They Did What !

Upton Sinclair stated it very succinctly "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." Other than substituting "donations" for "salary" this is a clear explanation of why politicians toe the corporate line instead of working in the interests of the people.

In the 1970's when the public was all riled up about health care costs, presidential candidate, Jimmy Carter talked about the government cracking down. After he was elected, the medical industry suddenly changed its tune; "You don't have to make us cut costs," they promised. "We'll do it voluntarily." Of course as soon as the pressure was off they returned to their profit hungry ways and prices soared.

Then in the early 1990's people were once again up in arms and Hilary Clinton's health care reform was the result. This time the medical industry didn't try to make nice. Instead they spent millions of the dollars they'd made off the illness and suffering of the American people to blanket the airwaves with expensive deceitful ads that sent Clinton's health care package into a death spiral. Once it was dead, as gracious winners, they said they would voluntarily cut prices. We can see from today's prices how well that worked out.

So here we are again, in the first decade of the 2000's with people angry and demanding change. The health care industry is making the same "voluntary" offers at the discussion table, while at the same time, in just the first quarter of 2009, they spent more than $134 million on lobbying. Some are already shelling out more big bucks for a publicity blitz and ads attacking any health care reform that threatens to reduce their profits.

Surely it is obvious to anyone capable of thought that the health care industry is not going to police itself. They are not interested in people having decent health care. They are only interested in the profit to be made from health care and they will do and say whatever it takes to protect those profits. To take seriously their ideas about health care reform is to suspend all rational thought.

Senators Baucus, Conrad, Feinstein, Nelson, Landrieu, Bayh all come from states where people really need robust health care reform but they are not supporting the public option - the only option that means real reform. Senator Chuck Grassley says if there is to be a bipartisan bill, the public option is out; this despite 56% of his constituents favoring a public option.

Using bipartisanship as the excuse for weakening reform is not only disingenuous, it is insulting to think people believe it. Bipartisanship takes both sides cooperating. Do you see any Republicans cooperating... on health care reform or anything else?

So, why do any Democrats continue to talk as if bipartisanship takes precedence over, not only the will of the people (72% want a public option) but improvement in the economy and the future deficit reduction that a public option will bring? It's the money, stupid! It's the contributions the health care industry dumps into the political coffers. The idiotic statements politicians make about not being influenced by large donations are rubbish. Give me a break!

These leaders of our country are supposed to represent the people of their states; they have the good of the people and the country in their hands. How do they reconcile that with their opposition to the single most effective option in health care reform?

• The public option is cost-saving and means fewer dollars on management and more on medicine.
• The public option would help keep for-profit insurance in line offering true competition instead of the current faux competition among themselves.
• The public option offers real choice to people dissatisfied with their private/employer insurance
• The public option offers the opportunity for coverage to people who have been unable to get private/employer insurance.
• The public option can save money for struggling businesses freeing up capital to create jobs.
• The public option can rely on the established Medicare infrastructure and not require high paid executives to run it.
• The public option would have sufficient leverage to negotiate lower prices from medical industry businesses.
• The public option is so popular with the people that 57% would pay increased taxes to have it.

Senator Conrad's idea of substituting a "co-op" option may sound good but it is just one more way to placate Republicans and the health care industry. This is not, I repeat, NOT, an acceptable substitute for the public option. Unlike the public option it would create a new bureaucracy and require high paid executives, no doubt culled from the private insurance companies. It would not create the same savings as a public option because it would lack sufficient leverage to negotiate lower prices. No wonder the industry groups like this idea.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina hired an outside PR firm for a video campaign against Obama's public plan. And Conservatives for Patients' Rights, chaired by Rick Scott of Columbia/HCA infamy, spent more than a million dollars on attack ads created by Creative Response Concepts who brought us the notorious Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads.

If you are serious about real health care reform, a good way to begin is by signing Senator Sanders petition for single payer health care. A petition for the public option is the Durbin, Leahy and Schumer petition. Signing these petitions and passing on this request to friends and family is easy and takes just a few minutes. If you want real health care reform, DO IT!

