lobby for more money. But the American people suffer; the Iraqi people suffer; and the Afghani people suffer. Osama bin Laden could have been captured years ago if Bush would have asked for the world’s help rather than insisting that the United States did not need help -- and then talking crazy about smoking evil-doers out of their holes. Bush was like a bad cartoon.
One Thousand Billion Dollars wasted while states scramble to find money to pay state employees, pay unemployment benefits, and pay for educating our children while teachers have to meet the unfunded burden of No Child Left Behind. States like Ohio are even looking at gambling to bring us out of of debt, as if the Wall Street gamblers have not done enough damage. Now the rich and super-rich casino operators will be holding us by the ankles and shaking us to make sure they get all of our money.
Casinos to pay for educating our children? What kind of craziness is this? Does this make sense to a Chicago grassroots organizer? Is this the way the United States should be operating? Isn’t there a more fair and equitable -- indeed, a more reasonable -- economic system that we could work toward? Shouldn’t we be making 5, 10, and 20-year plans in order to ensure that human beings are able to have a job, decent housing, health, dental and eye care, safe food, and clean air and drinking water? What has happened to our priorities in a nation that espouses freedom and democracy, yet leaves its citizens’ dreams at the mercy of the market?
Socialism may seem like a dirty word to the Wall Street bankers, casino operators, military contractors, FOX News anchors, and other assorted con men and thieves who now thrive in the every-man-for-himself jungle of international capitalism. But a nation can have both personal freedom and genuine democracy and take care of citizen needs. It’s not that hard. You nationalize the banks, utilities, oil companies, health care conglomerates and other major industries then run them in the public interest, not for private profit. You eliminate the profit-taking at the top and reinvest at the bottom. Imagine a wellness-based single payer health care system free of insurance tycoons who now have the audacity to step in and change a doctor’s orders because it would interfere with their profits? No more of that nonsense.
This does not mean that the United States become the Soviet Union. No one wants that. We make our own brand of socialism based upon our long-held belief in liberty and justice for all. We do not restrict personal freedom; we expand it. We welcome those immigrants now living and working in our nation by giving them the opportunity for citizenship. We pay everyone a living wage, provide expanded Medicare for all citizens, make sure that schools are fully funded, and we invest in green technologies to provide millions of jobs and get away from fossil fuels. We invest in rebuilding our dilapidated water and sewer systems, our bridges, our railroads, our inner cities. We develop high-speed rail. We use science to find new ways to improve our lives through research and development. We change outdated laws that now keep many non-violent offenders in prison and we use community policing and community corrections to focus on genuine rehabilitation rather than prison warehousing. We get government out of citizens’ bedrooms by permitting marriage unions between same sex couples.
Which road should a Chicago grassroots organizer choose? A road to individual prosperity and full-employment or the same old road where the rich man plays while the little man pays? We can rebuild our infrastructure or watch it crumble as roving gangs go from neighborhood to neighborhood stealing whatever they can. We can rethink our priorities on taking care of ourselves as citizens or we can watch our prisons become the number one industry in the nation. We can develop new green transportation now or do nothing as gas prices skyrocket to $10 or more per gallon.
Strike three? Let’s be real before you swing at the next pitch. The United States is a mess and there are no easy solutions or quick fixes. This ain’t McDonald’s. Social and economic change takes time and a willingness to sacrifice now so that future generations will not have to. Rebuilding infrastructure takes time, perhaps even more than one generation. Can we accept a way of life in which we may not see the benefits in our lifetime? It takes time to convert from a “me” society that leads the world in the consumption of fossil fuels to a “we” society that has a low carbon footprint. Until we can produce millions of electric commuter cars, we may even have to ration gas at some point, making sure that fuel goes to farmers and distribution outlets before personal use in automobiles.
Many sacrifices, some of which are unpredictable now, must be made so that our grandchildren and great-grandchildren can live in a humane nation that prioritizes its needs and produces to meet those needs. If we fail to act soon, our children will be living in a fascist dictatorship where nothing is provided or guaranteed by government, including Social Security; where fuel is unavailable and food is not affordable for most people; where brown-outs and blackouts are commonplace as the electric grid fails from the lack of upkeep; where clean drinking water is unavailable because polluters have lobbied against regulations that impede their profit-taking; where few people can afford health insurance and those without the ability to pay up front are turned away by armed hospital guards. This is not science fiction. This is a glimpse at the future unless we, collectively, as citizens, demand of our leaders that we take a different road now.
