Consilience Productions - Democracy

Republicans have no interest in governing.

2009-11-06T02:02:34-05:00

It really is all about sticking it to Obama and the Dems. From Kevin Drum:

Congress gave final approval Thursday for an additional $24 billion to help the jobless and support the housing market as climbing unemployment poses a growing liability for elected officials.
The bill, passed overwhelmingly by the House and headed to President Obama for his signature Friday, extends unemployment insurance benefits that were due to expire and renews an $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers, while also expanding it to cover many other home purchases.

And Democrats only had to break three separate filibusters in the Senate to get this passed! The first filibuster was broken by a vote of 87-13, the second by a vote of 85-2, and the third by a vote of 97-1. The fourth and final vote, the one to actually pass the bill, was 98-0. Elapsed time: five weeks for a bill that everyone ended up voting for.

Why? Because even though Republicans were allowed to tack on a tax cut to the bill as the price of getting it passed, they decided to filibuster anyway unless they were also allowed to include an anti-ACORN amendment. Seriously. A bit of ACORN blustering to satisfy the Palin-Beck crowd is the reason they held up a bill designed to help people who are out of work in the deepest recession since World War II.

Egg-zactly! And that's what's going on with the Health Care Reform debate, in addition to the Climate Bill, where Barbara Boxer's committee reported to the full Senate their bill with ZERO input by the Republicans, who boycotted the hearings.

This is the deal: Americans vote, then the majority in the Senate and the House determine the legislative priorities. Democrats suffered through eight years as the minority party, and now it's time for Republicans to take their turn. You don't get to call the shots when your in the minority. It's that simple. You can take your ball and run away (or not show up for debate), sure, but you should be severely punished for it, too, next time the country votes.

That goes for each party, whoever is out of power.

Music as a torture weapon: R.E.M., Nine Inch Nails, and Britney Spears.

2009-10-28T01:02:26-05:00

In a perfect "Consilience Storm," this story of our government using music to torture inmates in Guantanamo completely and utterly turns upside down the meaning and message of music in our culture, or all human culture, for that matter:

On behalf of a coalition of U.S. and international musicians, including R.E.M., Pearl Jam, Tom Morello and Jackson Browne, the National Security Archive today filed a series of FOIA petitions requesting the full declassification of secret U.S. documentation on the strategy of using music as an interrogation device at Guantanamo and other detention centers.

Jackson Browne's music is that bad to some ears? This is a "futility technique?"

The Archive also posted several declassified documents and published reports that refer to the use of "loud" music to "create futility" in uncooperative detainees at Guantanamo. A 2004 Defense Department report on abuses at the military base in Cuba, for example, stated that the "futility technique included the playing of Metallica, Britney Spears and Rap music."

Maybe Britney Spears' life is a bit futile, but her music? Really? In actuality, it's no joking matter:

"At Guantanamo, the U.S. government turned a jukebox into an instrument of torture," said Thomas Blanton, the Archive's executive director. "The musicians and the public have the right to know how an expression of popular culture was transformed into an enhanced interrogation technique."

And R.E.M. is pissed, too:

"We have spent the past 30 years supporting causes related to peace and justice -- to now learn that some of our friends' music may have been used as part of the torture tactics without their consent or knowledge, is horrific," R.E.M. said in a statement. "It's anti-American, period."

Amen to that!

One band not mentioned, though, is The Beatles. It seems that their music has the opposite effect on similar ears. Even the Taliban seem to love their music:

The Beatles song "She Loves You," which popped into my head soon after I received my wife's letter from the Red Cross, was the most popular.
For reasons that baffled me, the guards relished singing it with me. I began by singing its first verse. My three Taliban guards, along with Tahir and Asad, then joined me in the chorus.

"She loves you -- yeah, yeah, yeah," we sang, with Kalashnikovs lying on the floor around us.

What a strange confluence - or Consilience - of music and terrorism these past few days. It's surreal, to say the least.

Grab a Mop!

2009-10-21T10:32:17-05:00

Nobel Committee member explains the choice of Obama

2009-10-10T11:48:02-05:00

This video interview of Thorbjoern Jagland, a member of the committee that chose Obama to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, explains very clearly their rationale:

It's obvious that they were impressed by Obama's impact on the dialogue between nations and how he has brought about a radical shift in world politics, where dialogue and negotiation are back in vogue. Essentially, this prize is meant to both encourage Obama's vision and as a repudiation of the past 8 years under the Bush administration.

