Hollywood's Monied Liberals And The President

It's a cliche, a stereotype that many folks love to trot out: Hollywood is full of liberal socialists, Democrats to the core, and their big money elitism has left them out of touch with the much more conservative American populace.

I can see where that image comes from. Of course it's full of holes. Big time actors/producers like Clint Eastwood, Jerry Bruckheimer, Jon Voight, Gary Sinise, Mel Gibson, Kelsey Grammer, Tom Selleck, and many more are self-described conservative/Republicans. And the bottom line is still the bottom line - money rules Tinseltown, no matter what the political persuasion of the creators.

But Hollywood is made up of people, and people who have enthusiastically committed (and contributed) to a political candidate are loath to give up that support even when their standard-bearer has let them down. And by this point in his presidency, are there any progressive/liberal causes that Mr. Obama has not let down?

That's why this story, "Obama And Hollywood: State Of Their Union" from The Hollywood Reporter, is so interesting. The richest political progressives in Hollywood gathered recently to raise money for Mr. Obama. And while they still support him, many are disappointed. "He had an opportunity to show he's a different generation, and he hasn't done it," said on interviewee. Hollywood liberals are disappointed that war continues in the Middle East, concerned that health care and Wall Street reforms are toothless, and upset that gay rights are not high on the Administration's agenda.

But no one among the many folks interviewed here are ready to throw in the towel. Of course, none of these extremely creative, imaginative people - whose movies and tv shows often dazzle with their unique ideas - seem able to visualize an America with more than two political parties.

Maybe that's because every one of these Hollywood entertainment industry players is ultimately in the employ of, or partnered with, major media corporations. They know the difficulties artists encounter when their creativity challenges the money men. And we all know where corporate America stands when it comes to progressive change.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i4a25a9f106904fc175e55b8dcf6b2e3e

The Country Is Being Dragged - Kicking And Screaming - To The Left!

Is the government being dragged to the left? It's leaning decidedly to the right in this view. And that lady's sign is truth-telling at its best.

The absolute unwillingness, or refusal, to acknowledge the truth of what is right in front of our collective eyes is astounding, baffling, bewildering and mind-boggling. It gets dangerous when folks act on the belief that up is down, the world is flat, and that in Washington, the left is radical.

The political, governing left is not radical, it's not even remotely progressive. Just ask all those Goldman-Sachs folks appointed to high places. Or Arlen Specter.

That reaction comes after reading a story telling of a new conservative-centric web site - Ricochet - launching soon. Ricochet is designed as an "online conversation that is akin to a conservative cocktail party." That's the goal, to show how the collective right is funny, thoughtful, engaging and doggone it, people like us! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37189215/ns/politics/

A statement in this article made me roll my eyes. It's attributed to Ricochet honcho Peter Robinson, a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan (I'm sure he's been employed elsewhere the last couple of decades or so - but maybe this job is the best conservative credential he could produce): "At a time when the country is being dragged to the left by Washington and mainstream media, this is another way to fight back."

That statement beggars belief. America is being dragged to the left?! Conservatives must fight back?!? I can think of four major Obama Administration accomplishments - three with the assent of a allegedly-liberal Democratic majority Congress - that should please every conservative of every stripe. Why fight when you're already winning?

1. Congress mandated that every American purchase a broken private-sector product: health insurance. PURCHASE, as in spend money in a capitalist system, as in turn a profit for a company, as in no money, no service. A very conservative approach – everyone pays, cash on the barrel! Don't dare think about distributing a societal benefit equally, paid for by taxes – that would be left-leaning, wouldn't it?

2. Continuing to spend over $500 billion per year, every year, on the War Department - very liberal move there. Maintaining hundreds of thousands of troops, and hundreds of thousands of private contractors on the taxpayer dime, in an illegal occupation of two foreign countries - if that's a left position, what would the right-wing stand be? Prolonging massive military actions and paying billions to for-profit companies to assist that process - a war to procure resources and a tidy private profit in one package! Which part don't conservatives like?

3. The President has offered an energy bill that advocates more offshore and inland oil drilling, more coal burning, and the construction of new nuclear power plants. And he’s apparently done little to get the Department of Interior to end its incredibly automatic rubber-stamp policy towards extraction industry regulation. Again, moves that most left-leaners have been advocating for years!

4. The President and Congress agree - civil rights are secondary, and the most privacy-invasive laws in American history must be maintained! So the alleged leftist Dems agree with the GOP - the Patriot Act must be extended, domestic surveillance must be maintained, and the government has the right to arrest anyone on the planet, anytime, on executive order alone. Somewhere, in an undisclosed location, Dick Cheney is smiling.

However, this statement from the article is absolutely true:

"In addition, Obama has been in the White House long enough to convince people of the direction he's taking America in..."

That he has. Only folks totally committed to blindered thinking could possibly look at the evidence and maintain that the Obama administration is liberal verging on socialist. (And it works both ways - the president has a lot of unblinking, unthinking supporters, as well.)

