Last week, after watching this segment on Democracy Now!, I found myself pleasantly surprised by the forward-thinking approach of newly-elected Vermont governor Peter Shumlin. Check it out:
This single-payer architecture that Shumlin is pushing for is essentially the type of health care system in place in most of Europe and in Canada, in various incarnations. But talk of a 'single-payer' system has been effectively locked out of the debate both on Capitol Hill and in the major news media. It was never 'on the table' when the congress was debating Obama's health care bill to begin with. The debate is limited by and, thus, controlled by those on the right and far-right and the congress and the major news media organizations all land somewhat to the right of the American population, though they would insist vehemently otherwise.
Perhaps it's the "culture of medicine" that is the root of the problem, as my step-father, an ER doctor working in Indiana, has suggested. How do we change that? It's not going to change on its own. What, other than legislation, can effectively move the "culture of medicine" in the right direction?
I think the first and obvious step is relatively simple. Perhaps not easy, due to the immense power of the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry lobbies, but simple nonetheless: remove insurance company profits from the equation. In other words, every health care dollar would go towards health care, rather than being divvied up between health care and profits for insurance companies. This would make the health care system cheaper and more efficient, while simultaneously improving the quality of care across the board.
You will get those on the right, and even in the center and center-left, who will cry 'socialism.' Those who will say that this goes against the free market values of this country. But we must remember that public schools, police forces, and firefighters, among others, are already socialized and have been for as long as we can remember. These organizations don't operate with the purpose of turning a profit and answering to shareholders-- they operate with the purpose of providing a service for citizens. As it should be too for health care, without a shadow of a doubt.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Liberalism or Radicalism: What Will It Take To Move America Forward?
The WikiLeaks saga has awakened a surge of anger and disbelief on the true-left. The clear contempt for transparency displayed by the Washington and media establishment is despicable, though perhaps not surprising.
There are those who have said, "some information ought to remain secret." And they would be correct: not all government secrets should be revealed without consideration for the nuanced effects of such actions. But the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs and the State Department cables are decidedly not the variety of documents that should be kept from the public. These documents have painted a clear picture of how the US government and military do business-- a picture that the networks refuse to paint-- and, therefore, are indispensable if we are to hold true that government transparency begets a functional democracy.
But the establishment is too entrenched. The decision makers in Washington have nothing to gain from the publishing of such information and everything to lose. This is not our government.
"[President Obama] had two years of full Congressional support to get measures such as health care reform passed: that’s two years that any NUMBER of progressive measures could have been enacted, such as immigration reform (which, thankfully, is on its way regardless), the repeal of DADT (which could have been ended via simple Executive Order), or an improved version of the Food Safety act," wrote a good friend of mine, Charlie Olvera, on his blog last Friday. "Instead, we got an administration more concerned with bi-partisanship and appeasing the will of its most vocal critics than with actually performing progressive governance..."
I share his feelings of disenfranchisement.
"Liberals in this country have a reputation grounded in 60s peacenik culture, which unfortunately gives us, in the public estimation, the impression that we are all Prius-driving, Whole Foods-shopping, spaced-out, over-educated wimps," he continues. "If I have to, I will stand as a one-man testament to the contrary. I’m a liberal. I’m about as liberal as they come. And you know what? I’m fucking ANGRY. And I’m going to kick and fight and yell and scream about my rights and the rights of American citizens, and about the moral and ethical responsibility American governance has to its constituency, until somebody sits up and listens and starts yelling with me."
We liberals have tried to play nice. We've tried to play by the rules and compromise and debate and discuss and cater to all people from all income brackets and from all ends of the spectrum.
I say enough of that. I, for one, am starting to believe that the only thing that will really make any difference-- in the face of the deeply-entrenched and disingenuous 'republi-crat' establishment and the deafening idiocy of FOX News, CNN, and the like-- is radical action, and not just liberal opinion. Radical action such as a reclamation of the congress by ordinary citizens or a forced return of the public airwaves used by for-profit media into the public's hands.
"If these Tea Party buffoons can have their media circus," my friend closes, "so can I." Count me in, Charlie.
There are those who have said, "some information ought to remain secret." And they would be correct: not all government secrets should be revealed without consideration for the nuanced effects of such actions. But the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs and the State Department cables are decidedly not the variety of documents that should be kept from the public. These documents have painted a clear picture of how the US government and military do business-- a picture that the networks refuse to paint-- and, therefore, are indispensable if we are to hold true that government transparency begets a functional democracy.