In his new book "Howard Dean's Prescription for Real Healthcare Reform: How We Can Achieve Affordable Medical Care for Every American and Make Our Jobs Safer," Dean writes:

...is not whether we should have "socialized medicine" or not. It's whether we should continue with an extraordinarily inefficient system that today features a private insurance industry that takes large amounts of money out of the healthcare system for shareholders, administrators, and executives, while denying people the basic coverage they have paid for.

Real reform is not going to happen unless the people start and keep on demanding it. It is now being reported that the White House is willing to "negotiate" on the public option. This must not happen. The public option is the least they can do if they are serious about reform.

Every time I see Mitch McConnell on TV making a statement that starts with "The American people want..." or "The American people think..." I laugh out loud. This man and his fellow No, No, No'ers, do not have a clue what the American people want or think. It seems impossible that the Republican defeats in 2006 and 2008 didn't make that fact clear to them.

Hopefully, the American people are too smart to give the too-dumb-to-learn GOP'ers the chance to repeat the mistakes that obviously taught them nothing. Their attack mode against President Obama's calm and measured handling of the Iran situation is a case in point. After eight failed years of trying to bludgeon other countries into line with America's ideas of governance and democracy, the GOP continues to advocate the same policies, apparently expecting a different outcome. Do they not realize that is the definition of insanity?

George Bush, who liked to think of himself as emulating Teddy Roosevelt, was looking in a crooked mirror. While Roosevelt walked softly and carried a big stick, Bush trampled everything in sight while swinging a two by four at anyone within reach. Comparing America's relationships with other countries pre-Bush and at the end of the Bush terms give a clear snapshot of just how damaging his Presidency was.

Still we are inundated day after day with Republicans telling us what we want, what we need, what we think or what we should think. Who are these people? What altered reality do they live in? Teddy Roosevelt once said "...there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that is softness of head." Today's Republicans unfortunately evidence both of these traits.

While offering "the good of the people" as their motive, they try to block real health care reform. They claim Canada's system is an example of failed single payer health care. The only problem with that is that it isn't true. Canadians are for the most part satisfied with their system and resent the lies told in our country. Still Republicans, either through hardness of heart or softness of head, use the ads made with a few malcontents decrying long waiting lists for treatment, as proof of their assertion.

Still claiming to be concerned for the "good of the people" Republicans oppose the public option in health care reform. Spouting insurance company talking points they complain about not having a level playing field - it hasn't been level but it has been tipped in the insurance industry's favor so that's OK; they paint a worse case scenario of everyone flocking to the public option creating huge expense and driving private insurance out of business - not likely unless insurance companies refuse to become competitive; they criticize the government's ability to run the program and claim it would dictate which doctors could be seen and what treatments would be allowed - guess they haven't noticed Medicare. All of these claims are scare tactics to protect insurance company profits.
So are Republicans showing hardness of heart by supporting insurance company profits over health care for the people? Or, are they are so soft headed they can't see the truth staring them in the face? Or, perish the thought, are they just selfish enough and corrupt enough to lie to protect their big campaign contributors?

The public option is the least our representatives can do for us. The real answer no one will talk about is to get profit out of the health care insurance business. If those billions of profit were spent on treatment, it would go a long way toward solving the financing problems of insuring everyone. Jeanette Oxelson of Denver said it well in the Rocky Mountain News Speakout:

"Profit-based medical insurance is a disease masquerading as its own cure."

Watching Andrea Mitchell interview Chuck Hagel on May 22 was a perfect microcosm of what is wrong with the way our news is delivered.

As a Senator (1996-2008), Hagel served on both the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Foreign Relations Committee. An intelligent, experienced and informed person, he was well qualified to discuss the May 20 speeches given by President Obama and Dick Cheney on how to keep our country safe. But instead of having a thorough discussion with Hagel, Mitchell asked him questions, cut off his answers, pushed for yes or no responses, and ended the discussion mid-stream. Apparently the media doesn't understand that the old adage "always leave them wanting more" does not apply to news reporting. Giving forthright, informative, and thoughtful, answers, Hagel was enlightening the public; the actual purpose of journalism.

