A Progressive “Vision”

One of Matt Bai’s observations in his book, The Argument [Penguin Press, 2007], is the seeming lack of an overall progressive vision that we can hold up as the reason for fellow Americans to support our movement. As I see it, the progressive vision is rooted in the vision of democracy stated in the Declaration of Independence:

"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Menare created equal, that they are endowed by theirCreator with certain unalienable Rights, that amongthese are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness --That to secure these Rights, Governments areinstituted among Men, deriving their just Powers fromthe Consent of the Governed, ...."

These represent the core values of democracy:

• Social equality. Where one person is regarded as "inferior" or "superior" to another, these are social constructs. Absent invidious social constructs, people are social equals. One may contrast this with the value on social inequality which is inherent to authoritarianism. Authoritarianism presumes that people are inherently unequal, with one group or person inherently superior to others by virtue of such things as their race, gender, religious beliefs, ethnicity, heredity or wealth.
• People have inherent rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Authoritarian political philosophy recognizes no inherent rights for all persons. Such rights as may exist in an authoritarian system exist at the discretion of the "superior" group or person.
• The role of government is to guarantee the existence of these rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness among the people who are subject to it. That means it is responsible for recognizing our social equality and ensuring our equal rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Authoritarians believe otherwise. They see the role of government as being limited to ensuring that the "superior" group or person enjoys life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to the fullest. The rest are on their own.

But if the purpose of government is to ensure socially equal rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, it follows that a democratic government must involve itself actively in matters affecting the national economy, the civil rights of citizens, the environment, health standards, etc. If it didn’t involve itself and intervene to meet these responsibilities, it would not be democratic.This is not to suggest that the government should directly operate every institution and enterprise to meet its responsibilities. Nor is there any suggestion that a democratic government shouldn’t be concerned about matters of budgets and costs. A government that fails to live within its means creates insecurity for all. What I suggest is that democratic governments meet their responsibilities through the application of “pragmatism”.

"Pragmatism" asserts among other things that questions of social, economic and political policy should be approached in the same way that we approach questions of physics, i.e., by use of the scientific method, not blind reference to dogma, ideology or doctrine.What I’m proposing, therefore, is a “progressive vision” founded on the combination of democratic political philosophy and pragmatism. Specifically, the vision of a government responsible for ensuring socially equal rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness by means of social, economic and political policies which have stood the test of experience, reflect the current insights of scientific inquiry, and take current realities into account.

[based on essays posted at my personal blog, jeffersonsparlor.blogspot.com - Alex Budarin]

FEATURE: Health Insurance, What is Reasonable?

A true story regarding America’s healthcare system. There is a range I see: the poor with no health coverage, working class with employee based insurance, and the wealthy possessing access to necessary in addition to elective, cosmetic procedures. Conservatives state that families should use their own resources in health care. I do not agree but let us entertain this view for this true circumstance. Paying monthly premiums for health insurance is an expression of such a resource. I ask then what role then do insurance companies have to deny coverage for a life extending procedure. What is reasonable? Should the government play a role in assuring insurance holders and patient rights? If and precisely in this true case a family (or individual) has health insurance but are denied claim to a procedure improving the quality of or the extension of life, there is fact supporting drastic changes in America’s profit driven health car system. -A.T. Brooks

“Every presidential candidate whose health plan rewards the health insurance companies by giving them more business via mandates needs to rethink that approach.

The lawyer for California teen Nataline Sarkisyan charged today that the only reason Cigna Health Care officials changed their minds and approved a liver transplant for the desperate girl was they knew it was too late and they wouldn't have to pay for it.

Sarkisyan, 17, died Thursday just hours after Cigna reversed its decision and approved the procedure it had previously described as "too experimental…and unproven." Now the Sarkisyan family hopes manslaughter or murder charges will be pressed.
Their lawyer, Mark Geragos, says he will refer the case to prosecutors for possible criminal charges against the insurer, Cigna HealthCare.

"All of the doctors there unanimously agreed that she needed and should have that liver transplant. And the only entity, if you will, who said no to that in the middle of that medical decision, was some piece of garbage who decided that making a couple of dollars, or saving them a couple of dollars, was worth more than the 65% chance over six months that she would survive," said Geragos.

I've been locked with my own battle with Blue Shield over what is really a minor (still unresolved) health issue, those who need far more expensive care as they fight for their lives are in far worse shape, and people are dying as a result.
A system that replaces the judgement of doctors for that of accountants is inherently broken and must be scrapped.

