Tagged: Politics Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • homad 12:39 pm on July 7, 2012 Permalink |
    Tags: , , liberty, mass arrests, pharma, Politics, pope, queen, , vatican   


  • perpetuallyphil 7:27 pm on December 5, 2010 Permalink |
    Tags: Politics, rap news, wikileaks   

    the news 

  • perpetuallyphil 6:55 am on November 22, 2010 Permalink |
    Tags: , David Swanson, Politics, the real news, ,   

    War is a Lie 

    More than the average insight about war and how we have not only been hoodwinked -time and time again- but rather that the institution of war itself, is a lie. Good Stuff here:

  • desaparecido76 1:43 am on November 16, 2010 Permalink |
    Tags: , Politics   

    Military Budget Cuts … Don´t exist 

    Despite the ever growing debt in the US – one of the biggest lines on the US budget is military spending. According to Wired, the military budget went UP again this year.

    article here.

    • perpetuallyphil 9:19 am on November 18, 2010 Permalink

      we should just spend our way out of war…. thats how it works, right?

      i DO feel encouraged by obama’s new plans for a scaled withdrawal from Afghanistan over the next 2 years. i wonder if he will announce it under a banner that says, “mission accomplished”?

  • perpetuallyphil 9:17 pm on May 9, 2010 Permalink |
    Tags: , , Politics,   

    bloggers to change world; spike thoery of change 

    haven’t watched something like this in a while. nothing too new, but echos bottom-up horizontal media and new forms of organization. plus, he makes fun of bilderburg group as some wannabes on their way out…. hehe.

  • perpetuallyphil 5:14 am on April 27, 2010 Permalink |
    Tags: Politics, red shirts, , yellow shirts   

    Thailand: land of smiles wears 2 shirts 

    fuk halo, its red vs yellow.

    Interesting stuff going on in Thailand. Not to mention my lil sis is over there right now and i am on my way soon. Tensions seem to rise and fall, but there is a real power struggle at bay.

    check it:

    “Thailand is dividing along several lines: Between the “red shirts” worn by the anti-government protesters and the “yellow shirts” worn by the supporters of the present government (who were formerly anti-government protesters themselves); between rich and poor. There are geographical divisions as well, between the people of the Thai heartland, those around Bangkok and between the south and those living in the north and northeast.

    The Royal Thai Army also shows signs of splitting. The army was humiliated following its recent bloody but ineffective effort to disperse the red shirts. Many conscripts hail from the same rural classes that dominate the red shirt movement, and it is clear that their officers are uncertain they would obey any future commands to suppress the movement.

    The former government, loyal to Thaksin, had some attributes of the Republican or Loyalist side of the Spanish Civil War. They claimed the mantle of legitimacy, endorsed by the most recent election and the elections before that. Meanwhile, it was common (for Westerners anyway) to describe, with some justification, the yellow-shirted protesters as anti-democratic “fascists.”

    Yellow shirts and red shirts, fascists and democrats, monarchists and anti-monarchists, class against class – it all seems so retro, like an old movie from the 20th-century. The scourge of the 21st century is supposed to be Islamic anomie, turned to terrorism – not class warfare.”

    good overview here:


  • perpetuallyphil 9:05 pm on April 21, 2010 Permalink |
    Tags: 1930, anarchy, Politics, rebellion, ,   

    Anarchy Means Freedom 

    Interesting story of the Spanish rebellion in the 1930’s that highlights the only anarchist uprising in modern history. True right vs left. Good window into that world and what it has become today

    (watch out for cheesy dramatizations…)

  • desaparecido76 7:53 pm on February 15, 2010 Permalink |
    Tags: , , , , Politics   

    year of the tigeeeeeeeer 

    This week marks the beginning of the Chinese New Year. This will be a very special Year of the Tiger. The year of the tiger comes in-between the Year of the Bull and the Year of the dragon. This is very symbolic, I believe. The Bull is a fitting symbol for the West these days, virile and aggressive but lacking in wisdom and patience. The dragon is very old and wise but is perhaps too cautious and passive and can be seen as a symbol of the East. If you mix the best elements of the bull and the dragon, the result is a tiger.