We all know Andrea Mitchell is not alone in this inept, incomplete and unsatisfying way of informing the public. Chuck Todd, Charlie Gibson, and Katie Couric, to name a few, are just as lacking in journalistic professionalism. Meet the Press, which was a halfway decent political forum under Tim Russert, is now in the not so skillful hands of David Gregory as he orchestrates its slow and painful death. John King, who apparently was given his own show because he did such a good job manipulating the Big Board during the election campaign, is another example. The ability to move your finger swiftly does not a journalist make as John King proves with each show.

Add to the list the broadcasts of faux news reporters, Lou Dobbs, Wolf Blitzer, Campbell Brown, Bill Schneider, Jan Crawford Greenburg, Sean Hannity, Megyn Kelly, Glen Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and of course Rush Limbaugh. These broadcasts are not news shows. They are opinion pieces peppered lightly with partial accounts of real news and uncritically parroted statements made by others, usually people with an obvious bias.

The most current media hullabaloo about what Sonia Sotomayor has said and done consists of falsehoods, myths and convoluted interpretations of selective editing.

Statements taken out of context such as her supposed advocating for legislating from the bench which, in context, according to Hofstra University law professor Eric Freedman is "thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone other than a determined demagogue."

Half truths that are not only taken out of context but are misstatements of what Sotomayor actually said such as her so called racist statement about Latina judges and white male judges.

Statements made and repeated about Sotomayor being an activist judge based on false claims that activism is a liberal practice when studies in 2005 and 2007 looking at different sets of criteria found that the some of the biggest Supreme Court judicial activists have been conservatives.

On and on the stories go and the media repeats them without regard for the facts or the truth. This is what passes for journalism in our country. This is what the journalists consider "enlightening" the public. How proud they must feel if they ever think about the Professional Journalists Code of Ethics in which they claim it is their duty to seek truth and provide fair and comprehensive accounts of events and issues.

Having news on the air 24/7 is more airtime than can possibly be filled with "real news" but instead of at least using the time for in-depth reporting of stories, the media manufactures news out of non-issues and keeps stories going long after they should have faded away. It supplies posturing politicians with way too much air time, gives incomplete coverage to important issues, and almost ignores what is happening in the rest of the world.

We do not quite live in a vacuum but we know less about what goes on in the rest of the world than many other free nations. We talk about globalization but we have very narrow exposure to what that actually means and how it affects the people of developing countries. We are woefully uninformed about what major U.S. corporations do in developing countries that lack the citizen protections we have here. We get no news or sanitized news about coups and regime changes that take place in other countries and that, in some cases, are supported by our government.

We need to decide if we really want to know the truth, or if we would rather not know so we can go on thinking of ourselves as the shining beacon of democracy for the world whether it is true or not. Do we want to know the truth so we can actually be that shinning beacon? We can't fix a problem until we own it; we can't own it if we don't know about it; and we can't know about it unless we demand professional journalism from our media. We cannot blame media as long as we continue to tune out, turn off, or just swallow their substandard product.

It will take a forceful voice from 'we the people' to change the media and what we get from it. But it can be done. News is a business. Businesses are driven by their bottom line. The news business' bottom line is controlled by advertisers. Advertisers respond to public criticism. We are the public.

Does Dick Cheney, the use-to-be Vice President, not grasp that he is no longer in office? Or, is his sudden talkativeness and hunger for the spotlight (after eight years of hiding in the dark and keeping secrets) just a simple case of CYA motivated by fear of prosecution?