Or is this ridiculous position being advocated by those who see a way to gain more power and money by exploiting those who would rather yell than think? So who is funding Ricochet? The fellows quoted in the article are just the faces. Follow the money, and maybe we'll find a cozy relationship with Tea Party funders?

Stranger Than Fiction? Your Tax Dollars At Work: Blowing Things Up

Dave Lindorff at Information Clearinghouse says it best, so there's little need to do anything but recap the lead and send you over there to read his words:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25206.htm

Our tax dollars will fund a United States government budget that devotes 53% of its revenues to the military and all its associated ancillary operations. More than half of the money spent by our federal institutions go to blow things up, kill people, or buy the weapons and materials necessary to prepare for those eventualities.

That is the value system we citizens perpetuate. Our budget reflects our values - or somebody's values.

Is creating a global police/military force really where Americans want to spend the majority of their money? If you had a choice, would you really choose guns and bombs over improving health care, providing money to upgrade the educational system, building new energy infrastructures, or hundreds of other worthy projects that truly benefit all citizens?

Really? We want to spend most of our money on weapons and death? What are we afraid of?

This situation can be fixed. The example is right there in the very fine film "Stranger Than Fiction." IRS auditor Harold Crick (Will Ferrell) enters the bakery owned by Ana Pascal (Maggie Gyllennhaal) to discuss her non-payment of taxes:

Ana Pascal: Listen, I'm a big supporter of fixing potholes and erecting swing sets and building shelters. I am *more* than happy to pay those taxes. I'm just not such a big fan of the percentage that the government uses for national defense, corporate bailouts, and campaign discretionary funds. So, I didn't pay those taxes. I think I sent a letter to that effect with my return.

Harold Crick: Would it be the letter that begins "Dear Imperialist Swine"? It says, in the file, that you only paid part of your taxes for last year.

Ana: That's right.

Harold: Looks like only 78 percent.

Ana: Yep.

Harold: So you did it on purpose?

Ana: Yep.

Harold: So you must've been expecting an audit.

Ana: Um, I was expecting a fine, or a sharp reprimand.

Harold: A reprimand? This isn't boarding school, Miss Pascal. You stole from the government.

Ana: No I didn't steal from the government. I just didn't pay you *entirely*.

We need more people to decide to not pay "entirely." What if everyone only sent in 47% of their tax bill and let the military-industrialist-congressional powerbrokers figure out how to pay for their profits?

The Empire Strikes Back

The Empire moves overtly and covertly: top, a map showing Turkey and Iran, both getting some bad publicity from the US government. Bottom, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who abandons his fight against the health insurance industry bailout bill supported by the President.

A one-two uppercut by the Empire in today's news is leaving many folks feeling sucker-punched. But that's how power works - by force.

First, the leading progressive among Democrats, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, has decided to vote in favor of the current health care "reform" bill after spending months denouncing it. Even his statement revealing this remarkable turnaround cites the multiple misgivings he has about the measure: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/17-9 . But, in the end, "after careful discussions with the President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Elizabeth my wife and close friends, I have decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation."

It's a stunning reversal, and only one explanation makes sense - the Empire said vote yes and you will get to live to fight another day. Apparently it was made clear to Rep. Kucinich that he would be facing re-election in the fall without national Democratic Party resources (with the money going to a primary challenger, no presidential visits to the district, etc) should he continue to oppose the President's health insurance bailout - er, "reform" - plan. Plainly Kucinich decided not to fall on his sword over the health care reform issue, and take the support so he has the chance to continue his job. (Read a UK report on the President's strong-arm tactics here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7450237/Barack-Obama-threatens-to-withdraw-support-from-wavering-Democrats.html .)

But how much credibility has Kucinich lost with progressives by making this decision? Is it a compromise when you are threatened? Score this one a win for the Empire (and its corporate cronies).

On the international front, it's being reported today that the USA is pressuring erstwhile ally Turkey to get "on board" the anti-Iran bandwagon or face repercussions: http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20100304/POLITICS-US-TURKEY-USA/ . Ankara has recalled its ambassador to the US over the bill currently in Congress that condemns Turkey for perpetrating the massacre of Armenians in 1915, a very hot topic for Armenia and Turkey.

Ah, nothing like peer pressure from the Empire; Assistant Secretary Of State Phillip Gordon says Turkey should get in line to strengthen its credentials as "an important, responsible actor" in the Middle East - in other words, return the diplomats and back the Iranian sanctions. All actors need a script, and Ankara is improvising its lines - earning a frown from the stage managers in Washington. If the Obama Administration is going public with its threats against Turkey, imagine what's already been discussed between the governments behind the scenes.

There are geo-political energy issues swirling around the area - new pipelines crossing Turkey, Armenia, etc. taking natural gas to Europe are going to make gazillions in financial profits for many energy companies. Could it be the Turkish government is not going along with the corporatocracy? The Empire doesn't like that.