These Cigna execs should be charged with manslaughter or the murder of Nataline, while a more comprehensive solution to the nation's health care crisis must ensure that a for-profit health care system be scrapped for one that puts the health of the people first.
Every presidential candidate whose health plan rewards the health insurance companies by giving them more business via mandates needs to rethink that approach.

The lawyer for California teen Nataline Sarkisyan charged today that the only reason Cigna Health Care officials changed their minds and approved a liver transplant for the desperate girl was they knew it was too late and they wouldn't have to pay for it.

Sarkisyan, 17, died Thursday just hours after Cigna reversed its decision and approved the procedure it had previously described as "too experimental…and unproven." Now the Sarkisyan family hopes manslaughter or murder charges will be pressed.
Their lawyer, Mark Geragos, says he will refer the case to prosecutors for possible criminal charges against the insurer, Cigna HealthCare.

"All of the doctors there unanimously agreed that she needed and should have that liver transplant. And the only entity, if you will, who said no to that in the middle of that medical decision, was some piece of garbage who decided that making a couple of dollars, or saving them a couple of dollars, was worth more than the 65% chance over six months that she would survive," said Geragos.

I've been locked with my own battle with Blue Shield over what is really a minor (still unresolved) health issue, those who need far more expensive care as they fight for their lives are in far worse shape, and people are dying as a result.
A system that replaces the judgement of doctors for that of accountants is inherently broken and must be scrapped.

These Cigna execs should be charged with manslaughter or the murder of Nataline, while a more comprehensive solution to the nation's health care crisis must ensure that a for-profit health care system be scrapped for one that puts the health of the people first. (daily kos)”

Benazir Bhutto Assassinated

Did Musharraf allow this to happen? Will Bhutto’s assassination be the last fallen domino which shatters efforts to spread democracy in Islamic nations?

"RAWALPINDI, Pakistan December 27, 2007, 10:00 a.m. ET · Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday in a suicide attack that also killed at least 20 others at a campaign rally, aides said.
The death of the 54-year-old charismatic former prime minister threw the campaign for the Jan. 8 parliamentary elections into chaos and created fears of mass protests and violence across the nuclear-armed nation, an important U.S. ally in the war on terrorism.
The attacker struck just minutes after Bhutto addressed thousands of supporters in the garrison city of Rawalpindi, 8 miles south of Islamabad. She was shot in the neck and chest by the attacker, who then blew himself up, said Rehman Malik, Bhutto's security adviser.
At least 20 others were killed in the attack.
Bhutto was rushed to the hospital and taken into emergency surgery.
"At 6:16 p.m., she expired," said Wasif Ali Khan, a member of Bhutto's party who was at Rawalpindi General Hospital.
"The surgeons confirmed that she has been martyred," Bhutto's lawyer Babar Awan said.
Bhutto's supporters at the hospital exploded in anger, smashing the glass door at the main entrance of the emergency unit. Others burst into tears. One man with a flag of Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party tied around his head was beating his chest.
No one claimed responsibility for the attack. But some of Bhutto's supporters at the hospital began chanting, "Killer, Killer, Musharraf," referring to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, Bhutto's main political opponent. A few began stoning cars outside.
"We repeatedly informed the government to provide her proper security and appropriate equipment including jammers, but they paid no heed to our requests," Malik said.
Nawaz Sharif, another former premier and opposition leader, arrived at the hospital and sat silently next to Bhutto's body.
Hours earlier, four people were killed at a rally for Sharif when his supporters clashed with backers of Musharraf near Rawalpindi.
Bhutto's death will leave a void at the top of her party, the largest political group in the country, as it heads into the parliamentary elections. It also fueled fears that the crucial vote could descend into violence.
Pakistan is considered a vital U.S. ally in the fight against al-Qaida and other Islamic extremists including the Taliban. Osama bin Laden and his inner circle are believed to be hiding in lawless northwest Pakistan along the border with Afghanistan.
In Washington, the State Department condemned the attack.
"It demonstrates that there are still those in Pakistan who want to subvert reconciliation and efforts to advance democracy," deputy spokesman Tom Casey said.
The United States has for months been encouraging Musharraf to reach an accommodation with the opposition, particularly Bhutto, who was seen as having a wide base of support in Pakistan. Her party had been widely expected to do well in next month's elections.
Educated at Harvard and Oxford universities, Bhutto served twice as Pakistan's prime minister between 1988 and 1996. Her father, who also served as prime minister, was executed in 1979 two years after his ouster in a military coup.
Bhutto had returned to Pakistan from an eight-year exile on Oct. 18. On the same day, she narrowly escaped injury when her homecoming parade in Karachi was targeted in a suicide attack that killed more than 140 people.
At the scene of Thursday's bombing, an Associated Press reporter saw body parts and flesh scattered at the back gate of the Liaqat Bagh park, where Bhutto had spoken. He counted about 20 bodies, including police, and could see many other wounded people.
Party supporter Chaudry Mohammed Nazir said two gunshots rang out when Bhutto's vehicle pulled into the main street. Then there was a big blast next to her car.
Police cordoned off the street with white and red tape, and rescuers rushed to put victims in ambulances as people wailed nearby.
The clothing of some victims was shredded and people put party flags over their bodies. Police caps and shoes littered the asphalt.
Hundreds of riot police had manned security checkpoints around the venue. It was Bhutto's first public meeting in Rawalpindi since she came back to the country.
In November, Bhutto had also planned a rally in the city, but Musharraf forced her to cancel it, citing security fears.
In recent weeks, suicide bombers have repeatedly targeted security forces in Rawalpindi, where Musharraf stays and the Pakistan army has its headquarters."