Which road should a former grassroots organizer choose? The count is 0-2.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Moratorium on GE foods
By Jamie York
[Stop Monsanto's draconian bill now in Congress. HR875 is disguised as a food safety bill but it would give AG companies the power to virtually control agriculture. http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum959.php ]
Genetically Engineered foods, also known as GEOs (genetically engineered organisms) and GMOs (genetically modified organisms), which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration says are essentially equivalent to conventional foods and therefore do not require mandatory labeling or pre-market testing, can now be found in 60 to 75 percent of all non-organic supermarket foods.
Concern over the use of GE products, however, goes beyond the need for safety testing and product labeling. The concern to all of us should be directed toward the corporate scientists creating these products for AG employers such as Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Chemical, Aventis Crop Science, BASF, BIO, Zeneca Ag Products and Novartis. While most of us generally view technology as beneficial to humankind, we must always keep in mind that there is no scientific ethic in place that tempers the application of science only to those areas that may benefit humankind.
Companies that produce and use GE products spend millions of dollars on advertising campaigns trying to convince consumers that their products will benefit humankind. They say that GE products are needed so we can end world hunger, improve public health, create sustainable agriculture and improve crop yields and crop hardiness, but the possible devastating consequences of using GE products are not mentioned in their ads.
We all want to end world hunger, but in so doing, we also want our products to be safe for human consumption. Therefore, we must allow scientists to test these new creations before the AG companies rush them out into the marketplace. This is just common sense, something the AG companies do not have these days. They see dollar signs and that is their motivation.
The companies engaging in GE alter the genes of living plants, animals, humans and microorganisms, patent the new life forms, then sell the resulting food, seed or product for profit. When gene-altered crops are introduced into the natural world, however, they may wreak havoc upon traditional crops by creating genetic contamination of non-GE crops.
It is impossible to predict how these new life forms will reproduce, migrate and mutate, so it is also impossible to predict what the end results will be for the food supply. According to FDA logic, if it looks like a tomato, smells like a tomato and tastes like a tomato, then it must be a tomato. But how will a tomato altered with a fish gene effect non-GE tomatoes in 10 years? In a hundred years? In a thousand years? In a million years? Will GE tomatoes begin to develop eyes and brains? No one knows. As wind, bees, birds and insect pollinators begin carrying GE tomato pollen to other species, what results will occur? No one knows. What effect will GE tomato pollen have on beneficial insects such as bees, butterflies, ladybugs and soil microorganisms? No one knows. What new toxins, allergens, viruses, pathogens and antibiotic-resistant infections will be created accidentally? No one knows. If this sounds like science fiction, then perhaps it is, because no one knows what effects GE will have upon the natural world. No one knows what long-term consequences GE may have upon the food supply and the environment because these products are being created recklessly and rushed into the marketplace without benefit of proper safeguards, testing and controls.
Readers should keep in mind that GE technology is not the same thing as traditional cross-breeding or hybridization, which mixes only the genes of the same or closely-related species. Genetic engineering mixes the genes of unrelated species -- such as fish and tomatoes, bacteria and soybeans, and humans and pigs -- that would likely never be intermingled in the natural world. Genetic engineering produces new life forms and these new life forms are now in our food supply.
And what's worse, these life forms have gotten into our food supply without scientific evidence that they are indeed "safe." Valid scientific procedure is a rigorous process of examination and re-examination using experimental control groups, but this process is conveniently omitted by the AG companies The only evidence that these new life forms in our food supply are "safe" is the claim by GE producers that no one has ever gotten sick or died from using them, but there is no way to verify this claim because there is no labeling required for these products and therefore no follow-up.
GE products can now be found in infant formula, soda, pizza, chips, cookies, cereal, candy, vitamins, ice cream, pasta, sauces, breads, oils, juice, sweeteners, animal products, yogurt, cheese, sour cream, butter, detergents, salad dressings, frozen dinners, milk, and many other products made from genetically engineered soybeans, corn, canola, papaya, potatoes, tomatoes, flax, sugar beets, yellow crookneck squash, radicchio, cotton, zucchini, rBGH dairy products, processing aids and enzymes. Without product labeling, consumers have no way of knowing which products contain GMOs and, as a result, consumers are denied the opportunity to make informed choices about the food they eat. The GE producers are against any labeling because they argue that GE is "safe."
