My Pussy or My Democracy

Trump, the Republicans' Trojan Horse

I don't have a pussy but, if I did have one, I think I would prefer someone grabbing it without my permission than to have someone actively working to undermine our democracy. I think that is a big part of what we saw with the Trump victory this week, when white women and even some minorities voted for Donald Trump in surprisingly large numbers. I cannot vote for someone that is actively working to undermine democracy. That was the main reason that I could not vote for Hillary Clinton.

As Americans, we hold democracy sacred. And while it is always tampered with and manipulated in every election, I believe that the revelations of the Clinton campaign's meddling in the elections and conspiring with the news media to elevate Trump and other "extremists" during the Republican Party primaries cemented the public's view of Hillary as being untrustworthy. But not just untrustworthy. She was caught attempting to undermine democracy with this and numerous other tactics. To every American, that should be sacrilege.

The media was largely asleep on the job when it came to the Trump campaign conspiring with the FBI to harm Clinton's campaign. But Trump being an "outsider" to politics would likely have gotten a pass on that, even if it were widely reported. There is something especially distasteful about a politician being placed in a position of power and then violating that sacred trust.

So we slayed the three-headed dragon that is neo-Liberalism, media collusion with political operatives and the Clinton cabal. And in doing so, we've unleashed a six-headed dragon upon the world. With no record of accomplishment or any indication of competence, Trump is a Trojan horse for the Republican Party. Trump's platform and plan for his first 100 days includes items that the Republicans have been trying to get passed for decades but have been unsuccessful. Most notably are proposals to build the Keystone XL pipeline, to further cut taxes on the wealthy and to repeal Obamacare.

Republican presidential candidates have not been able to win the popular vote since the 1980s. Let that sink in for a moment. At least two of the Republicans' three 'wins' since the '80s were the result of election tampering. A strategy for wealthy donors to superfund Republican candidates for state legislatures after the 2010 census resulted in more Republicans getting elected and therefore charged with re-drawing Congressional district maps. The maps were heavily gerrymandered to benefit Republicans in future Congressional House elections. In the past few elections, Republicans have won more seats in the House although the Democrats won more votes.

Constantly rebuked at the polls, the Republican Party scored big by having Trump run in their party and to win the nomination. Now, the Trump supporters that trust everything he says--even though he's been proven to be a compulsive liar--are eager to support the policies that they rejected repeatedly when proposed by Republican "insiders".

There are a some very good parts of Trump's platform too. Unfortunately, they would require Trump to convince members of Congress to slit their own throats, such as the plans to impose term limits on members of Congress, to close the revolving door between Congress and lobbying firms and to strengthen ethics rules for the legislature. Some of these things could get done through state conventions but I do not credit Trump with the intelligence to know that. Even if he figures it out, I don't see him spending the political capital on these efforts. If I am wrong and Trump actually accomplishes these things, it could potentially make his presidency a net positive change for the country, no matter how badly he may screw up everything else. I say this because, to my knowledge, these issues have never been part of a major party 's platform.

There are many reasons that I'm so skeptical of Trump's sincerity on these issues. They would be major benefits to the American people yet Trump has hardly spoken about them in any of the debates or on the campaign trail. That is strange for a candidate that considers himself a populist. You may also recall that Trump complained many times that the Republican primary was rigged against him when the Republican establishment tried every parliamentary tactic imaginable to bump Trump from the lead and knock him out of contention for the nomination. Trump had a legitimate complaint but, once he won the nomination, he declared that he no longer cared that the primary system is rigged. For those perceptive enough to hear that dog whistle, it was a clear statement to reassure the Republican and Democratic establishment that if he became president, he would not try to fix the election system that benefits the Republican/Democratic duopoly and steals democratic power from citizens. This does not sit well with me since I do still care about our elections not being fair, accurate and transparent. Trump knowing how undemocratic our election system is and not caring enough to try to fix it is a good clue as to where his loyalties actually lie.

So where are we headed in the next four years? It's really anybody's guess. Trump's positions turn 180 degrees at any moment so he may do the opposite of what he campaigned on. I think the most likely outcome is that the Republican Party wish list will get passed immediately and the policies that are actually populist will languish and be forgotten about. In a few years, Trump will give his last State of the Union Address and list his accomplishments as president: Tax cuts for the rich! Pipelines to benefit the rich! Deregulation to benefit Wall Street and polluters! Hopefully, fixing the VA will make that list but I'm not going to hold my breath on that.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

What Happened to Three Strikes?