But the establishment is too entrenched. The decision makers in Washington have nothing to gain from the publishing of such information and everything to lose. This is not our government.
"[President Obama] had two years of full Congressional support to get measures such as health care reform passed: that’s two years that any NUMBER of progressive measures could have been enacted, such as immigration reform (which, thankfully, is on its way regardless), the repeal of DADT (which could have been ended via simple Executive Order), or an improved version of the Food Safety act," wrote a good friend of mine, Charlie Olvera, on his blog last Friday. "Instead, we got an administration more concerned with bi-partisanship and appeasing the will of its most vocal critics than with actually performing progressive governance..."
I share his feelings of disenfranchisement.
"Liberals in this country have a reputation grounded in 60s peacenik culture, which unfortunately gives us, in the public estimation, the impression that we are all Prius-driving, Whole Foods-shopping, spaced-out, over-educated wimps," he continues. "If I have to, I will stand as a one-man testament to the contrary. I’m a liberal. I’m about as liberal as they come. And you know what? I’m fucking ANGRY. And I’m going to kick and fight and yell and scream about my rights and the rights of American citizens, and about the moral and ethical responsibility American governance has to its constituency, until somebody sits up and listens and starts yelling with me."
We liberals have tried to play nice. We've tried to play by the rules and compromise and debate and discuss and cater to all people from all income brackets and from all ends of the spectrum.
I say enough of that. I, for one, am starting to believe that the only thing that will really make any difference-- in the face of the deeply-entrenched and disingenuous 'republi-crat' establishment and the deafening idiocy of FOX News, CNN, and the like-- is radical action, and not just liberal opinion. Radical action such as a reclamation of the congress by ordinary citizens or a forced return of the public airwaves used by for-profit media into the public's hands.
"If these Tea Party buffoons can have their media circus," my friend closes, "so can I." Count me in, Charlie.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Is there a difference between Obama and Clinton?
This quote, from Ted Glick's article below, perfectly sums up my current position:
"I’m not going to vote for Obama in the Democratic Party primary because I’m a registered Green. I’m not going to vote for him if he’s the Democratic nominee in November. I’m not going to send him any money. But I’ll be rooting for him to defeat Hillary Clinton, and if he does I hope he defeats the Republican candidate."
The only difference being that I am not a registered Green (though I did vote Green in 2004), rather I am unregistered.
This is another key statement:
"We’ve been there, done that with Hillary and Bill Clinton in the White House."
Though the '90s were a far cry from the dire straights we're in currently, they weren't without crimes and atrocities. And no, I'm not talking about that whole BJ thing. That's personal. Whatever. I'm talking about his support for the brutal Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia and his bombing of civilian targets in Serbia, among other things.
Term limits and other protections were put in place to shield us from one family or one elite group taking over our government, as it was with the monarchies that the Founding Fathers so despised. If we put Hillary in the White House in 2009, that will be a mere two political powerhouse families controlling the executive for at least 24 years-- 28 if Hillary were to be re-elected-- more than a quarter century! (Bush I - 4 yrs, Bill - 8 yrs, Bush II - 8 yrs, Hillary - 4-8 yrs)
Obama is no 'ideal' candidate, but he is less linked to the traditional power structures and special interests-- though he is certainly linked to some degree-- than Hillary, and Ted Glick's analysis may offer some insight:
"I’m not going to vote for Obama in the Democratic Party primary because I’m a registered Green. I’m not going to vote for him if he’s the Democratic nominee in November. I’m not going to send him any money. But I’ll be rooting for him to defeat Hillary Clinton, and if he does I hope he defeats the Republican candidate."
The only difference being that I am not a registered Green (though I did vote Green in 2004), rather I am unregistered.
This is another key statement:
"We’ve been there, done that with Hillary and Bill Clinton in the White House."
Though the '90s were a far cry from the dire straights we're in currently, they weren't without crimes and atrocities. And no, I'm not talking about that whole BJ thing. That's personal. Whatever. I'm talking about his support for the brutal Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia and his bombing of civilian targets in Serbia, among other things.