What really gave me a chortle was this statement: describing the ultimate fate of the Turkish massacre condemnation bill in Congress, Gordon said: "The Congress is an independent body and they're going to do what they decide to do." Really - they think independently? Resistant to influence?

Let's ask Dennis Kucinich.

Kucinich Votes "No" On Health Care Reform

Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is the sponsor of HR 676, the Single-Payer health care reform measure that was roundly ignored or denigrated by the mainstream media and corporate lobbyists.

Kucinich is one of the Democrats who voted against the recently passed House health care reform bill (H.R. 3962), and not because of the silly, ignorant reasons given by many legislators who also voted "no" - rationales like "government takeover", "socialism", "bureaucrats making decisions instead of individuals", etc. He voted "no" because H.R. 3962 does little to help citizens while further entrenching and enriching the insurance companies who want to continue the uniquely American system of health-care-for-profit.

Essential reading: here's Mr. Kucinich's reasons for voting against this "reform."

http://www.kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153995

And while you're there, take in Mr. Kucinich's excellent short article pondering the question "Why do we have finite resources for health care but unlimited money for war?" As he says in the article: "...a Democratic version of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is no more acceptable than a Republican version of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

http://www.kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153461

"Approaches...Differ Among Health Care Plans" - Or At Least The Ones We Choose To Write About

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13378914?source=rssfeeddigest

Click the link to read an Associated Press story puporting to explain the latest health care reform proposals spinning around in Congress.

What will you not read about in this widely published article? There is not a single word about either House Resolution 676 that proposes a single-payer system, or Senate Bill 703, the American Health Security Act of 2009 that also proposes a universal health care system. These are among the "several bills" mentioned in the article, but no details.

How will citizens be able to contrast and compare the various "approaches" to health care reform if all the measures before Congress are not analyzed in the media? The article calls one segment "the House Democratic bill" - which must be news to Democratic House Representative Dennis Kucinich, the author of H.R. 676.

As usual, be wary of what you read in print media and see and hear on television - these days, what's not being discussed is often the option that holds the most value for the public.

Letters To Washington

The latest report on letters I send to my Senators, both elected (Mark Udall) and appointed (Michael Bennet), and House Representative (Ed Perlmutter) in Washington - this time with some replies!

On 9/11/09 I sent letters asking where each man stands on establishing a new government commission to re-investigate the World Trade Center and Pentagon explosions in 2001. I noted that the original 9/11 Commission was hampered by a lack of funds, restricted in its mission by the Congress and White House, and finally issued a report that has been criticized widely for its omissions and interpretations. So far I have received one reply, from Rep. Perlmutter:

September 17, 2009
Dear Kevin,

This week we remember the fateful events of September 11, 2001. Eight years later we continue to remember the 3,000 lives lost and our thoughts go to their families. We also honor the brave first responders who showed so much courage that day.

As a Member of Congress, one of my most important goals is to provide first responders with every resource they need. I recently announced the Commerce City Police Department will be able to hire or retain four new police officers as part of a nationwide $1 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant. Commerce City will receive $872,612.00, and the state of Colorado will receive more than $5 million total to bolster law enforcement personnel.

On March 16th, 2009, I introduced the Firefighter's Fatality Reduction Act in the House of Representatives. This legislation will create a study to look at fire departments across the country and determine their compliance with established safety standards and to propose ways to boost compliance to protect our communities. Each year our nation loses approximately 100 firefighters in the line of duty. We need to provide fire departments across the country with the tools they need to prevent injury and the loss of life in the line of duty.

First responders keep our families and communities safe, and it is important for Congress to pass legislation to promote their optimal health and safety. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in Congress and President Obama to ensure the men and women who protect our communities are safe and have adequate resources to do their job.

Sincerely,

Ed Perlmutter - Member of Congress

Every letter I've ever gotten back from Rep. Perlmutter is like this one - never answers the question, never addresses the topic I've raised directly. Instead, his staff searches for any legislative action that is most closely related to my letter and reports back on how the congressman voted. It's that kind of specific give-and-take dialogue that gives me confidence that my elected representative is truly listening.

On that same day, I sent all three this letter concerning President Obama's health care speech. This is the version I sent to Ed Perlmutter, which references his "telephone town hall" conference. During the Congressional vacation, Perlmutter held a couple of these "I'm listening" sessions rather than actually facing his constituents.

Rep. Perlmutter:

President Obama's speech on 9/9 about health care reform was a severe disappointment.

The news that the government will require citizens to purchase a rapacious, inefficient product - private health care insurance - under threat of financial penalty is an unprecedented act.

What other national government on this planet would contemplate forcing its citizens to fork over money to purchase for-profit private health insurance? And offer public tax subsidies to help that cause!

