An apple a day keeps the doctor away (they're cheaper, too!)

I post about a lot of various issues and personal happenings. This film focuses on an issue that I really haven't devoted a great deal of time to, but that is a looming elephant in all of our lives. What happens if we get really sick? Will our insurance cover everything? How much will it cover if not? How much of what it doesn't cover will I be able to afford before I'm in serious trouble?

If you've never asked yourself these questions or if you don't think you'll ever need to, then you have to see this movie. Even if you know that you'll never be faced with having to ask or answer these questions, you should see the film, because under the main theme are some pretty far reaching questions:

If we as a society are measured by how we treat those members who are the worst off (think uninsured people who have to seek treatment in an ER, or worse, those who were unlucky enough to be in New Orleans twenty two months ago), then who are we?

How did we get here (this one is answered pretty easily and clearly in the film thanks to Tricky Dicky's obsession with archival documentation of the magnetic type)?

And it also raises the specter of why we don't do anything about it, namely that:

The best way to exercise and maintain control over a people is to keep them in three states: fear (the terrorists must be fought over there so we don't have to fight them over here), poverty (below poverty line minimum wage, anyone?), and demoralized (it doesn't matter if I vote or not, the crooks will always be in power in Washington/Austin/(insert county seat here)).

I don't know what will happen if I get sick or get in a serious accident. I'm not very confident, in part because of what I saw earlier tonight but also in light of the flap over which the GURD medication my insurance company would pay for even after being prescribed by my doctor and having him argue with the insurance company in a three way conference call. Formulary, non formulary, pre-certified, their all just words that mean nothing except for what color ink and how much of it ends up at the bottom of a balance sheet at the end of the day.

I can remember one time I got top notch free care after a serious accident: After I hit a telephone pole with a Postal jeep while on a collection run during the holiday season one year when I was in college and working as a Casual letter carrier during the Christmas break. The jeep only had a lap belt, so my face hit the steering wheel about as hard as the jeep hit the pole. About $5000.00 of oral surgery later, I had seventy stitches in my face and the right side of my upper jaw wired with braces. All courtesy of the USPS workman's comp insurance. So, unless you work for the government or a government connected entity and are smart enough to get hurt or fall ill on the job, you should probably stay on your toes and keep all your bases covered.

Oh, and please see the film. Keep an open mind, and SEE THE FILM.

Of the people, by the people, for the people

Jim Hightower:

Let’s be blunt. It’s no longer the Sunni insurgents, Shiite militias, or al Queda bombers killing our troops in Iraq. Washington is killing them.

George W – still clinging to his disgraced neo-con fantasies – and the congressional leaders of both parties – unwilling to use their budgetary and oversight authority – are the ones who have 150,000 American men and women trapped in Iraq’s civil war. The troops are doing all they can, yet they have been betrayed by a White House and Congress that has no strategy to make “victory” possible and is unwilling either to provide the massive troop strength it would take to secure that country… or to bring our troops home.

So, our men and women are locked in a gruesome shooting gallery by U.S. politicians who apparently intend to keep them there for the year and a half or so left in Bush’s term. Hundreds of them will die, thousands will be horribly maimed, and all will suffer trauma. They are not victims of the “enemy,” but of America’s own failed “leaders.” It is immoral to do this to them, but there they are.

Meanwhile, Bush keeps saying that his war is essential to America’s own security and is the “challenge of our generation.” But he is obviously lying to us. If it was true, all Americans would be enlisted in the cause. If it was true, we’d have half a million troops in Iraq, or more.

But that would mean that the families of the elites would have to be called to duty – and this is politically unacceptable to Washington. As one Bushite, Sen. Jeff Sessions, put it: “We have a limited number of men and women we can send to Iraq.” In other words, don’t call on his family or friends to make any sacrifices for this "essential" war.

They are killing Americans in a war they know they can’t win – and a war their families won’t join. This is a dishonorable sham, and only We the People can stop it. Protest more. Protest louder.

Concur.

Do whatever you can, but do something if you believe in the idea that is America and everything it stands for, as opposed to the narrow agendas and priorities that the current administration and its Neo Conservative and elite backers would have us believe is the true meaning of this amazing group of people that make up America:

Dennis Kucinich:

We all know that the Iraq Study Group, in one of its major recommendations, Recommendation 63, said the United States should encourage investment in Iraq's oil sector by the international community and international energy companies; that the United States should assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise; that the United States should ensure the World Bank's efforts to assure that best practices are used in contracting.

Mr. Speaker, the last 50 minutes that I have spent talking about the effort to try to privatize Iraq's oil, if you go to one of the search engines, you can find perhaps 1 million different citations relating to this. So it is impossible to cover this kind of a subject, even in a period of an hour. But it needs to be said that this administration has pushed the Congress to put language in funding bills for Iraq that would set the stage for the privatization of Iraq's oil.