The banking giant, HSBC has been in the news a lot. They've had to pay fines in the billions over the past few years. And it's upsetting me a bit that this corporate "person" has committed some very serious crimes and for some reason is not subject to the three strikes rule. Don't we still have a three strikes rule? If so, then HSBC should be given a life sentence, by the letter of the law.

Now, I know that an attorney could easily talk his way around that argument in our court system. But I mean to simply state--and there is no way to really overstate--the absurdity of what goes on in our country. Some of the most devastating, horrific and even treasonous crimes have been committed by this corporate "person". But that "person" is still free to exist and carry on as if no crime had been committed because they gave the government a cut of the profits. If you are a flesh and blood person, you are likely to see a much harsher and more permanent application of the law.

What has HSBC done that is so bad?

The Devastating: In a recent case, HSBC was fined for illegally foreclosing on 112,000 people's homes. In some of these cases, these practices not only illegally took houses away from decent people and caused them grievous financial harm, but it also helped to further depress the housing market. When the proper title to homes are in question, title insurance companies are reluctant to insure them, making houses risky and nearly impossible to sell.

[Photo has been pixelated due to the graphic image]
Sign English translation: ATT: EL CHAPO
DO NOT FORGET THAT I AM YOUR FATHER

The Horrific: HSBC laundered drug money for Mexican drug cartels. So, when you hear of all of the people in Mexico who are found brutally murdered, know that HSBC has played a vital role in helping the murderers conduct business.

The Traitorous: HSBC conducted illegal business with Iran that was forbidden due to economic sanctions on the authoritarian country. Think about this for a moment... when the United States and our ally nations were trying to negotiate a deal with Iran to prevent them from being able to build a nuclear weapon, HSBC was undermining the strength of our bargaining position so that they could make a buck! This is not just an offense against the US government, but it is an offense against all of the people of the world!!!

Iranian nuclear facilities

Republican politicians criticized President Obama, saying that the deal with Iran was "weak". President Obama said that the US got the best deal that we could get. But no politician of either party will point the finger at HSBC and say that they were responsible for undermining our position in the negotiations. With HSBC violating the sanctions against Iran, Iran was under less pressure than they would have been. They certainly would have been willing to give up more for relief if HSBC wasn't already providing some relief from the sanctions, illegally.

When corporations commit horrible crimes, the executives who made the decisions to act illegally need to face criminal charges! Otherwise, the criminal and extremely destructive behavior will continue. When the mortgage crisis was reaching its pinnacle, it was discovered that politicians who were supposed to be keeping an eye on the banks to make sure their operations were above board, were asleep on the job... and getting below market rates on their on personal mortgages from the banks. Those politicians--who acted criminally and failed to perform their job duties--never faced any consequences either.

Considering that corporate crime is extremely costly, destructive and nefarious, would citizens be wise not to make it a primary focus of their efforts? But how can We the People ensure that corporate criminals are held accountable when their cronies in government want to let corporate criminals shirk any accountability? A Citizens' Congress could impose ethics rules on federal politicians that are so strict, that no politician would dare to violate them. And if a politician did violate the stricter ethics rules, they would immediately be removed from office, per a Citizens' Congress established Zero Tolerance policy on corruption.

If you haven't heard of the Citizens' Congress, it's because it doesn't yet exist. But hopefully this article has made a good argument for why we should have a Citizens' Congress. A Citizens Congress could feasibly be formed and operational with just a few months of effort. The continued decline of our country and increased depravity and criminality in government and in business are clear indications that We the People need to engage in politics in different ways in order to effectuate the change we desire but that politicians have consistently failed to deliver on. We need innovative approaches so that our efforts in reforming government can be successful. A Citizens' Congress is one innovative idea that can deliver on major reforms. The old model of supporting and donating to political parties and politicians  has proven to be ineffective.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

A New Political System...

Q: Who is better at ridding the government of corruption,
Democrats or Republicans?
A: "No". (also accepted: "Neither", or side-splitting laughter.)

Here's an idea: let's re-examine the efficacy of a political system whereby multi-millionaire, career politicians are elected to create public policy.

These people never find any common sense solutions to problems because there is often no money to be made in doing so. From what I have seen, they instead run around chasing after billions of dollars with which they intend to further enrich themselves and their cronies, thereby bolstering their political power and allowing them to continue the cycle.

Citizens that wish to eliminate corruption will face
sophisticated resistance from special interests that
have nearly limitless resources!

A good candidate on the other hand, would be good at identifying wasteful programs and finding ways to eliminate them, and identifying needs of the people and coming up with viable and sensible ways to address those needs. Their focus would be on the correct targets: creating a fairer system and a government that is accountable to the people. The status quo politicians focus more on progressing their political agenda to increase their wealth and political power. That distinction--between a hypothetical non-partisan, solution-based politician and the status quo politicians--is far greater than the minimal differences between liberals and conservatives.

