Single Payer Action

Do you, like most citizens including doctors, nurses, small business owners and health economists, think Universal Single Payer Health Care (aka Medicare for all or Canadian-style health care) is the answer?

Check out Single Payer Action and then tell your representatives to support HR 676.


Not sure about Single Payer? Try these ...

• HR 676 - House bill introduced by John Conyers
• The Case for Single Payer, Universal Healthcare in the United States
• Physicians for a National Healthcare Program and their Single-Payer FAQ
  Healthcare Now, What is Single Payer? and Cost control, universal care impossible without single-payer health system
  
• American Medical Students Association - Universal Health Care - scroll down to the "Educate Yourself" section
  

The Real Fair Tax

"If the IRS taxed the wealthiest 400 at the rate it did when Dwight Eisenhower was in the White House, it would collect $35.9 Billion more." - The Nation 4/27/2009

See the Institute for Policy Studies Reversing the Great Tax Shift: Seven Steps to Finance Our Economic Recovery Fairly

Um, what?

So I just got this really random IM:

****

IronedCoho: You know, I'm a Christian and your recent post offended me! What if my children were on? I mean, it's all the rage to be edgy and everything but is it really necessary to use such prejudicing words like the N-word? Grow up and read your Bible.

me: who are you and what the hell are you talking about?

ironedcoho is offline.

****

This was an interesting moment for me because, other than the telling fact that I never used the N-word in any post, the truth is that this guy could totally be talking about a post I wrote. So I thought I'd comment on a statement made to somehow make me feel guilty: "What if my children were on?"

First of all, it is not my responsibility to ensure that your children don't see things you don't want them to or to ensure that your children can deal with and understand those things. First there is the the obvious fact that you children WILL inevitably see/hear/experience things that a parent deems inappropriate/wrong/whatever. This works both ways.

Somehow it seems that many people, especially evangelical Christians, seem to think that because they believe what they teach their children to believe and value are categorically right (and apparently are the only ones to believe the things they teach their children) that no one should ever do anything in front of the children that contradicts that. Here's a news flash: If I had children, I would not under any circumstances want them to be exposed to evangelical Christianity and it's beliefs. A good example would be the anti-abortion protesters who, along with their children, stand on the street and hold up "dead fetus" pictures. This is not something I want to see let alone have my children see. And yet, it's "ok" because they believe they are right.

The point is this: what I deem inappropriate and wrong for my (hypothetical) children, you deem inappropriate and right for your children. This leads us to the general conclusion that unless you want to live in a dictatorial, whatever brand of Christianity you subscribe to society then you need to move out of the US or get over yourself and teach your children that other people believe different things.

Conclusion: "What if my children see this?" is not a justification for anything. My answer: then you'll have to have a talk with your children. It's scary I know.


Also, what the hell does being a Christian or reading the bible have to do with using or not using the N-word. I will just briefly bring up another thing that pisses me off: Christians do not, in any reading of history, have any sort of exclusive claim (or arguably any claim at all) to morality or doing what's right.

As a side note, I'm pretty sure this dude doesn't have kids anyway. Based on this post, I think "IronedCoho" is actually this 23 year old pharmacy technician from Corning, NY. What a douche.

My sister is awesome!

Check out the Obama love over at Mabel Hand Bags:

I ♥ Obama Hand Bag - in blue and in red
Obama Rocks My Socks Hand Bag in blue and in red


I do have to stop myself for a second and appreciate the fact that someone who got upset when my parents and I had political discussions at dinner is now so excited about a politician. I just wish the excitement was about policy and issues and not just his charisma. Either way, the bags are freakin' awesome. Don't you want one?

Some Articles on Obama's Terrible Economic Choices --

Considering that I am both doing NaNoWriMo AND have just moved, I don't have time right now to formulate my utter (although predicted) disappointment in Obama's cabinet choices, especially his economic choices. Instead I'm offering my dear readers (are there any really??) a smattering of articles that might give some insight - especially for progressives who think Summers & Geithner are good choices (and I'm not even taking into consideration the fact that Summers thinks that women just aren't good at science):

About the Advisory Board - Paul Krugman's suggested picks. Why oh why Paul won't you do it??
Return of Wall Street Hustlers - Think that Rubin & Clinton aren't partially responsible for this economic mess? Think again.
State Banks Could Solve Financial Crisis - why not get the good part of 'socialism' (i.e. control) instead of the bad (i.e. the debt)?
Surprise! This Bank Refuses Fed Bailout - See? Integrity is possible.
Obama's Wall Street Woes - I don't agree that there is any evidence that Obama "gets this" but I agree that he "seems perilously close to following the same course as Bush in the banking bailout" (which is to say the same course ALL presidents have been following for the past 28 years).