    Benjanmin Fullford

  • perpetuallyphil 7:03 am on February 14, 2010 Permalink |
    Tags: fox news, , Politics,   

    this lady is a former member of my parents church…. ummm, awesome?!

  • perpetuallyphil 1:44 am on February 10, 2010 Permalink |
    Tags: , , lierre Keith, Politics,   

    The Vegetarian Myth 

    This is not a typical vegitrain slam of a book. It is a well researched and thought out dialogue about food soverignty, violence, industry, health and creating a better world. This book scared me at first, but after diving in more and learning more about the author Lierre Keith’s perspective, I have emerged to understand its importance. She was a vegan for 20 years and knows all of the arguments about why it was the right chioce for justice, but following more thurough research and asking tough questions, she has lots to say. Its clear that she does not advocate for factory farming, or cruelty, but rather understanding what our personal decisions really mean.

    An excerpt:

    “This was not an easy book to write. For many of you, it won’t be an easy book to read. I know. I was a vegan for almost twenty years. I know the reasons that compelled me to embrace an extreme diet and they are honorable, ennobling even. Reasons like justice, compassion, a desperate and all-encompassing longing to set the world right. To save the planet—the last trees bearing witness to ages, the scraps of wilderness still nurturing fading species, silent in their fur and feathers. To protect the vulnerable, the voiceless. To feed the hungry. At the very least to refrain from participating in the horror of factory farming.

         These political passions are born of a hunger so deep that it touches on the spiritual. Or they were for me, and they still are. I want my life to be a battle cry, a war zone, an arrow pointed and loosed into the heart of domination: patriarchy, imperialism, industrialization, every system of power and sadism. If the martial imagery alienates you, I can rephrase it. I want my life—my body—to be a place where the earth is cherished, not devoured; where the sadist is granted no quarter; where the violence stops. And I want eating—the first nurturance—to be an act that sustains instead of kills.

         This book is written to further those passions, that hunger. It is not an attempt to mock the concept of animal rights or to sneer at the people who want a gentler world. Instead, this book is an effort to honor our deepest longings for a just world. And those longings—for compassion, for sustainability, for an equitable distribution of resources—are not served by the philosophy or practice of vegetarianism. We have been led astray. The vegetarian Pied Pipers have the best of intentions. I’ll state right now what I’ll be repeating later: everything they say about factory farming is true. It is cruel, wasteful, and destructive. Nothing in this book is meant to excuse or promote the practices of industrial food production on any level.

         But the first mistake is in assuming that factory farming—a practice that is barely fifty years old—is the only way to raise animals. Their calculations on energy used, calories consumed, humans unfed, are all based on the notion that animals eat grain.”


    You can get the book on her website, amazon, or better yet: ask your local book store to carry it.

    (btw, I ate some grass ged beef the other day, it felt good, yikes)


    • firstreason 2:22 am on February 10, 2010 Permalink

      Let me make this clear first of all, I have not read this book. that being said, it sounds like the author is assuming that being vegetarian or vegan is soley an attempt to boycott meat because of the cruel ways that it is acquired. I would like to point out that while that may be a reason for some, I would venture to say that most don’t eat meat because they don’t like to kill something and consume it carcass. Yes, there are better ways to farm meat, but I dont think that that is necessarily the problem, my problem has mostly been the killing part, the horrible living part was in second place.

