Thanks for highlighting my comment on a story about the gubernatorial poll. I am republishing it here since it on another website.

If Ben Jealous is able to cut Hogan’s lead in half he will still lose by a landslide. Without a major surprise it is hard to see Jealous doing better than shrinking his loss to a landslide from a complete blowout.

But, the problem is not only Jealous – the problem is the Democratic Party abandoned Jealous as soon as he defeated the machine candidate the Party was behind. How much money has Van Hollen raised for Jealous? How much has he moved from his campaign account to the Jealous campaign? How about Cardin? Steny Hoyer? Mike Miller? Michael Busch? Keep going down the list and you will almost no Democrats helping their nominee. The Democratic Party abandoned Jealous and now claim to be surprised he’s losing. That is like knifing someone in the back and being surprised they are bleeding.

When the Republican Governor’s Association attacked Jealous defining him as a tax and spend socialist — a false description that has stuck — what did the Democrats do to respond? Nothing. They allowed the Republicans to define Jealous and left him defenseless. Of course he is behind. The only campaign has been an anti-Jealous campaign. There has barely been a Jealous campaign.

Has anyone in the Democratic Party done the opposition research about the ongoing Hogan real estate company — which he has not put in a blind trust — that has entered into many new contracts and made the governor $2.4 million, on top of his $180,000 salary? Did that company benefit from the inside knowledge of a governor, knowing where government investment is going? Were decisions made to benefit Hogan Real Estate Services? Research on that one issue could have transformed the campaign and redefined Hogan as a mini-Trump who is profiting from being in office. Instead, there is silence from Dems.

Instead, there are people like State Senator Kathy Klausmeir, a Deputy Majority Leader who put out a mailing last week praising Hogan paid for by the Democratic Senate Caucus. The mailer said she and Hogan were working for the same goals even though they were from different parties. Is the Deputy Majority Leader campaigning for Hogan? Has she done a mailing for Jealous? Have any Democratic Party leaders done any mailings for Jealous?

Jealous has made a lot of mistakes so he deserves blame for his failing campaign, but the Democratic Party is undermining his campaign by abandoning him. In the article above, Dems are now using it as an excuse – Jealous is doing poorly so we can distance ourselves from him.

The Maryland Democratic Party is a centrist party that is funded by big business, developers, real estate and the insurance industry. That is who they serve. They can manage Hogan. The General Assembly sets the legislative agenda. They pass whatever laws they want. If Hogan vetoes it they override it. Why do they need a governor who defeated the machine in office? Much better to use Jealous to teach a lesson to other Democrats — don’t challenge the machine, be a centrist.

The reality is, if people want progressive government they are not going to get it from the Democratic Party. Progressives are throwing their vote away when they vote for any Democrat. We need to build an alternative party that puts the people’s necessities and protection of the planet before the profits of campaign donors. The only party that will do that is the Green Party. People need to use their vote to help build that party — voting Green for Governor and Lt. Governor — Ian Schlackman and Rev. Annie Chambers — as well as voting Green down ballot. We will not get progressive government from the Maryland Democratic Party. They are proving that in the gubernatorial election for those who did not already know it.

My condolences to you and your family and Bob’s friends and loved ones. What a loss to all. Thank you and the others at Consortium News for deciding to carry on the high standards of journalism. We need you to continue and it is great that Bob’s legacy will live on through each of you. Thank you for the great rememberances of someone that we all came to rely on for the truth as best he could report it.

Fabian L'Amour claims that the congressional committee investigating the conspiracy exposed by Smedley Butler for a business coup against FDR found his claims were false. In fact, they found the exact opposite. They confirmed his claims through other witnesses and their own investigation. The Congressional committee final report said:

"In the last few weeks of the committee's official life it received evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist organization in this country. No evidence was presented and this committee had none to show a connection between this effort and any fascist activity of any European country. There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient.

"This committee received evidence from Maj. Gen Smedley D. Butler (retired), twice decorated by the Congress of the United States. He testified before the committee as to conversations with one Gerald C. MacGuire in which the latter is alleged to have suggested the formation of a fascist army under the leadership of General Butler.