What They Said in 2000

Politicians say lots of things in their campaign speeches. You expect them to give a list of reasons why they would be better than their opponent. So, when George W. Bush became the Republican nominee for President in 2000, it was not surprising that he would declare in his acceptance speech all the ways that he would be a better President than Al Gore. No, the surprising part is how ironically things turned out.

Look at some of the things W said when he got the GOP nomination in 2000:

• We have seen a steady erosion of American power and an unsteady exercise of American influence. Our military is low on parts, pay and morale. If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, "Not ready for duty, sir." This administration had its moment, they had their chance, they have not led. We will.

• Our generation has a chance to reclaim some essential values, to show we have grown up before we grow old. But when the moment for leadership came, this administration did not teach our children, it disillusioned them. They had their chance. They have not led. We will.

• A generation shaped by Vietnam must remember the lessons of Vietnam: When America uses force in the world, the cause must be just, the goal must be clear, and the victory must be overwhelming.

• I believe in tolerance, not in spite of my faith, but because of it. I believe in a God who calls us not to judge our neighbors but to love them.

• That background may lack the polish of Washington. Then again, I don't have a lot of things that come with Washington. I don't have enemies to fight. I have no stake in the bitter arguments of the last few years. I want to change the tone of Washington to one of civility and respect.

• After all of the shouting and all of the scandal, after all the bitterness and broken faith, we can begin again.

• So when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not only uphold the laws of our land, I will swear to uphold the honor and dignity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God.

And there was also this ironic observation by Dick Cheney when he accepted the Republican nomination for Vice-President in 2000:

• In Washington today, politics has become war by other means, an endless onslaught of accusation.

Considering these words after 7 years of their mis-administration, I have to give them their due. Heckuva job, Dick and W! Mission Accomplished!

http://jeffersonsparlor.blogspot.com

Where is Santa?

Track Santa Here: http://www.noradsanta.org/en/home.htm

Clinton's Power

I usually agree with Lou Dobbs but on the matter who will be the next president of the USA his flopping in the wind is inconsistent. Hilary Clinton is without question the strongest candidate for president our nation has seen in decades. She has survived continuous attacks by the conservative establishment. She is also right for America at this time. Fact is fact which leads me to know that America in 2008 is not yet ready to put Barrack H. Obama in the White House. This is precisely why the right wing machine has literally called off criticism of him if not outright campaigning on his behalf. Republicans whom I currently oppose to govern are clearly conscious of this: the same America that elected George W. Bush twice will never put an African American named Barrack H. Obama during war times behind the Oval Office.

“Friday, December 14, 2007 – Lou DobbsTonight: A remarkable turn of events in the race for the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations. Sen. Hillary Clinton has tumbled from a commanding lead in several early primary states being tied—and in some polls trailing—rival Sen. Barack Obama. On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee has surged from polling around 3 percent in July to the high 20s now. What’s going on? We’ll have all the latest from around the country.”

Spy, Spy on your phone.

There is an evolving issue surrounding the corporation of telecommunications companies in spying in on American’s phone records. Frankly, let the people know what went on. Please Contact Congress with your opinion.

“Last month, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill that did not include retroactive immunity. Immunity would let telecommunication companies who broke the law helping the Bush Administration spy on Americans off the hook.

Now, Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic Majority Leader, is using procedural tricks to make this bill irrelevant by bringing the Intelligence Committee's version of the same bill to the Senate floor instead. What's the big difference? This version of the bill includes retroactive immunity for telecommunication companies.”

Does AP have an agenda?

Certain media outlets are certainly out stepping their role in informing the public of news in addition to presenting agendas in an attempt to guide and create news where there is none.

For example this is the opening sentence in a recent news story “By MELINDA DESLATTE of the Associated Press.

BATON ROUGE, La. - Two students were found shot to death in a home invasion at a Louisiana State University apartment, and officials decided to keep the campus open Friday while police searched for three suspects. “ DESLATTE instead of reporting the story, immediately renders a judgment call upon the decision of officials. Personally I would like to hear the news not second guesses by unqualified reporters during an involving situation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071214/ap_on_re_us/lsu_students_slain

Black Voters Prefer Clinton

According to a new study, Hillary Clinton has a slight edge over Barack Obama in the eyes of black voters.

Farai Chideya talks with David Bositis, senior policy analyst at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, which released the study.

Scientists Develop Life-Extending Compounds

The scientists who discovered resveratrol, a substance in red wine that extends the lives of mice, say they've developed three drugs that work the same way, but much more powerfully. The most potent of the three controls blood sugar; it is also believed to fight other diseases of aging.
Sales of red wine took a big jump last year after researchers at Harvard published a study on resveratrol. The study showed that large doses of resveratrol helped obese mice live as long as regular mice. The substance also let the mice run longer on a treadmill. And it seemed to prevent a range of diseases associated with aging.

According to David Sinclair, the lead researcher, there was one snag for those looking to uncork a bottle of Pinot Noir to stay young.
"You would need to drink about 1,000 bottles of red wine to get the amount of resveratrol in your body to even have a chance of seeing those benefits," he said.

So Sinclair and a team of researchers have been searching for something like resveratrol, but more powerful.

They came up with three contenders and published a study of the compounds' effects in this week's issue of the journal Nature. All three were tested in rodents. Sinclair said they triggered the same set of chemical reactions in cells – the same chemical pathway – as resveratrol did.
"The best one in this paper is 1,000 times better at activating this anti-aging pathway than resveratrol is, which is great news," he said. "It means that we can potentially have a small pill that would treat many of the diseases of the Western world."

The list could include maladies such as type 2 diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's and heart disease.

The new compounds are the property of Sirtris, a company that Sinclair helped start. Unlike with resveratrol, which occurs naturally and is sold as a dietary supplement, Sirtris will need FDA approval to market the compounds.

"We're moving away from this molecule in red wine toward real drug discovery, pharmaceutical and rational drug design that most of the drugs we take these days come from," Sinclair said.
And drugs have to be approved to treat a specific disease. So the new study took the most potent new compound and studied its effect on mice and rats with diabetes.

The researchers found that it controlled blood sugar as well as a widely used diabetes drug.

Sinclair believes the compound also will work against other diseases of aging, including cancer.
Less sure is Dr. Randall Holcombe, the chief of hematology and oncology at the University of California-Irvine. He did an experiment comparing pure resveratrol to a powder made from grapes. The goal was to reduce the risk of colon cancer.

"We actually found that the grape powder was more effective than pure resveratrol," Holcombe said, "and that suggested that resveratrol is more active in combination with other compounds such as grapes than it is all by itself."

Holcombe says that raises the possibility that Sinclair's super-resveratrol compounds, by themselves, won't do much to prevent cancer.
Despite the lingering questions, Steven Helfand of Brown University says the research based on resveratrol does seem awfully promising.
"The surprising thing really is how well this molecule has worked so far," Helfand said. He added that he has mixed feelings about the research moving away from dietary supplements and toward more traditional drug development.

On the plus side, he said, the need for FDA approval ensures that any new products will get rigorous testing.
"I think the public should be pleased in that sense. The correct experiments will be done and the correct scrutiny will be given to these compounds," Helfand said. "They will now be scrutinized much more so than they were before."

The downside, Helfand said, is that any product to emerge from this research probably won't be cheap.

David Sinclair said that so far, his company has had no trouble raising money, despite the risk that no drug may ever emerge from the tests.
"The payoff is huge," Sinclair said. "Even diabetes in itself is roughly a $10 billion worldwide market. Some say even higher. And that's just one disease."

Sinclair said the first major studies of resveratrol used on people won't be published until next year. Human studies of the newer, more powerful compounds are even further off."