Unless AG companies are stopped in their tracks by an international moratorium on GE products, they may soon become the new landlords of life on Earth by monopolizing the global market for seeds, food and medical products. GE companies are lying to consumers about the safety of these products and they are lying to farmers about their necessity.
Maybe it's time we did something about it. For starters, we can write or call our congressional representatives and ask that our tax dollars not be used to fund GE research at universities. We can also start buying products that are made from certified organic ingredients. Just because we humans have the technical ability to create new life forms and to clone existing ones does not mean we should be using these technologies except with great caution and with proper scientific controls. Our human greed for capital gain in the present should be stifled by a greater desire to make our impact on this planet as minimal as possible. Besides, we haven't even learned how to get along peacefully with our own species, so why should we be creating more?
[Stop Monsanto's draconian bill now in Congress. HR875 is disguised as a food safety bill but it would give AG companies the power to virtually control agriculture. http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum959.php ]
Genetically Engineered foods, also known as GEOs (genetically engineered organisms) and GMOs (genetically modified organisms), which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration says are essentially equivalent to conventional foods and therefore do not require mandatory labeling or pre-market testing, can now be found in 60 to 75 percent of all non-organic supermarket foods.
Concern over the use of GE products, however, goes beyond the need for safety testing and product labeling. The concern to all of us should be directed toward the corporate scientists creating these products for AG employers such as Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Chemical, Aventis Crop Science, BASF, BIO, Zeneca Ag Products and Novartis. While most of us generally view technology as beneficial to humankind, we must always keep in mind that there is no scientific ethic in place that tempers the application of science only to those areas that may benefit humankind.
Companies that produce and use GE products spend millions of dollars on advertising campaigns trying to convince consumers that their products will benefit humankind. They say that GE products are needed so we can end world hunger, improve public health, create sustainable agriculture and improve crop yields and crop hardiness, but the possible devastating consequences of using GE products are not mentioned in their ads.
We all want to end world hunger, but in so doing, we also want our products to be safe for human consumption. Therefore, we must allow scientists to test these new creations before the AG companies rush them out into the marketplace. This is just common sense, something the AG companies do not have these days. They see dollar signs and that is their motivation.
The companies engaging in GE alter the genes of living plants, animals, humans and microorganisms, patent the new life forms, then sell the resulting food, seed or product for profit. When gene-altered crops are introduced into the natural world, however, they may wreak havoc upon traditional crops by creating genetic contamination of non-GE crops.
It is impossible to predict how these new life forms will reproduce, migrate and mutate, so it is also impossible to predict what the end results will be for the food supply. According to FDA logic, if it looks like a tomato, smells like a tomato and tastes like a tomato, then it must be a tomato. But how will a tomato altered with a fish gene effect non-GE tomatoes in 10 years? In a hundred years? In a thousand years? In a million years? Will GE tomatoes begin to develop eyes and brains? No one knows. As wind, bees, birds and insect pollinators begin carrying GE tomato pollen to other species, what results will occur? No one knows. What effect will GE tomato pollen have on beneficial insects such as bees, butterflies, ladybugs and soil microorganisms? No one knows. What new toxins, allergens, viruses, pathogens and antibiotic-resistant infections will be created accidentally? No one knows. If this sounds like science fiction, then perhaps it is, because no one knows what effects GE will have upon the natural world. No one knows what long-term consequences GE may have upon the food supply and the environment because these products are being created recklessly and rushed into the marketplace without benefit of proper safeguards, testing and controls.
Readers should keep in mind that GE technology is not the same thing as traditional cross-breeding or hybridization, which mixes only the genes of the same or closely-related species. Genetic engineering mixes the genes of unrelated species -- such as fish and tomatoes, bacteria and soybeans, and humans and pigs -- that would likely never be intermingled in the natural world. Genetic engineering produces new life forms and these new life forms are now in our food supply.
And what's worse, these life forms have gotten into our food supply without scientific evidence that they are indeed "safe." Valid scientific procedure is a rigorous process of examination and re-examination using experimental control groups, but this process is conveniently omitted by the AG companies The only evidence that these new life forms in our food supply are "safe" is the claim by GE producers that no one has ever gotten sick or died from using them, but there is no way to verify this claim because there is no labeling required for these products and therefore no follow-up.
