By Michael R. Blood (Associated Press, 2007-07-31)
LOS ANGELES (AP) - A Republican-backed ballot proposal could split left-leaning California between the Democratic and GOP nominees, tilting the 2008 presidential election in favor of the Republicans.
California awards its cache of 55 electoral votes to the statewide winner in presidential elections - the largest single prize in the nation. But a prominent Republican lawyer wants to put a proposal on the ballot that would award the statewide winner only two electoral votes.
The rest would be distributed to the winning candidate in each of the state's congressional districts. In effect, that would create 53 races, each with one electoral vote up for grabs.
California has voted Democratic in the last four presidential elections. But the change - if it qualifies for one of two primary ballots next year and is approved by voters - would mean that a Republican would be positioned the following November to snatch 20 or more electoral votes in GOP-leaning districts.
That's a number equal to winning Ohio....
Democratic consultant Chris Lehane called the plan "an effort to rig the system in order to fix the election.''
"If this change is made, it will virtually guarantee that a Republican wins the White House in 2008,'' Lehane said
Nineteen of the state's 53 congressional districts are represented by Republicans. President Bush carried 22 districts in 2004, while losing the statewide vote by double digits....
The rest of the story.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although this proposal is being made in order to help the national Republicans in case of a close race in the electoral college, it is clearly more democratic than the current winner-take-all system. But even better would be proportional representation; not only would apportioning the vote on the basis of the real tally be fairer to Democratic and Republican voters, but it would mean that voters who support Green, Peace and Freedom, or independent candidates could send their delegates to the electoral college where, again if a race is close, they might turn out to be decisive. -- J.
Planning: The McMansion - Threat or Menace
Planners Move to Close Window on US 'McMansions' in the Guardian is about city and county governments finally getting wise, a decade or so late, to the possibility that building houses of 10,000 square feet for two people might not be such a wise thing for maintaining scale, husbanding resources, and keeping communities connected other than by three-hour freeway commutes (although, when you think about it, the same logic applies to single-family homes of any size). The development may mean more trouble for those invested in the struggling housing market, but for the rest of us it's welcome news.
The rest of the story: The Guardian.
In Boulder County, Colorado, which has recently adopted measures to cap the size of new homes, houses have grown from an average of 3,900 square feet in 1990 to 6,300 square feet last year.Now if we can just pass the Stop Building Cheap, Crappy Condos Act, we'll really be getting somewhere.
Last month in Los Angeles, the city's planning commission passed a motion to restrict the size of new homes. If the city council adopts the measure it could affect 300,000 properties in the city. Similar measures have been adopted in Minneapolis and in Florida.
"I think people are suspicious of development in the US right now," says John Chase, architecture critic and urban designer for the city of West Hollywood. "People have an unconscious cultural association with a place. Mansion-building takes away from a person's sense of the identity of a place."
The rest of the story: The Guardian.
Iraq: Active-duty officer takes on the generals (Armed Forces Journal)
A private who loses a rifle suffers far greater consequences than a general who loses a war. -- Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, U.S.Army.
This essay by Army lieutenant colonel and Iraq veteran Paul Yingling recently published in Armed Forces Journal is a sizzling indictment of the cadre of military yes-men Bush has chosen to run his war. There is dissent, and there is informed dissent. We have a well-trained military, as this essay shows, but the White House, always with the compliance of most members of Congress, Republican or Democrat, has shown little inclination to listen to their advice.
A failure in generalship by Lt. Col. Paul Yingling
You officers amuse yourselves with God knows what buffooneries and never dream in the least of serious service. This is a source of stupidity which would become most dangerous in case of a serious conflict. -- Frederick the Great
For the second time in a generation, the United States faces the prospect of defeat at the hands of an insurgency. In April 1975, the U.S. fled the Republic of Vietnam, abandoning our allies to their fate at the hands of North Vietnamese communists. In 2007, Iraq's grave and deteriorating condition offers diminishing hope for an American victory and portends risk of an even wider and more destructive regional war.
These debacles are not attributable to individual failures, but rather to a crisis in an entire institution: America's general officer corps. America's generals have failed to prepare our armed forces for war and advise civilian authorities on the application of force to achieve the aims of policy. The argument that follows consists of three elements. First, generals have a responsibility to society to provide policymakers with a correct estimate of strategic probabilities. Second, America's generals in Vietnam and Iraq failed to perform this responsibility. Third, remedying the crisis in American generalship requires the intervention of Congress.
Armies do not fight wars; nations fight wars. War is not a military activity conducted by soldiers, but rather a social activity that involves entire nations. Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz noted that passion, probability and policy each play their role in war. Any understanding of war that ignores one of these elements is fundamentally flawed.
The rest of the story: Armed Forces Journal
This essay by Army lieutenant colonel and Iraq veteran Paul Yingling recently published in Armed Forces Journal is a sizzling indictment of the cadre of military yes-men Bush has chosen to run his war. There is dissent, and there is informed dissent. We have a well-trained military, as this essay shows, but the White House, always with the compliance of most members of Congress, Republican or Democrat, has shown little inclination to listen to their advice.