This candidate may be rough around the edges, s/he may not have Mitt Romney's tailor or John Edwards' image consultants but s/he would have a propensity for finding viable, common sense solutions. An approach such as that--focused on eliminating corruption and government waste--would allow us to reduce government spending while providing plenty of money for a sound safety net for the nation's truly needy people. The conservative citizens and the liberal citizens could both get what they want. Instead, we are told that the way to succeed politically is to fight each other to prevent the opposition from getting anything they want. Honestly, I don't see the wisdom in it. Do we really want lower taxes AND NO public assistance for veterans and military families? Do we really want public assistance programs for needy people WITH NO attention to the fiscal responsibility or sustainability of those programs?

Neither party has the right answer so the game has become to change the question from "What is the best policy?" to "What wins elections and generates campaign contributions?" Where are our interests represented in that? They are not. So, we either need to change the system or we will be destroyed by it.

I may be shouting this message to an empty coliseum, but I'm not going to go down without shouting. I don't care if the message of government effectiveness and efficiency over political idealism is never embraced by the Democratic or Republican leadership or by the pundits (who are paid millions of dollars to create controversy rather than to find common ground or solutions to problems). I think it would be difficult for anyone to argue against the logical soundness of the position. And I hope that the majority of the country will soon come to the same realization.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

The truth About the "Takers"

Who is the real burden on society?

According to the right wing, the country is broke because there are too many "takers" in society. According to the right wing, these "takers" will vote for whichever candidate offers the most "free candy"--by which they mean welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc. When in these conversations, I first concede that entitlement spending is out of control and is unsustainable. I also usually find it necessary to point out that the low income people in our country are not the only people after "free candy". For every hundred low wage workers who gets $120 a month in food stamps, there's a big corporation that gets billions of dollars in tax breaks, subsidies and other "free candy" from the government every year. Even politicians, are helping themselves to free taxpayer money.

Mitt Romney was one of the worst candidates that the Republican Party could have picked as their presidential nominee in the 2012 election because his company, Bain Capital, often made money by being one of the biggest takers in the country. They would see a company that employed hundreds of people, giving them capital to spend in the community, which created an environment where other businesses could thrive, and where a healthy community could exist. Bain bought some of those companies and took out huge loans on the companies' credit so that they could pay themselves hundreds of millions of dollars in "management fees". Often times the companies could not pay back the enormous loans and the companies went out of business, the workers were laid off and the entire community took a big hit. Even though the Bain people made out quite well, I'm sure some of the workers lost homes and had to resort to unemployment insurance, food stamps and other forms of government assistance to get by. So, who were the takers in this scenario? It seems to me that he laid-off workers had something taken from them and Bain did the taking.

What's worse is that we, the taxpayers, had to pay for Bain's greed/poor management by providing assistance to the workers that were laid off. As for Bain, they got sweetheart tax rates on their profits because--due to successful lobbying efforts--the government has apparently been convinced that their business model is somehow good for the country. It is the new American business model: collect the profits while leaving the taxpayers responsible for losses and the costs of collateral damages.

Of course, Bain is just one private equity (aka "vulture capital") operation. There are others. And there are banks that illegally foreclosed on peoples' homes, banks that invested peoples' life savings and retirement funds in schemes the banks knew were worthless. All so they could make enormous profits and pass on the bill for the damages to the taxpayers. Now, they call anyone who needs assistance as a result of their schemes a "taker" while they enjoy the title of "job creator". And they are appalled when anyone suggests that they pay back some of their ill-gotten gains by way of higher taxes.

I assume that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to figure out a way to fairly raise taxes on just the institutions that acted unethically. But I know that every thinking American would agree that carried interest profits should be taxed at the same rate as workers' wages. There is no stimulative effect to the economy from these special tax breaks and it rewards private equity firms for destroying jobs.

So, do you wonder why the pundits on TV who claim to have our best interests in mind don't scream about this issue and urge you daily to call your representatives to eliminate this subsidy for job loss? Could it be that they are paid millions of dollars to create controversy rather than find solutions to problems? Should we stop getting our information and talking points from them and assess for ourselves what issues deserve our immediate, focused attention? Only if we want to improve our country and economy, I suppose.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

The Definitive Answer On Climate Change (Sort of)

Is climate change real, a hoax or a distraction from the real issues?

The definitive answer on climate change is that it is irrelevant. Here's why...