Let me get this straight - folks who cannot afford health insurance will be given government taxpayer money to hand over to a for-profit company?

A vote for this absolute travesty of "reform" is a vote to approve the ultimate corporate takeover of the US government.

Taxpayers are already shelling out trillions to private weapons/support contractors for a war that the majority of the public does not want. So why does Congress - even when they promise to end the foreign occupations - continue to wage war? Because some very big companies have more influence than voters.

And now the health insurance industry wants in on that "guaranteed money" scheme via Congressional action. Talk about denying choice and rationing care! And now that the public option may go away, what's to stop these companies from continuing their mega-profit practices?

I have no faith in Congress to get this most important issue fixed. There is no evidence in the bills presented so far that health insurance costs/prices will be effectively controlled.

Every other industrialized nation on the planet has solved this problem in favor of its citizens. Congress is proposing to continue a for-profit approach to the health of the nation that benefits a few at the expense of the many.

Representative Perlmutter, providing the citizens of America is a moral issue, not a business issue. Where do you stand - with for-profit corporations or the best health option for Coloradoans?

Support Representative Kucinich's H.R. 676 - universal health care, as practiced around the globe by countries who care for their citizens.

By the way, I signed up for the 8/25 telephone town hall - what a concept, are you afraid to face your constituents in person? - but was never notified, via phone message or email, of the call-in number.

So far, I've gotten two replies. First, from Senator Bennet:

Dear Kevin: Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate hearing from you.

The input of fellow Coloradans is essential in my consideration of the wide variety of important legislation and issues that come before the Senate each year. I hope you will continue to inform me of your thoughts and concerns throughout my term as your Senator.

I will continue to work hard to best represent the priorities of Coloradans and all Americans in a thoughtful and independent manner. For more information about my priorities as a U.S. Senator and about issues of importance to Colorado and our nation, I invite you to visit my website at http://bennet.senate.gov/.

Again, thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

Michael Bennet - United States Senator

Wow, thanks to whoever on un-elected Senator Bennet's staff took thirty seconds to type my email address into the computer and send me this brief yet succinct blow-off.

I got this longer non-answer from Senator Udall:

September 15, 2009

Dear Kevin,
Thank you for contacting me regarding health insurance reform. I appreciate your taking the time to express your specific views on this important topic facing our nation.

As you know, many proposals have been put on the table for reforming our health care system to make it work for all Americans. I recognize there are many, often competing, philosophies and ideas on the best way to move forward. As your Senator, it is my job to listen closely to the various stakeholders involved in this process as well as actively seek out input from across the state to help inform my understanding of what is best for Colorado. One thing I firmly believe, however, is that the status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable.

While we move forward in this debate, there are a number of key requirements which will guide my consideration. Any health reform must: 1) allow people who like the coverage they currently have to keep it; 2) bring costs down so that all Coloradans are able to cover their families while staying within their means; 3) preserve the critical doctor-patient relationship, ensuring that decisions about treatment are made by those who know the patient the best; 4) call for insurers to provide coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions or medical history; and 5) be fiscally responsible. By ensuring that these pieces are part of reform, we can provide the stability in health care that is currently lacking for hard working Coloradans - stable costs, stable coverage, and stable quality. Cost-effective ideas to improve health like emphasizing prevention and wellness programs, early screening and diagnosis, and chronic disease management are just a few pieces of the puzzle that I think can help us get there.

Another important piece to the puzzle is ensuring that health reform expands access to care for those living in rural communities, which is why I recently introduced legislation known as the Rural Physician Pipeline Act of 2009 (S.1628). This bill is designed to improve health care in rural communities by helping medical schools establish programs to recruit and train medical students who want to practice in rural areas. The provisions in this legislation are based on a successful program at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, and there is evidence to suggest that, if similar programs are expanded, as called for in my bill, we can dramatically increase the number of rural doctors nationwide.

Additionally, health reform must include provisions aimed at helping to alleviate the financial burden placed on small business owners who struggle to provide health coverage to their employees. This is especially true for those small businesses that have seen the cost of coverage grow at such an alarming rate that they are unable to stay competitive in maintaining a talented pool of workers. Small businesses are the driving force of our economy and we must pass health insurance reform which provides them a pooled marketplace from which to purchase coverage and offers credits to make plans affordable.

Reforming our health care system will not be easy, but it is imperative. As Congress continues looking for the best ways to meet our nation's health care challenges, please know that I will always keep the best interests of Coloradans in mind. Along the way, I will certainly remember your particular thoughts and concerns.

I will continue to listen closely to what you and other Coloradans have to say about matters before Congress, the concerns of our communities, and the issues facing Colorado and the nation. My job is not about merely supporting or opposing legislation; it is also about bridging the divide that has paralyzed our nation's politics. For more information about my positions and to learn how my office can assist you, please visit my website at www.markudall.senate.gov.