GE products can now be found in infant formula, soda, pizza, chips, cookies, cereal, candy, vitamins, ice cream, pasta, sauces, breads, oils, juice, sweeteners, animal products, yogurt, cheese, sour cream, butter, detergents, salad dressings, frozen dinners, milk, and many other products made from genetically engineered soybeans, corn, canola, papaya, potatoes, tomatoes, flax, sugar beets, yellow crookneck squash, radicchio, cotton, zucchini, rBGH dairy products, processing aids and enzymes. Without product labeling, consumers have no way of knowing which products contain GMOs and, as a result, consumers are denied the opportunity to make informed choices about the food they eat. The GE producers are against any labeling because they argue that GE is "safe."
Unless AG companies are stopped in their tracks by an international moratorium on GE products, they may soon become the new landlords of life on Earth by monopolizing the global market for seeds, food and medical products. GE companies are lying to consumers about the safety of these products and they are lying to farmers about their necessity.
Maybe it's time we did something about it. For starters, we can write or call our congressional representatives and ask that our tax dollars not be used to fund GE research at universities. We can also start buying products that are made from certified organic ingredients. Just because we humans have the technical ability to create new life forms and to clone existing ones does not mean we should be using these technologies except with great caution and with proper scientific controls. Our human greed for capital gain in the present should be stifled by a greater desire to make our impact on this planet as minimal as possible. Besides, we haven't even learned how to get along peacefully with our own species, so why should we be creating more?
Friday, March 13, 2009
The Insurance Mafia
Support the National Health Insurance Act (HR 676)!By Jamie York
When Bill Clinton was in his first term as president in 1992, he vowed to revamp the health care system in the United States. He held up a single insurance card and said that under his plan every American would have one of those cards. It was to be the only insurance card a person would need because Clinton was advocating a single payer health care system and every American was to be covered. In addition, that card was to be imbedded with a memory chip that would hold all of one's medical records, including medical history, test results, digital XRAYs, Pet Scans, MRIs, dental and optometrist records -- anything that pertains to one's well being. Present your card to a health care provider and you will be taken care of. No other insurance needed.
Clinton's plan immediately drew intense fire from the multi-billion-dollar insurance industry, so, rather than stick up for single payer as rational and viable, he backed down with his tail between his legs and asked Hillary to work with the insurance industry and come up with a new plan. Of course, this secret new plan, conceived behind closed doors in consultation with insurance industry tycoons, soon became known as "managed care." Hillary's managed care plan is really nothing more than an ineffective cost-containment plan and has nothing to do with providing quality health care coverage for every American. There are still more than 33 million Americans without any coverage whatsoever and the quality of health care in 2009 is even worse than it was when Clinton first became president.
During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush and Al Gore talked about the cost of prescription drugs for seniors, but neither candidate dared to mention a single payer health care system and no reporters stepped up to challenge them about it. Clinton made a lot of enemies when he held up that single payer card and his administration never fully recovered from it. Similarly, in 2008, as Barack Obama was running for president, he initially said he supported single payer health care, then began talking about health care “reform,” which is a code word for same-old same-old. In a March 26, 2009, town hall meeting, Obama said that he wanted to reform the system that is already in place. Like Bill Clinton, Obama cried “uncle” on single payer.
When I think of the insurance industry, I think about a Mafioso requiring small business owners to pay them protection money in order to gain immunity from violence. What is the difference between paying the Mafia for protection from violence and paying an insurance company for protection from illness? The only difference I can see is that the Mafia are regarded as criminals and their activities are illegal while insurance companies operate freely as legitimate businesses and their activities have become accepted.
Today, we are expected to pay for protection against illness, motor vehicle accidents, fire, flood, theft -- you name it and some insurance Mafioso will accept your money for protection against it. If, after buying food and paying our bills and taxes, we cannot afford to pay for such protection, then we could be denied emergency health care services or we could be left literally with nothing but the clothes on our backs. To me, the idea of paying the insurance mafia for health care protection is particularly unnerving because I believe that food, shelter, health care and education are essential for human survival and should be considered birthrights, not simple privileges for those who can afford them. For most people, there is little left after we pay our monthly bills, yet insurance premiums keep going up. The premiums I paid to my former health care HMO -- Kaiser Permanente -- doubled during the Clinton administration, so I then dropped Kaiser for a Prudential plan that had cheaper premiums but required more out-of-pocket payments in case of illness. As long as I didn't get sick and have to pay high out-of-pocket expenses, I could pay the monthly premiums. After changing jobs, however, I was without insurance coverage for nearly a year, then I enrolled in an employer's Blue Cross plan with a very high deductible, but I soon received a letter informing me that because I hadn't had continuous insurance coverage they would not pay for any pre-existing conditions until I had been enrolled in their plan for one year. It was an important reminder to me that insurance companies are in business to maximize their profits.
