No words. Just listen...

What do you think about what Michael Savage asked his audience to do? (Gotcha! You gotta listen to the whole thing to hear it!)

Now watch what Ed Schultz said about it.

Is this representative of our Freedom of Speech or is this an invitation towards something more violent? Do we need to protect Savage's right to say what he did or should there be some limitations on it?

What do you think?

Ed Schultz is one of the few media members who is consistently using his soap box in support of single-payer health care. That's one reason why I'm a big fan of both his radio show and his tv show! If you have never heard the Ed Show on the radio, he allows anyone to call in. Democracy in action! All voices get heard.

Thus, today as I was listening, Ed had a couple of conservative callers take to the mic. The first one, Michael, demanded to know from Ed who had no health care in this country. He insisted that it was a 'few' and not a big deal. Since 'most' had insurance, there was no need for an overhaul of the system. He felt that the few without insurance could be tucked into existing programs. And he was confident since we were 'already forced to pay for illegal alien's health care' that there were no others who might possibly be uninsured.

I can honestly say that I was so enraged inspired to call and rebut his talking points. He wanted a list of 'non-aliens' who were uninsured, then I'd give it to him!!!

So I dialed away until eventually I got through.

"Would you like to talk to Ed?" his call screener said.

"Yes, I'd love to speak to Ed in response to Michael's call."

So.....

The fight is on for universal health care coverage for all. But this is not a new fight; it's a fight that's been taking place since FDR attempted it in the 1940's and that was renewed once again by Bill and Hillary Clinton in the 1990s.

Smart fighters learn from the past, and let me tell you, the past in this case involves many of the same players who are still around to create havoc with health care reform now! So, let's look at what happened in the 1990s and see what happened to derail universal health care back then and then we can strategize how to preemptively block those attacks this time.

A long time ago, a newly elected President and his wife created a task force to bring to the USA its first national universal public health care system--a system that would cover everyone. The year was 1992, and the First Lady, in an unprecedented move, was asked to lead the commission which would bring health care for all.

Conservatives, libertarians, and the health insurance industry fought voraciously against Hillary Clinton's plan which they condescending dubbed as Hillary-care. In a highly orchestrated move, William Kristol and his policy group Project for the Republican Future, created a series of "policy memos" which were faxed to Republican leaders. Then Republicans and their pundits sent their missives to the print media and the networks. They made numerous appearances across the media outlets.

According to the Wikipedia, the Heritage Foundation argued:

"the Clinton Administration is imposing a top-down, command-and-control system of global budgets and premium caps, a superintending National Health Board and a vast system of government sponsored regional alliances, along with a panoply of advisory boards, panels, and councils, interlaced with the expanded operations of the agencies of Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Labor, issuing innumerable rules, regulations, guidelines, and standards."

As the Clintons continued to press forward with their task force, more organizations took aim.

The Health Insurance Association of America paid 12 million for the highly effective Harry and Loise ad. This ad was integral in convincing the public that the plan was too bureaucratic, too complex, and too disorganized to succeed. They convinced people to be frightened of it.

Other news media like Time, CBS News, CNN, the Wall Street Journal and the Christian Science Monitor ran stories that questioned if there were indeed a health-care crisis or if Hillary and Bill Clinton were just wasting tax payer dollars.

Op-eds against it were published in major newspapers.

And even the Democratic party and the 'left' didn't pledge their support to the task force's plans because they wanted single-payer government sponsored, universal health care.

According to William G. Weisser in his book Governing Health, over 70 million dollars was spent in 90s to make sure the for-profit health care insurance would remain safe and secure and to see that Hillary-Care would fail.

There is a saying, 'Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.' The more things change, the more they stay the same. The same could be said in this case as well. Today, we have a health care crisis in our country. We have a popular president and a Democratic Congress. We have the potential for reform on the table. But we also have the same powerful Republican-controlled media. We have the same big corporations and their lobbyists trying to stymie strong (and real) legislation. We have the same DC-players (our duly elected and taxpayer paid) Senators and Congressmen trying to save their own hides instead of trying to save our hides.

So as activists, and as humanitarians, what are you willing to do to make sure that a new version of a Harry and Loise ad doesn't bring us more of the same?

Let's talk and then let's get rolling!

I don't know if any of you caught the recent Newsweek article titled "Paper Money: Newspapers aren't assets to be stripped, leveraged and flipped." But, unfortunately I have. And I had a feeling, before I ever even read it, I was about to read an article that was completely full of shit. And Newsweek did not disappoint my expectation of a total load of crap.

In the article, they discussed the 'flipping' of newspapers, and the sometimes 'criminal' acts of bad management. And basically declared the 'business model" of all these 'newspapers' was ultimately 'unviable'. Oh man, how they did try to avoid the truth of it all, and in doing so, they perfectly demonstrated why organizations like theirs are 'failing'. Not once in the entire article did they address the fact that newspapers and the MSM as a whole are failing, because no one actually expects them to report the truth anymore.

(Ed note: Today's thread header was submitted by Woz.)

Yesterday I read an article that alarmed me because it seems to go against the pledge made to Americans by President Obama. Truth. In these few early days with Obama, we are getting more Truth than we've had from any president in my lifetime. Truth. Without it, what do we have? Suspicion? Excuses? Forgiveness?

Just over a week ago, on a train going to Barcelona, I met a young man whose family had emigrated to New Zealand from Iraq after the first gulf war when he was just 8 years old. He remembered the first war. He was there. He was unashamed in his anger towards the Americans and told many stories of his relatives' lives having been turned upside down and looted by Americans in uniform right now. Still today. He told me of things last week, last month, last year. We've all read the horror stories. This young man witnessed some of them many years ago. Truth. His country/men/women want the world to know the Truth.

So, I cringed when I read this article.

DanceObama: The Pulse for Peace

Over the next few days, change is a gonna come. The change is overt: a new President, a new administration, and it is as-yet-undefined. Some startling clues exist, however: pictures of dead children in Gaza horrify us, creating the clear loud message that brutality and carnage, no matter under what guise, are not to be tolerated. A pilot saves 155 people with calm and skill that reassures us that not all disasters end in total loss and that paying attention and thinking clearly actually works sometimes. A gay bishop and a rightwing preacher both celebrate a new government that is not catering to any one constituency but appears to want to cut a swath across all, and maybe even elevate the country to a higher moral ground, without privileging one belief system or lifestyle over another.

The train rolled into town yesterday, bringing a newly-forceful but always thoughtful guy to lead the changes. He did not bring the change with him on the trip, nor will he deliver it to us with his inaugural address. But over the next few days, through music , art, dancing, sharing food and warmth, change will come to us.

We will create it.

DanceObama: The Pulse for Peace is one of many events planned for Washington DC. It has also inspired people in Boston, Chicago and California to join in, at their own times, in their own celebrations of manifesting hope and change through music and dance. The event in DC is open to all, for a donation of $15.00, and it will happen at the Peace Mural Gallery at 3336 M. St in Georgetown from 4-6 pm Monday, in the midst of stunning paintings by the artist Huong. Hot drinks and small food will be served, and we will have drummers, dancers, and music to move to.

Over 100 years ago, a man named Rudolf Laban began to devise ways of bringing people together through specifically created participatory dance events called movement choirs, in which each person contributed to a communal celebration of harmony. By finding the universal pulse for change, individual voices and collective joy can be heard across the world, calling each of us to thoughtful, aware, and considered action.

Some of the music that we will be using for this event:

Sweet Honey in the Rock: “We Are the Ones We’ve Been Waiting For”

Kanye West: “Love Train”

Sly and the Family Stone: “Everyday People”

Cat Stevens: “Peace Train”

John Lennon: “Imagine”

Johnny Clegg: “Life is a Magic Thing”

Seal: “A Change is Gonna Come” (or any version)

The Pointer Sisters: “Yes We Can, Can”

U2: “Beautiful Day”

If you can, come down to Georgetown on Monday afternoon and be a part of starting the pulse with us. If you can’t, put on the music, be inspired, and begin to move with us. Together we cross the threshold into a new way of being in the world: as agents of our own lives and stewards for peace and hope everywhere.

I came across an interesting article that discussed the way new laws have allowed people or local governments to collect cash damages from gangs or hate organizations. According to the article gangs in LA, organizations such as the Mafia and the KKK and Aryan Nation, have lost assets for damages resulting from their violent crimes.

Daniel B. Wood of the A.P. wrote:

The city of Los Angeles, plagued by 23,000 violent gang crimes since 2004, including 784 murders and 12,000 felony assaults, announced Tuesday that it had won its first civil judgment, for $5 million, against a criminal gang that had dominated the heroin trade downtown for decades.

The verdict could bode well for another first-of-its-kind lawsuit the city filed last month that goes after all assets of gang leaders, not just those associated with their criminal activity. Both suits seek to plow the money back into improving the neighborhoods affected by the gangs through a fund.

"By giving prosecutors more tools to fight gang activity at the local level, we are protecting our communities at the same time [that] we're able to strengthen our statewide anti-gang efforts," said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in a statement released with the announcement of the $5 million verdict against the 5th and Hill gang in L.A.

There have been other positive outcomes according to the same article:

The tactic of trying to cripple organizations by taking away their assets has been commonly used against the mafia. More recently, it has been used against white supremacist organizations. In 2000, the Southern Poverty Law Center won a $6.3 million verdict against the Aryan Nations that forced the organization to give up its 20-acre compound in Idaho.

