I was surprised at how few locations in my state showed Michael Moore's new movie SiCKO when it first open on June 29th. That's until I remembered that I live in Connecticut, the Insurance Capital of the World. It's impossible to think of a location less welcoming to Mr. Moore's latest offering than here and surely is a contributing reason to the small number of cinemas willing to show his film.
That made me wonder what kind of support for healthcare reform could be found among the elected officials of my state. The legislation currently in the House that proposes Universal Healthcare is H.R. 676, so I searched the websites of the Representatives from Connecticut to see if they sponsored, co-sponsored or even support H.R. 676:
John Larson (D) First Congrssional District...........NO
Joe Courtney (D) Second Congressional District....NO
Rosa Delauro (D) Third Congressional District......NO
Chris Shays (R) Fourth Congressional District.......NO
Chris Murphy (D) Fifth Congressional District......NO
This was very disappointing news and especially so in the case of Chris Murphy who defeated Nancy Johnson in the last election. You see, Nancy earned a notorious role in Moore’s movie as a shill for the medical insurance and big pharma lobbies. Murphy campaigned against Johnson aggressively often referring to her industry contacts so, it seems we should expect his support for this legislation.
I suppose it is difficult for the average individual to realize what pressures can be brought to bear against elected officials by moneyed and powerful lobbyists. Campaigns are not financed by good intentions alone (or at all) and candidates must be sensitive to the concerns of industries if they wish to receive the infusion of cash so vital to their (re)elections.
Perhaps it is precisely because I don’t realize what pressures are exerted upon our Representatives, or perhaps it is in spite of it, that I have no aversion to the application of additional pressure to regain their attention. Why should the lobbyists have all the fun?
I am suggesting lobbying our Representatives for their support of Universal Healthcare legislation, such as H.R. 676, by demanding that they refuse coverage by the Congressional Healthcare Insurance program until all Americans have guaranteed healthcare. Even the homeless and unemployed pay taxes anytime they purchase anything for any amount of money. That makes them employers of the members of Congress elected to represent us in government.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Reality and Bush
There is another excellent diary over on Dailykos regarding "Grerat Moments in Political Realism". Please read this diary by eugene, it is the best insight I have read so far on the reality of our present situation compared to how patriotic Americans faced daunting problems throughout our history.
The standard response to impeachment has been that we do not have the votes. As eugene points out, rarely have we had the votes historically when major events were taking place that would have reshaped life as we know it had people not stood, out-numbered, against powerful forces. eugene used several examples to make this point like the American colonists facing off against the overwhelming power of the British armed forces, Prime Minister Winston Churchill defiant in the face of the German army and President Kennedy facing off with the Russians over the Cuban missile crisis.
One more to consider is that the votes were not there for the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon when several brave members of Congress championed this action. They did so because the knew it was the right thing to do and that America and our Constitution were being devastated by the tyrannical actions of a single man.
For our Democratic leaders to say they will not pursue impeachment because they do not have the votes is weak, but for them to avoid impeachment in the face of the dire events brought about by the administration is cowardice. If the President wants to burn the Constitution during a Rose Garden media event would Speaker Pelosi not challenge him because she does not have the votes, or would she stand up for the Constitution because it is the right and just thing to do? The answer to that question presently is in doubt!
Early in this administration one of Bush's minions stated to Ron Suskind who was writing an article for the New York Times Magazine, that guys like Suskind were “in what we call the reality-based community" which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
This may well become a self-fulfilling prophecy unless Democrats in Congress reclaim reality from the Alice in Wonderland crew in the Whitehouse. It is long past the time for Democrats to prioritize an agenda for impeaching the President and Vice President. They must do so because it is the right thing to do, because they swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and because America is a reality based community!
I would encourage everyone to keep track of Democrats who fail this test of patriotism and fail their fellow citizens by hiding from the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. When the next election for these folks come around we must hold them accountable for their cowardice, their complicity with this criminal administration and their abdication of their sworn duties to protect and defend the Constitution of this country.