A failure in generalship by Lt. Col. Paul Yingling
You officers amuse yourselves with God knows what buffooneries and never dream in the least of serious service. This is a source of stupidity which would become most dangerous in case of a serious conflict. -- Frederick the Great
For the second time in a generation, the United States faces the prospect of defeat at the hands of an insurgency. In April 1975, the U.S. fled the Republic of Vietnam, abandoning our allies to their fate at the hands of North Vietnamese communists. In 2007, Iraq's grave and deteriorating condition offers diminishing hope for an American victory and portends risk of an even wider and more destructive regional war.
These debacles are not attributable to individual failures, but rather to a crisis in an entire institution: America's general officer corps. America's generals have failed to prepare our armed forces for war and advise civilian authorities on the application of force to achieve the aims of policy. The argument that follows consists of three elements. First, generals have a responsibility to society to provide policymakers with a correct estimate of strategic probabilities. Second, America's generals in Vietnam and Iraq failed to perform this responsibility. Third, remedying the crisis in American generalship requires the intervention of Congress.
Armies do not fight wars; nations fight wars. War is not a military activity conducted by soldiers, but rather a social activity that involves entire nations. Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz noted that passion, probability and policy each play their role in war. Any understanding of war that ignores one of these elements is fundamentally flawed.
The rest of the story: Armed Forces Journal
Business As Usual: Officials deny there's a link of gaining lobbyist access by giving to top lawmakers' cause (Sacramento Bee)
According to a report in the Sacramento Bee, health industry-related organizations have contributed at least a half a million dollars this year to a ballot initiative intended to ease term limits. It probably comes as no surprise to you that the beneficiaries of this largess are the very lawmakers in charge of the health care overhaul under consideration in the capitol.
Hospitals, drug companies, doctors, dentists and others with a stake in the health care debate, according to the Bee, have put up about a fifth of the roughly $2.6 million collected by those advocating a change in the 1990 term limits law. The measure, if passed by voters Feb. 5, would lower from 14 to 12 the total number of years a lawmaker could serve, but also would allow Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata to remain in their leadership posts for up to six and four years, respectively, beyond 2008.
Even though the don't officially support the measure, some donors from the health care industry are giving directly to the term limits committee, which is run by Núñez's top political adviser.
One donor admits his organization gave to guarantee access to the top players in health care reform. "The whole system of campaign fundraising is such that you have a (political action committee) because you want to get access to people," said Gary Robinson, the executive director of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, which gave $5,000 to the term limits measure in late June. "I think everybody's contribution relates to the ability to go to the fundraisers and meet the staff and the members," Robinson said.
Team Núñez, on the other hand, doesn't see a problem.
Hospitals, drug companies, doctors, dentists and others with a stake in the health care debate, according to the Bee, have put up about a fifth of the roughly $2.6 million collected by those advocating a change in the 1990 term limits law. The measure, if passed by voters Feb. 5, would lower from 14 to 12 the total number of years a lawmaker could serve, but also would allow Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata to remain in their leadership posts for up to six and four years, respectively, beyond 2008.
Even though the don't officially support the measure, some donors from the health care industry are giving directly to the term limits committee, which is run by Núñez's top political adviser.
One donor admits his organization gave to guarantee access to the top players in health care reform. "The whole system of campaign fundraising is such that you have a (political action committee) because you want to get access to people," said Gary Robinson, the executive director of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, which gave $5,000 to the term limits measure in late June. "I think everybody's contribution relates to the ability to go to the fundraisers and meet the staff and the members," Robinson said.
Team Núñez, on the other hand, doesn't see a problem.
The War: W.Hollywood Council Unanimously Adopts Resolution in Support of the Impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney
[While under normal circumstances I agree that the Santa Monica city council should stick to local issues and not spend its time on resolutions to save the redwoods or nuke the whales, these are not normal times. The very active local peace movement should follow up West Hollywood's action and get the Santa Monica council to go on record in support of the impeachment of Bush and Cheney for their various crimes, although the best reason to get rid of them is to prevent future debacles, like attacking Iran (according to press reports -- see, Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iraq -- the Vice has talked the Little President into war with Iran as soon as a pretext can be manufactured). - jg]
West Hollywood makes history in becoming the first city in Southern California to pass an impeachment resolution (press release)
"The City of West Hollywood was the first City to oppose the war in Iraq, as it was obvious that the United States was being dragged into a war under false pretenses," said West Hollywood Mayor John Duran. "Now the truth is out. Our President and Vice President misled the country and failed the American people, and for those reasons they should be impeached," he continued.
"The time has come to call for impeachment," said West Hollywood Councilmember Abbe Land. "Bush and Cheney lied to Congress and the American public on the justifications for the Iraq war, conducted illegal wiretaps of American citizens and violated the Geneva Convention by torturing prisoners of war. The U.S. Constitution provides a mechanism to hold them accountable. West Hollywood is proud to add its voice to the growing movement across the nation in calling for a full investigation to be undertaken by the U.S. Congress," she continued.
The proposed resolution states that President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney have repeatedly violated the U.S. Constitution and other laws of the United States. Other impeachable actions cited in the Impeachment Resolution include:
For more information, please contact Hernan Molina, Deputy to West Hollywood Mayor John Duran or Lisa Belsanti, Deputy to West Hollywood Councilmember Abbe Land at 323-848-6460.
