Obama's Contradiction: The Iran-USA Escalation

In May, the Islamic Republic of Iran brokered a deal to transport 1200 kilograms (approximately half) of its enriched Uranium fuel for storage in Turkey--a step to deter ongoing threats of new economic sanctions by the United Nations Security Council. The agreement, facilitated by President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, requires the Turkish government to provide fuel to power a research reactor in Tehran.

The deal echoes a failed UN-backed deal, which called for Iran's low-enriched uranium to be transported to Russia and France for processing. It has been paralyzed for months--primarily due to Iran's lack of trust that reactor-grade fuel will be returned. The Islamic Republic demanded that the transaction occur on Iranian soil, at the same time. Western powers did not find this a valid request.

Despite the apparent de-escalation of Iran's nuclear aspirations, the United States and other Security Council members are not backing down from sanctions. The Iranian government does not plan to cease it's uranium enrichment, though it has vowed to both the international community and its own citizens that intentions are peaceful and civilian.

As we saw in last summer's botched election and ruthless crackdown on peaceful protestors, however, this theocratic regime is not a particularly honest or reliable authority.

That is not to say an escalation of diplomatic conflict is warranted. Especially if the outcome could be full-fledged war. Indeed, the position of President Barack Obama is highly questionable.

On April 20, the White House sent a letter to President Lula da Silva encouraging the deal, saying: "For us, Iran’s agreement to transfer 1,200 kg of Iran’s low enriched uranium (LEU) out of the country would build confidence and reduce regional tensions by substantially reducing Iran’s LEU stockpile." The President did not say it would mean the end of proposed sanctions, but stressed that this deal would send a powerful message to the international community, saying "I would urge Brazil to impress upon Iran the opportunity presented by this offer to 'escrow' its uranium in Turkey while the nuclear fuel is being produced."

Shortly after President Obama's wishes were granted, the sanctions were approved by a unanimous Security Council vote. What does this mean and what are the implications?

The sanctions are intended to target the military leadership of Iran as well as the institutions responsible for uranium enrichment--isolating state-controlled banks from the global financial system and blacklisting petroleum companies. Whether or not the strategy will succeed is unknown. The Bill Clinton sanctions on Iraq brought about the crippling of the Iraqi economy, and is oft-cited as an underlying cause of the mass looting and poverty-induced crime that so destabilized the country post-invasion. The Iran sanctions appear to be more focused on leadership, but there is no telling what effect they might have, or if they will be expanded.

Though the mainstream media will not attempt to analyze the contradictory behavior of the reformer President, it is vital that we ask why he voiced such support for the Turkey-Brazil deal in the first place? Why would this success not be praised? It is a clear improvement from the recent past, but is met with further escalation.

Perhaps it is an issue of American hegemony--that the USA was not a part of the negotiations delegitimizes the agreement for many in the Washington establishment. If other states are able to accomplish diplomatic goals that Americans are not, does this undermine USA's position as the sole super-power? Is peace truly the priority of this escalation?

Why Health Reform is Necessary... People

Dear President Obama:
I am 50 years old. I was diagnosed with carcinoma in-situ 16 years ago and following my divorce 12 years ago I became self-employed. After my Cobra ran out I was able to find costly, but affordable health insurance. As a responsible individual, I have struggled to maintain my individual coverage and have increased my deductible and out of pocket-limits in an attempt to control my cost and keep my health insurance.

Last year (2009) my insurance premium was increased over 25% even though I increased my deductible and out of pocket to the highest limits available. I paid out over $6075.24 in premiums, $2415.26 for medical care, $225 in co-pays and $1500 for prescriptions. I never reached my deductible of $2500 so the insurance company only paid out a total $935.32 to my providers.

I must repeat, in 2009 my insurance company received $6075.24 in premiums and paid out only $935.32!

I have just been notified that my premium for next year 2010 has been increased over 40% to $8496.24 ($708.02 per month) !!!! This is the same insurance company I have been with for over 11 cancer free years!!!

I need your Health reform bill to help me!!! I simply can no longer afford to pay for my health care costs!!

Thanks to this incredible premium increase demanded by my insurance company, January will be my last month of insurance.

I live in the house my mother & father built in 1958 and I am so afraid of the possibility I might loose this heirloom as a result of my being forced to drop my health care insurance. The health insurance industry has not denied me insurance directly, but indirectly they have by increasing my costs. They perceive me as becoming a higher risk factor to them despite being a loyal customer. I will never be able to obtain new health insurance due to the lack of real competition.

