Reformation unpopular with Catholics

Local progressive agitator Rita Ague takes issue with a scolding homily delivered at Manitou’s Our Lady of Perpetual Help:

I’m sorry, Father Corbley, but I’m unable to attend your sessions.

I’m one of many cafeteria Catholics and former Catholics who find spirituality in avoiding “spiritual masturbation.” Instead, I work as best I can for justice and peace, and don’t worry about what makes me feel spiritual.

Guess this qualifies me as one of those you cited in your sermon as operating “outside the box” I actually call myself a “Cathepis” – sounds a bit vulgar, but actually stands for a Catholic who agrees with the direction the Church of England has gone in allowing priests to marry, women to be ordained, gay priests with partners to come out of the closet and actually become bishops, etc.

No, I’m not gay, but am a strong supporter of civil rights and Christian, humanistic love and respect for all. I attend both Catholic and Episcopal services, but must admit to leaning more toward the Episcopal, insofar as I’m absolutely turned off with the oh so unchristianlike behavior of so many RC’ers, such as the current pope, our local bishop, the blatantly manipulated “good Catholics” who see my “Healthcare not Warfare” button and signs, and scream at me that I’m going to hell because I support health care reform. They yell that health care reform, including the public option and/or single payer approach, is all about abortion. And I develop my own spirituality by refraining from screaming back at them.

Good luck to you, Father, and God be with you in your journey on a less traveled road.

Rita Ague

Rock Creek Free Press available in COS

The Rock Creek Free Press is available online, but if you want it in print, the DC monthly is available in Colorado Springs at the Bookman, 3163 W. Colorado. The September issue features a speech given by legendary Australian journalist John Pilger on July 4th in San Francisco.

Here’s the RCFP transcript:

Two years ago I spoke at “Socialism in Chicago” about an invisible government which is a term used by Edward Bernays, one the founders of modern propaganda. It was Bernays, who in the 1920s invented public relations as a euphemism for propaganda. And it was Bernays, deploying the ideas of his uncle Sigmund Freud, who campaigned on behalf of the tobacco industry for women to take up smoking as an act of feminist liberation calling cigarettes “tortures of freedom”. At the same time he was involved in the disinformation which was critical in overthrowing the Arbenz government in Guatemala. So you have the association of cigarettes and regime change. The invisible government that Bernays had in mind brought together all media: PR, the press, broadcasting, advertising and their power of branding and image making. In other words, disinformation.

And I suppose I would like to talk today about this invisible government’s most recent achievement, the rise of Barrack Obama and the silencing of much of the left. But all of this has a history, of course and I’d like to go back, take you back some forty years to a sultry and, for me, very memorable day in Viet Nam.

I was a young war correspondent who had just arrived in a village in the Central Highlands called Tuylon. My assignment was to write about a unit of US Marines who had been sent to the village to win hearts and minds. “My orders,” said the Marine Sergeant, “are to sell the American way of liberty, as stated in the Pacification Handbook, this is designed to win the hearts and minds of folks as stated on page 86.” Now, page 86 was headed in capital letters: WHAM (winning hearts and minds). The Marine Unit was a combined action company which explained the Sergeant, meant, “We attack these folks on Mondays and we win their hearts and minds on Tuesdays.” He was joking, of course, but not quite.

The Sergeant, who didn’t speak Vietnamese, had arrived in the village, stood up on a Jeep and said through a bullhorn: “Come on out everybody we’ve got rice and candies and toothbrushes to give you.” This was greeted by silence. “Now listen, either you gooks come on out or we’re going to come right in there and get you!” Now the people of Tuylon finally came out and they stood in line to receive packets of Uncle Ben’s Miracle Rice, Hershey Bars, party balloons, and several thousand toothbrushes. Three portable, battery operated, yellow, flush lavatories were held back for the arrival of the colonel.

And when the colonel arrived that evening, the district chief was summoned and the yellow, flush lavatories unveiled. The colonel cleared his throat and took out a handwritten speech,

“Mr. District Chief and all you nice people,” said the colonel, “what these gifts represent is more than the sum of their parts, they carry the spirit of America. Ladies and gentlemen there’s no place on Earth like America, it’s the land where miracles happen, it’s a guiding light for me and for you. In America, you see, we count ourselves as real lucky as having the greatest democracy the world has ever known and we want you nice people to share in our good fortune.”

Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, even John Winthrope sitting upon a hill got a mention. All that was missing was the Star Bangled Banner playing softly in the background. Of course the villagers had no idea what the colonel was talking about, but when the Marines clapped, they clapped. And when the colonel waved, the children waved. And when he departed the colonel shook the Sergeant’s hand and said: “We’ve got plenty of hearts and minds here, carry on Sergeant.” “Yes Sir.” In Viet Nam I witnessed many scenes like that.

I’d grown up in faraway Australia on a cinematic diet of John Wayne, Randolph Scott, Walt Disney, and Ronald Reagan. The American way of liberty they portrayed might well have been lifted from the WHAM handbook. I’d learned that the United States had won World War II on its own and now led the free world as the chosen society. It was only later when I read Walter Lippmann’s book, Public Opinion, a manual of the invisible government, that I began to understand the power of emotions attached to false ideas and bad histories on a grand scale.

Now, historians call this exceptionalism, the notion that the United States has a divine right to bring what it calls “liberty” to the rest of humanity. Of course this is a very old refrain. The French and British created and celebrated their own civilizing missions while imposing colonial regimes that denied basic civil liberties. However, the power of the American message was, and remains, different. Whereas the Europeans were proud imperialists, Americans are trained to deny their imperialism. As Mexico was conquered and the Marines sent to Nicaragua, American textbooks referred to an Age of Innocence. American motives were always well meaning, moral, exceptional, as the colonel said, “There was no ideology” and that’s still the case.

Americanism is an ideology that is unique because its main feature is its denial that it is an ideology. It’s both conservative and it’s liberal. And it’s right and it’s left. And Barack Obama is its embodiment. Since Obama was elected leading liberals have talked about America returning to its true status as, “a nation of moral ideals”. Those are the words of Paul Krugman, the liberal columnist of The New York Times. In the San Francisco Chronicle, columnist Mark Morford wrote,

“Spiritually advanced people regard the new president as a light worker who can help usher in a new way of being on the planet.”

Tell that to an Afghan child whose family has been blown away by Obama’s bombs. Or a Pakistani child whose house has been visited by one of Obama’s drones. Or a Palestinian child surveying the carnage in Gaza caused by American “smart” weapons, which, disclosed Seymour Hersh, were re-supplied to Israel for use in the slaughter, and I quote; “Only after the Obama team let if be known, it would not object.” The man who stayed silent on Gaza is the man who now condemns Iran.

In a sense, Obama is the myth that is America’s last taboo. His most consistent theme was never “change”, it was power. “The United States,” he said, “leads the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good. We must lead by building a 21st century military to ensure the security of our people and advance the security of all people.” And there is this remarkable statement, “At moments of great peril in the past century our leaders ensured that America, by deed and by example, led and lifted the world; that we stood and fought for the freedoms sought by billions of people beyond our borders.” Words like these remind me of the colonel in the village in Viet Nam, as he spun much the same nonsense.

Since 1945, by deed and by example, to use Obama’s words, America has overthrown 50 governments, including democracies, and crushed some 30 liberation movements and bombed countless men, women, and children to death. I’m grateful to Bill Blum for his cataloging of that. And yet, here is the 45th (sic) president of the United States having stacked his government with war mongers and corporate fraudsters and polluters from the Bush and Clinton eras, promising, not only more of the same, but a whole new war in Pakistan. Justified by the murderous clichés of Hilary Clinton, clichés like, “high value targets”. Within three days of his inauguration, Obama was ordering the death of people in faraway countries: Pakistan and Afghanistan. And yet, the peace movement, it seems, is prepared to look the other way and believe that the cool Obama will restore, as Krugman wrote, “the nation of moral ideals.”

Not long ago, I visited the American Museum of History in the celebrated Smithsonian Institute in Washington. One of the most popular exhibitions was called “The Price of Freedom: Americans at War”. It was holiday time and lines of happy people, including many children, shuffled through a Santa’s grotto of war and conquest. When messages about their nation’s great mission were lit up; these included tributes to the; “…exceptional Americans who saved a million lives…” in Viet Nam; where they were, “…determined to stop Communist expansion.” In Iraq other brave Americans, “employed air-strikes of unprecedented precision.” What was shocking was not so much the revisionism of two of the epic crimes of modern times, but the shear scale of omission.

