When governments take on the responsibility of health care, the system operates on the premise that the most economical way to get the job done is to implement practices and protocols which are demonstrated to have the best chance of making, and keeping, people well.

Our way of doing things in the U.S. is fundamentally and fatally flawed. The bottom line takes first, second, and third priority over health care and health promotion. The interests of the stockholders, profit and growth, are served to the exclusion of the interests of the other stakeholders in the system. It is not profitable to help people maintain good health by means obtainable without buying a prescription or paying for the use of medical facilities and equipment. To keep making money, the for-profit system requires that people get sick and stay that way.

Additionally, the model of providing health insurance through employers assures that only those who contribute "work product" are allowed access to the for-profit medical treatment system. And killing "entitlement" programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security is intended to get rid of those who can only consume but who no longer can, or who never could, contribute work product.

And it's not difficult to understand why the brokers of this system might also be inclined to support legislation in favor of clamping down on birth control but not so much on erectile dysfunction drugs. After all, when you keep working class consumers desperate, poor, and sick, they die off more quickly and must be replaced with new working class consumers.

I get to see this fucked up, broken system up close and personal, every day, because I provide case management services for children on Medicaid. My clients and their families are impoverished and crushed by despair. It's a river of shit out there and waders are at a premium.

When I got married in California, some 22 years ago, I was under the impression that, aside from competence, the only concern was that my husband and I were of majority and, thus, legally subject to the terms of the state's marriage contract.

If the state is now making the opposite sex of the parties a requirement in civil marriage contracts, should they not do the same for other civil contracts, such as loans, purchases, job contracts, and so on? If not, why not? Is it because, unlike those other agreements, marriage is considered a religious contract, in the state of California?

For Prop 8 to pass and the state constitution to be amended, evidently, marriage must be in a separate class from other contracts over which the state has jurisdiction. And, if the distinction between the marriage contract and other contracts is not based on religion, could someone please tell me just exactly what it is based upon? Unless someone can convince me that religion has nothing to do with California marriage contracts, it appears that, in presiding over my marriage, the state has violated my right under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to not be subject to any law respecting an establishment of religion.

Furthermore, the state failed to tell me about the religious nature of the agreement before I entered into it. There wasn't even any fine print regarding this issue. I do not agree to be bound by what is clearly a religious contract, which means that my marriage is now null and void. The legal and financial ramifications of this, for me and the man I've been living with for more than 22 years, are enormous. Shouldn't the state of California be liable for damages?

How dare he turn the conversation away from the issues that rich, self-serving politicians use to whip bone-weary, dispirited working class voters into an indignant fury? And he calls himself a member of Congress? How did this person ever get into the Old Boy club, in the first place? Who is responsible this? I don't know but heads are going to roll, if this keeps up. That's for sure!

And within that sanctum, the Ds or Rs at the ends of names fade so far into obscurity as to be rendered meaningless.

Venezuela will withdraw if and when it so chooses, and on its own terms.

Because Republicans don't want the focus to be on things like Gonzales and wiretapping.

Hoo, baby, the teleprompter reader sure got him off the air fast. And he laughed at her, and said, "Not exactly what you expected, was it?"



Go, Tommy Chong! You rock!

Before the primaries began, the major Democratic candidates and key public servants, got together and decided to run as a team. After electing Barack Obama to the White House with Hillary Clinton as his VP, the others agreed to step into the following Cabinet positions:

Bill Clinton: State

Wes Clark: Defense

John Edwards: Labor

Bill Richardson: Health and Human Services

Al Gore: Interior

Dennis Kucinich: Agriculture

Chris Dodd: Commerce

Joe Biden: Homeland Security

Mike Gravel: Treasury

Patrick Fitzgerald: Justice

It was just a dream.

"Now, I believe myself that the secretary of State, the secretary of Defense -- and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows -- that this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday."

Reid was simply saying he believes that, given the levels of carnage, in Iraq, Rice and Gates, and, maybe, even Bush--to the extent that he's capable--all know that the surge has not worked and the war is lost.

With respect to the context upon which Reid based his comment, it is Bush who has framed this war, all along, as a win or lose proposition. And he didn't call for a surge because he believed we were winning the war. He called for it because it was to be the final attempt to turn things around. Well, it didn't turn things around, and Reid is simply stating the obvious--that the Bush administration knows this is true.

The spin that the right wing and the media are putting on Reid's words is beyond outrageous. CNN even asked Kyra Phillips, in Iraq, how this is affecting troop morale.

Here's a news flash for the media: your unwillingness to report the news accurately will do far more to hurt morale than anything Harry Reid said.

"We've never come closer to bestowing absolute authority on the president." - Bill Moyers, 1987

This was on my local NBC affiliate, so I don't have a link. Below are the twelve worst, and by the way, washing or peeling them doesn't make a difference. If possible, always try to buy the certified organic versions of these vegetables.

peaches
apples
sweet bell peppers
celery
nectarines
strawberries
cherries
pears
imported grapes
spinach
lettuce
potatoes

And here are twelve that had no, or almost no, detectable traces of pesticides:

onions
avocados
frozen sweet corn
pineapples
mangoes
asparagus
frozen sweet peas
kiwis
bananas
cabbage
broccoli
papaya

From the preface:

"Most important, we examine and reject the idea of an ideological
“center.” It is not made up of “moderates,” nor is it defined
by issues spread across a left-to-right spectrum. Instead, the
“center” is made up of biconceptuals. The idea of biconceptualism
is essential to understanding—and changing—American politics.
We explain why progressives can and should talk to biconceptuals
in the same way they talk to their base.

A cautionary note about this handbook: Advocacy groups
running specific ad campaigns, candidates running for office, and
policy makers all have short-term needs—they want language for
the next ad, for tomorrow’s speech, and for the upcoming election
campaign, and they want sound-bite responses to this morning’s
charges by the other side. This handbook is not about
quick-and-dirty, short-term fixes to immediate tactical problems.
It is about long-term strategy, a strategy for returning America
to its progressive ideals. It is about changing the way we do politics.
It is about helping America get in touch with its progressive
roots.

We hope this handbook begins a process of creating a language
of a renewed liberalism. In its online version, it will form
the basis of the Rockridge Progressive Manual Project, designed
to extend this handbook, step-by-step, to all issue areas, and to
do so interactively, with an ongoing dialogue, a national conversation,
with grassroots progressives. This handbook is also the
seed of the Rockridge Action Network, a network of activists—
individuals and groups—who want to speak out on issues and
place progressive ideas and values before the public.

Thinking Points: Communicating Our Values and Vision