Whatever is behind his front and center performance one thing is clear. Cheney is able to look straight into the camera and lie without blinking an eye. It is amazing! He continues to make claims that have been publicly discredited and he does it with his usual arrogance and certitude that if he says it, it must be true. In spite of the dismal failure of the administration of which he was a part; in the face of video tape of him contradicting himself; despite written proof that much of what he claims is false; this man just keeps on saying it. Does he really believe if he repeats a lie often enough it will magically become true? Or does he think the people are so stupid they will just believe him?

Actually there are some examples of just that kind of stupidity but they are not found among "the people" but rather among the media. Following the Obama and Cheney security speeches, Pat Buchanan proved his intellectual prowess (NOT!) when he referred to Cheney's remarks as "candid." Wolf Blitzer proved once again that he is a hack by suggesting to Press Secretary Robert Gibbs that Obama should meet with Cheney to discuss the security of our country. Why in the world would the President meet with the man who created many of the problems he must now try to solve? Ralph Peters said, "every single point he (Cheney) raised was accurate" but since he's a Fox News strategic analyst his stupidity is not in question.

• Cheney claimed that "there has been a strange and sometimes willful attempt to conflate what happened at Abu Ghraib prison with the top secret program of enhanced interrogations."

  In fact a 2008 Senate Armed Services Committee Report concluded that military "interrogation policies were influenced by the Secretary of Defense's December 2, 2002 approval of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at GTMO," and that those "policies were a direct cause of detainee abuse and influenced interrogation policies at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq."

• Cheney claimed that detainees did not provide information before "enhanced interrogation techniques" were used. He said those techniques "were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed."

  In fact former FBI agent Ali Soufan testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 13 about the success of non-harsh interrogation methods. An interrogator himself, Soufan stated that "the Informed Interrogation Approach outlined in the Army Field Manual is the most effective, reliable, and speedy approach we have for interrogating terrorists. It is legal and has worked time and again." Soufan then presented a "timeline" of the Abu Zubaydah interrogation, which he said showed that "many of the claims made in the memos about the success of the enhanced techniques are inaccurate." Soufan also testified about other uses and successes of the informed interrogation approach. He stated that his interrogation of Osama bin Laden's former chief bodyguard, Nasser Ahmad Nasser al-Bahri, also known as Abu Jandal, was "done completely by the book (including advising him of his rights)," and that, from it, "we obtained a treasure trove of highly significant actionable intelligence."

• Cheney claimed that "From the beginning of the program, there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought, and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans."

  It's a documented fact that al-Libbi, who was waterboarded, provided information -- later shown to be false -- that was cited by both President Bush and Colin Powell as evidence that Saddam Hussein was working with al Qaeda in developing chemical weapons. Libbi's false information led us to war in Iraq.

• Cheney claimed that giving voice to the idea that American interrogation techniques have become a recruitment tool for terrorists "excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It's another version of that same old refrain from the Left, 'We brought it on ourselves.' "

  It is a documented fact that Gitmo has been a recruitment tool for terrorists. This is not an argument that we deserved to be attacked; it is rather the recognition that something we have done has given our enemies a tool we do not want to give them and an effort to remove that tool. . Both Military and FBI interrogators back up the claim that the torture at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib have directly resulted in recruiting for al Qaeda

Dick Cheney is not a credible spokesman for how to keep our country safe. On his watch intelligence warnings about a coming al Qaeda attack were ignored and resulted in the 9/11 deaths of nearly 3000 Americans. Why would anyone think an out of office politician with such a dismal track record can speak with authority about what works or doesn't work when it comes to our security.

Then along comes Liz Cheney. This nut, er apple, didn't fall far from the tree. She pitter pats along in Daddy's footsteps, parroting his revisionist history with a voice more shrill and a manner more abrasive. And anyone cares what she thinks why? Media with its usual disregard for getting out the truth and enlightening the public continues to give her a place at the table and a microphone. More of their "let's create a brouhaha instead of reporting the news" kind of journalistic dysfunction.

Yes, we need a truth commission if for no other reason than to get these two objectionable people off our television screens. Go back to your dark places and many secrets Mr. Cheney and wait for your comeuppance. And take your daughter with you.