I am going to quote from the first war supplemental, that "the President shall make and transmit to Congress a determination, No. 2, whether the Government of Iraq is making substantial progress in meeting its commitment to pursue reconciliation initiatives, including enactment of a hydrocarbon law." Then under subsection (b), it says "if the President fails to make this determination, the Secretary of Defense shall commence the redeployment of our Armed Forces from Iraq."

In other words, privatize your oil, or we are leaving you without having a security and peacekeeping force to replace the United States Army.

PLEASE attempt to adjust your radio...

This is pretty frightening, but not absolutely 100% true here in Houston...



We DO have a great station here in town, KPFT at 90.1 FM in town and 89.5 FM down on the island of Galveston. They are listener supported, and worth every penny that they raise. From Amy and Juan every morning on Democracy Now! to great music programming on the weekends like The Lone Star Jukebox and The Bluegrass Zone to commentary on world events on The Monitor, the programming is diverse and well thought out. It's a refreshing alternative to the aural flamethrowers like Rush and BillO who dominate the AM airwaves.

Lock it in and rip the freakin' knob off!!!

Puppeters

Someone needs to get in there with a pair of sharp scissors...

Mumia Abu-Jamal:

Wherever we look in this world, we see the U. S. trying to install a network of puppets, who owe more to the us than to the people of their own countries. In simplistic terms, the corporate media pushes the idea of 'good guys' and 'bad guys'--silly symbols that take us back to mythic cowboy movies. In fact, any given leader can be a good guy and a bad guy depending on the time you're talking about. The late Saddam Hussein, now derided almost universally as a dictator, was an American ally just a brief time before--receiving a bounty of U. S. arms and, yes, weapons of mass destruction. As long as Saddam was using his weapons against Iran, all was well. Today, an Iraqi puppet sits on the national throne, a creation of us power, as surely as was the late Shah of Iran. Afghanistan presents an almost identical snapshot, a leader supported on a throne of U. S. bayonets--in a word, a puppet.

Why is it the business of the us to appoint the leaders of other nations? What's right about that? What's Democratic about that? We don't question it, because it's so deep in our national and international experience.

Why national?

Well, while many folks know about the FBI's harassment of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., how many of us know that the government planned to replace him as a black leader with someone who was more malleable, and less committed to civil rights? The FBI wanted to replace King with Samuel Pierce, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Reagan, someone who Reagan incidentally greeted as a guest to the White House, not recognizing that he was a member of his own cabinet.

The imperial industry of placing puppets over other people didn't begin abroad, it didn't start when one crossed the border, it began in the U. S., in an attempt to control and channel a popular movement. That's because empires begin at home, in essence, they export the methods they use at home abroad.

Democracy Now!:

The United States yesterday has lifted its embargo on direct aid to the Palestinian government in an effort to support Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah's struggle against Hamas. Last week Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip. Abbas responded by dismissing the democratically-elected Hamas-led government and formed a new cabinet led by a prime minister who has the backing of Israel and the United States.

John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, in an interview with Amy Goodman:

Well, what we've done -- we use many techniques, but probably the most common is that we'll go to a country that has resources that our corporations covet, like oil, and we'll arrange a huge loan to that country from an organization like the World Bank or one of its sisters, but almost all of the money goes to the U.S. corporations, not to the country itself, corporations like Bechtel and Halliburton, General Motors, General Electric, these types of organizations, and they build huge infrastructure projects in that country: power plants, highways, ports, industrial parks, things that serve the very rich and seldom even reach the poor. In fact, the poor suffer, because the loans have to be repaid, and they're huge loans, and the repayment of them means that the poor won't get education, health, and other social services, and the country is left holding a huge debt, by intention. We go back, we economic hit men, to this country and say, “Look, you owe us a lot of money. You can't repay your debts, so give us a pound of flesh. Sell our oil companies your oil real cheap or vote with us at the next U.N. vote or send troops in support of ours to some place in the world such as Iraq.” And in that way, we've managed to build a world empire with very few people actually knowing that we've done this.

I started off as economist, became chief economist, and my job really – I had a staff of several dozen people. My job was to get them, and for me to convince these countries to accept these very large loans, to get the banks to make the loans, to set up the deal so that the money went to big U.S. corporations. The country was left holding a huge debt, and then I would go in or one of my people would go in and say, “Look, you know, you owe us all this money. You can't pay your debts. Give us that pound of flesh.”

