The new documentary of William Kunstler, directed by his two daughters from his second marriage, is an excellent movie. It tells the story of a remarkable, yet far from perfect man, who really came of age during the trial of the Chicago Seven circa 1970. His eyes had been awakened defending Freedom Riders in the South in 1961. Kunstler defended the unpopular - often of Color - defendants through much of his later life.
In general one could say that he notably defended "the underdog". This image contrasted minimally with his desire for being "Visible" and perhaps "notorious" - which was most notably vividly portrayed as defended and embraced the Mafia chief John Gotti - who could hardly be portrayed as a "working class hero".
Despite his faults, Kunstler clear was a great person and did a lot of good in his life. His daughters have done a great job of portraying him as the real person that he was.
Thanks!
Monday, November 23, 2009
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Learning From History/Reality vs. Ideology Alone
It is instructive to look at how we in the U.S "as a nation" act internationally. Recently I heard snippets of President Obama's words while in China. Listening to How he spoke I would have thought that the U.S. was repeatedly doing favors to China and that they were very much in our debt. We allow China to provide us with goods and services as well as to invest in our economy helping keep it from collapsing. It would seem to my naive self that we logically would be Thanking China and acknowledging that gradually China is becoming much more economically powerful and we are weakening greatly.
We can perhaps in part blame our most recent past president for foolishness in Iraq and Afghanistan. We loved Saddam Hussein as a strong opponent of the Fundamentalist regime in Iran in the 1980's and early 1990's, but Hussein refused to simply be our puppet and he became our enemy.
Our repeated naivete in not understanding that Al Qaeda is strongly Sunni means issues with countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, but not Iran which is Shiite. Though Saddam Hussein was Sunni, rather clearly his leadership was secular based. When we push (majority) Shiite leadership in Iraq, inevitably it helps tie Iraq to Iran - a Shiite nation - and to built up Iran. Now, we cry in our beer about Iran - well we asked for it.
We didn't read our history book right!
Afghanistan - has a strange history. It is a very decentralized country that strangely doesn't like "foreigners" to try to control its destiny. We helped build up the Fundamentalist Moslem forces in both Afghanistan and Pakistan - because we wanted to weaken The Soviet Union - who were trying to control their neighbor.
We don't seem to understand that just because Afghanis may dislike the Taliban does not mean that they will welcome the U.S. in Their Country. Thankfully our ambassador in Kabul seems to understand the dilemma. Oft times it seems that for every life or dollar we spend fighting in Afghanistan - multiple "militants" join the fight against us. It also seems farfetched at least to me that terrorist actions in the U.S. - are going to build up out of Afghanistan, an impoverished - decentralized nation.
Of course we don't see the powers that "Big Oil" and other business interests have in controlling U.S. foreign policy.
Perhaps - naively - I think and hope that more of us in the U.S. will understand how we can be friends and allies of the Moslem World and others who oft times seem to be our enemy. It requires a rather simple thing - Respect. It requires a more complex thing of us - introspection and "reality checking".
We could in a perfect world - work seriously at solving our internal problems - racism, poverty, healthcare - in "people positive" ways. At the same time we could be an active part of the rest of the world in new ways - listening to both our allies and "enemies" and working with others. It would be a radical change! It also might save us from being another fallen empire as well as more importantly making us into being "good people".
Thanks!
We can perhaps in part blame our most recent past president for foolishness in Iraq and Afghanistan. We loved Saddam Hussein as a strong opponent of the Fundamentalist regime in Iran in the 1980's and early 1990's, but Hussein refused to simply be our puppet and he became our enemy.
Our repeated naivete in not understanding that Al Qaeda is strongly Sunni means issues with countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, but not Iran which is Shiite. Though Saddam Hussein was Sunni, rather clearly his leadership was secular based. When we push (majority) Shiite leadership in Iraq, inevitably it helps tie Iraq to Iran - a Shiite nation - and to built up Iran. Now, we cry in our beer about Iran - well we asked for it.
We didn't read our history book right!
Afghanistan - has a strange history. It is a very decentralized country that strangely doesn't like "foreigners" to try to control its destiny. We helped build up the Fundamentalist Moslem forces in both Afghanistan and Pakistan - because we wanted to weaken The Soviet Union - who were trying to control their neighbor.
We don't seem to understand that just because Afghanis may dislike the Taliban does not mean that they will welcome the U.S. in Their Country. Thankfully our ambassador in Kabul seems to understand the dilemma. Oft times it seems that for every life or dollar we spend fighting in Afghanistan - multiple "militants" join the fight against us. It also seems farfetched at least to me that terrorist actions in the U.S. - are going to build up out of Afghanistan, an impoverished - decentralized nation.
Of course we don't see the powers that "Big Oil" and other business interests have in controlling U.S. foreign policy.
Perhaps - naively - I think and hope that more of us in the U.S. will understand how we can be friends and allies of the Moslem World and others who oft times seem to be our enemy. It requires a rather simple thing - Respect. It requires a more complex thing of us - introspection and "reality checking".
We could in a perfect world - work seriously at solving our internal problems - racism, poverty, healthcare - in "people positive" ways. At the same time we could be an active part of the rest of the world in new ways - listening to both our allies and "enemies" and working with others. It would be a radical change! It also might save us from being another fallen empire as well as more importantly making us into being "good people".
Thanks!
Friday, November 13, 2009
Afghanistan - Obama's options - What's Best?
It is interesting that now the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, a former high level military leader there has spoken out against sending more troops there.
Juan Cole in his amazing book: Engaging the Muslim World - has a good relevant quote on page 190 of his book:
"Until the United States and NATO give up their counterproductive search-and destroy tactics and until they instead invest heavily in reconstruction, they will make no progress in winning Pushtun hearts and minds. There is even an increasing danger that the massive numbers of foreign troops in the country will make it a magnet for radical vigilantes; already foreign volunteers are being found among the neo-Taliban, from places such as Chechnya and the Arab world. That is, the immensity of the U.S. and NATO footprint in this fiercely proud tribal Muslim region may actually be creating the threat it ostensibly seeks to avoid: the reconstitution of al-Qaeda and the revival of the 1980’s discourse on holy war that proved so deadly to the Soviet Union."
Thanks!
Juan Cole in his amazing book: Engaging the Muslim World - has a good relevant quote on page 190 of his book:
"Until the United States and NATO give up their counterproductive search-and destroy tactics and until they instead invest heavily in reconstruction, they will make no progress in winning Pushtun hearts and minds. There is even an increasing danger that the massive numbers of foreign troops in the country will make it a magnet for radical vigilantes; already foreign volunteers are being found among the neo-Taliban, from places such as Chechnya and the Arab world. That is, the immensity of the U.S. and NATO footprint in this fiercely proud tribal Muslim region may actually be creating the threat it ostensibly seeks to avoid: the reconstitution of al-Qaeda and the revival of the 1980’s discourse on holy war that proved so deadly to the Soviet Union."
Thanks!
Remembering
Friday, November 13, 1964 – 45 years ago today – my brother and I were awakened about 6:30 a.m. by our mother saying: “Daddy’s dead”. I was an immature 13 year old. My father’s cancer and impending death had never been discussed with Dan and me as our parents tried to make our life “normal”. Strangely, perhaps, I had Never consciously thought of my father being terminally ill, but at the same time it also made perfect sense that he was dead.
