Healthcare is a Human Right

Hi All, I am forwarding the info from the flyer for the Sept 24th Healthcare is a Human Right Campaign info meeting. Please forward it to as many people as you can. It’s like a little “email flyer”! Just cut and paste! Thanks.

Presentation by: The Vermont Workers’ Center “Healthcare is a Human Right” CampaignSt. Albans Free LibraryThursdaySeptember 24th @ 5:00pm Meet organizers with the Vermont Workers’ Center and a representative from Senator Bernie Sanders office to learn about what we can do in Vermont to address the healthcare crisis. Change what is “POLITICALLY POSSIBLE” in the healthcare debate through GRASSROOTS organization. Recognize that healthcare is a public good for the community, rather than a commodity to be sold in a marketplace. Come learn about this exciting campaign & how Vermont can keep the momentum for change going when the efforts of federal reform fall far short from fixing this crisis.  For more informationwww.workerscenter.org/healthcare or call 802 861-4892 PLEASE PASS IT FORWARD! THANKS!!

Black and White and Bred All Over

As will become immediately clear, I’m afraid, I am almost completely ignorant about dairying, except from the vantage point of a consumer.  So at the risk of well-deserved ridicule I’m going to go ahead and suggest what I think may be a novel approach to improving the situation for small dairy farms.  

Unless I am very much mistaken, uniformity of product is the number one objective in the processing of milk, coast to coast That’s why you see almost nothing but Holsteins wherever you go in dairy country, whether it’s California, Wisconsin or Vermont.  I would venture a guess that even those many thousands (millions?) of head of Holsteins are all descended from just a few great producers.  The object of selective breeding was to maximize yield of milk that was uniform and had the best butterfat profile for conventional dairy purposes.   Probably a smart approach at the outset; but the very success of that model is now threatening dairy farmers ability to make ends meet.  Even the co-ops that originally promised security for dairy farmers had to observe the rule of uniformity in order to satisfy market conditions.  Finally, the small dairy farmer is nothing but a bit player in a super-giant dairy conglomerate presided over by rich guys who don’t get out much. That is problem #1

I think problem number two may be a sustainability issue that is being over-looked because of problem #1.   Anyone who is familiar with biodiversity issues in  food crops can easily extrapolate what that threat might look like with regard to dairy herds.  Hint: it’s black and white and bred all over.  

While we are considering the plight of the small dairy farmer today, perhaps we should also be looking at the plight of the future American dairy consumer.  What happens if we continue to undervalue the nutritional role dairy plays in our diet, further diminishing the ability of small farmers to sustain their herds.  Milk production becomes more and more concentrated in the hands of a very few super-herds; and when further mechanization can’t satisfy the demand for cheaper and cheaper product, perhaps outsourcing can.  Finally, we become dependent for what is a significant part of the American diet on sources hundreds and thousands of miles away.  Then let’s say a superbug, a “Holstein Hepatitis,” comes along.  The cows are confined in such large groups that the virus quickly spreads and wipes out the entire herd in the Western Hemisphere.  There aren’t any more Jerseys,  Guernseys, or Brown Swiss cows anywhere to be found because no one bothered to preserve those herds, or at least not a sufficient number to fill the dietary void left by the dying Holsteins.  It may sound far-fetched, but why not?  I’d wager that the vast majority of dairy cows are already eating exactly the same food.  Probably made by Cargill…which is a division of Monsanto…which is a division of McDonald’s.   I’m kidding, of course.

Anyway, perhaps instead of concentrating on subsidies and surplus strategies, Congress should be looking at ways to encourage smaller, more biodiverse herds. We should be focussing on local sustainable food supply as the goal, rather than corporate overkill in the marketplace.  MORE is not necessarily BETTER.  Take a page from fruit and vegetable growers who have discovered a new market for heirloom varieties and exotics.  Rather than selling the bland uniformity of milk, why couldn’t we be marketing the sensual differences in color, flavor and texture available with herd diversity?