The other thing we do, Amy, and what's going on right now in Latin America is that as soon as one of these anti-American presidents is elected, such as Evo Morales, who you mentioned, in Bolivia, one of us goes in and says, “Hey, congratulations, Mr. President. Now that you're president, I just want to tell you that I can make you very, very rich, you and your family. We have several hundred million dollars in this pocket if you play the game our way. If you decide not to, over in this pocket, I've got a gun with a bullet with your name on it, in case you decide to keep your campaign promises and throw us out.”

I can make sure that this man makes a great deal of money, he and his family, through contracts, through various quasi-legal means, and I can also – if he doesn't accept this, you know, the same thing is going to happen to him that happened to Jaime Roldos in Ecuador and Omar Torrijos in Panama and Allende in Chile, and we tried to do it to Chavez in Venezuela and are still trying – that we will send in the people to try to overthrow him, as, in fact, we recently did with the President of Ecuador, or if we don't overthrow him, we'll assassinate him. And these people all know the history. They know that this has happened many, many, many times in the past.

The degree to which this nefariousness goes is pretty remarkable. I guess one can't underestimate the power and allure of cold hard cash and the power and influence that comes with it, but one has to consider the ramifications to one's soul, as I talked about here and here.

More on the Iraqi Hydrocarbon Act...

Which should be called the "Multinational Oil Corporations stealing Iraqi Hydrocarbon Act".

DN! on Wednesday, June 6:

AMY GOODMAN: As the Iraqi parliament moves closer to a final vote on a controversial oil law, local opposition is growing. This week, oil workers in southern Iraq announced a strike to oppose the law and demand better wages. More than 600 workers are taking part, affecting two major pipelines. The workers want to be a part of the negotiation process from which they've been excluded. Critics say the law will expose Iraq's oil to major privatization and foreign takeover.

ANTONIA JUHASZ: Well, the strike is critical. It’s been a long time building. There had been some negotiations between the strike leaders and Prime Minister al-Maliki. There are a number of demands, basic working conditions, wages, as you say, but also a seat at the table and opposition to the attempt to turn over Iraq's oil to foreign oil corporations and the -- as more knowledge has been brought to Iraq, it’s been very difficult for Iraqis to even learn what this oil law was about, just like it’s been difficult here. As more information has spread, the opposition has spread, as well, and now the workers have taken the situation into their own hands and struck.

This is really quite amazing and tremendously heartening. The Iraqis are finally seeing through all the smoke (literally) and mirrors of the last five years and realizing what all the ruckus is really about. Hopefully they'll be allowed to continue and grow as a representative group looking out for their own interests, which just happen to be the natural resources of IRAQ, not...

ANTONIA JUHASZ:If the law passes, US corporations have the potential to own a true bonanza of oil and, if the US military stays, protection to get in and get it. Now --

AMY GOODMAN: Which companies, in particular?

ANTONIA JUHASZ: Chevron, Exxon, Conoco, BP, Shell, Marathon.

The key to this is that while the Iraqi Parliament can and most likely will pass a resolution ending the occupation of Iraq, it must also be passed by the Cabinet, which is where Al Maliki has his base of support, which is essentially in the role of lap dogs for the US and its corporate interests in the region.

ANTONIA JUHASZ: The United Nations mandate for the US occupation of Iraq gives ultimate authority to the Iraqi parliament and the Iraqi cabinet to determine if the occupation can continue. So, theoretically, if the Iraqi parliament, joined by the cabinet -- and that’s critical -- say that the occupation cannot continue, theoretically it would have to end. That stands in vast opposition to the plans of the Bush administration and now, apparently, the plans of the Democratic leadership, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: Couldn't it give Bush an out?

ANTONIA JUHASZ: It could give Bush an out, if he wanted an out. I don't think he wants an out.

AMY GOODMAN: Because?

ANTONIA JUHASZ: Well, I think there’s many ways in which the war is not going all bad for the President and for the administration. The only thing that’s truly going bad is the instability. But what has worked is a government in place that is more amenable to US interests than the last ten years of the Hussein regime, a government in place that is willing to negotiate in a dramatic fashion on the nature of Iraq's oil regime, and being on the precipice of a transfer of Iraq, a fundamental transfer, in its oil policy. We have US oil corporations engaging daily in negotiations with the Iraqi oil ministry, waiting on the sidelines.

AMY GOODMAN: And if they don't pass this law?

ANTONIA JUHASZ: If they don't pass the law, it’s a big strike at the heart of the agenda. I would say that the game wouldn't be over, and the fact that the administration is talking publicly about this Korea policy, the idea that the United States would maintain some sort of military presence similar to the US presence, quote/unquote, "keeping the peace between South and North Korea," that’s a permanent military engagement, which could last as long as fifty years. The thirty-year contracts, the length, the extended length of the occupation, leads me to believe that this is the idea that the administration wants to pursue.

AMY GOODMAN: And what do you think of this comparison?