West Hollywood makes history in becoming the first city in Southern California to pass an impeachment resolution (press release)
"The City of West Hollywood was the first City to oppose the war in Iraq, as it was obvious that the United States was being dragged into a war under false pretenses," said West Hollywood Mayor John Duran. "Now the truth is out. Our President and Vice President misled the country and failed the American people, and for those reasons they should be impeached," he continued.
"The time has come to call for impeachment," said West Hollywood Councilmember Abbe Land. "Bush and Cheney lied to Congress and the American public on the justifications for the Iraq war, conducted illegal wiretaps of American citizens and violated the Geneva Convention by torturing prisoners of war. The U.S. Constitution provides a mechanism to hold them accountable. West Hollywood is proud to add its voice to the growing movement across the nation in calling for a full investigation to be undertaken by the U.S. Congress," she continued.
The proposed resolution states that President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney have repeatedly violated the U.S. Constitution and other laws of the United States. Other impeachable actions cited in the Impeachment Resolution include:
- Stripping Americans of their constitutional rights;
- Ordering and authorizing the U.S. Attorney General to override judicial order for the release of detainees;
- Directing the National Security Agency to spy on Americans; and
- Misguiding Congress and the country on false intelligence in order to lead the United States into war.
For more information, please contact Hernan Molina, Deputy to West Hollywood Mayor John Duran or Lisa Belsanti, Deputy to West Hollywood Councilmember Abbe Land at 323-848-6460.
Planning: Paris Aims to Cut Traffic With Bikes
In Santa Monica, we think it's a big deal to offer validated parking for bicycles.
Elsewhere in the country, in such places as Austin, Boulder, San Francisco, Madison, Minneapolis, Oakland, Boston, Seattle, Athens (Georgia) and Lawrence (Kansas), the city governments are devoted to expanding the use of bicycles to mitigate traffic and air pollution, providing hundreds of miles of bike trails and dedicated traffic lanes to thousands of commuters.
But nowhere has an American city gone as far as Paris (France, not Texas) where, according to a story today in the New York Times, city hall launched a new municipal service that has placed 10,600 bikes at 750 stations all over town.
Any user can rent and return a bike from any station anywhere in the city. A yearlong pass for the service costs $39.50, a one-day pass goes for $1.36, and a seven-day ticket is $6.80. But the project is designed for short rides (the first half hour is free) and is priced on a sliding scale to keep the bikes in rotation.
The program, called Velib' from the words for bike (velo) and liberty (liberte), is being pushed by Socialist mayor Bertrand Delanoe who, like his counterparts in London and New York, has made fighting traffic and pollution his No. 1 goal.
For Parisians, the bicycle service means another public transport option, in addition to the subway, buses and trams, Delanoe said.
"In the morning, you can go to work in the tram and come home by bike; it depends on the weather, it depends on your mood and on your friends," Delanoe said at the launch.
Business was brisk the first day, according to the Times. The service is accessible to tourists as well as residents; it's offered in eight languages, and its machines accept foreign credit cards.
Paris is following the example of other European cities with inexpensive bicycle services, including Stockholm, Vienna, Brussels, Barcelona and Copenhagen. The City of Light now has 230 miles of bike lanes.
Full disclosure: I suggested a similar idea for Santa Monica a couple of years ago. General hilarity ensued. He who laughs last, though. I'm just sayin'.
The rest of the story: The New York Times
Update: French Ideal of Bicycle-Sharing Meets Reality by Steven Erlanger and Maia de la Baume (New York Times 2009-10-30)
Elsewhere in the country, in such places as Austin, Boulder, San Francisco, Madison, Minneapolis, Oakland, Boston, Seattle, Athens (Georgia) and Lawrence (Kansas), the city governments are devoted to expanding the use of bicycles to mitigate traffic and air pollution, providing hundreds of miles of bike trails and dedicated traffic lanes to thousands of commuters.
But nowhere has an American city gone as far as Paris (France, not Texas) where, according to a story today in the New York Times, city hall launched a new municipal service that has placed 10,600 bikes at 750 stations all over town.
Any user can rent and return a bike from any station anywhere in the city. A yearlong pass for the service costs $39.50, a one-day pass goes for $1.36, and a seven-day ticket is $6.80. But the project is designed for short rides (the first half hour is free) and is priced on a sliding scale to keep the bikes in rotation.
The program, called Velib' from the words for bike (velo) and liberty (liberte), is being pushed by Socialist mayor Bertrand Delanoe who, like his counterparts in London and New York, has made fighting traffic and pollution his No. 1 goal.
For Parisians, the bicycle service means another public transport option, in addition to the subway, buses and trams, Delanoe said.
"In the morning, you can go to work in the tram and come home by bike; it depends on the weather, it depends on your mood and on your friends," Delanoe said at the launch.
Business was brisk the first day, according to the Times. The service is accessible to tourists as well as residents; it's offered in eight languages, and its machines accept foreign credit cards.
Paris is following the example of other European cities with inexpensive bicycle services, including Stockholm, Vienna, Brussels, Barcelona and Copenhagen. The City of Light now has 230 miles of bike lanes.
