Some of 24 Oranges’ most memorable posts
2 years ago
"One of the greatest hoaxes of this campaign -- everyone's for universal healthcare," Kucinich said. "It's like a mantra. But when you get into the details, you find out that all the other candidates are talking about maintaining the existing for-profit system."
"With 46 million Americans without any health insurance at all and another 50 million underinsured," Kucinich said, "isn't it really time to look at the other models that exist that are workable for all the other industrialized nations in the world? When you think about it, the only thing that's stopping us is the hold that the private insurers have on our political system . . . corporate profits, stock options, executive salaries, advertising, marketing, the cost of paperwork. . ."
The hold of the healthcare industry on the top candidates is already apparent. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the top recipient of campaign contributions so far from the pharmaceutical and health products industry is Republican Mitt Romney ($228,260). But the next two are Democrats Barack Obama ($161,124) and Hillary Clinton ($146,000). The top recipient of contributions from health professionals is Clinton ($990,611). Romney is second at $806,837, and Obama third at $748,637.
The top recipient of cash from the insurance industry, which includes health insurers, is another Democrat, Connecticut's Christopher Dodd, at $605,950. Romney and Republican Rudolph Giuliani are second and third, with Clinton and Obama fourth and fifth. Even though Obama is in fifth place, he still has collected $269,750 from insurance companies.
You're Vietnam!
After years of muddling through on your own, you've finally repaired
yourself to a point of respectability. You would have been much better off had
people you didn't like not kept insisting on spending so much time with you. But
those times are fading quickly and these days you're pretty sure you won't get burned.
Star power!
Take the Country Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid
Always, we have betrayed them. We backed "Flossy" in Yemen. The French backed their local "harkis" in Algeria; then the FLN victory forced them to swallow their own French military medals before dispatching them into mass graves. In Vietnam, the Americans demanded democracy and, one by one - after praising the Vietnamese for voting under fire in so many cities, towns and villages - they destroyed the elected prime ministers because they were not abiding by American orders.
Now we are at work in Iraq. Those pesky Iraqis don't deserve our sacrifice, it seems, because their elected leaders are not doing what we want them to do...
And now, get rid of Maliki. Chap doesn't know how to unify his own people, for God's sake. No interference, of course. It's up to the Iraqis, or at least, it's up to the Iraqis who live under American protection in the green zone. The word in the Middle East - where the "plot" (al-moammarer) has the power of reality - is that Maliki's cosy trips to Tehran and Damascus these past two weeks have been the final straw for the fantasists in Washington. Because Iran and Syria are part of the axis of evil or the cradle of evil or whatever nonsense Bush and his cohorts and the Israelis dream up, take a look at the $30bn in arms heading to Israel in the next decade in the cause of "peace".
“Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell’s ass” was [Barry Goldwater's] reaction to the founder of the Moral Majority. Goldwater famously defended abortion. “I don’t have any respect for the religious Right,” he said. “There is no place in this country for practising religion in politics. That goes for Falwell, Robertson, and all the rest of these political preachers. They are a detriment to the country.”
When you write, you illuminate what's hidden, and that's a political act.
You are being played again.
They are counting on getting your vote by default, because they know that people are afraid that if they DON'T vote Democratic EVEN if the Democrats will not end the occupation they will end up with the rethugs back in power.
Remember all the fearmongering that Bushco did? The Democrats are now using it against you.
BUT, if they are elected next year in spite of that fact that they continue the occupation... WHAT DIFFERENCE is there between them and the rethugs?
What difference? NONE. It won't be any different from electing rethugs.
In other words by electing the Democrats next year out of fear of the rethugs, even if the Democrats won't end the occupation, EFFECTIVELY the country will have re-elected rethugs (called democrats).
S[even]D[ays]: How would you describe the state of the Democratic Party today?
C[ynthia] M[cKinney]: The Democratic Party has left many of its voters behind.
SD: The Republican Party?
CM: The Republican Party has left many of its voters behind.
SD: What is your view on the role of third-party politics?
CM: I’m given the example of the Abolitionist Party that didn’t win a single election but was right on the issue of slavery and affected the course of American politics for the better. Not many people at the time would have associated themselves with such a movement; of course that doesn’t mean that the abolitionist movement wasn’t necessary, and it certainly was right...
SD: Speaking of Bush, is there one word you would use to describe him?
CM: Impeachable.
SD: How do you feel he has handled the Iraq war?
CM: His first mistake was starting it.
SD: What would you have done differently?
CM: I would have changed the name and mission of the Department of State to the Department of Peace and eliminated war as any viable option for U.S. planners. The role and the mission of the Pentagon would change, too, for the promotion of our country as a responsible global partner and the peaceful protection of U.S. interests around the world. I would stop arms transfers and I would respect democratic elections. It is not just the Iraq war that Bush has mishandled. It is the American people and the legacy of our great country that has been mishandled by this presidency.