While I am in favor of a health care system that is free from the cradle to the grave, I also realize that in a capitalist economy, health care is not a birthright but is a privilege under the terms of the free market. Pay the insurance mafia or do without. Proponents of the current health care marketplace argue that a "socialized" health care system will somehow take away their freedom of choice regarding which doctors they see and which treatments are offered. But under managed care, as more physician practices are gobbled up by corporate chains, it is nearly impossible for many patients to see the doctor of their choice and the treatment options for most standard procedures are often dictated by the chain, not by the doctor. How many of us have heard the familiar mantra: "I'm sorry, Dr. Jones is not available on those days, but I can get you in to see Dr. Smith in two weeks." Under single payer, the doctor-patient relationship will come first, as it should. Hospitals are also hiring their own staff of doctors -- called "hospitalists" -- and are excluding many local family doctors from having hospital privileges. If you have to be admitted to the hospital, your own doctor may not be able to see you there and the hospitalist may not order the tests you need in order to save money for the hospital.
A single-payer health care bill now before Congress is HR 676. This bill, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), would give every American expanded Medicare coverage that would also include eye care, dental and long-term health care. A federally-regulated single payer health care system will not be a free system -- we will be taxed for it -- but it will provide efficient, streamlined health care for all Americans by eliminating the profit-taking and high administrative costs of the mafia system. It will save billions of dollars. Of course, the insurance mafia and their supporters in Congress and in the media will go to great lengths to scare the public away from single payer. They will scream “socialism!” They will wave the flag and argue that privatization equals free choice while single payer equals a return to "big government." The truth, however, is that in the current private system -- the mafia system -- 35 percent of health care costs are administrative. These administrative costs include marketing, insurance company profits, CEO salaries, pre-authorization panels and billing clerks. When a doctor orders a test on a patient -- a CT or PET scan, for example -- the cost of the procedure is inflated to pay these high administrative costs. Single payer will help to streamline the health care system by eliminating the administrative "middle man" from the doctor-patient relationship; as a result, the cost of exams will be lower and doctors will be free to practice medicine without bureaucratic interference from the insurance mafia.
It is time to end the reign of the insurance mafia and put single payer on the national agenda. The mainstream politicians and the collaborative "lapdog" media are not going to bring up the issue of single payer, so it's up to the public to support HR 676 and tell their representatives to back it also.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Holding Obama's feet to the fire
By Jamie York
Before 9/11, George W. Bush was not a popular president and he received much criticism early in his presidency. After 9/11, when the nation was trying to rebound emotionally from this tragedy, Bush’s approval rating went up. Why? After 9/11, the mass media did not challenge him on his facts and allowed him free range to pursue his agenda -- a permanent “war on terrorism,” the occupation of Iraq, approving torture, secret CIA prisons, an end to habeas corpus, and widespread spying on Americans. Criticism of Bush was viewed by the media brass as being unpatriotic and dissenting opinions thus received little air time. Red, white and blue banners decorated the screens of the 24-hour cable news networks and the news anchors wore their shiny new American flag lapel pins. The only “debate” on the news was between the right and the far-right.
Today, President Obama has reversed some Bush policies. Obama has issued executive orders to close the Guantanamo gulag, ban torture, grant more access to federal documents under the Freedom of Information Act, freeze pay for White House staff, provide for more openness in government, and to end the abortion “gag rule.” Most of the debate today centers around Obama’s economic stimulus plan and bank bailouts. Although a central theme in the Obama campaign was to end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home, the economy is the main focus right now, yet Obama also announced a troop increase in Afghanistan.