"MacGuire denied these allegations under oath, but your committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler, with the exception of the direct statement suggesting the creation of the organization. This, however, was corroborated in the correspondence of MacGuire with his principal, Robert Sterling Clark, of New York City, while MacGuire was abroad studying the various forms of veterans organizations of Fascist character."

74th Congress House of Representatives Report, pursuant to House Resolution No. 198, 73d Congress, February 15, 1935. Quoted in: George Seldes, 1000 Americans (1947), pp. 290–292. See also Schmidt, p. 245

Good to see third party candidates helping to make TPP stand for Toxic Political Poison. Sign up to stop the ratification of the TPP in the lame duck session, http://www.FlushTheTPP.org/nolameduck/

This is about third parties that oppose the TPP not those like Johnson who support it. Not biased, just he’s on the wrong side. Good to highlight that fact.

It implies nothing of the sort. The leadership of the Dem Party is corrupted by money and Wall Street. The partisan voters imagine the Dem Party is something it is not. They are victims of very sophisticated propaganda by Dem operatives and their allies in the media. They are surrounded by propaganda.

I don’t think Sanders will sell out either. I just don’t see how he can beat a system to prevent him (and people like him) from winning the Democratic primary. He is up against a corrupt system.

No, what I said consistently was next April because I know the 24 states voting in March is a key blockade for people who are challenging the direction of the Dem Party. Lots of people have had big rallies and lost elections. Nader held mass rallies at stadiums across the country. Henry Wallace filled Yankee Stadium.

I would love to Sanders win the nomination because that would be a major sign of the Dem Party being defeated — at least on domestic issues — but the system is the problem. It is set up to prevent that from happening. But, believe what you want. Enjoy the ride.

Interesting to see the comments on this interview. Sanders is like saccahrin, sweet with no calories. He is keeping people who should be leaving the Wall Street Democratic Party staying in it. He calls for a revolution against the billionaires — who does he think owns the Democratic Party?

By next April the Sanders amusement ride will be over. The Democratic Party primaries are set up to prevent someone like Sanders (or Kucinich or Jesse Jackson or any other challenger to the system) from getting the nomination. Twenty percent of the delegates are superdelegates — government officials, party hacks whose job it is to make sure a Wall Streeter gets the nomination. In March there are two dozen primaries and caucuses covering the country. March is designed to make sure only wealthy candidates can win because no one can campaign in 24 states. they need to spend massively on TV.

So, enjoy it while it lasts, the Sanders roller coaster ride will end soon.

No doubt the neo-cons and humanitarian war fighters will continue to try and make war on Iran. This agreement does not end that. Does it make the job of those seeking diplomatic solutions easier? Only if we realize this is not the final victory but one requiring vigilance.

Diplomatic relations need to continue to build. The US needs to start seeing Iran in reality not in a false characterchure. And those who seek de-militarization of the US have a lot of work to do to weaken the US war culture.

There is no final solution there is only ongoing work toward our goals.

I hope people see Hedges response published by The Real News. I posted it as a separate item in the responses to the FAIR blog. Here’s the link http://therealnews.com/t2/component/content/article/282-chris-hedges/2108-response-by-hedges-to-allegations-by-ketcham-in-tnr

Here is Hedges response.

http://therealnews.com/t2/component/content/article/282-chris-hedges/2108-response-by-hedges-to-allegations-by-ketcham-in-tnr

Response by Hedges to Allegations by Ketcham in TNR:
Chris Hedges

MONDAY, 16 JUNE 2014 12:48
17 Comments
By Chris Hedges

Statements made in Christopher Ketcham’s article in The New Republic are false and attempt to damage me personally and professionally. The failure by The New Republic to verify the charges by assigning an editor or fact checker to vet the story and contact me or the publications involved, violates the most basic tenets of journalistic ethics. Ketcham has been attempting to publish these allegations for more than a year. His queries engendered lengthy investigations into his charges by The Nation Institute, Nation Books and Truthdig, all of which found no basis for his charges, as they state in the article. Given the gravity of the charges made against me by The New Republic, including an emphatic statement in the headline that I was a plagiarist, the organizations involved, as well as I, should have been allowed a fair hearing from the magazine before publication. An independent and disinterested fact checker or editor should have contacted us. I expect, at the very least, that this response will be run in full by the magazine.

