You know, it’s amazing that anything gets done in Washington. Congress is supposed to be looking out for the best interest of the nation, but more often than not, it acts more like its running a three-legged race with a one-legged partner. Someone is always refusing to carry their weight for political or monetary reasons, which makes everything drag on far longer than it should.

Take health care reform for example . . .

There’s absolutely no reason why Congress should be concerning itself with protecting the over glutted coffers of the insurance companies. And yet, it seems making sure the top CEOs continue to bring in 57 thousand dollars an hour is top priority.

Does it make any sense? Well it does if you look at it from a strictly “kick back, re-election fund overflowing with money” point of view. Apparently, when the right wing and blue dogs say the #1 priority in the country is “jobs, jobs, jobs,” they mean their own jobs. Keeping the millions of dollars in contributions streaming in from corporations like the insurance companies, gives them a sense of job security they just can’t seem to pass up.

But we, the people have a recourse! If these politicians think their job security lies in how many deals they can make with corporations, then we need to show them their real job security actually depends on us and our vote.

Think about it, how long will huge re-election funds matter when no one pays any heed to the advertising they pay for? Great ads, with grandiose promises can’t stand up to actual track records on the ground, and so its up to the people to remember what these senators and congressmen really do while on the job, and who they’re actually working for.

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Technorati Tags: corporate kick backs, politics, re-election funds, special interests, three-legged race, Washinton, we the people

We hear a lot about special interest groups lobbying Congress to get special corporate favors. They seem to buy senators and representatives who’s votes appear to hold no other logic than to satisfy these lobbyists’ agendas. As these politicians’ re-election funds are padded with corporate money, and their sent on free elaborate vacations, the people should be asking, “What about our special interests?”

While watching TV the other night, a political commercial came on for one of the people running for the late Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat. It was the usual rhetoric about changing Washington, blah, blah, blah. But near the end, the candidate made an interesting statement . . .

He declared, “I will not take any money from Special Interest Groups.”

Wondering if he’d be willing to put that in writing, it occurred to me how great it would be if all candidates running for the 2010 election would be willing to sign a statement proposed to them, declaring themselves off limits to lobbyists.

Perhaps a group like MoveOn.org could head that up?

It would certainly give us an indication of where each candidate stood in regard to doing the right thing and serving the people he or she takes an oath to serve. It wouldn’t have to be an elaborate, drawn out statement either. Just something simple like . . .

“I, [candidate], declare myself off limits to Special Interest Groups, and will not take any money from anyone in exchange for special favors or to sway my vote. If I am elected, I put all citizens on notice that my seat will not be for sale.”

As these signed statements are collected, the running tally of names could be posted online somewhere so everyone could see it. Then we’ll know which candidates are for the people, or for themselves and their corporate buddies.

Then it would be just a matter of us holding them to it.

Technorati Tags: 2010 election, candidates, lobbying, lobbyists, politician, politics, Special Interest Groups, special interests

With sixty-five percent of the American people in favor of the public option, and the majority of the rest not fully aware of what the public option is (medicare for all), perhaps there’s another way for us to bring about a sort of health care redirect that could very well change the playing field.

Imagine if every American who was denied health care, whether it be from a “pre-existing condition,” or for whatever reason, took what they’d normally pay for a monthly insurance premium, brought it down to one of the 1,200 free clinics in the US (see http://freeclinics.us/ for one near you), and donated it with the words, “Here! Grow!!”

Or if you couldn’t donate any money, then perhaps donate some volunteer time. Everyone on staff are strictly volunteers, from doctors, nurses, down to the reception people. No one gets paid, but everyone gets quality health care.

Here’s what their website says . . .

The National Association of Free Clinics (NAFC) is the only nonprofit 501c(3) organization whose mission is solely focused on the issues and needs of the more than 1,200 free clinics and the people they serve in the United States.

Founded in 2001 and headquartered in Washington, D.C., the NAFC is an effective advocate for the issues and concerns of free clinics, their volunteer workforce of doctors, dentists, nurses, therapists, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, technicians and other health care professionals, and the patients served by free clinics in communities throughout the nation.

These clinics are not funded by anything other than public donations. The government has nothing to do with them, the big Pharma and Insurance corporations are not involved, yet they help thousands of uninsured or under insured people every day.

With some help from ordinary, working people, these free clinics could very well turn into a real public option, owned and operated by and for the people.

Think about it next time you get the sniffles, or just plain don’t feel well.

Technorati Tags: free clinics, Health Care Redirect, insurance, insurance premium, National Association of Free Clinics

Ever wonder what it would be like to be on the bottom of the food chain? Well, chances are you’re already experiencing it whenever you go to the super market, or pay your utility bills, or buy anything for that matter. Corporate greed is feeding off everyone who remotely resembles a consumer, and chances are, that includes you.

In the eyes of a corporate CEO, we are not citizens, we are livestock and our commodity is our hard earned pay. They manage to fleece us of virtually everything we own, and all the while convincing us its for our own good.

Take the super market industry for example . . .

Last year when the price of gas rose to over four dollars a gallon, we were told the prices of most products would have to rise as well to cover the extra cost of delivery. That sounded reasonable at the time. It would cost them more to intake all these products, and so “sharing” the expense with their customers was an acceptable way to go.

But the cost of gas is no longer four dollars a gallon, yet it seems food and other product prices continue to rise. Why?

Well, simply put, they’ve gotten us used to paying higher and higher prices, so why stop now. As long as we “need” these products, we’ll be willing to pay the price. So the average Joe will work two to three hours at his job just so he can get his laundry done at home. And mom won’t mind paying five dollars a gallon for milk, because its the only way she can get it to her children for their cereal.

When you think about it, the whole plot is ingenious. But when you think about it as to how it pertains to you and your family, and you don’t feel like you’re very existence is being eaten up by the bigger beast, then you’ve really been asleep at the wheel.

In the long run, one of two things are going to happen . . .

Either the people are going to put their foot down and find a way to fight back, or the entire system we all come to rely on will crumble. Siphoning people’s livelihoods until there isn’t anymore is unsustainable, after all.

A CEO doesn’t need to make $57,000 a hour, especially when families are losing everything they’ve worked their lives for just to pay his salary. But unfortunately it appears Congress doesn’t agree and will make health care reform a big win for these people.

Or maybe Congress knows something we don’t! Perhaps this whole thing is a giant plan to ship everyone to Canada and Mexico so they can turn the United States into one big country club for the 1% who can survive this economic cannibalism we’re all experiencing, and all those in Congress who go along with it can stay for the party.

It’s not very logical no matter how you view it, but who knows?

The United Corporates of America sound good? Nah, once we’re all gone they’ll just start eating each other. Nothing united about that!

Technorati Tags: cannibalism, corporate greed, Economic Cannibalism, Economy, prices

When Christopher Columbus landed in the New World, his most important discovery was that the people he met were, in his words “in dios,” or like God. They had no tenets or moral codes to follow, but rather were naturally inclined to living a peaceful, hospitable life. When explorers go into the Amazon region, they too meet up with indigenous people who have no inclinations towards hostility or savagery in any way. So we need to ask ourselves, have indoctrinated morals replaced the natural inclination of humans, and is this a good thing?

It may be interesting to note, while Columbus and his crew came from a society with a strict moral code imposed by the Church, they had no problem taking advantage of these so called savages. These peaceful people were almost immediately subjected to brutal treatment like slavery, rape, murder, their homes were claimed for the crown, their resources exhausted, and were left for dead when Columbus finally decided to leave.

It seems then, the concept of living by a moral code, imposed and enforced, becomes an inclusive entity that demands comparison to other moral codes, or a lack of one. The level of authority that set a moral code in place also tends to imply class distinction and a greater abhorrence to anything “other” a different group may be governed by.

Columbus noted the indigenous people had no moral code when it came to nudity, thus they were “lesser” in his eyes. They had no army, and thus were weaker. Had no currency, and so were poverty-stricken, helpless creatures.
All of this, observed through his own moral code gave him the impression of “sub-human” when he viewed the habits of these people. His perception of superiority was a direct result of his having a code of morality instilled in him from the society he lived in. It gave him the authority and justification to act harshly.

On the other hand, the indigenous people certainly must have seen these visitors as strange and very uptight people. Hostility was a foreign concept to them, and history shows that it took quite some time before they even realized they should be protecting themselves from it. Their natural inclination was to share, claiming no ownership to anything. So in their eyes, Columbus and his crew must have had a great need, otherwise why else would they be taking everything?

So while it would be a natural thing to have two people, separated by an enormous ocean, find themselves with totally different lifestyles, an established moral code proved to be the most divisive element between them. And we can clearly see how different moral standards among the people of the Earth remains an extremely divisive force. More than 95% of all wars fought throughout history have been caused for religious and moral reasons.

But could we as a society live without imposed morals now? Would we be better off to just let our natural inclinations take over? Or would that, as some suggest, create chaos and anarchy?

Perhaps we’re all too far gone to go back. Or perhaps the world is slowly beginning to see the artificial aspects of a morality written down in a book, yet rarely lived.

Technorati Tags: morality, morals, morals vs. natural inclination, natural inclination, Religion, Society

The Right thinks if we don’t continue the neocon’s programs in dealing with the rest of the world, we’ll be losing the edge in foreign policy. But is this true? Is the “we’d rather bomb you than talk to you” approach the best chance we have for world order? Or is President Obama, our Community-Organizer-in-Chief leading us in the right direction?

