Quote 12/28/09
"[Sarah Palin is] interested in being as big a celebrity as she can."
America's International Future
America has gone from a small colony of rebels to an isolated nation, from a revered ally to a disliked presence. Although America is the only remaining superpower in the world, its world standing has noticeably decreased through the last few years. Action needs to be taken to reestablish America’s place in the world so that America can participate in the global economy and command respect from potential threats and allies.
The new presidential administration in January brought hope to many that the presence of America in the world would have a tonal change. It was evident from President Obama’s first trip overseas that Obama was certainly better received in Europe and Asia than former President Bush has been (remember the shoe-throwing travesty?). Having a president that the world respects is a first step towards having a better and more positive world presence.
However, having our leader liked by the people and leaders of other countries is not enough. We need to reexamine our foreign policy, especially our Afghanistan and Iraq policies in order to reestablish our standing. We will have to actually stand up for human rights in places like Darfur, rather than just talking about it. We need to lead the world in green energy, and to challenge all nations to meet the highest standards of legal systems. We have to stand up for the little people, and follow our standards of morality ourselves- not force our ideas on other nations while we house detainees at Gitmo. We need to review our nuclear policy and work for the safety of all the world’s citizens. We must take action and do all the things we claim to do, all the things we promise the world.
Quote 12/26/09
Christopher Dodd
"It's time to renew our commitment to the world around us."
Senate Bill Passed
“Mr. President, this is for my friend, Ted Kennedy – aye," announced the ailing Senator Bob Byrd this morning while voting on the Senate Health Care Reform Bill, which passed along party lines- 60-39. The bill had no public option or any viable alternative to private insurance companies, no caps, and a mandate.
However, it is promising that a bill with some reform aspects was passed in the Senate, and the bill does have some good pieces. The bill prevents insurance companies from dropping patients if they become sick, and it limits ability to deny patients.
Read more »
However, it is promising that a bill with some reform aspects was passed in the Senate, and the bill does have some good pieces. The bill prevents insurance companies from dropping patients if they become sick, and it limits ability to deny patients.
Quote 12/24/09
Walt Whitman
"A great city is that which has the greatest men and women."
Quote 12/23/09
Barney Frank
“Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table.”
Quote 12/22/09
Heinrich Heine
"Where ever they burn books, they will also, in the end, burn human beings."
Quote 12/21/09
John Locke
"All mankind... being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions."
Darfur
Darfur is a region in Sudan whose people are being annihilated by the Sudanese government in an under-publicized genocide. Over 300,000 Darfur people have died, according to the UN, and millions have been displaced from their homes.
Americans are turning a blind eye as the people of Darfur are slaughtered. The American media does not report on them, the American Congress will not vote to assist them, and the American people cannot relate to them, so they do nothing to help. The US government needs to take swift and strong action against the Sudanese government and the genocide of Darfurians. The UN has indicted President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan for war crimes, but this is not enough. Assistance is despritely required for the millions of displaced Darfur people, living in refugee camps in fear of death or rape.
There is no hope for these displaced Darfurians, and without America's help, they will continue to lack basic supplies and be slaughtered by the government of Sudan. Sudan will be holding an election very soon, and without UN intervention and American help, it is certain that the people of Darfur will be brutally silenced.
Grassroots?
Many campaigns claim to be propeled by massive 'grassroots' movements. But what differentiates between this all-hailed grassroots and the corperate movements, scathingly refered to as 'Astroturf'?
Read more »
'Grassroots' is defined as "the common people at a local level" by Princeton's web dictionary, while 'Astroturf', or 'Astroturfing' is "The disguising of an orchestrated campaign as a spontaneous upwelling of public opinion", according to Wikipedia. No one wants their movement to be known as Astroturf, so these corporate campaigns are usually very well covered up.
The controversial 'Tea Party' movement, an anti tax protesting/letter writing movement, is hailed as a magnificent grassroots movement by some and deplored as an Astroturf debocle by others. The 'teapartiers', as the movement's participants are called, say that they are part of a completely locally-driven, grassroots movement, and that the 'Tea Parties' sponsors like FreedomWorks and Americans For Prosperity are simply event organizers and nothing more.
