Our Congress' Wuss Factor is Our Fault

This democratic congress is finding it easy to be seen as soft on civil liberties, and by voting for militaristic measures and funding, finding it tough to be seen as soft on fighting terrorist acts. Many are complaining about this “wuss factor” seen in the democratic party’s elected representatives, and called so by an increasing number of their constituents. I know, we want to cast a schoolyard type blame, to imply some inherent trait in their characters, for their seeming inability to have a spine, but that is too easy an out for us who are seeking legitimate answers. But it is the constituents fault alone that our representatives have been voting as they have.

The fault for the democratic congress voting against civil liberties, like the expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) extension bill of August, 2007, lies firmly with the people, with their knowledge, and with their willingness to communicate with their representatives. Consider it is easy to be soft on civil liberties because the constituency is relaxed on civil liberties. The people find the bill of rights too complex, too boring, too much nuance. The arguments for and against amendments in the Constitution are tedious, intellectual, and deep. Its no wonder the phones and fax machines don’t ring off the hook, from the people in the districts, save for a few dedicated civil libertarians and liberals screaming to save civil rights. Hence, it is easy to vote on the floor for measures which tip the scales out of balance from civil liberties to fighting terrorism and militarism.

In 1755 (Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, Tue, Nov 11, 1755), Franklin wrote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." This is likely a truism. However a key word here is “essential,” as in our basic needs for liberty, for freedom. Too many simple thinkers can not foresee them ever losing their essential freedoms, sure losing some liberties they can concede, but the basics, just not fathomable.

UNFINISHED sorry. It just got tedious.

 

Great Expectations to Get Out of Iraq

Hypothetically, what would you say if a new political party took over congress, and within five months managed to pass a bipartisan bill that was signed by the president, that arranged for an end to the occupation of Iraq? Would you stomp your feet and whine that it “took too long?” Would you complain about the bills’ bi-partisan characteristics and its Republican party allowances, like leaving permanent bases behind? Maybe you would quietly acknowledge a job well done and say something like “now that’s representation!”

Whatever you said in the above hypothetical, the fact that it happened at all and so soon, would have been amazing. To expect that kind of expediency in the kind of complex situation that is the Iraq occupation would indeed be a great expectation. It would be a great expectation for our Congress, designed the way it has been, with two distinct houses and a then an executive branch that must sign off on everything completed. Our legislature moves slow the way its supposed to go.

The grassroots of the Democratic party as of late, would take the complaining route whether a successful bill to get out of Iraq was bi-partisan or not. Democrats are heard complaining because expression is the first step in getting something accomplished, especially something that has been out of one’s control per say. Democrats are also heard complaining because they know what to complain about, they are more likely to be informed in full than they other side, and that information comes in the form of nuanced understanding and not simplistic or shallow arguments.

No one said that invading and occupying a sovereign nation in the Middle East would be easy. More importantly, anyone who had a half decent mind for foreign policy would have said that getting out of such a situation(a quagmire) would be impossible to do satisfactorily. 

Politically getting out is impossible to do without unilateral strong arming in congress and even that requires the physical presence of a veto proof majority.

Technically getting out is impossible to do without leaving the spoils of the illegal war behind. The empire thinkers in the Republican party won’t let us leave without an oil arrangement we can live with (like most of the oil for American corporations and a lock on pumping facilities). They won’t let us leave without allowing permanent military bases dotted throughout the sands of Iraq. 

Democratic Party Wimps?

Lets recall how we got into this mess. Bush and his cronies fixed the intelligence around a goal of invading Iraq, i.e. yellow cake uranium, Colin Powell’s presentation of fictional threats to the U.N., Cheney on television scaring the bejeezus out of everyone.

To address the threat congress is offered up a Use of Force Resolution against Saddam Hussein. The Republican controlled congress, who wrote the bill, passed the bill. Most Democratic representatives voted against it in both houses. Keep in mind the intelligence was fixed, this fact was revealed by the release of the Downing Street Memos. So much so that intell privy to a certain few members of congress was also the “fixed” version of events and applied facts.

Asking of a representative today, who voted the resolution in 2003 “if you could, would you vote for the resolution again?” Might very well receive the response “yes I would.” Because the intelligence was fixed. If a congressperson believed what he or she saw then (what they were allowed to see), then they would have to believe it again today, they would have no choice. 

The resolution provided for the use of force if there is either no cooperation from Saddam Hussein or if there is actual weapons stockpiles found. The resolution clearly stipulates that the United Nations is to be involved wholly in the endeavor to search for WMDs, with the U.S. attending and receiving votes from the U.N. Security Council, not once, but twice, after inspections, and again before force is used. Finally nearly a year of U.N. and U.S. monitored weapons inspectors combing the entire country looking for signs of weapons of mass destruction. With Saddam Hussein’s full cooperation, as testified to by the chief inspector. George W. Bush acted without the U.N. resolutions, violating international law already agreed upon. He violated the promise of congressional resolution. He used the U.N. and then violated the promises made to the member nations. He had lied to Congress at the State of the Union address a few months earlier. The war was now as illegal as it could get. 

So now we’re in and finding it nearly impossible to get out and that should come as no surprise. My fellow liberals must lower their expectations to quell their emotions, but at the same time keep up the pressure on Congress.

Managed by the Media Makes Mediocrity into Melodrama

By selectively reporting and obfuscating the truth our media outlets, newspapers and television, can pit one newsmaker against another without our even having knowledge of the manipulation. The motivation for doing so is powerful. The cause is competition driven, and it is necessary for the survival - of the most dishonest.

In a most recent example, as reported by Media Matters, two newspapers, USA Today, and the venerable New York Times, left out a vital piece of information, in an apparent action designed to fuel the fire to sell more papers.

“Summary: The New York Times and USA Today uncritically reported President Bush's attacks on Democrats over congressional investigations of Alberto Gonzales, but neither newspaper noted that criticism of Gonzales has been bipartisan: numerous Republicans have called for Gonzales' resignation, several have criticized the administration's lack of cooperation with congressional investigations, and senior Republican Judiciary Committee members have joined Democrats in voting to authorize subpoenas of Bush administration officials as part of investigations involving Gonzales.”

-Media Matters

In the case above, being critical of both sides would have been a fair and more balanced approach to journalism. But in so reporting one-sided, they butter one side of the bread, but they leave the knife out to butter the other at a later time. Because conflict is interesting for all and even exciting for some. A good fight is worth watching. A good highway car crash is worth rubber necking.

The following is another example of the news pitting one side against another. The example is close on the calendar to the above example to indicate the frequency of such selective news reporting. In the following example the author of the article in question had already printed the factual information, which is missing, a month earlier. But he then chose to not print it again when it may make the candidate look like a failure. 

“In a July 31 article on possible Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson's June fundraising totals, Washington Post staff writer Matthew Mosk reported that Thompson "will file the first accounting of his potential presidential campaign's fundraising activity with the Internal Revenue Service tomorrow, and the report will show that the enterprise raised between $3.1 million and $3.2 million in June, according to sources familiar with the Thompson operation." But the article failed to note that Thompson's fundraising haul falls short of a June goal of $5 million the Post itself reported at the time that the campaign had set.”

-Media Matters

The media in America has become so corporate and so conglomerated that the competition for viewers is now concentrated to dangerously small levels. For instance with just three cable and television news networks, this means one media owning group could take away %20-%33 from the other two via mistakes from the other side, or getting or creating a “scoop,” on their side.

For instance, FOX News has already cemented in its %33 of American viewers. Fox News is notorious for obfuscation and one sided reporting in favor of the Conservative political side of “understanding.” A University of Maryland study on media ethics recently found that fully 6/10ths of their viewers thought that Saddam Hussien was responsible for the 9/11 attack. As the Bush administration would like them to.

What do we do about this kind reporting and this kind of media corporate decision making that results in this kind of reporting? We hit our favorite reporters and News Directors with letters every time we see a one sided report. We call the studios. Be an old coot with nothing better to do. Don’t mind if stranger think you really are one. That’s what it takes. Get them thinking. Send emails constantly. If any legislation appears which restricts media conglomeration support it with calls and letters. Recruit a friend after explaining the seriousness of the situation. Use the Media Matters.Org web site to keep abreast of media wrongs and to find the contact information you’ll need to let those media outlets know you are watching them closely.

Conservatives in Tupperware with Labels

There is an old term in resurgence that

everyone who is a liberal needs to learn:
Authoritarian

Just as, I’m sure, conservatives sit around putting liberals into classification boxes, so do we liberals place them into little categorized Tupperware containers. The difference is that the liberals, i.e. myself included, will explain why a label fits on a particular Tupperware container and why a particular type of conservative fits inside so nicely. This willingness and ability to explain a nuance such as "why I have classified you this way,” is a trait far more common to liberals and intellectuals of the left than of the right.

Since the rise and folly and fall of the Reagan and Bush and Bush and Gingrich administrations a psychological theorem first written about nearly fifty years ago has seen a resurgence among those who dare to ask “why? What on this Earth makes a conservative?” The theorem is call Authoritarianism.

Main Entry: au·thor·i·tar·i·an
Pronunciation: o-"thär-&-'ter-E-&n, &-, -"thor-
Function: adjective

 
1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority authoritarian parents>

2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people authoritarian regime>
- authoritarian noun

 
- au·thor·i·tar·i·an·ism /-E-&-"ni-z&m/ noun

This is the name of the part of the Tupperware warehouse that holds thirty-million containers categorized as American Conservatives. The theorem is widely accepted as true among the world psychologists, hence it is safe to call it a theorem.

From Wickopedia: “Right-wing Authoritarianism (RWA) is a psychological personality variable or "ideological attitude". It is defined as the convergence of three attitudinal clusters in an individual:”

1. Authoritarian submission — a high degree of submission to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives. "It is good to have a strong authoritarian leader."

This behavior is best observed with the ear, by listening to American talk radio. Listen over a period of time so that you can realize that the authoritarians calling in to the radio talk shows are not changing their loyalties. No matter what happens. A recent poll determined that nearly %30 of Americans still “favor the job that “president” George W. Bush is doing,” despite wide spread acknowledgement that he will not only be the worse president in American history but the most tragic. The authoritarians will stretch the facts beyond belief and beyond reasonable assumption to excuse their beloved leader. Their authority, they very classification of the leaders that give them their own title.

2. Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness, directed against various persons, that is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities. "It is acceptable to be cruel to those who do not follow the rules."

For example the illegal immigrant condition: The many small and seemingly acceptable restrictions that anyone who is here without legal papers are faced with daily, become the evidence for the authoritarian that it is socially acceptable to shun the illegal, to further complain about them. “If the government is doing it, why can’t we?” Repercussions are likely to be small if anything. It’s a hateful comfort zone. In New Mexico, citizen militias have formed, from mainly white men without jobs, and stake-out regions of the Mexican border with rifles and other military equipment at hand.

3. Conventionalism — a high degree of adherence to the social conventions that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities. "Traditional ways are best."

As a simple example: Do you know someone who sings television commercial jingles? Who believes every bit of those pharmaceutical company adds in magazines and television? They do because they gladly, perhaps blissfully, accept the mainstream. But paying for advertising time is not legitimizing your product, but to the authoritarian its good enough.

Some studies have discovered that the Authoritarian usually always rises upwards within the Right Wing of political party. Thus the acronym: RWA, Right Wing Authoritarian. Below are some better details of the RWA. See if you can spot that angry uncle within these descriptions:

From Wickopedia

“1: Faulty reasoning — RWAs are more likely to:

• Make many incorrect inferences from evidence.
• Hold contradictory ideas that result from a cognitive attribute known as compartmentalized thinking.
• Uncritically accept that many problems are ‘our most serious problem.’
• Uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs.
• Uncritically trust people who tell them what they want to hear.
• Use many double standards in their thinking and judgments.

2: Hostility Toward Outgroups — RWAs are more likely to:

• Weaken constitutional guarantees of liberty such as the Bill of Rights.
• Severely punish ‘common’ criminals in a role-playing situation.
• Admit they obtain personal pleasure from punishing such people.
• Be prejudiced against racial, ethnic, nationalistic, and linguistic minorities.
• Be hostile toward homosexuals.
• Volunteer to help the government persecute almost anyone.
• Be mean-spirited toward those who have made mistakes and suffered.

3: Profound Character Attributes — RWAs are more likely to:

• Be dogmatic.
• Be zealots.
• Be hypocrites.
• Be absolutists
• Be bullies when they have power over others.
• Help cause and inflame intergroup conflict.
• Seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive in situations requiring cooperation.

4: Blindness To One’s Own Failings And To The Failings Of Authority Figures Whom They Respect— RWAs are more likely to:

• Believe they have no personal failings.
• Avoid learning about their personal failings.
• Be highly self-righteous.

(1) have a conservative economic philosophy; (2) believe in social dominance; (3) are ethnocentric; (4) are highly nationalistic; (5) oppose abortion; (6) support capital punishment; (7) oppose gun-control legislation; (8) say they value freedom but actually want to undermine the Bill of Rights; (9) do not value equality very highly and oppose measures to increase it; (10) are not likely to rise in the Democratic party, but do so among Republicans." (The Authoritarian Specter)”

”Altemeyer's own statement about this may be worth noting (from p. 239 of "Enemies of Freedom"): "right-wing authoritarians show little preference in general for any political party," and their prevalence in the Republican party reflects the long term effects of point (10) above.”

“Alfred Adler provided another perspective, linking the "will to power over others" as a central neurotic trait, usually emerging as aggressive over-compensation for felt and dreaded feelings of inferiority and insignificance. The authoritarian need to maintain control and prove superiority over others is rooted in a world view populated by enemies, empty of equality, empathy, and mutual benefit.”

Consider how easy it would be to turn your authoritarian mass into a fascist army of angry censor happy fundamentalists marching in lock-step shouting ugly stereotypes down the street left and right of them. Consider how easy it will be to feed them the language of the day, the faxed talking points, the television sound bites for first thing in the morning. Consider this and you are considering the end of a democracy, a bill of rights, the end of tolerance, of diversity, of equality and justice under the law.

If you are reading this and it totally reminds you of a conservative you know. Here is my suggestion: Teach him or her about him self. Teach them about authoritarianism, its history, and its narrow attributes. Don’t demean them. Teach them about it as if it were only a simple difference between you, not a flaw. Bring them around by helping them understand themselves.

Single Payer Health Care - FAQ

Since monitory and other numerical figures vary by interest group whose sources vary by funding. Statistics and figures will be absent in the following FAQ. Instead the document will focus on the reasoned pro argument and con dispute.

1. Other countries that have socialized medicine have long waits for surgery and we do not. Why should we become like them?

Those other nations triage their patients in order of need so an average wait is going to be longer for elective knee surgery or rhinoplasty than for kidney transplant or appendicitis repair.

We don’t have to be like any other nation’s health care. Ours can be our own. The best of other nations’ health care systems and the creative new methods we are capable of, will make-up a new Single Payer Health Care system.

2. Why should my family and I pay for those who do not pay for their own health insurance? It doesn’t seem fair to me.

You already pay for their health care. Except that by the time those without insurance get to a doctor, or hospital, their ailments / diseases have progressed to their most expensive stages. Costing the taxpayers far more, easily surpassing funding enough to have bought them health insurance in the first place. So, the absence of coverage for the poor and middle class, who can’t afford premiums and deductibles, costs taxpayers a lot of money, billions.

What’s more fair to the taxpaying American, every single taxpayer paying for everyone’s health care at once, or allowing tens of millions of taxpayers (yes they all have jobs) without affordable health care access to enter the system upon charity conditions (taxpayer subsidies to hospitals) with their diseases advanced to a point of expensive post onset care? The latter is not fair.

3. What about fraud by doctors and hospitals and those equipment manufacturers and sales people?

Under and new SPHC system stopping fraud will have to be paramount. The ideology that we are all spending our own fortunes, our own hard earned dollars on each other will have to be understood widespread throughout the system, by patients who will be welcomed whistle blowers, by everyone from kitchen employees to the chief surgeon.

A new anti fraud division will be necessary. It must draw a balance between punishment and repercussions for just being investigated, so that those subject to investigation are not threatened should they be innocent.

Some of the types of fraud to watch for will be: over treatment (padding the bill) tough to prove, best discovered by the patient. Over billing for treatment (especially common now towards Medicare and Medicaid systems due to their absence of investigative funding). Equipment over billing and over production and over manufacturing: titanium wheel chairs are not necessary, carved / milled walking canes are a luxury and less sturdy than aluminum canes. Over medicating by physicians; doctors are susceptible to the influences of pharmaceutical company sales persons and their perks, i.e. vacations, flights, golf junkets. Doctors often pile-on medications to the point where side effects from one medication are masking the side effects of another, creating a dangerous situation for the patient. The alert patient is the best whistleblower for this type of fraud and abuse.

4. No one is going to want to be a doctor or nurse under this kind of strictly regulated and restricted environment?

If its strict and restrictive environments that doctors and nurses don’t like, they should leave now. Because, under the current system the greatest pain in the ass is the health insurance companies that determine if a procedure can be paid for – literally a faceless voice on the phone dictates to a nurse or doctor whether or not a healthful or lifesaving procedure can be performed. Some hospitals dedicate an entire floor or wing to desks of workers whose main job is to communicate with mega bureaucratic health insurance companies. Does that seem right?

Under a SPHC system the Administrative body or the SPHCA will allow any and all procedures deemed reasonable by the doctor in charge.

Quality should be rewarded with monitory bonuses and promotions to health care workers.

Under an SPHC system funding will be made available for health care professional higher education and even the building of new campuses dedicated to professional training in medicine.

5. Government sometimes seems to get things so wrong, I don’t trust it. Why would a SPHC system be any different than other government failures, with fraud, negligence and etcetera?

Democracy is the answer to the checks and balances needed to ensure that a SPHC system continues efficiently and without fraud. A hierarchy of councils which ends at the top in Washington D.C. at the SPHCA and a cabinet level appointed bipartisan committee members totaling 9 members (for instance – a tie breaking number of members i.e. the Supreme Court).

The SPHCA must be created via Constitutional Amendment. The main purpose of this would be to separate the funding from the U.S. Congress, which could be swayed by power shifts to functionally change the SPHC system by removal of funds. The second reason the SPHCA should birth via Constitutional Amendment is that the people should be behind it in unanimity. This will ensure an extended life of the program as generations will recall in memory why they created the SPHCA.

The accountability to the consumer should begin with democracy at the local level (as per Clinton Health Care Reform plan of 1995). A Health Care Regional Council District (HCRCD), several or more than one in each state depending on population and number of health care facilities, will be voted in by the local populace during each general election (every four years). This local council would review all consumer complaints. It would review all medical professional complaints. The council must contain a minority of medical professionals and a majority of non medical professional citizens, and this will require run off electioneering allowing election boards to chose second tier candidates to meet the mandate.

The spirit of competition does not have to die with SPHC. Consumer information plays a crucial role in maintaining and building the quality of a facility and its staff. Internet and mailing pamphlets must be prolific in each HCRCD ensuring citizen awareness and input. No citizen should have to be limited to receiving care in his or her own local HCRCD, this is the competitive edge maintained by the consumer/citizen. This edge raises and lowers the numerical value points of any given facility.

You must ask the question of yourself: Do I like democracy? Has America worked pretty well? What if I knew a full accounting of the quality and performance of the hospital in my local area? What if I never had to deal with a health insurance company again?

Visit SiCKOCure.org to learn more and become a part of the struggle for real universal health care.

Paris' Behavior is None of Our Business

Be who you are Paris. I envy you. Be free; you’re in America. Do nothing with your life or do something great or find a place of accomplishment in-between. You have the privilege of opportunity unmatched by others except by a few on Earth and that also means opportunity to do nothing. Rescuing third world orphans or participating in a Hagen-Daz ice cream marathon on your couch every day is all your choice to make.

Do what you will, but harm no one. That’s a credo of Humanism and a damn good one for all of us to follow. Paris Hilton appears to be following that ethic, as far as I can see. She was caught driving a car drunk, twice, and needed to be reminded and that’s fine, and had to be punished, that’s the rules and that’s good. Still however she has hurt no one. She has no obligation to be anyone in particular besides herself, for anyone, no matter how wealthy she is, no matter what pedigree of privilege, so long as she harms no one.

Enter the pundits editorializing about who Paris should be, how she should act. Some pundits go as far as to suggest that she somehow owes society a different woman to be presented, that her position of wealth and celebrity dictates she have good behavior, be a role model, stay "on" whenever out. Bull. Says who? Would you tell a minority of color that he or she needs to be a role model, that he has to behave differently because of who he is and who he was on the day he was born? That’s counter to the spirit of freedom our founders had envisioned when writing the Bill of Rights. That all men are created equal. That the pursuit of happiness can only be accomplished by recognition of the individualism that is a man or woman in their own element, free, unhindered.

You go girl. Party on or volunteer. Whatever. Its your life and this writer remains jealous.