Being the schoolyard bully certainly has its perks. Nobody dares take anything that belongs to you, no one would even consider standing up to you, or refusing you your favorite seat in the cafeteria. The downside is, nobody will stand up with you, or share anything with you unless you take it from them.

In other words, bullies have no real friends they can rely on!

Sure they get their way most of the time, because everyone is afraid of them. They also get a lot of space, because no one will go near them. The tough guy life is a lonely life indeed!

And this is exactly what we’ve seen throughout the Bush years. The United States pretty much had to go it alone with just a handful of nations, possessing little power of their own, tagging along. It was very costly for the nation both monetarily and in casualties. The Bush concept of “coerced democracy” left us with a wide berth in the schoolyard, and alienated itself from the rest of the world.

Now we have the “we’re all in this together if its going to work” mentality through President Obama, and the Right Wing thinks we’re a lot less safe. Yet the President is mending alliances throughout the world, including with Russia, and the world is beginning to stand together on some important issues. Sounds a lot safer this way, don’t you think?

I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen many a bully get what’s coming to him when the other kids finally had enough of him. Yet I never did see any kid, with the ability to come up with inclusive ideas for the whole schoolyard, get a beating.

It’s all a very simple equation really, the World is a community (whether anyone likes it or not), and all it needed was a “community organizer” to begin the process of setting things right. So if you ask me if we’re losing the edge in foreign policy with Obama at the helm, I’d have give a resounding “No!”

Technorati Tags: Community Organizer, foreign policy, Obama, Pesident Obama

I kept trying to wrack my brain about who these teabaggers reminded me of. It was something I had witnessed before, but I wasn’t quite sure where or when. Then it hit me!

It was the People’s Front of Judea! Or was that the Judean People’s Front? Splitters!!

Technorati Tags: protesters, teabaggers

In light of all the hubbub going on with right wing protesters who cry out about big government, and government take overs, it would be good if we took a moment remembering the words of Candidate Obama about that very topic during the presidential campaign.

“It’s not whether we have big government, or we have small government. It’s whether or not we have good government. Government that works.”

Now I know we’re all fed up with government bureaucracy, and how it seems when a crisis comes up, the government builds a new department with a whole new set of requirements and regulations, and how even when the crisis passes, the government never backs down. This has created a real mess in the way the country runs, and the taxpayer has to carry the burden of all that wasted effort to keep those agencies functioning with nothing really to do.

But it seems to me, the now President Obama still holds to the concept of good government. He certainly doesn’t seem the sort to waste time, effort or money. And he definitely doesn’t give one the impression that he’s for the “set it and forget it” style of bureaucratic uselessness we’ve seen over the years.

Rather it appears his methods are designed to handle a crisis, see it through, then back off. We see this in how he’s dealt with Wall Street and various other problems. TARP funding is temporary and will not continue once the banks are recovering. The car industry got a boost from government with a bailout and the “cash for clunkers” program, but now they’re relatively on their own.

Regulations need to be put in place to prevent the same problems from occurring again, but this is not “government take over.” It’s government working for the best interests of the people so the people aren’t faced with the same hardships in the future we face now. It’s government protecting the “common wealth” so we can all prosper.

In essence, it’s government doing the job government is suppose to do. To me, that’s good government.

Technorati Tags: bureaucracy, government, government take over, Obama

Among all the FoxSpews zombies at the latest 9/12 march, there was a group who had perfect pitch. Billionaires for Wealthcare sang out the praises of letting things remain as they are. These guys were great, but its amazing how many people around them had no idea Billionaires for Wealthcare were laughing at them.

Check them out

And read more here about the Billionaires for Wealthcare

Technorati Tags: Billionaires for Wealthcare, FoxSpews, protest, tea baggers

At this moment we’re facing one of the most historic votes in Congress. More than sixty years in the making, and finally we may have a real health care reform bill being signed by the President. This was Senator Ted Kennedy’s life work, and sorrowfully he isn’t here to see it through. But what’s even worse is, we may not have full representation from the state he came from. At this point it seems the lights are out in Massachusetts and nobody’s home.

State lawmakers are dragging their feet in allowing Governor Patrick to appoint an interim replacement for Senator Kennedy. This is temporary mind you. The replacement will only be in office until a special election can take place, and the person getting the position cannot run in the election. Its merely to give Massachusetts full representation at this critical time.

Now I understand the “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” problem. If the Democrats in Massachusetts allow this now, it could happen again when a Republican governor is in office later. Naturally a Republican governor would appoint a Republican replacement, and that could spell problems for the state.

But its only temporary! Senator Kennedy asked for an interim replacement pending a special election. So even if a future Republican governor got the opportunity to appoint someone somewhere down the road, the special election would remedy the situation with little time to do very much damage to the state’s policies.

So what’s the problem here? Will someone please turn the lights back on?!?

Technorati Tags: interim replacement, Massachusetts, Massachusetts lawmakers, Senator Kennedy, special election