    • perpetuallyphil 3:46 am on February 10, 2010 Permalink

      I totally agree firstreason,
      I am uneasy with deciding that something should live or die, no matter how good or bad their life was preceding my decision to kill them and eat their flesh.
      The thing is that death is a natural part of life. Plants, animals, microbes, fungi and the like must die to nourish others. Not to get all circle of life, but really, that is what happens. To pretend that its not the case is to not understand how food webs work.
      Next argument is to say that we don’t need to participate in the food web, because we understand it and can make the conscious decision to not kill other species for food. We can take a vegan stand and get all of our protein, vitamins and energy from plants. The problem with this line of thinking is that it forgets that plants need nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium to grow. NPK. There is no way to get those things without using decayed animal parts or chemical fertilizers that come from the petrol industry or that require extensive mining (which kills thousands of animals and disrupts whole food systems). Also, agriculture requires riding plants of “pests,” and even “vegan” growers who use neem oil, end up disturbing the cycles of insects that kills them, makes them sterile and rids the plant of fungus. Not to mention the fact the agriculture kills thousands of microbes as well. So at some point, we are deciding to kill, most of us just decide that its not ok to kill things with a face, directly… its a slippery slope for sure, and is why i love know where and why people draw lines. If we need to kill to live (which is how the rest of the plant and animal kingdom works) should we try to avoid it all together (which is seemingly impossible), or try to make it humane, reasonable and spiritually ritualistic?

      I have not read the whole book myself yet, but it has sparked me to research more and more. The more arguments i come up with to support my vegetarian diet, the more reasons i find that its not as simple as that.

      One last thought. We have co-evolved with the plants we eat and the animals that we domesticated. They are totally different now than when we first started living with them, as are we. Did we change them, or did they change us? Evolutionarily speaking, is wheat more successful or are humans?

    • perpetuallyphil 4:30 am on February 10, 2010 Permalink

      here is a good review of the book:

      “Currently, 40% of Americans are killed by coronary heart disease. The rate of coronary heart disease has increased at the same time that the proportion of animal fats consumed by people in the United States dropped from 83% to 62% and the consumption of vegetable oils has increased by 400%. “

    • thedarkcleft 5:04 am on February 10, 2010 Permalink

      That stat is not really saying a whole lot. If one year the amount of coronary disease dropped, good. Maybe it is because there have been changing their diets because there are so many people having heart attacks. People may be waking up. It doesn’t mean that the rest of the people, or even the people who have switched, won’t die next year from all the animal fats and the like eaten in the past.

      Also, there are a number of other things that lead to coronary problems, such as all of the trans-fats in margarine, as opposed to butter. MSG, HFCS, they all play their parts.

      Kinda tangental, sorry.

    • oneshowatatime 6:54 am on February 10, 2010 Permalink

      Michael Pollan pretty well summed up my view on diet in a recent Time Magazine interview:

      “Can you tell us what your current diet is? If it is not vegetarian, why not?”

      Scott Yanoff, MILWAUKEE

      “I still eat meat. But I eat a lot less. I have enormous respect for vegetarians, but I believe there are ways to eat meat that are good for you and good for the environment.”

      Rest of the interview: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1955590,00.html

      I believe that we evolved to maximize our efficiency and role in the ecosystem as omnivores, but I totally agree that the industrial food system is fucked and that we should also strive to eat less meat and eat lower on the food chain in general.

      Just my 2 cents, I’m tired… good night.

  • perpetuallyphil 6:54 am on January 31, 2010 Permalink |
    Tags: , , Politics   

    didn’t know we had so much in common ;) 

    “All industrial nations, mainly the big ones, are responsible for the crisis of global warming,” the latest tape says.

    “This is a message to the whole world about those who are causing climate change, whether deliberately or not, and what we should do about that.”

    The tape criticises the administration of former US President George W Bush for not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol on combating climate change.

    “Bush the son, and the [US] Congress before him, rejected this agreement only to satisfy the big companies.”

    The tape also urges a boycott of the US dollar. “I know that there would be huge repercussions for that, but this would be the only way to free humankind from slavery… to America and its companies.”

    -osama bin laden, 2010


    “The world is held hostage by major corporations, which are pushing it to the brink,” he said. “World politics are not governed by reason but by the force and greed of oil thieves and warmongers and the cruel beasts of capitalism.”

