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

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!

Later this week... 10 Best Congresspeople: Dennis Kucinich

Stay tuned for my second entry of 10 Worst, 10 Best: Your United States Congress. This time: Representative Dennis Kucinich of Cleveland, Ohio. Will be up by Thursday.

Also, I've just created a Facebook Page that anyone can 'fan' to receive updates on your NewsFeed. I promise, the updates will not dominate your wall!

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.

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

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.

WTF?? Part 3, Guest Blogger: Hanadi Riyad

I asked a former classmate of mine to write an essay on her views on the the Gaza incursion.  Hanadi is from the region, which makes this situation all the more immediate for her--my hope is that some of this urgency will be conveyed to my readers.

Without further ado, Hanadi Riyad:

"Cast Lead and ME Shift"

As I was thinking of what to write exactly for this short essay, I elected to write from my own personal perspective as based on my daily life and observations as a Middle Easterner. I decided that it is very important for us to realize what a lot of analysts are neglecting to discuss: the reverberating impact of the Israeli invasion of Gaza on the region and the shifts of political roles and landscapes it caused in the Middle East. The on-going blockade aside, the Israeli genocide against the Palestinian people of Gaza, otherwise known as "operation Cast Lead," was a turning point in Middle Eastern politics and public opinion. On the bright side, Palestinians were made to feel less abandoned by the people and citizens of the world. On the dark side, the international community's failure to respond proportionately to the Zionist aggression against Gaza enhanced the Palestinian people's feelings of separation and alienation from the official international system and its ultra-statist institutions. It also widened the gap between the Palestinian and Arab public and their leaders and "representatives."

The numerous public and civil protests against the Israeli aggressions against Gazans first came as a surprise to everybody in the Middle East; they displayed an unfamiliar feeling of human solidarity with the people of the world. In 1948, the Palestinian people were officially abandoned by both the international powers and their people. The feelings of guilt that plagued the people of Europe over the Holocaust presented the perfect chance for the colonial powers to present Zionist Jews with Palestine as compensation. This is the first time since then that the world has witnessed that number of protests against Israel. In France, Spain, the US, Russia, and many other European countries, protestors showed the increasing disenchantment with the Israeli state and its Zionist "cause." I think some of those protests were also driven by the sense of guilt some people, especially Europeans, are feeling over their governments' complicity in the extermination of the Palestinian people and support of the Israeli occupation. The frequent use of the word "holocaust" to describe the latest atrocity against Gaza indicates the people of the world's awareness of the connection between the Holocaust and the Israeli extermination of Palestinians.

However, what did not come as a surprise to anybody in the Middle East was the lack of action on the part of the international powers; some of the blatantly biased and pro-Israeli stances many governments took on the Gaza invasion produced a feeling of repulsion and disgust with those governments. Indeed, the famous and atrocious statement made by the EU presidency spokesperson Potuznik, calling the ground op "defensive," is one example of such a stance. Only either total ignorance of Middle Eastern politics or total inhumanity could have compelled that Czech official to say something as biased as that. I mean, even Olmert and Peres called the op "offensive." What is really significant though is the resulting public disrespect for the UN amongst the Middle Eastern public; this was mainly produced by the Israeli disregard of the UN cease-fire resolution passed on 8 January and its constant targeting of the UN schools where civilians had taken refuge. Not only the sanctity of educational institutions was violated, but also the authority of the UN was dismissed and attacked. There is this conviction now that the UN has backed Israel for too long now that it cannot stand in its face anymore. Only armed resistance is capable of that.  

The gap between the Arab regimes and the Arab public has been there since the artificial states of the Middle East were formed by the colonial powers at the time; now, it's wider than ever. The way that Arab governments split into two camps, the "moderate" or "pro-Israeli" and the "radical" or "pro-Palestinian" was predictable. However, never an embassy of an Arab state was attacked in another Arab country. Egyptian embassies all over the Arab world were attacked vigorously and repeatedly by protesters against the Egyptian refusal to open Rafah crossing into Gaza. While people threw shoes at Egyptians embassies, a lot of Cuban and Turkish embassies were thrown with flowers and roses. For the first time in my life, I heard Arab opposition leaders call, loudly and clearly, for coups and revolutions against various conspiring Arab regimes. Of course, these would be the ones that have the same interest as Israel and the US to terminate the Palestinian resistance and keep their regional hegemony intact, such as Saudi Arabia.

These are only my views and I do not presume to represent neither all Middle Easterners nor the majority's opinion. This is how I see things standing right now in the Middle East in the aftermath of the Israeli ground op in Gaza.