Like all US presidents, Bush and Obama have very much in common. The wars of both presidents and the wars of Clinton and Reagan, Carter and Ford, Nixon and Kennedy are justified by the enduring myth of exceptional America. A myth the late Harold Pinter described as, “a brilliant, witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.”

The clever young man who recently made it to the White House is a very fine hypnotist; partly because it is indeed extraordinary to see an African American at the pinnacle of power in the land of slavery. However, this is the 21st century and race together with gender, and even class, can be very seductive tools of propaganda. For what is so often overlooked and what matters, I believe above all, is the class one serves. George Bush’s inner circle from the State Department to the Supreme Court was perhaps the most multi-racial in presidential history. It was PC par excellence. Think Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell. It was also the most reactionary. Obama’s very presence in the White House appears to reaffirm the moral nation. He’s a marketing dream. But like Calvin Klein or Benetton, he’s a brand that promises something special, something exciting, almost risqué. As if he might be radical. As if he might enact change. He makes people feel good; he’s a post-modern man with no political baggage. And all that’s fake.

In his book, Dreams From My Father, Obama refers to the job he took after he graduated from Columbia in 1983; he describes his employer as, “…a consulting house to multi-national corporations.” For some reason he doesn’t say who his employer was or what he did there. The employer was Business International Corporation; which has a long history of providing cover for the CIA with covert action and infiltrating unions from the left. I know this because it was especially active in my own country, Australia. Obama doesn’t say what he did at Business International and they may be absolutely nothing sinister. But it seems worthy of inquiry, and debate, as a clue to, perhaps, who the man is.

During his brief period in the senate, Obama voted to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He voted for the Patriot Act. He refused to support a bill for single payer health care. He supported the death penalty. As a presidential candidate he received more corporate backing than John McCain. He promised to close Guantanamo as a priority, but instead he has excused torture, reinstated military commissions, kept the Bush gulag intact, and opposed habeas corpus.

Daniel Ellsberg, the great whistleblower, was right, I believe, when he said, that under Bush a military coup had taken place in the United States giving the Pentagon unprecedented powers. These powers have been reinforced by the presence of Robert Gates – a Bush family crony and George W. Bush’s powerful Secretary of Defense. And by all the Bush Pentagon officials and generals who have kept their jobs under Obama.

In the middle of a recession, with millions of Americans losing their jobs and homes, Obama has increased the military budget. In Colombia he is planning to spend 46 million dollars on a new military base that will support a regime backed by death squads and further the tragic history of Washington’s intervention in that region.

In a pseudo-event in Prague, Obama promised a world without nuclear weapons to a global audience, mostly unaware that America is building new tactical nuclear weapons designed to blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional war. Like George Bush, he used the absurdity of Europe threatened by Iran to justify building a missile system aimed at Russia and China. In another pseudo-event, at the Annapolis Naval Academy, decked with flags and uniforms, Obama lied that America had gone to Iraq to bring freedom to that country. He announced that the troops were coming home. This was another deception. The head of the army, General George Casey says, with some authority, that America will be in Iraq for up to a decade. Other generals say fifteen years.

Chris Hedges, the very fine author of Empire of Illusion, puts it very well; “President Obama,” he wrote, “does one thing and brand Obama gets you to believe another.” This is the essence of successful advertising. You buy or do what the advertiser wants because of how they make you feel. And so you are kept in a perpetual state of childishness. He calls this “junk politics”.

But I think the real tragedy is that Obama, the brand, appears to have crippled or absorbed much of the anti-war movement – the peace movement. Out of 256 Democrats in Congress; 30, just 30, are willing to stand up against Obama’s and Nancy Pelosi’s war party. On June the 16th they voted for 106 billion dollars for more war.

The “Out of Iraq” caucus is out of action. Its member can’t even come up with a form of words of why they are silent. On March the 21st, a demonstration at the Pentagon by the once mighty United for Peace and Justice drew only a few thousand. The out-going president of UFPJ, Lesley Kagen, says her people aren’t turning up because, “It’s enough for many of them that Obama has a plan to end the war and that things are moving in the right direction.” And where is the mighty Move On, these days? Where is its campaign against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? And what, exactly, was said when Move On’s executive director, Jason Ruben, met Barack Obama at the White House in February?

Yes, a lot of good people mobilized for Obama. But what did they demand of him? Working to elect the Democratic presidential candidate may seem like activism, but it isn’t. Activism doesn’t give up. Activism doesn’t fall silent. Activism doesn’t rely on the opiate of hope. Woody Allen once said, “I felt a lot better when I gave up hope.” Real activism has little time for identity politics which like exceptionalism, can be fake. These are distractions that confuse and sucker good people. And not only in the United States, I can assure you.

I write for the Italian socialist newspaper, Il Manifesto, or rather I used to write for it. In February I sent the editor an article which raised questions about Obama as a progressive force. The article was rejected. Why, I asked? “For the moment,” wrote the editor, “we prefer to maintain a more positive approach to the novelty presented by Obama. We will take on specific issues, but we would not like to say that he will make no difference.” In other words, an American president drafted to promote the most rapacious system in history, is ordained and depoliticized by important sections of the left. It’s a remarkable situation. Remarkable, because those on the, so called, Radical Left have never been more aware, more conscious of the inequities of power. The Green Movement, for example, has raised the consciousness of millions, so that almost every child knows something about global warming. And yet, there seems to be a resistance, within the Green Movement, to the notion of power as a military force, a military project. And perhaps similar observations can also be made about sections of the Feminist Movement and the Gay Movement and certainly the Union Movement.

One of my favorite quotations is from Milan Kundera,

“The struggle of people against power is [the] struggle of memory against forgetting.”

We should never forget that the primary goal of great power is to distract and limit our natural desire for social justice and equity and real democracy.

Long ago Edward Bernays’ invisible government of propaganda elevated big business from its unpopular status as a kind of mafia to that of a patriotic driving force. The “American way of life” began as an advertising slogan. The modern image of Santa Claus was an invention of Coca Cola.

Today we are presented with an extraordinary opportunity. Thanks to the crash of Wall Street and the revelation, for many ordinary people, that the free market has nothing to do with freedom. The opportunity, within our grasp, is to recognize that something is stirring in America that is unfamiliar, perhaps, to many of us on the left, but is related to a great popular movement that’s growing all over the world. Look down at Latin America, less than twenty years ago there was the usual despair, the usual divisions of poverty and freedom, the usual thugs in uniforms running unspeakable regimes. Today for the first time perhaps in 500 years there’s a people’s movement based on the revival of indigenous cultures and language, a genuine populism. The recent amazing achievements in Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, El Salvador, Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay represent a struggle for community and political rights that is truly historic, with implications for all of us. The successes in Latin America are expressed perversely in the recent overthrow of the government of Honduras, because the smaller the country, the greater is the threat of a good example that the disease of emancipation will spread.

Indeed, right across the world social movements and grass roots organization have emerged to fight free market dogma. They’ve educated governments in the south that food for export is a problem, rather than a solution to global poverty. They’ve politicized ordinary people to stand up for their rights, as in the Philippines and South Africa. Look at the remarkable boycott, disinvestment and sanctions campaign, BDS, for short, aimed at Israel that’s sweeping the world. Israeli ships have been turned away from South Africa and Western Australia. A French company has been forced to abandon plans to build a railway connecting Jerusalem with illegal Israeli settlements. Israeli sporting bodies find themselves isolated. Universities in the United Kingdom have begun to sever ties with Israel. This is how apartheid South Africa was defeated. And this is how the great wind of the 1960s began to blow. And this is how every gain has been won: the end of slavery, universal suffrage, workers rights, civil rights, environmental protection, the list goes on and on.

And that brings us back, here, to the United States, because I believe something is stirring in this country. Are we aware, that in the last eight months millions of angry e-mails, sent by ordinary Americans, have flooded Washington. And I mean millions. People are outright outraged that their lives are attacked; they bear no resemblance to the passive mass presented by the media. Look at the polls; more than 2/3 of Americans say the government should care for those who cannot care for themselves, sixty-four percent would pay higher taxes to guarantee health care for everyone, sixty percent are favorable towards Unions, seventy percent want nuclear disarmament, seventy-two percent want the US completely out of Iraq and so on and so on. But where is much of the left? Where is the social justice movement? Where is the peace movement? Where is the civil rights movement? Ordinary Americans, for too long, have been misrepresented by stereotypes that are contemptuous. James Madison referred to his compatriots in the public as ignorant and meddlesome outsiders. And this contempt is probably as strong today, among the elite, as it was back then. That’s why the progressive attitudes of the public are seldom reported in the media, because they’re not ignorant, they’re subversive, they’re informed and they’re even anti-American. I once asked a friend, the great American war correspondent and humanitarian, Martha Gellhorn, to explain the term “anti-American” to me. “I’ll tell you what anti-American is,” she said in her forceful way, “its what governments and their vested interests call those who honor America by objecting to war and the theft of resources and believing in all of humanity. There are millions of these anti-Americans in the United States, they are ordinary people who belong to no elite and who judge their government in moral terms though they would call it common decency. They are not vain; they are the people with a waitful conscience, the best of America’s citizens. Sure, they disappear from view now and then, but they are like seeds beneath the snow. I would say they are truly exceptional.” Truly exceptional, I like that.

My own guess is that a populism is growing, once again in America evoking a powerful force beneath the surface which has a proud history. From such authentic grass roots Americanism came women suffrage, the eight hour day, graduated income tax, public ownership of railways and communications, the breaking of the power of corporate lobbyists and much more. In other words, real democracy. The American populists were far from perfect, but they often spoke for ordinary people and they were betrayed by leaders who urged them to compromise and merge with the Democratic Party. That was long ago, but how familiar it sounds. My guess is that something is coming again. The signs are there. Noam Chomsky is right when he says that, “Mere sparks can ignite a popular movement that may seem dormant.” No one predicted 1968, no one predicted the fall of apartheid, or the Berlin Wall, or the civil rights movement, or the great Latino rising of a few years ago.

I suggest that we take Woody Allen’s advice and give up on hope and listen, instead, to voices from below. What Obama and the bankers and the generals and the IMF and the CIA and CNN and BBC fear, is ordinary people coming together and acting together. It’s a fear as old as democracy, a fear that suddenly people convert their anger to action as they’ve done so often throughout history.

“At a time of universal deceit,” wrote George Orwell, “telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

Thank you.

We cannot afford universal health care

Obama faced friendly fire at his health care town hall, and so fared well telling the audience, what–is that all you got? He dispatched the teabag canards until he had seemingly exhausted the surrogate-public’s straw man objections.

The issue of a single payer system came up. Not from the mouth of an advocate, but framed by a critic, a Republican (“I don’t even know why I’m here.”), who wanted to confront the president about a his past public endorsement of a single payer remedy. Thus, he loaded the question with the assumption that such an naive suggestion must be repudiated.

The president did not denounce a single payer ideal, but instead explained his new moderate view: America wasn’t ready, the country would be destabilized by a sudden changeover to universal health care. Obama gave the example of someone accustomed to health coverage now having to deal with another office, and another set of paperwork.

Changing insurers happens all the time to individuals of course, who learn they’ve been dropped, or whose policies lapse, or who lose their jobs and with it their coverage. Of course that sudden shock is amplified by the uncertainty of finding another insurance policy at all. And then, the other shock when the new premium is three-fold increase.

Switching to a universal insurance plan would introduce no uncertainty, or sticker shock. But certainly the president is talking about the shock to the insurance industry.

Their jobs would be gone tomorrow.

The drawback to immediately trimming the 30% of medical expenses which go to insurance companies, is that those livelihoods will be shattered. The insurance companies are not just about the quarter-billion dollar a year CEOs. There are reps and adjusters and office staff behind the people who deny you disbursements for your health expenses. Not many of them are going to be needed by the expanded Medicare offices. So their jobs are gone.

And the insurance companies advertise on the major media outlets, and hire lobbyists, talking heads and teabag mobs. Universal Medicare isn’t going to need any of those to sway its public beneficiaries. Except to encourage preventive health and wellness.

Insurance companies finance political campaigns. No, our system couldn’t stand the shock of rocking that boat.

Most of all, I’m fairly certain America cannot afford universal health care because it cannot weather the shock of bringing the populace to better health. America has been killing its citizens with far too systematic efficiency to make an about turn. The American public is too far gone down the path of cancer, obesity, diabetes, and neuro-pathological disorder to be turned back affordably. A boat floats on its own with very little effort, but one half-sunk requires almost endless human resources.

In addition to lost insurance jobs, would be lost medical jobs and malfeasance jobs.

When the government is paying all the medical bills, auditors would have to seek out where it was also paying for the pathogens, to eliminate the redundancy. An auditor will spot the guys putting sawdust in the flour, and the guy hired to sift the impurities from the flour. If it stops the first, it can lay off the second.

Where we can eradicate the poison, we can forgo antidote.

America will have to reexamine its food supply, and its industrial byproducts, and its environment despoilers, with an eye to stop their fouling the national health.

That would be too much a shock to the system. I agree.

The Democrats ‘stimulus’ package aggravates the economic disaster instead of fixing it

stimulus-package.jpg ……. It really is too much to see all those liberals getting on the Republicans’ case for their opposition to the Democratic Party’s economic ‘bailout’ plans. Barack’s giveaways to the rich corporate sectors do not alleviate the economic collapse but just pile on to it. So do liberals really want to be left holding the bag and later get blamed by the Republicans for helping pass these government give outs to all the wrong folk built on increasing the Federal debt?

Donkeys have never been so dumb as these American ones seem intent on being! True, Liberals have never been much more than just marginally smarter than the Conservatives are in the US and we’re seeing that in how they have been suckered into supporting an entirely conservative response to the unfolding worldwide disaster now being advocated by their supposed modern day Abraham Lincoln liberal liberator, Barack Obama. However….a real economic rescue plan for Americans would have to be built on several key ingredients, and Barack Obama has used and dealt with none of them.

1) Startup of a new single payer medical system that takes the insurance companies, the hospital and nursing home chains, and the medical equipment/ pharmaceutical companies right out of the control box they presently enjoy, and sets the patient and community into the driving seat where they have always belonged.

2) Nationalizing bankrupt financial institutions and companies in key areas of production (banks, automobile industries, energy companies that pollute, steel, vital medical institutions, major retail outlets that are going under like Circuit City, etc.) and encouraging workers control (unionization).

3) Increasing funding of Social Security programs of all kinds with an emphasis on doing away entirely with privatized retirement schemes that privilege some workers at the expense of others.

4) Instituting national equalization of funding and national Federal funding of the Educational System, and doing away with unequal privatized educational schemes and unequal local funding of education.

5) An immediate defunding of the bloated military-industrial welfare scheme centered on government contracts for the Pentagon’s toys.

When none of these key ingredients for a real economic restart of this country are approached by the Democratic Party-sunk American liberal community, you have a pure recipe for eventual political disaster, as the Republican Far Right will eventually move themselves back into position to retake political power in the White House once again. The Democratic Party truly is a gigantic sink hole that destroys all hope for real change ever being on the agenda, as long as liberals defend the package that is not defensible as being any sort of progress. Why be such gluttons for punishment, Liberals? You need to dump the entire idea of giving support to the Obama package, and sooner is much better than later when the damage will already be set in concrete and done.

Bigger gun nuts taking aim at Obama

NRA adJust what is the NRA hoping to convey with this ad? Does this depict a typical gun enthusiast? It sure resembles a Cracker out of Deliverance, armed to the teeth, looking to hunt someone down.

I read: PWT with HPR on ATV waiting for MLK.

(Does he have binoculars? A blind? He’s not even hiding behind a roadside billboard as he watches for what passes by.) This mounted guard’s vigilant pose projects deterrence. If the photo caught him in motion, we wouldn’t know. He looks out, like a southern highway trooper perhaps, toward a northerner who might wander where he doesn’t belong.

