Whose Wars of Necessity--the Dead and Maimed Civilians?

Recently President Obama echoed a phrase used by President Bush that described our war in Afghanistan as "A War of Necessity". Just what makes the war in Afghanistan "A War of Necessity"? Was the Korean War "A War of Necessity"? Was the Vietnam War and our invasions of Panama and Hatti? One can certainly argue that WWII was indeed "A War of Necessity". but all the others listed above were and are trumped up as "Wars of Necessity". All wars produce civilian casualties. Innocent men, women and children are maimed and killed and they are not described as innocent civilians but instead governments and media refer to dead and maimed civilians as "collateral damage". By using such an innocuous term we avoid the realty that the collateral damage consists of mothers, children, sons, daughters, husbands, brothers, uncles, aunts, grandparents, parents all of whom were killed and maimed during wars of necessity. Whose necessity?

All wars are wars of choice, none truly are of necessity. WWII was Hitler's war of necessity and the world fought back to destroy the Nazi war machine that was attempting to control all nations of the world. The world made the choice to fight Hitler and did so.

Our recent wars are all wars of choice made by our leaders for reasons that generally were falsely claimed, and for which we responded in knee-jerk fashion to an event that was labeled as provocative enough to justify attacking the offender. Deliberation and thoughtful analysis was lacking as the momentary anger took over and compelled our leaders and Congress to strike back and get retribution whether it be justified and effective or not.

The two wars that we are presently embroiled in are the latter type,i.e., knee-jerk reactions to specific acts that incited our Congress and elected Federal leaders, and the majority of our people. We attacked Afghanistan because 21 terrorists, 16 of whom were from Saudi Arabia, used a cowardly action that hi-jacked civilian aircraft with civilian passengers and crashed them into civilian and government buildings also occupied mainly by civilians. Nearly 3,000 civilians were killed and hundreds more maimed. This horrible act of terrorism was not an act of war by Afghanistan, yet we attacked that nation along with our NATO allies to rid the country of Al Qaeda terrorists and their collaborators who were in that country in clandestine training camps. The people of Afghanistan did not attack us. Terrorists mostly from other countries did so. Yet, we and NATO forces attacked and have been fighting and killing terrorists and civilians in Afghanistan for 8 years and counting.

The war in Iraq was an act of blatant militancy against a nation whose leader, Saddam Hussein, we considered as evil as he indeed was. Just a few years earlier, before the recent war we considered Saddam as a friend or at least a useful pawn against Iran and supplied Iraq with weapons and aid.

These two wars in the mid-east have resulted in the devastation of both countries and the slaughter of many tens of thousands of innocent civilians as well as over 5 thousand American and NATO military personnel deaths. The deaths and maimed civilians and military personnel far outnumber the number of civilians killed by the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks in 2001 in our country. The war in Iraq was based on deliberate lies. The dead and maimed in both wars far exceeds the number of dead civilians killed and maimed on 9/11. What has the retribution accomplished aside from causing needless military and civilian deaths, despair, and destruction in two nations that will suffer for years to come, and that are now dependent upon us and others for their own economic viability and protection against internal upheavals.

Perhaps, before we justify another war as "A War of Necessity", we, the USA will ask ourselves "why" before we react with a rush to war and the needless killing of innocent civilians and military personnel who are ordered into deadly combat by leaders who proclaim that we must fight the next "War of Necessity". Ask the souls of the dead children, men, and women who were innocent victims in past "Wars of Necessity" first. Ask their beloved survivors. What will they say?

Los Angeles--Ahead to the Past

Los Angeles is a perculating sea of change and has been for over 150 years. Having lived in LA from the early 1930's to the early 1960's I witnessed many of these changes and most were detrimental, or so it seemed to me. But sometimes changes are actually beneficial to the people and environment. One that Mayor Villaraigosa just announced is particularly noteworthy. The Mayor of our country's most populous city in our largest state announced that the city was to embark on the construction of electric car infrastructure that eventually would make electrical charging of electric vehicles the standard. This is a step that can help clean the badly polluted air in the region and eliminate some dependency upon oil for transportation. Totally electric cars are not common now , but many manufacturers are developing their versions and various types are expected to be available in the forthcoming years.

These changes are very welcome and ultimately they will occur throughout our country when the price of electric battery-powered cars and vehicles becomes affordable to most people. There was a time in LA when electric powered street cars and buses provided effective and affordable public transportation. From childhood to adulthood I used such transportation to travel long distance for work and recreational purposes. The electric mode of bus and streetcar transportation in LA was, however, aborted by corporate and political powers in the 1950's when the electric street cars and buses were eliminated and the lines were converted to roadways for gasoline-powered cars. This was accomplished when the then Mayor of LA (affectionately known as "cabbage head Poulson, for reasons that are self-deduced) was influenced by the auto manufacturers who were salivating to create a huge market for their internal combustion cars. All electric transportation soon disappeared from the public streets of greater Los Angeles. Traffic gridlock and horrendous air pollution was the ultimate result.

Now LA under the leadership of another mayor is about to take a U-turn and return to electric powered vehicles. Unfortunately, this U-turn will only lead to limited public benefit since the gridlock will continue since electric lines dedicated to public transportation alone will be difficult to reconstruct. Nonetheless,perhaps a century from now LA may be a place where the air is cleaner and and the lands less contaminated by petroleum products. This assumes that centralized power generation is relatively pollution free by then as it should and must.

Los Angeles should be awarded an A for effort if the mayor's plan really takes hold. Perhaps the city's U-turn to the past will help create a better future. If other metropolitan areas replicate the LA plan successfully we will all benefit wherever we live in the USA. Go LA!

Should Health Care be a Privilege for Only Those Who Can Pay??

I happen to believe that life has a purpose for every birth. Whether life is sacred or not is not a relevant question. But once born every life is relevant and so is the fetal form before birth. Relevance, however is dependent upon sustaining a life quality that enables all humans to live a relevant life. Sickness and physical deformation may be disabling but they must not be allowed to become suicidal or homicidal.If sickness is permitted to worsen because of lack of available treatment this is a form of homicide. If treatment is prevented because someone is unable to pay and the outcome is death this is homicide. A recent Harvard University study shows that at least 45,000 Americans die prematurely (needlessly) because they lack health insurance and do not get life-saving treatment. We, those having adequate health care seem indifferent to this government-sanctioned homicide. No one is prosecuted. No one is incarcerated. Does anyone other than the friends and family members of the uninsured deceased men, women, and children care a hoot? The angry Republican and right wing opposition to some form of guaranteed health care for every American provides an answer. Their answer is NO we do not care--let them die!

How can anyone other than the most heinous selfish human accept such an answer? Yet most of us are at most ambivalent to the idea of government guaranteed heal care for all Americans. Why? Do you really believe that it will cost too much? If that is your reason why allow birth to begin with. Virtually everyone born will become sick during their life time, often critically sick. Without proper treatment we may die. Today, according to the Harvard University independent study we allow about 45,000 to die because they cannot pay for proper treatment. Why don't we only allow wealthy people to have children? Maybe then we will eliminate deaths from lack of insurance.

Hundreds of insurance company executives are paid multi million dollars annually to maximize the billion dollar plus profits of the companies that sell and manage heath care paid for by the insurance they sell. Privately owned medical clinics that distribute bonuses and pay based upon profits also make certain that they do not accept uninsured patients. Millions of Americans are now victims of our profit-centered health care system as they lose their jobs and have their homes foreclosed. Medical insurance evaporates at the same time and they are excluded from care by the profit-driven health care system that prevails in the USA. This is fact not fancy--if you do not pay the profit piper you do not get health care. You may become one of the 45,000 who cannot tell their death-bed story because the are no longer speaking. And if they could would we listen? Should health care be a privilege for only those who can pay?

Awakening the Past to Save the Future

The political arena in the USA is laden with demands for instant gratification. We have been conditioned by the media and our own frenzy to expect immediate results whatever the problem. Knee-jerk reactions are typical responses to virtually any proposed change, and if the outcome takes more than a month we write it off as failure. Well then we are all failures if that is the case. The real industrial age began with the stone age and the advent of the bronze age many thousands of years ago. We have now mastered weapons of self-destruction and have used the atom bomb to kill thousands of humans. The art of self destruction has nearly matured and we can be thankful that we have some time to prevent its full maturation. The award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama speaks to the wisdom of the Nobel committee who recognizes that we, the world, has the good fortune to have President Obama as the leader of the USA and the flag bearer of a nuclear weapon-free world.

The Nobel Prize Linus Pauling who won for characterizing the RNA molecule advocated cessation of all atmospheric testing of nuclear weapon because the fall out was deadly. His book written in the 1950's, "No More War" expressed his passionate belief that a peaceful world was possible, but it required recognition of the self-destructive path we were taking in developing and employing atom bombs. His message is resonating amongst some in the world who understand the essential need to abolish all atom bombs. President Obama is foremost amongst those.

President Obama has voiced his plan to eliminate all atom bombs by initiating a vigorous stockpile reduction program and the eventual destruction of all atom bombs. He understands that this need is vital to assure world peace and to avoid possible obliteration of life on Earth.

The Nobel Committee recognized his avowed purpose to eliminate atom bombs and and to attempt to create a more peaceful world. Like Linus Pauling, President Obama understands that the world's ultimate future is dependent upon creating a world where the capability for instantaneous immolation is replaced by a universal quest for peace.

The past tells us that instant change is illusionary and that only learning lessons from past mistakes and taking steps to correct them will do so. Those who clamor for instant gratification are incapable of learning from the past mistakes and fail to recognize how human inability to admit failure must be overcome before new paths can be taken.

President Obama recognizes that we must change but he also recognizes that we must learn to understand our failures and accept failures as stepping stones to a better future. We must learn from our mistakes by awakening the past and illuminate the missteps that have led humankind to the precipice of annihilation by atomic warfare.

The Nobel committee awarded President Obama with the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for this reason. Their choice was made with the hope and belief that President Obama will awaken us all and finally encourage the complete destruction of nuclear weapon stock piles and cease all atom bomb development. This vital step must be taken to bring peace to the world.

The United (?) States of America

The year 1965 was an auspicious one in the USA. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Medicare Bill as law of the land. For the first time the USA had a form of "socialized medicine" with our government as the single payer engaged in providing health care for seniors above the age of 65.

If you listened to the doomsday politicians then we were headed for communism and the end of democracy. After many years of effort by the Democratic Party since the Roosevelt era that brought Social Security, the next step to assure health care services for the retired older people of our country was taken. About 55 years had lapsed since Social Security had been signed into law. The voices opposed to both Social Security and Medicare are echoing today from the tongues of those who seem threatened by any Government social program for our citizens.

Seems to me many of us have forgotten or do not truly realize that our country fought together shoulder to shoulder to preserve life, liberty, and happiness about 25 years before Medicare was enacted. Blood was spilled by all who fought against the Nazi hordes that Hitler, Hiro Hito, and Mussolini led during World War II. Americans of all races, religions, ethnicity's, sexual preferences, genders, and skin colors became "almost ONE" and defeated the German/Japanese/Italian Nazi war machines. We and our allies finally prevailed and most of us who lived during that time shared a common bond as Americans, even overcoming some ingrained bigotry in the process. For many years after World War II ended in 1945 our country retained some semblance of bonding and gradually enacted laws that protected the voting rights of all citizens and secured health care for our seniors.

Today the same form of demagoguery that threatened the end of American liberties and rights under our Constitution are at it again. This time instead of Social Security and Medicare their voices rumble against Health Care Reform with vitriolic words used about 75 years ago against Social Security and about 45 years ago against Medicare. There are some differences today as members of Congress and the public who were born more recently than World War II, or the year of enactment of Medicare in 1965, have now embedded fear of social change in their hateful rhetoric by claiming that President Obama is Hitler-like and that death squads will get you if Health Care legislation is passed.

Can you imagine the hate that these utterings symbolize? What would the more than 400,000 US Military personnel who died during World War II think if they were able to raise their voices silenced to preserve our country from the wrath of Hitler and his allies? Hitler and the Nazis were responsible for the deaths of over 6 million human beings during and before World War II. How can anyone in their right mind compare President Obama to Adolph Hitler. Those comparing President Obama to Adolph Hitler must be deranged or as Congressman Barney Franks questioned someone who made such a comparison, " What planet do you live on?".

The death squads that Adolph Hitler used were real and used poison gas, medical experiments, and firing squads to liquidate their innocent victims. Why doesn't the Republican Party officially disavow the hateful dishonest statements that they use to attempt to discredit health care legislation and our President? Are they part of the problem? Have they lost whatever moral compass they had? Democrats and everyone of us are far from perfect, but such disgusting remarks about our President have only been forthcoming from Republican voices opposed to Health Care reform. Does the Republican Party favor hate and dishonesty over rational discussion?

From a Country of hope and solidarity during and after World War II we have morphed into a society divided by hatred and fear of change. We have lost whatever civility we possessed since our nation defeated the greatest threat to democracy and forgot what we once were. We are a broken Country shattered by hate and distrust of one another.

Those of us who are about 80 years old or older can look back at our personal experiences while our country passed through turbulent times. There were and always will be disagreements about social programs and virtually everything else. But when we resort to hateful and threatening actions against one another because of opinions and positions on social issues, we have certainly lost our way as a nation.

Perhaps we must all revisit USA history over the last 100 years, back to President Theodore Roosevelt at least, to renew what we stand for. If we lose our heritage as a country of vast cultural and ethnic difference bonded together by a stronger commonality we are destined to lose everything we once stood for.

Think back long before you were born and seek knowledge about how our country overcame overwhelming differences and even shed blood together to protect each others liberties and our collective freedom. Perhaps we will regain our bearings and move together regardless of when we were born or the socio-economic status we claim. We must if we are to remain "The United States of America"

The Hippocratic Path to Health Care Reform

The roots of modern medicine reach into Greek History when Hippocrates lived and practiced the first systematic art of Medicine. He lived from about 460 B.C to 377 B.C. and is recognized as the "Father of Modern Medicine". Today we might consider Hippocrates' many contributions as coincidental and irrelevant to the practice of medicine. However, aside from establishing the foundation for the practice of medicine over 2,000 years ago, Hippocrates proscribed an Oath referred to as the "Hippocratic Oath" that was intended to be the code of medical ethics at the time. A literal translation available of the Oath is presented below. Clearly, the Oath proscribed by Hippocrates is written during the era of Grecian Gods. Nonetheless, the essential importance of the Oath applies then as now to the purpose of Medical arts and the ethical rules for medical practitioners today as well as then. Here is the Hippocratic Oath translated from the original Greek version as cited in the link above.

I swear by Apollo Physician, and by Asclepius, and by Hygeia, and by Panaceia and by all gods and godesses, making them witnesses, to fulfil, according to my ability and judgement.

To regard my teacher in this art equal to my parents; and to share my livelihood in common with him, and, if he is in need, to make a contribution; and to judge his progeny equal to my brothers of the male line; and to teach this art if they require to learn, without fee or covenant;

To make a contribution of instruction, and lecture, and all the other learning, to my sons, and to those of my teacher, and to pupils who have signed the covenant and sworn to obey the physician’s law, but to none other.

I will use dietary regimes to help the sick according to my ability and judgement and to refrain from harm and injustice.

I will not give to anyone a deadly drug though asked, nor will I suggest a plan of such a kind. Similarly I will not give a woman a destructive pessary.

But in a pure and holy way I will guard my life and my art.

But I will not cut, not even sufferers from stone, but I will give place to workmen who engage in this practice.

Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will go in to help the sick, being without all intentional injustice and corruption, and all the rest and especially without "works of Aphrodite" upon the bodies both of women and men, both of free and slaves.

Whatsoever in the course of attending the sick I see or hear (or even when not attending the sick), concerning the life of men, which ought never be published outside, I will keep silent, considering such things as unutterable.

Now if I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may I reap, in my life and art, glory among all men for all time; but if I transgress and swear falsely, the opposite of these things. literal translation of the Greek Oath is:


The Hippocratic Oath was the heritage and ethical foundation of all medical doctors in the world until the last century. Different cultures and religious beliefs shaped the exact wording but the most basic feature is virtually identical to the original word by Hippocrates: "Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will go in to help the sick, being without all intentional injustice and corruption, and all the rest and especially without "works of Aphrodite" upon the bodies both of women and men, both of free and slaves." Help for the sick without regard to social or economic status was and still should be the hallmark of medical care. One might take issue with my interpretation of the original wording above, "upon the bodies of of women and men, both of free and slaves" could be meant as help for the sick regardless of social or economic status.How else could it possibly be interpreted?

The original Hippocratic Oath has been rewritten to eliminate reference to Greek Gods and other salient points. An example of a typical revised form used in the USA is as follows:

"I do solemnly swear by whatever I hold most sacred, that I will be loyal to the profession of medicine and just and generous to its members.

That I will do no harm.

That into whatsoever home I shall enter it shall be for the good of the sick and the well to the utmost of my powers and that I will hold myself aloof from wrong and from corruption and from the tempting of others to vice.

That I will exercise my Art solely for the cure of my patients and the prevention of disease and will give no drugs and perform no operation for a criminal purpose and far less suggest such a thing.

That whatsoever I shall see or hear of the lives of men which is not fitting to be spoken, I will keep inviolably secret.

These things I do promise and in proportion as I am faithful to this oath, may happiness and good repute be ever mine, the opposite if I shall be forsworn."

Aside from commentary associated with Grecian Gods the most conspicuous omission in the modern Oath pertains to any reference to economic or social status,as described previously. Why should such an omission exist other than by deliberate or unconscious consent of the medical profession. If deliberate, why? If not, then the time has come to re-insert relevant words into the modern version.

The omission of any reference to providing health services to people regardless of their economic or social status is in my opinion a reality based upon the transition of medical practice from healing and wellness to materialism and profit making. The US medical system has become in large measure a profit center run by insurance companies and medicine-related corporations to earn money. Selective service or declining services to the sick and poor provides a sure way to increase profits.

Hippocrates could never provide the type of medical services he advocated today in the USA. He would we welcome in most advanced countries in the world that provide single-payer health care for all their citizens.

Our country is now embroiled in virtual combat that relishes lies and distortion to prevent any type of health care program for all citizens regardless of ability to pay. Can we all revisit Hippocrates and the original Hippocratic oath to regain our footing and move on to health care parity for all of our citizens. We must all join the Hippocratic path to health care reform to legitimately refer to ourselves as a civilized country.

Where Were You on August 6, 1945?

How many of you were born in 1945? What about August 6, 1945? If so you share your birthday with the 65th anniversary of the explosion of the first Atom Bomb over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Three days later a second, larger atom bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. The two bombs killed over 400,000 humans (mostly civilians)and destroyed both cities, causing years of cancer causing radioactive fallout and radiation. Soon thereafter the Japanese surrendered to the US and WWII ended.

Today the nuclear powers of the world including USA, England, France, Russia, China, Pakistan, India, and probably Israel (although they have not verified) possess a total of over 10,000 atom and hydrogen bombs that could destroy all or most life on Earth many times over. The two bombs that destroyed two of Japan's large cities were equal to the bomb power that could drop from 4,000 B-29 bombers, dropping all their bombs simutaneously. Today the nuclear armed countries of the world are able to launch nuclear bombs that are more than 1,000,000 times more powerful than either one dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And, they can be launched by long range missiles that are virtually impossible to intercept.

The world nuclear powers still accumulate and upgrade nuclear weapons to use in the event of war and to supposedly deter a nuclear war. We have been the only world power to use nuclear weapons in war up to now. But as proliferation continues and both N. Korea and Iran are likely involved in developing nuclear bombs the world becomes more, not less likely, to face a future nuclear war. Such a war could unleash thousands of nuclear bombs using long-range missile and destroy every large city and most population centers on Earth within one day.Such a catastrophe would make Earth virtually uninhabitable for centuries due to persistent and deadly radioactivity.

Those of you who were born on August 6, 1945 may not be aware of the bombs that announced the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki three days later. However, we must all be aware of the potential that the nuclear powers of the world have to destroy Earth and its inhabitants. If you believe that all life is sacred and humankind is worthy of continuing life in Earth you and all others alive today must demand the cessation of nuclear bomb development and production and the destruction of all existing nuclear weapons. Absolutely nothing else is more critical for the survival of the human species and all life on Earth.

Take a few moments to write your elected representatives in Congress and the Administration to end nuclear proliferation and the ongoing development of more destructive nuclear weapons. All existing nuclear weapons must be destroyed by all countries that possess them. The notion of a nuclear deterrent is a false dream. We have already proven that deception by what we did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki about 64 years ago. Stop the pipe dream and take action now.

Bullets Don't Kill if You Duck

You have undoubtedly been told by some of your associates and friends that "Guns don't kill, people do". Do guns aimed at people propel the bullets by man power? Do bullets shot from guns enter a body by human power? Do bullets entering a body kill by the force of human power? Of course not. Bullets won't kill if you duck. Guns don't kill. The power of bullets is generated by man power. The problem is not restricting the use of guns. The solution to murders is the elimination of humans not guns. There we finally have it right. Next time you see a bullet coming your way duck! Unless that is you are already dead and it that case the bullet can't hurt you.

Can We Be Free Without Free Thought?

Land of the free occupied by media zombies who try to saturate our brains with their preferred versions of B.S. Politicians who quack endlessly about their righteous beliefs and pronounce them as truths. We the quagmire of people who open our ears to this mindless menagerie of 24 hour propaganda without batting an eye and seemingly accepting one viewpoint or another without critical thought. Or closing our minds to all this babble without thinking at all. Can we be free without free thought?

The framers of a our Constitution, all thirty nine of them, comprised of thinking male gentry from different walks of life created a document that requires thoughtful consideration and life long analysis. Read it again if you haven't done so lately and think about the relevance of the words for today. Read the Bill of Rights and all the other amendments to our Constitution and consider how thoughtful humans considered the shortcomings of the original Constitution and amended it to fit the times and growth of independent thinking. True political leaders staked their political futures by advocating changes that included the right to vote to women, and citizens of all colors, both ignored by the original framers of our Constitution as was slavery.

We have traveled a long distance since July 1, 1971 when the 26th Amendment to our Constitution was ratified that gave the vote to any 18 year old citizen who was already eligible to be drafted to serve and die for our country in times of war. We as a nation recognized the hypocrisy of our own Constitution and fixed it.

Today we are faced with similar life and death issues and hypocrisy concerning the availability of health care for all our citizens. Perhaps a constitutional amendment is needed just as for the right of all citizens to be free and to vote at an age when they are called to die in wars. Are not all citizens entitled to health care if for no other reason than to keep us healthy enough to fight the wars we are sent to fight by the politicians we elect? They occupy Congress and the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats seem to believe that we have the duty to die in wars but not the right to have health care that they give themselves with our taxes.

And many of us seem to accept this bunk without thought. Can we be free without free thought? Seemingly we can be free to die without health care so why not be free to reject the call to die in a war as well? Think about this paradox and then decide to support universal health care for all citizens. We have the right to free thought so use your mind to decide what is right.

Was Abe Lincoln a Racist? Are We All Racists?

"All persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free..." Did this quote from Abraham Lincoln prove that he was a racist? Probably yes, according to another Republican, Sen. Jeff Sessions from Alabama who is describing Judge Sonia Sotomayor as a racist for her belief that her Hispanic heritage added depth and better understanding to her application of our Constitution and laws.

It seems that Sen. Session considers that any statement favoring or enabling any group is a statement of racism. What would have Sen. Sessions have said had he been a contemporary of Abraham Lincoln when Lincoln not only favored the slaves but also a possible rebellion carried out by them to free themselves. Seems safe to say that Sen. Sessions would have gone into a raging fit of anger against Abraham Lincoln.

We all are products of our heritage whatever that may be. We are all shaped by our early life and the influence of parents and others who were around us. Thus we all have prejudices of one sort or another that are ingrained just as did Abe Lincoln and as has Sen. Sessions who was exposed to the racial antagonisms in Alabama where he lived as a child.

Our individual life experiences have shaped us in ways that we cannot fully understand, and we all harbor some remnants of prejudice and distrust. The first step in understanding our deep rooted prejudices is to confront them and become aware.

Abraham Lincoln did that as he prepared the nation to end slavery even if it meant war and rebellion by those who were enslaved. Sen. Sessions has not faced his own deep seated and racial prejudices and therefore he attempts to demean a women who has lived and faced racial prejudices as a child and young adult. Sen. Sessions is a product of the deep South when outright exclusion of non-whites was practiced openly and proudly by many whose skin color was near white. If he was truly color blind he would recognize his prejudice and stop the harangue against Judge Sotomayor.

Perhaps Old Abe will arise from his grave and shake some reality into Sen. Session's brain and soul. We could all benefit by a good shake by Abe.

Humanitarian Politicians--Rare but Necessary

We are exposed to vociferous proclamations by politicians of differing allegiances. Political posturing is common when a particular politician attempts to garner votes or praise by opposing the contrary party or advocating there own position. The words and body language employed are selected for the occasion and consistency is inconsequential. Getting re-elected is all important. If principle was predominate then we all would be treated to a real discourse based upon what is in the interest of all our people. Unfortunately, self-interest and lobbyists interests generally dominates and the people's needs and interests are relegated to inferior status that is undeserving of intelligent and meaningful consideration by those we elect to represent us. Politicians are indeed a different slice of humanity carved out of ideological stone that defies reshaping or empathy with the citizens that they represent.

The above comments do not apply to all politicians. There are a few very dedicated political servants who truly consider the needs of the people first and political ideology last. These few are recognized by there willingness to buck the overwhelming dominance of their party leaders and speak out independently for the people. Senator Feingold, WI and Sen. Sanders, VT, and Sen. Snowe, ME are three such individuals. They are Senators of courage and principle who deserve more attention and broader following. Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, is another politician who deserves plaudits for representing the interests of her constituents even when her party disagrees. These and a handful of others in Congress are part of the group of humanitarian-politicians who must be heard and listened to by all of us.

Their voices echo the true meaning of government and our Constitution, "government for, by, and of the people". Unless the majority of elected politicians adhere to this basic purpose of governance we will continue to be swept along by self-interest and inhumanity.

Your support of the humanitarian legislators is essential to create a country where the typical citizen is recognized as the bulwark of our democratic system. Only then can humanity prevail, and our country truly be guided by the Preamble to our Constitution as enunciated by our humanitarian ancestors who wrote these word on September 17, 1787: " WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION, ESTABLISH JUSTICE, INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY, PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, AND SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY, DO ORDER AND ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA".

One of the most noteworthy and seldom emphasized part of our Constitution is the absence of the singular word, "I". Our Constitution is for "WE", and that means all Americans and all humanity that we hope to influence by our deeds and actions. Humanitarian Politicians are required to accomplish this. Seek them out and support them for the sake of our country and the world.

Wars of Choice

While addressing the Islamic peoples world wide from Egypt a few days ago, President Obama referred to the war in Iraq as a "war of choice". Sanctioned by our Congress and the UN the war indeed was a war of choice. The Choice was made by our country and the Bush-Cheney administration based upon lies and bad intelligence. However, whether based upon lies or not, all wars are wars of choice. Wars do not just happen as do natural calamities, they are man made and started by deliberate aggressive actions of humans who happen to be in leadership positions.

The concept of a righteous or good war is delusional. No war is good or righteous although it may become necessary to defeat a greater evil. WW II was the latter. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and many other war locations since the conclusion of WW II were all wars of choice based upon delusional or false claims by so-called leaders.

The choice to start war is often one-sided and the act inflames the other side to respond similarly. Once ignited wars seldom come to an end on their own. One side or the other choses to give up or both sides agree to a cease fire.The leaders of warring countries or groups make these decisions sometimes pressured by the people to do so.

Wars have infected humankind since ancient times and seem to be the most common way to achieve an objective that leaders favor. Leaders of groups or countries are able to mobilize people who do the fighting and killing so that their objectives are attained.Every war and response to attack is the result of deliberate, although often maladjusted, thought processes. Random thought will not start war. Only deliberate thought and action leads to war and always by choice of the leader or leadership group.

President Obama attempted to erase his futile opposition to our country starting the Iraq war by referring to it as a war of choice. Although, it was not his choice and he consistently opposed it, the consequences are in his hands. It is his war to end as he has promised. However, as the leader of our country, the choice to go to war in the future is in his hands, and that will always be a CHOICE.

Stopping Abortion by Committing Murder

How can a so-called civilized society that advocates the sacredness of life create an atmosphere in which murder is justified for the sake of stopping abortions that are legal? Have we as a society become what we deplore? Have we allowed the demons of hate and revenge to consume our humanity? Or are we witnessing the emergence of our inhuman side as a dominant part of the American culture. Read this link about a murder in a church and decide for yourself.

Health Care and the ME and WE Parties

A pandemic is coming, yells Governor Perry of Texas. Send help. I need anti-viral drugs from the US government. Close the boarder he demands. Bring in the troops--US Army of course. I will secede he clamors. But wait. Your help is needed Uncle Sam. I will secede later. The same mantra echoes from the mouths of right wing conservatives that includes virtually all of the Republican Party in the USA, and many Democrats too. Government is too big--until I need the Federal Government to help. What does the Republican Party and conservative Democrats represent? Seems to me the answer is: "What's good for ME at the moment". The Republican Party is not the party of "no". It is now the party of "me, me, me". Whatever I need when I need it is what counts and nothing else. Give ME health care, give ME anti viral medicines, give ME , give ME, give ME. WE others have become the victims of more than 8 years of "ME" thinking and action perpetrated by the ME Party, euphemistically referred to as the Republican Party with some shady Democrats under their umbrella. But "Republic--ans" or "Republicrats" or whatever you may call them the are really the ME Party. The ME Party is only focused on what is good for me. To hell with everyone else.

Most of the rest of us belong to the WE Party and it is time to speak out and let all politicians know that WE demand the right of Health Care for all citizens. WE, the only real party of the people demand action to provide universal health care underwritten by our taxes not doled out by insurance companies who fatten their profits by denying coverage and charging exorbitant fees that few can afford. WE demand a health care system that is based upon the Hippocratic Oath, not the "Bottom Line, $$$$$$, Oath" that demands huge profits for the private Health Care insurance companies who pay themselves (their executives) many many millions of dollars compensation plus bonuses for their ability to gouge WE.

Just as the ME Party allowed the financial and investment corporations to manipulate and deceive the WE Party (composed of the working Americans and their families), they are now defending their ME approach to health care. If they, the ME Party, gets their way WE will continue to lose health care and be forced to pay their profit driven Insurance Company fees or be denied even rudimentary health care.

WE must tell President Obama and those who we elect to make the health care decisions in Congress that the Insurance Companies health care dominance is over. WE demand action now to provide universal, single-payer health care for all of our citizens. The United States is the only advanced country in the world that does not provide non-profit single-payer health care for all their citizens. Why? The ME party (including many Democrats and virtually all Republicans) are beholden to the Insurance Corporations and their lobbyists who donate money for their political campaigns so that their vote against single-payer universal health care is assured by legal bribery. The same corporations attempt to scare the public at large with lies and distortions similar to the Financial Corporations blatant distortions that preceded the economic debacle we are now mired in. WE must awaken and recognize deception and greed for what it is. Tell the ME Party that WE are no longer accepting the "bs" and WE demand non-profit health care for all citizens NOW.

Do Words Have Meaning President Obama?

From the moment we begin speaking as infants in our mother tongue we accept the obvious reality that words do mean something. Each word in every language has a specific or range of meanings that become accepted by the general population. When we speak to one another we can determine what is meant and if there is any uncertainty can have it clarified. Likewise the content of the written word generally enable us to understand what the meaning "is". Except when "it depends what "is, is?", as a past US president said when he was caught with his pants down.

For the last eight years ambiguity of language and the written word has flourished as our government attempted to justify our nation's apparent disregard of the meaning of the Geneva Convention Treaty governing humane treatment of enemy combatants who are captured. We have been told that the Geneva Convention does not apply to suspected terrorists even when they are called enemy combatants. We are being told now by ex-Vice President Cheney that all torture is acceptable if an appointed lawyer or he says so, and he says so. What then do these word from the Geneva Convention Treaty mean, Mr Cheney?

"Captured combatants and civilians who find themselves under the authority of the adverse party are entitled to respect for their lives, their dignity, their personal rights and their political, religious and other convictions. They must be protected against all acts of violence or reprisal. They are entitled to exchange news with their families and receive aid. They must enjoy basic judicial guarantees."

Whatever the consequences of violating these words are or should be is up to the judicial process to determine. Mr. Cheney admits that the words of the Geneva Convention were disobeyed by him and others in the Bush Administration. The meaning of the Geneva Convention is indisputable. There is no acceptable reason to claim misunderstanding of these simple words. The laws flowing from the violation of the Geneva Convention are also as clear as can be and those of us who are old enough remember the Nuremberg Trials at which many Nazi leaders were convicted of war crimes and sentenced to long imprisonments or executed for violations of the Geneva Convention Treaty.

Words do mean something Mr. Cheney and you are certainly aware of that fact. Your admission of our Country and you yourself violating the words of the Geneva Convention should have judicial consequences.

It is now up to the Obama administration to mean what Candidate Obama so often said: "There must be accountability for actions." Individuals in the bush Administration violated the Geneva Convention Treaty that is law in over 190 of the counties on Earth, including the USA. The meaning of the words in the Geneva Convention Treaty are not ambiguous. The words mean exactly what they state in any language on Earth.

If the individuals in the Bush Administration violated the Geneva Convention Treaty, as Mr. Cheney admits, then the guilty individuals must be tried for crimes against humanity just as were the Nazis at Nuremberg.

The Obama Administration cannot ignore what took place during the Bush Administration and simply brush it off by saying "let by gones be by gones". By so doing he would admit that words have no meaning and they are always subject to interpretation and exception. If so how can your words, President Obama, be relied upon and judged?

The Malady of Effervescent Greed Must be Stopped

The financial and unemployment turmoil that we are in the midst of is a symptom of a disease that if allowed to spread will become an incurable plague. The financial turmoil originated when banks were allowed to participate in unregulated investment ploys that amounted to Ponzi schemes that makes Maddoff seem like a piker. Most banks allowed no down payment loans assuming that the prices of real estate would never decline and their loans would always be covered by foreclosures. Then banks and insurance companies participated in another scheme to make money that was even more baseless. They sold insurance or derivatives to individuals that assured payoff even if the loan borrower defaulted. This madness was akin a disease that spread to the brains of everyone participating causing effervescent greed to froth from the mouths of the avaricious money mongers. The average person who is now wallowing in debt and unable to find work represents the innocent victim of this hoax that they believed in because as we have all been told by our leaders that more is better, and the more that you consume the better. Well, the bankers and investment gurus swallowed their own propaganda as did the politicians, and led us all down an unregulated path of economic misery. Can tweaking the system that caused the disease change the outcome? Maybe for the short term, but not for the long haul.

We cannot cure the disease of greed by turning off one spigot while allowing many others to continue to spew polluted water. Temporary measures will slow the greed disease in banking and investments, but only long enough to curtail the economic decline. Then the cycle will resume because we have been conditioned to the not so subliminal message that more consumption cures everything. In other words, the more you spend the better, unless what it costs is greater than all your asset values combined. Then you are told that you are not qualified. I am referring to the priceless asset, your health. If you are destitute or barely below the poverty line, you may get rudimentary health care, if you can find it nearby. If you are middle class and have lost your job and depend upon unemployment insurance you are probably unqualified for Medicaid or equivalent care. The millions of recently unemployed who had rudimentary health care will soon have nothing.

Our health care system that denies life-saving and preventive care to at least one quarter of our people, and rations it (by having HMO administrators decide the care you are entitled to, not doctors telling you what you need) to most of the rest of us, is another example of effervescent greed that is about to cause the next great crisis in the USA.

Medical care in our country use to be available to virtually everyone when family doctors provided care and non-profit hospitals dominated the scene. Doctors made house calls and took care of the poor and needy even if they could not pay. Then, in the late 1950's the practice of medicine started to change. Corporate entities and insurance companies decided that they were missing a gargantuan profit opportunity. Health Maintenance Organizations started to replace the family doctor and profit-making hospitals replaced non-profit ones. Medical specialization grew exponentially and even doctors decided that more profit was very nice. House calls ceased. The needy and poor were left to get sick and were denied life-saving treatments that they could not pay for. As the profit making motive drove medical care the price consumers paid for treatments and care also increased at a rate that far exceeded the general rate of inflation. Prices for doctors and hospital care escalated by at least twice the compounded rate of general inflation.

The escalating costs to companies who offered health care benefits to their employees became too expensive for the employers so they introduced co-payments and monthly deductions from pay checks to help cover their costs and loss of profits.Some companies dropped health plans completely. Retiree health benefits were often eliminated even though they were promised upon employment. Wile all these changes occurred fewer people were able to pay for their medical care and the state and federal government provided aid for those who could not pay. Eventually government aid became insufficient to overcome the profit-driven medical industry prices that had the most influential lobby in Washington DC and state capitols.

The CEO's and executives of the major HMO's and pharmaceutical companies thrived as did their top executives and large stock investors as the profits ballooned. HMO executive pay and bonuses went sky high as they are now. Some of the highest paid corporate executives are CEO's of HMO's many of whom are paid over $100 million dollars annually plus stock options and bonuses. The health care industry is now one of the most profitable businesses in the USA simply because it has morphed from care based upon the Hippocratic oath to care based upon maximizing profits. Major corporation control doctors who are often paid bonuses by restricting the extent of care. Most doctors are now employees or managed by HMO's and insurance companies whose real purpose is to generate profits, and health care is secondary.

The consequences of this transformation of health care in our country is that about 100 million of our people are provided inadequate medical care or no health care at all, and the number is growing daily. This is the result of the same effervescent greed that has devastated our economic wellbeing. We are on the precipice of becoming engulfed in an even more devastating disaster, one that truly determines the balance between life and death: affordable health care for all citizens. If greed is allowed to continue to dominate health care as it has for banking and investments we will soon see our sick country becoming sicker and more destitute than any financial upheaval could ever cause.

What can the average citizen do to prevent profit from deciding your health? Stop the HMO's, drug companies, and their armies of lobbyists from dictating the future of health care. Demand that the profit motive be removed from our health care delivery system and insist that a universal health care plan be created that provides health care for all citizens regardless of economic status. Return health care to the days when the Hippocratic Oath was the driving force and the purpose of medicine. Stop profit making corporations and organizations from spreading the "Malady of Effervescent Greed" that has already done irreparable harm to many millions of our people. Millions more will soon lose whatever health care coverage they had as Cobra is terminated or becomes too expensive to pay for without a job.

Act now. Call your elected representatives in the House and Senate. Contact President Obama. Start organizing and participate in a "People's March on Washington for Universal, Non-Profit, Health Care". Tell the politicians that you won't allow any more back-room deals with the health care lobbyists and their profit-driven health-care corporations! We the people must win our right to have Universal Health Care without greedy profit making corporations determining your eligibility and amount of care.

Is There a Long Term Upside to the Present Economic Downside?

Today the world is plagued by a serious economic down turn for about one third of the world's population. Another one third are experiencing slight economic decline. One third remains in abject poverty and that has not changed for a long time. The so-called advanced economic sector of the world economy of which the USA is a part, is entering, arguably, the second Depression in a slightly more than 75 years. We had been told by our political leaders since FDR that steady economic growth interrupted by periodic "corrective recessions" of very short duration was the norm. Now it is appropriate to question this premise.

The capitalistic system is based upon the assumption that individual decisions, unfettered by government regulations, within open competition to supply products will result in the highest standard of living for everyone. The most efficient producer will always provide the consumer with the lowest cost product if the same rules of competition applies to all. This idyllic dream has long ago become a fairy tale. International monopolies control the production of virtually all consumer products. These monopolies produce products where labor cost is the lowest and where regulations and unionized labor is forbidden. Open and free competition no longer exists in the so-called advance countries in the world that sells to the rest of the world.

Furthermore, the concept of consumption of all and any products is the fundamental basis of economic growth is another fairy tale that is totally bankrupt. This concept is rooted in the archaic belief that resources are unlimited and that more of everything is the best possible gauge of human progress.We have been sold this bill of goods for more than 150 years (in the USA. These hollow words of politicians and corporate leaders have been debunked by reality. The working people of the world are now suffering because of the doomed illusion that prosperity is assured by consumption of more material goods, that are not essential for a good life, but indispensable nonetheless. We have been duped by our political and corporate advocates of profit based upon raw greed. The current economic turbulence will not be brief nor reversible if we continue to follow the path that unbridled consumption by the wealthiest countries is necessary to revive the economic fortunes of the world's populations. Unfortunately we are being told this by virtually all world leaders. Open your eyes and ears and use your God-given brain to cut through all this beguiling baloney.

However, there is a long term attainable goal that will provide human purpose based upon communion with nature and each other. We must become tuned to the commonness of human life and natural gifts and blend them to create a world that is based upon working for the common good of all. We must stop demanding more of everything and measure our true needs based upon necessity, not desire. We cannot sustain a world based upon consumption for the sake of consumption. The concept of a forever renewable basis of consumption is just as fraudulent as unbridled consumption. We must all accept the inevitable truth that the Earth's resources are limited and consumption cannot be unlimited. As the old saying goes, 'There is no such thing as a free lunch."

The current political climate in the world is based upon the belief that if we regain our past consumption practices the world will regain and its upward economic trajectory. If the world economy regains its upward path in this manner it will be short lived and another, and perhaps the last great Depression will befall the world and the eventual consequences will be unimaginable.

We have the power to change but only if we as a world collectively admits that generating economic wealth by resorting to unlimited consumption amounts to self destruction. The challenge that we all face is to establish a reasonable life quality for Earth's inhabitants based upon equitable use of our planet's limited natural resources. The upside of the present economic downside depends upon our ability to fundamentally change. Can we?