WTF?? Part 2: What is Hamas?

For Part 2 of our series on the Israel/Palestine conflict entitled "WTF??" we will address the question: What is Hamas?

In my research, I have come to fully realize the extent to which American media distorts what Hamas really is. Check out this segment from the Fox News Network:



So let us analyze what how this interview describes the Hamas group. For one, the "expert" who describes to us Hamas and its motivations is a man who works for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies-- a neoconservative think-tank dedicated to "promoting pluralism, defending democratic values, and fighting the ideologies that threaten democracy." This is a very pro-Iraq War group that strongly supports the policies of Israel's ruling party.

Anyways, from the FOX interview, we gather a few assumptions:
1. Hamas is a terrorist organization, dedicated to the "destruction of Israel"
2. It was founded in 1987, and began suicide attacks in the 1990s
3. Hamas has established "major social services program" as a public relations "booster"
4. They were elected democratically-- gaining 62% of the vote
5. Compared to the governments of Hitler, Mao, Mussollini
6. Part of a global terror network-- at the center of which is Iran (and according to the neoconservative dude, nothing fundamental can be done as long as the current Iranian regime is in power... hmm, I wonder what that means??)
7. The caption at the bottom of the screen states: "Hamas wants Israel Gone, Palestinian State in its Place"
8. If Israel leaves without destroying Hamas, it will be seen as a "humiliation"

OKAY, enough of FOX, now I'd like you to see an interview done with Eric Margolis-- author of the book American Raj, a study that seeks to answer why there exists Middle East hostility towards the West (addressing historical, political and religious factors). Margolis was a journalist in the region for many years. Check out the interview, and then we will discuss:



Let's review:
1. Western media distorts what Hamas really is
2. It is a "national liberation movement" ... an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt
3. Founded in opposition to the the corrupt and ineffective Palestinian Liberation Organization
4. Israel, in fact, quietly supported Hamas as a means to disrupt Palestinian unity
5. Has Hamas used "terrorist" tactics?
-they HAVE targeted civilians
-they HAVE used suicide bombers
-Why can't we call them "terrorists"?
-Well, the argument is that if Hamas had the same sophisticated weaponry that Israel uses, they would do the same... suicide bombers are the poor man's cruise missile
-But what about the civilians being targets? Margolis says that Hamas is morally wrong in this, and I agree. Civilians should never be the targets!
-But many of these attacks are "revenge" attacks... in retaliation for the attacks on Palestinians

6. The Palestinians have suffered 10-40 times more dead than the Israelis (but this doesn't excuse any attacks on civilians)
7. Hamas is a socio-religious movement, preaching "resistence to Western and Israeli dominance" ... and they remain hardliners against corruption
8. Provides many social services... schools, sewage, street-cleaning, etc... THIS is the MOST IMPORTANT aspect of Hamas.... making them respected and admired by their people
9. The armed resistance wing
-claim to be defending the "rights of 5-7 million displaced, homeless Palestinian refugees"
-won't recognize Israel until Israel recognizes the rights of those 5-7 million

10. Hamas is NOT a "threat" to the "existence of Israel"
-at most, they have 3,000 poorly trained gunmen
-basically, they are totally overpowered by Israeli forces ... they are like 'fish in a barrel'

11. The fearmongering by the Western media and Israeli government has made it nearly impossible for meaningful negotiation
12. Anti-semitism is infecting the Arab world like never before... it is as a result of the Israeli bombings and incursions

**Clearly this issue is more complex and dynamic than one FOX interview may suggest... and don't just take Margolis's word for it. Do some reading on your own and learn the history behind this conflict. What is Hamas? Why does this conflict exist (it hasn't been around forever, you know.)? What is "terrorism"?

Tomorrow evening, a guest blogger will be sharing her very personal views on the situation. Please stay tuned.

Cracking Down on White House Lobbying... Your thoughts?

As I work on a piece on the Israel/Palestine conflict (researching and whatnot), I'd like to hear your input on President Obama's executive order, which cracks down on the lobbying in the White House. Check out the blog, and let us know what you think. Feel free to reply to the comments of others, and have some fun.

Obama's Ethics Policy Upsets Would-be Staffers

by Sam Stein

The decision by Barack Obama to restrict lobbyists from working on the same subject in his administration for two years was greeted with nearly unanimous acclaim among the pundits in Washington D.C. If there is one thing that unites congressmen and good-government groups it is support -- at least rhetorical support -- for limiting special interests.

But not everyone was overcome with joy over the Executive Order. For Democratic operatives who have the word "lobbyist" on their resume, Obama's move was a dagger to their dreams of administration jobs.