American white racists have been threatening black leaders since how long? Why pay attention to the threat now? I heard it conjectured that making hay about the white supremacy lunatics is a message of deterrence to Obama voters. I think it’s a message to Obama.

Southern white shooters haven’t just targeted black activists, they’ve shut down progressive voices. Kennedy comes to mind, an example maybe of a president who wasn’t dancing with them that brought him.

Obama talks a militaristic game, he dutifully passes the dough to Wall Street, he doesn’t preach single payer health care, or reform of big pharma, chem-agra, or big oil. But we know he’s bright, and perhaps a good many of us hope he has something up his sleeve. And every so often, the powers that be have to let their hit-men dogs out, to remind anyone with big ideas to toe the line, that change will not be tolerated.

Ralph Nader gets it right about the SEIU versus CNA battle

Love a NurseIt is rare for a presidential candidate to even notice the tactics and strategy of the labor unions in America, except to perhaps go after their endorsement. But Ralph Nader recently wrote a commentary about the struggle to get decent Health Care for all Americans, and analyzed the battle between 2 unions that are key components of that struggle.

The SEIU and CNA are the 2 largest unions that have organized nursing service workers in the US, workers that are certainly key one ons the road to getting us all decent medical care coverage. Check out Ralph Nader as he writes about the differences between the 2 unions.

He got it right on, too. Single-Payer Health Care in an Age of Two-Party Politics Sad, but I just don’t see a good future ahead for nurses if the SEIU business unionism gang wins this battle.

‘Health Care Reform’ that is not a real reform will just not work

How did Massachusetts get to be saddled with such a repulsive governor like Mitt Romney? There is a new governor now, as Romney is off running for the US presidency, and this new governor is endorsing Barrack Obama!

But the new governor, Deval Patrick, is also still running and celebrating the health care ‘reform’ that Romney put into place in that state, which has been a total fiasco. In short, a Democrat is running the Republican platform of Mitt Romney in the state of Massachusetts.

So what might the doctors practicing in Massachusetts think about this pseudo reform bill set into place by a Republican governor, and now run by a Democrat?

Doctors Give Massachusetts Health Reform a Failing Grade – Poor Early Outcomes Raise Red Flags, Only Private Insurers Profit

Go directly to the web site of the PNHP to learn more about why single payer national health insurance is totally necessary. Plans that only try to work like the already unworkable mandatory driver’s insurance laws will not make things better. Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts legislation has been a disaster on top of an even larger disaster, which is the lack of universal health coverage for America’s population.

Beware of Hillary Care!

The local business idiots’ rag here in Colorado Springs (The Gazette) has been warning us all about something they call “Hillary Care’. It’s socialized medicine they scream!

The editors of the Right Wing chain mislabeled ‘Freedom Publications’ of which The Gazette is one sheet of, even hate enrolling the poorer of the nation’s children into a government paid health care plan. That would be the first step toward a World Communist government in their opinion. But just what is Hillary Care anyway? In fact, it’s the same thing it was the first time around, or in other words, it’s a sucker punch to the general public.

The original health care proposals by Bill Clinton and wide were a band aid meant to get infected, and infected the American public’s wound became. Things just got worse and the Clintons walked away playing like they were visionaries before their time. Hardly. What their proposals did was set into motion yet further cannibalization of American medical and nursing care by the insurance companies. And they sat by and sat by and sat by.

Hillary has no plan for a single payer system guaranteed by the government such as today vets and some senior citizens get, and a few kids under Chips programs, too. She is not going to propose that the nation be put under one umbrella of equal care equally applied. She is just as much for tiered care under corporate control as George W. Bush is. But she is running her campaign as if this were not true.

Do not get sucker punched by the Clintons again. If you vote for her thinking that at least she will reform the way medical care is delivered in the US you will be voting for change, all the while guaranteeing that it will not come in a way you will like or want. She wants insurance control over your health, not taking away their control over you and your family.

Here is a well written article about the Clintons’ proposals. What went wrong with the Clinton plan? Health Care non-reform the last time The answer is that nothing really went wrong from ‘the vision’ that the Clintons had back then. The insurance companies kept running the entire show.