ANTONIA JUHASZ: It’s incredibly disturbing. First of all, the conditions are completely dissimilar, except for the desire of the United States to maintain a presence and to use the misunderstanding, I think, of the American public as to the role of the US military in Korea, to say, “Well, we’ve created peace for fifty years in one situation. We can create peace for fifty years in this other situation. Oh, and by the way, our military will be really well situated to move forward across the region to spread peace across the Middle East, where, oh, by the way, there also happens to be two-thirds of the world's remaining oil.” It’s a terrifying proposition.

I'll say. Let's hope the Iraqis stick to their guns (of principle, mind you) and "Throw the Bums Out!"

By no means do I mean to refer to any of our military personnel as the bums in question. That particular moniker is reserved for anyone in Iraq solely for the purpose of making a fast buck on the destruction of a country, culture, and people-- from contractors all the way up to CEOs.

Border control to prevent... what, exactly?

The cover story of last weeks' Houston Press focused on the environmental impact of a proposed border fence/barricade plan surrounding the Laredo area of the Texas-Mexico border area. The potential impact on the indigenous wildlife as well as the local human population on both sides of the border is great, but a few other interesting tidbits were slipped in the piece as well, like this one:

Local officials also got ahold of an eight-page "request for proposal" from DHS that sets out a plan for border fencing near Laredo, including the statement that "The total value of contract...will not exceed $172 million." Under "proposed corporate structure," it lists Houston-based Kellogg Brown & Root.

Peter continues to pay Paul, it would seem...

And then there's this, concerning the ability of the local officials and population to question the plan and its feasibility (based on the amount and accuracy of the information on the plan for the barricades):

Initially, federal officials debated the authenticity of the map. That seems to have passed, and the proposed fencing has been accepted as more than just some errant agent's doodling.

At the same time, DHS tightened its control over information. The U.S. Border Patrol, which had been commenting on the border fence, was told to shut up.

"We have an order from headquarters. We can't comment on the fence," Camilo Garcia, public affairs officer of the Rio Grande Valley sector of the U.S. Border Patrol, said last week. "They gave us guidelines earlier on what we could talk about, and now they say those don't apply."

Agricultural impacts? What agricultural impacts? I get all my strawberries from California, anyway...

Two issues seem likely to be dominant for the farmers and shippers.

One has to do with water access. Almost all irrigation is done with water out of the Rio Grande. "If we can't get access to that water, then we have a huge problem. Because almost all fruit and vegetable crops are irrigated. Most places in the country, a lot of the irrigation is done with well water. That's not the case here," McClung says.

"I heard one plan from one Border Patrol guy, a low-level guy, well, he said we'll put gates in the fence, we'll open them at 8:30 in the morning for an hour or two. Well, jeez, Louise, all that reflects is a wanton lack of understanding of how agriculture works."

And everyone's favorite Golden Oldie, Eminent Domain:

The other issue is land condemnation. Most of the land in South Texas, even down to the river, is privately owned.

"There is a deep emotional resentment at the notion of land condemnation. Secondly, there's questions about fair value, about how it would be done, and there's many people who simply do not want to part with their land under any circumstances," McClung says.

And then there's just plain common sense, unless the reason that DHS and their masters want the barriers put in isn't consistent with the stated reasons:

By profession, Steve Ahlenius, president and CEO of the McAllen Chamber of Commerce, is a pretty upbeat kind of guy. The fence really bothers him, though, and like a dog with a bone, he can't let it go, even as his wife cautions him not to come across like some kind of radical.

"We keep hearing DHS talk about possible terrorists' attacks coming from the southern border, and I finally went back and said, ‘Okay, I'm going to look [at] historically since 1999 what's been the things that happened in the United States. Did we have someone coming in from the southern border and planning a terrorist attack?'"

What his research shows, he says, is that since 1999, all known terrorist activity has involved U.S. citizens, naturalized citizens or citizens who are here on visas or alien residents — or who have come in from Canada.

Reflecting on the burgeoning Muslim population in Canada, Ahlenius thinks the greater threat for terrorist attacks on the United States is going to come from the northern border.

A great film came out last year that highlights the impact of an international border drawn haphazardly in the middle of a region that shares many characteristics, The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada. From the Director's statement:

...a study of the emotional, psychological, spiritual, and social implications of having an international border running through the middle of a culture.

-Tommy Lee Jones

The impacts of such a barrier, which most people interviewed in this article are resigned to see happen, go far beyond all the impacts listed here and in the article. It will make the commerce and transit of everything and everyone that crosses the border both ways right now more difficult, but it will not reduce the need and desire of that transit and commerce to continue. The only thing that will increase is the number of injuries and deaths resulting from attempts to circumvent the barrier and the economic impact of the compromise of the aforementioned commerce across the border.