    To stop global warming, he called for the “wheels of the American economy” to be brought to a halt. “This is possible … if the peoples of the world stop consuming American goods.”


    • untamedyawp 6:54 pm on January 31, 2010 Permalink

      sounds like the cia is trying to quell post avatar consciousness in their ‘afgan’ studios.

  • perpetuallyphil 6:18 am on January 31, 2010 Permalink |
    Tags: , , norway, Politics, prisons   

    no more prisons…. 

    suuuup-er cuoul!

    • deadindenver 12:07 pm on January 31, 2010 Permalink

      id raise a fam-dam there

    • untamedyawp 9:11 pm on January 31, 2010 Permalink


    • thedarkcleft 12:26 am on February 1, 2010 Permalink


  • perpetuallyphil 12:41 am on January 28, 2010 Permalink |
    Tags: , , , Politics,   

    a corporation by any other name…. 


    Following the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to allow unlimited corporate funding of federal campaigns, Murray Hill Inc. today announced it is filing to run for U.S. Congress. “Until now,” Murray Hill Inc. said in a statement, “corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence-peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves.” Murray Hill Inc. is believed to be the first “corporate person” to exercise its constitutional right to run for office.

    “The strength of America,” Murray Hill Inc. said, “is in the boardrooms, country clubs and Lear jets of America’s great corporations. We’re saying to Wal-Mart, AIG and Pfizer, if not you, who? If not now, when?” Murray Hill Inc. added: “It’s our democracy. We bought it, we paid for it, and we’re going to keep it.” Murray Hill Inc., a diversifying corporation in the Washington, D.C. area, has long held an interest in politics and sees corporate candidacy as an “emerging new market.”

    The campaign’s “designated human,” Eric Hensal, will help the corporation conform to “antiquated, human only” procedures and sign the necessary voter registration and candidacy paperwork. Hensal is excited by this new opportunity: “We want to get in on the ground floor of the democracy market before the whole store is bought by China.” Murray Hill Inc. plans on filing to run in the Republican primary in Maryland’s 8th Congressional District.

    Campaign manager William Klein promises an aggressive, historic campaign that “puts people second” or “even third.” “The business of America is business, as we all know,” Klein says. “But now, it’s the business of democracy too.” Klein plans to use automated robo-calls, “Astroturf” lobbying and “computer-generated avatars” to get out the vote. Added Hensal: “This is the next frontier of civil rights.”

    • absolutelylovely 2:48 pm on January 28, 2010 Permalink

      while watching the youtube movie, at first i thought it was a satire, but then realized that murray hill made it. i want to vomit

    • deadindenver 8:49 pm on January 28, 2010 Permalink

      holy jeez

    • perpetuallyphil 8:56 pm on January 28, 2010 Permalink

      murray hill is voter advocay org and non-profit focusing on grassroots campaigning…. this is def a marketing ploy as well as satire. they are making a point. and its funny/scary

  • perpetuallyphil 8:11 pm on December 8, 2009 Permalink |
    Tags: , , , Politics,   

    corporate personhood 

    i made this video for a class/work project that i am involved with. corporate personhood is at the root of a lot of our regulation problems and leads us to fascism. it is being debated in the Supreme Court right now and there is a movement in the works to amend the Constitution to change the policy. Corporations have been citing our ‘Bill of Rights’ for some time now which has enabled them to escape any real punishment for the atrocities that they cause to our planet.



    • pissedandtart 8:53 pm on December 8, 2009 Permalink

      What exactly is it that corporations are doing that couldn’t be done by the executives or shareholders?