We are talking about Anthem who apparently has no respect for your attempts to reform the health insurance industry.

Please stay focused in your reform attempts as I and many others are in desperate need of your help.

Sincerely

Natoma Canfield

Be Glad Bayh is Gone, Now Progressives Need to Fight!

Lots of news these days... First of all, people should not be so upset that Senator Evan Bayh has decided a reelection bid.  This guy is scum.  Not saying he is a bad man, but he is an obstructionist.  If you have been wondering who to be mad at over health care paralyzation, honestly you ought not blame the Republicans.  Democrats, with a supermajority have not been able to make any of the sweeping reforms that they promised.  That the people elected them to accomplish.  It is because people like Evan Bayh's wife have received millions of dollars from mega-interests like Wellpoint, a giant health insurance company.  These interests certainly expect something in return (i.e. no comprehensive health reform!).  Evan Bayh is not a "centrist" Democrat, he is a corporatist, plain and simple.  Glad to be rid of him.

The downside to his decision, however, could be that someone worse will win the seat.  This is within the realm of possibility, but hopefully Indiana progressives can rally behind a strong candidate.  Of course, the weakness of the progressive movement is a serious problem.  I can only resort to books and articles to recall a time when progressives actually cared enough to act in the streets.  Or at least to have a regular conversation on political matters.  To be informed.  Nowadays, these behaviors are considered taboo.  I know because I experience it on a regular basis.  Americans, particularly kids, are severely distracted by technology and pop culture.  Dangerously so.  We are in the 7th and 9th year of two serious wars, and who could give a damn?  During the Vietnam War college student protesters were shot and teargassed for their opposition.  Sure, we elected Obama, but if there is no substance behind the vote, then where is the change?  If there is no spirit to fight for the most important of causes, to hold Obama and Congress to the fire for health care, climate change, and financial reforms then who would expect them to happen?  Congress is terribly corrupt, so it will take a lot of pushing to get these things done.

The push is stronger than in the Bush years, but still not enough to make critical changes for our society's sake.  We need to wake up.

Wall Street Reform (or lack thereof) Update

Obama takin on Wall Street?
Part 1:

Part 2:

How to Change a Culture: Question of Imperialists

What is the U.S. military's goal in Afghanistan?  This is a difficult question to answer.  It ought to puzzle the most intellectual of minds because no single response could make sense entirely.  The American Revolution was a conflict to break from the bondage of an empire.  The Civil War was a battle for national identity and unity.  World War II had a concrete objective: to defeat fascist aggressors in Europe, and end Japanese imperialism.  These are wars with clear objective and victory.


Afghanistan on the other hand?  We invaded to destroy Al Qaeda, but we remain to rebuild a nation.  What could this possibly mean?  No one knows, apparently.  The fact that we support its shameful democracy is proof of our misdirected efforts.  The U.S.-backed Karzai Administration casts an inescapable shadow of corruption over the entire government.  Scandal and fraud have plagued his recent reelection, delegitimizing the very democracy we have set in place. 


Corruption aside, this sham of a government does not seem to be a whole lot better than Taliban rule.  A provision in legislation passed this April states: "...a wife is obliged to fulfill the sexual desires of her husband..."  What this could mean I do not know, though some have said this law essentially condones rape.  Mastermind of the law, Ayatollah Mohammed Asef Mohseni (yes, Ayatollah), defends the statute by refuting Western analysis, and claiming that married women do indeed have the right to refuse sex, though "If a woman says no, the man has the right not to feed her."  Oh okay, cool.  All cleared up.  Thanks Asef!


But the perverted and broken government of Afghanistan are actually not my primary arguments against the war.  No, my critique is one against the imperialist mind.  We Americans are, after all, imperialists, plain and simple.  Two countries we now occupy (facilitated by foreign mercenaries... ask me), with hundreds upon hundreds of military installations throughout the world... the aggressors in over 200 conflicts since 1945.  We alone determine global economic policy.
     