The first thing everyone should realize about climate change (or any other politically-charged issue) is that whatever your position is, it is likely not based on facts but on your emotions. There are studies that show that people have strong biases on political issues and that when discussing such issues, the emotional areas of the brain engage far more than the reasoning sectors. Not only that, but the brains of conservatives differ in physical structure from those of liberals. This suggests that our political beliefs are virtually hard wired and the beliefs of hyper-partisan thinkers will not be affected by facts. When contemplating political issues, people often begin with their belief or what they desire to be true, then they search for evidence to support their position (confirmation bias). This is the opposite of the scientific process but it is emotionally comforting.

I always found it odd that people would speak about political matters with such certainty when there is so much misinformation and contradictory information out there. The aforementioned psychological phenomenon explains why this occurs but issues like climate science is especially disturbing because the science is far beyond the understanding of the vast majority of us. That is where the misinformation campaigns are so brilliantly utilized. There are a lot of people that have a great deal to gain or lose from the consequences of this political issue. Nearly all politicians and pundits are likely to be personally invested in fossil fuel companies or green technology companies. Politicians get political contributions from these companies and pundits receive millions of dollars of ad revenues from them. So, anything you hear from either politicians or pundits should be thrown straight out the window.

How does salinity affect the
freezing point of water?

For instance, those who deny climate change [for the sake of brevity, when I mention "climate change" in this article, I will be referring to the human impact on the changing climate as opposed to the natural climate cycles of the Earth], will dismiss all of the science with a simple explanation that the lay person can understand. They may point out that the amount of ocean ice at the poles is increasing. But, when glaciers (fresh water) melt, they decrease the saline content of the oceans which allows it to re-freeze at higher temperatures. Any of us can test this at home by mixing table salt into some water and checking its freezing point, compared to water with less or no salt. Climate change deniers will also point out that increased snowfall is proof that the Earth is not warming. However, when temperatures rise, more moisture evaporates into the atmosphere and will eventually come down as precipitation (rain, snow, hail). These are third grade scientific facts but they don't keep politicians and pundits from using such faulty logic as arguments against climate change.

On the opposite side, people in support of climate change theories

Where is the scientific proof?

will point to hurricanes like Katrina and Sandy and claim that they are a result of climate change. This makes sense because hurricanes are caused by warm water temperatures. If the temperature of the oceans are rising, then hurricanes are going to be more numerous and powerful. But any connection between human activity and the super storms has never been proven by the science. And some climate scientists did not publicize data and communications that were not consistent with their findings that human activity is partly responsible for the current changes in the climate. Being secretive with the data has cast doubts on their credibility and on the credibility of the research and findings.

The simple truth is though, that the disaster of hurricane Katrina was caused by human activity related to fossil fuel consumption. The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) is a canal that was carved into Louisiana so that the oil ships would have a more direct route to the refineries, as opposed to using the winding Mississippi River. MRGO brought a surge of water, driven by the hurricane, from the Gulf directly into the city of New Orleans, causing much of the flooding and levee breaks. On top of that, the Louisiana shore line is receding at a rate of about a half mile per year, bringing the hurricane waters ever closer to the metropolises. The industry's own study determined that fossil fuel extraction activity is responsible for one third of the land loss.

There it is, the smoking gun at the feet of the fossil fuel industry and it has NOTHING to do with greenhouse gasses or the changing climate. About 1,800 people died as a result of Katrina and we the taxpayers footed most of the bill for the cleanup and reconstruction of New Orleans, subsidizing the profits of oil companies yet again. What issues were the left and the right fighting about at the time all that was going on?

Katrina is just one costly and deadly incident. Air pollution has been linked to numerous health problems, oil spills destroy fishing and tourism jobs, coal mining and natural gas fracturing poison peoples' drinking water and the U.S. military (the largest consumer of fossil fuels) commits atrocities and costs trillions of dollars attempting to secure our access to sources of oil around the world. Is that not enough proof that we should be looking for other sources of energy for our long-term energy needs?

But oh, there's more: we pay tax on a gallon of gas and the oil companies get subsidies for every gallon of gas they produce. Isn't that a redistribution of our wealth to the oil companies? Why is it that Republicans don't ever get upset about that? Or Democrats for that matter? They always seem to be fighting about something wholly inconsequential, of which evidence is scant and there are few trustworthy voices on either side of the debate.