    • perpetuallyphil 1:52 am on December 10, 2009 Permalink

      @pissedandtart: i dont know if i understand your question. but here is an answer:

      corporations pool resources and money together and then act as one. thats all well and fine. but it gets dicey when they perpetrate crimes against our environment or communities. when they do that, they are not held responsible as individuals for what they have done collectively. the corporation gets punished and the members who made decisions dissolve and reassemble in another corporation, no harm done (see philip morris becomes altria). you cant send a corporation to jail, even if they commit mass murder like chevron did in the amazon killing thousands. you can only punish them financially. this punishment only works to an extent tho, because the corporation when sued, puts on its citizen hat and claims trail by jury and due process instead of simply having a fine levied. this happened with the Exxon Valdez oil spill when exxon reduced a 5 billion dollar fine to 500 million over a 20 year court trial, which by the end of and still to this day, Exxon became the largest corporation in the world. father, there is the problem of using corporate resources to donate their “free speech (read: money)” to elections to get the laws that they want. even further, they can claim the 5th amendment when labeling or not labeling products i.e. GMO foods. in a scary future the corp could claim 2nd amendment rights allowing them to bear arms… really its just the problem of a corporation being and entity when its beneficial and a person when its beneficial, with no accountability to be handed down due to the circumstances. limited liability. someone takes the fall, business continues as normal.

    • waterling 5:57 am on December 10, 2009 Permalink

      though, do you think corporations have been static the last ten years? ie do you have hope that the world can function without corporations, entirely, realistically?

    • perpetuallyphil 5:01 am on December 13, 2009 Permalink

      i dont think that we need to operate without the means to act collectively. i just think that we need to be able to control the most powerful interests that exist. there are some corps that do good things, and pooling resources happens for a reason. when corps we first enabled there were really strong regulations, because the gov new how powerful they were. the original statutes require that corps were in “the interest of the community at large.” that is not the case any longer, clearly. i just want us to at least return to a place where we can check their power and have them serve the purpose of helping our collective.
      this is more powerful than the false premise of “corporate responsibility” that is little more than a marketing ploy.
      thats all i am saying

    • pissedandtart 7:50 pm on December 16, 2009 Permalink

      Corporate officers and executives have been and can be criminally prosecuted for crimes they committed as officers of a corporation. Corporations actually cannot murder anyone, as murder requires forming a specific intent and engaging in a certain action (“pulling the trigger”). What would happen is that an agent of the corporation forms the intent and takes the action, and they can be prosecuted when they do so.

      As for when a crime has actually been committed by the corporation, of course it should get a fair trial. The money of the corporation is essentially the money of the shareholders, so why should the shareholders be fined without due process?

      By the way, if corporations didn’t contribute to campaigns, the individual board members and executives would do so themselves.

  • perpetuallyphil 11:27 pm on November 10, 2009 Permalink |
    Tags: , , , Politics   

    corporate personhood 

    quick hitter

    basic violation of our "un-alienable rights"

    • perpetuallyphil 1:52 am on November 11, 2009 Permalink

      The yes men (http://theyesmen.org/):
      Yes, I want to say something about freedom. People criticize us because we tell small lies, but they are (small lies) that reveal bigger truths. And our lies are revealed instantly.

      Meanwhile, corporations and lobbyists are telling huge lies, like government sponsored healthcare will take away our freedom, which is a major lie. You have more freedom if you have health insurance.

      There are so many examples of where smart government — not more, but smart — can increase our freedom. We have to reexamine our priorities in how we make our government work for us, and not just for the richest.

  • perpetuallyphil 1:06 am on October 25, 2009 Permalink |
    Tags: , Politics,   


  • perpetuallyphil 2:55 am on October 23, 2009 Permalink |
    Tags: al frankin, , Politics   

    the number is zero 

  • perpetuallyphil 11:56 pm on October 8, 2009 Permalink |
    Tags: , corpratism, , Politics, ralph nader   