"All Appointees Entering Government," the new rule reads, "will not for a period of 2 years from the date of [their] appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to [their] former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts."

The issue, ironically, may not matter as much for the most senior of prospective administration officials. Obama maintains the right to skirt the restrictions. For instance, his deputy defense secretary will be William Lynn, who has previously served as a representative for the defense contractor Raytheon. Rather, the individuals squeezed most tightly by the restrictions could end up being those lower on the political totem pole.

"Today, I received the news that I won't be working for an Obama administration," said a Democratic friend of mine, who was part of a briefing team for the president's transition efforts but happens to be a registered lobbyist.

By instituting the most transparent and open ethics policy of any presidential administration, Obama was bound to step on some toes. And he may have disadvantaged himself in certain ways. A high-ranking party operative told the Huffington Post back in December that he disagreed somewhat with the transition team's decision to restrict lobbyists from working on their areas of focus. He'd rather have the experts on staff.

"I understand not having a lobbyist for the NRA working for Obama," the went. "But I want someone who has spent their careers lobbying for stronger gun control laws formulating gun policy in the next White House."

For good government groups, this is a faulty hypothetical. The administration not only needed to make a clean break from special interests, they argue, but can easily fill its ranks with qualified individuals from outside the beltway.

"I think that stance assumes that lobbyists are the only free thinkers and knowledgeable thinkers in Washington that can help the government run better," said Scott Amey of the non-partisan public interest group, the Project On Government Oversight. "The ethics pledge that President Obama put out yesterday was only limiting lobbyists. And the one thing you have to remember is that lobbyists are representing clients that have financial interests at stake ... The Obama team has the waiver provision in there. If it determines that it is in the public interest, a lobbyist can still come and work for the administration. And there are certain times when those waivers may be more appropriate and reasonable than other cases."

POGO, in the end, did not think that such an exception should apply to Lynn, who has become the current face of Obama hypocrisy for the Republican National Committee.

Other watchdogs agreed.

"It appears to be a black-and-white case. I am unaware of what makes it so gray in the mind of President Obama," a former congressional budget staffer now with the Center for Defense Information told ABC News. "It certainly does not bode well for his effectiveness in the job," added Lawrence Korb, a military expert with the Center for American Progress.

But Gibbs justified the move in during Thursday's presser, making sure to reaffirm that the President is, at this point, setting a gold standard for White House ethics policy.

"We have experts who have studied the issue of transparency and ethics who have applauded the steps that the president took yesterday," he said, during his first press briefing. "That exceeds what any administration has previously done in this country. That's what the president pledged during the campaign and that is exactly what he did yesterday in signing these executive orders."

"Any standard is not perfect," he added. "A waiver process that allows people to serve their country is necessary."

Goodbye Señor Bush, Hello Ambiguous Future

As an eleven year old, I wasn't much into politics. I had a faint grasp that Clinton got into trouble over something with a lady (not his wife), that we had bombed someplace far away (which my family watched on the news... in night vision), and that Bush beat Gore after some confusion in Florida. Yes, George W. Bush claimed the presidency before I became politically aware; and for millions of young Americans like myself, this is truly significant.

Tomorrow we say goodbye to the man who played a crucial role in shaping the views of so many in this country. After 9/11, I remember the leadership the President showed... I remember how much support he had. Bush was confident and on message-- he assumed the role of valiant leader during a time when so many were confused and afraid... including myself.

W. told me to stand with the country. He assured me that this great nation would prevail and defeat evil. I believed and defended him for many years. But George Bush did not teach me how to be a patriot-- he did not teach me the inspirational power of our ideals. Instead, he showed me that in times of terror, we must fear and act with that fear in our hearts. No, Bush will never be known as the man who reassured us, once again, that "the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror..."

George Bush, along with nearly every member of the Congress, taught me that the United States could do whatever it wanted. That our government is free to spy on Americans. To torture. I was duped, and became cynical. Bush's words brought American arrogance to center stage, and his blunt style made this country a laughing-stock. He is an embarrassment to liberty and to the Republic... forever a stain on the American tale.

But in this final night of his presidency, perhaps it is time to put a hold on the character assassination; perhaps a moment of self-reflection is in order. Let's start with a question: Who is truly responsible for the last 8 years? The blame-game is fun, but not so much in a democracy-- for in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.

It was ultimately American apathy, disillusionment, and ignorance that brought us Bush. Our inability to understand clear threats to the democratic fabric, and unwillingness to demand the best possible representatives has put us in a truly unfortunate position--one where the very essence of our ideals are slipping away.