Living in the Empire has many perks, I must say.  I've had a privileged life (though not without my parents' comprehensive health insurance plan) and we are all blessed with relatively few foreign attacks (with two days of exception, of course).  This country is somehow able to wage endless wars without the public even remembering!  A miracle?  Must be! "A million Iraqis died?  Oh, hey did you see that new iPhone app?  Pretty sweet, huh.  Tiger Woods had an affair?  What sport does he play again?  Hey, pass the cocaine.  And hand me that silly as shit magazine.  Yeah, the one about nothing."
     
When I bring up Afghanistan in public, I most often get a "remember 9/11" line or some defensive variation of our "moral duty" to save those people over there.  Who are they again?  Also popular is the "we broke it, we bought it" line.  These latter defenses seem silly to me, though they are common to the 'moral' imperialists.  To address the 9/11-imperialists: Al Qaeda does not even need Afghanistan because they have such a wonderful home in Pakistan to conduct operations.  Al Qaeda left long ago, and if they ever returned from over the Kush Mountains, they would not have nearly comparable resources as they had further East.
     
The 'moral' imperialists talk about some kind of higher responsibility to save these people.  But really we should not be meddling in such drastic ways in foreign lands at all.  It is just so imperial to believe in your state's sole right to wage devastating wars and heartless occupations in the name of Freedom.  That is not Freedom, that is tyranny.  President Washington would be ashamed.  Jefferson too.  Barack Obama says we are fighting for something just, but is it 'just' to impede on another's sovereignty?  To be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands?  What American cares about those people?  Please, tell me if you do!
     
We are trying to change cultures.  Cultures that are so unlike ours we cannot imagine.  We do not understand--or even bother to understand--the Muslim world.  Perhaps we never will.  The West spent many centuries fighting its own religious wars, yet we seem to believe it is possible for a foreign occupation to end ideological feuds in a matter of years.  It cannot be done, and thus we have no business in such affairs.

Time to Pressure Evan Bayh, Hoosiers!

This democracy stuff is tough business for sure. The legitimacy of the process is in a constant war with destructive media elements and corporate favoritism in Washington, and the American people have been slow to realize the game being played at their expense. If you want to get things on the right track again, participation must become the norm in American politics and ignorance can no longer be an acceptable excuse.

Today the good fight is in health care reform, and while there is an ideological debate to be had on the size and role of government, now it is time to decide for the future. I've already made my case for a robust public option tied to Medicare rates (Medicare rates are crucial in preventing private influence on the government's purchasing power. Simply, Medicare rates will let the government negotiate rates and keep the costs down), and now we need to push the politicians. My targets are now set on Senator Evan Bayh, a Democrat from my home of Indiana.

Evan Bayh represents the most typical of corporate politicians striving to maintain a centrist persona with his fiscal conservative values, tough-on-terror media tactics, and that unmistakable midwestern candor. He is not the progressive his father, Senator Birch Bayh, once was.

Regardless, my Hoosier friends and family should pay particular attention because Evan Bayh plays an especially influential role in the future of health care reform. Though Bayh has received most of his campaign funds from the finance, insurance and real estate sector (career, $4,295,250), his $1,100,536 from the health industry makes him a man for health business--not fundamental reform.

As much as I hate calling attention to these unsettling facts, it is important to know whose interests our leaders are actually serving. Evan Bayh is deeply vested in the health industry, so the people of Indiana must rise up to let him know that we will not stand for anything less than a public option!   It's time to make some phone calls to his office, and organize with others who believe in forcing the insurance conglomerates to compete in a marketplace (check out the revealing competition map).  Bayh needs to know that if he does not support real reform, he will have a tough time in the mid-term primaries.  I for one will support a real progressive in 2010, not a closeted Republican; but hopefully I won't have to.

Hoosiers, I know that you are a conservative people in general.  That you are wary of the federal government meddling in your affairs.  This a legitimate concern, and one that I often share.  But you must realize that this reform can either go for the people or against. If there is no public option, big insurance will continue raising premiums while limiting coverage.  They will continue forcing small businesses into bankruptcy, and persist in maximizing already exorbitant profits.  Our country cannot afford it, and the 45,000 people who die from lack of coverage every year didn't deserve it.  It is time for Evan Bayh to know where you stand.  He must understand that reelection is not guaranteed in 2010 because WE have the power to decide, not the insurance lobby.

call him: (202) 224-5623 (DC office); (317) 554-0750 (Indianapolis office)  
email him: http://bayh.senate.gov/contact/email/

Heather Graham Sprints Fast!