    the eternal now 

    Published on Monday, September 28, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
    Time for Citizens to Convene
    by Ralph Nader
    Just when many conditions seemed ripe for a progressive political movement, the likelihood is fading fast. Concentrated corporate power over our political economy and its control over peoples lives knows few boundaries.
    As Republican investor advocate leader Robert Monks puts it: “The United States is a corporatist state. This means that individuals are largely excluded both in the political and corporate spheres.”
    Since Wall Street’s self-inflicted multi-trillion dollar collapse last year, the corporate supremacists have shown no remorse. They have become more aggressive: they are blocking regulatory reforms; pouring campaign donations into the governing Democrats’ coffers; and, shamelessly demanding more bailouts, subsidies and tax reductions. They also continue to block avenues for judicial justice by aggrieved people, whether they be the wrongfully injured, defrauded consumers and investors, or jettisoned workers and bilked pensioners.
    The problem: large corporations have too many structural powers over the citizenry. These “artificial persons” have acquired the constitutional rights originally given in 1787 only to “natural persons.” In fact, corporations have enormously greater privileges and immunities than the people themselves because of their global control over politicians, capital, labor and technology.
    Normal sanctions do not adequately deter multinational companies that can obscure their culpability, escape jurisdictions or create their own parents (holding companies) and endless progeny (subsidiaries) to evade or avoid accountability.
    Even the most ardent progressives in Congress, and the most organized progressive groups, cannot begin to deal with such gigantic mismatches.
    Decades ago, there was more debate about the need for different “rules of conduct,” to use conservative Frederick A. Hayek’s phrase, between corporations and human beings. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis warned about corporations becoming “Frankensteins.” Presidents Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft wanted to replace the permissive state chartering laws with tough federal chartering laws for large corporations.
    For two generations the ever-expanding superior status of corporations has gone undiscussed in political realms. During that time, corporations and their attorneys rode roughshod over the “we the people” preamble of the Constitution. Our charter of government never mentions the word “corporation.”
    Unabated, the corporate crime wave continues. The corporate welfare kings get fatter, the power disparity expands between corporations and shrinking unions, and the pull-down pressures, created by the corporate shipment of jobs and industries to repressive regimes abroad, further corrodes American work opportunities. More of government, including military functions, is being corporatized despite recurring reports of rising waste, fraud and abuse.
    The federal government’s budget for auditors, investigators, inspectors and prosecutors is laughable, given the scale of looting: the defrauding of medicare; abuses of Pentagon contracts; the taking of minerals on the public lands; and the giveaways of government research and development to favored companies.
    Corporate profits keep going up, except for bailout periods, while most Americans’ standards of living decline. Our country, so full of unapplied solutions, is grid locked—stuck in traffic. Record levels of poverty, unemployment, home foreclosures, consumer debt and bankruptcies, and people lacking health insurance persist, yet corporate political power has not waned. A bad sign. Indeed, it has increased, notwithstanding large majorities of Americans decrying too much corporate control over their lives. The leave-it-to-the market ideology of Big Business, and its claims of patriotism, have lost credibility in this globalized era. Yet, the myth lives on even as socialism routinely saves big capitalism from its own greed.
    What can active progressives do? In Congress, amongst the Republicans and corporate Democrats, the small progressive caucus of 83 members generates little political impact. Ironically, many of those progressive legislators are busy dialing for the same commercial campaign dollars.
    Outside Congress, progressive groups have been on the defensive for so many years that they have few offensive political strategies. The two parties are in the narrowest channels of self-perpetuation. They gerrymander their opponents into one-party districts and together produce a matrix of obstacles to keep competition from third parties at bay.
    Both parties give preferential access to the hordes of drug, coal, banking and other industry lobbyists, who are allowed de facto to choose many of the nominees that lead the government’s departments, such as the Defense and Treasury Departments.
    Enough abuses have been documented. Enough power has been concentrated to shred our democratic processes and institutions. It is time to decisively shift power from the few to the many. Democratic power is the essence of progressive political philosophy, and the precondition for the emergence of a just society nourished by higher public expectations.
    How to begin? Progressives—elected, civic, labor and funders—need to come together in a national convention to aggregate the existing forces for change. Such a gathering could create a clear-eyed vision of the common good to shatter debilitating public cynicism and passivity.
    In attendance must be a broad range of energetic community organizers, thinkers, the seriously generous progressive mega-rich and the heroic dynamos who have risen from their suffering to act on behalf of “liberty and justice for all.”
    There is ample historic precedent for the galvanizing effect of founding social justice conventions. This proposed convocation needs to take civic and political action to unprecedented levels, powerfully fueled by committed resources and strategies to build enduring democratic institutions.
    Unused knowledge, and many working models of community economics, environmental advances and educational quality exist to further the larger progressive dynamic.
    Lincoln once observed the crucial importance of “public sentiment” for moving a society forward. That “public sentiment” is here, deep, widespread and ready for clearly explained “redirections.”
    If a mantra is needed in the convention hall, let the eternal words of the Roman, Marcus Cicero, be emblazoned for all to see: “Freedom is participation in power.” For this aspiration places responsibility where it must always reside: on the shoulders, in the minds, and in the hearts of an empowered American people.
    Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book – and first novel –  is, Only The Super Wealthy Can Save Us. His most recent work of non-fiction is The Seventeen Traditions.