SD: Considering your growing association with the Green Party, what has attracted you to it?
CM: I have always had a relationship with Greens: from my very first campaign for the Georgia Legislature, to the campaign anticipated by many people in 2008. After I spoke out against George Herbert Walker Bush’s decision to bomb Baghdad in 1991, I spoke on the floor of the Georgia House against that decision. My colleagues got up and walked out on me and I was vilified all over the state. My patriotism was questioned and I was compared to Julian Bond. Honestly, that was the beginning of real outreach to me by peace groups all over the country, and women’s groups who felt my position was right.
SD: How would you describe the state of the Democratic Party today?
CM: The Democratic Party has left many of its voters behind.
SD: The Republican Party?
CM: The Republican Party has left many of its voters behind.
SD: What is your view on the role of third-party politics?
CM: I’m given the example of the Abolitionist Party that didn’t win a single election but was right on the issue of slavery and affected the course of American politics for the better. Not many people at the time would have associated themselves with such a movement; of course that doesn’t mean that the abolitionist movement wasn’t necessary, and it certainly was right.
SD: Many Americans were angered when Ralph Nader ran for president on the Green Party ticket in 2000, and blame him for President Bush’s being elected. What would you say to those voters?
CM: The assertion is made only by those who don’t know what happened in the 2000 election, or by those who want to dissuade people from looking for alternatives to the lack of representation they have now. First of all, nearly 100 percent of blacks who were registered to vote in Florida actually showed up and voted on Election Day to send a message to Jeb Bush. The mobilization was massive. Thousands of their votes were not counted. Democrats had only to defend their right to vote and demand that their votes be counted. That did not happen.
“If any passages in holy scripture seem to forbid us to be cruel to brute animals,” wrote St Thomas Aquinas, “this is . . . to remove man’s thoughts from being cruel to other men, lest through being cruel to animals one becomes cruel to human beings.”
Leaving aside Aquinas’s questionable interpretation of scripture, the assumed link between animal cruelty and interpersonal violence has found wide resonance in Western society. Thinkers as diverse as Pythagoras, St Augustine, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and many others have all advanced similar views.
There are two principal kinds of evidence...
In a control-group study by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA) and Northeastern University, 153 individuals prosecuted by the MSPCA between 1975 and 1986 were tracked for 20 years — ten years before the abuse, and ten after. Seventy per cent who had committed violent crimes against animals also had — or went on to have — criminal records for violent, drug, or disorder crimes.
Compared with their next-door neighbours, those who abused animals were five times more likely to commit violent crimes against people. The FBI now places animal cruelty on its list of risk indicators and warning signs for future violence.
The second piece of evidence comes from research on domestic violence. In situations where women or children were abused, so, invariably, were their animals. In 1981, a study by the RSPCA reported that 83 per cent of families with a history of animal abuse had also been identified by social services as at risk from child abuse or neglect.
In 1983, a study of those receiving services for child abuse from the New Jersey child-protection agency found that animals had also been abused in 88 per cent of pet-owning families. Extensive “triangling” took place within families, whereby pets were mistreated as a means of hurting another member of the family. Further US research in 1995 suggested that 71 per cent of battered women in a shelter asserted that their violent partner had harmed, or threatened to harm, the family pet.
Two pioneers in the field, Frank Ascione and Phil Arkow, argue that “Violence directed against animals is often a coercion device and an early indicator of violence that may escalate in range and severity against other victims.”
None of this shows that people who are cruel to animals will always be violent to humans. There is no simple cause and effect. Rather, cruelty to animals is one of a cluster of potential or actual characteristics held in common by those who commit violence or seriously anti-social acts. The American Psychiatric Association, for example, identifies animal cruelty as one of the diagnostic criteria for conduct disorders.
In the light of this accumulating evidence, what should be done? The first course of action should be humane education by parents and teachers. Macho acts of violence to other creatures are not a normal phase of development, and, unless checked, can form pathological traits. Teaching young children respect for living creatures is a large civilising task, but, lamentably, it has no place in the National Curriculum, and is seldom undertaken by schools. By their example, or lack of it, parents crucially influence children’s propensity to violence.
The second point is the need to address and report incidents of abuse. Clergy are now well aware of this obligation in relation to children, but are reluctant to act in relation to animals. Yet, since clergy are one of the few professional groups whose work involves home visits, they are often (like it or not) in key front-line positions. Cross-reporting among professionals is now increasingly common, and it is a mistake to leave any case of abuse, child or animal, unreported. Under the 2006 Animal Welfare Act, all who keep animals have a “duty of care”.