Writing directly to our representatives and to the president is one way to make our views known, but that does not hold the president’s feet to the fire. To do that, we must hold the electronic media’s feet to the fire and demand that they present a wide range of views. Write to the cable news networks that set the tone for national and international news. Try blogging and micro-blogging on social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Myspace to help bring democracy to the media. We can even -- if we are bold enough -- record a video editorial from our home computers and post it on YouTube. Remember, the Executive Branch is supposed to be equal to the Legislative and Judicial branches. Bush basically turned the presidency into a kingdom and we can take some solace in that fact that Obama has at least dealt with some of the more troubling dirty deeds of the Bush administration. But there is much more work to be done….
Before 9/11, George W. Bush was not a popular president and he received much criticism early in his presidency. After 9/11, when the nation was trying to rebound emotionally from this tragedy, Bush’s approval rating went up. Why? After 9/11, the mass media did not challenge him on his facts and allowed him free range to pursue his agenda -- a permanent “war on terrorism,” the occupation of Iraq, approving torture, secret CIA prisons, an end to habeas corpus, and widespread spying on Americans. Criticism of Bush was viewed by the media brass as being unpatriotic and dissenting opinions thus received little air time. Red, white and blue banners decorated the screens of the 24-hour cable news networks and the news anchors wore their shiny new American flag lapel pins. The only “debate” on the news was between the right and the far-right.
Today, President Obama has reversed some Bush policies. Obama has issued executive orders to close the Guantanamo gulag, ban torture, grant more access to federal documents under the Freedom of Information Act, freeze pay for White House staff, provide for more openness in government, and to end the abortion “gag rule.” Most of the debate today centers around Obama’s economic stimulus plan and bank bailouts. Although a central theme in the Obama campaign was to end the war in Iraq and bring the troops home, the economy is the main focus right now, yet Obama also announced a troop increase in Afghanistan.
Writing directly to our representatives and to the president is one way to make our views known, but that does not hold the president’s feet to the fire. To do that, we must hold the electronic media’s feet to the fire and demand that they present a wide range of views. Write to the cable news networks that set the tone for national and international news. Try blogging and micro-blogging on social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Myspace to help bring democracy to the media. We can even -- if we are bold enough -- record a video editorial from our home computers and post it on YouTube. Remember, the Executive Branch is supposed to be equal to the Legislative and Judicial branches. Bush basically turned the presidency into a kingdom and we can take some solace in that fact that Obama has at least dealt with some of the more troubling dirty deeds of the Bush administration. But there is much more work to be done….
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
What would Joe the Plumber say?
Satire by Jamie York
[Reporter interviews southern senator]
Reporter: What would Joe the Plumber say about President Obama's stimulus plan?
Senator: Well, obviously, Joe the Plumber would say that reducing the amount of federal withholding from everyone’s paycheck is socialism.
Reporter: Socialism? Isn’t the goal to put more cash in people's pockets, to encourage spending and thus help the ailing economy?
Senator: Republicans would have the economy running smoothly if we were in charge, if it were not for the Democrats and their obstructionist ways. They are the ones distracting us right now with their talk about Rush Limbaugh running the Republican Party. They are slowing down any hope of economic recovery. I’m stuffing all of my extra cash into my mattress for the day when Obama’s stimulus plan fails and the economy tanks.
Reporter: Senator, aren’t you over-reacting? Joe the Plumber won’t get hisplumbing, country music star, reporting, book writing, union busting career started if the economy tanks. Wouldn’t he want Obama’s plan to succeed?
Senator: Of course Joe wants the economy to succeed. He knows we are the greatest nation in the world. But Joe would not want the Democratic stimulus to work if it means giving away free money to everyone. He would say we need to increase the Bush tax cuts. If businesses have more money, they will expand and hire more workers.
Reporter: That is classic Reaganomics, but how will the benefits trickle-down fast enough to help people right now? Remember, the economy was in shambles when Obama became president. Besides, the big banks, automakers, and insurance companies are also failing from many years of bad lending practices, inefficient operations, and greed.
Senator: I hate to say it, but we may need to nationalize the banks.
Reporter: Isn’t that socialism?
Senator: Not when we do it; only when other nations do it.
Reporter: What would Joe the Plumber say about that?
[Reporter interviews southern senator]
Reporter: What would Joe the Plumber say about President Obama's stimulus plan?
Senator: Well, obviously, Joe the Plumber would say that reducing the amount of federal withholding from everyone’s paycheck is socialism.
