THE TIMES, THEY ARE A-CHANGIN'

Maybe in Burlington, too? But with the Prog$, it's biz as usual, as Haik writes:

I have questions about whether it's even legal for a major party to hold a caucus this way. The Democrats and the Republicans in Burlington let you vote in their caucuses regardless of how you self-identify in terms of party, so long as you haven't voted in another caucus. I that think not having voted in another party's caucus is the only legal requirement for participating. I guess Jane (and assistant city attorney Gene Bergman) have a different legal opinion. If anybody out there wants to sue the Progs over this, it would certainly be an interesting legal challenge.

The context of all this exclusivity is as interesting as the exclusivity itself. Why are the Progs playing it this way in Ward 2? The simplest answer is usually the right one.

It seems to me the simplest answer is that Knodell is not running again, and the Progs have already chosen the person they'd like to replace her. The secrecy and exclusivity surrounding this caucus are probably designed to create a tightly controlled environment that will ensure the desired winner.

That and the Progs seem to take a sort of holier-than-thou attitude sometimes. Maybe they like to exclude people to a degree. It keeps them in a bubble believeing in their self-importance. Unfortunately for them, that general attitude has been eroding the party's support for years.

Bernie Sanders is a US Senator now. No Progressive will ever rise higher. I predict that at 71 years old, Bernie will win a second senate term, but with a smaller majority than he won over Tarrant. The Progs have already lost one of their four core council seats from Wards 2 and 3. If Democrat David Cain takes Ashe's seat in Ward 3, and if Kiss does not retain the corner office, there will be very little left of the original Progressive movement.

What was once a thriving, inclusive coalition, has become an dying, exclusive party. That's unfortunate. But as they say, "attitude is everything" and Knodell's post clearly exemplifies the very self-rightous attitude Progressives have had for a long time. Progs will deny it, but there is a sort of "two legs good, four legs bad," ends-justify-means hypocrcisy going on there. I've felt it for many years and I'm not alone.

Pretty astute comments from Mr Bedrosian; BurlingtonPol gets the Burlington pulse, indeed!

HUMAN ECOLOGY

From THINKING ANGLICANS

human ecology

The Pope, speaking on issues of sexuality, argues from the position of an organisation which has a vested interested in preserving a traditional totally male hierarchy. It reflects a view, now not universally accepted, that women have no voice and no vote, where husbands take over the property and the rights of wives, and in which the woman is ceremonially handed over from her father to her husband at her wedding.

Women’s emancipation in society has been one of the chief causes of a serious rift between Church and State in many countries where the ministry of Churches has remained restricted to men. Even formerly Catholic countries now describe themselves as having a secular constitution, and signs or the rift are most noticeable in areas relating to human sexuality:

* Female emancipation
* Legalisation of contraception
* Legalisation of abortion
* Liberalisation of divorce laws
* Decriminalisation of homosexual acts
* Equal rights for women
* An end to oppression of gay and lesbian people
* Legal frameworks for gay partnerships

It would be difficult to cite any other area in which Church and State have been more out of step with each other.

This unfortunately gives the impression that the only morality of interest to the Church is sexual morality. Indeed, it would now appear that the last time the Church could ever claim to lead a moral crusade to promote human equality it was over the ending of slavery, some two centuries ago. Since then it has been the State which has been in the forefront of promoting the dignity and equality of all people, whilst the Church has maintained its traditional inequalities by arguing for an opt out from national legislation.

Clearly Church and State perceive society very differently. The State sees all people as having an equal and valid contribution to make, whereas the Church, in preserving a traditional male hierarchy, has a structure which appears more primitive and tribal.

Homo sapiens evolved the capability of operating in larger units than any other large mammal. As this happened the pattern of a clan under the headship of a dominant male required some adjustment.

With children taking many years to come to maturity, grandparents became important in helping them acquire the skills they would need for survival. And it was no longer only the breeding couples of this largely monogamous species which held the fabric of society together. A significant contribution has always been made by those who did not marry. Those who did not have the constant responsibility of feeding and rearing their own children had time to develop skills and enrich the community in other ways which would make them valuable to the whole group.

Such people were not perceived as a threat to married couples. The man who did not covet his neighbour’s wife has always been less of a danger to society than the heterosexual man who might want to tempt her away. The reason for having strict marriage laws is not because of what gay people might do, but in order to protect couples from heterosexual predators. It would therefore appear that once again the Pope has shown that the Church is out of step with society in its understanding of human sexuality. There is no danger to the species from gay people whilst 90% of people are attracted to the opposite sex. Gay people have never posed any threat to those who wish to live as heterosexual couples. They simply accept this as a valid lifestyle for those who wish to enjoy it.

Society in Britain, North America, and much of Europe is happy with this situation and has framed legislation to protect the rights of all people. By contrast the Pope is the personification of a wrong human ecology; one which fails to give rights to all people. And people wonder, seeing the Church of England’s hesitation over the ordination of women to the episcopate, whether having an Established Church which retains such an outmoded view of women has anything to commend it.

STATUS QUO HEALTH CARE DELIVERY

Yesterday it was announced that the president-elect has chosen former senator Tom Daschle to be HHS secretary. When he was a senator, he was one of the biggest recipients of campaign donations from the health care industry. Since he left the senate, he’s had a position advising a Washington legal and lobbying firm on a number of issues, notably health care. That firm’s lobbying clients include a number of pharmaceutical companies.

Indeed, in yesterday's NYT:

Although Mr. Daschle’s work might not preclude his appointment, it could raise the possibility that the administration could require him to recuse himself from any matter related to either the Mayo Clinic or some of the clients he advised at Alston & Bird — a potentially broad swath of the health secretary’s portfolio.

No presidential administration has sought to extend its conflict-of-interest policies to previous employers as Mr. Obama has pledged to do, earning high marks from government ethics groups. Mr. Daschle’s selection reflects a clash, widely predicted by Washington lawyers and lobbyists, between Mr. Obama’s unusually sweeping self-imposed ethics rules and his desire to recruit experienced policy hands.

Change we can believe in.

In a pathetic round-table discussion last night on PBS’s Newshour, Judy Woodruff was joined by

Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans, a national trade association representing health insurance providers;

Stuart Butler, vice president for domestic and economic policy at the Heritage Foundation;

Chris Jennings, former senior health policy adviser to president Clinton, now president of Jennings Policy Strategies, a health policy consulting firm;

and Uwe Reinhardt, professor of economics and public affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University (he of managed care, which gave “consumers” a “choice,” but was controlled by insurance companies that put profits before patient care).

All these expert analysts used the current financial crisis as an explanation and excuse for preventing Obama's "desire" for real and serious health care reform. All are tied to the status quo of health care delivery in this country.

Judy Woodruff did not invite any working people, patients or physicians into the discussion mix. The Newshour's experts don't know what the citizens want, but speaking for their corporate connections, they presume to know what's best for us. Not once during the discussion was single payer mentioned.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, has introduced a bill - HR676 - for single payer, making it unlawful to sell private health insurance for benefits that are medically necessary.

57% of Americans, when asked about their choice for health care delivery, have said they want it government sponsored. (70% of Democratic primary voters want it.) Even back in August, the Democratic platform snuffed out single payer in the mix for health care reform solutions.

In the interest of a true discussion and debate, why didn’t Woodruff have representatives from the California Nurses Association or Physicians for a National Healthcare Program? Both groups have called for single payer. (Although the CNA supported Obama.) Why not include Vermont’s own Dr Deb Richter, former president of PNHP or its founders Dr. Steffie Woolhandler and Dr. David Himmelstein?