Full disclosure: I suggested a similar idea for Santa Monica a couple of years ago. General hilarity ensued. He who laughs last, though. I'm just sayin'.
The rest of the story: The New York Times
Update: French Ideal of Bicycle-Sharing Meets Reality by Steven Erlanger and Maia de la Baume (New York Times 2009-10-30)
Universal Health Care: It's Time
With the leading Democratic candidates for president united in one way or another around the idea of providing health care for the insurance industry, it's important that the only real proposal to establish genuinely universal health care, HR-676 -- The Expanded and Improved Medicare For All Act, introduced by Reps. John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich with the support of over 70 congressional cosponsors so far, get everyone's full support. (Go to the Physicians for a National Health Plan website for more information and links.)
Whether or not he or she is among the cosponsors, contact your rep to let them know you support passage of the bill in this Congress, before another president steps up with a bogus plan.
And if you are active as a volunteer or donor in the Clinton, Edwards or Obama campaigns, now is a good time to inform them that you think it's way past time for this country to provide its citizens with true publicly supported universal health care.
Physicians for a National Health Plan: <http://www.pnhp.org>
Also, see 2008: The case for John Edwards universal health care plan; Impractical Proposals 2007-07-05)
Whether or not he or she is among the cosponsors, contact your rep to let them know you support passage of the bill in this Congress, before another president steps up with a bogus plan.
And if you are active as a volunteer or donor in the Clinton, Edwards or Obama campaigns, now is a good time to inform them that you think it's way past time for this country to provide its citizens with true publicly supported universal health care.
Physicians for a National Health Plan: <http://www.pnhp.org>
Also, see 2008: The case for John Edwards universal health care plan; Impractical Proposals 2007-07-05)
The Franchise: Questions persist about California vote system review
Missed deadlines, miscommunication mar evaluation
By Kat Zambon (electionline.org)
In a 2006 election debate between incumbent California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson (R), and state Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Marina del Rey, the challenger said if elected she would “revisit systems that have been approved by the state and create stricter monitoring requirements.”
Now, six months into her term as secretary of state, Bowen is following through on her campaign promise with a top-to-bottom review of the state’s voting systems.
"The stakes are too high," Bowen said, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. "The voters need to feel confident that their votes are being counted."
However, questions remain about the implications of the results of those tests, which started in late May and are scheduled to end in late July. And since a recent move pushed the California state primary to the beginning of February, there is little time for error.
The rest of the story: Election Line Weekly (2007-07-12)More on voting in California: Absentee voting, Voting system review, Voting changes , Right to vote
Quote Unquote: Tyrants and The Law -- Euripides
Nothing does more harm to the state than a tyrant; when he rules, equal application of law comes to an end, the one man is tyrant, and he keeps unto himself and in secrecy the law, and so perishes justice. But when the laws are written down, rich and poor alike have equal justice, and it is open to the weaker to use the same language to the 
prosperous when he is reviled by him, and the weaker prevails over the stronger if he have justice on his side. Freedom’s mark is also seen in this: “Let any man possessed of wisdom give counsel to the state.” And he who comes forward and counsels well, gains renown, while he, who has no wish, holds his silence. What greater equality can there be in a state? Again, where the people are absolute rulers of the land, they rejoice in having the openness and exuberance of youth, while a tyrant counts this a danger, and seeks to slay or silence those possessed of spirit, while the discreet fear his power and violence. –Euripides, The Suppliants
prosperous when he is reviled by him, and the weaker prevails over the stronger if he have justice on his side. Freedom’s mark is also seen in this: “Let any man possessed of wisdom give counsel to the state.” And he who comes forward and counsels well, gains renown, while he, who has no wish, holds his silence. What greater equality can there be in a state? Again, where the people are absolute rulers of the land, they rejoice in having the openness and exuberance of youth, while a tyrant counts this a danger, and seeks to slay or silence those possessed of spirit, while the discreet fear his power and violence. –Euripides, The Suppliants
The Tarnished White House: Is it time for Bush and Cheney to go?
The media pumped for Bill Clinton's impeachment with seven months of non-stop focus on the presidential privates, while the Republican leadership bet the farm animals on ousting him 
from office for being human, but the American public never bought it. Now, with the media dismissing talk of punishing the administration for corruption and incompetence and the Democratic leadership refusing even to talk about bringing the Bush-Cheney criminal enterprise to a close, a clear majority of the citizenry has concluded on its own that Dick Cheney should be impeached, convicted and removed from office, and a large and growing number think George Bush should meet the same fate. Clearly we worry too much about the influence of the media on public opinion. Maybe, also, we should give up looking to the incumbent Democrats to represent us and try to identify new champions among the third parties and on the Dems' left flank. And maybe we should forget about impeachment. Let's just find a conscientious prosecutor somewhere -- New Orleans, perhaps? (where is Jim Garrison when you need him?), forgo the Constitutional rigamarole, and hit the White House with a RICO bust.