Resistance to Afghanistan War Grows

This logic makes sense to me!  
"When I voted to use force to go to war after 9/11, I think I and everyone else in Congress voted to go after Al Qaida. That was our enemy. And Al Qaida has now moved to a different neighborhood, in Pakistan, where, quite frankly, they're more protected. And we're told by Gen. Jones that there are less than 100, if that, members of Al Qaida left in Afghanistan... So we're now saying we should have 100,000 American forces to go after less than 100 members of Al Qaida in Afghanistan? I think we need to re-evaluate our policy."-- Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA)

The Pressure of Peace

While I'm not sure I understand exactly why the Nobel Committee in Norway decided upon Barack Obama as winner of the Peace Prize so early in the game, I'd like to try and imagine the potential of this strategic gesture.

This award is a call of expectations of the freshman President.  It is also a vote of confidence in the American electorate.  You see, President Bush changed the world forever-- he began a war of fear and intimidation.  He destabilized entire regions of the globe, and caused Iran to rush to arms.  Mr. Bush was a President for war, and one who reflected the values of the imperial elites of the United States.

But America said no, and elected a man who promised peace.  For this, every American deserves this award because it is WE who determine our country's policies and rulers.  We chose peace, and this seems to have been recognized by members of the international community.

Now the pressure of the world is on, and the world demands a peaceful USA.  But it is vital that we ask ourselves: what does their opinion matter?  Why should we listen to the desires of other states?

These are common questions-- and they are fair questions.  We are a sovereign state with the power to act in whichever way we see fit.  But what must not be forgotten is that because of our extraordinary wealth, power and influence, our choices ripple throughout the world in ways that we cannot imagine.  It is easy for American to lose touch of global realities because we are essentially an island.  We are not surrounded by nations with ancient traditions of conflict.  We do not know what it was like to be invaded and occupied by brutal militaries.  We cannot fathom the imagery of a holocaust in our backyard.

The fact of the matter is that there are deep global problems that cannot be solved without an engaged, informed United States.  Europe understands it.  We seem to be realizing it.

While Americans are essentially a peace-loving people, they are
also a distant, and easily convinced people.  We are duped into wars of "liberation" and "freedom."  We want peace, but our fault lies in the belief that war solves all problems.  That war yields peace.

Some of our allies across the pond understand that if the people of the United States of America do not break free from the bondage of the industrial-military complex, we will go the way of all empires.  Our potential to do remarkable things will wilt away, and the story of American democracy will be mere whispers of legend.

So let us unleash ourselves from this militaristic society.  Let us fight in ways we haven't yet thought.  Let us take the Nobel Prize and show everyone that we can be with the world, not at odds with it.

People, call your congressmen and women and senators--tell them where you stand.  President Obama, fight those generals and do what is right.  Be strong and call your people to action.  We'll fight with you.

Or against you.

We Will Work Against You

For hours I've been watching the Senate Finance Committee debate two different amendments calling for a public health care option. Both proposals have failed, and I'm angry, a bit sad too... but not particularly surprised.

Though SkyeWire's frequent posts may bother some of my Facebook friends, you should know that I only write such things because I believe that these issues are of vital importance. As a citizen of the United States of America I feel a certain duty to remember the sacrifice and struggle of the founding fathers; to remember that this government was to be THE finest product of the Western Enlightenment-- a government created for people and of people.

The genius of Thomas Jefferson and the others was in giving individuals the power to take control over the fate of governance. Indeed, the expectation was that ordinary people would take this responsibility to heart... that civic duty would reign supreme over any and all detrimental interests.

But something has gone terribly wrong.

My friends, times have never been worse. As this nation fights to reclaim its identity, we are faced with the most catastrophic environmental threat of our existence. As the ice caps melt faster and faster, we sit idly... tweeting about silly boys and girls. While the interests of the few dominate our government's decisions, Facebook takes precedence for the apathetic masses who feel too impotent to do anything.

Allow me to put this into perspective.

...When the glacier that feeds into India's Ganges River melts away and dries

...and leaves half a billion of the world's

poorest

without drink and irrigation

...When the trees you loved so much as a kid

...and the crops you depend upon for nourishment

shrivel and die

in a rapidly changing ecosystem...

...when the health system fails for good

...when Wall Street gets away with losing

everyone's money for the

...second

...third

...sixth

time

...when you realize that this country is no longer a leader of

morality

and freedom

...when such things happen, you will wish you had said...

something.

anything.

