Category Archives: Politics

HEALTH CARE: Socialized Medicine: Why Everyone Should Share the Costs / Al Stefanelli

Posted on by
Reply

“A society will be judged by how it cares for it’s weakest members.”

Understand, I do not begrudge anyone from earning a profit, nor do I have anything personally against the entrepreneurial spirit. We should all do what we can to better ourselves. However, I am of the position that health care is not a privilege, but a right. As well, I reason that we are all morally obligated to ensure that each of us has access to it. That the United States does not have a national health care program is a major moral failure, and what we have in place is little more than a venue for unethical profiteers within the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.

[…]

The United States needs a tax-payer funded (single-payer) national health care system. Totally and completely socialized and incurring no costs to anyone beyond what their taxes pay. Those who cannot pay due to disability, unemployment or other circumstances beyond their control should have the same access as those who do.

In my opinion, putting a dollar ahead of the health and welfare of a human being is immoral. National or Socialized medicine should be a no-brainer.

[…]

There should never be any individual who’s life is less important than a number on a profit and loss ledger.

Read more . . .

SOCIAL ACTIVISM: National Nurses United Director, RoseAnn DeMoro Talks Robin Hood Tax with Bill Moyers / (VIDEO)

Posted on by
Reply

Moyers & Company, a current affairs program featuring Bill Moyers and airing on PBS stations nationwide,  had a segment on Sunday evening with RoseAnn DeMoro, executive director of National Nurses United, the largest union and professional association of registered nurses in the country, with 170,000 members.

The interview focuses on the union’s call for a Robin Hood Tax, a sales tax on Wall Street speculation that could raise up to $350 billion a year in revenue.

Watch interview here . . .

“The money generated,” says Moyers in the program note, “could be used for social programs and job creation – ultimately to people who, without a doubt, need it more than the banks do. Though the power and influence of Big Banking is intimidating, DeMoro and her organization have an inspiring history of defeating some of the toughest opponents in government and politics.”

The nurses see the enduring effects of economic hardship on patients and communities across the nation, says DeMoro. The revenue from the Robin Hood Tax is the first step to healing distressed communities and setting the United States on the road to a real recovery. More than 40 countries, including many of the fastest-growing economies, already have such a tax, and it may well be adopted European Union-wide this year.

Read more . . .

EDUCATION: Op-Ed / Open letter to High School Grads

Posted on by
Reply

Dear graduating senior,

I am begging your pardon for a somber reflection amid the joy of accomplishment: not to be a wet rag on the festivities of graduation, but a bright light on the realities of post-secondary education.

[…]

If you haven’t posted a good academic performance in high school, don’t believe a university, its leadership, advertisements or admissions officers who co-sign your promissory note with no responsibility for its payment obligation. They need paying students.

Stoking a deceitful dream on life support — an underappreciated, overfinanced, media-hyped charade — is the real deception, and the weight falls on your back, not theirs.

A shameful, elaborate sham, when one out of two college graduates this year are unemployable in their chosen field.

Look carefully at the costs and benefits of a university education. University officials may not tell you the truth: Enrollments could drop. Bankers will not tell you the truth: Interest income will fall off. Elected officials will not tell you the truth: Elections will be lost. Listen to those really concerned for you carefully.

Read more . . .

EDUCATION: How the Conservative Worldview Quashes Critical Thinking

Posted on by
2

[…]

. . . High-stakes testing is an artifact of the conservative belief that education is about acquiring a required body of knowledge that’s been determined by experts. If it’s not in the book, you don’t need to know it. And the ultimate outcome — the purpose of this whole process — is to graduate with a credential that will certify your acceptability to the established hierarchies of the economic world.

In the conservative model, critical thinking is horrifically dangerous, because it teaches kids to reject the assessment of external authorities in favor of their own judgment — a habit of mind that invites opposition and rebellion.

[…]

Given this reality, the college-as-job-training model the conservatives are promoting looks patently insane. Subjects like logic and philosophy, anthropology and rhetoric, foreign languages and history provide the mental flexibility, deep perspective, and sharp critical thinking skills that allow one to make one’s own way on unfamiliar landscapes, a skill that’s useful when the world keeps changing around you. People with rich liberal arts backgrounds are also far better prepared for leadership roles, and better positioned to recognize and seize on whatever opportunities fate throws their way.

[…]

It’s obvious that stripping these mind-expanding fripperies out of the curriculum — as conservatives are proposing, often with no push-back at all from liberals — serves the narrow, functional conservative view of education and citizenship very well.

[…]

The conservatives are not wrong: for 150 years, the schools have been the leading promoter and disseminator of progressive values. It’s precisely because they understand the power of education to preserve democracy that they’re now doing their best to dismantle that system, and replace it with one that produces followers, subjects and serfs.

Read more . . .