See also, Impeachment is Democrats' sworn duty by Cenk Uygur (The Politico)
from office for being human, but the American public never bought it. Now, with the media dismissing talk of punishing the administration for corruption and incompetence and the Democratic leadership refusing even to talk about bringing the Bush-Cheney criminal enterprise to a close, a clear majority of the citizenry has concluded on its own that Dick Cheney should be impeached, convicted and removed from office, and a large and growing number think George Bush should meet the same fate. Clearly we worry too much about the influence of the media on public opinion. Maybe, also, we should give up looking to the incumbent Democrats to represent us and try to identify new champions among the third parties and on the Dems' left flank. And maybe we should forget about impeachment. Let's just find a conscientious prosecutor somewhere -- New Orleans, perhaps? (where is Jim Garrison when you need him?), forgo the Constitutional rigamarole, and hit the White House with a RICO bust.See also, Impeachment is Democrats' sworn duty by Cenk Uygur (The Politico)
Iraq: "It is time for the United States to leave..." (New York Times editorial)
And speaking of waking up (see post below), the New York Times finally has realized that the light at the end of the tunnel is out:
"President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used demagoguery and fear to quell Americans' demands for an end to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has already happened - the result of this unnecessary invasion and the incompetent management of this war. It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit." -- from an editorial in the New York Times.
"President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used demagoguery and fear to quell Americans' demands for an end to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has already happened - the result of this unnecessary invasion and the incompetent management of this war. It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit." -- from an editorial in the New York Times.
Health Care: Michael Moore’s “Sicko," a review
By Gary Gordon
It is difficult to review a Michael Moore film without reviewing Michael Moore. He is the upstart troublemaker, activist, trickster, vaudevillian, the sore spot on the ass of the official story; celebrated, vilified, studied by anthropologists. Oh, and he’s popular.
In “Roger & Me,” he documented the economic collapse of Flint, Michigan as General Motors reorganized and the local Chamber of Commerce simultaneously denied the collapse and concocted bizarre and unsuccessful plans to revitalize the place.
In “Fahrenheit 9/11,” he argued that the “war on terror” and the invasion of Iraq were based on lies.
Now, in “Sicko,” he declares the healthcare system in the United States is broken, owned and operated by a greedy and often corrupt insurance industry and their servile politicians in both major parties, and there has to be a better way.
Through heartbreaking interviews with healthcare system victims, including 9/11 heroes who worked ground zero, and those in middle-management who once perpetuated the system and have since defected, Moore clearly documents the problems created by the for-profit health industry.
Through interviews with citizens of Canada, England, France and Cuba, Moore presents exciting aspects of their national health systems and maintains this kind of socialized approach is a solution for us to grab. To detractors of socialized systems, he points to long-socialized American institutions: medicare, our police and fire departments, our post office, public schools and libraries.
Critics of Moore often pick over his films the way vultures devour roadkill, finding fault and what they argue is deception and manipulation. Unfortunately, by some reputable accounts, Moore leaves himself open to these attacks because there are times when his use of narrative and moving images slights the truth of a more complex situation. His celebration of then-First Lady Hillary Clinton’s health care plans, as if her call for a national health plan was not a colossal deception designed to maintain the insurance industry’s grip speaks to his occasional naiveté. To his credit, he points out her rank as senator and presidential candidate among recipients of health insurance industry donations: she is number two.
The thing is, Flint, Michigan’s economy did collapse when General Motors shifted facilities and tens of thousands of jobs to Mexico and the Chamber’s schemes flopped, the “war on terror” and the invasion and occupation of Iraq were and are based on lies, and the US healthcare system is broken.
In other words, despite Moore’s faults and his critic’s best efforts, Moore gets it right.
CBS Anchorman Walter Cronkite once observed that anyone who got their news solely from him was a fool, that many sources should be sought and considered.
Moore’s is not the first nor final word on the healthcare debate, but his film “Sicko” is a brilliant, devastating and at times an oddly entertaining and humorous portrait of a sick system and a poignant draft of a possible solution.
Activist and singer-songwriter Gary Gordon is the creator of The Fictional Times.
----------------
Michael Moore Rips Into CNN's Wolf Blitzer
Sicko director Michael Moore gives host Wolf Blitzer and resident MD Dr. Sanjay Gupta a dressing-down in a must-see live TV moment (watch until the end to see CNN try to put Moore back in place before the next segment).
- Watch the clip here:
<http://youtube.com/watch?v=6TR1SG8WDbU>
- Watch Sanjay Gupta's 'Sicko Reality Check' here:
<http://www.crooksandliars.com/>
- Read Moore's point by point rebuttal to the 'Sicko Reality Check' here:
<http://www.michaelmoore.com/>
It is difficult to review a Michael Moore film without reviewing Michael Moore. He is the upstart troublemaker, activist, trickster, vaudevillian, the sore spot on the ass of the official story; celebrated, vilified, studied by anthropologists. Oh, and he’s popular.
In “Roger & Me,” he documented the economic collapse of Flint, Michigan as General Motors reorganized and the local Chamber of Commerce simultaneously denied the collapse and concocted bizarre and unsuccessful plans to revitalize the place.
In “Fahrenheit 9/11,” he argued that the “war on terror” and the invasion of Iraq were based on lies.
Now, in “Sicko,” he declares the healthcare system in the United States is broken, owned and operated by a greedy and often corrupt insurance industry and their servile politicians in both major parties, and there has to be a better way.
Through heartbreaking interviews with healthcare system victims, including 9/11 heroes who worked ground zero, and those in middle-management who once perpetuated the system and have since defected, Moore clearly documents the problems created by the for-profit health industry.