I didn’t cry then – “being a man” – and in some ways became “the man of the house” in the coming months and years. In the early 1980’s when I discovered feminism I learned to cry. I then grieved the loss openly as well as discovered the anger that I felt towards him.
Now – a rainy Seattle day – it was rainy on my father’s funeral day also I think – I sit and feel a variety of emotions. I’m 58 years old. My father died at 46 and would be 91, if still alive.
I’ve been lucky so far in my life being healthy and not having major tragedies affecting me greatly. With an 87 year old step-father, an 82 year old mother and an 86 year old mother-in-law we will face losses together in the years to come.
I’m thankful that my brother’s chronic mental illness has been much milder in recent years so that he’s been able to be relatively happy. I feel lucky and happy at the successes and happiness of my 22 year old son teaching AP biology and freshman physics in an excellent Chicago public high school.
I’m sad for areas of my own immaturity and mistakes. I also feel happy that my life has become easier and more satisfying while being more challenging. My partner and her two sons push me to be a better person, which helps me, despite my resistance.
I wish that my father had had the opportunity to live a much longer life. I’m sad that his desperation to live pushed him to “fight death” and not accept the inevitable. I’m sad that in the world he knew death and illness were not discussed, so that his friends and allies witnessed his withering body, but were never were able to share with him and help him.
I’m sad – that we weren’t close – and didn’t have a deep bond, though thankful that I can now cry in this moment and simply be.
I didn’t cry then – “being a man” – and in some ways became “the man of the house” in the coming months and years. In the early 1980’s when I discovered feminism I learned to cry. I then grieved the loss openly as well as discovered the anger that I felt towards him.
Now – a rainy Seattle day – it was rainy on my father’s funeral day also I think – I sit and feel a variety of emotions. I’m 58 years old. My father died at 46 and would be 91, if still alive.
I’ve been lucky so far in my life being healthy and not having major tragedies affecting me greatly. With an 87 year old step-father, an 82 year old mother and an 86 year old mother-in-law we will face losses together in the years to come.
I’m thankful that my brother’s chronic mental illness has been much milder in recent years so that he’s been able to be relatively happy. I feel lucky and happy at the successes and happiness of my 22 year old son teaching AP biology and freshman physics in an excellent Chicago public high school.
I’m sad for areas of my own immaturity and mistakes. I also feel happy that my life has become easier and more satisfying while being more challenging. My partner and her two sons push me to be a better person, which helps me, despite my resistance.
I wish that my father had had the opportunity to live a much longer life. I’m sad that his desperation to live pushed him to “fight death” and not accept the inevitable. I’m sad that in the world he knew death and illness were not discussed, so that his friends and allies witnessed his withering body, but were never were able to share with him and help him.
I’m sad – that we weren’t close – and didn’t have a deep bond, though thankful that I can now cry in this moment and simply be.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
It's Amazing (and Annoying)
Today - a "new comment" - on an old blog entry I wrote on Gaza:
"RX Pharmacy Online. Order Generic Medication In own Pharmacy. Buy Pills Central.
[url=http://buypillscentral.com/]Purchase Best Viagra, Cialis, Levitra, Tamiflu[/url]. prescription generic pills. Discount medications pharmacy"
I've written several times about my erectile dysfunction issues here. Spammers - latch onto - such writing -and perhaps will pick my words above up and do it again. I get an occasional response to my writings in general - I'd say on average one response for every 2-4 blog entries I write - but strange- the entries on ED- get like 13 responses - only 1-2 of which have anything to do with the topic!
That's life I guess - frustrating! It takes some Chutzpah - to write about ED - such responses aren't scary or unnerving - just annoying! Thanks!
"RX Pharmacy Online. Order Generic Medication In own Pharmacy. Buy Pills Central.
[url=http://buypillscentral.com/]Purchase Best Viagra, Cialis, Levitra, Tamiflu[/url]. prescription generic pills. Discount medications pharmacy"
I've written several times about my erectile dysfunction issues here. Spammers - latch onto - such writing -and perhaps will pick my words above up and do it again. I get an occasional response to my writings in general - I'd say on average one response for every 2-4 blog entries I write - but strange- the entries on ED- get like 13 responses - only 1-2 of which have anything to do with the topic!
That's life I guess - frustrating! It takes some Chutzpah - to write about ED - such responses aren't scary or unnerving - just annoying! Thanks!
Monday, November 09, 2009
Healthcare Reform - and President Obama's Future
An anonymous reader wrote in response to my last blog entry:
"No, the "compromise" wasn't necessary. The same anti-choicers who insisted on the Stupak amendment voted "no" on the whole bill.
It'd be nice to see Democrats that stood up for women, rather than regarded our rights as expendable. "
I am aware that Most of the Democrats who pushed for the Stupak amendment, then voted against the bill. A few of them though voted for it. IF 3 additional Democrats had voted "no" (as easily could have happened), the bill wouldn't have passed. It is sad that standing up for women seemingly wasn't possible here - I'm not being facetious when I say that.
Passing healthcare reform legislation now - requires senate passage of a bill and then reconciliation between the two bills for a final law.
As of now Joe Lieberman has indicated that he'll block legislation coming to a vote as is now proposed which at best would give the Democrats 59 votes, assuming that they didn't lose any other "real" Democrats in the cloture vote.
I really hope that the Democrats will do their best to come up with the bill that has the best consensus opportunities. I then hope that they will meet privately and try to agree to a united cloture vote - and then at least 50 votes in favor of the final legislation. I hope that - IF - anyone including Lieberman - will not (eventually) agree to this, that they will be stripped of all seniority and/or other perks that they now get (Lieberman chairs a committee - which he could easily be stripped of for 2010 - for example).
IF - healthcare reform legislation - is Not passed, I fear that:
1.) The Democrats will not succeed in most areas in passing controversial legislation that the Republicans don't support and
2.) In 2010 - the Democrats will take huge hits in the elections and
Again - the Democrats will have shown us all how they can "have it all" - but not do anything with it.
Obama - will then - obviously be greatly weakened and 2012 - may well be another bad year for the Democrats.
Healthcare reform is important now - in making a Start. It will Not be "good legislation". It will need improvements in future sessions of Congress. IF we insist on "good legislation" now - the Now will keep disappearing over the horizon. I think Single Payer is the answer - but obviously we aren't at its time yet!
Those who want to "stand on principle" - and "make a stand" now - are generally not those who lack healthcare coverage now and will really be hurt without such legislation. Personally I think that the Democratic Party is spineless and "not the answer" - but right now it's all that we've got. I'm more concerned that we now end up with the Republicans again either "in power" or able to block Anything from changing. They still are plenty Scary to me!
Thanks!
"No, the "compromise" wasn't necessary. The same anti-choicers who insisted on the Stupak amendment voted "no" on the whole bill.
It'd be nice to see Democrats that stood up for women, rather than regarded our rights as expendable. "
I am aware that Most of the Democrats who pushed for the Stupak amendment, then voted against the bill. A few of them though voted for it. IF 3 additional Democrats had voted "no" (as easily could have happened), the bill wouldn't have passed. It is sad that standing up for women seemingly wasn't possible here - I'm not being facetious when I say that.
Passing healthcare reform legislation now - requires senate passage of a bill and then reconciliation between the two bills for a final law.
As of now Joe Lieberman has indicated that he'll block legislation coming to a vote as is now proposed which at best would give the Democrats 59 votes, assuming that they didn't lose any other "real" Democrats in the cloture vote.
I really hope that the Democrats will do their best to come up with the bill that has the best consensus opportunities. I then hope that they will meet privately and try to agree to a united cloture vote - and then at least 50 votes in favor of the final legislation. I hope that - IF - anyone including Lieberman - will not (eventually) agree to this, that they will be stripped of all seniority and/or other perks that they now get (Lieberman chairs a committee - which he could easily be stripped of for 2010 - for example).
IF - healthcare reform legislation - is Not passed, I fear that:
1.) The Democrats will not succeed in most areas in passing controversial legislation that the Republicans don't support and
2.) In 2010 - the Democrats will take huge hits in the elections and
Again - the Democrats will have shown us all how they can "have it all" - but not do anything with it.
Obama - will then - obviously be greatly weakened and 2012 - may well be another bad year for the Democrats.
Healthcare reform is important now - in making a Start. It will Not be "good legislation". It will need improvements in future sessions of Congress. IF we insist on "good legislation" now - the Now will keep disappearing over the horizon. I think Single Payer is the answer - but obviously we aren't at its time yet!
Those who want to "stand on principle" - and "make a stand" now - are generally not those who lack healthcare coverage now and will really be hurt without such legislation. Personally I think that the Democratic Party is spineless and "not the answer" - but right now it's all that we've got. I'm more concerned that we now end up with the Republicans again either "in power" or able to block Anything from changing. They still are plenty Scary to me!
Thanks!
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Healthcare Reform - Maybe - Thank You!
I'm very glad to hear that the House of Representatives passed their healthcare reform bill! While the compromise related to abortions being covered is bad, obviously it was necessary to get the bill passed.
I can only hope now that the Democrats in the Senate will have 60 votes - to get their plan to a vote - and then at least 50 votes to then pass it. IF- opponents of reform - such as Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and our "dear independent friend" from Connecticut (Joe L.) - won't allow the legislation to get to a vote, I hope that they will be stripped of All Seniority - and similar by the Democratic Leadership.
Besides Healthcare Reform being very important, it also is necessary for the Democrats to recover from their woes, and move towards positive 2010 and then 2012 elections.
Healthcare reform - can be reformed in coming years. IF it isn't passed and put into law, it likely won't happen for another long period of time.
Thanks!
I can only hope now that the Democrats in the Senate will have 60 votes - to get their plan to a vote - and then at least 50 votes to then pass it. IF- opponents of reform - such as Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and our "dear independent friend" from Connecticut (Joe L.) - won't allow the legislation to get to a vote, I hope that they will be stripped of All Seniority - and similar by the Democratic Leadership.
Besides Healthcare Reform being very important, it also is necessary for the Democrats to recover from their woes, and move towards positive 2010 and then 2012 elections.
Healthcare reform - can be reformed in coming years. IF it isn't passed and put into law, it likely won't happen for another long period of time.
Thanks!
Have a Nice Day !
One thing which puzzles me at times is how we are and are Not "nice" to others (generally strangers) in odd common life situations.
Do we let the driver into our lane ahead of us? Do we do so if s/he signals their intentions, but not otherwise? These are simple examples.
I know that I am annoyed with people who encounter road signs telling them to get out of their driving lane (because it's ending) and wait until the absolute last second and then try to force themselves in front of others who have commonly already "waited their turn" in the slower lane (rather than doing what the latter people are doing). Others no doubt look at this situation differently!
I find that when I'm in a good mood and relaxed I tend to be "generous" looking out for situations where I perceive that I can minimally help another person or simply "be nice" with a smile or similar. I also find that when I feel rushed or put upon, I'm much less likely to do so. At times I embarrass myself or worse, when I don't yield to a pedestrian that I didn't see in my haste.
In some life situations I recognize how I was taught as a child to "be nice" and how "respect" and being a caring person for me often is superficial - but deep in these areas. Part of "being nice" is a desire to fit in - an inferiority complex - for me. It also can be partially the opposite - sharing - without desiring acknowledgment - simply being "good people".
Thanks!
Do we let the driver into our lane ahead of us? Do we do so if s/he signals their intentions, but not otherwise? These are simple examples.
I know that I am annoyed with people who encounter road signs telling them to get out of their driving lane (because it's ending) and wait until the absolute last second and then try to force themselves in front of others who have commonly already "waited their turn" in the slower lane (rather than doing what the latter people are doing). Others no doubt look at this situation differently!
I find that when I'm in a good mood and relaxed I tend to be "generous" looking out for situations where I perceive that I can minimally help another person or simply "be nice" with a smile or similar. I also find that when I feel rushed or put upon, I'm much less likely to do so. At times I embarrass myself or worse, when I don't yield to a pedestrian that I didn't see in my haste.
In some life situations I recognize how I was taught as a child to "be nice" and how "respect" and being a caring person for me often is superficial - but deep in these areas. Part of "being nice" is a desire to fit in - an inferiority complex - for me. It also can be partially the opposite - sharing - without desiring acknowledgment - simply being "good people".
Thanks!
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Peace in the Middle East ??
Yesterday -I'm glad that our Congressperson - Jim McDermott - was one of 36 who voted against House Resolution 867 - which condemned the Goldstone Report's condemnations of both Israel and Hamas for War Crimes related to the Israel-Gaza War.
It is sad that when Hamas - rocket launchings - killed roughly 12-13 people over several years, a ceasefire was in effect stopping the rocket launchings, which was then broken by Israel, not Hamas and then the Israeli invasion of Gaza killed Gazan's 100-1 vs. Israelis killed, much of Gaza has been destroyed and an Israeli blockade of Gaza continues to the present and Israel refused to cooperate with the Goldstone Commision - lead by a Jewish Man who is hardly "anti-Israel", that we in the U.S. can not and will not accept that Israel - was the aggressor - and was the one who did "most of the bad stuff".
So sad!
It is sad that when Hamas - rocket launchings - killed roughly 12-13 people over several years, a ceasefire was in effect stopping the rocket launchings, which was then broken by Israel, not Hamas and then the Israeli invasion of Gaza killed Gazan's 100-1 vs. Israelis killed, much of Gaza has been destroyed and an Israeli blockade of Gaza continues to the present and Israel refused to cooperate with the Goldstone Commision - lead by a Jewish Man who is hardly "anti-Israel", that we in the U.S. can not and will not accept that Israel - was the aggressor - and was the one who did "most of the bad stuff".
So sad!
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Good Hair - Some Feelings
Yesterday I went with my partner to see "Good Hair", Chris Rock's new film about Black Women and their hair. As I expected the relatively small audience was predominantly Black and mixed race couples (such as we are). A "Black Movie" rarely draws an audience of more than token White People (while "White Movies" draw Blacks, Whites and others.
Blacks are forced to live in a "White World" much of their lives, but we, White People, when rarely aware of "Black (and other) Worlds", even less commonly choose to learn of and be a part of these "different" worlds.
Summarizing the movie is both easy and difficult. Blacks, with 12% of the population, are 80% of the U.S. hair products market. Korean-Americans own much of the basic market where giant companies like Revlon do not dominate - besides the Black owned hair salons (and for Black men the barber shops) which are a very important social (and significant) part of Black America.
The movie focused significantly on "relaxers" which straighten Black hair and hair extenders, which are sewn and otherwise connected into many Black women's hair. The natural hair added comes predominantly from India. Women spend a minimum of $1000 and sometimes much more for the extenders. Where women have extenders they require significant maintenance in salons and keeping one's hair dry (e.g. no swimming with one's head under water or carefree "sexy" showers with men or even having one's hair touched by one's lover or others - as it may damage either the extender or how one's head looks.)
The movie was both humorous and sobering! My partner focuses significantly energy on her hair and her general appearance as most Black women do. This has been an education for me since we met nearly 7 1/2 years ago. I think of the $80 - every 4-6 weeks and time spent as "different" at best. Her involvement in this culture is far, far less than many women's involvement.
For me the deeper issues brought up in the movie are far more important! It is so sad that "kinky" - "natural" hair is to Be Avoided and "Ugly"(except where fashionably kept in braids and similar) and Straight (e.g. "White") hair is "Beautiful". It is tragic that this is both a historic fact and Very Important today!
It is sad to me that Hair and general appearance can be So Important to so many people. Oft times hair can be equally or even (in a few instances) be more important than food, shelter, education and other things that seem Much More Important to me. I seriously wonder how we can possibly conquer serious ills in our world such as: Poverty, Militarism, Domestic Violence, Homophobia. Such issues often are seen (or hidden) in contrast to the more steady, visible importance of the surface perspectives put forth by popular musicians, actors/actresses, models and others around us.
I feel "alone" and "different" in finding things such as the beautiful fall colors of the trees and our nearby creek's bubbly nature far more beautiful and important than much of popular culture. I Know that I am a dinosaur lost in a world where I-Phones and Video Games are a foreign, distant mirage and the Lindsay Lohans/Johnny Depps/Beyonces/Michael Jacksons are generally mere names I hear or don't hear.
Thanks!
Blacks are forced to live in a "White World" much of their lives, but we, White People, when rarely aware of "Black (and other) Worlds", even less commonly choose to learn of and be a part of these "different" worlds.
Summarizing the movie is both easy and difficult. Blacks, with 12% of the population, are 80% of the U.S. hair products market. Korean-Americans own much of the basic market where giant companies like Revlon do not dominate - besides the Black owned hair salons (and for Black men the barber shops) which are a very important social (and significant) part of Black America.
The movie focused significantly on "relaxers" which straighten Black hair and hair extenders, which are sewn and otherwise connected into many Black women's hair. The natural hair added comes predominantly from India. Women spend a minimum of $1000 and sometimes much more for the extenders. Where women have extenders they require significant maintenance in salons and keeping one's hair dry (e.g. no swimming with one's head under water or carefree "sexy" showers with men or even having one's hair touched by one's lover or others - as it may damage either the extender or how one's head looks.)
The movie was both humorous and sobering! My partner focuses significantly energy on her hair and her general appearance as most Black women do. This has been an education for me since we met nearly 7 1/2 years ago. I think of the $80 - every 4-6 weeks and time spent as "different" at best. Her involvement in this culture is far, far less than many women's involvement.
For me the deeper issues brought up in the movie are far more important! It is so sad that "kinky" - "natural" hair is to Be Avoided and "Ugly"(except where fashionably kept in braids and similar) and Straight (e.g. "White") hair is "Beautiful". It is tragic that this is both a historic fact and Very Important today!
It is sad to me that Hair and general appearance can be So Important to so many people. Oft times hair can be equally or even (in a few instances) be more important than food, shelter, education and other things that seem Much More Important to me. I seriously wonder how we can possibly conquer serious ills in our world such as: Poverty, Militarism, Domestic Violence, Homophobia. Such issues often are seen (or hidden) in contrast to the more steady, visible importance of the surface perspectives put forth by popular musicians, actors/actresses, models and others around us.
I feel "alone" and "different" in finding things such as the beautiful fall colors of the trees and our nearby creek's bubbly nature far more beautiful and important than much of popular culture. I Know that I am a dinosaur lost in a world where I-Phones and Video Games are a foreign, distant mirage and the Lindsay Lohans/Johnny Depps/Beyonces/Michael Jacksons are generally mere names I hear or don't hear.
Thanks!
Monday, October 19, 2009
Recession - Recovery ??
Massive amounts of money have been poured into the US Banking and other Financial sectors to "save" us from "disaster". As a result of the actions of the end of the Bush Administration and the first almost year of President Obama's leadership, we now seemingly have two distinct "results" or from my perspective "economies".
Large investors and those with a Lot of Money seem to have been helped by the economic policies. We are told, based upon supposed economic activity, that "the recession is over". The Dow Jones Industrial Average is at 10,000, not a "high", but a recent high.
Strangely though there seems to be another "economy" which is that of the "working class" - which increasingly seems to draw in formerly "upper-middle class" and other middle class people. If they are still employed, their overtime is gone. They may be working part-time now, instead of full-time. Their wages are not going up and may even be going down. More and more are laid off and there are many applicants for each job opening.
It is somewhat unclear what exactly is going on. It is apparent that major industries are not borrowing money to hire more workers. What investment is going on seems to be borrowing at low interest rates to get a good rate of return, not to invest in building our economy.
It is unclear how 10+% unemployment rates continuing for another 1-2+ years will allow people who are not "investment class" to spend money helping to build the economy. It is similarly unclear Why producers of products and other commercial enterprises are going to look at "the bigger picture" and invest in our people and economy in general, when they see a lack of short-term profits being possible and other ways to "make money" now.
In the end it seems obvious to me that Until and Unless Obama and other political leaders see the need to actually Help - those who are losing their jobs and homes, rather than helping the Banks, that little will change for the better. Perhaps it was necessary to save the financial system, however now that it is "saved", helping our People and building from "the bottom up", rather than "top down" seems obviously necessary.
Thanks!
Large investors and those with a Lot of Money seem to have been helped by the economic policies. We are told, based upon supposed economic activity, that "the recession is over". The Dow Jones Industrial Average is at 10,000, not a "high", but a recent high.
Strangely though there seems to be another "economy" which is that of the "working class" - which increasingly seems to draw in formerly "upper-middle class" and other middle class people. If they are still employed, their overtime is gone. They may be working part-time now, instead of full-time. Their wages are not going up and may even be going down. More and more are laid off and there are many applicants for each job opening.
It is somewhat unclear what exactly is going on. It is apparent that major industries are not borrowing money to hire more workers. What investment is going on seems to be borrowing at low interest rates to get a good rate of return, not to invest in building our economy.
It is unclear how 10+% unemployment rates continuing for another 1-2+ years will allow people who are not "investment class" to spend money helping to build the economy. It is similarly unclear Why producers of products and other commercial enterprises are going to look at "the bigger picture" and invest in our people and economy in general, when they see a lack of short-term profits being possible and other ways to "make money" now.
In the end it seems obvious to me that Until and Unless Obama and other political leaders see the need to actually Help - those who are losing their jobs and homes, rather than helping the Banks, that little will change for the better. Perhaps it was necessary to save the financial system, however now that it is "saved", helping our People and building from "the bottom up", rather than "top down" seems obviously necessary.
Thanks!
Friday, October 16, 2009
Some of the Chickens are Coming Home to Roost
In the news this morning, the Government of Pakistan is apparently not quite as stable as we had previously thought it was. The Taliban and Al Qaida are of course prime among the "suspects". Terrorist attacks are increasing and U.S. worry is obviously growing.
We, in the U.S.A., of course Fail to go back at least as far back as the 1980's - in our trying to look at what has and is happening in Pakistan and elsewhere. We forget that then "anti-communism" were the Important buzz words and "Muslim fanatics" and similar weren't in our vernacular except perhaps in some of the games we played between Iraq and Iran in helping to keep them at War with each other.
In the 1980's the Russians were the "bad guys" and the Muslim "Nationalists" were our allies. It seems strange how - Saddam Hussein - was "our man" - against Iran - but then became "Mr. Bad Guy" - when he no longer took orders from the U.S.A. Strangely in Afghanistan and Pakistan those "Muslim Fundamentalists" took root and now we can't stop them like we used to do with "our leader" in Pakistan.
We never seem to see the patterns in our meddling in World Affairs. We translate issues in other parts of the World into what suits our political purposes and then always have others to blame and "enemies" to keep arming and fighting with and against.
Very strange! Thanks!
We, in the U.S.A., of course Fail to go back at least as far back as the 1980's - in our trying to look at what has and is happening in Pakistan and elsewhere. We forget that then "anti-communism" were the Important buzz words and "Muslim fanatics" and similar weren't in our vernacular except perhaps in some of the games we played between Iraq and Iran in helping to keep them at War with each other.
In the 1980's the Russians were the "bad guys" and the Muslim "Nationalists" were our allies. It seems strange how - Saddam Hussein - was "our man" - against Iran - but then became "Mr. Bad Guy" - when he no longer took orders from the U.S.A. Strangely in Afghanistan and Pakistan those "Muslim Fundamentalists" took root and now we can't stop them like we used to do with "our leader" in Pakistan.
We never seem to see the patterns in our meddling in World Affairs. We translate issues in other parts of the World into what suits our political purposes and then always have others to blame and "enemies" to keep arming and fighting with and against.
Very strange! Thanks!
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Afghanistan - Obama and Us
An interesting summary of the history of Afghanistan can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan#History.
I get a little confused with terms which come up repeatedly justifying U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan (and elsewhere) related to:
1. 911
2. Al Qaeda and
3. The Taliban
To the best of my knowledge Afghanistan itself had little (if anything) to do with 911. Al-Qaeda is described frequently as if it is a "worldwide conspiracy" much as "Communism" was viewed during the 1940's-1980's.
"Al-Qaeda (pronounced /ælˈkaɪdə/ or /ælˈkeɪdə/; Arabic: القاعدة, al-qāʿidah, "the base"), alternatively spelled al-Qaida and sometimes al-Qa'ida, is an Islamist group founded sometime between August 1988[5] and late 1989 and early 1990.[6] It operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless arm[7] and a fundamentalist Sunni movement calling for global jihad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
I am somewhat confused about the War conducted purportedly against both Al-Qaeda and The Taliban in Afghanistan as well as related actions in Pakistan. It is unclear to me What we are trying to accomplish and How we can Possibly "succeed" in such an endeavor. It has been alleged by various people that we are fighting a "War Against Terrorism" and are trying to prevent future "911's".
It is unclear to me how U.S. and a few other "allied" troops in Afghanistan are preventing future 911's? It seems to me that many, if not a majority of the population of Afghanistan dislike Both The Taliban and the U.S. Government Forces in their country. It seems that what we are fighting is a continuation of many hundreds of years of wars of outsiders invading an area which rarely has been unified as "a country".
It would seem perhaps naively to me that we could do a lot more to prevent terrorism and future wars and similar by:
1. Seriously resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict,
2. Working to support "mainstream" people in many countries in the Middle East and elsewhere economically and socially, but not militarily,
3. Seriously Changing the Perspective and Image of the U.S.- becoming a "friend" and an "ally" and a "good neighbor" - unlike the images put forth in such areas as: a. "Banana Republics", or b. The Phillipines - in the past,
4. Seriously working to deal with our Own Local Problems - such as Racism, Sexism, Classism, etc.
Silly Me! Thanks!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan#History.
I get a little confused with terms which come up repeatedly justifying U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan (and elsewhere) related to:
1. 911
2. Al Qaeda and
3. The Taliban
To the best of my knowledge Afghanistan itself had little (if anything) to do with 911. Al-Qaeda is described frequently as if it is a "worldwide conspiracy" much as "Communism" was viewed during the 1940's-1980's.
"Al-Qaeda (pronounced /ælˈkaɪdə/ or /ælˈkeɪdə/; Arabic: القاعدة, al-qāʿidah, "the base"), alternatively spelled al-Qaida and sometimes al-Qa'ida, is an Islamist group founded sometime between August 1988[5] and late 1989 and early 1990.[6] It operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless arm[7] and a fundamentalist Sunni movement calling for global jihad.
Al-Qaeda has attacked civilian and military targets in various countries, the most notable being the September 11 attacks in 2001. These actions were followed by the US government launching the War on Terrorism. Between three thousand and four thousand members of the network have been captured, and many thousands more killed on the front in Afghanistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda
The section describing Al-Qaeda seems as reasonable a "popular" definition as is available.
The Taliban (Pashto: طالبان ṭālibān, meaning "students"), also Taleban, is a Sunni Islamist, predominantly Pashtun radical religious and political movement that governed Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001, when its leaders were removed from power by NATO forces. It has regrouped and since 2004 revived as a strong insurgency movement governing at the local level and fighting a guerrilla war against the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, allied NATO forces participating in Operation Enduring Freedom, and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).[4] It operates in Afghanistan and the Frontier Tribal Areas of Pakistan.[5]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
I am somewhat confused about the War conducted purportedly against both Al-Qaeda and The Taliban in Afghanistan as well as related actions in Pakistan. It is unclear to me What we are trying to accomplish and How we can Possibly "succeed" in such an endeavor. It has been alleged by various people that we are fighting a "War Against Terrorism" and are trying to prevent future "911's".
It is unclear to me how U.S. and a few other "allied" troops in Afghanistan are preventing future 911's? It seems to me that many, if not a majority of the population of Afghanistan dislike Both The Taliban and the U.S. Government Forces in their country. It seems that what we are fighting is a continuation of many hundreds of years of wars of outsiders invading an area which rarely has been unified as "a country".
It would seem perhaps naively to me that we could do a lot more to prevent terrorism and future wars and similar by:
1. Seriously resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict,
2. Working to support "mainstream" people in many countries in the Middle East and elsewhere economically and socially, but not militarily,
3. Seriously Changing the Perspective and Image of the U.S.- becoming a "friend" and an "ally" and a "good neighbor" - unlike the images put forth in such areas as: a. "Banana Republics", or b. The Phillipines - in the past,
4. Seriously working to deal with our Own Local Problems - such as Racism, Sexism, Classism, etc.
Silly Me! Thanks!
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Badgers and Boobs - ? ?
I was in the parking lot of the gas station when a "peer" (50's, White, Male) of mine, seeing my bright Red Wisconsin Badger shirt said: "Oh, are you a Badger?" I replied, "yes, are you one also?". He said, "No, I used to be a Hawkeye (University of Iowa)."
We both went inside the station within a few seconds of each other. I told him of how in Wisconsin there were- "Cheddarhead" shirts and that one of them noted Iowa with a "Cornhead" character. He replied: "I always thought that Wisconsin girls had bigger boobs than Iowa girls." I responded with something like: "I don't know". He made some further comment as to why Wisconsin was (evidently) significantly better or more interesting because of its large boobed young women.
After that the young (male) clerk entered the dialogue talking of milk consumption - growth hormone - as it evidently might affect the size of female boobs. Naive old man that I am, I was somewhat floored by the conversation and basically stayed out of it.
In thinking about what transpired I feel somewhat "out of the loop" and bewildered. It would have been pointless to confront the Man - which I thought of doing - related to his sexism and generally inappropriate statements.
I guess that we men have our own world(s) apart from women where such conversations are commonplace. I do enjoy looking at women's boobs, however I am, if anything, embarassed and self-conscious about my desires and enjoyments in this area. I can't imagine a world around me where such Blatant Objectifying comments with a Total Stranger are seen as "normal".
I am reminded of how I was as a Young Man - when my visions of life were perhaps different. I believe though that even then I wouldn't have said something similar.
Ah, isn't life interesting ..... Thanks!
We both went inside the station within a few seconds of each other. I told him of how in Wisconsin there were- "Cheddarhead" shirts and that one of them noted Iowa with a "Cornhead" character. He replied: "I always thought that Wisconsin girls had bigger boobs than Iowa girls." I responded with something like: "I don't know". He made some further comment as to why Wisconsin was (evidently) significantly better or more interesting because of its large boobed young women.
After that the young (male) clerk entered the dialogue talking of milk consumption - growth hormone - as it evidently might affect the size of female boobs. Naive old man that I am, I was somewhat floored by the conversation and basically stayed out of it.
In thinking about what transpired I feel somewhat "out of the loop" and bewildered. It would have been pointless to confront the Man - which I thought of doing - related to his sexism and generally inappropriate statements.
I guess that we men have our own world(s) apart from women where such conversations are commonplace. I do enjoy looking at women's boobs, however I am, if anything, embarassed and self-conscious about my desires and enjoyments in this area. I can't imagine a world around me where such Blatant Objectifying comments with a Total Stranger are seen as "normal".
I am reminded of how I was as a Young Man - when my visions of life were perhaps different. I believe though that even then I wouldn't have said something similar.
Ah, isn't life interesting ..... Thanks!
Monday, September 28, 2009
Some Words of Wisdom - Courtesy of Geoffrey Canada
To learn more of the amazing Geoffrey Canada, the leader of the Harlem Children's Zone, one can read within their website: http://www.harlemchildrenszone.org/what-is-hcz/about-geoffrey-canada or read a wonderful book: "Written by New York Times editor Paul Tough, "Whatever It Takes," is a compelling, in-depth look at the ground-breaking work of the Harlem Children's Zone and its leader, Geoffrey Canada."
I was lucky enough to hear Geoffrey Canada speak last Friday locally. I'd like to share several things he spoke of which I found interesting.
He mentioned how the Rhode Island legislatures noted that the average annual cost of caring for institutionalized (e.g. delinquent) adults was $39,000/year vs. $95,000 for children. To save money they decided to lower the age where "children" became "adults". Unfortunately, it didn't work, because they discovered that most of the "new adults" had to be isolated from the general adult population, and the cost for such care was an average of $110,000/year. Canada noted that the lesson for Rhode Island wasn't that there was a real need to Prevent Children - from needing to be institutionalized in the first place!
Canada spoke repeatedly as to how as a child he had Naively thought that there was a "plan" to make things better. He noted as an adult consulting with several presidents and others who seemingly had "power" that they didn't have plans for ending poverty and educating poor children and sought his and others' advice.
His message for the local organization he spoke in support of was that you/we need to bring about change, not to wait, expecting that others will do what needs to be done. He spoke of needing to reach for challenging, difficult goals, and to be accountable in building research based programs to radically change things for the better.
To tackle 96 square blocks of Harlem with a goal of making all children ready for college when the grow up is a tough job to take on! Geoffrey Canada is an amazing man - not a super man, but a man doing a great difficult job trying to bring about radical, positive change!
Thanks!
I was lucky enough to hear Geoffrey Canada speak last Friday locally. I'd like to share several things he spoke of which I found interesting.
He mentioned how the Rhode Island legislatures noted that the average annual cost of caring for institutionalized (e.g. delinquent) adults was $39,000/year vs. $95,000 for children. To save money they decided to lower the age where "children" became "adults". Unfortunately, it didn't work, because they discovered that most of the "new adults" had to be isolated from the general adult population, and the cost for such care was an average of $110,000/year. Canada noted that the lesson for Rhode Island wasn't that there was a real need to Prevent Children - from needing to be institutionalized in the first place!
Canada spoke repeatedly as to how as a child he had Naively thought that there was a "plan" to make things better. He noted as an adult consulting with several presidents and others who seemingly had "power" that they didn't have plans for ending poverty and educating poor children and sought his and others' advice.
His message for the local organization he spoke in support of was that you/we need to bring about change, not to wait, expecting that others will do what needs to be done. He spoke of needing to reach for challenging, difficult goals, and to be accountable in building research based programs to radically change things for the better.
To tackle 96 square blocks of Harlem with a goal of making all children ready for college when the grow up is a tough job to take on! Geoffrey Canada is an amazing man - not a super man, but a man doing a great difficult job trying to bring about radical, positive change!
Thanks!
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Healthcare Reform - Some Realities
1. Uninsured People Get Coverage:
a. They pay a Lot for the coverage - such as: $300-400/month - individual, $700-1400/month - family, or
b. Their coverage is extremely poor - such as $2500 annual deductibles, or
c. Those who currently have "subsidized" coverage (e.g. most employees and retirees with employer based coverage) - will need to pay significantly more for their coverage or
c. Federal tax monies will need to cover "the gap" - which is large
2. Costs of Medical Care won't go down or stop going up substantially unless:
a.) Prescription drug costs - are significantly reduced - drug company advertising is significantly curtailed - and limits on costs result in seriously reduced costs,
b.) Diagnostic tests - are significantly reduced
c.) The profit margins of insurance companies and medical providers are substantially reduced in many areas,
3. Medical insurance is not a "free market":
a. There is No incentive for insurers to cover high risk individuals and families and a strong incentive both to Not Cover them and to try to force them to pay huge amounts when they have coverage,
b. The current medical insurance system logically results in market dominance by one or several companies in much of the U.S.
c. There is no logical way that lower income individuals or even mid-level individuals can afford decent health insurance coverage that isn't subsidized by some entity
4. Certain individuals and families need catastrophic healthcare protection to cover the costs of extremely high ongoing medical needs - e.g. - paying $2000/month for medication is Not affordable for most people or paying 20% of costs for surgeries and ongoing treatment can easily be $100,000/year or more for people with serious medical conditions.
5. Presuming that a single payer health insurance plan is not "political expedient" - it would be logical for the U.S. Government to "subsidize" all approved health insurance plans to cover catastrophic costs. Logically this should protect both individuals/families and health insurance companies. The costs for this should be paid for by taxes we all should be paying.
6. Healthcare should be a Right - not an "option".
Thanks!
a. They pay a Lot for the coverage - such as: $300-400/month - individual, $700-1400/month - family, or
b. Their coverage is extremely poor - such as $2500 annual deductibles, or
c. Those who currently have "subsidized" coverage (e.g. most employees and retirees with employer based coverage) - will need to pay significantly more for their coverage or
c. Federal tax monies will need to cover "the gap" - which is large
2. Costs of Medical Care won't go down or stop going up substantially unless:
a.) Prescription drug costs - are significantly reduced - drug company advertising is significantly curtailed - and limits on costs result in seriously reduced costs,
b.) Diagnostic tests - are significantly reduced
c.) The profit margins of insurance companies and medical providers are substantially reduced in many areas,
3. Medical insurance is not a "free market":
a. There is No incentive for insurers to cover high risk individuals and families and a strong incentive both to Not Cover them and to try to force them to pay huge amounts when they have coverage,
b. The current medical insurance system logically results in market dominance by one or several companies in much of the U.S.
c. There is no logical way that lower income individuals or even mid-level individuals can afford decent health insurance coverage that isn't subsidized by some entity
4. Certain individuals and families need catastrophic healthcare protection to cover the costs of extremely high ongoing medical needs - e.g. - paying $2000/month for medication is Not affordable for most people or paying 20% of costs for surgeries and ongoing treatment can easily be $100,000/year or more for people with serious medical conditions.
5. Presuming that a single payer health insurance plan is not "political expedient" - it would be logical for the U.S. Government to "subsidize" all approved health insurance plans to cover catastrophic costs. Logically this should protect both individuals/families and health insurance companies. The costs for this should be paid for by taxes we all should be paying.
6. Healthcare should be a Right - not an "option".
Thanks!
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Two Issues - in One Day - Interesting Parallels
Today:
1.) The U.S. Supreme Court takes up (3 weeks before its normal start date) the challenge to McCain-Feingold where a "documentary" on Hillary Clinton was not allowed to be viewed by the American public within 30 days of a relevant election because it was determined to be a "campaign advertisement" and because it was fully funded by private corporations.
2.) President Obama will speak live before both Houses of Congress seeking the passage of major healthcare reform legislation this fall.
A key question in the Supreme Court is whether corporations and unions should have their "rights" limited in election campaigns.
A key question for President Obama, Congress and the American People is how various "vested interests" are now affecting the legislative process in this key issue.
In both cases the "rights" of us as American (USians) rest largely in the balance. If the rights of "people" vs. "money" do not significantly prevail now, the larger issues of how Money Buys Power will be very clear (again). What results will we have? I don't know!
It seems likely (however) that "victory" and "healthcare reform" may well - if "successful" result in "victories" where the basic high costs and high inflation in the medical care industries will continue fairly similarly and where Obama and his supporters will later on be blamed for the incremental improvements together with serious problems (likely the costs) that may result.
Similarly - no matter what the Supreme Court decides, it seems unlikely that the result will greatly help reform our elections and how they are funded.
Thanks!
1.) The U.S. Supreme Court takes up (3 weeks before its normal start date) the challenge to McCain-Feingold where a "documentary" on Hillary Clinton was not allowed to be viewed by the American public within 30 days of a relevant election because it was determined to be a "campaign advertisement" and because it was fully funded by private corporations.
2.) President Obama will speak live before both Houses of Congress seeking the passage of major healthcare reform legislation this fall.
A key question in the Supreme Court is whether corporations and unions should have their "rights" limited in election campaigns.
A key question for President Obama, Congress and the American People is how various "vested interests" are now affecting the legislative process in this key issue.
In both cases the "rights" of us as American (USians) rest largely in the balance. If the rights of "people" vs. "money" do not significantly prevail now, the larger issues of how Money Buys Power will be very clear (again). What results will we have? I don't know!
It seems likely (however) that "victory" and "healthcare reform" may well - if "successful" result in "victories" where the basic high costs and high inflation in the medical care industries will continue fairly similarly and where Obama and his supporters will later on be blamed for the incremental improvements together with serious problems (likely the costs) that may result.
Similarly - no matter what the Supreme Court decides, it seems unlikely that the result will greatly help reform our elections and how they are funded.
Thanks!
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
I'm Proud of My Son - First Day of School Today
I'm very proud of my son as he begins his first day as a public school teacher in one of the best high schools in Chicago. As it's now about 10:25 a.m. in Chicago he should have just completed his first two periods of the day - AP Biology Class (2 periods long).
He's been very, very successful in school and the beginning of his work, training with the Chicago Teaching Fellows over the summer. I wish (him) the best!
Son, I'm very proud of you!
Dad
He's been very, very successful in school and the beginning of his work, training with the Chicago Teaching Fellows over the summer. I wish (him) the best!
Son, I'm very proud of you!
Dad
Friday, August 21, 2009
So Sad (Now) - re: National Health Insurance and Obama
1. I am sad that a Single Payer National Health Insurance Plan, the one logical alternative is Not going to replace Medicare, Medicaid, the Federal Health Plans (for Federal employees, retirees and Congresspeople) - and be made available to All.
2. I am sad that it appears now that either:
a. A watered down Public Option based plan will be passed - strongly influenced by the Drug Company Lobby, the Health Insurance Industry Lobby, the Hospital Industry Lobby and other such "interested parties" : with a likely result that it won't significantly help most Americans and will likely not stop health insurance and medical treatment under it from being - unaffordable for many or:
b. Other - "reform health insurance legislation" - will be passed and it may tokenly do a little good, but basically will not change much, or
c. No - health insurance reform legislation will be passed and
d. The Republicans - and Red Dog Democrats - will gain as a result of all of this and
e. President Obama - will be greatly weakened as a leader of our country
3. I am sad that President Obama seemingly did Not understand the lessons of the past - and didn't see the need to take Strong Leadership - meeting in Private with Democratic Party leaders and influential others - and hammer out a basic Plan - in advance of - "going to the Public" - and thus has been torn to pieces - in Public - by the combined efforts of the Republican Party and the organized other vested interests who may lose by serious reform.
The lessons of the past were Not that - Single Payer Health Insurance was "not feasible" - but rather that it was necessary to be organized and focused as a "single strong interest group" - strong enough to take on "Special Interests" - opposed to serious reform - to avoid - a "people vs. special interests" - repeat of the prior Clintons failure in the early 1990's.
4. I am sad that for the most part far, far too many American people do not clearly see certain obvious facts such as:
a. Health Insurance and Medical Treatment is Expensive -
1.) (Federal coverage for Federal employees/retirees) Examples from: (http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/nonpostalffs2009.pdf)
2.) Blue Cross Rates for Family Coverage: the "low cost" coverage which appeals to those who don't have Huge Normal Medical Expenses - costs Non-Postal Employees/Retirees = $216.48/month - and the total paid by the Federal Government and the Worker/Retiree = $865.93/month,
3.) Blue Cross Rates for Family Coverage: the "comprehensive" coverage which appeals to those who have Huge Normal Medical Expenses (where paying a Higher Premium pays off for them) - costs similar people - $356.59/month - and the total paid similarly = $1120.47/month
b. To provide 50,000,000 - uninsured people with health coverage will either require:
1.) Uninsured Families - to pay figures such as $800-1100/month for good coverage or
2.) The Federal Government - to pay substantial amounts of such figures to give good affordable coverage or:
3.) Dual Systems to (continue to) Exist - where - those without good employer subsidized health insurance and those with no employer subsidized health insurance - if not of high income - are only able to afford policies with features such as $2500 yearly deductibles and similar - which continues to make health care unaffordable for them.
c. Non-Generic (and often generic) Prescription drugs in the U.S. - cost significantly more than in other countries - where their governments effectively have price controls which generally both keep costs lower and still allow drug companies to profit from these sales. It is a drug industry lobbying falsehood that the high prices in the U.S. are necessary to keep research and production going. Advertising and related lobbying costs could be drastically lowered without hurting most Americans most of the time,
d. Liability related court costs (and "tort reform") - are a smokescreen - which are a relatively small percentage of our medical costs,
e. Healthcare costs are higher in the U.S. than in other developed countries:
Example: 2003 Per Capita Costs:
(http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm) - from Kaiser Family Foundation
* U.S. = $5,711
* Canada = $2,998
* Germany = $2,993
* France = $3,048
* Japan = $2,249
f. It is an illusion that our health coverage is better than most developed countries AND - such countries virtually all (if not all) have universal health coverage
We can and should have a better healthcare system which in the long-run will provide universal coverage and lower overall costs. In the short-term some of us will have to pay more and "lose a little" - to get such coverage.
IF - single payer - is not our (eventual) system we will need to find ways to make powerful vested interests and their lobbies no longer control the system so that Profits no longer dictate "the market" - as exists today. We already have "socialized medicine" with all our Federal (and some limited State) systems. Medicare has not been the disaster that naysayers predicted, though it has problems.
It would seem logical for a new single system to be developed as follows:
a. Start initially with either: Medicaid, Medicare or the Federal Employee Healthcare System,
b. Reform - the system for one of the three programs to provide a single, comprehensive system that is available for all current beneficiaries,
c. Expand the reformed system over time to a second and then third of the above-mentioned groups, and then
d. Make the reformed system available to all other Americans,
e. Tax the public and employers - in an equitable manner (based upon income for the public and similarly for employers) - to pay for the increased costs - as the Government subsidizes coverage for all to make it affordable for all.
Thank you!
2. I am sad that it appears now that either:
a. A watered down Public Option based plan will be passed - strongly influenced by the Drug Company Lobby, the Health Insurance Industry Lobby, the Hospital Industry Lobby and other such "interested parties" : with a likely result that it won't significantly help most Americans and will likely not stop health insurance and medical treatment under it from being - unaffordable for many or:
b. Other - "reform health insurance legislation" - will be passed and it may tokenly do a little good, but basically will not change much, or
c. No - health insurance reform legislation will be passed and
d. The Republicans - and Red Dog Democrats - will gain as a result of all of this and
e. President Obama - will be greatly weakened as a leader of our country
3. I am sad that President Obama seemingly did Not understand the lessons of the past - and didn't see the need to take Strong Leadership - meeting in Private with Democratic Party leaders and influential others - and hammer out a basic Plan - in advance of - "going to the Public" - and thus has been torn to pieces - in Public - by the combined efforts of the Republican Party and the organized other vested interests who may lose by serious reform.
The lessons of the past were Not that - Single Payer Health Insurance was "not feasible" - but rather that it was necessary to be organized and focused as a "single strong interest group" - strong enough to take on "Special Interests" - opposed to serious reform - to avoid - a "people vs. special interests" - repeat of the prior Clintons failure in the early 1990's.
4. I am sad that for the most part far, far too many American people do not clearly see certain obvious facts such as:
a. Health Insurance and Medical Treatment is Expensive -
1.) (Federal coverage for Federal employees/retirees) Examples from: (http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/nonpostalffs2009.pdf)
2.) Blue Cross Rates for Family Coverage: the "low cost" coverage which appeals to those who don't have Huge Normal Medical Expenses - costs Non-Postal Employees/Retirees = $216.48/month - and the total paid by the Federal Government and the Worker/Retiree = $865.93/month,
3.) Blue Cross Rates for Family Coverage: the "comprehensive" coverage which appeals to those who have Huge Normal Medical Expenses (where paying a Higher Premium pays off for them) - costs similar people - $356.59/month - and the total paid similarly = $1120.47/month
b. To provide 50,000,000 - uninsured people with health coverage will either require:
1.) Uninsured Families - to pay figures such as $800-1100/month for good coverage or
2.) The Federal Government - to pay substantial amounts of such figures to give good affordable coverage or:
3.) Dual Systems to (continue to) Exist - where - those without good employer subsidized health insurance and those with no employer subsidized health insurance - if not of high income - are only able to afford policies with features such as $2500 yearly deductibles and similar - which continues to make health care unaffordable for them.
c. Non-Generic (and often generic) Prescription drugs in the U.S. - cost significantly more than in other countries - where their governments effectively have price controls which generally both keep costs lower and still allow drug companies to profit from these sales. It is a drug industry lobbying falsehood that the high prices in the U.S. are necessary to keep research and production going. Advertising and related lobbying costs could be drastically lowered without hurting most Americans most of the time,
d. Liability related court costs (and "tort reform") - are a smokescreen - which are a relatively small percentage of our medical costs,
e. Healthcare costs are higher in the U.S. than in other developed countries:
Example: 2003 Per Capita Costs:(http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm) - from Kaiser Family Foundation
* U.S. = $5,711
* Canada = $2,998
* Germany = $2,993
* France = $3,048
* Japan = $2,249
f. It is an illusion that our health coverage is better than most developed countries AND - such countries virtually all (if not all) have universal health coverage
We can and should have a better healthcare system which in the long-run will provide universal coverage and lower overall costs. In the short-term some of us will have to pay more and "lose a little" - to get such coverage.
IF - single payer - is not our (eventual) system we will need to find ways to make powerful vested interests and their lobbies no longer control the system so that Profits no longer dictate "the market" - as exists today. We already have "socialized medicine" with all our Federal (and some limited State) systems. Medicare has not been the disaster that naysayers predicted, though it has problems.
It would seem logical for a new single system to be developed as follows:
a. Start initially with either: Medicaid, Medicare or the Federal Employee Healthcare System,
b. Reform - the system for one of the three programs to provide a single, comprehensive system that is available for all current beneficiaries,
c. Expand the reformed system over time to a second and then third of the above-mentioned groups, and then
d. Make the reformed system available to all other Americans,
e. Tax the public and employers - in an equitable manner (based upon income for the public and similarly for employers) - to pay for the increased costs - as the Government subsidizes coverage for all to make it affordable for all.
Thank you!
Either I'm Wrong or She's Right ?
I am (obviously) a man. My partner is (obviously) a woman.
Somewhat in jest - I say:
"Either I'm wrong or she's right" (- most, if not all the time.) What does this mean?
* Does this mean that I'm always wrong?
No - because She could be right and I could also be right. Perhaps this might imply that either I saw her being right - and learned from her so that I was right - then or perhaps, that by us communicating we reached a consensus - that was - right, perhaps because we both avoided being wrong through that process.
* Now - similarly - if I'm Wrong, does that mean that she's - right?
No - because I could be Wrong and she could also be Wrong. Perhaps this might imply that She was lead astray by Me - and Wasn't Right because She listened to What I said and took it seriously or Perhaps sometimes When we listen to each other cooperatively We both ended up Wrong, so .....
Somewhat in jest - I say:
"Either I'm wrong or she's right" (- most, if not all the time.) What does this mean?
* Does this mean that I'm always wrong?
No - because She could be right and I could also be right. Perhaps this might imply that either I saw her being right - and learned from her so that I was right - then or perhaps, that by us communicating we reached a consensus - that was - right, perhaps because we both avoided being wrong through that process.
* Now - similarly - if I'm Wrong, does that mean that she's - right?
No - because I could be Wrong and she could also be Wrong. Perhaps this might imply that She was lead astray by Me - and Wasn't Right because She listened to What I said and took it seriously or Perhaps sometimes When we listen to each other cooperatively We both ended up Wrong, so .....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)