From my perspective, there is so much about this missive that I take issue with that I can only reiterate what I wrote to the senators: Senator Bernie Sanders' Senate Bill 703, the American Health Security Act of 2009 is the only Senate health care reform bill worth considering. It proposes to install a universal health care apparatus for the USA. Interesting, it has no co-sponsors - wonder if Bennet and Udall have considered joining up?

• (Interestingly enough, whenever I wrote to the former Senator Wayne Allard (R), I always got a reponse in the regular mail that directly addressed my question/concern and showed me that someone in his office actually read and thought for a bit about my email. That has never happened with the current Democratic trio.)

While it is never less than an exercise in futility, I continue to write and call my representatives. I won't contribute to their campaigns, and I won't vote for them, but they are the official conduit for me to express my opinions. I urge everyone reading to do the same - often.

Obamacare: Good For What Ails Health Insurance Companies (Except They Are Not Sick - In Fact, They're Feeling Much Better!)

I did not watch President Obama's speech on September 9 - although hearing a congressman shout out "you lie!" would have been fun. I've often thought the British Parliament does it best. Get the Prime Minister in the same room on a regular basis with the representatives and everyone gets down to shouting. Here there is way too much decorum when it comes to the President.

Anyway, from news accounts I've perused, Mr. Obama did the expected thing and continued his retreat from his 2003 declaration of support for true universal health care in America. He indicated then that only one thing was necessary to enable the USA to join the rest of the industrialized world in the most efficient and inclusive health care system ever devised: a Democratic president and Democratic majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives.

So here we are six years later, and those prerequisites have been fulfilled. So where is the single-payer solution? Dead as a doornail in the White House view. And now the president is backing away the extremely modest government-run public option in a proposal mainly designed to add millions of new customers to the bloated, inefficient and "uniquely American" for-profit corporate health insurance "industry". The plan advocates something that every conservative in America should be vocally opposing: a federal law requiring everyone to purchase some sort of private corporate insurance. Talk about restricting choice!

Let's repeat that: the government, run by public tax dollars, will require the citizens to purchase private corporate insurance. Whether it's through your employer or on your own, citizens will face a tax penalty if they cannot prove they are paying a for-profit corporation for health insurance. But there's more! Tax subsidies will be issued to those who cannot fully afford the legal requirement to buy insurance. The government will give public dollars to citizens to pass on to for-profit corporations. A bailout by another name? And these companies aren't failing financially!

At least a small public option would give the most economically disadvantaged Americans a recourse - a non-profit insurance group that would operate as a last resort. But the president has signaled that it's not essential. Instead, the for-profit system would have no competition or impetus to hold down costs/prices.

I could go on, but fortunately Matt Taibbi, writer and blogger at Rolling Stone, has effectively recapped the sordid history of the health care "reform" and analyzed the legislative loopholes that will continue to provide mega-millions in profits to companies who make money by denying care. And we will all suffer. Read his story, "Sick And Wrong" here:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29988909/sick_and_wrong

P.S. You can find many videos of Mr. Obama promising on the campaign trail to sign a universal health care measure by the end of his first term. That gives him three more years and a couple of months - how does the current measure help advance that cause? Here he is advocating for single payer in 2003 - somehow, in six years, there's been a dramatic about face:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

Obama The Tyrant? No, Just The Current Team Captain

I recently had an interesting email exchange with a respected colleague who told me that I often failed to give the Obama Administration "credit" when it was due. Announcements about new Justice Department investigations, directives and "reforms" sparked that conversation.

There have been encouraging signs: modification of some of the worst Bush-era policies in the environmental area, and the recent Justice Department announcement about investigating CIA torture activities and revamping its Civil Rights Division. But as many have pointed out, rolling back extreme right policies to a new "center" that still tilts to the right is not progress; and the CIA torture investigation ground rules could ultimately lead to another round of "punish the little guys while the big guys go free" results that are the norm for these exercises.

Despite these positive moves, in the major arenas of government action - war, surveillance, assisting corporate dominance - Team American Empire (TAE) continues to roll down the field. First, an excerpt from one of the exchanges:

"...we could definitely have a conversation about the assertion that 'overall domestic surveillance and secret prisons are okay' with the current administration.

Obama has specifically reversed and rejected Bush-era interrogation policies that allow for secret prisons (please give me examples that can show me what I’m missing), and before he was president he voted for a revised domestic surveillance program that put quite a few restrictions on what the government and private entities could and could not do (please give me examples that can show me what I’m missing).

I just don’t buy this notion that Obama somehow has a personal agenda to spy on Americans, take away their liberties, oppress citizens of other countries, and give every major corporation a big payday so he can retire happy."

(Drum roll, please) My response:

I do not believe that Mr. Obama has tyrannical or dictatorial ambitions.