However, bigger corporations than these activist groups are supporting the 'Tea Parties'. Fox News has and continues to promote the Tea Parties and their goals, and some of the channel's anchors have said that to participate in the protests would be to 'celebrate with Fox News', according to Glenn Beck.
Grassroots means without corporate sponsorship on a local level. Therefore, the Tea Parties are not grassroots.
Joe Lieberman's Health Care
All members of Congress who are planning to vote for the newly Lieberman-affected health care are essentially putting the attractiveness of passing a bill over cost-effective and productive content. This bill currently has no viable option as an alternative to private health care insurance, it does not extend Medicare to those over 55, and it does not seriously limit the powers of insurance companies, rather, it imposes weak regulation upon them and forces all Americans to purchase over-expensive private insurance.
The simple math of it is that the Democrats need sixty votes to pass health care reform in the Senate- their entire caucus. Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Kent Conrad are some of the few final senators needed to support the bill. Nelson and Conrad seemed willing to vote for the trigger public option and the extended Medicare bill, but Lieberman said he would vote with the Republicans against cloture. Because of Lieberman, the bill was watered down to its current, completely unproductive form.
Read more »
The simple math of it is that the Democrats need sixty votes to pass health care reform in the Senate- their entire caucus. Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Kent Conrad are some of the few final senators needed to support the bill. Nelson and Conrad seemed willing to vote for the trigger public option and the extended Medicare bill, but Lieberman said he would vote with the Republicans against cloture. Because of Lieberman, the bill was watered down to its current, completely unproductive form. If Lieberman proves unwilling to support the old bill- the one with extended Medicare and a public option, then he needs to be removed as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
Quote 12/16/09
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
"So that's the dissenter's hope: that they are writing not for today but for tomorrow."
Is DC's Newseum Biased?
The Newseum's Media Giants Display
For a museum focusing on media and its affects, the issue of media consolidation is one that needs to be adressed. In the Newseum's News History room, where visitors can view many old and new newspapers and can read about various snippets of news history. In the far corner of the hall, there is a display talking about the five big media giants. However, only three of the six basic media conglomerates are featured in a negativly conotated list (seen above): General Electric (NBC), Walt Disney (ABC), and Viacom (who actually no longer owns CBS). Notably missing are News Corperation (Fox) and Time Warner (the last is CBS). There are blurbs on both Time Warner and News Corp., but neither are as negative as the reaching hands of the others. 
To be fair, Time Warner does not own any television/news stations as major as the other five, and is mostly a movie group. However, News Corp. owns the most influential and widely watched cable news station and a highly popular network television station. Why isn't News Corp. included with the others? It may be worthy to note that this particular room was sponsered by News Corp., and that is says so in a nearly hidden plaque on the other side of the room.
Quote 12/14/09
Hillary Clinton
"There cannot be true democracy unless women's voices are heard. There cannot be true democracy unless women are given the opportunity to take responsibility for their own lives. There cannot be true democracy unless all citizens are able to participate fully in the lives of their country."
Friday Feature: Glee and Political Correctness
When your musical dramedy's characters are referred to as "wheelchair" "Asian" "other Asian" "gay kid" or "Aretha [Franklin]", you have jumped over the lines of political correctness. Fox's Glee is about as blunt and politically incorrect as a show on a mainstream channel can get- and American audiences love it. Glee is popular, critically acclaimed, and talked about- everything a news channel wants to be. News and news commentary, however, are traditionally politically correct and unbiased. Would moving the national conversation in Glee's direction- making it less politically correct- be a positive change for news media?
There would be less talk of elitists or the 'liberal media elite', certainly, and there may be a slight profit increase for some of the more sterile stations, because controversy sells. But would the loss of professionalism and respect be worth it? Fox News seems to have taken the jump, as its stars like Glenn Beck pride themselves in their blatant political incorrectness. "...the politically correct world we live in, a world where, you know, I can't even show a picture of a missing student because he's Egyptian, 'Oh, don't. What? You hate all Arabs?' No! It doesn't allow you to publicly talk about stereotypes or sensitive questions about age or race or religion. You can't even say anything about it or just ask an honest question," says Beck.