Christianity by definition is following the teachings of Christ. One of those teachings is that whatever we do to the least of our brethren we do to Christ. In Matthew 26: 41-45 Jesus says, "Out of my sight, you condemned, into that everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink... I was ill and in prison and you did not come to comfort me...I assure you, as often as you neglected to do it to one of these least ones, you neglected to do it to me." There are many offenses named in the Bible but this is the only instance in the gospels where Jesus is quoted as condemning the doer to hell.

With that in mind, when Republicans claim to be the party of Christian values how do they reconcile:

• The Republican theory of tax cuts or tax credits as the solution to everything when the people who most need the help are the elderly, the disabled and the poor - people who do not make enough to take advantage of offered tax credits or tax cuts.
• The Republican theory of the poor just having to work hard and pull themselves up by their bootstraps when the poor often have no boots and therefore no bootstraps with which to pull themselves up.
• The Republican theory of fiscal responsibility that protects business interests and the wealthy but leaves the poor, the elderly, and the disabled without help or protection by cutting and eliminating the social programs that serve them.
• The Republican theory that small government is the end all, be all, because the only responsibility of government is to serve special interests and the rest of the people be damned!

How are Christ's teachings reflected in these theories? Where is the care for the "least ones" in the practice of these theories? How large the plank of hypocrisy in the eye of such Christians!

The health care reform plan unveiled by Republicans is just one more example of their total lack of understanding, compassion, and (that word they don't understand) empathy, for the people of America who live in a reality so different from their own.

In their usual "fool them with the name" approach, the plan is titled "The Patients' Choice Act of 2009." Sounds like a good thing doesn't it? However, noticeably absent from the choices offered is a public insurance option. Instead they offer a tax credit which may help the middle class but does not help the most vulnerable; the most needy. What the plan does do is continue to protect and promote the insurance companies that have been profiting at the expense of the poor and seriously ill for years.

Real health care reform needs to remove profit from the system. It is obscene for people to make a profit on the illness and suffering of others. Where did such an idea ever come from and how did it get such a strong hold on a very basic need of the people? If ever there was a business that by its very nature should be non-profit, health care is it. There are all types of businesses available for entrepreneurs to make their fortunes, for large corporations to rake in huge profits. The business of filling basic human needs should not be among them. Health care as a for-profit business is the free market run amok.

Taking profit out of the picture makes an immediate and huge cut in health care expense. If all premium payments went to fund medical treatments and did not have to produce an ever increasing percentage of profit we would be making an effective start on healthcare reform. The for-profit companies could continue to do business if they chose not to become non-profit, but they probably wouldn't survive very long. Wouldn't that be too bad and so sad!

It is deeply disturbing to hear people debating the use of torture, not on the basis of right or wrong but on whether or not it produces helpful intelligence. Such a debate gives rise to some very basic questions about who we are as a nation.

• If, as we claim, America does not torture, why are we discussing the pros and cons of what torture produces?
• Does accepting "productive" torture mean American lives take precedence over the lives of everyone else?
• How does our respect for human rights fit with some torture, in some circumstances as acceptable?
• How do we rate our value system if we have the courage of our convictions only when nothing is at stake?
• Can we even claim to have values if they do not govern our actions in difficult times?
• Can America expect to be considered a member of the family of civilized nations if we indulge in barbaric behavior when it suits us?

Democracy depends on the rule of law to maintain freedom and liberty for all. We cannot expect to keep those rights for ourselves if we allow our leaders to bully and terrorize others. There are many actions that can be forced to fit under the term "legal" but are obviously not within ethical boundaries. And in the end, what is law without morality?

When asked for legal advice, lawyers have the ethical and professional responsibility to give that advice based on good law. When instead, lawyers begin to twist the law to meet the requirements of the advice seekers they are no longer fulfilling those responsibilities.

This is not a political issue. It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of certain behaviors. It is a question of right and wrong. It is a choice we must make about whether or not we are what we have always claimed to be as a nation and as citizens.