Through interviews with citizens of Canada, England, France and Cuba, Moore presents exciting aspects of their national health systems and maintains this kind of socialized approach is a solution for us to grab. To detractors of socialized systems, he points to long-socialized American institutions: medicare, our police and fire departments, our post office, public schools and libraries.
Critics of Moore often pick over his films the way vultures devour roadkill, finding fault and what they argue is deception and manipulation. Unfortunately, by some reputable accounts, Moore leaves himself open to these attacks because there are times when his use of narrative and moving images slights the truth of a more complex situation. His celebration of then-First Lady Hillary Clinton’s health care plans, as if her call for a national health plan was not a colossal deception designed to maintain the insurance industry’s grip speaks to his occasional naiveté. To his credit, he points out her rank as senator and presidential candidate among recipients of health insurance industry donations: she is number two.
The thing is, Flint, Michigan’s economy did collapse when General Motors shifted facilities and tens of thousands of jobs to Mexico and the Chamber’s schemes flopped, the “war on terror” and the invasion and occupation of Iraq were and are based on lies, and the US healthcare system is broken.
In other words, despite Moore’s faults and his critic’s best efforts, Moore gets it right.
CBS Anchorman Walter Cronkite once observed that anyone who got their news solely from him was a fool, that many sources should be sought and considered.
Moore’s is not the first nor final word on the healthcare debate, but his film “Sicko” is a brilliant, devastating and at times an oddly entertaining and humorous portrait of a sick system and a poignant draft of a possible solution.
Activist and singer-songwriter Gary Gordon is the creator of The Fictional Times.
----------------
Michael Moore Rips Into CNN's Wolf Blitzer
Sicko director Michael Moore gives host Wolf Blitzer and resident MD Dr. Sanjay Gupta a dressing-down in a must-see live TV moment (watch until the end to see CNN try to put Moore back in place before the next segment).
- Watch the clip here:
<http://youtube.com/watch?v=6TR1SG8WDbU>
- Watch Sanjay Gupta's 'Sicko Reality Check' here:
<http://www.crooksandliars.com/>
- Read Moore's point by point rebuttal to the 'Sicko Reality Check' here:
<http://www.michaelmoore.com/>
Iraq: A Republican Senator Wakes Up
New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici, certainly deserving of the sobriquet "senior Republican" after more than three decades in the Senate, has decided as regards Iraq that, in Capital Hill Blue's description, "enough is enough."
Sen. Domenici, who by the way looks about as much like a
"Pete" as Vladimir Putin looks like a "Pootie-Poot," joined other Republican "statesmen" -- John Warner, Richard Lugar, George Voinovich -- who latterly have indicated varying degrees of discomfort with the endless and, more to the point, pointless slaughter in the Middle East.
Sen. Domenici, who not coincidentally is up for reelection in 2008, has signed on to the bill introduced in the upper house by Lamar Alexander, among others, that would turn the recommendations of the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group into policy. The panel recommended getting most US combat troops out of Iraq, with a target date for withdrawal of March 2008.
At the current pace, that might mean another 1000 or so needless American deaths, but, hey, who's counting?
Probably not Sen. Domenici. By his own account (in an interview 2007-07-06 All Things Considered), he began thinking seriously about Iraq only ten days ago. Ten days ago. Not to belabor the point, but as a senior member of the committee that oversees defense spending, what the hell has he been thinking about for the past four years? If this is true (and appallingly revealing admissions usually are), it goes a long way toward explaining how we got into this, uh, quagmire.
One doubts Domenici is any more dimwitted than Warner, Lugar or Voinovich, and he's probably scads of IQ points ahead of -- and certainly more responsible than -- the dozens of Republicans (and Joseph Lieberman) who still seem to think that tossing away American lives, wealth and standing in the world is just peachy, so it's probably safe to say that we got into the mess in Iraq because our congressional leaders were too busy thinking about something -- earmarks, possibly? -- other than the most important matter we've offered into their hands.
Enough is enough is about right.
Sen. Domenici, who by the way looks about as much like a
"Pete" as Vladimir Putin looks like a "Pootie-Poot," joined other Republican "statesmen" -- John Warner, Richard Lugar, George Voinovich -- who latterly have indicated varying degrees of discomfort with the endless and, more to the point, pointless slaughter in the Middle East.Sen. Domenici, who not coincidentally is up for reelection in 2008, has signed on to the bill introduced in the upper house by Lamar Alexander, among others, that would turn the recommendations of the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group into policy. The panel recommended getting most US combat troops out of Iraq, with a target date for withdrawal of March 2008.
At the current pace, that might mean another 1000 or so needless American deaths, but, hey, who's counting?
Probably not Sen. Domenici. By his own account (in an interview 2007-07-06 All Things Considered), he began thinking seriously about Iraq only ten days ago. Ten days ago. Not to belabor the point, but as a senior member of the committee that oversees defense spending, what the hell has he been thinking about for the past four years? If this is true (and appallingly revealing admissions usually are), it goes a long way toward explaining how we got into this, uh, quagmire.