However, the insensitivity and unprofessionalness that would be projected by the media if they were to move towards a more Glee-esque conversation would be extraordinarily detrimental to America's image. The small financial gains would not outweigh the serious turn to bias and rudeness by the overall news media.
Last Summer's Protests: Tehran, Iran
On June 11th, 2009, President Ahmadinejad of Iran was reelected with a sweeping victory- in fact, he, as a Reactionary Party candidate, won almost forty-four percent of the Reformist Party’s votes. This result surprised both the people of Iran and the world. It was expected that the slightly more moderate Reformist candidate Musavid would defeat Ahmadinejad due to changing popular opinion in Iran. Iran has a history of vote rigging, and many foreign affairs or Iran experts such as Richard Engle (F.A. Correspondent- NBC) and Bobby Ghosh (Time Magazine) believe it likely that votes were illegally rigged by the President’s administration, a skepticism held also by some parts of the Iranian government. On June 19th, the riots were temporarily stopped while Iran’s Supreme Leader spoke out against the protests. As of June 24th, the protests have led to a death toll between ten and twenty-five Iranians, notably including several high-profile deaths on the streets. In addition, many protest leaders and advocates have been arrested and detained, according to the MSNBC Tehran correspondent.
As all of this has been going on in Iran, Congressmen and the White House have been clashing on how to react and respond to the situation on the streets on Tehran. The Republicans, as a rule, have been pushing for the very pro-Reformist position by the US and US assistance for the rebels. The White House, Democratic Congressmen, and a few key Republican senators such as Senator Lugar of the Foreign Relations committee, however, have taken a more moderate route, enforcing that the US is against violence but not interfering. “We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal right to assembly and free speech must be respected. And the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.” Richard Wolffe, a MSNBC Political Analyst, notes of the Republican, most notably Lindsey Gramm, position, “…if you’re going to talk tough, you really do have to back it up with something. Otherwise, you actually look weaker.” Bobby Ghosh notes that talking tough is a bad idea either way. “To speak out now would be to weaken whatever resistance [to Ahmadinijad] there is, and, in fact, it would put people in harm’s way,” he states. Already, the Iranian regime is accusing the US of interfering in the voting process.
As of December, the protests have silenced- at least in the American media- and any resistance to Ahmadinejad have been on an international scale (UN, etc).
Read more »
As all of this has been going on in Iran, Congressmen and the White House have been clashing on how to react and respond to the situation on the streets on Tehran. The Republicans, as a rule, have been pushing for the very pro-Reformist position by the US and US assistance for the rebels. The White House, Democratic Congressmen, and a few key Republican senators such as Senator Lugar of the Foreign Relations committee, however, have taken a more moderate route, enforcing that the US is against violence but not interfering. “We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal right to assembly and free speech must be respected. And the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.” Richard Wolffe, a MSNBC Political Analyst, notes of the Republican, most notably Lindsey Gramm, position, “…if you’re going to talk tough, you really do have to back it up with something. Otherwise, you actually look weaker.” Bobby Ghosh notes that talking tough is a bad idea either way. “To speak out now would be to weaken whatever resistance [to Ahmadinijad] there is, and, in fact, it would put people in harm’s way,” he states. Already, the Iranian regime is accusing the US of interfering in the voting process.
As of December, the protests have silenced- at least in the American media- and any resistance to Ahmadinejad have been on an international scale (UN, etc).
Gov. Mark Sanford's Affair
Extra-Marital Affairs are seen often in the lives of elected public officials. From the old, Thomas Jefferson’s numerous affairs with enslaved women, to the new, the recently uncovered affairs of Senator John Ensign and Governor Mark Sanford, such affairs can have varying effects on the political career of the official. Former President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky eventually lead to his impeachment, while others have successfully campaigned for re-election after his or her affair being publicized. Of course, all of the affairs happened in different circumstances, and certain circumstances (like those during Governor Sanford’s affair) should lead to the official being removed from office. Sanford should be removed from office not because of his affair, but because he used public time and money and manipulated public opinion in order to participate in his affair.
