I called both my Senators' offices in CO: Michael Bennet and Mark Udall. I got voicemail at Bennet's and left a little tirade, but I got a live person at Udall's and went off on him about Udall, Obama and the entire mess, while he politely listened and said he'd relate my concerns. But here is what I just sent the Denver Post: "What should have been legislated as a single-payer healthcare system to rid our society of the entrapment and extortion perpetrated by the health insurance mobsters has turned into nothing less than terrorism and fraud perpetrated by our very own Congress against We The People. What a disgusting, despicable and retaliation-inspiring spectacle by the three-ring circus we call the U. S. Government. The People will rise to correct this injustice, and those of you deserving of retribution shall receive it! We are now forced to take to the streets and acquire the CHANGE we thought we elected leaders to bring. What a sad, sad day for this country." I've been published with such small articles about five times now in the past six months. Hopefully this one will make it into the paper.

I have to admit I share with many people disappointment and dismay with Barack Obama’s seeming inability to convert on his promise of “change,” although perhaps not to the degree that Thom is. Perhaps we misinterpreted what he meant by “change.” We can see “change” in the priorities of the Justice Department and on environmental issues, and the fact that this administration is even taking on health care “reform” at all. I suspect that the people who expected “change” fall into two camps: Those who simply did not want a continuation of the Bush/Cheney policies, and those who wanted something more “radical.”

I think most people should have known from prior experience that health care reform would be extremely difficult to achieve, given the powerful forces lined-up against it; perhaps they don’t remember just how difficult. I also think that a majority of people really are not all that terrified of reform, but then again, not all that sold on it either, and so they tend to stand in the background and watch. They do want the administration and Congress to do something to expand coverage and control costs, but the apparent wilting before the power of the insurance industry interests over the public interest is what they are perceiving instead. Such people (besides "progressives") may prove to be a problem for the Democrats if they continue to appear muddled, directionless, and even incompetent.

Thom is an enthusiast of Teddy Roosevelt, and without doubt the current image of Roosevelt as a man who got his way in passing strong pro-labor and regulatory measures seems in stark contrast to Obama. Roosevelt was certainly much less afraid to use the power of his office than Obama seems to be, but we shouldn’t make the mistake in thinking that he was the “ideal” progressive president. Roosevelt was not always seen in a positive light; years after his presidency, his image as a “rough rider” and carrying a “big stick” was the subject of jokes and caricature.

Like many “progressives” of that era and now, civil rights for minorities was not a priority for him; Roosevelt made a deal with the Japanese to suppress Japanese immigration to the U.S. in exchange for backing-off on legislation preventing Japanese from immigrating to the U.S.—a most curious “deal” indeed. Roosevelt was more talk than action on issues of concern for blacks; fearful of upsetting Southerners (particularly after the B.T. Washington “scandal”), he did not attempt to enforce the voting rights clauses of the 15th Amendment. A Darwinist, he made no pretense of his belief that blacks occupied the bottom rung of the evolutionary ladder.

Roosevelt made much of not compromising his principles, but he often was obliged to. Despite widespread public outcry after publication of the meat-packing expose “The Jungle,” the Pure Food and Drug Act that he signed was thoroughly gutted by business interests and their Senate stooges—just as the health care reform now is. Roosevelt actually did not forcefully back such progressive policies like a federal income tax, greater protection for labor unions, and workers’ rights until late in his presidency when public outcry over numerous corporate scandals finally moved him. Few of the policies along these lines that he proposed would be enacted until years after he left office.

We shouldn’t forget that it was a civil war that gave Lincoln the power to expand the reach of the executive branch, that it was 25 percent unemployment and much more widespread misery in the 1930s that gave FDR the clout he needed to take on the country’s elite, and that it was the atmosphere of moral responsibility fostered by the civil rights era that gave LBJ the moral authority he needed to pass his social legislation. Do those conditions exist today, even given the banking and financial system morass? If we say the answer is unquestionably yes over the long-term if we continue current economic and health care policies, then there has clearly been a failure to communicate this to the public—particularly by the mainstream media, which should be a force in moving politicians toward reality. Thom and Ed can’t do it all by themselves.

