Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | My Orble | Login

Secular Humanity - June 2009

The election in Iran was pitched as reformer against hardliner, the future against the past. Although little might have changed if the "reformer" Mir Hossein Mousavi defeated "hardliner" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, so much could have changed.

The presidency of Iran isn't as powerful as many think, with ultimate power being held by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The cleric holds power to overrule the president whenever he sees fit, and to guide him to the policies Khamenei deems important. Still, the president of Iran holds a big spot on the world stage, and has power to address issues, as long as he remains in context with the clerics.


But with the results of the presidential election looking very suspect and the people hitting the streets in protests, at least a chance of a re-vote exists. The decision may come as soon as Friday. If that happens, or even if a lesser accommodation is made, the point is clear. The clerics who have long dominated Iranian politics have to address change.

The majority of Iranians don't want to fall into the mold made for them by FOX News and conservatives in America. They don't want to be political pariahs. They want to engage the west, especially America. And they are willing to take to the streets to keep away from that. They want change at home too, like more equality for women.
Will they get what they want? Probably not right away, but big steps have been taken. And the Iranian people join the ranks of other birthing democracy movements like the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in showing the power of people in mass.

It's a lesson we here in America need to re-learn. The power of protest ended the Vietnam War. The power of protest propelled the civil rights movement. The power of protest gave us labor laws, gave women the right to vote, and ended slavery. It can bring change again.


We have it easy here - with some notable exceptions, protesters in America aren't in danger of losing life and limb these days. We can march and then go home at night in relative safety. The Iranians hitting the streets have more in common with civil rights marchers in the 60s then with the challenges America faces today. So I have to ask - where are America's protesters?

Sure, we have the tea bag movement, but it's ill-defined and even less informed. We had marches against the war in Iraq, but not big enough. What would have happened if millions of Americans would have been out in the streets for days after George Bush was allowed to steal the presidency in 2000? What if America (or at least Florida) was forced into a new vote? How much damage to the country could have been avoided?

Or what about health care? Polls show a big majority of Americans favor single payer health care, and even more favor at least a public option. Still, big money interests are dimming the chances of passage. How broken does the system have to get before enough Americans are enraged?

We could learn from the Iranians. And others around the world. France is a country with a grand history of protest. Sometimes over issues far more trivial than health care or stolen elections.
56
Vote
   


My friend Jim Stillman entered into a debate with Orble's most infamous blogger, S.L. Bradish. The topic picked was abortion, a stickng point between right and left, to be sure. Jim did himself and his viewpoint proud, and I commend him for it!

It's a hard thing to do, try to speak logic to a right wing ideologue. I've heard it compared to trying to teach calculus to a monkey. Surely that must be easier. The far right is entrenched in it's firm opposition to women's reproductive rights, and not just on abortion. Every aspect of the reproductive process and a woman's decisions regarding it are targets for the far right.

Jim affirmed that people who are for women's rights aren't for irresponibilty. We would much never see the choice have to be made - but if a woman, after thoughtful consideration makes that choice within legal and medical considerations, we have no desire to control or limit access in any way.

Jim, I saw that you are recovering for a fall, and I wish you a swift recovery. And in closing, good job!
66
Vote
   


If you listen to everyone from right wing pundits to the conservative on the street, they will tell you Democrats are bringing "socialized medicine" to America, and it will ruin "the best health care system in the world." Few of them actually understand what that means, or what it would do for American health care.

First, it's a mistake to say "best health care in the world." In reality, it's only the most expensive. Not even in the top 20 in terms of actual results. Why the discrepancy? In short, for-profit insurance companies. Sure, if you've got the money, you'll get great health care. If you can afford Cedar Sinai, you have little to complain about. If, on the other hand, you aren't insured are find yourself under-insured, good luck.

I have a good analogy that helps illustrate the big difference between single payer health care and what we have in America now. Imagine single payer in a box. The box is only so big, restricted by the budget ascribed to it. Care is given out from that box. The good part is, we, through our elected officials, can change the box. If it's too big or too small, it can be changed. It doesn't have to be a static box.