The third course of action concerns our theological vision of our place in creation. The idea of the interdependence of creation is now commonplace, but when it comes to articulating its practical significance, theologians and preachers are often mute. It is as if we can speak of creation only in generalities, always emphasising the differences between “them” and “us”. One result of this split thinking is that we fail to see the common patterns of violence in which we are caught — both as abusers and the abused.
A beleaguered animal protectionist was once confronted by an angry person wanting to know how she dared work for animals while there was still cruelty to children. “I’m working at the roots,” she replied.
It's a no-brainer. The best you can do is to take decent and principled stands on Burlington as a truly healthy and livable city. The idea of the zoning rewrite as a socially responsible act -- rather than being merely a marketing tool or a grandiose reflection of neo-capitalism -- means doing it with soul and decency.
Zoning can be achieved in many ways other than those sought by the typical developer. But to understand this and deal with it, one must free the debate from the rhetorical grasp of those who see a city's future primarily in economic -- rather than ecological or humanistic -- terms.
Certainly issues of ecology, both natural and human, need to be raised to the same level as present considerations of economics. The hope, and I believe the reality, is that in the long run, a zoning rewrite constructed on integrity and honesty will stand in stark contrast to the Ashe-Decelles-Knodell-Wright amendments -- politics based on windfalls of corporate cash which manipulation, cynicism and dishonesty provide access to.
Councilors Joan Shannon and Russell Ellis, listening to concerns of resident constituents, have introduced amendments that are ecologically and human-sensitive and merit full council support. At minimum, political integrity means standing firm against individuals for whom a pet cause -- a zoning variance benefiting developers, for example -- constitutes a litmus test for their support and being willing to accept the cost in doing so.
JAMES VOS
Burlington
Vos is treasurer of the Green Party of Burlington
These events publicize dog and cat overpopulation's overwhelming magnitude, and increase public awareness of the millions of dogs and cats killed in shelters annually for lack of homes and to emphasize the importance of spaying and neutering companion animals.
When the bus grew crowded, the driver told her to give her seat to a white person. Mrs. Morgan refused, and when a sheriff’s deputy tried to take her off the bus in Saluda, Va., she resisted.
“He put his hand on me to arrest me, so I took my foot and kicked him,” she recalled in “You Don’t Have to Ride Jim Crow!” a 1995 public television documentary. “He was blue and purple and turned all colors. I started to bite him, but he looked dirty, so I couldn’t bite him. So all I could do was claw and tear his clothes.”
"We've got some important lessons to learn from this audit," Moffatt said. "I think the state auditor's office is helping us work through those lessons. The most important thing is we, the Health Department, take very seriously the responsibility for the strict monitoring of these precious resources, be they state or federal." ...
There is some question about appropriate accounting of how the money was spent," Gibbs said.
Thabault said that since 2004 the Health Department had received $5.7 million in grants as part of the National Bioterrorism Hospital Preparedness Program.
It seems to me that we’ve seen enough evidence over the years that the capitalist system is not going to be destroyed by an outside challenger like communism—it will be destroyed by its own internal greed. Greed is the greatest danger as we develop an increasingly winner-take-all system. And voices like The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page encourage this mentality by insisting that any form of regulation is bad. But for whom?
It is so discouraging to watch this country become less and less fair—“justice for all” seems like an embarrassingly archaic tag. Republicans have rigged the “lottery of life” in this country in ways we don’t even know about yet. The new bankruptcy law is unfair, and the new college loan rules are worse. The system has been stacked so that large corporations have an inside track over small businesses in getting government contracts. We won’t see the full consequences of this mean and careless legislation for years, but it’s starting to affect us already.
I am sorry to be crude, but however else I try to say it, the phrase "lying bastards" comes to mind. In March, I claimed that the [UK] government was fudging its figures on cutting carbon emissions and that it was due to miss its targets for renewable energy. It denied the charges, claimed its cuts were " correctly quantified" and suggested I had got my facts wrong. Yesterday, the Guardian published a secret briefing by civil servants admitting that the government's programmes are way off track and urging ministers to try to amend them not with new investments but through "statistical interpretations of the target".
While no expense is spared in expanding motorways, airports and thermal power stations, every possible tactic is used to frustrate the programme for installing renewable power. The reason is not hard to fathom: big business has invested massively in constructing old technologies and wants to maximise its returns before switching to the new ones. It also demands the hyper-mobility which enables its executives and its goods and services to go anywhere at any time.
What you hold, may you [always] hold,
What you do, may you [always] do,
and never abandon.
But with swift pace [and] light steps
stir up no dust,
go forward:
securely, joyfully
and swiftly
on the path of prudent happiness.