You'll wish you had stood for something when there was still something worth fighting for.

Like the man who watched in silence as

Jews

gays

Jehova's witnesses

Romani

dissenters

got rounded off to death camps...

...only to find himself a victim in the end.

Like him, you too will regret when these forces begin affecting your life.

So I'm sorry for being bleak at times, but these are realities; and insulating yourself in the Facebook bubble will not change them.

Don't get me wrong, we can change things... we really can. But if you're heart isn't in it, it will not happen! During Vietnam there was a revolution in this country. Millions marched and some died in a revolution of peace... how remarkable. Can you just imagine? Can you imagine if the masses used the internet for unprecedented citizen involvement and organization? A taxpayer revolt against the Congress that persistently fails to represent the people.

You have to fight and argue and VOTE!! You must learn the issues and find out if your Senator or congressperson is representing good things. Democrat or Republican or whatever.

If they aren't... work against them. Find like-minded others. Spread the word. Grow. Believe. Take back the power. Before it's too late. This is our responsibility.

Yes we can.

America and the Crisis of Religion Part III: Why Evolution Matters

Well it's certainly been awhile since I've talked about religion, but I wanted to say something brief and vital.

The fact that 55% of American citizens believe evolution is a myth stands as testament to the state of judgement in this country. It seriously worries me when I see so many people refuse to accept the clear and overwhelming evidence of the Evolutionary process. This is not because denying evolution causes deep problems on it's own, rather it's what problems are arising from other delusions that simply must arise from this warped sense of what is real. When they look at the world, what is seen? How is news interpreted differently? What questions are being asked about the state of this nation and international community?

Refuting the legitimacy of evolution is like denying that it's raining outside when it indeed is raining. And if such circumstantial evidence is so easily cast aside by individuals due to superior religious beliefs, then what other facts of the world are being neglected? Probably some important ones.

This country needs to wise up... soon.

10 Worst, 10 Best: Senator Max Baucus

For a long time I've wanted to begin a series that takes a careful look at our federal representatives and their actions. As caretakers of the most powerful country in all known history, we ought to know who they are and what they stand for. When I worked in the United States Senate this Summer as legislative intern (more on that another time), I found an article in a 1970s Washington Journal that called out the best and the worst of the U.S. Senate. So today I begin a similar, albeit more timely, piece called: "10 Worst, 10 Best: Your United States Congress Exposed."

And today I begin with Senator Max Baucus, a Democrat from Helena, Montana and Chairman of the Finance Committee. Mr. Baucus earned both his B.A. and law degree at Stanford University, and went on to work for the Securities and Exchange Commission in D.C. Eventually, he returned to his home state, won a seat in the state House of Representatives, and ultimately a seat in the United States House. In 1978, the Montanian won his Senate seat; a seat that has grown stale and dank and saturated in the corrupt puss that seeps from every pore of Max Sieben Baucus.

Such a scathing judgement is undeserved by most, but let us remember that we are dealing with the United States Senate--a body representative of the most powerful interests this country has to offer. Max Baucus, in particular, has received massive campaign donations from the most invasive and influential industries. OpenSecrets.org reveals the top 5 contributors to this Blue Dog's campaigns: Lawyers/Law Firms ($1,608,823), Securities & Investment firms like Goldman Sachs ($1,480,535) Insurance ($1,190,463), Health Professionals ($1,032,276), and Pharmaceuticals/Health Products ($751,605). In total, Baucus has received $2,880,631 from the Health Care Industry and $4,710,818 from Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate sectors!

If those numbers don't bug you, check out where his former staff members work. Jeff Forbes, once Baucus's Chief of Staff, went straight to K Street when he opened a lobby firm for the health industry. David Castagnetti, another ex-chief of staff, went on to work in the insurance industry itself! Several other staff member have gone similar routes, and some (including Forbes and Castagnetti) have met with Baucus in exclusive meetings on Health Care Reform 2009.

These facts would be meaningless if big industry donors wanted nothing in return; but alas, this is the root of corruption. Of course powerful Wall Street bankers and health care hotshots want their interests protected and enhanced! As we have seen in the Bailout and TARP spending--intended to stabilize the economy--the Democrats are just as keen as Republicans in helping big business at the expense of taxpayers. And Max Baucus is in a particularly powerful position as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee--arguably the most influential of all committees since nearly every bill that involves spending must go through it.