  • homad 11:43 pm on September 27, 2009 Permalink |
    Tags: drug war, , Politics,   

    The War on Drugs in 100 Seconds (MPP-TV)… 

    The War on Drugs in 100 Seconds (MPP-TV) vs Terrence Mckenna – The purpose of psychedelics

    Had to share this one that popped up recently. Negotiate for whichever you enjoy/feel more drawn towards/ or whatever you like.

  • perpetuallyphil 6:03 pm on August 28, 2009 Permalink |
    Tags: , , Politics, single payer, sketch   

    care about health care? 

    “The current health care debate in Congress has nothing to do with death panels or public options or socialized medicine. The real debate, the only one that counts, is how much money our blood-sucking insurance, pharmaceutical and for-profit health services are going to be able to siphon off from new health care legislation. The proposed plans rattling around Congress all ensure that the profits for these corporations will increase and the misery for ordinary Americans will be compounded. The corporate state, enabled by both Democrats and Republicans, is yet again cannibalizing the Treasury. It is yet again pushing Americans, especially the poor and the working class, into levels of despair and rage that will continue to fuel the violent, proto-fascist movements leaping up around the edges of American society. And the traditional watchdogs—those in public office, the press and citizens groups—are as useless as the perfumed fops of another era who busied their days with court intrigue at Versailles. Canada never looked so good.

    The Democrats are collaborating with lobbyists for the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry and for-profit health care providers to craft the current health care reform legislation. “Corporate and industry players are inside the tent this time,” says David Merritt, project director at Newt Gingrich’s Center for Health Transformation, “so there is a vacuum on the outside.” And these lobbyists have already killed a viable public option and made sure nothing in the bills will impede their growing profits and capacity for abuse.

    “It will basically be a government law that says you have to buy their defective product,” says Dr. David Himmelstein, a professor at Harvard Medical School and a founder of Physicians for a National Health Plan. “Next the government will tell us a Pinto in every garage, a lead-coated toy to every child and melamine-laced puppy chow for every dog.”


    Obama and the congressional leadership have shut out advocates of single-payer. The press, including papers such as The New York Times, treats single-payer as a fringe movement. The television networks rarely mention it. And yet between 45 and 60 percent of doctors favor single-payer. Between 40 and 62 percent of the American people, including 80 percent of registered Democrats, want universal, single-payer not-for-profit health care for all Americans. The ability of the corporations to discredit and silence voices that represent at least half of the population is another sad testament to the power of our corporate state.

    “We are considering a variety of striking efforts for early in the fall,” Dr. Himmelstein said, “including protests outside state capitals by doctors around the country, video links of conferences in 70 or 80 cities around the country, with protests and potential doctors chaining themselves to the fence of the White House.”

    Make sure you join them”

    —— full article here

    hijacking is awesome. the lobby power is sooooo strong on this one. we need to have a voice. dollars make sense, but people lead movements.

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc