Hopefully the Summer Recess Will Give Time to the Democrats to LocateTheir Backbone.

Alternate Reality IS Possible!

I hear a great deal from people who are conservatives. I don't mind criticism as long as it's constructive, but it's hardly the case, and often it's impossible to have any conversation because the currency of understanding is not reason. They tell me that it's freedom they want and that Obama's health care reform [I wish someone who has insider knowledge could tell us what exactly do the Dems in charge of our government want to do about giving the right to health care to every American] is socialism/communism--implying no choice. Notwithstanding that Medicare and health care for our military is socialized medicine, (same as public schools, and many other social programs), some people will never be convinced by reason and evidence. At least, our leaders could do something good for the commonwealth over the objections of the narrow special interests and those who promote ignorance.

The principle is simple to me: health care is a right not a privilege, and this country has the means to provide universal health care to all. We're wealthy enough, it's just a matter of priorities. I don't understand how we accept being behind 30+ countries when it comes to a healthy population, longevity, unnecessary suffering, and not the high level of quality of life we could have if the system and our government worked for the benefit of the great majority of Americans. [The World Health Organization ranks the US health care #37]

"We have the best health care in the world," I'm told by those who can afford it. It's like my cousin Bill Gates telling me, "don't worry, the two of us are worth $50 billion!" I also hear the word freedom mentioned in this debate. Before I got an education and began to dissect popular beliefs and popular expressions, freedom meant the ability to be free. But, freedom without meaningful action loses its meaning. If I keep you locked up without allowing any communication with the outside world, you can be "free" to say what ever you want. I could even allow you to read and watch whatever you want.

Conversely, being free to choose between Burger King and McDonald's, or between this minimum wage job and that minimum wage job isn't really a choice. We have this myth in this country that if you work hard enough, you can be anything you want. However you examine this myth it's not true on the aggregate. We like to believe that; it feels good. Sure, there are a few individuals who got lucky, yet for every Michael Jordan, for every Barack Obama, there are millions who can't advance not because of lack of skill or effort, but because of lack of opportunity. Just look as socio-economic mobility in the last 30 years in our country. Even the Europeans--with a much more rigid class system--are noticing that America isn't as egalitarian as we'd like to think.

Access to opportunity is what a good system should provide. Having more educated, healthier, more productive people is good for the whole country. But we don't seem to get the system to respond as much and as fast as it should. Then, again, we have leaders who actually make our lives worse. If I hadn't heard this myself, I wouldn't have believed it. Presidential candidate John McCain, (and most of the GOP leadership today) argue, without a shred of shame, that health care is a privilege and not a right. Just do your own research if you don't believe me. How can anyone say that and not booed out of town?..

“I think health care is a privilege,” he said. “I wouldn’t call it a right.”

Earlier this week, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) was asked by Charleston’s Post and Courier whether “people have a right to health care?”

DeMint is a leading voice of the conservatives in Congress, but, sadly, he's not the only one with such a view. The Repubs are willing to throw anything against any attempts for meaningful reform. They're now saying that those undocumented immigrants will get free health care and that should not happen under any circumstances. The Obama administration capitulated already on this point by saying no such proposal (to give free medical care to human beings who lack a piece of paper) is on the table. I mean, the audacity of those illegals who expect to be treated like human beings... We needed a work force, period. We didn't ask for ..human beings to come over! Maybe we didn't make that clear....

THE DANGER OF INACTION AND LACK OF DIRECTION [I almost said, lack of balls]

During the midterm elections, usually the party in power loses seats in Congress. With the GOP is such a disarray and increasingly becoming a regional, regressive party, there was hope that the Dems would escape the trend in 2010. It may not be the case, because the White House and the Congressional Dems are lost right now. They are bogged down in meaningless debate and cannot communicate a clear set of goals and show that their policies are helping most Americans. It's not too late to reverse this, but six months from now, it will be too late.

Most Americans now believe the country is on the wrong track! Check out the DailyKos poll. The Dems were up 12% points back in May, but now they're down to 6% over the Repubs. The latter have not gained [except a point with those over 60 and 2 points with Gen Xers] but the Dems have faltered, losing support in every demographic category. The young voters went from +30 to +37 for the Dems, but this is misleading since they Repubs are losing bigger numbers in this group. The independents are tuning out right now. With much lower participation numbers in midterm elections, the Dems might be bitterly surprised next year since the only motivated voters will be the conservatives who are energized and angry.

The president can recover in time for 2012 but the Dems will have no excuse if they fail. They were given big majorities in both chambers of Congress and control of the White House. This all in the span of 2 short years (2006-2008)--which is rather remarkable given the numbers they had in the House and the Senate just before the 2006 midterm election!

At any rate, a leader is judged by the effects of his policies and the leadership he exercises not by the "spirit of bi-partisanship" and trying endlessly to convince those who are fundamentally oppose him. Lincoln, FDR, Johnson--just to name a few who dared without having widespread support--were successful because their policies made a positive difference in the lives of most Americans. I hope Obama is a good and fast learner. Reid and Pelosi in Congress should do what's right with 218 and 50 votes respectively. The Repubs talked about the "nuclear option" and Republican Speaker Hastert [who learned from the disgraced Repub Speaker Gingrich] used to say that he was only interested in the ..majority of the majority.

Sometimes a dialogue just can't take place. It's not that people have different values and priorities--often the core of disagreement--but when some people make no sense, because they're being dishonest, then it's time to wrap up the "discussion" and take action. Obviously in a democracy, the voters will render a judgment on the effects of public policy. Now, can we please have some of that! Hurry. People are dying unnecessarily.

...

UPDATE: "White House: Obama may detail health plans soon," according to an AP report. I noticed the word "may" so I said something I don't want to repeat here. That's exactly my point about the lack of clarity and direction from the White House. They can't even say for sure whether the president will tell us what he wants to do! His chief of staff just said that the Repubs haven't negotiated in good faith! Com'on, man, faith is for those who give up reason and expect miracles... the kind of miracles only Jesus could allegedly perform. It's safe to assume that Obama is not Jesus and he can't turn water into wine no matter how much he tries or ..waits!

UPDATE 2: The amount of ignorance and misinformation in the media is amazing to me. Maria Bartiromo ["bright star" of CNBC--a colleague of Jim Cramer and other "experts" who went to bed with Wall Street and helped spread misinformation to the public... Just watch this video.] was interviewing A. Wiener (D-NY) about health care, and she sarcastically responded to his statement that people on public-run Medicare report high satisfaction rates."How come you don't use it [Medicare]? You don't have it. How come you don't have it?" she snickered. I guess she's not aware that only people over 65 can get it! I know the 45-year old NY Congressman and he doesn't look over 65.

Editor's note: The cartoon is by Arkas, and in case you haven't figured it out, if you have a vivid imagination anything is possible... like a desktop computer with a mouse!

An Abbreviated History (part 2). The Power of Myths & Ideas

Why Do People Believe Crazy Stuff?

[continued from an earlier post, Abbreviated History]


Are you ready to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the "Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya"? No? Well, it's all right, but Colonel Qaddafi, like the Pope, rely on lots of people to buy his message.The Soviet Union had a brutal regime, yet it had lots of sympathizers, many in the West! Another brutal regime in theocratic Iran relies on violence & suppression and on a large mass of Iranians who see modernity and the liberal democracies as evil.

Any benevolent supreme ruler would tell you that his people don't know what's in their best interest so he decides for them. Any ruthless leader would also use threats and violence to make people behave. Do as I say or I you'll experience hell--in this life or ..later. Sounds familiar? Both types of leaders don't trust their flock. They establish a system whereas sheepish behavior and obedience is encouraged.

But how do people get certain ideas? Well, it varies. Parents, at first, schools, and society at large imbue everyone with ideas and concepts. Many ideas become part of a person's identity and they are not revisited, never to be changed. Obviously, some ideas are good some are bad. Some are useful some are against the individual's own interest and against the interest of the majority of society. Yet, they persist!

Culture provides society with a value system, a way of doing things, stability of custom, and, guess what, notions of preserving the status quo. The masses used to be rather ignorant and in the absence of education, open dialogue, and freedom, they followed the "tried & true." Conservatism is no accident. It's a disposition based on perceptions deeply implanted in the human mind. The power of ideas, of myths, of belief systems, is immense. More so, if you don't have the means to critically evaluate them. Besides, it takes effort to blaze your own trails. Fear of the unknown or the incomprehensible is unsettling. Uncertainty is for the brave. Responsibility is for the strong. Inquiry for the curious. Reality is for those who can handle the truth.

Imagine that you believe you'll be super-rich tomorrow. Or, that you'll die of an evil spell cast on you. Or, that by strapping explosives on your body and detonating them in a crowded place, you're actually doing God's work. Or, that those who have another faith, nationality, color, whatever, are not worth anything but the worst treatment. You get the picture. Your actions will be based on those beliefs.

History can be seen as a clash of civilizations and ideas (belief systems). Humankind has raised hell on earth because of the power of myths that reached a critical mass of people who accepted them. There's always an excuse for embarking on a destruction of another civilization, culture, peoples. And, it doesn't have to make lot of sense. The key is to accept the first premise.

For example, you may accept the premise that you exist in a lovely building that was made for the chosen ones. The first step is crucial. Once a "foundation" belief is embedded in your brain, then the rest of assumptions and actions can be reasonable. Sure, you can imagine such a building needing several rooms for specific purposes, beautiful furnishings, and ambient music! You can argue that a sun room should face south--a good choice! Then you can argue that all the residents must please the landlord of this building so he won't throw you out of punish you--a rational choice; no one wants to be evicted, right?

Another interesting fact is that the human brain is capable of holding several contradictory ideas at the same time. Logical inconsistencies exist in all of us. The difference is what do you do when you discover one? Can you amend your views? Or, like in US politics, you can never appear as someone who admits he was wrong and changed his mind? Consistency at the expense of accuracy! Also--and this is important--can you question something that millions of people for thousands of years believe as true? Suppose such a belief is given to you as part of your identity. What do you do, how do you approach this?.. Can you even touch the subject with a critical mind?

Without singling our Catholics, why do many believe the Pope is infallible in matters of dogma? Why do they follow his edicts? Over the millennia, Popes have reversed their predecessors. What does this imply? Why there wasn't much of criticism when the current Pope declared that even AIDS (and other sexually-transmitted diseases) is bad, condoms are worse! Seriously, people will die because of such a stupid statement--translated into policy. Has anyone pointed out this contradiction: Thou shall not kill, one Commandment instructs us. But, married men who have AIDS can transmit a death sentence to their wives because condoms are not to be used under any circumstances!

Do you remember the Bill Moyers-Joseph Campbell series on the Power of Myth back in the 1980s? That got me interested in the power of ideas and how peoples' behavior is based on their ideologies. [By the way, Moyers has a great resource on Faith & Reason on the PBS site] What I find discouraging is that in this 21st century, at least in the so-called advanced countries, there should be lots fewer ignorant people. I wouldn't be surprised if Qaddafi still commands a majority support from Libyans, for the latter don't know any better and can't entertain any alternatives to the former. But, in the US there shouldn't be so many kooks, charlatans, con artists, and b.s. dispensers. They would all be irrelevant if there was no critical mass supporting them.

How come the largest Catholic country, Brazil, didn't rise in disgust to the latest official stance of the Catholic Church (in Brazil and the Vatican) when a man who raped his 9 year old step daughter and got her pregnant didn't earn excommunication but her mother and the doctor who performed the abortion did?.. It's the same scenario where a critical mass of people support genital mutilation, keeping women as chattel [term derived from cattle], and silencing any free expression.

Our political discourse would have been much better. The current health reform "debate" would've been more reasonable. But, how do you communicate with someone who doesn't want reform because he doesn't like Obama turning this country into a socialist/communist one?! In a democracy the people have to be convinced to vote against their own interests.... especially those who could afford it the least!

....

PS>You may want to click on the first picture to get it to open bigger so you can read about the norms of the American society of our parents. I can't vouch for the content authenticity, but I can tell you it's accurate in its essense. I'm old enough to have met people who were adults in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, and even women accepted those traditional roles. I'm glad there's been progress but not as fast as I'd like. Yet, even in the last 15-20 years, there's been serious change. There's support for repealing the "don't ask, don't tell policy"; several states are legalizing same-sex marriage; we elected a black man to the presidency; and we may do away with a conservative party fit for the Dark Ages. For an advanced industrialized country it's a shame that we have so much violence, so many people in prisons, so much religiocity, no universal health care, and such a huge gap of wealth between the elites and the rest of society.

What's a Privilege Versus a Right? Health Care Can Be Boiled Down to this Simple Test. Ted Kennedy Got it Right!

I think the best memorial to someone is to remember his/her actions that contributed to making the world a better place to live--even if it's one person at a time. Ted Kennedy came from a family of privilege but advocated for the many who weren't as fortunate as the elites of this country.

Morality is how we treat others, not how one behaves in his/her private domain. Teddy believed that the government of the people should be in place to work for the people. ["by"the people has meant approval and not that the common people of modest means have a good chance of being elected to high office!] It's amazing when 72% of Americans want health care reform that includes a strong public option their representatives in Congress can't seem to get it!

High stake [steak?] game is being played in front of the American public. There's lots of willful misinformation and scare tactics that have nothing to do with a rational discussion on how to reform a broken system and ensure that thousands of Americans don't die & suffer unnecessarily. It does come down to a simple question: is health care (like education) a right or a privilege? I was stunned to hear many Republicans actually say [including presidential candidate McCain] it's a ..privilege!

As for the cost, of course we can afford it if we can afford to spend much more on armaments than the whole world combined! Besides, the skyrocketing of health care costs in the US, under the current system, cannot be sustained. There will be more "death panels"... when insurance companies deny claims for necessary medical life-saving procedures and when they reject people with pre-existing conditions. How can anyone defend such a system is beyond me...

Here's an excellent treatment on this subject, as recently shown on Bill Moyers Journal. Is there anyone who can argue against the main points raised? Honestly, those opposed to health care reform with a public option don't make sense. It's not just a matter of values and priorities--that would be understandable--but those opponents are incoherent. It's a failure of leadership to confuse the public, distort the facts [those facts], and allow Americans to suffer and die.

PROFITS OVER PEOPLE: Video on Bill Moyers Journal. It includes an interview with W. Potter who served the insurance industry for 20 years. The Money Driven Medicine video has excerpts from the acclaimed Critical Condition, "a documentary in which ordinary hard-working Americans tell their stories of battling critical illnesses without health insurance. They discover that being uninsured can cost them their jobs, health, homes, savings, and even their lives."

Here's N. Kristof's (NYT columnist) take on the issue:
Opponents suggest that a “government takeover” of health care will be a milestone on the road to “socialized medicine,” and when he hears those terms, Wendell Potter cringes. He’s embarrassed that opponents are using a playbook that he helped devise. “Over the years I helped craft this messaging and deliver it,” he noted. Mr. Potter was an executive in the health insurance industry for nearly 20 years before his conscience got the better of him.

Blue Dog (Conservative) Democrats & President Obama Share the Blame for the Impasse

Finally, I have to be extremely critical of president Obama. He's the only person who holds such a big megaphone. Now, I dare to ask: Can you tell me what is Obama's health care proposal? Seriously, try to answer this especially if you're a supporter of the president and for health care reform... He has failed to put forth a succinct plan and a clear message. Even his secretary of Health, Sibelius, said on national TV that a public option could be off the table! Really??!!

I hope that Kennedy's death can serve as a catalyst for meaningful health care reform that includes a strong public option.

Oh, by the way, Mr. President: FORGET TRYING TO GET BI-PARTISAN SUPPORT. IT WON'T HAPPEN. Get this damn thing passed with 218 in the House and 50 in the Senate! YOUR LEGACY SHOULD BE A GOOD REFORM NOT A COMPROMISED AND INEFFECTIVE LAW WITH REPUBLICAN SUPPORT.

An Abbreviated (and edited) History of Humankind. Faulty Design and Conservatives With Closed Minds.

The Unbearable Lightness of Being

Once upon a time there was a land where everything was beautiful, peaceful, prosperous, with plentiful natural resources so no one went hungry, homeless or gotten sick. It was how the Supreme Designer had made that world. There were no arguments or strife because everybody had to obey the absolute rules the Designer had demanded of his subjects. There wasn't much contemplating either because all the thinking the people had to do was for their daily routines and how to demonstrate their love & devotion to their master. What was it to ponder about? As a matter of fact, abstract thinking was down right dangerous for it could lead to questioning, or even relativism!

Most people believed this was the best blissful existence that could be had, so they scorned "free will" and any discussion on "controversial" topics. Discussing the weather was appropriate but only in general terms and in appreciation of the Designer's skill to create sunsets and rainbows. They didn't want to jeopardize their fortune so they avoided all extraneous knowledge; everything they needed was inscribed in the Holy Book.

One day the Designer decided to make things interesting for himself and created an evil force to tempt his subjects into sin. That would be fun, he thought, even though he knew how it'd turn out, it could be entertaining nevertheless! It's like watching a good movie again.... You know the plot, the characters, and the ending, but it's OK; You sit there and spend a couple hours watching it; same with tv reruns. Everybody has done it at some point.

Unfortunately, the Designer had not given his subjects much experience in rational thought and skeptical inquiry. It was no surprise that they were easily manipulated and tricked by the evil force. Sadly, this led to their fall from grace. Soon after their poor choice and exit from utopia, they had to deal with all sorts of ills: disease, pestilence, murder, starvation, death, ugliness, strife, unwanted hair, and soap operas.

Prostitution, politics, and mind/mood altering substances entered the mix of human condition with varying effects & social impact. Sometimes it was good, sometimes is was bad; they brought pleasure or pain, often both at the same time. For a long time, people kept appealing to the Designer; they asked for favors, they bargained for forgiveness and other stuff, and above all they hoped that one day--even after they were dead--conditions would improve.

Thousands of years went by. More and more people began to use the rational mind employing reason and inquiry. Skeptics soon dared to challenge the "old divine wisdom." They began to argue--those audacious creatures--that life is what we make of it. That the universe wasn't designed to support human society as it was prescribed in the Holy Book--which, somehow, had been left behind in Utopia but re-dictated by the Creator to only one special person in the middle of nowhere.

Such rational thinkers were spurned by society at-large, especially by those in power who wanted to maintain the status quo. They preferred simple stuff, like black or white, good or evil, patriot or traitor, moral or immoral, chosen or untouchables, with us or against us, god or devil, bad/no healt hcare or communism. Easy choices. Not much brain power required for the answers. Gut feelings and thruthiness trumped all contrarian evidence. Those people kept consuming myths that had no factual basis but these myths were the guiding principles for decision-making on important matters. Their leaders played upon their fears, illusions and delusions with much success. It got to a point that Republicans in the US became like obstinate little brats refusing to grow up.

Fortunately over time, many more people accepted a reality-based world and demanded change; all sorts of change. They challenged the ways traditional society was formed and those ruled over it by fiat. They demanded that meaningful freedom was good because it fostered thining persons and helped create favorable conditions for people to pursue their own bliss. The also realized that their society should be organized for the benefit of most members not just the few. Social justice became desirable. That their government should represent the people's interests and that such a vested authority had an important role to play. That the people's government did not cede the responsibility of a social contract to private corporations.

Such an enlightened polity believed that not everything had to be evaluated by being submitted to the "monied principle of profit." Interestingly enough those who preferred the marketplace as the best arbitror of ecomic acitivity and human behavior were against prostitution and recreational drug use!

....

[to be continued]



PS. August 14th is celebrated for Hans Christian Orsted who in 1820 noticed that an electric current generated a magnetic field. This observation was put to practical use; it the principle behind electric motors and for parts of the machine you're using to read this today. Orsted founded a society devoted to spreading scientific knowledge among the public. Despite the advances of modern science and all sorts of verifiable knowledge, many people continue to live in the Dark Ages preferring superstition and ignorance to enlightenment.

Health Care Reform: The Devil is in the Details!

"It`s just about -- it`s about money. It`s about money, because when you have 72 percent of the American people thinking that they should have the choice instead of Congress, this is about money. And the insurance industry gives out of a lot of money.

....And, you know, this is going to be a hell of an issue in 2010 because -- you know, honestly, what`s the point of having a 60-vote majority in the United States Senate if you can`t produce health insurance reform out of it?"

Howard Dean

UPDATE, 7/28.
I frequently put up Jon Stewart clips here, because he often manages to illustrate important points on vital issues in our country. Under the guise of a comedy show, he interviews newsmakers in a way that anyone can understand what the issue is about. Health care reform--with a strong public option that covers everyone--is topic #1 right now. There's lots of misinformation, a strong campaign to kill any reform [and leave the status quo for the benefit of?..], and a Republican party that has decided to offer nothing else but a big fat "NO" to anything sensible.

Bill Kristol is a pundit who's got most things totally wrong, plus he advocates extreme ideas--and very wrong ideas. Yet, apparently it doesn't matter what you say as long as you represent vigorously one side. We need to be "fair & balanced" so give the flat-earthers, con artists, and idiots their share of respectability in a debate. Kristol is among those who don't want any health care reform and has urged the Repubs to kill any Dem bill. Repubs have been saying that health care reform will be Obama's "Waterloo." They have offered no alternative plan or made any sensible proposal. What we hear is labeling ("socialism," "no choice," and, yes, "fascism") and a campaign to scare & confuse the public.

I think now Obama understands that he can't have any support from the conservatives, that they want him to fail at any cost, and he's learning that eventually it will be his (and the Dems') work that will be judged by the voters. Let the conservatives cater to their shrinking political by playing the "birther" card! [They won't accept that Obama is a US native born!]

Stewart makes Kristol admit the logical: that the government (when appropriate) can deliver better services than the private sector! That our soldiers get a (dare I call it, socialized) universal health care coverage that's better than what the insurance companies give the rest of us! The American public doesn't deserve what the military get, Kristol said!....

Watch this clip:


_______________________________________________


[Original post, 7/16/09]

Without a strong public option, no health care reform should take place. I'm glad to hear that many progressive Dems in Congress are going to oppose anything that does not contain the public option and universal health care coverage.

A couple more points. Forget the Repubs. Pass a good bill with a simple majority--no GOP votes needed. The conservatives have opposed all good things we take for granted today.... from Social Security, Medicare, labor rights, consumer protection, national parks and electrification.. just to mention a few. Health care should be a right not a privilege.

Profit is a motivating force and it can be a good one when is appropriate. However, we should not privatize everything because we can't analyze everything on a cost-profit basis, according to the marketplace standards. For example, national parks, libraries, police, firefighters, basic education, armed forces, health care, and ..monitoring volcanoes, should be publicly funded. The reasons for this should be self-evident (unless you're a conservative in the US).

Again, members of Congress are well-off people who nevertheless enjoy the best coverage paid by the government. Why should they enjoy something the rest of America can't? The political situation is favorable right now for a comprehensive reform; the public wants it with a ..public option. I don't understand Obama's strategy. He will not get any Repub support on this or any other meaningful refore. This GOP is very regressive and coallescing around the most conservative and backward elements.

Mr. President, make this brand of politics obsolete. Take a few lessons from FDR. Forget about bi-partisanship if it means sacrificing good options. Clinton passed his balanced budge with 1 vote majority. That's all you need. You will get the credit or the blame for this and other policies during your tenure. Getting a few Repubs votes (very unlikely anyway) won't help you in the long run. As a matter of fact, show some strong leadership and show them--as they did in 2001 with their Congressional majorities and with Bush in the White House--that elections have consequences. The American public resoundly repudiated the Republican party in Congress and gave you big majorities--all within 2 years (2006-2008), a record of a turnaround in Congress.

OK, How to pay for health care? We can't, the Repubs say. No, that's not true. It is a matter of priorities. There's plenty of money, so even if we accept those numbers floating around, like the $1 trillion in the next 10 years, $200 billion per year is a bargain. It's a fraction of what we've spent in the Iraq & Afghanistan wars. We're the only country that spends close to 17% of its GDP and leaves 1/3 (or more) either uninsured or under-insured! The closest big spender is Switzerland with 11%. So others have managed to do lots more with less. [Here's a comparison]

Bill Moyers assesses the public option on his Journal blog.

The following video is illuminating too.

I have CIGNA as my health provider. The private organization (non-for-profit) I work for has thousands of employees and, thus, great bargaining power. I haven't made any claims, but think I have an excellent plan that includes vision and dental. I've worked for other companies before, some with puny health care benefits or none at all--so I went with no medical insurance for years.

A progressive culture of life means having certain benefits by being a member of the commonwealth, that the government is of, by, and for the people. Education, health care, access to opportunities, legal equality, are some of the rights an enlightened society affords its citizens.

We try to improve our lives by using the government not as a nanny but as an enabler and a guarantor of certain conditions that allow people to reach their own potential.


*******

UPDATE, 7/18 [instead of opening another topic, this op ed fits here]

The six deadly hypocrites [by Paul Krugman]

Will the destructive center kill health care reform? It looks all too possible.

What’s especially galling is the hypocrisy of their claimed reason for delaying progress — concern about the fiscal burden. After all, in the past most of them have shown no concern at all for the nation’s long-term fiscal outlook.

Case in point: the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which denied Medicare the right to bargain for lower drug prices, locked in overpayments to private insurance companies, and did nothing, nothing at all, to pay for its proposed outlays. How many of these six self-proclaimed defenders of solvency voted no on the crucial procedural vote? One. (Joe Lieberman, to my surprise.)

And let’s not forget that Ben Nelson, who appears to be the ringleader, has fought tooth and nail against competition from a public option — which would almost certainly save a significant amount of money, as well as providing much-needed competition.

If the Gang of Six really does kill reform, remember their names; they will bear the responsibility for vast, unnecessary suffering over the years to come....

Paul Krugman hits another nail on its head. Meanwhile, Politico's Ben Smith has more details: Healthcare Foes Plan Obama's "Waterloo".

The World Ends in 2012. So, What Do We Do With the Advice, "One Orgasm A Day Keeps the Doctor Away" ?

It's the middle of summer, so maybe I should talk about something light. Let's see, oh, on July 14th, the sun will be perfectly aligned on the East-West Manhattan avenues! I drove crosstown (westward) yesterday during sunset and it was blinding! Nice day though. Went to a party that lasted until the cops showed up... But, that's New York City, things happen like that.

Ah, did you know that the world will end in December of 1012? A Google search gets 300,000 pages on the subject. YouTube has over 65,000 videos on the impending doom. Here are a few on a variety of prophesies! [Can you spot the many fallacies there?] There are lots of people out there who believe this, and given the scientific ignorance of the American public, this is no surprise. They claim the proof is in ancient texts, Mayan calculations, pyramids, holy books, etc. Of course, the ancients knew by divine inspiration or something like that. Anyone can predict the end of the world--I'm sure the world will end someday... when the sun burns up its hydrogen supply--but those who make specific predictions of events that will take place in our lifetime are simply idiots or very gifted con artists. Oops, did I offend anyone?

Now if the world ends in a couple years, what do we do with the British National Health Service (that socialist creation) advice, an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away! If it's about health and long life this isn't the advice to have if the world ends in 2012. Building a bomb shelter may be more appropriate. On the other hand, maybe we should cram in as much pleasure as we can before it all ends! What do you think?

Just across from Britain, Ireland now has an anti-blasphemy law! In an earlier post, I wrote an argument in defense of blasphemy, so I won't repeat the same points here. It strikes me as medieval that the church or any religion needs this special privilege. If it's a crime to offend people of faith in Ireland, I would like to see the immediate implementation of this law against all organized religions that say offensive stuff about other religions! Whenever a Xtian says that Islam is a religion of hate, he should be punished. When a Muslim rails against the infidels he should pay for this offense. As for me--knowing that I've already offended many faiths--I won't be visiting Ireland. I would guess that this new law will have very bad effects on Ireland if it's not changed soon.

Let's look at our own mess with the religious fanatics here. The lunatic fringe was not marginal but in charge in the last 8 years. They still wield considerable influence. One of the problems is a political party that supports scientific illiteracy, prejudice, superstition, and attacks on reason & science. I'm not talking about elements in the GOP--the Dems have lots of ignorant people/politicians in their midst--but it's the party's political agenda to promote ignorance and plain stupidity.

Politicians are elected by the people, so it's natural for them to reflect the people's views. However, the fact are what they are--for example, it is the earth that orbits the sun; a fact that is known only by half of Americans--therefore, some leadership is necessary, and we should do better to educate the people. It's unethical and stupid to promote religion--i.e., creationism or "intelligent design"--instead of science! Evolution is a fact, a scientific theory, supported by evidence, has facts, and many disciplines supporting it. The more we find, the more evidence we collect the stronger this theory becomes. If we ever find evidence that contradicts elements or even the entire theory, then we make revisions. It's absurd to claim that if it's written in a holy book it must be true.

I teach a course on Public Myth and Ideology. I understand the power of ideas. I also understand the power of culture, the strong influence of certain images have on identity, and the conservative mind of those who don't know or don't care to know. Less confident people are less prone to revision and even tolerant of other ideas. Being a fan of a sports team is fine; you support it no matter what. But, you can't do the same about other important things in life. If that's how you see the world, then you'll make the wrong decisions about your life and about the direction of the country. I often ask my students, do we, collectively, get what we deserve? What do you think?

The following video is from Charlie Rose and the great Carl Sagan's last appearance on the show. If you haven't read Carl's Demon-Haunted World yet, I recommend you get a copy right away. It's how science illuminates our world and our existence. He would, too, be committing a crime in Ireland though by saying such things...





There is a good book out, Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum. I have to say that I disagree with the authors that blame the atheist scientists for driving (some) people away from science. From early on, the approach should be, learn about the natural world through inquiry and rational thinking. Obviously it's likely that once a person learns the facts, but most importantly learns to base his beliefs on scientific evidence. Atheism is the result of the question: where's the evidence?

Mooney is also the author of The Republican War on Science. If you want to understand how bad it's been in the US read these two books. It's ironic really that a country rich in scientific knowlege and all sorts of achievements because of science and technology has such a disinsterested public. The authors show that it's been like this since our early days. We take pride in the product of our science but we don't know much about it. It's not about high science and obscure ways but about basic stuff, like the age of the earth, evolution, etc.

As Carl Sagan said, science is more than the product. It's the way of thinking, the way of approaching the unknown, obtaining knowledge through inquiry, testing, and open-mindedness. It requires confidence though, in that a person has to be able to make revisions. You can't be a sports fan when it comes to knowledge. Better evidence, better arguments win... and the new theory has ways of amendment; otherwise it's not a scientific theory, it's a dogma. In addition, thinking and searching require effort and time. I hope that many more people find such a journey of discovery worthwhile.

In closing, and since these are the light days of summer, one more video that will make me a criminal in Ireland today... I'm sorry, Bernadette (Bernie) of Donegal Town, I won't be visiting anytime soon...







PS. I started creating this post in my mind after reading Unscientific America around the same time Ireland passed the anti-blasphemy law. Then the news today about disgraced Ralph Reed who wants a new moral Christian Conservative movement in America. Oh, please, God save us... I also read the science blog Pharyngula [highly recommended] that happened to have these 2 videos, so my thanks to PZ Myers.

Paul Krugman to the "Centrist" Dems: This is Not 1993... You're "Way out on Right Field"

Update, 6/24/09. To those members of Congress who oppose the public option: You are wealthy yet you accept the best health care (public option) funded by taxpayers. Why do you believe the rest of Americans don't deserve this choice? At the very least, you should resign from all your public-funded health care benefits until every American has access to same coverage. Yes, it is that simple!
____________

Nobel laureate Paul Krugman is the best voice for compehensive and reasoned universal health care reform. In his New York Times column he sends a message to those self-named "centrists" that they are (along with a good chunk of the Democractic party) way too conservative. It's an interesting question, why these Dems cave in when the public is so far more progressive on the issue of health care...

...The real risk is that health care reform will be undermined by “centrist” Democratic senators who either prevent the passage of a bill or insist on watering down key elements of reform. I use scare quotes around “centrist,” by the way, because if the center means the position held by most Americans, the self-proclaimed centrists are in fact way out in right field.What the balking Democrats seem most determined to do is to kill the public option, either by eliminating it or by carrying out a bait-and-switch, replacing a true public option with something meaningless. For the record, neither regional health cooperatives nor state-level public plans, both of which have been proposed as alternatives, would have the financial stability and bargaining power needed to bring down health care costs.Whatever may be motivating these Democrats, they don’t seem able to explain their reasons in public...

Krugman seems to nail the issue down. We progressives cannot afford to allow the Dem party to drift closer to the lunatic fringe. Let the Repubs stay there to represent the regressive, the small-minded, the religious fanatics, the bigots, and those who want the government to favor the small socio-economic minorities.

..The question now is whether we will nonetheless fail to get that change, because a handful of Democratic senators are still determined to party like it’s 1993.
And yes, I mean Democratic senators. The Republicans, with a few possible exceptions, have decided to do all they can to make the Obama administration a failure. Their role in the health care debate is purely that of spoilers who keep shouting the old slogans — Government-run health care! Socialism! Europe! — hoping that someone still cares.
The polls suggest that hardly anyone does. Voters, it seems, strongly favor a universal guarantee of coverage, and they mostly accept the idea that higher taxes may be needed to achieve that guarantee. What’s more, they overwhelmingly favor precisely the feature of Democratic plans that Republicans denounce most fiercely as “socialized medicine” — the creation of a public health insurance option that competes with private insurers...

What Paul is saying is that the alleged center is no such a thing. A great majority of Americans want socialized medicine. Those who don't want "some government bureaucrat deciding their treatment" should be reminded that, unless they want to spend their own money on a treatment, then it is the insurance bureaucrat that decides when and when they get treatment.

I think the labels ["socialism" etc] must be dispense with clear arguments and by the truth. It's an American value to have empathy, is it not? It's an American value to contribute into the system according to one's ability [progressive taxation is in the US constitution], and, according to the principles of the American revolution and the ones upon which our system was created: the government of, by, and for the people.

PS>Just for the record. I do have a good health care insurance right now, but I care about those who don't, and about those who are underinsured--namely, 1/3 of the country. I'm also sure that Paul Krugman isn't arguing for his own benefit either...

PS2. According to this recent Reuters' study of 100,000 US households Americans struggle to pay for their health care! We're the only advanced country where an individual or a family can go bankrupt due to medical expenses. Lack of health care leads to more deaths, shorter & more painful lives--let's not forget this. Infant mortality is high(er) too... But, abortion and even contraceptives are worse, we're told by the conservatives...

..Americans are struggling to pay for healthcare in the ongoing economic recession, with a quarter saying they have had trouble in the past 12 months, according to a survey released on Monday. ... 17.4 percent of households reported postponing or delaying healthcare over the past year ... Americans pay more per capita for healthcare than people in any other country, yet have high rates of infant mortality, diabetes, untreated heart disease and other conditions. Americans are often dissatisfied with their access to care ... 40 percent of all households planned to postpone care in the coming three months... [Reuters]

Seeing Health Care as a Right and Not as Priviledge Should be the Starting Point

For many years I went without health care coverage. It started when I was in grad school when Blue Cross upped its premium and I couldn't afford it. In the last couple decades, some of my jobs offered health benefits some didn't; during the latter, I hoped that I'd stay healthy, and thankfully I never needed to go to the doctor or a hospital. Now I have coverage, and I've been paying into the system for years without having drawn benefits. But, it's OK, I don't mind. I'm glad I'm healthy, I'm glad I have good options [hey, as far as I know], and I know that I'm paying for others' treatment. I hope this is always the case... Empathy is good.

A few things first. If health care is a priority, then simple logic says that if other less-wealthy countries can do it (yes, Canada's system is superior to ours), then the US can do it too. We tried the private insurance route and it hasn't worked. Medicare--a socialized way to offer coverage to people--is more efficient and much less bureaucratic. After all, if we socialize the risk while privatizing the profit why can't we do it for something that will make Americans live longer, healthier lives.

Obviously, costs must be reduced. The American Medical Association (only a minority of doctors & medical students belong to it; fewer still support its policies) is against any public plan. Well, maybe they could suggest how we can save some big bucks by stopping those doctors from prescribing unnecessary treatments because they get bonuses for such. Something is wrong with spending far more (as % of GDP) than any other nation on health care and yet we have 1/3 of the population uninsured or underinsured.

My sister is in the medical field and earlier this year she lost her job. Her hospital in Queens closed because it wasn't profitable and/or was in the red. It served a poor to middle-class community and it was very busy. The system is overwhelmed. The other hospitals in the borough will be hard pressed to cover the gap. But, health care is a necessary service, like other services an advanced society offers to its citizens. Most doctors, indeed there's a whole big administrative staff, deal with paperwork--some estimates, up to 30% of running a hospital. Infinite amount of bureaucratic maze focusing on fighting, negotiating and getting insurance companies to pay for patients' treatment.

The insurance companies, the HMOs, are in it for the money. They're concerned about the bottom line. That's why they reject a certain number of claims, and they fight to deny benefits and coverage. And, this for-profit mode is part of the problem.

Not everything has to be evaluated on a cost-profit basis; that is, in monetary terms, because society profits from having a healthier population. Some things work better being private, some don't. The police, the fire department, public parks and libraries, and so many other institutions should not be in private hands. They should operate for the public benefit and not for private profit. Therefore, I think health care has to have a public option in it. I know language matters, but we've already have socialized benefits--anytime there's a program open to a greater number of people, it's a form of social policy that benefits the commonwealth. Instead of being shy about certain "red flag" terms, let's explain what they really mean.

I know someone who's been trying to get a good job for years but she's only found low-paying jobs, the per-hour kind, with no health insurance. She's been paying hundreds of dollars every month to maintain health coverage. The other day, I asked her if, hypothetically, she was willing to pay the equivalent of two months worth of premiums in additional taxes in order to insure all Americans. Her reply, "I don't want socialism in my country." Invariably, she repeats the "horrors of the Canadian system." Now, many Americans parrot this conservative mantra, although I'm happy to see that finally most Americans do want change, including greater government role in health care.

Here are some experts from varying viewpoints discussing Obama's proposals, as appeared on the Washington Post's website. Now, I understand why the president wants a public dialogue, but not everyone comes to the table ready for an honest discussion. Most Republicans will opose anything; they'll now vote against the military supplemental spending bill--but when it was Bush's, they accused those who voted against it as "America-haters," and "unpatriotic."

Anyway, Obama has to make a more forceful case and push for a major overhaul of the health care system. Now it's the time. Not so long ago, we had the same rhetoric and charges against Medicare and Veterans benefits. Going back a little further, the conservatives and the big business opposed Social Security, labor laws, safety belts, consumer protection, public education, and so many other good things, including electrification. And, yes, it took bold government action for these to happen. Once it's done, most of the arguments against good-sense policies deflate. It's natural for people to be afraid of the unknown, especially when they hear irresponsible and false claims by those whose interests lie with the status quo.

I would ask all those Republicans (and some Democrats, who hail from conservative states) in Congress who oppose universal health care, why are they so selfish? They have the best coverage but they're not willing to extend the same to their fellow citizens. It's even more offensive if you consider that most members of Congress are wealthy individuals who can afford their own insurance but opt to enjoy a benefit paid by the American taxpayers.




PS. Here's good documentary, PBS Frontline, Sick Around the World, with a comparison of several countries' health care systems.

PS2. Initially, I didn't know what to make of Daschle's nomination to be in charge of health care reform but I gave the benefit of the doubt to Obama for selecting him. Anyway, then we learned that Daschle has worked closely--and at great profit--with those who prefer the status quo. It's a relief not to have him on the "inside" of the Obama team pushing against what most of us want [new poll showing big majority supporting public plan].... Daschle now urges Obama to drop public health care plan! Tsk.. What was Obama thinking? How can he nominate someone like that? In a way, we should be thankful that Daschle cheated on his taxes...

The Republican Ministry of Truth....

George Orwell in his novel, 1984, he described how the Ministry of Truth re-wrote history to fit the current message & policies of the regime. History was just a tool; it wasn't about knowing the past but controlling the future. Obviously a totalitarian regime wants to keep any inconvenient truth under wraps, but revision of history is a phenomenon that flourishes even in open societies where there's freedom of information. How is this possible, you may ask. Well, it's because if enough people choose what the like to hear instead what is, then fantasy is their reality.

Every culture is conservative by nature; tries to preserve the social & economic order, the identity of the group, the "true & tried" ways of the past. Public myths and ideologies support this body of "knowledge." You know that most people never re-examine their most dearly-held beliefs.

Think of a meme [a word coined by Richard Dawkins] that once it reaches a critical mass it becomes "real." Something repeated, adopted by a number of people and it becomes part of "common knowledge." Even if someone really wants to know, he's too busy to find the truth or he's not able to critically evaluate all sorts of claims. He turns to "authorities" and "professionals" for his news and for interpretations of various situations. But, what if the "experts" are lying?...

I generally don't have a problem with people's views. We have different priorities and weigh values differently. But, when such views are based on lies, fantasy, or any crazy idea, then I take issue. It's more infuriating when someone could indeed find out the truth without much effort but chooses not to. So, the Republican noise machine is becoming louder by the day. "Obama declares the US is a Muslim country," "He doesn't take about terrorism to the Muslims," "He'll take all of our guns away," "The Democrats are responsible for 9-11"...., etc.

Cheney says it was Richard Clarke who missed the 9-11 attacks. The whole gang doesn't recall making the connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein... Whatever. The point is that revising history to distort the facts is a bad thing. It's a disservice to our country. We have to know what happened and who did what. Hopefully we won't repeat the same mistakes any time soon; though it seems that every generation has made at least a big mistake...

The other important point is that those who peddle quackery should be relegated to the fringe, not be part of the mainstream conversation. Unfortunately, characters like Limbaugh, O'Liely, Hannity, Coulter, Beck, the whole Republican leadership have currency because many Americans listen to them. As long as many of the natives accept this voodoo magic and rainmen, we will continue to waste our time, energy and resources.

There's lot to be learned from discussion as long as those who come to the table have something meaningful to say. Fair & balanced doesn't mean that we have to keep debating ad nauseum whether the earth is flat!

Observing Memorial Day...

Memorial Day marks the unofficial start of the summer and perhaps makes Americans observe a day of remembrance. But, what is it we're supposed to observe, specifically? Everyone has a sense of patriotism, though, there are many expressions of such. Sensible patriotism means to make sure that we don't waste our blood, sweat and tears. To make sure that we don't commit our troops to an ill-conceived war of choice. To make sure that the citizens are informed about the important issues and that they participate in the civic affairs of their country! We have to look beyond the smoke screen employed by leaders who want to lead a flock of sheep, and the bumper-sticker mentality must be rejected.

When our country must sacrifice, our leaders should do their best to see that this burden is widely shared not based on the shoulders of the least privileged, nor should war be one of choice and an opportunity for a transfer of wealth. Patriotism shouldn't be defined by long & hyperbolic speeches but rather by doing what's best for the commonwealth.

Patriotism is standing up for the truth, and questioning our government. Patriotism is to defend those conditions and civil liberties that have made our country great--not by becoming more like our enemies! Patriotism is to go to war on a necessity (not on a choice based on deception & lies) and when doing so to give our soldiers what they need to accomplish their mission!

Please visit the following links for a better perspective on the war

Iraq Memorial on line (iraqmemorial.org) Family testimonies on the human costs of the war.

The architects of the War--Where are they now? Good question..

Faces of the Fallen. See our dead soldiers' faces, names and brief bios.


We have to face the realities even if they're unpleasant. Even if some of our leaders want this, we shouldn't be "baptized" in Lethe--one of the rivers in Hades that induced complete forgetfulness. This wouldn't be appropriate to the memories of those who were sent to war on false pretences. It wouldn't be appropriate for the rest of us who want to make sure that the US does not become an international bully, conducting unjust wars.

One of the richest counties in the history but our middle class has fallen behind. About 1/3 (if not more) of us have no health insurance or are dangerously under-insured. Obtaining a higher education is becoming more difficult. Regretfully, the US is a militaristic society; military expenditures are the biggest item on the federal budget by far. We're spending more that all the countries in the world combined! This must change.

And, speaking of memorials and memories... Part of life is creating memories; they are part of our unique individual and collective identities. A progressive culture of life means creating the conditions whereas people can better achieve their own potential. It's about having a happy, long and healthy life. Enjoy this life in the here and now, and don't ever buy into the view that reward or punishment may come after death.

Remember, fewer memorials might be a good thing; more pleasant memories are definitely a great thing to have. Let's work on this...

Education Means More than Getting a Paper Good for Framing

"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?- President Bush, Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000

It's been a long month with lots of work and countless events to attend. Now it's come to a screeching hold. But, that's the life in the academia. I like it though. A few days ago, I attended the commencement ceremonies and it was the culmination of a long journey for the graduating students. Actually I felt proud for some of them that I got to know more closely over the past 4 years. Even though I will never see them again, I felt I had played a positive role in their young lives. I wish all of them well.

In some sense, it was my moment too, because I started working at that university about four years ago, so I have a few things in common with the graduating class. Our paths will now separate, and I'll go back to the same classrooms next autumn. This is not just a job and I hope I maintain this spirit, which is lost among several of my colleagues.


I often ponder the question of education. It can't possibly be the training of an individual to perform specific tasks. Yes, we do need the scientists, the professionals, the experts, but we need critical thinkers. People who can connect the dots, make sense of the information, explore new paths, are very much needed as well. A learned person is one who has the intellectual curiosity to inquire and the confidence to amend.

Otherwise, we produce automatons, who are highly skilled and specialized--and even though they help our collective progress, they don't get to fully realize their intellectual potential. Education may be the key to many good things, but we should remember that the ultimate goal of education is not a piece of paper good-for-framing; it's to become a learned person--a quest that lasts a lifetime.

The Absurdity of Not Understanding What Science Is

Education should be an equalizing force--that is, give the individual the means to upward mobility--in a society, especially in the US where the gap between the classes is growing especially fast under the Bush administration. Actually, the mobility myth is just that. The rules of the game are being fixed in favor of the established elites, and it's getting harder for Americans to move up the socio-economic ladder.

There is another phenomenon today that's creating another gap: between those who have access to information and those who don't. Education and information are empowering, therefore, access to them is imperative especially for those who don't have a panoply of means.

It's nice to see adults in the White House who speak to us in complete sentences and appeal to our intellect--not to our worst primitive emotions. It's nice to see the President placing an emphasis on education and science. It would be even nicer if our society produced more educated persons; and this means education should be more accessible. If the individual is willing to put the time, energy and effort into this long journey, the price of admission shouldn't be so high as to be a barricade to progress.

We have a problem doing things pro-actively, planning ahead, saving money in the long term. Instead of prevention and reducing ill effects, we try to solve our problems when the symptoms are dire. People in school, for example, are less likely to become a public charge. Access to health care (prevention and early detection included) makes for a healthier population--and the savings are clear.

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." President G.W. Bush —Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000

A Reminder on Mother's Day: Raising Humanity one Child at a Time

Happy Mother's Day!

If we want to make our mothers happy, we should celebrate them more than one day, and, generally speaking, we should strive to elevate the position of women everywhere in the world.

Linguist George Lakoff in his book, Moral Politics, talks about the strict disciplinarian father and the nurturing mother as two different models of government. Lakoff suggests that we need more of the mother model--which is preferred by the progressives. The conservatives appeal to people's belief in a strict father; and it seems, that many people need the rigid structure in their lives as they prefer to follow than lead.

Mothers have played a greater role than fathers in raising the generations of humans. They're the keepers of the culture--even if this often means discriminating and prejudicial practices against themselves! But, without their long investment in our well-being, humanity would not have survived.

We do need a progressive culture of life, whereas family values have a true meaning...

Not when the government or religion try to control a woman's reproductive choices... Or, when the emphasis is on the cellular level (before and at conception) but afterward mother and child are left with no social support for survival...

Not when women are treated as chattel and as vessels for procreation. On the contrary, a true culture of life means pre-natal care, full health care coverage for mother & child; it means good educational opportunities for the children too.

Since societies became militaristic, women were relegated to the bottom of the social ladder and their duty & self-fulfillment was to be found by serving their husbands. This has to change fast. For goodness' sake, we've come a long way to the 21st century; at least we should bring all humanity to the present and not leave them in the past!

We hear about family values but we see little in the way of policy that actually promotes those conditions that enhance family life when it matters! Family values should mean a much lower infant mortality. In the world today, every minute, a mother dies due to childbirth complications. Her children die of malaria and other preventable diseases by the millions. But, even before a woman becomes a mother, she can greatly benefit from formal education. An educated mother is less likely to totally depend on her husband, less likely to get AIDS (and more likely to be healthy), and less likely to have too many children.

Some of the conditions in the developing world are appalling. Yet, poverty, hunger, and preventable diseases are not strange to American mothers either. The US is a much better place than the Third Wold, but we do have the weakest social safety net among the advanced democratic countries! The indicators of the health of the nation tell a sad story: we're number 37 on the World Health Organization's list.

The bottom line is this: we honor motherhood by treating our mothers well. It makes sense, doesn't it? Better mothers & better conditions for motherhood and we all benefit. After all, we exist because we were the recipients of our mothers' nurturing and love. That's a smart culture of life, and good family values!

Domestic violence kills and injures more people in the developing world than war, cancer or traffic accidents

By looking at the condition of women in a given country, you can tell a great deal about that country--its economy, politics, and culture.


Mother's Day is this Sunday but I'd like the celebration to be more than one day. I have a problem when people become romantic just because it's Valentine's Day, or remember their mother because it's Mother's Day. I believe it has to be a way of life, an attitude to behave nicely, to be an enlightened person, to treat other human beings with respect and afford them dignity. Unfortunately, not every country is a liberal democracy [the only truly free society we know today], and many haven't arrived at the 21st century yet...

Motherhood cannot be separated from the condition of women in the world today.
UK's The Independent has a great article about that condition. The British government in cooperation with human rights groups have found some very disturbing facts:

• Two-thirds of the world's 800 million illiterate adults are women as girls are not seen as worth the investment, or are busy collecting water or firewood or doing other domestic chores.


• Two million girls aged from five to 15 join the commercial sex market every year.


• Domestic violence kills and injures more people in the developing world than war, cancer or traffic accidents.


• Seventy per cent of the world's poorest people are women.


• Violence against women causes more deaths and disabilities among women aged 15 to 44 than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents or war.


• Women produce half the world's food, but own less than two per cent of the land.


• Of the more than one billion people living in extreme poverty, 70 per cent are women.


• Almost a third of the world's women are homeless or live in inadequate housing.


• Half of all murdered women are killed by their current or former husbands or partners.


• Every minute a woman dies as a result of pregnancy complications.


• Women work two-thirds of the world's working hours, yet earn only a tenth of its income.


• One woman in three will be raped, beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime.


• 43 million girls are not able to go to school.


• In 2007, one million HIV-positive women died of AIDS-related illnesses because they could not get the drugs they needed.


• Human Rights Watch, in reports on 15 countries including Afghanistan, Brazil, Morocco, Papua New Guinea, Togo and South Africa, has identified violence against schoolgirls, child domestic workers and those in conflict with the law as on the rise.


• Women across the developing world are the victims of systematic abuse.

I know that, in my lifetime, I propably won't see a world where true humanism and enlightenment are universally practiced, but for every life we change today, we can affect thousands in the future. Yes, every person can make a positive difference, big or small. Oscar Schindler saved about 1,200 human beings, who went on to have families, children, grandchildren, and so forth, for generations. I think it's rather basic, it's respect for human life, in the here & now, when it actually matters!

Women are our mothers. They deserve everything, and more, than we--the children, the men--enjoy today. It makes sense, it's good for the world, it's humane!

Added, 5/10:
This song is about a man bidding farewell to his mother..