He is the temporary team captain placed at the head of Team American Empire, a loose-knit collective with a single purpose: market domination and stability for financial profit. Team American Empire moves inexorably forward towards its goals via the combined efforts of the business community, its (often well-paid) cohorts in Congress and the revolving employment doors of government regulatory agencies. Every empire in history has followed the basic contours of this model. We are not re-inventing the wheel here.

The latest round of candidates for interim Empire team captain - Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain, Mrs. Clinton – all had been vetted by the major monied class. Whatever their differences, none of that trio were proposing to shut down the biggest business projects of our day: armaments and oil. And all were oppositional or purposely vague on health care reform (although I would like to believe Mrs. Clinton would have pushed hardest for meaningful change).

The guy sitting in the Presidential seat now may have the best intentions in the world, but he got to that position by being a willing team player. The current occupant, in his first six months, has undoubtedly proved he can be counted on to lead Team American Empire.

So it matters little what Mr. Obama’s personal feelings on key issues might be. The actions have been taken. In the realm of unhindered domestic surveillance, he voted to extend FISA – call me reactionary, but why does the government need to screen every email in America? Make all the new “restrictions” on surveillance you want – private communications corporations are assisting the government effort to screen everything. Maintaining a domestic surveillance network is much more about political paranoia and retaining domestic power than identifying “terrorists”.

Secret prisons – for me, it’s common sense. The President says we’ll close them, and the CIA director says they will be decommissioned. But do you trust the guys in charge of government-sponsored secrecy? The CIA and President both stated they will continue to detain and hold people for questioning – are they going to put them up in hotels? The intelligence arms of the Empire are not being reined in – they are shutting down old facilities and setting up new storefronts, just like they have throughout the post-WWII period.

Even if I believed there is a “reform”, where’s the public accountability to prove these prisons are truly closed? There is no outside-the-government oversight. The mainstream media is manipulated by the government, who knows they will rarely (if ever) begin serious investigations of its pronouncements. So how am I assured that this chapter is closed – I have to trust the President? It is not up to citizens to seek out and prove this information – it is the government’s responsibility to prove accomplishment of its promises to the citizens.

The prime enterprise for Team American Empire today is total dominance - military and financial - of the Middle East. For all the talk of withdrawing troops, Mr. Obama has delivered on his promise to expand the wars/occupation/financial subjugation in the Middle East. Again, he’s not a personal tyrant – just the guy currently in charge of the ongoing (for decades to come) TAE game plan to make Middle East oil a sure thing for big energy companies. McCain or Clinton would have followed this same playbook exactly. And in the next election cycle or two, if our current electoral system is still intact (any bets?), someone else who has been carefully screened and approved will take Obama's place to captain Team American Empire.

I think it boils down to who you choose to believe when it comes to "reforms." I do not accept the "trust us" security/intelligence “reforms” of a publicly-funded government that willfully engages in financially/spiritually corrupting illegal wars for private profit.

For me, this is a an all-or-nothing game. As long as Team American Empire captain Obama keeps getting plays from the owners of industry and money – and the expanding wars, massive domestic surveillance machine, and the fight to preserve health insurance industry profits all point to that reality – there’s little joy in the occasional instance of moving a case of extreme right practice back to the (rightward-drifting) center.

Kucinich: Insurance Care!

You've gotta be a tough traveler to hang with these guys - they go down the bumpiest roads.


Representative Dennis Kucinich, one of just a handful of heroes in Congress, on "Health Care Wanted: Dead Or Alive." Cogent, honest analysis and a call for single payer/Medicare-for-all health care.

"The Administration plan requires that everyone must have health insurance, so it is delivering tens of millions of new "customers" to the insurance companies. Health care? Not really. Insurance care! Absolutely. Cost controls? No chance."


Essential reading at: http://kucinich.us/index.php

Pocketful Of Miracles?

I've lately been engaged in an energetic and interesting email dialogue with several friends, acquaintances and others concerning aspects of the health care "reform" proposals and debate. In the course of the discussion, other topics surfaced, including civil rights loss / domestic surveillance and the Obama administration.

One correspondent - a person with strong progressive leanings - penned a post reminding everyone that President Obama is "human" and not the "second coming," both very worthwhile points. The writer touched on the many challenging issues the current administration inherited from the Bush regime. Then things got interesting.

It was asserted that Congress should not take up time with "witch hunts" and chasing down potential/former torturers in the government employ. Keeping info on those potential perps and accomplices still around in Washington is valuable, and Obama can use it to help "sell" health care "reform." Revealing the President's file cabinet full of undisclosed and damaging info on his Republican opponents will convince (strong-arm) them into finally capitulating on health care. And then the writer said: "I think he has a bunch of stuff in his pocket that one after another will come out to show the opposition it will be worse to fight him on the straightforward stuff."

A pocketful of miracles? The post got me thinking, and that's why we started a blog...to think kind of out loud. Here's my response:

Yes, the President is human. You are absolutely correct that he is not the “second coming” and that is an important thing for his supporters to recognize.