Private insurance, on the other hand, is more like a trash compactor. Sure, it starts out square like a box, but it has constant pressure on it to make it smaller, to squeeze more profits out of the box. What makes a health insurance company money? Limiting care, but maximizing billing. Deny care whenever possible, and skim as much off the system as possible.

Conservatives say "I don't want the government managing my health care." So you prefer an organization that is going to squeeze 25-30 percent right off the top, just to run itself and pay it's CEO millions? They say health care decisions, if government is involved, won't be between doctor and patient. Are they now? Be realistic. Health care decisions now are based on what the insurance company will agree to pay.

Conservatives will tell you there will be rationing big lines. Not if we do it right. But can anyone say with a straight face there isn't rationing of health care now?

The big step is removing the big profit skim. Will single payer be perfect? Of course not. There will be problems to work out, and there will be adjustments. But if we are involved from the start and stay involved, we can make a system that works good for all of us.

It looks like, in all probability, we won't get a soley single payer health care system right now. But we need to make sure we do get the so-called "public option." What that most likely will look like is a plan that people can buy into that is ran similar to Medicare. It would compete with other insurance plans. Funny, the conservatives are usually ranting about the need for competition and choice, yet they are deathly afraid of single payer health care, even as an option?

Why? Because they know what we have now is a scam, and they know if people are ever given a choice to move away from the current debacle they will in droves. And conservative leaders (and regrettably, some Democrats too) get their bread and butter from big health care, in the form of huge campaign contributions. Money talks in Washington. And the conservative on the street will do what their leadership tells them to do, regardless of whether or not it is in their best interest.

But now is the time, and here is the place. We need to all be active. Call your representatives, talk to your friends, do whatever you can - because big health insurance companies are bringing all their guns to this fight, they don't want to lose billions. A public option will make them compete, make them reduce premiums, make them pay their CEO's in paltry seven-figure salaries.
38
Vote
   


It seems some on the right think ACORN stands for the devil incarnate, out to eliminate the American Way and destroy capitalism whilst corrupting America's virgin youth and eating kittens.

Glenn Beck seems to have taken the point against ACORN, having a special one hour episode on FOX trying to demonize the organization. With zeal akin to Simon Wiesenthal hunting down Nazi war criminals, Beck scoured the country looking for real and imagined ACORN infractions. He found problems, of course. There were, and are, investigations of ACORN and it's employees


[ Click here to read more ]
32
Vote
   


Bush deficits vs. Obama deficits

June 6th 2009 23:38
To say Obama's deficit proposals are better than those of the president who preceded him sounds like a partisan apologist just making a statement. It's not, and here's why. There are differences in what the spending does and how it affects the country and the economy.

The deficits of the Bush Administration were due in large part to excessive and unnecessary war spending as well as irresponsible tax cuts to the wealthy. The extra spending did nothing but increase debt with no tangible returns to anyone except corporate cronies from companies like Halliburton and such. Most Americans saw their real earning power decrease and their debts increase, all while the costs of health care exploded


[ Click here to read more ]
37
Vote
   


Sims 3 allows same-sex marriage!

June 6th 2009 19:36
As America moves toward the inevitable recognition that same-sex couples deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples, another barrier comes down as the latest version of the popular game The Sims allows same-sex marriage.

With the release of The Sims 3, gamers can do something many real people cannot. Of course, that's common in gaming, real people can't fly through walls or shoot a couple of hundred people in an hour. But by allowing gay marriage, the creators of The Sims 3 do more than just allow the fantastic, they help to move social progress ahead


[ Click here to read more ]
58
Vote
   


The debate just keeps on going about gay marriage, even though it is fairly obvious that at some point the wall will come down and gay marriage will not be looked on any differently than other forms of marriage.

What's the most often touted reason those against gay marriage give for their opposition? That it threatens the foundations of what they hold dear. That marriage is a deeply personal and religious matter that they feel is mortally wounded if gays are allowed to marry. So, why not make a compromise that lets them hold on to their ceremony, but makes them no different from the gays they so which to minimize


[ Click here to read more ]
44
Vote
   


More Posts
1 Posts
8 Posts
11 Posts
212 Posts dating from July 2007
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:

Jeff Musall's Blogs

I have no other blogs :(
Moderated by Jeff Musall
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]