Imagine the “value added” potential!

Why can’t we pay farmers to provide food security for their immediate communities by gradually reducing their holdings of Holsteins,  and replacing them with less individuals of other varieties?

It’s just a thought.  Now I will quietly find the exit before I am escorted from the building.

Obama Un-Cola

Coke’s CEO said recently of what he called  governments efforts to tell people what to eat and drink . “If it worked, the Soviet Union would still be around.”  

First they came for our soda pop.US Legislators have floated an idea which has bubbled to the surface to mitigate health care costs with a possible tax on soft drinks. First the alleged death panels now  they want  to tax our bubbly sugar water . Is Obama going too far, attempting too much, over reach? He even went so far as to suggest that perhaps the tax should be explored and that people may be drinking too much soda. ”I actually think it’s an idea that we should be exploring,” Obama said in an interview with Men’s Health magazine going on sale this week. “There’s no doubt that our kids drink way too much soda.”

No doubt also part of the long term socialistic-communistic-liberalistic plan to destroy the Pepsi Generation ™   the New York City health  dept. has unveiled a subway bill board ad campaign  that feature images of globs of  fat  flowing out of what appears to be coke  poured out over ice .

The beverage industry released a statement claiming that the NYC health dept. ad campaign   singling out  sugary soft drinks runs the danger of minimized obesity .

Like most foods, soft drinks and other sugar-sweetened beverages are a source of calories. Simply naming one food source as a unique contributor minimizes a disease as complex as obesity.

–  How or why targeting a  heavily promoted ubiquitous product known to help cause  obesity  minimizes the issue was not explained .

It is the real thing ….

In 2001, the soft-drink industry included approximately five hundred U.S. bottlers with more than 183,000 employees, and it achieved retail sales of more than $61billion   . Americans that year consumed an average of 55 gallons of soft drinks per person, up from 48 in 1990 and 34 in 1980.

A recent Bloomberg survey rated coke as the best world wide brand name above IBM and Microsoft even McDonalds

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/…

http://www.ameribev.org/news–…

More stupidity from the DC Democrats …

So ACORN, the group that has reported employees who engaged in voter registration fraud to the police and pointed out problematic registration forms, is being dumped on by the DC Democrat led federal government.

Seems the DC Democrat led House and Senate agree that an organization who reports an attempt at fraudulent use of their services (irrefutable evidence here) and promptly fires employees who engaged in questionable activities just doesn’t deserve anything but scorn.

Thank you DC Democrats … when measured in end results you really are not much different than the radical, right wing liars AKA the Republican Party.

VT Media Watch: Totten’s Sloppy Welch Kiss

[Cross-posted at Broadsides.org]

Shay Totten of Seven Days has been known to document the shady revolving door that goes from political job to journalism job (and vice versa) in our small town known as Vermont. I guess he should know about the phenomena from experience since he has, after all, gone from journalist to employee of former Auditor Liz Ready and then back to journalism. Dizzying, I know.

Totten appears to be keeping the revolving door between covering politicians and working for them well-greased if you consider his recent sloppy kiss of an article that he wrote about Vermont’s lone congressman, Peter Welch (“The Man of The House.”).

The headline should give you a hint about how far over Totten bent to supply Welch with nothing but accolades and applause lines. But the article is worse if, like me, you find yourself hoping that Totten and Seven Days would deliver on their “alternative media” tagline. No such luck here.

In his two-page feature, Totten waxes poetically about Welch’s great accomplishments with regards to the health care debate and his (cue laugh track) anti-war stance. But when Totten isn’t serving up his own chapped-lips for more Welch kisses, he serves up one quote after another from Welch’s friends and colleagues who (guess what?) have nothing but praise for Welch’s “skill, temperament, experience, and interpersonal skills.”

Please, get a room.