One doubts Domenici is any more dimwitted than Warner, Lugar or Voinovich, and he's probably scads of IQ points ahead of -- and certainly more responsible than -- the dozens of Republicans (and Joseph Lieberman) who still seem to think that tossing away American lives, wealth and standing in the world is just peachy, so it's probably safe to say that we got into the mess in Iraq because our congressional leaders were too busy thinking about something -- earmarks, possibly? -- other than the most important matter we've offered into their hands.
Enough is enough is about right.
2008: The case for John Edwards' universal health care plan
Of the Democratic candidates, John Edwards has offered the most thorough (this is drawn from a piece by Timothy Noah in Slate, with which I agree) -- and the most progressive -- program for achieving universal national health.
Paul Krugman, who showed in an essay in the New York Review of Books ("The Health Care Crisis and What To Do About It") how far the current health-care debate misses the mark, gave Edwards' health-care plan thumbs up in a February column in the Times ("Edwards Gets It Right").
When the Democratic presidential candidates gathered in Las Vegas in March to debate health care, Marc Cooper of The Nation reported that Edwards' speech was the standout (see also, Impractical Proposals, 2008: Seven Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate Health Care), showing up both Clinton's program to save the insurance industry and Obama's bland assurances that something would be done (Obama's eventual proposal, while an admirable effort at political counter-punching, is not very well thought out; meanwhile, the only candidate who actually endorses single-payer, the commonsensical approach to providing health care of our international rivals, is Dennis Kucinich, who typically is short on the nuts and bolts of making it work).
William F. Buckley doesn't like Edwards' plan, a further indication that Edwards is on to something.
With his focus on poverty, universal health care, and immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq, Edwards is well to the left of the other major contenders for the Democratic nomination; this is why, I'm guessing, his is virtually the only name I hear when ordinary citizens discuss politics out here, 3,000 miles from the Beltway and the Manhattan media; the situation strikes me as very similar to 2004 when one candidate (Kerry/Clinton) had been anointed by the Democratic establishment because he/she "can win" (momentum? moderation? money? -- I forget now what the reason was) and another (Dean/Obama) had captured the imagination of the romantics in the party because he promised change without pain.
(While there's no likelihood Obama will implode in a fit -- of passion, exaltation, outrage or any other emotion -- as Dean did, he is also about as likely to become president as Kucinich; out here in the boonies, take it for what it's worth, there is a strong feeling that Sen. Clinton -- momentum, moderation, money and whatnot notwithstanding -- cannot win; it's not that we wish her ill -- we're as stupified as you are by the prospect that the Oval Office might next be occupied by Newt Gingrich or someone of his ilk; on the contrary, we long with all our hearts for a real Democrat, at long last; it's just that we think it has been clear since Reagan beat Carter that, with the exception of charismatic Bill Clinton's runs -- Elvis Presley cast against the political equivalents of Dennis Weaver and Walter Brennan, the Democrats can't win as GOP lite.)
Asides aside, when it comes to health care, Edwards' liberalism, in addition to the nostalgic bonus of causing Buckley, the WSJ, Forbes, et al, to see "Red," is good for the campaign. As Noah writes, this is one debate that needs to shift leftward.
Despite the fact that it will probably be seen only by Democratic primary voters -- if nothing else, that may have the benefit of making it harder for Sen. Clinton to bloviate about the issue, despite its merits Michael Moore's Sicko by itself won't be enough to do the job of forcing the next Congress to take up universal health care (partly because the movie doesn't engender sympathy for the program's natural political allies in the business community).
But at least Moore's movie will help to keep the issue percolating through November 2008. And it should help to forestall efforts by "moderates" in Congress to pass an industry-backed "reform" of the current health-care setup as a way to block the adoption of a truly universal single-payer system.
To get back to specifics, then, how does the Edwards plan measure up? Here, in Edwardscare: A Trojan Horse, is what Noah finds.
Paul Krugman, who showed in an essay in the New York Review of Books ("The Health Care Crisis and What To Do About It") how far the current health-care debate misses the mark, gave Edwards' health-care plan thumbs up in a February column in the Times ("Edwards Gets It Right").
When the Democratic presidential candidates gathered in Las Vegas in March to debate health care, Marc Cooper of The Nation reported that Edwards' speech was the standout (see also, Impractical Proposals, 2008: Seven Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate Health Care), showing up both Clinton's program to save the insurance industry and Obama's bland assurances that something would be done (Obama's eventual proposal, while an admirable effort at political counter-punching, is not very well thought out; meanwhile, the only candidate who actually endorses single-payer, the commonsensical approach to providing health care of our international rivals, is Dennis Kucinich, who typically is short on the nuts and bolts of making it work).
William F. Buckley doesn't like Edwards' plan, a further indication that Edwards is on to something.
With his focus on poverty, universal health care, and immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq, Edwards is well to the left of the other major contenders for the Democratic nomination; this is why, I'm guessing, his is virtually the only name I hear when ordinary citizens discuss politics out here, 3,000 miles from the Beltway and the Manhattan media; the situation strikes me as very similar to 2004 when one candidate (Kerry/Clinton) had been anointed by the Democratic establishment because he/she "can win" (momentum? moderation? money? -- I forget now what the reason was) and another (Dean/Obama) had captured the imagination of the romantics in the party because he promised change without pain.