1. The article submitted to Harper’s was not “lifted directly from the work of a Philadelphia Inquirer reporter named Matt Katz.” All my reporting was done before the Katz series was published. The Camden story, published eventually in The Nation magazine and used in a longer version in my book Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt, cited some of the Inquirer’s work, especially statistics gathered by the newspaper, and was properly sourced. The charge — made without any evidence and without sources about an unpublished manuscript — that passages and quotes were taken from the Inquirer series is simply untrue. The charge that I copied quotes from another reporter is also untrue. These allegations, which are very serious, should not have been made unless accompanied by textual proof. There was none. Indeed, Ketcham admits that he never read the manuscript.

2. There are numerous footnotes to the Inquirer in the Camden chapter of Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt. Katz is credited for the reporting he did in the footnotes and directly in the text. These two particular passages cited by Ketcham are footnoted to the wrong Katz article. This error was corrected. To cite an incorrect footnote as an example of plagiarism is inappropriate.

3. I changed the Ernest Hemingway passage in my book War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning after the first edition several months before Thomas Palaima’s complaint. The editors and I make changes if errors are found in all new editions. Indeed, I request them to be made.

4. I corrected the Neil Postman reference after my “2011: A Brave New Dystopia” column was put up on Truthdig when similarity in style came to my attention. The quote, used in my book Empire of Illusion, was always in quotes and footnoted.

5. The Petra Bartosiewicz material in my column “The Terror-Industrial Complex” was sourced to Harpers and to Bartosiewicz three times. There were a few paragraphs following the sourcing that should have been set off in block quotes. Bartosiewicz’s editor at Harper’s, Luke Mitchell, called it to our attention. Mitchell asked us to fix what he described as a “formatting error” in the “much appreciated” Truthdig column that cited her work. The fix was made, in consultation with Mitchell, the next day and ran along with an editor’s not

6. Naomi Klein in an article in The Nation magazine referred to some statements of fact about climate change. I used these statements of fact, but I did not copy her words. In hindsight, I would have linked to and cited directly her article, especially given how much I admire her work.

My work as a journalist and an author has been dedicated to telling the truth. I have made errors, and will no doubt make errors in the future. But I always seek when I discover these errors or when they are discovered by others to make corrections. I do not willfully hurt anyone or appropriate anyone else’s work. Writers, especially writers who have produced, as I have, hundreds of thousands of words of printed copy, are fallible. What matters are intent and a willingness to own up to inadvertent errors or mistakes. I have always worked, and will continue to work, to be as transparent and honest as possible.

Even worse it is an article that was not even in final from but in the fact-checking stage and never published. Two other magazines rejected this attack on Hedges because once their fact checkers started looking at it they saw the article was not solid. I’m not surprised New Republic printed it, it has become a pro-war, pro-corporate Dem rag — the exact opposite of what Hedges stands for.

It is important to know that the author of the Hedges plagarism article has been shopping it around for 1 and a half years. It was rejected by at least Salon and American Prospect once they started fact checking it. The New Republic has stood for the opposite of Hedges; it has been a pro – war, pro-Israel and neoliberal publication.

The article is libel. Did you notice how many people refused to comment and how many did not want their name used? How many of Hedges editors from various publications stood by him? The New Republic seems out their alone in these charges and FAIR should be criticizing them for making such charges rather than sharing them as evidence of plagiarism.

Good article, Russ.  You are right, they never level with us.  It is obvious that this is not a “humanitarian war” as advertised, but a regime change war.  Nor, is it a war that will last days or weeks, but one that will last months, perhaps years.

I see three likely reasons for the Libyan war.  (1) The U.S. set-up Africa Command under President Bush.  He appointed a black general to head AfrCom but the general was unable to sell a U.S. military base on the continent.  The first African American Commander in Chief was also unable to make the sale. Libya will provide a military base or bases and a place of operations for the American Empire in Africa. (2) Libya was pushing African nations to form their own banking system that would have been separate from the established western-dominated banks.  The removal of Ghadafi will stop that movement. (3) Oil — as you note in your article.  Not only access to oil but the profits from Libyan oil for western oil companies.  If access were the only issue than we could buy the oil, but our oil companies want the profits, especially as oil becomes scarce and prices rise.

You may also want to look at what investments GE has in Libya — they have a ton — and they are very influential with the administration especially in election years when NBC is needed to campaign for the president.

KZ
http://www.ComeHomeAmerica.US

Thanks to Anonymous for exposing the attack of HBGary and the other security firms, Hunton & Williams, the Chamber of Commerce and Bank of America.  A project I work on, StopTheChamber.org was one of those targeted and I am thankful that this plot was exposed before it went further than it did. 

These kinds of cyber attacks and harasment have no place in politics.  How dare these firms plot what seem to be a range of crimes against political activists and journalists.  Citizen participation in democracy and journalists who tell the truth are critical to a functioning democracy.  The corporate powers that were using these tactics were unAmerican in doing so.

The comment in the article “HBGary President Penny Leavy . . . rightly
labeled [Anonymous] ‘criminals’ rather than politically motivated ‘hacktivists.'” Nonsense to that claim.  Anonymous is on the side of a democratized media that WikiLeaks is at the forefront of.  A new media where more people can provide information without retribution, more people can distribute information through independent outlets and more people know what big business and government are doing with great transparency. They are very politically motivated on the most important political issues of the time — freedom of speech and press in the internet age, expanding democracy and greater transparency in government — all of which challenges corporate domination of government.

The big concern Americans should be asking about regarding the private security industry is — how widespread is this type of activity? Anonymous did not go to HBGary to discover this, they just happened to do so in response to an HBGary attack on them.  My concern is this is more common than the security industry is admitting.

Kevin Zeese
http://www.ProsperityAgenda.US

Thanks for all the comments. Not much I disagree with.

As to writing Clinton is a joke, we need to go after Clinton in a variety of ways. We are constantly looking for opportunities to confront her in public. If anyone sees a public event for Hillary please let me know and we will try to get people there to do as Ray did — confront her. My email is moc.liamgnull@eseeZBK. The action Ray took was a result of DC activists noting Clinton’s public appearance and sharing it with a group of us. We want more opportunities to do the same.

Email letters are important in order to get people to sign up and get involved so that when we take future actions there is a bigger network of people ready to act. Some people are not ready for public confrontations so for them sending is a letter is what they are currently comfortable with. But, that comfort level will grow as they see more of us taking action as Ray did.

It is also important for Clinton to know that we see her as a hypocrite. That thousands of Americans see through the fog of propaganda and corporate media — that the U.S. is undermining free speech at home. She should be told she is a hypocrite by as many Americans as possible.

But, we do not only encourage or organize email letter or phone call campaigns. We organize a variety of public events which sometimes include civil resistance where people risk arrest. Join us at http://www.VotersForPeace.US for war, torture and related issues and at http://www.ProsperityAgenda.US for economic issues like health care, banking regulation, ending the Fed, ending the wealth divide and democratizing the economy.

Well said Halifax!

Deadbeat. I agree with you that our political system is a mess, more of a fraudulent democracy than a real one which is why I served as Nader’s press secretary and spokesperson in 2004.

Obviously, Manning did not start out as a preacher, indeed he started at as a brainwashed American youth (it seems) who believed the U.S. was a force for good in the world. But when he saw the torture, war crimes and deception he did something about it (if the allegations are true), that is when he got on the right path. While our democracy is a fraud, it does not have to be a fraud. If Americans wake up and refuse the duopoly their vote things will change quickly. More and more are waking up, a long way to go before we reach the tipping point, but information like WikiLeaks is publishing will help more see the truth.

Loucleve: You should look at some of the chat logs and maybe the facts will change your opinion. If the chat logs are accurate (they were reported on Wired) he talks about seeing horrible stuff that should be made public and starting a debate about foreign policy. He also has been quoted talking about finding Iraqis being tortured by the Iraqi government that the U.S. put in power merely for publishing a paper asking where the money went. He brought that to his commander who said ignore it and keep rounding up Iraqis. Those are the facts I’m aware of — what is your source? Hopefully, not the NY Times!! :)

Deadbeat — it would be “hyperbole to the Max” if I equated Manning to MLK, but that is not what I did. In fact, what happened was, I went back to MLK’s anti-Vietnam war speech on the day of the protest at Quantico (MLK Day) and was struck by how Dr. King’s comments were lighting the path Manning was walking on. As you can see from the article I quote a lot of the speech because it is so relevant to the situation we face today.

Interesting discussion, lots I agree with, but Don, where did I sign onto progressive Democrats. I don’t remember putting my signature on that form! We are not going to end corporate power by supporting either corporate party. That just entrenches corporate power more. Even supporting progressive Democrats keeps the Democrats in power and that party is led by corporatists.

Woops, meant camping out in Crawford at Camp Casey.

Sitting on a bus, sitting at lunch counter, camping out at Camp David . . . of course, these are all little things that add up to other little things people are doing — walking across a bridge, visiting Washington, DC. It is the compilation of lots of little things that make a movement.

Hayate — I’m curious about Soros’s views on Israel. I did a google search and found him making critical comments about the actions of the Israeli government. See, e.g., http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1203/mason_soros.php3?printer_friendly.

As to MoveOn, the problem is their close alliance with the Democratic Party. After all, their birth came out of the Clinton impeachment and urging the country to move-on from that issues. On issues I work on like single payer health care and ending of war funding they always support the Democratic Party leadership rather than what the health care reform and peace movements want. We need independent movements — independent of both corporate parties.

For me, I doubt I will be voting Democrat in 2012. I hope there is a strong independent or third party peace and anti-corporate power candidate that I can support. I decided, early in the Clinton years, to vote for what I want, not based on what I fear. I do not vote for evil — lesser or greater. I’d rather vote for what I want and not get it, then vote for what I don’t want and get it — thanks to Eugene Debs for that kind of clear thinking.

KZ

You’re right about that Don.

One thing that is always interesting about paradigm shifting change, when it happens, people say — wow that was quick, where did that come from? We might be close to that type of paradigm shifting change right now. A near majority of Americans consider themselves independent of the two parties. And, so many problems are reaching a breaking point. The military strategy is resulting in tremendous cost and more defeat than victory. We may wake up and find a major shift in the direction we have all been working for, for many years. We’ve got to keep pushing for progressive change despite the obstacles and powers that be doing all they can to stop us.

And, don’t assume that the record corporate power in the post Citizen’s United World is a sign of their strength. It may also be a sign of their desperation. So often before a major paradigm shift the status quo stiffens its back and looks stronger than ever, but really they are more insecure than ever and therefore working harder to prevent change.

Don’t misunderstand me. I see Obama for what he is — a corporate-militarist who supports a foreign policy dominated by U.S. military power. I do not expect him or the Democrats to change.

I served as Ralph Nader’s spokesperson and press secretary in 2004 and have not voted for either of the two parties since the 90s. During the Obama campaign I was a constant critic of Obama’s rhetoric on war, militarism, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan — he is doing what he would say he would do on all those fronts. (See Peace Perspectives from 2008/09 at http://www.VotersForPeace.US.) I supported Nader and McKinney in 2008. So, I am not fooled.

But, I oppose these wars and want to see them ended. And, it is important for the peace movement to realize Obama is not Bush — not that his policies are different but the politics are different. Bush did not need the peace vote. The peace vote never supported Bush and never would. So, when we had mass demonstrations they were irrelevant to Bush because he knew those were not the voters that put him in office or would keep him in office.

Obama was put in office by peace voters. His promise to end the Iraq War led off his speeches (of course, the details did not really promise an end, but few heard the details). The peace vote got him the Democratic nomination. Unfortunately, many peace voters are Democrats. So, they tend to support Obama even when he does the opposite of what they want. I want peace voters to realize that they actually have more power right now then they did under Bush. Those kinds of mass demonstrations and civil resistance actions against Democrats would make a difference now, unlike during the Bush era when they were irrelevant. But to exercise that power requires peace voters to become non-partisan, to turn their backs on the Democrats.

My hope is that we have a real progressive third party some day in the United States. I would love for the Green Party to stand more strongly against the Democrats, but they have been very disappointing on that front too often. I don’t see myself supporting a Democrat in the near future. There would have to be a major paradigm shift that has never occurred in that party since the time it was the slave party before the Civil War. It was always a big business party with rhetoric for the people then and it remains a big business party with rhetoric (but not policies) for the people now.

But, the Dems are getting a mid-term election lesson right now. Conservative policies mean voters will be unenthusiastic and stay home. The Dems can learn that lesson, and it can be emphasized by the peace movement if we turn away from them (as I said, while I am not a Dem, many peace voters are), protest the wars and warn them they are losing the peace vote. It is never easy to end a war once it starts but peace voters have more power than they realize, more power with a president who needs them vs. when there was a Bush president who did not need them.

I was pleased with the Albany conference resolution on Palestine Israel. It is important to be consistent in opposition to militarism and occupation as well as not violating international law.

Teafoe2 — not sure what your points are. Your own posting points out the Reform guy was fired when he got off the Nader path. If any other Reform folks were hired they also had to stick with Nader’s views. Nader was in control of the campaign not the Reform Party.

Similarly on your point on UFPJ, they are continuing as an informal coalition. They continue to put out alerts to their list. Indeed, they just put one out about an event at Quantico to support Bradley Manning. So, they are still taking action.

KZ

Interesting comments. A few responses.

If you want to know my views on U.S. policy toward Palestine-Israel just google Zeese Israel. My views are not a secret! It is time for the U.S. to start cutting funds to Israel, stop providing weapons and political cover and time for Americans to boycott Israeli goods. The country violates the law every day and needs to be held accountable. I suspect we would find a lot of people on the right who agree with criticism of Israel.

Forming a political party of people of disparate views is different from allying on an issue where we agree. I don’t see forming a political party with tea bag people or Ron Paul people as the differences are too significant on the role of government and the type of economy that would be most effective for meeting the necessities of the people. Working on an issue we agree on is a different matter. I don’t see the Tea Party as viable for even an issue-alliance as they seem to have been taken over by the neocons and traditional conservatives and are inconsistent in their views — small government but don’t cut the military budget — give me a break. This is one of many problems with their thinking.

As to Nader turning over his operation to the Reform Party and right wingers, that is absolute fiction. I was Nader’s spokesperson and press secretary in 2004. He did take a few ballot lines from the Reform Party but that did not give them any control of the campaign. Ballot access is such a giant hurdle for a national campaign that you have to get on the ballot in many ways. Nader also sought the socialist Peace and Freedom ballot line in 2004 and received it in 2008. Nader ran his campaign and it was a progressive campaign on every issue. And, Nader is very strong on Palestine-Israel. In fact during the 2004 campaign we got into a political fight with the pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League. The fight became very public. Indeed, the Washington Post described Ralph as the equivalent of a skinhead for his outspoken criticism of Israel.

UFPJ continues to exist. It is weaker and less funded and less staffed but never had sufficient funds. They did a lot of good work for peace but my problem with them was they leaned toward the Democratic Party and that is a party that kills political movements. The peace movement almost died when “reporting for duty” Kerry ran and is still recovering from Obama. The peace movement needs to be an independent political force not tied to or leaning toward any political party.

Re Zinn, yes, I was disappointed that he did not endorse Nader in 2004. I was serving as Nader’s spokesperson and press secretary at the time. And, there was an organized effort to get “progressive” leaders to oppose Nader’s run.

The U.S. electoral system is a manipulated democracy. It is not an easy one to operate in. I’m thoroughly convinced that neither party can be changed from their corporate domination and voting for candidates in either corporate party is propping up a failed system.

But, at the time fear of Bush was so high among many that they could not thing straight, so “ready for duty” “I’ll kill them or capture them” “escalate the war” “expand the DoD” Kerry was acceptable. Sadly, Obama promised much the same and is doing what he promised.

Debs had it right — I’d rather vote for what I want and not get it, then for what I don’t want and get it.

Mary —

Howard Zinn was a great one. I was a member of what became known as the Baucus 8 in the real health care reform movement. Eight of us, doctors, lawyers, health care and labor activists, stood up in the Senate Finance Committee at the beginning of health care reform and demanded that single payer health care — the most popular reform among Americans — be included in the discussion of reform. It wasn’t. We were each arrested for standing up and demanding it. Zinn told Amy Goodman when she asked what Americans should be doing, that people should do as the 8 of us did — go where you are not supposed to go, say what you are not supposed to say and refuse to leave when they insist you stop. Now, that was an honor!

I agree that the finance “reform” bill is inadequate and that systemic change is needed. American capitalism, concentrated corporatism really, only works for the to 1% of the country. It needs a radical transformation.

And, while this bill is inadequate, it is important to get people active and working toward real reform. We need to strengthen political movements that challenge capitalism. Right now there is no real movement for the type of change needed. So, these are baby steps but they are steps that begin to get people active and aware. Even if the changes I suggest in this article are made the bill will still be inadequate so more will be needed.

By the way, I was positively surprised by the expansion of the requirement for audits of the Federal Reserve. Who knows what worms we’ll find under that rock!

KZ

Obviously I disagree. I am not abandoning the idea of getting rid of the insurance industry — that is the whole point of single payer. The reason we say “improved” Medicare for All is exactly the shortcomings that r jackowski points out. Medicare needs to be expanded to cover all health issues so there is no need for private insurance (although in most single payer countries they do not do away with all insurance, they shrink it to being a tiny part of health care).

The reason to move from single payer is because so few understand the term. We need to find ways to communicate with people so they know what we want. And, we need to be able to do it quickly because sound bites are part of our culture. Improved Medicare for All is a term that more people will understand. It is not perfect rhetoric, but an improvement. Usually the way I use it is “single payer, improved Medicare for all,” so I get the best of both worlds.

KZ

The goal of communication is to communicate clearly — it not just to hear ourselves talk. It is to persuade people to support our view.

That is a terrible reason to not use the words “single payer.” A lot of us in the movement have started to use the phrase “Improved Medicare for All” because people don’t know what single payer is, but most do know what Medicare is. Further, Medicare is a very popular and successful aspect of U.S. health care.

It is all about movement building, no doubt about that. We can build around issues like health care but need recognize that all these issues are connected — war, banking, energy, climate, housing, education — and that we need to remake the economy to one where people have more control over their lives, where the economy is democratized and where the economic elites to not dominate government. Those are the goals of ProsperityAgenda.US.

Rosemarie

I agree. I would have like to have seen Floor votes in both the House and Senate and am very disappointed we were denied that. We need to know who will stand up for real reform and the only way to do that is to have a vote. My preference would have been for Sanders to have held out. My preference would also had been for this bill to have never become law. I don’t see the positives as outweighing the negatives.

It is interesting to see some of the comments that think I bought into Obama. You can look back at all I wrote and the news I highlighted during the campaign here: http://votersforpeace.us/press/index.php?archivelist=1. You’ll see constant criticism of his partial withdrawal from Iraq leaving more than 100,000 troops and mercenaries behind, his promise to escalate the war in Afghanistan, pledge to attack Pakistan, plans to enlarge DoD, blanket support for Israel — you will not find me endorsing Obama. I did not. And, personally I did not support or vote for him. And, since he has been elected I have been continuing to work to end the war, opposed the Wall Street bailouts, advocate re-making the economy and pushing hard, including being arrested, for real health care reform, Medicare for All.

For me it is more important to build movements for progressive change. That has been the only thing that has ever made change a reality. It was not LBJ who gave us civil rights but the civil rights movement, it was not Woodrow Wilson who gave women the right to vote but a women’s movement demanding it, and it was not Nixon who ended Vietnam, it was the peace movement and organized resistance in Vietnam.

Working in elections is a tool for movements, but insurgent’s inside either party and candidates running independent or with a third party have the deck stacked against them. However, non-winning candidates working with movements have impacted the political process throughout history. In fact, that combination has been critical to major paradigm shifts throughout history.

KZ

Barhorn — so in your view a patriot would cover up or become complicit in illegal action by the government? To me that is the real traitor. That is someone who threatens U.S. national security and the safety of Americans.

thephranc

The Pentagon has specifically said that no one has been harmed from the WikiLeaks publications. The media partners working with WikiLeaks have deleted names and identifiers to prevent your fear. If you know something different please provide a source because I follow this very closely and you are factually wrong.