Term limits and other protections were put in place to shield us from one family or one elite group taking over our government, as it was with the monarchies that the Founding Fathers so despised. If we put Hillary in the White House in 2009, that will be a mere two political powerhouse families controlling the executive for at least 24 years-- 28 if Hillary were to be re-elected-- more than a quarter century! (Bush I - 4 yrs, Bill - 8 yrs, Bush II - 8 yrs, Hillary - 4-8 yrs)
Obama is no 'ideal' candidate, but he is less linked to the traditional power structures and special interests-- though he is certainly linked to some degree-- than Hillary, and Ted Glick's analysis may offer some insight:
Future Hope column, Feb. 2, 2008
Obama vs. Clinton, A Second Thought
By Ted Glick
Three weeks ago in a Future Hope column I wrote about how similar Obama and Clinton are when it comes to positions on issues. That hasn’t changed. But I also said this:
“It may be that if Obama becomes President, the political forces he has unleashed—particularly among young people and the African American community—will come to constitute a progressive political bloc that, by means of independent pressure from below, will make it difficult for him to accommodate to the conservative and corporate interests—with whom he has significant connections—who will undoubtedly lean on him.”
I’ve been thinking more and more about this, and I know that other activists who have the same distrust of the Democrats—distrust based on a great deal of empirical evidence and bitter experience—are doing the same. Last night, for example, I heard Amiri Baraka, a leading radical African American activist, articulate the reasons why he believed the progressive movement should get behind Obama.
Then there was the Obama quote in this week’s issue of Newsweek. Asked what he wants to accomplish by the end of his Presidency, he said “end(ing) the war. . .universal health care . . . and we will have a bold energy agenda that drastically reduces our emissions of greenhouse gases while creating a green engine that can drive growth for many years to come.”
As someone who fasted for 107 days last fall trying to push the federal government to take action on the climate crisis, it was no small thing to read those words.
Finally, there was this insight from a John Pierce, who I don’t know, in an email that showed up in my inbox today. As part of a piece on the Obama candidacy, comparing him to Abraham Lincoln, Pierce said “he [Lincoln] even invited political foes to serve in his cabinet. Because of his policy of ‘keep your friends close and your enemies closer,’ his allegiances were maddeningly unclear. He led by gathering input from all sides, then made decisions based on how far he believed he could push the nation towards change, and not an inch farther. Ideologues thought him weak, wobbly, unsure of himself. Similarly, there’s FDR, a man who entered the White House fully opposed to permanent benefits for the downtrodden, and was won over to that cause by liberal advisors.”
Could Obama be a Lincolnesque or FDR-type figure?
I can see it. I cannot, absolutely cannot see it for Hillary Clinton.
But it won’t happen with Obama unless the progressive movement continues building up its independent, issue-oriented, outside-the-corporate-parties strength.
Lincoln and FDR were elected in times of great national crisis and political upheaval. As those crises deepened and unfolded, they were both pushed by events and movements from below to take steps they had not planned to take prior to their election. Lincoln’s solution to the slavery crisis prior to the Presidency was to send enslaved Africans back to Africa. Yet, two years after taking office and because it was seen as a military necessity to win the Civil War, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
And FDR was President during the decade which saw the greatest upsurge of workers organizing themselves into unions that this nation has ever seen, before or since. That is the primary reason why he undertook the policies that he did.
Obama’s Newsweek quote is instructive. From all that I can see, the three most broadly-based and active mass movements on issues are the anti-war movement, the universal health care movement and the climate movement. Is it a coincidence that he lists these as the three areas where he wants to bring about positive change?
When I got a chance to ask a question of Amiri Baraka last night, it was about Cynthia McKinney, the likely nominee for the Green Party nomination who is also being supported by African American activists working to build a Reconstruction Party. McKinney is the candidate who I am supporting for the Presidency, a strong black woman whose positions on the issues are the best and most reflective of my beliefs. She is not going to take office in 2009, but her candidacy can be a leading component of a multi-faceted, multi-tactical, multi-issue progressive movement that builds all through 2008, that engages in not just electoral activism but nonviolent civil disobedience and other tactics of struggle for justice, peace and clean energy.
Baraka had nothing but positive things to say about McKinney, while standing by his position that the African American and progressive movement should support Obama.
I’m not going to vote for Obama in the Democratic Party primary because I’m a registered Green. I’m not going to vote for him if he’s the Democratic nominee in November. I’m not going to send him any money. But I’ll be rooting for him to defeat Hillary Clinton, and if he does I hope he defeats the Republican candidate.
We’ve been there, done that with Hillary and Bill Clinton in the White House. Obama, despite all of his similarities on issues to Billary, is not the same thing. There are reasons to have some hope for the brother. We should be upfront and forthright with our criticisms, but we should also be open to the possibility that an Obama Presidency might lead to a similar kind of political, social and economic realignment as we saw in the USA in the 1860’s and 1870’s and then again in the 1930’s and 1940’s. If this comes to pass, and if the independent progressive movement gets organized over the coming years into a powerful third force/alliance/party, we may well be at the beginning of a very exciting and historic period.