The center won its most recent case last November, getting $2.5 million from the Imperial Klans of America on behalf of a teenager assaulted by Klan members in rural Kentucky.

Looks like a win-win situation, doesn't it?

However, a reminder that we all don't think alike comes from the opponents of these laws who claim that these actions will create racial profiling and will go against our civil liberties.

Austen Parrish, vice dean for academic affairs and professor of law at Southwestern University School of Law, Los Angeles gives some arguments against these laws. (from the same article)

The new law, too, "may raise significant civil rights issues depending on how it's used," Mr Parrish adds.

Unlike with organized groups, street gang members may be hard to identify.

"Gangs are not like a corporation with a company house and car. There are potentially lots of arguments over who is in the gang and what that means," says Peter Bibring, staff attorney for the Southern California chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union

Which argument convinces you more? And is this an instance of the common good pre-empting possible racial profiling? Or is one argument stronger than the other in your opinion? Your opinion might differ depending on your proximity or experience with gangs or hate groups.

What do you think?

A mixed bag of news for our first open thread.

Main headlines:

• The Israel and the Palestinian conflict continues. U.S. joins calls for a cease fire.



• Al Franken will be certified as the new Senator in Minnesota. The MN Supreme Court has unanimously rejected Norm Coleman's lawsuit to restart the counting of improperly-rejected absentee ballots
• U.S. asks other nations to take in Guantanamo inmates.
• Obama, GOP, and Congress haggle over an economic stimulus package.

Today leaves us fifteen more days until we have an active and intelligent President and Congress. Fifteen more days of a lame duck President and a Congressional session that saw the biggest filibuster record ever.

So...what's on your mind as we await a new tomorrow?

So we thought it would be a great idea to do some Spine thank-you cards just before the holidays. We began with Sheila Bair, the head of the FDIC, who stood up for families losing their homes:

Moving along to Barney Frank, for suggesting a 25% cut in military spending might really be OK, and might prevent further mayhem.

And then, Jerrold Nadler for realizing that criminal behavior ought to be punished, not pardoned:

Lest you think we just sit around here in DC, eating bon-bons.

Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, and love to all!

Obama: "We Will Value 'Science' And 'Facts' "

In the next few years, the choices that we make will help determine the kind of country - and world - that we will leave to our children and grandchildren. All of us know the problems rooted in our addiction to foreign oil - it constrains our economy, shifts wealth to hostile regimes, and leaves us dependent on unstable regions. These urgent dangers are eclipsed only by the long-term threat of climate change, which - unless we act - will lead to drought and famine abroad, devastating weather patterns and terrible storms on our shores, and the disappearance of our coastline at home.

For over three decades, we've listened to a growing chorus of warnings about our energy dependence. We've heard President after President promise to chart a new course. We've heard Congress talk about energy independence, only to pull up short in the face of opposition from special interests. We've seen Washington launch policy after policy. Yet our dependence on foreign oil has only grown, even as the world's resources are disappearing.

This time must be different. This time we cannot fail, nor be lulled into complacency simply because the price at the pump has - for now - gone down from $4 a gallon. To control our own destiny, America must develop new forms of energy and new ways of using it. This is not a challenge for government alone - it is a challenge for all of us. The pursuit of a new energy economy requires a sustained, all-hands-on-deck effort because the foundation of our energy independence is right here, in America - in the power of wind and solar; in new crops and new technologies; in the innovation of our scientists and entrepreneurs, and the dedication and skill of our workforce. Those are the resources we must harness to move beyond our oil addiction and create a new, hybrid economy.

As we face this challenge, we can seize boundless opportunities for our people. We can create millions of jobs, starting with a 21st Century Economic Recovery Plan that puts Americans to work building wind farms, solar panels, and fuel-efficient cars. We can spark the dynamism of our economy through long term investments in renewable energy that will give life to new businesses and industries, with good jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced. We will make public buildings more efficient, modernize our electric grid, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and protect and preserve our natural resources.

We must also recognize that the solution to global climate change must be global. I spoke a few days ago with Senator John Kerry, who updated me on the recent climate negotiations in Poland. Just as we work to reduce our own emissions, we must forge international solutions to ensure that every nation is doing its part. As we do so, America will lead not just at the negotiating table - we will lead, as we always have, through innovation and discovery; through hard work and the pursuit of a common purpose.

The team that I have assembled here today is uniquely suited to meet the great challenges of this defining moment. They are leading experts and accomplished managers, and they are ready to reform government and help transform our economy so that our people are more prosperous, our nation is more secure, and our planet is protected.