After opposition to reform quickened as surely it had to, while still in office they dropped any opposition to the big medical corporations they might have ever had, just like it was one big hot potato for them. Hillary is not about to oppose the insurance companies today any more than back then, and is a poor, poor choice to hang hopes on for even the most meager reform of the US Lack of Health System. Vote for her if you want a dirty band aid to be applied while actually wanting and needing major surgery. Hillary is quite a little sugar pill.

The underwhelming Barack Obama

The media is already pushing the delusion to liberal Democratic Party voters, that Barack Obama is their Great Black Hope in 2008. And today he announced he was a candidate for President. They are trying to pass him off as the antiwar candidate, same as Howard Dean was similarly imaged in that manner in 2004.

Not only is he not that, but his positions on almost everything are not liberal, neither. As Colin and Condo are to Dubya and Dick, Barack and Jesse are to Bill and Hillary. Yuck.

I encourage everybody to go to Obama’s website to get a glimpse of his mealy mouthed political approach. He is for education, but not a mention of supporting public schools versus privatization. He is for health care, but nothing about keeping abortion legal, nor anything about supporting a single payer comprehensive national health care system, where all are covered. He speaks out on immigration, but says not a word in opposition to the Border Wall being built. He says not a word about maintaining Social Security, but talks of ‘modernizing’ it. Hell with him. We know what ‘modernizing’ really means. It means cutting SS, that’s what.

Similarly, he blabs on about National Defense, supporting the police, being against sex offenders, crime, and meth. Bullshit is what it is. Pure bullshit. He is for a ‘phased withdrawal’ from Iraq, but not a word about Afghanistan. And what is a ‘phased withdrawal’ to this sort? Over 3 months, or over 10 years? Or over forever? Not a word about cutting our excessive military spending. Why not? This is no liberal speaking, but a mealy mouthed duplicitous worm. Yet another one the Democratic party has spun out.

In the weeks and months ahead, all of America will be encouraged to put their hopes in this man. He was already being touted as the only genuine antiwar candidate tonight on the national news. Lies, lies, lies/ liars, liars, liars. About all the Democrats are hashing up with Barack Obama, is a man to help neutralize the possibility of Condoleeza Rice starting a run for the presidency. That’s about all.

Obama at best would be a return to Clintonism, but this time with a black face in office playing the role of the Slick Willie. Liberals need a better vision than that to offer America, otherwise the slide down hill will continue. And most of all, liberals need a better political party than the Democratic Party. Stuck in that Yu-don’t-go of a vehicle, we will get a wreck of America.

What a demoralized America we have now, minus a genuine third, and anti-corporate, party.

How to tell the media is lying to you, healthcare

How do you know you are not hearing the straight scoop from the media? Health care.
 
How many industrialized nations are there? Twenty-five or so? And our nation is among them. We don’t have the highest standard of living, nor the second highest, but we’re up there. We’re talking compared to Europe, Britain, Scandinavia, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

How many of those nations have virtually free health care for their people? A few? Several? No. We’re talking all of them. Well, all but one. All but the US.

Yet U.S. health care is the most expensive to provide. It costs a greater portion of our GDP, by twice as much, compared to the next most costly.

Many Americans presume that in exchange, our health care is far superior to that of any other nation. This may be true for the ultra-rich who can afford to fly to see specialists whenever they want. Although, recent studies have shown that in several fields our specialists are no longer pre-eminent.

For the rest of us, reliant on HMOs, or medical care audited by insurance companies, health care is not so great. Most of us cannot see a doctor of our choice, nor make a reasonably timely appointment, nor certainly get a house call. This is not even to mention the millions of Americans who are not insured at all.

The World Health Organization has ranked nations in order of the quality and effectiveness of their health care systems. The U. S. ranked 37th.

That’s not even among the developed nations is it? Our system costs twice as much, one third of which goes to insurance costs, and we rank 37th, just below Costa Rica. Fifteen below Colombia by the way.

Why aren’t you hearing about this in the mainstream media? Because the insurance companies are big advertisers on the mainstream media. Insurance companies make 30% off of American health care bills right now. They don’t want to hear any flowery talk of socialized medicine. Insurance companies insist we call that option a “single payer system,” and they demonize the idea as big government. Yes, bigger government, and in exchange, predatory insurance behemoths gone.