CAPITALISM: Interview / Richard Wolff on Challenging Capitalism in His New Book, “Occupy the Economy”

Posted on by
Reply

Can we challenge capitalism and prevail, considering that the top one percent control 50% of the available capital and the top five percent some 70% of the nation’s private funds?  Richard Wolff is a closely followed Truthout contributor on economics.  Currently, you can obtain his just-released “Occupy the Economy: Challenging Capitalism” directly from Truthout.  If you want to know about alternatives to the current destructive course of our economy and how we, as a nation, got to this point, get your copy of “Occupy the Economy” by clicking here.

The following is an interview with Richard Wolff by Truthout staff member Matt Renner.

Matt Renner: In your introduction to the book, you discuss New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s “cleanliness” excuse for clearing the original Occupy Wall Street encampment at Liberty Square. Why do you think so many public officials and right-wing pundits describe the occupiers as “unclean”?

Richard D. Wolff: Their problem has been, and continues to be, that they have no response to Occupy’s basic attack on the inequity and antidemocratic social conditions summarized in the confrontation of, “1 percent against 99 percent.” They know that the vast majority of Americans feel the truth of Occupy’s social criticism, experience it in their lives, and sympathize with protest against and efforts to change a system with such unjust outcomes. So, they can refute little and need instead to distract public opinion from what Occupy focuses on.

One way to do that is to assert the existence of and then condemn some other quality or dimension of Occupy. In Bloomberg’s pathetic example, the best he and his advisers could come up with was a reference to Zuccotti Park as being “unclean” so as to then position the mayor and the police as militant janitors. Everyone who knows even a little about New York City knows that the mayor and the police preside over many filthy subway tunnels, highways, streets, empty lots and abandoned buildings without doing anything to clean them. So, suddenly asserting the importance of cleanliness simply exposed them to the ridicule such a position deserved. I suspect something similar is underway when others, perhaps taking their cue from Bloomberg in New York, decided to follow the cleanliness ploy.

Continue reading . . .

SOCIAL ACTIVISM: Chris Hedges / Why OWS Frightens the Corporate Elite

Posted on by
Reply


“I don’t waste any emotional or intellectual energy on these elections. All hope is in the street. All hope is through acts of civil disobedience. We may not win, but if we’re going to win that’s the only place we are going to win.”

LITERATURE: In Writing, Fuentes Shed Light On Poverty, Inequality / (NPR’s Morning Edition AUDIO)

Posted on by
2

Carlos Fuentes was the son of a Mexican diplomat and spent years living abroad, including in the United States. But Mexico — the country, its people and politics — was central to his writing.

Fuentes, one of the most influential Latin American writers, died Tuesday at a hospital in Mexico City at the age of 83. He was instrumental in bringing Latin American literature to an international audience, and he used his fiction to address what he saw as real-world injustices.

[…]

One of his most famous novels was The Old Gringo, about an American writer who travels to Mexico to die. It was made into a Hollywood movie starring Gregory Peck as the writer and Jimmy Smits as a Mexican general.

The Old Gringo became the first novel by a Latin American writer to make it to The New York Times best-seller list.

Read transcript, and listen to NPR’s Morning Edition AUDIO here . . . 

A wonderful scene from the movie can be seen here:

Research Report: How Secular Humanists (and Everyone Else) Subsidize Religion in the United States

Posted on by
4

[…]

Nowhere did we find prior research summarizing and detailing religious finances and tax policy, so we decided to investigate it ourselves. This article is the result. It took some digging, but we think we now have a moderately clear understanding of the tax laws regarding religions in the United States. What we found suggests that religious institutions, if they were required to pay taxes the same as for-profit corporations do, would not have nearly as much money or influence as they enjoy in America today. In this article we estimate how much local, state, and federal governments subsidize religions.

[…]

. . . [R]eligions spend a relatively small portion of their revenue on “physical charity”, and while they spend a larger portion of their revenue addressing “spiritual concerns”, most of that qualifies as labor, not charity. What little would qualify as “spiritual charity” would not be replaced by government if discontinued. In short, religions are, by and large, not engaged in charitable work.

[…]

. . . [T]he subsidies to religions in the United States today may not be encouraging the growth of religions, but they may be keeping alive on the equivalent of subsidized life-support many religions that should be dead.

If these subsidies were removed—though we have no basis for believing that they will be anytime soon—we wonder what the damage to religion would be. There is evidence that donations to religions are tied to taxes; as the tax benefit of donating goes up, so do donations and vice versa. In other words, it seems likely that the removal of these subsidies would result in a substantial decrease in the supply of religion in the United States. To what extent it would affect demand for religion is uncertain.

[…]

. . . [I]t seems likely that subsidies are propping up religion in the United States, though to what extent is not clear. Certainly many religions that are near failing would have done so already if not for the subsidies they receive from the government. Another practical result of these subsidies is that religions are more affluent and more influential than they would otherwise be, because they have the resources to fund efforts to change legislation, create widely consumed media, and influence public policy.

[…]

. . . These subsidies should be phased out. But since that is unlikely to happen, we’d accept the following alternative: . . . direct cash transfers to us from the government for trying to convert people to our worldviews while claiming to provide social services[.]

Read more . . .