The standard response to impeachment has been that we do not have the votes. As eugene points out, rarely have we had the votes historically when major events were taking place that would have reshaped life as we know it had people not stood, out-numbered, against powerful forces. eugene used several examples to make this point like the American colonists facing off against the overwhelming power of the British armed forces, Prime Minister Winston Churchill defiant in the face of the German army and President Kennedy facing off with the Russians over the Cuban missile crisis.
One more to consider is that the votes were not there for the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon when several brave members of Congress championed this action. They did so because the knew it was the right thing to do and that America and our Constitution were being devastated by the tyrannical actions of a single man.
For our Democratic leaders to say they will not pursue impeachment because they do not have the votes is weak, but for them to avoid impeachment in the face of the dire events brought about by the administration is cowardice. If the President wants to burn the Constitution during a Rose Garden media event would Speaker Pelosi not challenge him because she does not have the votes, or would she stand up for the Constitution because it is the right and just thing to do? The answer to that question presently is in doubt!
Early in this administration one of Bush's minions stated to Ron Suskind who was writing an article for the New York Times Magazine, that guys like Suskind were “in what we call the reality-based community" which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
This may well become a self-fulfilling prophecy unless Democrats in Congress reclaim reality from the Alice in Wonderland crew in the Whitehouse. It is long past the time for Democrats to prioritize an agenda for impeaching the President and Vice President. They must do so because it is the right thing to do, because they swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and because America is a reality based community!
I would encourage everyone to keep track of Democrats who fail this test of patriotism and fail their fellow citizens by hiding from the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. When the next election for these folks come around we must hold them accountable for their cowardice, their complicity with this criminal administration and their abdication of their sworn duties to protect and defend the Constitution of this country.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Speaker Pelosi, Take Action or Take Your Leave!
When the leader of the Democratic Party in the People’s House of Representatives demonstrates she does not have the moral courage nor patriotic fortitude to stand up for the Constitution, which she swore to “Protect and Defend”, then it is her obligation to step down and surrender the reins of power to someone willing and able to carry out the job for which they were elected.
There is a diary over at DailyKos about a conversation with Speaker Pelosi by Mike Stark and Dave Johnson. They report that the speaker told them she had decided "at least a year ago," before Democrats had even taken control of the House and Senate, "that impeachment was something that we could not be successful with, and that would take up the time we needed to do some positive things to establish a record of our priorities and [Republican] short-comings."
She reportedly added, "The President isn’t worth it...he’s not worth impeaching. We’ve got important work to do." Mr. Stark asked if the Speaker believed that the “Constitution was worth it” to which she replied "Well, yeah, the constitution is worth it if you can succeed."
This is a stunningly ignorant view and one that most Americans will find totally unacceptable. What the hell does Pelosi think Democrats were empowered to do when voters swept them into office in 06? Does she really believe that anyone gives a tinker's damn about the insignificant toady occupying the Oval office? Or his worth or that of his hell bound minions? If so, she vastly misses the point. For 6 years we have been railing against the administration for butchering the Constitution, stripping our hard won liberties and trading in our freedoms for higher and higher doses of fear.
Perhaps most Americans loath this president and wish him the worst possible ending, I don't care. The Constitution is now and always has been the issue. It is a document that embodies the ideals of our Democracy and as such it is open to abuse and misinterpretation by those who consider themselves above the law it imposes on all citizens. Every member of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch of government are required to swear an oath to protect and defend this document because it is susceptible to attacks by such people as George Bush and Dick Cheney.
If Speaker Pelosi is really unwilling to put impeachment back on the table than we must make her aware that MOST Americans do not agree with her and she must comply with the wishes of the majority or leave office.
There is a diary over at DailyKos about a conversation with Speaker Pelosi by Mike Stark and Dave Johnson. They report that the speaker told them she had decided "at least a year ago," before Democrats had even taken control of the House and Senate, "that impeachment was something that we could not be successful with, and that would take up the time we needed to do some positive things to establish a record of our priorities and [Republican] short-comings."