Quoting all this praise isn’t a bad thing in and of itself. It only becomes a glaring problem when you realize by the end of his article that Totten hasn’t quoted one, single person who has anything critical to say of Welch and/or his record. Not from the right. Not from the left. No one.

But let’s step back and look once again at the issues Totten-via-Welch are declaring to be Welch’s great successes.

First up: health care. How is it that Welch can be “succeeding” in the health care debate when it’s so obvious that real health care reform (read: single-payer and even the so-called public option) is off the table? Smells like a failure to me.

And how about the wars? Totten gushes about how Welch “was a vocal critic of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when he ran, and won, in 2006.” But then Totten refuses to report how Welch has voted repeatedly since being elected to fund BOTH wars.

Laughingly, Totten lets Welch off the hook by serving up his old and tired claim that he supports “timelines” for withdrawal of troops when he votes to appropriate more money for the wars. But how’s that strategy working out for him? Well, in 2007, Welch insisted that his vote for more Iraq war money at the time would lead to an end to the war by September 2008. Yes, September 2008.

But Totten doesn’t bother to trot out these kinds of facts or take a minute or two to contact someone who could provide him with an alternative view. Instead, Totten declares Welch victorious with his war stance – never mind the facts.

Worse, Totten lets Welch spit this line out without any opposing view: “The major thing in electing Barack Obama was to bring our troops home.”

Who amongst the sane – let alone the “alternative media” – believes that Obama is trying to “bring the troops home”? None that I know of. In fact, nearly two thousand Vermont National Guard troops are about to be deployed for Obama’s wars in the next couple of months, a deployment that is the largest in the state’s history. Moreover, there’s talk of a troop surge in Afghanistan and hemming and hawing amongst the Obama Defense Department about meeting the absurdly slow (and largely mythical) troop withdrawals from Iraq.

So how is it that Welch is succeeding here? Because, once again, it sure smells like failure to me.

Totten’s article on Welch should be considered “exhibit A” on how members of Congress can continue to be popular while the Congress itself is detested by the populace. It’s because members of the local media – alternative or otherwise – serve up nonsense about “their” congressman succeeding despite the obvious facts to the contrary.

If Congress is so clearly bungling health care and the wars, how can Welch be succeeding? When Welch delivers on his campaign pledges to provide single-payer health care and END the wars, then we’ll trot out the “success” word. But, for now, Welch is little more than a political loser.

Tottten won’t say that – not if he wants that revolving door to keep spinning in his favor. Too bad.

Leahy signs on to S604!

( – promoted by odum)

Well, it took long enough, but many months after Bernie Sanders introduced the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act and Peter Welch co-sponsored the House version, HR1207, Patrick Leahy has declared that he will be the 26th co-sponsor of the bill.  Alan Grayson (D-FL) also announced early this week that there will be a hearing on HR1207 (now at 290 co-sponsors) later this month.  Below is Leahy’s letter:

Dear Mr. Hirsch:

Over the past several months, many Vermonters like you have contacted me about S. 604, the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act.  In light of the overwhelming interest in this issue, I have decided to become a cosponsor of the bill.  

I understand the concerns of some that disclosure of lending information could be a disincentive for banks to borrow from the Federal Reserve because it publicizes their need for an emergency loan.  Still, I believe the American people deserve to know the full extent of the government’s lending programs.  

In addition, a Federal District Court ruled last month that the Federal Reserve must disclose documents detailing the identities of borrowers and the amounts of loans or the assets put up as collateral under 11 relief programs.  I am hopeful that the Federal Reserve will comply with this court order in a timely manner.  

Thank you again for contacting me about this bill.  Please keep in touch.

People’s Forums on Healthcare

Though the health care reform movement down in DC seems all but in a coma now or dead, as our representatives seem to beholden to the campaign cash from the health insurance companies, “the best democracy that money can buy,” the movement for single-payer health care reform in Vermont still has plenty of fire left. The Vermont Worker’s Center in Burlington is hosting a series of forums on health care around the state.  They are called the “People’s Forums on Healthcare,” and are public forums with members of the Vermont legislative delegation from each of the counties where the forums will be held invited to attend.   The first one is on Tuesday, September 22, at the Montpelier High School Cafeteria, from 6:30-9:00.  The others are listed below.  