Ted Glick is the coordinator of the U.S. Climate Emergency Council (www.climateemergency.org) and is active with No War, No Warming (www.nowarnowarming.org) and the Independent Progressive Politics Network (www.ippn.org). He can be reached at indpol@igc.org.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Thoughts on Social Interaction in the Digital Age
Almost immediately after I sat down at the bar at the Hollywood Diner for lunch today, the elderly woman next to me struck up a conversation. She told me she was in Manhattan from her home in Jersey visiting her brother. We made small talk for a few minutes, noted the weather (naturally), and then the conversation turned to politics. She told me her thoughts on the 2008 presidential candidates, among other things, and so on and so on.
The topics of our conversation is not what interested me though. As we talked I considered a long-time observation of mine that elderly people tend to be more apt to conversation with strangers than their younger counterparts. And I am no better than my peers: once she initiated conversation with me I gave her my full attention, but if she had not spoken first we would have sat the entire duration of our meals in silence.
My question is, what is the primary reason why elderly people are more inclined towards casual conversation with strangers than younger folks?
As individuals age do they become more sociable or is it a generational thing? Has the woman I chatted with today always been so conversational? If so, then perhaps the change is a generational one-- as my generation ages, we may not necessarily become more sociable and a critical element of societal interaction may become largely lost.
Perhaps this generational shift also has something to do with changes in the very ways people interact with each other now? Email and AIM and MySpace and Facebook and World of Warcraft and blogs and Wikipedia and forums and message boards-- all these are avenues for 'social' interaction and the sharing of information, ideas, and even emotions. But, as we become ever more immersed in such things do we begin to lose our desire or even our ability to interact politely and pleasantly with complete strangers?
The topics of our conversation is not what interested me though. As we talked I considered a long-time observation of mine that elderly people tend to be more apt to conversation with strangers than their younger counterparts. And I am no better than my peers: once she initiated conversation with me I gave her my full attention, but if she had not spoken first we would have sat the entire duration of our meals in silence.
My question is, what is the primary reason why elderly people are more inclined towards casual conversation with strangers than younger folks?
As individuals age do they become more sociable or is it a generational thing? Has the woman I chatted with today always been so conversational? If so, then perhaps the change is a generational one-- as my generation ages, we may not necessarily become more sociable and a critical element of societal interaction may become largely lost.
Perhaps this generational shift also has something to do with changes in the very ways people interact with each other now? Email and AIM and MySpace and Facebook and World of Warcraft and blogs and Wikipedia and forums and message boards-- all these are avenues for 'social' interaction and the sharing of information, ideas, and even emotions. But, as we become ever more immersed in such things do we begin to lose our desire or even our ability to interact politely and pleasantly with complete strangers?
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Keith Olbermann: The Beginning of the End of America
A bit old, but nevertheless a poignant statement on the 'slippery slope' of fascism in the United States today:
Related: Olbermann on Waterboarding.
Related: Olbermann on Waterboarding.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
Today In New York - Displacing Conflict
Tonight, the Brecht Forum is hosting a conversation on the humanitarian crisis that has arisen as a result of US occupation of Iraq. It is estimated that 2 million Iraqis are now refugees and "another 1.5 million are internally displaced, living in camps without water, electricity or medical services."
Despite its responsibility for creating this massive refugee population, the United States had admitted only 800 Iraqi refugees from the beginning of the war until May of this year-- only one in every 4,000 refugees and less than Sweden.
Details:
Despite its responsibility for creating this massive refugee population, the United States had admitted only 800 Iraqi refugees from the beginning of the war until May of this year-- only one in every 4,000 refugees and less than Sweden.
Details:
The Brecht Forum
7:30 p.m.
451 West Street (between Bank & Bethune Streets)
New York, NY 10014
Tel: 212-242-4201
Suggested donation: $6/$10/$15
Free for Brecht Forum Subscribers
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Today In New York - Meeting Resistance
Tonight, a special screening* of "Meeting Resistance", a groundbreaking film on Iraqi resistance to US occupation. From the film's website:
What would you do if your country was invaded? "Meeting
Resistance" raises the veil of anonymity surrounding the
Iraqi insurgency by meeting face to face with individuals
who are passionately engaged in the struggle, and
documenting for the very first time, the sentiment
experienced and actions taken by a nation's citizens when
their homeland is occupied.
Watch the trailer:
Details:
What would you do if your country was invaded? "Meeting
Resistance" raises the veil of anonymity surrounding the
Iraqi insurgency by meeting face to face with individuals
who are passionately engaged in the struggle, and
documenting for the very first time, the sentiment
experienced and actions taken by a nation's citizens when
their homeland is occupied.
Watch the trailer:
Details:
Downtown Community Television Center, 3rd Floor
6:30 p.m.
87 Lafayette Street (between White & Walker in Chinatown)
New York, NY 10013
Free and open to the public!
Please RSVP to cmevents@mnn.org or call (212) 757-2670 x352
* This is an advanced screening. The film officially opens in NYC at Cinema Village (on E. 12th St) that Friday, October 19th.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Today In New York - Prayer for the Morning Headlines: On the Sanctity of Life and Death
Tonight, peace activist, Nobel Peace Prize nominee, and priest Daniel Berrigan will be at the Cooper Union for a discussion in honor of his new book, "Prayer for the Morning Headlines: On the Sanctity of Life and Death". The event will be hosted by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!.The book features an introduction by Howard Zinn, photographs by Adrianna Amari, and endorsements from the late Kurt Vonnegut, Ramsey Clark, Martin Sheen, James Carroll, Amy Goodman and others.
Details:
The Cooper Union - The Great Hall
6:30 p.m.
7 East 7th Street (at Third Ave)
New York, NY 10003
Free and open to the public!
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Today In New York - Reportback from Oaxaca
Oaxaca (pronounced 'wa-ha-ka'), a state in southern Mexico, has long been the scene of unrest. Every year for the past 26 years, Local 22 of the Teacher's Union (SNTE) has gone on strike to ask their government for better wages, more resources, and better conditions in public schools.
Last year, after 2,000 police were sent in to break up the strike by local governor Ulises Ruiz Ortiz of the right wing PRI party, the teachers were joined in their protest by the newly-formed Popular Assembly of the People of Oaxaca (APPO), an organization of unions, non-governmental groups, cooperatives, social organizations, and parents.
Events continued to escalate and in late October Brad Will, an American journalist who was filming the protests, was shot and killed, along with two residents-- Professor Emilio Alonso Fabián and Esteban López Zurita-- by local police.
Shortly thereafter, then-president Vicente Fox sent in thousands of federal police to crush the popular uprising.
In New York on Tuesday, Vicente Fox made an appearance at a Barnes & Noble bookstore to promote his new book, "Revolution of Hope". Frustrated with the spoon-fed questions Fox was receiving, audience members spoke up and asked him, among other things, why there was no federal investigation into the murder of Brad Will. The scene intensified and those attempting to question Fox were ultimately forced to leave or ejected by security.
Tonight, the Brecht Forum is hosting a presentation on "the latest trends and developments of Oaxaca's popular movement that have managed to weather successfully one of the most violent repressions in recent Mexican history."
Details:
Last year, after 2,000 police were sent in to break up the strike by local governor Ulises Ruiz Ortiz of the right wing PRI party, the teachers were joined in their protest by the newly-formed Popular Assembly of the People of Oaxaca (APPO), an organization of unions, non-governmental groups, cooperatives, social organizations, and parents.
Events continued to escalate and in late October Brad Will, an American journalist who was filming the protests, was shot and killed, along with two residents-- Professor Emilio Alonso Fabián and Esteban López Zurita-- by local police.
Shortly thereafter, then-president Vicente Fox sent in thousands of federal police to crush the popular uprising.
In New York on Tuesday, Vicente Fox made an appearance at a Barnes & Noble bookstore to promote his new book, "Revolution of Hope". Frustrated with the spoon-fed questions Fox was receiving, audience members spoke up and asked him, among other things, why there was no federal investigation into the murder of Brad Will. The scene intensified and those attempting to question Fox were ultimately forced to leave or ejected by security.
Tonight, the Brecht Forum is hosting a presentation on "the latest trends and developments of Oaxaca's popular movement that have managed to weather successfully one of the most violent repressions in recent Mexican history."
Details:
The Brecht Forum
7:30 p.m.
451 West Street (between Bank & Bethune Streets)
New York, NY 10014
Tel: 212-242-4201
Suggested donation: $6/$10/$15
Free for Brecht Forum Subscribers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