"In health there is freedom. Health is the first of all liberties." Henri-Frederic Amiel

I called Sen. Stabenows office, and said to the person i spoke to, Quote: This health care bill smells so bad, i can smell it through my computer.Vote no and start all over.

It is a cherished gift that you give to me...Thank you

week2late (Sam),

Thank you so much for the generous spirit that allowed you to share your struggle. I take it to heart and bless you for it. I send you love and thanks.

week2late (Sam),

Please talk more about the greater odds you have faced. (I think that's why I like the "Kill Bill" movies --- they show victory despite impossible odds (in a quirky and cartoony way...)

So, fellow Progressive Thinkers, it is time to be doers again for 2010. This time we must research our candidates and make them pledge to support the "progressive agenda." We need doers not dreamers. We need women and men of integrety and we must be willing to support them from where ever we live; you know a dollar here and a dollar there. There are more of us than they would like to believe. We will soon take another hit when the Supreme Court hands down the ruling that will almost complete the humanization of the multi-national corporations. When this happens our dollars will mean absolutely nothing against the currency of the Saudi's, the Asian consortiums and the Chinese, specifically. How much do you think their candidates will garner? We have much work to do! Cry foul today, but get out to work in movement politics tomorrow. I am an old soldier, for real, and have faced greater odds than these and prevailed. Hope still remains!

Great essay, Thom, but don't forget the carbon market.

The media has both sides played on this issue.. they've got the green left thinking that this is "the only workable solution for now", when it's entirely a non-solution with huge gaps (like the un-explained military gap) and double-counting and ripe for massive fraud.
And, they've got the right thinking that there are "carbon taxes" coming and that we're heading for scary, scary, red "socialism". The right will, of course, be relieved when the time is right to understand that the carbon market is a "free market" solution.

The carbon market is a fascist system run of, by and for corporate profit, where the government only fills the Milton Freidman roles of "contract enforcement" (enforcing international agreements that leaders sign, no democracy required, nor desired) and "national defense" (no doubt, defending the national government from populist riots that will inevitably follow like the water privatization riots in Bolivia, or .. name your favorite anti-fascist uprising).

The carbon market is widely expected to be the world's largest derivatives market and is often projected to be worth $3 trillion/year. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand recently wrote an op-ed in the WSJ estimating the *transaction costs* for the carbon market at $500 billion/year. That's 16.6% off the top, just for trading. Talk about a rip-off! Why don't normal stockbrokers charge 16.6% on a trade? Because they can't. Nobody would use them. They don't have a captive market whose participation is mandated by law.

Also, it's something to note that our perennial favorite, Goldman Sachs, has a three-sided interest (at least) in the carbon market. They own 10% of the Chicago Carbon eXchange, and own both BlueSource, a carbon brokerage, and APX a carbon certification company. All of this is verifiable in the space of a few Google searches.

I know that nobody seems to understand what a conflict of interest is in a post-Cheney world, but it basically means that GS is setting themselves up to game the system and lie, cheat and steal all they can. The frightening thing is that a "high information voter" like myself can detect this from the comfort of my home but government, media and market are all either oblivious or colluding.

The "best" rationale that we're given for mandated carbon trading is that "it's better than doing nothing".

"Better than doing nothing" was also one of the key rationales used behind the Iraq war and every pig in a poke we've ever been sold.
Umberto Eco calls this rationale the "cult of action for action's sake" and describes it as a key distinguishing feature of fascism: http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

We cannot go down this road, because it will be intolerable not just at the end, but even just around the bend.

"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power conceded nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."

Frederick Douglass

http://www.history.com/content/people-speak

RASTA! You're back! Please leave.