People’s Forums on Healthcare: The County Organizing Committees of the Healthcare Is A Human Right are beginning to hold public forums with local legislators about developing policy in Vermont to make healthcare a public good for all. Please join us for these events to hear how in Vermont we can win legislation that makes healthcare a basic right.

Washington County

7pm, Tuesday, September 22

Montpelier High School Cafeteria

Bennington County

7pm, Thursday, September 24

Saint Peter’s Episcopal Church

200 Pleasant Street, Bennington

Windham County

7pm, Tuesday, September 29

Brattleboro Union High School, Multi-purpose Room

Chittenden County

7pm, Thursday, October 1

Imani Community & Youth Center

294 N. Winooski Ave, Burlington

Rutland County

6:30 pm, Tuesday, October 6

Rutland Free Library, Nella Grimm Fox Room

10 Court Street, Rutland

To learn more about these forums or about how you can help start a local Organizing Committee on this campaign, please email james@workerscenter.org

Father Roy Bourgeois,

Founder of the School of the Americas Watch,

September 17, 7pm

First Unitarian Universalist Society

at the top of Church St. in Burlington

In 1990, Fr. Roy founded the School of the Americas Watch, an office that does research on the US Army School of the Americas (SOA), now renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation or WHINSEC, at Fort Benning, Georgia. Each year the school trains hundred of soldiers from Latin America in combat skills – all paid for by U.S. by US taxpayers. Union and worker activists have been particular targets of the SOA tactics.

Father Roy has also spent time recently in Honduras, where labor and other social movements have been struggling for more than two months against a military coup. The Workers’ Center released a statement condemning the coup in July.

Polls Find Wilson’s Outburst Against Obama Backfires

CBS and Bloomberg Polls Show Obama’s Health-Care Speech Halted Weeks-Long Slide in His Job-Approval Ratings, With Most Americans Praising President’s Handling of Issue, But Remaining Sharply Divided on Whether His Plans Will Succeed; Gallup Poll Finds Sharp Disapproval of Wilson’s ‘You Lie!’ Outburst — Even Among Republicans — But the Race Issue Won’t Go Away

(Posted 5:00 a.m. EDT Thursday, September 17, 2009)

By SKEETER SANDERS

President Obama’s attempt to explain his plans for health care reform to the American public in an address before a joint session of Congress last week appears to have paid off – with some unexpected help by the conservative Republican congressman who heckled him during his speech.

Two new polls released this week — one by CBS News and the other by the business-oriented Bloomberg News — show that Americans now give the president the “thumbs-up” for his handling of the health care issue, halting a weeks-long slide in Obama’s overall job-approval ratings. But the public remains sharply divided over whether the president clearly explained his plan and whether it would succeed.

Meanwhile, a third poll released by the Gallup Organization showed strong disapproval of Representative Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” outburst during the president’s address, with a solid two-thirds majority opposing the South Carolina Republican’s actions.

The Gallup Poll results came on the eve of the House vote Tuesday to rebuke Wilson for his heckling of the president, an incident unprecedented by a sitting member of Congress. The House voted 240-179 in favor of a “resolution of disapproval” — the least severe form of disciplinary action against one of its members.

OBAMA’S POLL NUMBERS STOP FALLING, BUT DOUBTS ABOUT PLAN’S COST REMAIN

Before his address, the president’s handling of the health-care reform issue was more negative than positive, with a CBS News poll taken from August 27 to August 31 showing 47 percent disapproved while only 40 percent approved. In a Gallup survey taken August 6 to August 9, 49 percent disapproved of Obama’s handling of the health-care issue, while only 43 percent approved.

Obama’s speech appears to have stopped his slide particularly with independent voters in the CBS poll, with his approval rating among this important voting bloc having risen as a result. But they remain sharply divided. Among Democrats, the president’s support solidified at 85 percent. Even among Republicans, Obama’s approval ratings rose slightly after his speech, but only 17 percent of Republicans back his health-care proposals.

Respondents in the Bloomberg survey, conducted Thursday through Monday, were slightly more approving of the president’s efforts after the speech as well, with 48 percent of respondents in  favor and 42 percent opposed.

Nonetheless, at least half of respondents expressed doubts that Obama can fulfill his promises to veto legislation that adds to the federal budget deficit; to preserve the Medicare trust fund,  particularly as the eldest of the 76 million Baby Boomers — those born in 1946 — approach their 65th birthdays in 2011; and to produce savings to help pay for prescriptions for Medicare patients.

“The debate seems to be about money, not about the need for reform,” Bloomberg News quoted Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Company, as saying. “When you look at specific planks, respondents like all of them.”

Selzer & Company, based in Des Moines, Iowa, conducted the poll for Bloomberg.

“I do think everyone should have health care, somehow,” said Judy Shaffer, a Bloomberg poll respondent in Ligonier, Pennsylvania, “[But] the deficit is going to go up so much higher. I think it’s really bad where it’s at right now.”

The 63-year-old Shaffer said the president’s address failed to allay her concerns about the impact that his plan will have on the deficit, and thus she remains opposed to it.

NO DOUBTS ABOUT WILSON’S OUTBURST: SOLID MAJORITY SAYS IT WAS WRONG

But while Americans remain divided over the success or failure of the president’s health-care reform plan, there is one thing they do agree on: That Wilson’s outburst against Obama during the president’s address was out of line, according to Gallup.

A greater-than-two-thirds majority of 68 percent disapproved of Wilson’s actions — with 23 percent expressing outrage at the South Carolina Republican calling Obama a liar after the president himself denounced as “false” accusations that his health-care plan would cover illegal immigrants.

Even a majority of Republicans — 52 percent — opposed Wilson’s outburst, while 39 percent of Republicans supported him, the Gallup survey found.  Not surprisingly, an overwhelming 86 percent of Democrats disapproved of what Wilson did, while only three percent supported his actions. Among independents, a near-two-thirds majority of 64 percent disapproved, while 17 percent approved.

There was no demographic breakdown in the Gallup survey on Wilson’s conduct, but it did note that 45 percent of Democrats expressed deep outrage at Wilson, perhaps reflecting the views of many Democrats who see a racial element not only in Wilson’s actions, but in the venomous sentiment expressed by many of the president’s opponents — particularly the so-called “birthers” who steadfastly claim that Obama is a foreigner constitutionally ineligible to be president, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

WILSON REPRIMAND POURS MORE FUEL ON PARTISAN DIVIDE

The House resolution rebuking Wilson only added more fuel to the already bitter partisan divide in Congress.

Democrats insisted that “This is not about partisan politics or inappropriate comments,” in the words of House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-South Carolina), who introduced it. “To the contrary, this is about the rules of this House and reprehensible conduct.” While some Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California), would have preferred that the matter be laid to rest, Clyburn, declaring that “Silence gives consent,” insisted, “We cannot be silent because we cannot consent to this conduct.”

Republicans, while shying away from defending Wilson’s outburst, nonetheless insisted that the vote to rebuke him was a distraction. “Our economy is struggling, our families are hurting, and Congress is poised to demand an apology from a man who has already apologized,” said Representative Mike Pence (R-Indiana), chairman of the Republican Conference. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) called the resolution a “partisan stunt.”

Wilson did apologize to the president for calling him a liar, but he’s refused to bow to majority Democrats’ demands that he issue a public apology on the House floor to his colleagues for breaching the chamber’s decorum.

On Tuesday, Wilson again refused to apologize to his colleagues in the debate leading to the vote on the resolution. “I think it is clear there are far more important issues than what we are doing right now,” he said. “It is time we move on.”

MUCH TO OBAMA’S CHAGRIN, RACE ISSUE COMES FRONT AND CENTER

House Democrats, particularly members of the Congressional Black Caucus, felt compelled to act as the issue of racial bias against the president suddenly surged front and center in the past week, partly due to revelations that Wilson is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans — a 113-year-old “Southern heritage” group that, according to an anti-racism watchdog, has been taken over in the past decade by avowed white supremacists — and partly due to remarks made by former President Jimmy Carter.

The SCV, according to a 2006 report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, had undergone a purge of its longtime moderate members — including several present and former U.S. senators — who were replaced by “racial extremists.” That, in turn, led to a bitter severing of relations between the SCV and other Southern heritage groups, including the Military Order of Stars & Bars and the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

The report noted that some 300 moderate SCV members were expelled, accused by the radical racialists of disloyalty for criticizing racism in the organization.

And in a 2008 expose, The St. Petersburg Times revealed that since the 1990s, clusters of SCV members “have aligned themselves with ‘heritage groups’ like the League of the South and the Council of Conservative Citizens” — both considered racist hate groups by the SPLC, with the CCC essentially a revival of the white citizens’ councils that sprung up in the 1950s and 1960s to resist the civil rights movement.

Carter, in an interview Tuesday with “NBC Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams and in remarks Wednesday during a town hall meeting in Atlanta, said that Wilson’s outburst was an act “based on racism” and rooted in fears of a black president.

“I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he is African-American,” the former president said.

But one of Wilson’s sons disputed that.

“There is not a racist bone in my dad’s body,” said Alan Wilson, an Iraq War veteran who is seeking the GOP nomination for state attorney general in South Carolina. “He doesn’t even laugh at distasteful jokes. I won’t comment on former President Carter, because I don’t know President Carter. But I know my dad, and it’s just not in him.”

Republican National Chairman Michael Steele also denied race being a factor in the opposition to Obama’s domestic agenda, telling CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday that Carter was “dead wrong” and “out of line.”

But when confronted by TV images during the president’s address showing Republican members of Congress almost exclusively white males and Democratic members of Congress a very diverse group in terms of race and gender, Steele admitted that the Republican Party needed to take a new line to connect with nonwhite voters. “Our party has for over a generation employed a strategy that right now many of us wish we never had,” he said.

EVEN OBAMA DENIES RACE A FACTOR — BUT ISSUE WON’T GO AWAY

Even the White House disagreed with Carter’s assessment on Wednesday, with press secretary Robert Gibbs telling reporters that Obama “does not believe” that criticism of his policies is “based on the color of his skin.”

Gibbs said the president understands that “people have disagreements with some of the decisions that we’ve made and some of the extraordinary actions that had to be undertaken by this administration and previous administration to stabilize our financial system, to ensure viability of our domestic auto industry.

“[But] the president does not believe that it’s based on the color of his skin,” he continued.

Asked why this is not a “teachable moment” on race similar to the one that the president seized upon after the racially-charged arrest of Dr. Louis Gates, a prominent African-American scholar by police at his Cambridge, Massachusetts home, Gibbs replied, “Obviously, the president has, and has always had, great concerns about race relations in this country.

“He’s talked about them in speeches. He’s talked about them throughout his career in politics; he believes we’ve made great strides, and obviously we’ve got work to do. But I’m not sure I see this — this large national conversation going on right now.”

The president has gone to great lengths to avoid making race an issue. But given the  involvement of white supremacists in the “birther” movement to remove Obama from office; warnings of neo-Nazis and other far-right extremists girding for a campaign of domestic terrorism and the unprecedented spike in death threats against him — all of it exposed by The ‘Skeeter Bites Report and elsewhere over the past eight months — it is an issue that will not likely go away any time soon.

# # #

Copyright 2009, Skeeter Sanders. All rights reserved.