Reporter: Socialism? Isn’t the goal to put more cash in people's pockets, to encourage spending and thus help the ailing economy?
Senator: Republicans would have the economy running smoothly if we were in charge, if it were not for the Democrats and their obstructionist ways. They are the ones distracting us right now with their talk about Rush Limbaugh running the Republican Party. They are slowing down any hope of economic recovery. I’m stuffing all of my extra cash into my mattress for the day when Obama’s stimulus plan fails and the economy tanks.
Reporter: Senator, aren’t you over-reacting? Joe the Plumber won’t get his
Senator: Of course Joe wants the economy to succeed. He knows we are the greatest nation in the world. But Joe would not want the Democratic stimulus to work if it means giving away free money to everyone. He would say we need to increase the Bush tax cuts. If businesses have more money, they will expand and hire more workers.
Reporter: That is classic Reaganomics, but how will the benefits trickle-down fast enough to help people right now? Remember, the economy was in shambles when Obama became president. Besides, the big banks, automakers, and insurance companies are also failing from many years of bad lending practices, inefficient operations, and greed.
Senator: I hate to say it, but we may need to nationalize the banks.
Reporter: Isn’t that socialism?
Senator: Not when we do it; only when other nations do it.
Reporter: What would Joe the Plumber say about that?
What is low-power radio?
By Jamie York
Sadly, we have become a nation where all the news, information and music we get is controlled by a handful of giant monopoly media corporations. The owners want to give us advertising, crime shows, sports, sitcoms and game shows on television, not substantive news. Not U.S. news that shows the reality of how our homeless, our unemployed, our low-paid laborers, our service workers, and our migrant farm workers are really living. Not in-depth international news that helps us understand how the citizens of other cultures and nations are really living. No, the first we hear of conflicts is when there has been an infrequent terrorist attack or someone, somewhere infringes upon U.S. business interests.
From corporate FM and AM radio, we often get formatted cookie-cutter music and news headlines, but nothing more unless it is conservative-dominated talk-radio shows or sports. Very little news from our local communities and neighborhoods is on the radio anymore. There might be a local weather forecast, a national and local news story update, sports scores, and maybe a headline about an accident or death.
And satellite radio equally sucks, but it doesn’t have to. It sucks right now because it is totally market-driven for private profit, not community-driven and not need-driven. Satellite radio has the same compartmentalized format music designed to capture the interest of specific audiences and does not venture beyond this. There is no local content and our neighborhoods and communities are not part of satellite radio, so the news is nothing more than the usual suspects — Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and a host of talk-radio entertainers. I am all for new technologies and open internet, but these technologies must address the needs of all citizens and diverse socio-economic groups in a very real way. Remember, more than half of U.S. citizens do not even vote and the reason for this is that they are systematically disenfranchised by the media.
We all get plenty of sensationalized news – like OJ, Princess Di, Michael Jackson, Anna Nicole Smith, Britney Spears, and octo-mom Nadya Suleman — that actually dominate all other national and international news for weeks and months. We all receive a constant barrage of content repetition and sameness from the media, which makes it very easy to manipulate public opinion. For example, when the the media leave out anti-war views and marginalize protesters as unpatriotic “wackos,” “fringe groups” and “anarchists,” it is easy for the media to to fall in line with the views of military contractors, oil companies and government officials without fairly representing other views. It is easy for them to launch a PR campaign to discredit the Dixie Chicks for speaking out; it is easy for Clear Channel to get a few country music fans all riled up over an issue of free expression and have the TV cameras there to show the record-burning. Many people, including the so-called “NASCAR dads” that they think they have so much control over, were against Bush’s Iraq war at the beginning, but when you are told over and over that you are supposed to think a certain way, then that is the way you will begin thinking. But the airwaves belong to the public and we have every right to take them back and use them in ways that improve our lives. Beware though, because they want to begin carving up and controlling the internet, which is probably all we have left of the dream of democracy.
Low-power FM stations, which are regulated by the FCC, can help democratize radio and return us to the days of radio diversity. With low-power FM, community groups, churches and others would be able to provide content to listeners in a limited area — from about one to five miles. There would be more local stations to choose from for local news, community information, local music, event coverage, call-ins, and so on — content that the corporate cookie-cutters do not provide.