(While there's no likelihood Obama will implode in a fit -- of passion, exaltation, outrage or any other emotion -- as Dean did, he is also about as likely to become president as Kucinich; out here in the boonies, take it for what it's worth, there is a strong feeling that Sen. Clinton -- momentum, moderation, money and whatnot notwithstanding -- cannot win; it's not that we wish her ill -- we're as stupified as you are by the prospect that the Oval Office might next be occupied by Newt Gingrich or someone of his ilk; on the contrary, we long with all our hearts for a real Democrat, at long last; it's just that we think it has been clear since Reagan beat Carter that, with the exception of charismatic Bill Clinton's runs -- Elvis Presley cast against the political equivalents of Dennis Weaver and Walter Brennan, the Democrats can't win as GOP lite.)
Asides aside, when it comes to health care, Edwards' liberalism, in addition to the nostalgic bonus of causing Buckley, the WSJ, Forbes, et al, to see "Red," is good for the campaign. As Noah writes, this is one debate that needs to shift leftward.
Despite the fact that it will probably be seen only by Democratic primary voters -- if nothing else, that may have the benefit of making it harder for Sen. Clinton to bloviate about the issue, despite its merits Michael Moore's Sicko by itself won't be enough to do the job of forcing the next Congress to take up universal health care (partly because the movie doesn't engender sympathy for the program's natural political allies in the business community).
But at least Moore's movie will help to keep the issue percolating through November 2008. And it should help to forestall efforts by "moderates" in Congress to pass an industry-backed "reform" of the current health-care setup as a way to block the adoption of a truly universal single-payer system.
To get back to specifics, then, how does the Edwards plan measure up? Here, in Edwardscare: A Trojan Horse, is what Noah finds.
2008: Non-candidate Fred Thompson #1 with Republican voters
So shallow is the GOP bench that non-announced candidate Fred Thompson now leads in the polls. Thompson, sometime senator, sometime actor, sometime lobbyist, sometime simple country lawyer and all-time blowhard, has turned vaporous politics, folksiness and a non-threatening sex-appeal into a serious shot at the presidency.
Call him the Republican Barack Obama.
Rudy Giuliani still manages to grip second place with a campaign targeted squarely on appeals to the "be afraid" crowd. He's also holding his own in fund-raising, though its hard to see how an unlikeable, cross-dressing, thrice-married, baby-killing social moderate can last through the convention, no matter how many times he cites 9/11.
Cult member Mitt Romney edges out hapless John McCain for third place, but Romney has had to loan money to his campaign in order to stay viable, while cash-poor McCain is reduced to laying off staff and curbing appearances. McCain has apparently decided to revert to the Iowa-New Hampshire-South Carolina boost strategy that became moot the moment the big states moved up their primary dates to get in on all that campaign dough.
Likable Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee leads the also-rans and might even have a shot but for the prospect of late and later entrances by Thompson and non-stop speaker Newt Gingrich.
Call him the Republican Barack Obama.
Rudy Giuliani still manages to grip second place with a campaign targeted squarely on appeals to the "be afraid" crowd. He's also holding his own in fund-raising, though its hard to see how an unlikeable, cross-dressing, thrice-married, baby-killing social moderate can last through the convention, no matter how many times he cites 9/11.
Cult member Mitt Romney edges out hapless John McCain for third place, but Romney has had to loan money to his campaign in order to stay viable, while cash-poor McCain is reduced to laying off staff and curbing appearances. McCain has apparently decided to revert to the Iowa-New Hampshire-South Carolina boost strategy that became moot the moment the big states moved up their primary dates to get in on all that campaign dough.
Likable Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee leads the also-rans and might even have a shot but for the prospect of late and later entrances by Thompson and non-stop speaker Newt Gingrich.
According to Rasmussen Reports:
After weeks of turmoil and change, the race for the Republican Presidential nomination has stabilized.
Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson remains on top in Rasmussen Reports national polling with 27% support. That's unchanged from a week ago. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is three points behind at 24%.
Thompson has a 16-point advantage over Giuliani among conservatives while Giuliani holds an even larger edge among moderate voters. However, in the race for the Republican Presidential nomination, there are always more conservative voters than moderates.
A separate survey found that Thompson is currently viewed as the most conservative of all GOP candidates. Giuliani remains the best liked candidate. Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans now have a favorable opinion of America's Mayor. Thompson's numbers among the GOP faithful have been moving in the opposite direction. Sixty-four percent (64%) of GOP voters have a favorable opinion of the actor while just 12% have an unfavorable view.
This week's national GOP poll also finds former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney with a one-point edge over Arizona Senator John McCain for the fourth time in six weeks. Romney and McCain were tied during the other two weeks. Now, the numbers are 13% for Romney and 12% for McCain.
Romney is viewed favorably by 58% of Republican voters while 30% have a less flattering opinion. McCain is viewed favorably by 55% and unfavorably by 40% of Republicans.
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is atop the second tier at 3%. Six other candidates--Senator Sam Brownback, Congressman Ron Paul, Congressman Tom Tancredo, former Governor Tommy Thompson, Congressman Duncan Hunter, and former Governor Jim Gilmore split 4% of the vote. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