But perhaps we are beginning to wake up... Obama did win an astonishing victory. He seems too good to be true, and maybe there is more truth to this statement than people would like to admit. Americans have, at the very least, denounced the ways of the Bush Administration, which is a start. But the complicit Democrats have escaped the wrath of voters, and will one day have to be reckoned with.

It is clear that Americans are ready for a new day, and tomorrow the next chapter of our story begins. The new President must help lead us out of the darkness that we have brought upon ourselves, but as he has said time and time again: this movement is about what we can do ourselves. President Bush is no more responsible for the economic crisis than a weatherman is for the weather, and a President Obama will not be able to fix the world. We must demand receptive and honest lawmakers. We must fight for reform and for our vital causes. We must rethink what place corporate America has in government, and what place America has in this world. And, indeed, we must develop the tools of the Internet so that we may enter an age of unprecedented civilian involvement in government.

President-elect Obama has taken serious strides, but America must be wary. Simply electing new people will not be enough. The restoration of responsible citizenship is the only way for us to survive.

With optimism and resolve.

The Truth in Bulworth's Rhymes

Bulworth, the 1998 film directed by and starring the great Warren Beatty, tells the story of the last days of campaigning for incumbent Senator Jay Billington Bulworth--a liberal Democrat of California. The Senator, apparently depressed, orders a hit on his own life after arranging for a hefty life insurance policy to support his family. In his final appearances as Senator, Bulworth embarks on a crusade of truth--abandoning the trust of his wealthy contributors, Hollywood moguls, and shady insurance lobbyists by speaking of the game that has been played upon the American people.

Bulworth seems on a spiral of madness as he adopts "ghetto" slang, dress and rhythm to the utter bewilderment of his top campaign advisors and a C-SPAN crew. But in the course of his sensational journey, the Senator finds a renewed calling for service from a wise hobo who calls out: "Bulworth, don't be a ghost, you got to be a spirit!" And so he does, with a revamped campaign strategy, which consists of rapping the truth of the system and tearing down the myth of "honest" media during a televised debate. Drawing more and more public fascination, the incumbent raps during his primetime interview:

The rich is getting richer and richer and richer while the middle class is getting more poor/ Making billions and billions and billions of bucks/ well my friend if you weren't already rich at the start well that situation just sucks/cause the richest mother fucker in five of us is getting ninety fuckin eight percent of it/ and every other motherfucker in the world is left to wonder where the fuck we went with it/ Obscenity?/ I'm a Senator/ I gotta raise $10,000 a day every day I'm in Washington/ I ain't getting it in South Central/ I'm gettin it in Beverly Hills/ So I'm votin' for them in the Senate the way they want me too...

It's funny and revelatory, but where the film really shines is in Bulworth's discovery of the truth of the African American condition-- specifically from a drug boss (played by Don Cheadle) who recruits the neighborhood kids to do the hustling because it's the only way to make it in a world where politicians cut the funding to the jobs programs and education. Explaining the reality to Bulworth, Cheadle's character lays it straight: "How a young man gonna take care of his financial responsibilities workin' at motherfuckin' Burger King? He ain't. He ain't, and please don't even start with the school shit. There ain't no education goin' on up in that motherfucker."

And so the rogue politician finds new life in breaking free from the bondage of the corporate establishment--waging an all out crusade against the cancerous power that continues to strangle America the Beautiful. Within the fantastical rhymes of Senator Jay Bulworth lies the truth of the state of this union: that we have been deceived by the great nexus of misinformation into believing that the noble and virtuous will rise for our cause, and that this civilization is better than the great realities that our universe might have us believe in. Perhaps this is excessively cynical, but we must ask ourselves if it is indeed? Have our leaders not won time and time again upon the same promises of change and a better day? Do intelligence and extraordinary talent make the true difference, or does fundamental change arise from a rare kind of passionate courageousness?

Can a leader with the guts and vision rise to a level of true influence? ...Has he already?



Would they let him get away with it?

Unity, Organization, HOPE

Two months ago, Ron Paul appeared alongside Ralph Nader on CNN to discuss their plans for a third party/independent presidential debate.  The debate is irrelevant at this point, but I want to convey the united message that the two shared as a continuation of the message from my last post.

They agreed that immediate action must be taken on the following issues:

A.) Foreign Policy

-We do not want the empire! 

-We cannot afford the empire!

-No more unjust wars!

-Cut the outrageous military budget!

-The President cannot declare war without congressional approval (see Constitution)!