That's just a smattering. Also, take a peek at some quotes from On the Wealth of Nations, Book 1. Not quoted is the part where Smith argues that corporations which take government subsidies will soon spend all their time and energy getting free money and not actually do anything else.

Even the Wall Street Journal called this crisis "Minsky's moment," so why aren't we putting post-Keysians or, hell, even a Keysian into positions of power? Hello?

Just for FYI --
Banks panics in the US:
1819
1837
1857
1873
1893
1907
Great Depression
80s & 90s Savings & Loans Crisis
1987 Black Monday
Tech Bust of 2000/2001
2008

Hmm ... seems like there is a large period missing from this list? 1945-1980? And yet, New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America gets prominent billing in the Union Square Barnes & Noble. Seriously? Yes, America was so damaged by the New Deal that we became a singular super power and the most prosperous country in the world until Milton Friedman came along and made that same argument - and we are currently seeing just how well THAT worked out.

Well this went longer than planned ...

From the Pen of Adam Smith Vol. 1

Due to NaNoWriMo (and its textbook like qualities), I decided to split up my reading of On the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith's definitive work on capitalism.

So here are a cropping of quotes of Book 1: Of the causes of Improvement in the productive powers of labour, and of the Order according to which its Produce is naturally distributed among the different Ranks of the People.

Is this improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks of the people to be regarded as an advantage or as an inconveniency to the society? The answer seems at first sight abundantly plain. Servants, labourers and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath, and lodge the whole body of people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed, and lodged.
p.110-111

In reality high profits tend much more to raise the price of work than high wages ... In raising the price of commodities the rise of wages operates in the same manner as simple interest does in the accumulation of debt. The rise of profit operates like compound interest. Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effect of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.
p. 136-137

The pretence that corporations are necessary for the better government of trade, is without any foundation. The real and effectual discipline which is exercised over a workman, is not that of his corporation, but that of his customers. It is the fear of losing their employment which restrains his fraud and corrects his negligence. An exclusive corporation necessarily weakens the force of this discipline.
p.178

But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity, and fall with the declension, of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin.
p.338

The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adapted til after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.
p. 339

The Truth about ACORN and Voter Fraud

Before we have any discussion about voter fraud, we need to clarify the difference between voter registration fraud and voter fraud.

Voter Registration Fraud is when Mickey Mouse registers to vote. For this to be an issue at all, a fake voter registration form needs to be turned in (actually, it's legally required that is turned in) then election officials need to someone how not realize that Mickey Mouse isn't a real person and then someone who claims to be Mickey Mouse needs to show up and actually vote. Oh and this would need to happen hundreds of thousands of times to have any affect on an election.

Vote Fraud on the other hand is when someone who isn't allowed to vote for whatever reason actually does vote.

ACORN "committed" voter registration fraud ... sort of. ACORN, like most organizations that register voters or petition, often pays people by the signature/registration form. Obviously, there will be unethical people that turn in bogus papers to get paid. (Incidentally, this is the reason that petitions often have a goal of double the number of signatures they actually need). In the incidence that has beeen highlighted this campaign season, ACORN itself was the one who pointed out the phony forms to the state. They are legally required to turn in the forms anyway. Let me repeat: ACORN told the state the forms were fault and followed through on their legal obligation to turn in the forms.

Here's a video with more info: The Truth About ACORN.

But there is another kind of activity that limits people's right to vote: Voter Suppression. There are many tactics that are used to suppress voters: purge lists, "challenging" voters, provisional ballots, intimidation, and whatever else the Republican party comes up with. The Republican party has been engaged in systematic disenfranchisement of voters on a national scale since at least 2000. The ACORN story (as noted in the video) is just another tactic. How you may ask?

Well, here's how it works: Republicans cry voter fraud before the election which in turn gives them fuel to challenge the results of the election once it's over. Or they may do what they're planning to do in Michigan which is to get a list of voters registered by ACORN (or whose homes are foreclosed or whatever) and then have people at polling stations who challenge those voters as they come into the polls. As noted in the Palast article, most of the provisional ballots handed out (along with many absentee ballots) in 2004 were never counted.

Worried about whether your vote will count? You should be.

Here is information and a guide to ensuring your vote will count from Greg Palast and Bobby Kennedy Jr. ... in the form of a comic book!!

The key points are:

• DO NOT Mail in your Ballot
• Vote Early
• DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES vote provisionally
  

To verify that you are registered, go here.