One bill now before Congress is the Free Radio Act, HR1147, which would permit more licensing of low-power FM radio stations. It would bring thousands of new stations into communities all over the country, thereby helping to stimulate the economy. Sign a letter to your congressperson at Free Press.
Sadly, we have become a nation where all the news, information and music we get is controlled by a handful of giant monopoly media corporations. The owners want to give us advertising, crime shows, sports, sitcoms and game shows on television, not substantive news. Not U.S. news that shows the reality of how our homeless, our unemployed, our low-paid laborers, our service workers, and our migrant farm workers are really living. Not in-depth international news that helps us understand how the citizens of other cultures and nations are really living. No, the first we hear of conflicts is when there has been an infrequent terrorist attack or someone, somewhere infringes upon U.S. business interests.
From corporate FM and AM radio, we often get formatted cookie-cutter music and news headlines, but nothing more unless it is conservative-dominated talk-radio shows or sports. Very little news from our local communities and neighborhoods is on the radio anymore. There might be a local weather forecast, a national and local news story update, sports scores, and maybe a headline about an accident or death.
And satellite radio equally sucks, but it doesn’t have to. It sucks right now because it is totally market-driven for private profit, not community-driven and not need-driven. Satellite radio has the same compartmentalized format music designed to capture the interest of specific audiences and does not venture beyond this. There is no local content and our neighborhoods and communities are not part of satellite radio, so the news is nothing more than the usual suspects — Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and a host of talk-radio entertainers. I am all for new technologies and open internet, but these technologies must address the needs of all citizens and diverse socio-economic groups in a very real way. Remember, more than half of U.S. citizens do not even vote and the reason for this is that they are systematically disenfranchised by the media.
We all get plenty of sensationalized news – like OJ, Princess Di, Michael Jackson, Anna Nicole Smith, Britney Spears, and octo-mom Nadya Suleman — that actually dominate all other national and international news for weeks and months. We all receive a constant barrage of content repetition and sameness from the media, which makes it very easy to manipulate public opinion. For example, when the the media leave out anti-war views and marginalize protesters as unpatriotic “wackos,” “fringe groups” and “anarchists,” it is easy for the media to to fall in line with the views of military contractors, oil companies and government officials without fairly representing other views. It is easy for them to launch a PR campaign to discredit the Dixie Chicks for speaking out; it is easy for Clear Channel to get a few country music fans all riled up over an issue of free expression and have the TV cameras there to show the record-burning. Many people, including the so-called “NASCAR dads” that they think they have so much control over, were against Bush’s Iraq war at the beginning, but when you are told over and over that you are supposed to think a certain way, then that is the way you will begin thinking. But the airwaves belong to the public and we have every right to take them back and use them in ways that improve our lives. Beware though, because they want to begin carving up and controlling the internet, which is probably all we have left of the dream of democracy.
Low-power FM stations, which are regulated by the FCC, can help democratize radio and return us to the days of radio diversity. With low-power FM, community groups, churches and others would be able to provide content to listeners in a limited area — from about one to five miles. There would be more local stations to choose from for local news, community information, local music, event coverage, call-ins, and so on — content that the corporate cookie-cutters do not provide.
One bill now before Congress is the Free Radio Act, HR1147, which would permit more licensing of low-power FM radio stations. It would bring thousands of new stations into communities all over the country, thereby helping to stimulate the economy. Sign a letter to your congressperson at Free Press.
For Hope
By Jamie York
A man shot himself at the Shell station yesterday,
trading his blood for oil,
for a helicopter ride to the hospital,
for hope.
“Were there any warning signs?” a reporter asked,
and I remembered a Vietnam veteran
sleeping on a steam grate in front of the FBI building,
too tired to pull the trigger.
Some do and some don’t,
yet gas prices and hopelessness are rising daily.
“The warning signs are everywhere,” a witness answered.
“Why don’t you report on the world as it REALLY is?”
And all I could hope for was that someone would miss him.
A man shot himself at the Shell station yesterday,
trading his blood for oil,
for a helicopter ride to the hospital,
for hope.
“Were there any warning signs?” a reporter asked,
and I remembered a Vietnam veteran
sleeping on a steam grate in front of the FBI building,
too tired to pull the trigger.
Some do and some don’t,
yet gas prices and hopelessness are rising daily.
“The warning signs are everywhere,” a witness answered.
“Why don’t you report on the world as it REALLY is?”
And all I could hope for was that someone would miss him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