Now let me tell you how twisted Senator Baucus's health care reform bill is going to be. For one, the man refuses to support the Public Option, which is now the last remaining hope for true, fundamental reform...for the change we can believe in. This corporate Dem will fight any attempt to uproot the perverted and financially idiotic health care system that this country has been victim to for so many years. Instead, cooperatives have been proposed as a substitute for the public option--this is a petty appeasement, and will be destined for failure since co-ops will not have the funding to sustain themselves; eventually they will be used as "proof" that non-private health plans do not--cannot work.

Baucus's bill is being determined by his "Gang of 6" which, besides Montana Max, includes Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota), and Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico). Seems like a lot of Republicans determining reform they do not even seem to want! Is there not a Democratic majority? In fact, Baucus has shut out certain members of the Finance Committee who do indeed support the public option! And I refuse to believe that the Gang of 6 states are representative of the entire country.

True health care reform is looking more and more unlikely by the hour, and this is largely due to the influential Baucus. How have we allowed this kind of paralyzing corruption to happen? Don't the people of Montana see that this man has little desire to represent their true needs? The needs of the country at large? Must things get bad enough that we must revolt to reform our policies and cut the puppet strings once and for all?

I refuse to believe we have reached that point, but I do know that a voter revolt is needed--that is, people like this can and must lose reelection. If change is on the horizon, it certainly will not come from hacks like Max Baucus--a man perhaps best explained by his response to single-payer advocates (a group of 8 doctors and nurses) demanding to have a seat at the table: "We need more police!"

And so it is official... Max Baucus: you, sir, are my first WORST CONGRESSPERSON

Public Option in 70 Seconds

Here it is, folks. Plain and simple. Cut n dry. What is the public option and why we must have it:

Bill Moyers: Reason on Health Care Debate

Why We Shouldn't Fear the Public Option

People often forget, either due to distractions, blinding cynicism or a lack of education, how unique this country really is. The United States of America is a nation forged and grounded in a rich tradition of protest and persistent refusal to accept the status quo. In many ways this tradition has been in hibernation--recent decades will never be known as the years of particularly impressive citizen participation in government and policy. Indeed, the American people have become increasingly apathetic and stupid, but I believe that the spirit has remained alive--in fact, I predict that the drive to change our most negative aspects of society is building momentum; isn't it obvious?

Take the town halls on health care, for instance. Though CNN, FOX and MSNBC only cover the crazies, there is some remarkable dialogue going on--and not just by the supporters of health care. When it comes to the Public Option, there is a genuine philosophical debate to be had. Remember that the whole point of the American Revolution was to establish independence from an abusive and invasive government that taxed excessively and unfairly. We have come a long way since then, and have perhaps gone full-circle in many ways. I share many Libertarian concerns of the expansion of the U.S. government, excessive spending and the limitations placed upon civil liberties; not to mention our often tyrannical foreign policies. Indeed, the United States became the very empire its citizens died to defeat. People think I'm a big gov liberal, but the fact of the matter is that the federal government IS WAY TOO BIG! The War on Drugs is a fiscal and societal disaster, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are squandering our treasure. The IRS ought to be torn down and replaced with a simpler tax code, and the Patriot Act ought to make every single American extremely wary of what leaders know about our personal lives. Not to mention the militarization of government that has seeped into the media and saturated our culture.

So when people say to me: "I just don't believe the federal government should expand! It's already too massive" I agree! The problem is that in this modern world, there are modern problems that require state intervention. Spying on Americans is not one of these exceptions. Drug abuse isn't either. Nor is Saddam Hussein or Ho Chi Minh! But to the people who believe the Public Option is some kind of government takeover and the onset of communism: should we not fight to end the excessive federal policies that actually hurt people? The War on Drugs fuels a culture of crime in the inner-cities. At least a million Iraqi citizens are dead because of the current conflict--not to mention the 4,339 dead American soldiers. But now you oppose a public health plan? A plan that will help your fellow citizens get the care they need? A report by the Institute of Medicine suggests that as many as 22,000 American citizens die annually due to the lack of an insurance policy--one that either could not be afforded or was cut by employers!