She reportedly added, "The President isn’t worth it...he’s not worth impeaching. We’ve got important work to do." Mr. Stark asked if the Speaker believed that the “Constitution was worth it” to which she replied "Well, yeah, the constitution is worth it if you can succeed."
This is a stunningly ignorant view and one that most Americans will find totally unacceptable. What the hell does Pelosi think Democrats were empowered to do when voters swept them into office in 06? Does she really believe that anyone gives a tinker's damn about the insignificant toady occupying the Oval office? Or his worth or that of his hell bound minions? If so, she vastly misses the point. For 6 years we have been railing against the administration for butchering the Constitution, stripping our hard won liberties and trading in our freedoms for higher and higher doses of fear.
Perhaps most Americans loath this president and wish him the worst possible ending, I don't care. The Constitution is now and always has been the issue. It is a document that embodies the ideals of our Democracy and as such it is open to abuse and misinterpretation by those who consider themselves above the law it imposes on all citizens. Every member of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch of government are required to swear an oath to protect and defend this document because it is susceptible to attacks by such people as George Bush and Dick Cheney.
If Speaker Pelosi is really unwilling to put impeachment back on the table than we must make her aware that MOST Americans do not agree with her and she must comply with the wishes of the majority or leave office.
Monday, June 18, 2007
NEWS? Not Really
CBS News replaced Newsman Dan Rather with Cheer-leader Katie Couric. The result has been, predictably, a dramatic decrease in the networks credibility as a serious news source forsaking actual news for feel good pieces, personal profiles and other fluff. CBS has taken a great deal of criticism for this, but it does not appear that they have any intention of changing the new format.
The Couric fiasco is merely the latest of many drastic changes to the way Americans are getting their news. The most obvious and drastic change has been Fox News Channel. Until Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes teamed up to bring their version of news to the American market no one had ventured as far from "moderate" positions as they have shown they are willing to do.
Of course, Fox News was an aberration of cable which also ushered in such reprobates as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannitty, Tony Snow, Glen Beck, Michael Savage, and so on and so on…
Even the print media has changed and in the same direction as televised media. Both Newsweek and Time magazines have been caught publishing one cover internationally and a different cover for the American market. In both cases the cover that was suppressed was about current important issues.The Couric episode can be seen as a marketing strategy by the media to "sell" news to the public through an appealing spokesperson. Katie was magnificent on her morning talk show as the seemingly caring interviewer, ohing and ahing poignantly as her subject poured out his or her heart.
Now, Couric's talent for appearing to care is being used to sell us news the way the media wants us to get it. The important issues down-played while lingering on sentimentality and personality that could and should mean nothing.
How does CBS and Couoric compare with the other leading news sources? NBC Nightly News has Brian Williams who proudly boasts that he feels obligated to listen to Rush Limbaugh to get his dose of daily truth, and Tim Russert who the White house counts on to treat VP Cheney with kid gloves while allowing him to "get his message out".
ABC News with Charlie Gibbson is an arm of the ABC network which is owned by Disney. This is the combination that produced and aired the program blaming Bill Clinton for everything that has happened since Bush took office.
CNN & MSNBC are fairly equal in their bias against the Left except for "Count-Down" with Kieth Olberman
Once again there is Fox Noise, the propaganda machine, smear merchants and a direct branch of the Bush Administration. Yet, in spite of the Fox record of lies, cover-ups and unquestioning loyalty to Neoconservatism, Tim Russert doesn't get why the Democrats don't want their debate hosted by these sycophants. I wonder if Russert would be so quick to defend a Republican debate hosted by Air America Radio!