Mr. Obama was also a well-marketed product. And despite the 2008 advertising claims about “change,” he has continued the major programs of the Bush Administration – the ones that account for the majority of the federal budget. War and military expansion, continued domestic surveillance practices and covert international prisons are the highlights there. Yes, he inherited some issues, but is this continuation of many of the policies of 2003 – 2008 even disputable? What is the difference between Bush and Obama on these counts?
(see details: http://songofhiram.blogspot.com/2009/08/just-few-billion-every-year-once.html)

A couple of your comments got me thinking. I’m not sure I understand “witch hunts.” If laws were broken in the Bush White House concerning surveillance and torture – and there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that is the case – what does it say about our “nation of laws” that the next President wants to sweep it under the rug? The executive branch is charged with enforcing the law – what’s more important than enforcing the laws pertaining to national government?

The vision of a carrot and stick - secret files that might be used to influence/threaten legislators – is a Cheney strategy, although it is a time-honored political tactic. And not a pretty one, as it plays on people’s fears, secretive nature and back-room thumbscrews. Come to think of it, those are classic empire-building tools.

Finally, surmising that the President has a “bunch of stuff in his pocket” that is going to reveal his true liberal/progressive nature is what another writer called “faith-based” thinking, and belies your earlier observation on his humanity. The Obama administration has already taken on all the “straightforward stuff”, the big-ticket budget items – see above – and now they offer the last agenda item, a flimsy health care reform (complete with privately negotiated deals with pharma/insurance companies: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss ).

So what’s left? Will his administration suddenly – we don’t know the time – reverse course on Afghanistan, secrecy protocols, investigations and the rest? Mr. Obama is okay continuing and increasing the killing in the Middle East while waiting to play his trump cards at home?

Believe your eyes. What is happening in all these arenas – including ignoring Medicare-for-all - is approved by the President. This is who he is.

I am glad you are in favor of many progressive changes proposed for the USA, and I know you speak out for them. For me, it’s important to recognize this Administration for its acts, not its campaign rhetoric or its marketing genius or its potential for magic tricks. By their actions, I’m having a hard time distinguishing Mr. Obama and most Democrats from George Bush and the Republicans.

The President Takes On Congressional Liberals

In 2003, Mr. Obama proclaimed that a single payer health care system was the best option for America. In 2009, he declares that even a watered-down "public option" government program is just a "sliver" in the overall health care reform effort. And progressives don't like the about face.

What happened to change his mind so drastically in six years? No country on the planet that ever installed a single-payer system has ever dismantled it, and no country on the planet has ever adopted the "uniquely American" health care model, so it couldn't be that.

What changed Mr. Obama's stand?

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-picks-public-option-fight-with-liberals-2009-08-16.html

Who Will Congress Listen To On Health Care Reform?

So who will Congress listen to when it comes to health care reform? The millions of Americans who want to talk about Medicare-For-All, or the combined lobbyists representing the pharmaceutical/health insurance/hospital corporations?

Average citizens can pick up a phone, write a letter or email, or attend a town hall meeting. The health care industries have spent nearly half-a-billion dollars in the first six months of 2009 to impress their views on Congress.

"That’s six lobbyists for each of the 535 members of the House and Senate, according to Senate records, and three times the number of people registered to lobby on defense. More than 1,500 organizations have health-care lobbyists, and about three more are signing up each day. Every one of the 10 biggest lobbying firms by revenue is involved in an effort that could affect 17 percent of the U.S. economy.

These groups spent $263.4 million on lobbying during the first six months of 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based research group, more than any other industry. They spent $241.4 million during the same period of 2008. Drugmakers alone spent $134.5 million, 64 percent more than the next biggest spenders, oil and gas companies."


Who does it look like our legislators are paying closer attention to - citizens or corporations? What's your take?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aqMce51JoZWw

Letter to the Senators/Representative

Text of a letter I sent today to my Congressional representatives regarding health care reform. Phone calls are good, too.

SUBJECT: "Respect For Life"

Senator Udall/Bennett/Rep. Perlmutter:

The public "debate" concerning health care reform, the words of the president and the reporting by the media must baffle the rest of the planet. Most countries did the right thing for their citizens decades ago.

There is only one true health care reform bill on the Senate/House docket today: The American Health Security Act of 2009/H.R. 676. Let's cut out the insurance companies and offer every American basic health care. Let's set up a system modeled on the way civilized governments around the planet administer this public service.

I know that's a lot to ask of the Congress, whose values reflect some core American beliefs: creating an economic/military global empire is good, having the biggest and most weapons is good, selling weapons to others is good, and charging people to make a profit on their health issues is good.

Looks like the connecting thread there is "no respect for life."

The Congress and President Obama have an opportunity to craft, sell and implement a true reform that would speak to the much more Christian ideal of "love thy neighbor" and being a good "brother's keeper": government-run, non-profit health care for every American.

Just who do you and your colleagues work for? Millions of American citizens in favor of Medicare-for-all, or an insurance industry who contributes millions to political campaigns and lobbying? Who do you work for, Mr. Udall/Bennett/Perlmutter?

K. Dennis
Arvada, CO

Kucinich Predicts Retreat On Health Care Reform

http://www.wcpn.org/WCPN/news/27450

Maybe The President Should Stick To The Teleprompter

From some clips we've seen on the news, on other blogs and web sites, etc, it's apparent that the President got some folks riled, some disturbed, and others scratching their collective heads at the conclusion of his recent "town hall" meeting.

One writer surmised that the President should stick to the scripts, and pondered the fact that just five years ago, Mr. Obama was a part-time legislator in the Illinois State House.

Here's a press release from a surgeon's group seeking to correct some of the President's statements (mis-statements?) on health care:
http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-12-2009/0005076714&EDATE

The Great American Health Care Insurance Debate - Four Questions

The country is currently involved in the Great American Health Care Insurance Debate (or should that be "Uniquely American"?). And it's a good thing - finally, folks are getting upset enough to yell at their congressional representatives, which is always a good thing. There's plenty to talk about.

But the debate revolves around the wrong approach to health care reform. The talks I've heard are about creating more insurance profits, via required enrollments and a new, government-run insurance company. What does that have to do with improving health care quality or expanding the access to everyone?

The only bill before Congress that makes sense to me is H.R. 676, which calls for government-run health care. No more insurance bureaucracies. There are plenty of international models to choose from that seem to work. Ongoing international health emergencies and declining quality of health resulting from the decades-old single-payer/government-run approach in these nations does not exist.

Yet H.R. 676, creating a government-administered single-payer system, is being ignored and/or pooh-poohed by the Democratic Party, the Obama Administration, and most of the mainstream media.

My view: it is unethical to turn the citizen's health options and choices into a profit center for a few major corporations. The welfare of the citizens is the welfare of the nation. What does it say about our "uniquely American" values that we are willing to allow life-altering health decisions to be determined, in large part, by the amount of dollars we can afford for insurance?

If you don't have enough money, you can always die? The Great American Health Care Insurance Debate is about preserving a business whose profits rely on providing the least amount of services for the most amount of money it can charge.

Surely it's just a matter of education. Unfortunately, in the Great American Health Care Insurance Debate, the facts and results of years of international single-payer style programs around the world seem to count for nothing. No need to look past our own borders - we've got a good system, it just needs refinement! The reality that the USA is about the only nation on the planet driving its citizens into health-care related bankruptcies is a concept other countries cannot understand. That's how advanced our system really is - no one else uses it because it baffles them.

Since actual performance data is disregarded, that means citizens must get their info from other sources - like politicians and activist groups (forget using television news-tainment - the major health care players all buy ads there). But there's the rub.

The health care industry is spending hundreds of millions in direct congressional lobbying right now. Who do you think is getting heard by the Congress, the many voters or the few people with millions in political contributions? And many of the netroots groups that have sprung up to decry any reform have confirmed links to insurance/hospital companies. Seems like a one-sided information stream.

Industry-sponsored groups are not unethical; but some of these activists for the status quo are urging followers to practice locally what the television and talk radio spheres have engaged in for years: (sing like Groucho Marx) "Whatever you're for, I'm against it!" Simple, and simple-minded, naysaying as its being practiced can effectively curtail discussion and learning.

Aiding and abetting this purposeful obfuscation are our elected legislators. There seems to be little effort to jointly craft health care reforms that would help all citizens. There seems to be maximum efforts expended to use this major initiative as:
- A political club to swing at the opponent - both Republicans and Democrats alike. It's the latest skirmish line in the ongoing battle: one wing holds the power while the other wing fights to get it back. Keep saying outrageous things, it's part of the strategy!
- A diversion to keep the discussion away from the single-payer model used by most of the rest of the planet. Keep those massive political contributions from that sector rolling in!

Apparently it's a lot to ask Americans to take the time to reflect on the right thing to do, engage in research, and have rational discussions with their friends, relatives, legislators about real health care reform. There are no role models here. Our politicians don't do it, the majority of radio and television talking heads don't do it, and apparently some activists instruct their adherents not to do it.

That's a reality that must change if meaningful and effective reform is to occur. I'm glad folks are talking; now let's talk about facts.

These are the questions I keep asking, but I haven't gotten any answers:

Why is the current talk focused on creating more insurance entities and not improving the quality of health care and providing access to all?

Why is the health-care model used in other industrialized countries around the planet purposely ignored/denigrated by the government and the mainstream media?

Why would we continue to preserve the health insurance business, whose profit is determined by rationing life-impacting health services and charging financially back-breaking rates when it can?

Why are we afraid of trading in a broken system for one that provides betterment for all citizens in this most important of all issues, the physical health of the United States?