And yet, when he talks about upholding Nobel's will, he mentions the "reduction of troops around the world." And Obama has done that how, exactly?

Watch the entire interview to get a feel of what they were thinking.

Michelle Obama's ancestry traced directly back to slavery.

2009-10-10T11:22:30-05:00

This fascinating article in the NY Times this week discusses recent research unearthing Michelle Obama's lineage back to 1852. Although it was most certainly hyped due to the evidence of her having white ancestors (front page of the NY Times, appearances on Good Morning America emphasizing the black/white issue), the history is nonetheless important, if only for the fact that we now know the path taken by this most historic figure (our first black First Lady):

In 1850, the elderly master of a South Carolina estate took pen in hand and painstakingly divided up his possessions. Among the spinning wheels, scythes, tablecloths and cattle that he bequeathed to his far-flung heirs was a 6-year-old slave girl valued soon afterward at $475.
In his will, she is described simply as the "negro girl Melvinia." After his death, she was torn away from the people and places she knew and shipped to Georgia. While she was still a teenager, a white man would father her first-born son under circumstances lost in the passage of time.

In the annals of American slavery, this painful story would be utterly unremarkable, save for one reason: This union, consummated some two years before the Civil War, represents the origins of a family line that would extend from rural Georgia, to Birmingham, Ala., to Chicago and, finally, to the White House.

This is the key to this story, which was undoubtedly repeated millions of times over. It's unlikely that the next black First Lady will receive such scrutiny, but for now, in 2009, it's a first:

Now the more complete map of Mrs. Obama's ancestors -- including the slave mother, white father and their biracial son, Dolphus T. Shields -- for the first time fully connects the first African-American first lady to the history of slavery, tracing their five-generation journey from bondage to a front-row seat to the presidency.
"She is representative of how we have evolved and who we are," said Edward Ball, a historian who discovered that he had black relatives, the descendants of his white slave-owning ancestors, when he researched his memoir, "Slaves in the Family."

"We are not separate tribes of Latinos and whites and blacks in America," Mr. Ball said. "We've all mingled, and we have done so for generations."

Ball emphasizes the most important aspect of this research: it's part of our American heritage from which we cannot run away. You should read the entire article. It's very moving.

Thank God for our F.B.I.

2009-09-25T01:01:52-05:00

Now this is disturbing, to say the least:

On Sept. 1, 2009, Finton met with the undercover FBI officer and was told the vehicle for the attack would be carrying close to one ton of explosives. According to the affidavit, Finton indicated an awareness that the bomb would cause civilian casualties, but expressed his view that such casualties were justified. Unbeknownst to Finton, the FBI ensured that the vehicle for the attack contained no actual explosive materials.
The affidavit alleges that yesterday, on September 23, 2009, Finton drove a van containing what he understood to be explosive material and parked it directly in front of the northwest corner of the federal building. Finton got out of the van, locked the door and got into another vehicle driven by the undercover FBI officer and drove away. Within a few blocks of the federal building, Finton made a cell phone call to remotely detonate the purported bomb in the van. FBI agents arrested Finton immediately after he attempted to detonate the device.

It seems like our FBI has been working overtime, that's for sure:

The FBI developed an investigative plan to determine Smadi's true intent while also protecting the public's safety. Smadi made clear his intention to serve as a soldier for Usama Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and to conduct violent jihad. Undercover FBI agents, posing as members of an al Qaeda "sleeper" cell, were introduced to Smadi, who repeatedly indicated to them that he came to the U.S. for the specific purpose of committing "Jihad for the sake of God." Smadi clarified that he was interested in "self-jihad," because it was "the best type of jihad." Smadi was interested in violent jihad against those he deemed to be enemies of Islam. The investigation determined Smadi was not associated with other terrorist organizations.
In June 2009, Smadi identified potential targets in the Dallas area; but in mid-July, he notified an undercover FBI agent that he had changed his mind regarding the targets. On July 21, 2009, Smadi met with an undercover FBI agent and directed the agent to drive them to a Wells Fargo Bank in downtown Dallas. Smadi and the undercover FBI agent then drove to 1445 Ross Avenue where the Fountain Place office tower is located. A Wells Fargo Bank is located in that building. Smadi went into the building where he conducted his own reconnaissance.

In late August 2009, while meeting with one of the undercover FBI agents in Dallas, Smadi discussed the logistics and timing of the bombing, stating that he would have preferred to do the attack on "11 September," but decided to wait until after the month of Ramadan, which ended on September 20, 2009. At the conclusion of the meeting, Smadi decided that a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device (VBIED) would be placed at the foundation of the Fountain Place office tower. Unbeknownst to Smadi, the FBI ensured the VBIED contained only an inert/inactive explosive device which contained no explosive materials.

It sure makes you wonder what else is coming down the pike...

The September 11th Digital Archive.

2009-09-11T13:32:58-05:00

On this day eight years ago...

Visit the 9/11 Digital Archive today.

Joe Wilson's Dirty Health-Care Secret.

2009-09-11T13:16:49-05:00

If screaming at the President of the United States of America, "You Lie!," as he's giving a speech to both the House and the Senate isn't bad enough, does this get the Hypocrisy Award of the Year?

Poor Joe Wilson. The conservative Republican representative from South Carolina stepped in it Wednesday night when he broke with centuries of decorum by screaming, "You lie!" at President Obama during his health-care speech to a joint session of Congress.
Cut the man some slack. He's passionate! I know this because he told me, in the sole message that blazes across his campaign Web site: JOE WILSON IS PASSIONATE ABOUT STOPPING GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE

Except that he's not -- at least not when it comes to his, and his family's, government-run health care. As a retired Army National Guard colonel, Wilson gets a lot of benefits (one of which, apparently, was not a full appreciation of the customs, traditions, and courtesies that mandate respect for one's commander in chief). And with four sons in the armed services, the entire Wilson brood has enjoyed multiple generations of free military medical coverage, known as TRICARE!

Yes, it's true. As politicos and town-hall criers debate the finer points of the public option, employer mandates, coverage for undocumented immigrants, and who's more Hitler-like, they seem to miss a larger point: the United States has single-payer health care. It covers 9.5 million active-duty servicemen and women, military retirees, and their dependents -- including almost a 10th of all Californians and Floridians, and nearly a quarter of a million residents of Wilson's home state.

Military beneficiaries like Wilson -- who, as a retiree, is eligible for lifetime coverage -- never have to worry about an eye exam, a CT scan, a prolonged labor, or an open-heart surgery. They have access not only to the military's 133,500 uniformed health professionals, but cooperating private doctors as well -- whose fees are paid by the Department of Defense. It"s high-quality care, too: surveys from 2007 and 2008 list TRICARE among "the best health insurer(s) in the nation" by customer satisfaction. Yet Wilson insists government-run health care is a problem.

And how does Joe Wilson feel about TRICARE?

"As a 31-year Army Guard and Reserve veteran, I know the importance of TRICARE," he said in a press release. "The number of individuals who choose to enroll in TRICARE continues to rise because TRICARE is a low cost, comprehensive health plan that is portable and available in some form world-wide." He went on to call TRICARE "world class health care," concluding on a personal note. "I am grateful to have four sons now serving in the military, and I know that their families appreciate the availability of TRICARE," he said.

Adam Weinstein, the author of the column above, is an Iraq veteran who doesn't have health care. He finishes the column addressing Joe Wilson's support of TRICARE:

What does that mean? Nothing -- except that Joe Wilson was against government-run health care before he was for it. And now he's against it again. Just not when it comes to his own flesh and blood.

Can someone explain how this cognitive dissonance can exist? Please...? Anyone? ...Buehler?

Four days as a hostage with the Taliban in Afghanistan

2009-09-10T00:58:09-05:00

Read this harrowing story from the NY Times reporter who was held hostage in Afghanistan recently. It's an incredible first person account of what it's like in that war-torn country right now:

On Saturday, Sept. 5, I woke up in Kunduz to begin the second day of reporting.
We did what we had not dared do at such a late hour on Friday. We drove south of Kunduz along the main Kabul highway until we reached the turnoff.

I checked with Sultan and the driver to see if they felt safe going there, and they said it seemed all right. We edged along a narrow country lane and came out on the riverbank with the tankers a few hundred yards ahead.

Continue on to find out what happened...

And we expect to clean up everything over there? What a mess.

"No more Mr. Nice-Guy, Mr. President."

2009-09-06T12:01:55-05:00

Bill Moyers on Obama's last push to get final passage on health care reform:

Why it's so difficult to pass health care reform.

2009-09-02T00:27:33-05:00

Paul Krugman has two really great contributions to this debate and why it's so dang difficult to get anything done. The first comes from one of his regular columns, entitled, "Missing Richard Nixon":

Many of the retrospectives on Ted Kennedy's life mention his regret that he didn't accept Richard Nixon's offer of a bipartisan health care deal. The moral some commentators take from that regret is that today's health care reformers should do what Mr. Kennedy balked at doing back then, and reach out to the other side.
But it's a bad analogy, because today's political scene is nothing like that of the early 1970s. In fact, surveying current politics, I find myself missing Richard Nixon.

Say what??

No, I haven't lost my mind. Nixon was surely the worst person other than Dick Cheney ever to control the executive branch.

Ahh...that's more like it. Krugman goes on to explain:

As many people have pointed out, Nixon's proposal for health care reform looks a lot like Democratic proposals today. In fact, in some ways it was stronger. Right now, Republicans are balking at the idea of requiring that large employers offer health insurance to their workers; Nixon proposed requiring that all employers, not just large companies, offer insurance.
Nixon also embraced tighter regulation of insurers, calling on states to "approve specific plans, oversee rates, ensure adequate disclosure, require an annual audit and take other appropriate measures." No illusions there about how the magic of the marketplace solves all problems.

He finishes by talking about the current Republican party and how they are controlled by the far-right-wing members of the GOP:

Part of the answer is that the right-wing fringe, which has always been around -- as an article by the historian Rick Perlstein puts it, "crazy is a pre-existing condition" -- has now, in effect, taken over one of our two major parties. Moderate Republicans, the sort of people with whom one might have been able to negotiate a health care deal, have either been driven out of the party or intimidated into silence. Whom are Democrats supposed to reach out to, when Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who was supposed to be the linchpin of any deal, helped feed the "death panel" lies?

He finishes by pointing out the second reason it's harder to get health-care reform today: corporate bribes (a.k.a. lobbyists).

Krugman's other contribution comes from his blog, entitled "Horse-race reporting":

1. It's easier to research horse-race stuff. To report on policy, a reporter has to master the policy issues fairly well. That's not easy, especially for journalists who have specialized in up close and personal rather than wonkery -- and policy issues change from year to year. To do a horse-race piece, you just call up the usual suspects on your Rolodex, and have a bunch of "one Democratic insider said" quotes. That's also, I suspect, why many policy stories just consist of dueling quotes from supposed experts.

2. It's easier to write horse-race stuff. Even if you know the policy issues, writing them so you don't totally lose your audience is really tricky -- I've spent years trying to learn the craft, and it still often comes out way too dry. On the other hand, horse-race stuff can be full of personal details.

3. It's safer to cover the race. If you cover policy, and go beyond dueling quotes, you have to make some factual assertions -- and people who prefer to believe otherwise will get mad. Newsweek's Sharon Begley wrote a piece about what actually is and isn't in Obamacare, and got mail from readers denouncing her and wishing her an early death. As I pointed out the other day, I'm getting a lot of hate mail -- and I mean obscenities, death wishes, and all that, not strongly worded disagreements -- for writing about Swiss health care and budget arithmetic. Much safer to report on ups and downs in the conventional wisdom.

Indeed, as he finishes, "The upshot, of course, is that we"re having a crucial national policy debate in which the great bulk of the news coverage tells people nothing at all about the policy issues," it seems nearly impossible to engage the American public in an adult debate about the pros and cons of health care reform...that is, if you only follow the horse-racing facet of this debate on the mainstream media...

The Real Barack Obama

2009-08-20T03:07:08-05:00

Kevin Drum has a fascinating question that only time will answer:

We've been asking this question ever since the primaries -- does he really believe he can sweet talk Republicans into cooperating with him? -- and we still don't know the answer. Obama is a guy who plays his cards very close to his chest. But the next couple of months should give us a clue. If he really believed it, then he probably doesn't have much of a Plan B and the next stop for this train is Chaosville. But if it was mostly an act, then his next step is obvious: he'll make a barnstorming public case that he made a good faith effort to work with Republicans but they were just completely intransigent. He'll attack them mercilessly and do everything he can to whip public opinion into a lather against the obstinate, obstructionist, reactionary GOP.
If that was his plan all along, it wouldn't be a bad one. He correctly divined a long time ago that the American public was weary of endless partisan fighting and wanted a break, and he rode that insight to victory. Regardless of his own beliefs, then, it meant he had to start his presidency by demonstrating a genuine effort to work across the aisle, and he had to keep it up long enough to show he was serious. Only if it plainly failed would he be able to turn the screws and start fighting on pure partisan lines.

Stay tuned...we should know the answers to these questions by Christmas time.

Health Care Reform and You

2009-08-11T00:59:56-05:00

Since the #1 issue facing this country right now is the reform of our health care system, it's important to know the facts of what is being proposed in Congress right now. The NY Times has a fairly decent synopsis of the legislation here:

Many crucial decisions on coverage and financing have yet to be made, but the general direction of the legislation is clear enough to make some educated guesses about the likely winners and losers.
The health care reform bills moving through Congress look as though they would do a good job of providing coverage for millions of uninsured Americans. But what would they do for the far greater number of people who already have insurance?

The editorial goes on to detail these main points:

WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF REFORM? The House bill and a similar bill in the Senate would require virtually all Americans to carry health insurance with specified minimum benefits or pay a penalty. They would require all but the smallest businesses to provide and subsidize insurance that meets minimum standards for their workers or pay a fee for failing to do so.
The reforms would help the poorest of the uninsured by expanding Medicaid. Some middle-class Americans -- earning up to three or four times the poverty level, or $66,000 to $88,000 for a family of four -- would get subsidies to help them buy coverage through new health insurance exchanges, national or state, which would offer a menu of policies from different companies.

IS THERE HELP FOR THE INSURED? Many insured people need help almost as much as the uninsured. Premiums and out-of-pocket spending for health care have been rising far faster than wages. Millions of people are "underinsured" -- their policies don’t come close to covering their medical bills. Many postpone medical care or don't fill prescriptions because they can't afford to pay their share of the costs. And many declare personal bankruptcy because they are unable to pay big medical debts.

The reform effort should help ease the burdens of many of them, some more quickly than others. The legislation seems almost certain to include a new marketplace, the so-called health insurance exchange. Since there will be tens of millions of new subscribers, virtually all major insurers are expected to offer policies through an exchange. To participate, these companies would have to agree to provide a specified level of benefits, and they would set premiums at rates more comparable to group rates for big employers than to the exorbitant rates typically charged for individual coverage.

IS THERE MORE SECURITY FOR ALL? As part of health reform, all insurance companies would be more tightly regulated. For Americans who are never quite certain that their policies will come through for them when needed, that is very good news.

WHO PAYS? Current estimates suggest that it would cost in the neighborhood of $1 trillion over 10 years to extend coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans. Under current plans, half or more of that would be covered by reducing payments to providers within the giant Medicare program, but the rest would require new taxes or revenue sources.

WHO WON'T BE HAPPY? Healthy young people who might prefer not to buy insurance at all will probably be forced to by a federal mandate. That is all to the good. When such people get into a bad accident or contract a serious illness, they often can't pay the cost of their care, and the rest of us bear their burden. Moreover, conscripting healthy people into the insured pool would help reduce the premiums for sicker people.

Less clear is what financial burden middle-income Americans would bear when forced to buy coverage. There are concerns that the subsidies ultimately approved by Congress might not be generous enough.

WILL I PAY LESS? Two factors could help drive down the premiums for those who are insured. In the short-term, if reform manages to cover most of the uninsured, that should greatly reduce the amount of charity care delivered by hospitals and eliminate the need for the hospitals to shift such costs to patients who have private insurance. One oft-cited study estimates that cost-shifting to cover care for the uninsured adds about $1,000 to a family's annual insurance premiums; other experts think it may be a few hundred dollars. In theory, eliminating most charity care should help hold down or even reduce the premiums charged for private insurance. When, if ever, that might happen is unclear.

WILL MY CARE SUFFER? Critics have raised the specter that health care will be "rationed" to save money. The truth is that health care is already rationed. No insurance, public or private, covers everything at any cost. That will not change any time soon.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR OLDER AMERICANS? People over 65 are already covered by Medicare and would seem to have little to gain. But many of the chronically ill elderly who use lots of drugs could save significant money. The drug industry has already agreed to provide 50 percent discounts on brand-name drugs to Medicare beneficiaries who have reached the so-called "doughnut hole" where they must pay the full cost of their medicines. The House reform bill would gradually phase out the doughnut hole entirely, thus making it less likely that beneficiaries will stop taking their drugs once they have to pay the whole cost.

Under each heading, the Op-Ed goes into further detail, so the entire piece should be read to get the full effect of what's going on with Health Care Reform.

The Obama administration just launched a site to debunk the big myths (aka "lies") being spread about the plan. Visit their "Reality Check" website to get further details.

But don't take the White House's word for it. Go to FactCheck.org, from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, to get debunked!

And lastly, this issue is one of those biggies that deserve postings in both of our MONEY sections and DEMOCRACY blogs.

Get the word out to your representative that we need to pass Health Care Reform now!

Max Baucus from Montana on health care reform: sellout or savvy centrist?

2009-08-02T18:40:57-05:00

Just so you know, Max Baucus - senator from Montana - is the head of the Finance Committee in the Senate and has been put in charge of forging bi-partisan consensus to on Health Care Reform. But how will his centrism play out during this month of recess, when all of our representatives will hear from us - for and against health care reform?

Let's go to DailyKos for the update:

Matthew Frank's profile of Max Baucus in the Missoula Independent goes a long way to explaining how this unlikeliest of small state Senators finds himself at the center of the most important public policy debate of a generation. The profile shows both how Baucus got to the point of perhaps securing his political legacy, but how he might also be the very person who dooms it to failure:
He's a savvy centrist. His political independence and the relationships he's fostered with senators on both sides of the aisle make him uniquely suited to broker intensely complicated negotiations among the most powerful people and special interests in Washington, D.C. Colleagues claim no one works harder than Baucus. He's spent more than a year --beginning well before President Obama took office and made health care reform his top domestic priority -- holding hearings and educating committee members on the nuances of the issue.

What's striking, though, is this DKos summary:

Frank recounts how he got into politics in the first place, querying a group of editors at the Missoulian on whether he'd have a better shot at winning elected office as a Democrat or Republican. So, since 1972, Baucus has called himself a Democrat, and has been elected as one, but as Frank says "straddled the fence" when it comes to political--and policy--decision making.

And now we have Baucus "negotiating" points in secret with two other conservative Dems and three centrist Republicans...all with the idea that 2 or 3 Republicans might vote for this bill. Mike Enzi, when characterized by the press to be negotiating for all Republican Senators, said this:

Enzi, a soft-spoken conservative, was furious about headlines Wednesday morning that suggested he was close to reaching a deal with the Democrats.
"I felt my reputation was in danger," he said.

He issued a statement batting down the stories and insisted any deal he might ultimately sign onto would have to be preserved by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and Reid when it is merged with other more liberal legislation in the Senate and House.

"I'm not interested in lending credibility to disaster," Enzi said.

So there you have it! Baucus is negotiating in secret some sort of grand compromise that almost every single Republican will never vote for. What's the point?

Do Americans really want health care reform?

2009-07-30T00:52:06-05:00

Just out in the latest NY Times/CBS News Poll:

In one finding, 75 percent of respondents said they were concerned that the cost of their own health care would eventually go up if the government did not create a system of providing health care for all Americans. But in another finding, 77 percent said they were concerned that the cost of health care would go up if the government did create such a system.

Sounds like a story from The Onion, doesn't it?

It's not surprising given that stories like these are circulating:

On former Sen. Fred Thompson's radio show, former lieutenant governor of New York Betsy McCaughey said that the House's proposed health care bill contained a provision that would institute mandatory counseling sessions telling seniors how "to do what’s in society's best interest … and cut your life short." House Minority Leader John Boehner made a slightly more measured statement, warning that the same provision "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law."

The fact of the matter is that wages of normal workers will never go up as long as health care costs keep soaring. But since most Americans think that their health care is free -- since their employer pays for it -- they have no skin in the game.

Wake up, America! The health care system is broken in this country and the reform winding its way through Congress now is our only way to fix it. You voted Obama and the Democrats into power to fix it, but you now have to lean on your representatives to 'git 'er done!'

Call your Congressman (or woman) and your senator now and tell them to pass health care with the government option included. It's our last best hope to control costs and start down the path of a healthy (and affordable) health care system.