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Why we must Impeach
The argument against impeachment can no longer be supported if this country is to ever again be a democracy and a nation of laws. There are simply no arguments left for not immediately initiating steps to impeach both President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
It was especially disappointing recently when Al Gore stated that impeachment would be a distraction to the public and not work to improve the state of the nation. Gore should realize, more keenly than most that acknowledging the existence of a problem must occur before it can be corrected. His efforts on the problem of global warming have been met with a disinformation campaign financed by the auto and oil industries attempting to discredit Gore’s research and deny that a problem exists. Gore’s movement to reverse the ill effects of pollution on the environment will fail unless new laws are enacted and existing ones are enforced, which will not happen if we don’t first acknowledge the need to do so.
The same is true of our nation. We can not correct what is wrong with the country unless we are able to name the problems that exist, and then take steps to eradicate them. As with polluters, if they are not punished they will continue to pollute, so too will elected officials continue to violate the law if they are not punished for their misdeeds.
If you have any doubt that the Republicans intend to continue their assault on the Constitution initiated by the extremist Neoconservatives, just look at their candidates for President. Except for Ron Paul, they are all cheerleaders for continued and even escalated war in the Middle East, they support enhanced interrogation techniques (read torture), they espouse creationism and renounce evolution, they advocate continued tax relief for the rich while piling up tax burdens on the middle class and they all have extremely intimate relations with big business that spells trouble for the average Joe.
Had Democrats done what they should have by introducing articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney as soon as they took control of Congress, the rhetoric of the Republican candidates would not be so brash. They would be more cautious about supporting policies that might be judged illegal during impeachment hearings.
Had Democrats launched this session of Congress by asserting the mandate issued to them by the American electorate they could now be disassembling the unitary executive model of government devise by Karl Rove and his minions.
Reality has been quite the opposite of what Democrats should have done. Today, Congressman John Conyers posted a diary on DailyKos to share his reasons for issuing subpoenas former White House Counsel Harriett Miers. To the extent that this action is necessary the Congressman’s actions are appreciated, but to the extent that action is required in defense of the Constitution and our Democracy, it falls far short.
Also at DailyKos was a response to Congressman Conyers diary by Rusty1776. This diary is well worth the time to read and absorb it. Rusty1776 hits the nail on the head and takes Congressman Conyers to task for failing to pursue the impeachment of the President and Vice President. Before Democrats took majority control of the House and the Senate, Conyers had spoken out against Bush and Cheney and their criminal activities. Yet, when his Party came to power he has failed to follow through on his previous rhetoric.
Predictably, the argument will be made that Democrats do not have the votes required to impeach and therefore perform an act of futility by attempting it. Although this may be factually accurate, it misses the greater point of taking this action. By going on record for the impeachment of both the President and Vice President, Democrats will have taken a stand to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” which is the absolute minimum that can be expected of them, and for which they are honor and duty bound through their oath of office.
It was especially disappointing recently when Al Gore stated that impeachment would be a distraction to the public and not work to improve the state of the nation. Gore should realize, more keenly than most that acknowledging the existence of a problem must occur before it can be corrected. His efforts on the problem of global warming have been met with a disinformation campaign financed by the auto and oil industries attempting to discredit Gore’s research and deny that a problem exists. Gore’s movement to reverse the ill effects of pollution on the environment will fail unless new laws are enacted and existing ones are enforced, which will not happen if we don’t first acknowledge the need to do so.
The same is true of our nation. We can not correct what is wrong with the country unless we are able to name the problems that exist, and then take steps to eradicate them. As with polluters, if they are not punished they will continue to pollute, so too will elected officials continue to violate the law if they are not punished for their misdeeds.
If you have any doubt that the Republicans intend to continue their assault on the Constitution initiated by the extremist Neoconservatives, just look at their candidates for President. Except for Ron Paul, they are all cheerleaders for continued and even escalated war in the Middle East, they support enhanced interrogation techniques (read torture), they espouse creationism and renounce evolution, they advocate continued tax relief for the rich while piling up tax burdens on the middle class and they all have extremely intimate relations with big business that spells trouble for the average Joe.
Had Democrats done what they should have by introducing articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney as soon as they took control of Congress, the rhetoric of the Republican candidates would not be so brash. They would be more cautious about supporting policies that might be judged illegal during impeachment hearings.
Had Democrats launched this session of Congress by asserting the mandate issued to them by the American electorate they could now be disassembling the unitary executive model of government devise by Karl Rove and his minions.
Reality has been quite the opposite of what Democrats should have done. Today, Congressman John Conyers posted a diary on DailyKos to share his reasons for issuing subpoenas former White House Counsel Harriett Miers. To the extent that this action is necessary the Congressman’s actions are appreciated, but to the extent that action is required in defense of the Constitution and our Democracy, it falls far short.
Also at DailyKos was a response to Congressman Conyers diary by Rusty1776. This diary is well worth the time to read and absorb it. Rusty1776 hits the nail on the head and takes Congressman Conyers to task for failing to pursue the impeachment of the President and Vice President. Before Democrats took majority control of the House and the Senate, Conyers had spoken out against Bush and Cheney and their criminal activities. Yet, when his Party came to power he has failed to follow through on his previous rhetoric.
Predictably, the argument will be made that Democrats do not have the votes required to impeach and therefore perform an act of futility by attempting it. Although this may be factually accurate, it misses the greater point of taking this action. By going on record for the impeachment of both the President and Vice President, Democrats will have taken a stand to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” which is the absolute minimum that can be expected of them, and for which they are honor and duty bound through their oath of office.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Imus Tell You
As an Imus listener (enabler) I have several thoughts regarding the comments he made about the Rutgers girls basketball team. I agree with nearly everyone that his comments were unacceptable, hurtful, and crass. Not only was this comment made with archaic thinking about black athletes by a throwback to "Jim Crow" days of tolerated segregation, it was also completely uninformed about today's NCAA players and in particular the exceptionally accomplished stature of the Rutgers’s female athletes.
My problem with the firing of Imus is simply that there are so many others more deserving of this fate. In the case of CBS and its parent Viacom, they have a veritable stable of acerbic fanatics willing to employ all manner of obnoxious commentary and envelope-pushing diatribes to attain Limbaughesque notoriety.
It's my belief that Imus' fate was preordained and would have ultimately resulted in his dismissal whether he had made this comment or not. Any off color comment of significant consequence to allow sponsors to claim righteous indignation and juicy enough to be used as bait to set off a media feeding frenzy would have sufficed
The sin Imus was punished for had already been committed when he uttered his own obituary in the form of a racial slur against these young women. Imus was guilty of taking on the Bush administration in a particularly embarrassing way. He had challenged the alibis of all politicians who claimed ignorance about the conditions witnessed at Walter Reed Army Hospital and the abhorrent level of care received by our veterans.
It was necessary to get Imus off the air because he had promised to use his personal bully pulpit to hold those in charge responsible for the substandard care received by our wounded vets this administration has proven to support in word only.
My problem with the firing of Imus is simply that there are so many others more deserving of this fate. In the case of CBS and its parent Viacom, they have a veritable stable of acerbic fanatics willing to employ all manner of obnoxious commentary and envelope-pushing diatribes to attain Limbaughesque notoriety.
It's my belief that Imus' fate was preordained and would have ultimately resulted in his dismissal whether he had made this comment or not. Any off color comment of significant consequence to allow sponsors to claim righteous indignation and juicy enough to be used as bait to set off a media feeding frenzy would have sufficed
The sin Imus was punished for had already been committed when he uttered his own obituary in the form of a racial slur against these young women. Imus was guilty of taking on the Bush administration in a particularly embarrassing way. He had challenged the alibis of all politicians who claimed ignorance about the conditions witnessed at Walter Reed Army Hospital and the abhorrent level of care received by our veterans.
It was necessary to get Imus off the air because he had promised to use his personal bully pulpit to hold those in charge responsible for the substandard care received by our wounded vets this administration has proven to support in word only.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