And let us not forget that the Public Option is an OPTION! While the true Left wing of this USA would really like a single-payer system, it is simply not going to happen with this legislation. Big Insurance is the most powerful lobby in Washington, and certainly has great influence on the bill--in other words, the argument that people will be forced to take the government plan is bullshit. The truth of the matter is that most people will keep their private plans; plans, by the way, made more consumer-friendly due to other reforms that will be in the final legislation (including the preexisting condition issue and the ability to choose your own doctors).

Though this is an expansion of government services, I want to tell you how the Public Plan is actually more economical and sustainable than the current system. You see, being private enterprise, Big Insurance seeks to charge as much as possible while providing as little as possible. I have no problem with capitalism (I am a Capitalist), but this is the reality of the basic operations of a firm. While this is perfectly acceptable in most sectors, health care is an entirely different beast. Since 2000, insurance premiums have nearly doubled! In 2007, the U.S. spent about $2.2 trillion on health care,* which comes out to approximately 16.2% of GDP--nearly twice the amount of the rest of the developed world! ** If you aren't worried yet, then you have read these numbers: by 2025, costs are expected to rise 25%; by 2082, 49% ! *** Oh, and did you realize that every GM vehicle is $1,525 more expensive because of employer-based health care coverage? Insurance is by far GM's biggest expenditure--even more than steel! ****

And the numbers go on and on. This is the financial argument, and it is all tied to the Big Insurance practice of driving up costs for higher profit margins, and making up for their clunky and inefficient administrative costs. Medicare costs are skyrocketing because they are subsidizing these inflating premiums, and this must be replaced. The Public Option must establish a much simpler and transparent system that injects competition into this stale and unsustainable market. It is fiscally sensical and it is moral.

But just any Public Option will not do. Next week I will tackle the question of "what must a Public Option look like in order to drive competition and cut costs?"

Absorb it, discuss it, and hopefully support it. Leave your comments below.

*Office of the Actuary, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Health Expenditure Data for 2007. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, available at: http://www.cms. hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/02_NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.asp#TopOfPage

**Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD Health Data 2008.

***P.R. Orszag, Growth in Health Care Costs: Statement Before the Committee on the Budget, United States Senate, (Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, Jan 31 2008), available at http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8948

****R. Wagoner, Testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, December 5, 2008.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/05/gm-health-care-reform/

The Time to Act has Come, Reaffirm Your Commitment

My friends, I apologize for taking an extended summer break, but now the wheels are turning once again, and I must say that never before have I felt this necessity to write for cause. We elected the progressive candidate, though not without a healthy degree of skepticism by many (including myself), and the calling for responsible and energetic citizenship has never been greater. For in the words of the President:

What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task.

For those who voted Obama/Biden on election day, this calling is especially directed towards you! The President is powerless to create fundamental change without his foot-soldiers and right now you are failing. And so am I.
But today we reaffirm our commitment to transform this country into what it ought to be. When this country decisively elected Barack Obama, he was given a mandate to bring about progressive reform, and now we must help him. Right now, the most powerful lobby in Washington is fighting the fight of its life to destroy any kind of true reform of its corrupt system. The right-wing and conservative Dems have taken the stand that change mustn't come to American health care, and they have effectively waged a crusade of fear and lies against the President's plan--against the President's promise.

If this country wishes to survive, her citizens must become informed on the topics and fight for truth. Indeed, this health care battle is a test: can the people who voted for something transformational actually make it happen? Do we have it in us to bring down the congressmen and women who have prostituted themselves out to the insurance giants? I believe we do; because nothing is stronger than a nation of motivated and optimistic citizens. And right now I want to reaffirm my commitment to this country's potential--that I will do all in my power to be a part of the grassroots of change. Because I voted for it. Because it is my responsibility to walk the walk.

And now I ask my readers--my fellow citizens--will you join me in this commitment to fight for reform by pressuring your reluctant representatives to support President Obama's agenda? Will you fight the myths with your colleagues, classmates and family? If so, I hope that you will leave a declaration of support for this cause below in the comments section. Tell others what you believe in and how hard you are willing to fight. And after your declaration, you must act on it. You must make the calls, attend the town halls and go door-to-door. It is this movement that determined the election, and now it must live on to determine our future. There really are better things on the horizon--indeed, they are within our grasp!

In the coming days and weeks, I will be rolling out a series of articles on the healthcare debate. My hope is to lay out the arguments and contextualize the controversy. Because if you know the facts, you will realize that Obama really is on the right side of things. And after we pass healthcare--with the public option included--it is on to the next fight.