From June nineteenth to June twenty-fourth, Governor Mark Sanford was not in his home state of South Carolina and his location was unknown to his constituents, his family, and his staff. The only thing known about his location was that he had ‘wanted to get away’ and was possibly hiking the Appellation Trail. When he returned on June twenty-fourth, Sanford gave a press conference where he announced that he had been in Argentina with his mistress. “The bottom line is this- I have been unfaithful to my wife… I have spent the last five days of my life crying down in Argentina,” Sanford announced at his press conference. Now, other than the actual affair, there are three facts in this case that should end or at least severely shorten his political career. First, Sanford was gone during three business days without alerting his staff where he was going. He was gone during three days where he was supposed to be running the state of South Carolina. This is irresponsible. Second, Sanford campaigned many times, both for the governorship and for the US Congress, on the idea that he is a ‘family man.’ He has used both his children and his wife as means to connect to his constituents and as a vessel to campaign for votes. By now having an affair, he has gone against what he has campaigned for in the past. Third, Sanford used public funds to visit his mistress in Buenos Ares and several times in New York City. He did resign as Chairman of the Republican Governor’s Association but not as Governor of South Carolina, even though, days after the affair an un-scientific poll reported that 65% of South Carolinian participated felt as though he ought to.
Should Sanford resign? Probably. He won't. Most elected officials won't give up power unless forced to, and it is now nearly seven months since the affair went public. He could still be impeached by the South Carolina legislature, but, once again, it's been a while. As Americans, we need to come to a consensus about where the line is draw between public and private for elected officials.
Read more »
From June nineteenth to June twenty-fourth, Governor Mark Sanford was not in his home state of South Carolina and his location was unknown to his constituents, his family, and his staff. The only thing known about his location was that he had ‘wanted to get away’ and was possibly hiking the Appellation Trail. When he returned on June twenty-fourth, Sanford gave a press conference where he announced that he had been in Argentina with his mistress. “The bottom line is this- I have been unfaithful to my wife… I have spent the last five days of my life crying down in Argentina,” Sanford announced at his press conference. Now, other than the actual affair, there are three facts in this case that should end or at least severely shorten his political career. First, Sanford was gone during three business days without alerting his staff where he was going. He was gone during three days where he was supposed to be running the state of South Carolina. This is irresponsible. Second, Sanford campaigned many times, both for the governorship and for the US Congress, on the idea that he is a ‘family man.’ He has used both his children and his wife as means to connect to his constituents and as a vessel to campaign for votes. By now having an affair, he has gone against what he has campaigned for in the past. Third, Sanford used public funds to visit his mistress in Buenos Ares and several times in New York City. He did resign as Chairman of the Republican Governor’s Association but not as Governor of South Carolina, even though, days after the affair an un-scientific poll reported that 65% of South Carolinian participated felt as though he ought to.
Should Sanford resign? Probably. He won't. Most elected officials won't give up power unless forced to, and it is now nearly seven months since the affair went public. He could still be impeached by the South Carolina legislature, but, once again, it's been a while. As Americans, we need to come to a consensus about where the line is draw between public and private for elected officials.
Quote 12/8/09
Al Franken “The biases the media has are much bigger than conservative or liberal. They're about getting ratings, about making money, about doing stories that are easy to cover.”
Media Consolidation
In 2007, Kevin Martin, chairman of the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), attempted to pass a regulation that would allow one news corporation to own all of the radio, TV, and newspapers in a city. “This legislation changes technical provisions but is simple in its message and effects,” said Rep. Dave Reichert. “We want local media to remain local, diverse and free.” Although this decision would benefit the big companies that produce the news, it would be a very negative change for the American people and American democracy. If the media is allowed to become further consolidated, it could limit the number of opinions and stories in the news, make it harder for small news companies to exist, and make already under-reported issues barely reported at all.
The passing of this legislation would limit the variety of opinions and stories available in the news. When a singular news corporation owns most or all of the news in a city, the decisions on what stories and what opinions are represented all come back to the head of that company. If you watch Fox News every evening, and read the New York Post every morning, you are reading and hearing stories that are decided on by one man, whose name is Rupert Murdoch. So, if there are opinions being voiced that Mr. Murdoch doesn’t agree with, he has the ability to not let them be reported on at all. "… Six huge conglomerates control everything, well, basically everything that you see, hear, and read,” says Matt Thompson, a media reform activist. If much of the news is controlled by these six companies, the diversity in the media opinions doesn’t really go beyond those voiced by those companies and what their owners believe. When more of the news outlets are owned by big corporations, small news companies have a harder time existing. For example, one radio company, Clear Channel, owns over nine percent of our nation’s radio. This may not sound like a lot, but it’s almost five states worth of radio. When that much radio is owned by a big corporation, it is hard for independent companies to get airtime. With the passing of the FCC’s legislation, more of the radio could be owned by large companies, effectively pushing smaller shows and stations off the air. The same effect could happen in the area of newspapers and TV networks. Another dangerous effect of the legislation would be the absence of under-reported stories in the news. Today, news corporations choose what to report on based on how many people would be interested in the story. This leaves other topics that don’t get main media attention to be reported on by smaller sources. “It’s like the thing you care the most about is the climate crisis… Media should really be your second issue, because ultimately, yeah, it’s gonna be difficult to make the kind of progress you want in your fight if you're not getting the kind of media attention you need,” says one contributor to the HP Alliance, a group the works with Stop Big Media, the organization that stopped the FCC’s legislation when they tried to pass it the first time around, in 2003. Since the legislation would allow big companies to own more media, the stories that need media attention will be receiving less and less.
Some people argue on the side of the corporations and say that the legislation will provide immediate help to corporations. “There’s a couple companies that have been pushing for this for a long time. One is the Tribune Company, which is the only corporation to own a newspaper and a broadcast television station in the three major markets: LA, New York and Chicago,” says Eric Klinenberg. Although this may help large corporations, it will hurt small companies who really need the help much more. Other people say that the corporations are doing a really good job reporting, so having them control more media is not a problem. Well, since the eighties, reporting on foreign news has decreased by eighty percent. The absence of foreign news has been replaced by sports, weather, and celebrity gossip. For example, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, NBC, CBS, and ABC ran twelve times as many stories on Tom Cruise and fifty times as many stories on Michael Jackson in 2005 as they did on the genocide in Darfur. That would hardly be called responsible reporting.
This bill would have negative effects on American media and the American people. It would limit diversity of opinions in the media, make it harder for small news companies to exist, and make the under-reported stories that need attention barely relevant. Even though it may give quick benefit to big corporations that are already practically monopolizing the media, it would push out small companies that are reporting on stories and giving opinions that aren’t being voiced by the main media. Do you really want a few big companies to control everything you see and hear?
Read more »
The passing of this legislation would limit the variety of opinions and stories available in the news. When a singular news corporation owns most or all of the news in a city, the decisions on what stories and what opinions are represented all come back to the head of that company. If you watch Fox News every evening, and read the New York Post every morning, you are reading and hearing stories that are decided on by one man, whose name is Rupert Murdoch. So, if there are opinions being voiced that Mr. Murdoch doesn’t agree with, he has the ability to not let them be reported on at all. "… Six huge conglomerates control everything, well, basically everything that you see, hear, and read,” says Matt Thompson, a media reform activist. If much of the news is controlled by these six companies, the diversity in the media opinions doesn’t really go beyond those voiced by those companies and what their owners believe. When more of the news outlets are owned by big corporations, small news companies have a harder time existing. For example, one radio company, Clear Channel, owns over nine percent of our nation’s radio. This may not sound like a lot, but it’s almost five states worth of radio. When that much radio is owned by a big corporation, it is hard for independent companies to get airtime. With the passing of the FCC’s legislation, more of the radio could be owned by large companies, effectively pushing smaller shows and stations off the air. The same effect could happen in the area of newspapers and TV networks. Another dangerous effect of the legislation would be the absence of under-reported stories in the news. Today, news corporations choose what to report on based on how many people would be interested in the story. This leaves other topics that don’t get main media attention to be reported on by smaller sources. “It’s like the thing you care the most about is the climate crisis… Media should really be your second issue, because ultimately, yeah, it’s gonna be difficult to make the kind of progress you want in your fight if you're not getting the kind of media attention you need,” says one contributor to the HP Alliance, a group the works with Stop Big Media, the organization that stopped the FCC’s legislation when they tried to pass it the first time around, in 2003. Since the legislation would allow big companies to own more media, the stories that need media attention will be receiving less and less.
Some people argue on the side of the corporations and say that the legislation will provide immediate help to corporations. “There’s a couple companies that have been pushing for this for a long time. One is the Tribune Company, which is the only corporation to own a newspaper and a broadcast television station in the three major markets: LA, New York and Chicago,” says Eric Klinenberg. Although this may help large corporations, it will hurt small companies who really need the help much more. Other people say that the corporations are doing a really good job reporting, so having them control more media is not a problem. Well, since the eighties, reporting on foreign news has decreased by eighty percent. The absence of foreign news has been replaced by sports, weather, and celebrity gossip. For example, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, NBC, CBS, and ABC ran twelve times as many stories on Tom Cruise and fifty times as many stories on Michael Jackson in 2005 as they did on the genocide in Darfur. That would hardly be called responsible reporting.
This bill would have negative effects on American media and the American people. It would limit diversity of opinions in the media, make it harder for small news companies to exist, and make the under-reported stories that need attention barely relevant. Even though it may give quick benefit to big corporations that are already practically monopolizing the media, it would push out small companies that are reporting on stories and giving opinions that aren’t being voiced by the main media. Do you really want a few big companies to control everything you see and hear?
Quote 12/7/09
Aaron Williams
"Peace Corps is a cost effective way for the United States to expand its humanitarian presence"
Legality of Bush Torture Techniques
Starting no later than August 2003, the Bush Administration’s CIA employed ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ on detained suspected terrorists that included, but were not limited to; beating, waterboarding, beating with collar, exposure to extreme heat, exposure to extreme cold, forced nudity, sleep deprivation, denial of solid food, placement in claustrophobic situations, exposure to insects, exposure to unpleasant substances, threatening, sexual harassment and sexual commentary of a derogatory nature, religious commentary of a derogatory nature, personal commentary of a derogatory nature, stress standing, and threats. These techniques were authorized for use by Justice Department lawyers, and most, if not all, top level Bush Administration officials knew of the use of these techniques. These ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ are illegal, were known to be illegal by those who authorized them, and have caused and will cause many negative ramifications in the United States and around the world.
The techniques authorized for CIA use at detention centers like Gitmo at Guantanamo Bay, Bogram Air Base in Afganistan, and Abu Ghraib in Iraq include many different illegal techniques. Waterboarding alone is illegal under many international treaties and agreements. The ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ are illegal under the Geneva Conventions Against Torture, the Torture Act, the Detainee Treatment Act, and Article eight of the US Bill of Rights (and the manner in which they are carried out is against articles five and six). The United States has agreed to act lawfully under those treaties and laws along with several other countries. So, the techniques that are known to have been authorized and employed in the United States are illegal under both national and international law and break several key wartime treaties. Looking at past precedent, the United States successfully prosecuted Japanese soldiers who authorized and employed similar techniques, most notably waterboarding, after World War II. The other part of the use of these techniques that constitutes as an illegal act is the time when Congress what notified about their employment. There still is debate about when and how sufficiently Congress was informed, and, depending on the outcome of the debates, the information could constitute another legal charge.
Read more »
The techniques authorized for CIA use at detention centers like Gitmo at Guantanamo Bay, Bogram Air Base in Afganistan, and Abu Ghraib in Iraq include many different illegal techniques. Waterboarding alone is illegal under many international treaties and agreements. The ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ are illegal under the Geneva Conventions Against Torture, the Torture Act, the Detainee Treatment Act, and Article eight of the US Bill of Rights (and the manner in which they are carried out is against articles five and six). The United States has agreed to act lawfully under those treaties and laws along with several other countries. So, the techniques that are known to have been authorized and employed in the United States are illegal under both national and international law and break several key wartime treaties. Looking at past precedent, the United States successfully prosecuted Japanese soldiers who authorized and employed similar techniques, most notably waterboarding, after World War II. The other part of the use of these techniques that constitutes as an illegal act is the time when Congress what notified about their employment. There still is debate about when and how sufficiently Congress was informed, and, depending on the outcome of the debates, the information could constitute another legal charge.
Quote 12/4/09
Wolfgang Ansel"If we steal the ground for a building, we can give it back to nature on the roof."
Health Care Info Part Three
From the idea of ‘death panels’ to the idea that the government will provide coverage to illegal immigrants when health care is reformed, there is much misinformation out in the public. According to a Gallup/NBC poll, of those who watch Fox News rather than MSNBC or CNN, 72% of believe the new plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79% think that it will lead to a government takeover, 69% think that it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and 75% believe that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly. Of the CNN/MSNBC viewers, at least 29% less believe each of these myths. News commentators on all channels are perpetuating these lies about the bill, leaving viewers unsure of the truth. As the facts become more and more confused, popularity for the already controversial bill goes down.
Will some form of health care reform be passed before the State of the Union adress in January? It seems that the HoR will not pass any reform without a public option, and the same will be extraordinarily difficult to pass in the Senate. So it is possible reform will happen this year, but is it just as if not more likely that partisan politics will continute to delay any true change.
Read more »
Will some form of health care reform be passed before the State of the Union adress in January? It seems that the HoR will not pass any reform without a public option, and the same will be extraordinarily difficult to pass in the Senate. So it is possible reform will happen this year, but is it just as if not more likely that partisan politics will continute to delay any true change.
Quote 12/3/09
Sandra Day O'Connor "Society as a whole benefits immeasurably from a climate in which all persons, regardless of race or gender, may have the opportunity to earn respect, responsibility, advancement and remuneration based on ability. "
Health Care Info Part Two
The next plan being optioned is a mixed plan, where the privately owned insurance companies and a government insurance option exist together. At the moment, this is the most popular plan among Congress and President Obama. This plan would allow citizens to choose between their current insurance and a government plan while enforcing more regulation on the insurance companies, like making it so the health care companies could not discriminate coverage from those with preexisting conditions. The mixed plan would not force anyone to move from their current heath care to government plans. The plan does have a negative effect- if many people switch from private insurance to public, the insurance companies may raise their rates dramatically in order to combat their loss of profit. Also, this plan is not one that would make money for the government, as they would have to pay for those with serious conditions and people with no health problems may stay with their current insurance, so the government would not be able to make money off of the system.
The final plan being proposed, although due to its partisan nature, not being seriously considered, is the single payer plan. In a single payer plan, the government would be the only health care provider. They would not turn away applicants based on current conditions, and the health care provided would be accepted everywhere. You would still get to choose your plan and your doctor. You would not, however, get to choose between a public and a private carrier, as the private option would be eliminated. Although this is not the popular or politically best plan, the single payer system is the most viable for the American consumer. The single payer system would, in the long term, lower our deficit because the government would be able to make some amount of money off the persons covered who did not have high heath care-related charges. Also, when the government is providing health care for all Americans, they can make and keep low rates since their interest is not profit-based.
Read more »
The final plan being proposed, although due to its partisan nature, not being seriously considered, is the single payer plan. In a single payer plan, the government would be the only health care provider. They would not turn away applicants based on current conditions, and the health care provided would be accepted everywhere. You would still get to choose your plan and your doctor. You would not, however, get to choose between a public and a private carrier, as the private option would be eliminated. Although this is not the popular or politically best plan, the single payer system is the most viable for the American consumer. The single payer system would, in the long term, lower our deficit because the government would be able to make some amount of money off the persons covered who did not have high heath care-related charges. Also, when the government is providing health care for all Americans, they can make and keep low rates since their interest is not profit-based.
Health Care Info Part One
For many years, it has been a primary campaign promise of those running for elected office that they, if elected, would support efforts to reform the current health care system. In the nineties, President Clinton tried and failed to pass a reform bill. In 2009, President Barack Obama is trying again. There are three basic types of health care reforms being considered by the members of Congress; a non-government plan, a mixed system, and a single payer plan. All three plans being proposed have advantages and disadvantages, and plan choice is vital to good reform. The other issue at hand when considering the reform efforts is the large amount of misinformation being discussed by the public, and the final problem to be addressed before any reform is possible is the money being given to members of Congress from the health care providers in order to try to sway their votes.
The first plan being discussed is the non-government plan, mostly supported by Republicans and other conservatives. The first variation on this plan involves no real change to the current system, with the only real ‘reform’ being increased regulation of the health care industry. The main proposed change would be the ability of consumers to be able to buy insurance from any state. “[This system would not be real reform because] I don’t think that one state has secretly more awesome heath care than the others,” said Rachel Maddow on NBC’s Meet the Press. The other variation on this plan being offered is keeping the current system and simply adding in privately owned cooperatives as an option for consumers. This plan, while an interesting idea, simply takes far too long to set up into a viable system. It would be years before cooperatives would be well enough established to become a serious option for the average American’s heath care. The non-government option would create the least amount of completion for the insurance companies and is, unsurprisingly, the plan that these companies are pushing for.
Read more »
The first plan being discussed is the non-government plan, mostly supported by Republicans and other conservatives. The first variation on this plan involves no real change to the current system, with the only real ‘reform’ being increased regulation of the health care industry. The main proposed change would be the ability of consumers to be able to buy insurance from any state. “[This system would not be real reform because] I don’t think that one state has secretly more awesome heath care than the others,” said Rachel Maddow on NBC’s Meet the Press. The other variation on this plan being offered is keeping the current system and simply adding in privately owned cooperatives as an option for consumers. This plan, while an interesting idea, simply takes far too long to set up into a viable system. It would be years before cooperatives would be well enough established to become a serious option for the average American’s heath care. The non-government option would create the least amount of completion for the insurance companies and is, unsurprisingly, the plan that these companies are pushing for.
Public Campaign Funding
What makes lobbyists so effective as promoters and imposers of public policy? In a word, money. As an elected official in 2009, one needs immensly huge amounts of funding in order to be elected or reelected, and lobbyists often can offer such funds to these officials in exchange for a simple 'yay' or 'nay' vote on a particular issue. This year alone, over 2.5 billion dollars from over 13,000 lobbyists has poured into policymaker's pockets and campaigns. There are so many lobbyists on Capitol Hill today that every single Congressman can not help but to be swayed by thier collective, overwelming voice. The only way to ensure that Congressmen are voting along with their constituant's best interests is to take money out of the Congressman/lobbyist relationship through campaign finance reform in the form of public funding.
Public funding would open up the canidate pool to those not of the monomially elite. Lobbyists would still be able to vocally lobby members of Congress, both privately and publically, but they could no longer 'buy' a Congressman's vote. Under this system, there would also be stricter regulation regarding outside salaries earned by Congressmen during thier tenure so they would be unable to recieve personal gifts and contributions from lobbying groups and corporations.
Lobbying is a billion-dollar industry. On health care-related lobbying alone, one company-PhRMA- spent over six million dollars, while another- the AMA- has spent over eight million. This money goes straight to our represententatives, who are then indebted to the lobbyists, which sways their votes and public statements.
Read more »
Public funding would open up the canidate pool to those not of the monomially elite. Lobbyists would still be able to vocally lobby members of Congress, both privately and publically, but they could no longer 'buy' a Congressman's vote. Under this system, there would also be stricter regulation regarding outside salaries earned by Congressmen during thier tenure so they would be unable to recieve personal gifts and contributions from lobbying groups and corporations.
Lobbying is a billion-dollar industry. On health care-related lobbying alone, one company-PhRMA- spent over six million dollars, while another- the AMA- has spent over eight million. This money goes straight to our represententatives, who are then indebted to the lobbyists, which sways their votes and public statements.
Quote 12/1/09
Barney Frank
"But on those occasions when I do strongly disagree with the Democrats and I don't say anything, I think I forfeit my right to have people pay attention to me when I say the things that I don't like about what Republicans are saying."
Quote 11/30/09
Rachel Maddow
"Humans are ambitious and rational and proud. And we don't fall in line with people who don't respect us and who we believe don't have our best interests at heart. We are willing to follow leaders, but only to the extent we believe they call on our best, not our worst."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