The loss of moral character rarely if ever is an abrupt transformation. It is rather a gradual change supported by justifications, and insidious rationalizations giving noble motives for actions that have no semblance of nobility. Of all the slippery slopes we could go down, this one could be the most detrimental to us as a nation and as individuals. Do we really want to go there?

If you actually believe something is true, you do not have to use half-truths and lies to support it. If the truth does not support what you believe, isn’t it time to question the belief?

Sean Hannity apparently believes that Obama went abroad and shamed our country by “blaming America first.” To support this belief, Hannity offered a truncated clip from an April 3 speech in France in which Obama said:

"In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America's shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive."

Standing alone, that statement seems to support Hannity’s claim. But that was not a stand alone statement. What Hannity failed to show or mention at any point in his broadcast were the very next words out of Obama’s mouth:

"But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what's bad." Obama continued: "On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth. They threaten to widen the divide across the Atlantic and leave us both more isolated. They fail to acknowledge the fundamental truth that America cannot confront the challenges of this century alone, but that Europe cannot confront them without America."

So why didn’t Hannity include or even mention this part of Obama’s statement? Could it be because it doesn’t sound like “blaming America” when you hear the whole thing?

When Obama released his 2010 Budget Proposal Republicans, aided and abetted by media figures and outlets, let fly with myths and falsehoods about the proposal.

The Republicans’ claim that Obama’s budget would increase taxes on a large percentage of small businesses has been uncritically repeated, gone unchallenged, and advanced by CNBC’s Joe Kernen and Maria Bartiromo, ABC’s Jake Tapper, CNN’s David Gergen and Dana Bash, Fox News’ Sean Hannity (isn’t that a surprise!), as well as the AP, Washington Post, New York Times and Politico.

The truth: According to the Tax Policy Center only 2% of small businesses would be affected by Obama’s tax proposal.

The Republicans’ claim that using the budget reconciliation process would be an “unprecedented” tactic has been furthered by media figures and outlets. The Hill mentioned GOP critics who claimed the reconciliation process was not intended to “ram through major legislation” without mentioning Republican use of the process during the Bush administration. Fox News’ Molly Hennegerg falsely claimed reconciliation was last used in 2001. This “error” was later apologized for by colleague Bret Baier who stated it had been used more recently. Hannity falsely claimed reconciliation would allow passage of legislation without Republicans “even having the opportunity to vote.”

The truth: Not only did the Republicans use the reconciliation process to pass the Bush Tax Cuts in 2001, they used it in 2003 for the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, and in 2005 for the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act. Hannity’s claim is patently false as the budget reconciliation process which was approved by a majority vote of both Houses, does not deny any member of Congress the opportunity to vote.

The Republicans’ claim that health-care reform should not be attempted because of the current and projected federal debt has also been suggested by many media figures: Hannity (does this man even understand the concept of checking facts or offering both sides of the argument?) claims Obama wants to expand government and is going to bankrupt the country. A Washington Times editorial called health care reform a “costly administration legislative priority” and articles by Tom LoBianco and Tony Blankley talked of the expense of health care reform with no mention of why Obama was proposing to move ahead with it. Karl Rove, who unbelievably acts as though he speaks for them, claims “the people” are concerned about taxes, the deficit and spending and that jobs, education, and health care, are not their main concerns. What year is this man living in?

The truth: As Obama has explained, according to almost every single person who has looked at the country’s long term fiscal situation, the best way to bend the curve on deficit projections is to reduce health care costs. Peter Orszag, Office of Management and Budget director, testified before the House Ways and Means Committee about the 2010 budget stating “the principal driver of our nation's long-term budget problem is rising health care costs.”

How can any person capable of thought continue to dismiss clear and evident facts that contradict what the GOP and media parrots are saying? You do not have to be well educated or even particularly intelligent to distinguish between lies and the truth. All you need is a desire to know the truth and a willingness to accept it when you hear it.