-Bring our military home!

B.) Civil Rights

-Abolish the Patriot Act!

-No more torture!

-Appeal FISA!

C.) Federal Deficit ($56 trillion)

-Stop using the deficit for reckless government adventurism!

-Control the spending!

D.) Reform or Abolish the Federal Reserve

-It is funded and controlled by the banks!

-Totally out of control!

So these are 4 issues that are critical to the survival of our country, and activists on all sides need to come together to push them into the Obama agenda.  Somehow the millions of activists around the country MUST come together for common cause.  People need to be thinking about this and leaders must begin establishing the framework for grassroots organization.  The Congress is only 535 people... they have lives and personalities just like you and me... they can be persuaded. Imagine the possibilities.  

But this week we rest to admire the remarkable history that has been made.  By electing a man whose ancestors we once called "slave," we have proven once again that the American Dream is real.  The age of cynicism and fear has come to an end, and the world can once again look to the United States as a beacon of hope and leadership.  We must remember that in no other place in the world could this have happened.  It is like the French electing a citizen of Algerian descent to their highest office!  Ce n'est pas possible!

Coming of age during perhaps the most cynical period of American history prevented me from recognizing why our country truly is special.  It is because of this nation's ability to change that gives me newfound hope.  Today let the world know that the United States can be better, and I believe will.  

And to the Americans who have been disenchanted by our nation's failures and betrayals: I ask you to believe once more in the Dream that is our legacy, and in the government that we cherish so deeply.  Do not let it fail.

Much work is ahead of us, but it can be done.

Cynicism for Obamanation

The Obama fervor is fairly strong here on campus, so I thought I should inject a little realism into the conversation by posting the following in our school paper (you may recognize the quote):

Former New York Times reporter recently wrote this forward thinking and realistic assessment of our current political predicament:

"I place no hope in Obama or the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is a pathetic example of liberal, bourgeois impotence, hypocrisy and complacency. It has been bought off. I will vote, if only as a form of protest against our corporate state and an homage to Polanyi's brilliance, for Ralph Nader. I would like to offer hope, but it is more important to be a realist. No ethic or act of resistance is worth anything if it is not based on the real. And the real, I am afraid, does not look good."

I am voting for Barack Obama, but I know that I should be voting for Nader. I suppose it is the fluffy hope that Obama speaks of in his carefully crafted speeches... the idea that Obama could be a third party in disguise. If the fact that Nader is on 45 state ballots and was STILL restricted from the debates does not set off red flags in your mind, you must be truly blinded. But if there is not radical reform of our government, then this country is going to become a lot more pathetic... maybe even dangerous. The corruption has permeated all aspects of the legislative, executive and judicial. The empire is out of control.

Eventually there will be a call to arms to end the corporatocracy and dismantle the military industrial complex (look it up)... to restore the integrity of the Republic. The people forgot Vietnam and did not feel the Iraq War, but they will feel the next one, and when they start to suffer, they will cry out for another Ralph Nader, Mike Gravel, or Ron Paul. Till then and beyond we must take after the Founding Fathers and be skeptical of those who rule, and take action when they become incompetent.

Later today I'll be seeing Joe Biden speak in Newark, OH... hopefully I'll get to ask him a good question.  Will report later.

Just a Quote

Today I will leave you with just a quote as food for thought.  It was written by former New York Times reporter Chris Hedges:

"I place no hope in Obama or the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is a pathetic example of liberal, bourgeois impotence, hypocrisy and complacency. It has been bought off. I will vote, if only as a form of protest against our corporate state and an homage to Polanyi's brilliance, for Ralph Nader. I would like to offer hope, but it is more important to be a realist. No ethic or act of resistance is worth anything if it is not based on the real. And the real, I am afraid, does not look good."

Absorb and reflect.

The Bailout Passed, but Check this Out!

Yes, the new bailout passed in the Senate, and tomorrow it goes to the House for a vote. My uncle brought my attention to this petition ... basically a bunch of the nation's leading economists came together to say that the bailout is a terrible idea: that is, it will disrupt the markets long term, it is unfair to the taxpayers, and it's really shady (they say ambiguous). Essentially what I said before (I think), but this time from experts!

But those in power will do what they want. If they want to go to war against a random country for trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives, they will. If they want to give $700 billion to their Wall Street friends and co-workers, they will. If those from within commit crimes, the investigations (if any) will be insufficient and false. This is the age-old story of government.

PS: Obama, McCain, and Biden all voted for the bailout ... I think we all know why.

PPS: Palin showed up to vote, but was told she couldn't.