Till next time.

Republicans: Fearing themselves to insignificance

The Republican Party is truly the ignorant, xenophobic fear-mongering party. See this video released by the Minority LEADER John Boehner... I think you will see why I am going to enjoy watching these radicals implode.

Obama Myth: The Revised Blueprint for Change

When it became clear that Barack Obama would win the presidency, I was watching an appearance by Ralph Nader who was explaining what he believed would happen early on in the first term. He predicted that the supporters would say: "Give him a chance." There is much to be changed, and it will take time. The first hundred days go by... not a whole lot of change, but hey, he's workin on it... right?

Wrong: Only a swindler as masterful as Barry Obama could oversee the largest corporate welfare program ever seen by human civilization, expand an endless, and unpopular, war of ideology, and refuse to uphold basic rule of law, while calling it the "Blueprint for Change" and enjoying widespread fascination of the masses at the same time. (breathe)

For the masses I present the "Revised Blueprint for Change":

1. Holy change and hope, Batman! There's an economic disaster in our midst! Gotta act fast!
-oversee corporate adoption... check
-submit to the banking oligarchy... check
-don't ask for much in return (don't want to piss off the oligarchy)... check
-spend taxpayer dollars like a yiked up japanese girl taking pics in nyc... in progress
-spend taxpayer dollars like a pretween taking pics at a Jonas Bros. 3D fiesta... in progress and lovin it

2. Declare an end to the occupation of Iraq... check
-provision: don't mean it

3. Buy stupid looking dog for girls... check

4. Frame the Afghanistan effort as "winnable"... workin on it
-oh, and maintain exorbitant military budget, while selling it to the public as "deep cuts"... check

5. Ba-rock the empire... progressing with crisp style

6. Defeat Swine flu pandemic with rainbow sword (aka 3 wood)... reworking strategy

7. appease the middle class and win re-election... like pie

8. Pardon Bush and Cheney... tba

Got any more? Let's hear!

[editor's note, 10.26.2009-- This was a harsh assessment, but reflects a very real anger.  Obama should have taken a stand against Wall Street bailouts, but understand that Congress is the real problem.  President Barry is far more promising than that raucous bunch!]

Wondering Where Your Democracy Went?

When President Reagan gave his famous "City on a Hill" speech, he declared the United States the pinnacle of civilization--the city...on the hill. But when John Winthrop said those words he was talking about an America that ought to be. Not that is. Perhaps it is too hasty to assume that we have reached this ideal.

To the wide-eyed masses: you did not choose Barack Obama as president. To those who believe in the potential of liberty and democracy: your country has forsaken its highest ideals. In an age where the issues are not discussed and the candidates are interchangeable photogenics, you must question what it is you should be doing here. In this country. As a citizen.

In the election of 2008, this facade went on before our very eyes. Ron Paul raised over $6 million in a single day--the most of any candidate; he had millions of supporters and was leading a sort of movement. But he was, for some reason excluded from the later and more important debates. This was the sole Republican with truly unique views--and more conservative ones at that. He suggested to the people that U.S. imperialism is the cause of the terror--not our values and "freedom." Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat, ran on a platform of peace. Mike Gravel ran to end U.S. militarization and establish a direct democracy. All were left out of the later debates.


Perhaps these candidates simply did not register enough votes in the early primaries, and were rightfully asked not to return. Maybe the media did its job. For the people. But then you look at who we ended up with. Hillary vs. Obama--two candidates with identical policy platforms. Debating. What I am saying is that maybe, just maybe there is something larger at work. Not a conspiracy, but a system rather. A system that has developed over the years and fuels a sham of a democracy. Corporate media, corporate candidates. There are powerful interests at stake and a lot of profits to be made. Be wary.

"The genius of our ruling class is that it has kept a majority of the people from ever questioning the inequity of a system where most people drudge along, paying heavy taxes for which they get nothing in return." - Gore Vidal

Important Vids: Obama and Economy

Sorry I've been away... this week has been hell. Please watch these videos on Obama and the economy... they are unique from all the other news I have seen, and frame all the goings on in a very interesting way.

Please share your thoughts. PS: None of these are actually as long as it says because there is a 3-4 commercial at the end of each. Enjoy.

Obama is a "liberal wolf in centrist clothing"?:







On ECONOMIC CRISIS: