… these excellent words, and I think they apply quite readily to a variety of things, including the recent kerfuffle with WikiLeaks:
“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”
–Harry S Truman (1884 — 1972), August 8, 1950
Pulled from a post at TPM, “Democrats Aghast Over GOP Blocking 9/11 Responders Bill”:
In a statement to reporters, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the Republican decision to block was a shock as well.
“Republicans denied adequate health care to the heroes who developed illnesses from rushing into burning buildings on 9/11,” He said. “Yet they will stop at nothing to give tax breaks to millionaires and CEOs, even though they will explode our deficit and fail to create jobs.”
“That tells you everything you need to know about their priorities,” Reid added.
Read the article itself for the whole story.
When they propose cuts in Medicare, means-testing Social Security, a raising of the retirement age and a cut in defense spending, I’ll take them seriously and wish them well.
Until then, I’ll treat them with the condescending contempt they have thus far deserved.
Those are Andrew Sullivan’s final words in a new article, entitled Why I’m Passing On Tea, he published today over at his blog, The Daily Dish, in reference to the protesters of the Tea Party.
Then this amazing article by Tim Wise popped up on my radar. He starts off the article with this:
Let’s play a game, shall we? The name of the game is called “Imagine.” The way it’s played is simple: we’ll envision recent happenings in the news, but then change them up a bit. Instead of envisioning white people as the main actors in the scenes we’ll conjure – the ones who are driving the action – we’ll envision black folks or other people of color instead. The object of the game is to imagine the public reaction to the events or incidents, if the main actors were of color, rather than white.
He goes on to describe a situation where, instead of angry white folks descending en masse armed with various weaponry, racist placards, and the willingness to threaten elected officials and spit on them, but instead it’s angry
We don’t really have to wonder what the reaction would be. There are plenty of examples of the double standard of American free speech, but a comment on the article mentioned Ice-T’s “Cop Killer” song from 1990. It’s a protest song, told from the point of view of an individual so angered by police brutality that he takes the law into his own hands.
The outrage to this song was, to say the least, explosive. Former President Bush Sr. & his wife expressed outrage, as did former Vice President Dan Quayle (who even went so far as to call the song “obscene”), and many others expressed similar sentiments. A store in Greensboro, NC, even had to remove the album from its shelves after local police told management they wouldn’t respond to any emergency calls from that location.
All this over a song. Yes, a song that expresses a very hateful, violent way to resolve a problem, but nonetheless, something that should be protected under free speech. And now we see people walking about with signs calling for the lynching of Congressional leaders.
I don’t see the difference, but somehow, the level of outrage isn’t even close to the same.
(Via @diabola)
I just want to highlight the fact that it’s been 50 years since the Greensboro sit-ins, which helped spark the Civil Rights Movement, eventually leading to the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlawed segregation. The Awl has a great story on it: Very Recent History: The Greensboro Sit-Ins. It links further to an article by former NY Times executive editor Howell Raines, which “discuss[es] the role media coverage played in opening America’s eyes to the struggle, and speculates as to how it might differ today.”
Pretty cool stuff.
(Via The Awl)
My friend Brian Christiansen posted this one at his tumblr, Off The Grid, but I wanted to feature it here as well. Check out our health care spending per person, as compared with other countries of the first world:
Another interesting read on the health care topic is this article, The Rest is Just Noise, at, of all places, The New Republic.
The New York Times published a really great article yesterday evening: Details on Health Care Bills in House, Senate. The article details the two House bills and single Senate bill that have been proposed to enact reform in the healthcare industry.
The first bill, The House Democratic bill (Affordable Health Care for America Act), is the most ambitious, and, to my eyes, the most forward-thinking. It proposes a public option, requirements for healthcare, hardship subsidies, and yes, new taxes. It also provides for a removal of antitrust exemptions that the healthcare industry currently enjoys. This is the bill I’d love to see passed, but it’s gonna be tough. Call your Representative’s office!
The second bill they mention, The House Republican bill (Common Sense Health Care Reform and Affordability Act), is a snake in the grass. It’s costs have yet to be determined, and the changes it makes are nominal only. Reading through the details about this bill it’s hard not to wonder just who these Representatives are, in fact, representing. Most interestingly, it does NOT seek to change the antitrust exemptions.
The third bill, The Senate Democratic bill, is still largely unpublished, so The Times reports what is known. It appears to tread a middle ground between the two House bills, and if it were beefed up slightly in regards to making the public option (either state– or federal-level) a sure thing, I’d be behind this bill as well. While unconfirmed, it’s suggested that a motion to strip those same antitrust exemptions will be made on the Senate floor at some point.
Have my fingers crossed that we see some real positive movement on this!
My friend Brian C over at Off The Grid (@briandigital on Twitter) posted this picture of what China looks like without environmental regulations:
40 more disturbing photographs if you follow the link.
(Via Off The Grid : @jlbruno)
Chez over at Deus Ex Malcontent links to a New York Times article which reveals that one of CNN’s contributors, who happens to be against health care reform, is, in fact, in the pocket of the private health insurance industry. Disgusting. Having a conflict of interest is one level of unethical, but failing to disclose said conflict takes it to a whole other level.
Read on:
The New York Times: CNN To Disclose Contributor’s Ties to Advocacy Group/10.15.09