We need to stop asking whether we want to side with Al Gore, green energy industries, and Solyndra subsidies or if we want to side with Exxon/Mobile, BP and OPEC, but rather whether we want to side with your fellow citizens instead of those other groups. That is where the division line lies and the climate change debate blurs the lines. If we looked at the issue with that frame of reference: what's actually good for us, and we stopped arguing about the issues that are good for them, the answers would be more clear.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

1.     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Westen#Political_bias_study
2.     http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/09/03/conservatives-and-liberals-have-different-brains-studies-show/
3.     http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/brain-difference-democrats-republicans
4.     http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-political-brain/
5.     http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2003954/Nancy-Pelosis-wealth-grows-62--lawmakers-annual-form-release-reveals.html
6.     http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html
7.     http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?ind=E01++
8.     http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/obama-fundraisers-ties-green-firms-federal-cash/story?id=14592626
9.     http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/us/politics/fossil-fuel-industry-opens-wallet-to-defeat-obama.html?_r=1&
10.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
11.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater
12.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8QauSPK3Es
13.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Content_of_the_documents
14.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River_%E2%80%93_Gulf_Outlet_Canal#Role_in_Hurricane_Katrina_disaster
15.   http://www.rense.com/general67/drown.htm
16.   http://www.epa.gov/region7/air/quality/health.htm
17.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrJlUVCe4VA
18.   http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/1/13/coal-pollution-miningwestvirginiamassey.html
19.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing#Water
20.   http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study-iraq-afghan-war-costs-to-top-4-trillion/2013/03/28/b82a5dce-97ed-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html
21.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_and_diesel_usage_and_pricing#Countries_with_subsidised_gasoline

Some Health Care Issues Examined and Observed In Greater Poltical Context

Who Are the Winners? Who Are the Losers?

Some people claim that eliminating "frivolous" medical malpractice law suits would drastically reduce health care costs. But tort reform is not the game-changer it is claimed to be because the numbers are derived from the assumption that ALL litigation is frivolous and therefore all judgments would be capped at $200,000--or some other arbitrary figure--regardless of the severity of the injury. If you had an operation and the hospital, through their negligence, paralyzed you or removed your healthy kidney instead of your failing one, would $200,000 be adequate compensation? It is not a solution that should be considered. What would give doctors relief from overly burdensome medical malpractice insurance costs would be to force them to pay more in relation to their incidents of negligence. Right now, doctors that never have a claim, pay roughly the same as those that are often negligent and have many claims against them.

The ability to buy and sell insurance across state lines would likely be a good measure for keeping health insurance costs down but it won’t ensure coverage for children who are dying of _________ (fill in the blank) today. The emphasis should be placed on health care first and profits and political ideology second. All of the people controlling the system and the debate would prefer not to have it that way.

But this whole health care issue is a struggle between Republicans, who want to protect the profits of their big campaign donors (insurance companies) and Obama who wants to protect his presidential “legacy” and signature law. Why do we bother fighting to win one of those inconsequential outcomes? We could have far more honest and constructive discussions about health care and all of the partisan sticking points if we first addressed eliminating corruption and creating a fair and honest election system. The reason the misinformation is abound is because politicians want us to vote against our interests and for theirs. So you won’t ever be asked to focus on the corruption and election schemes that both parties engage in. Focusing on those issues doesn’t really help either party and all the politicians are doing just fine with the system as it is. It is only we citizens that suffer. That is the new American Way.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

A Winning Strategy for Defeating Obamacare

Is there a problem with this picture?

Defeating/repealing Obamacare is not going to be easy. It is certainly not going to be as easy as pressuring your representatives in Congress to repeal the law. The futile act of doing so costs an estimated $1.4 million every time the Republicans bring it up for a vote in the House, meaning that Republican politicians in Congress have already wasted more than $54 million of your tax dollars. Does this sound like the actions of a fiscally conservative party? Most thinking voters would prefer an approach that would be (a) less costly (repealing Obamacare would actually add more than $109 billion to the national deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office) and (b) actually be effective. The following is a strategy that would accomplish both of those goals...

Step 1: Stop trying to convince citizens that Obamacare is going to be a disaster. Our system before Obamacare was a disaster so everyone should save their breath instead of warning of the woes of implementing the Affordable Care Act and put their efforts into Step 2 (see below). Anyone--such as I--would prefer to try an alternative to the health care system we had before the ACA if they--such as I--were confronted with a situation of being denied care because it would be more profitable for the insurance companies and doctors if they pretend that you did not have a problem or that the problem could not be treated. Being in that situation has personally cost me over $20,000 in medical expenses; at least several thousand dollars of wasted insurance premiums, co-payments and related expenses; and an inestimable amount of money in lost productivity and failed potential. A price cannot be placed on the anger and frustration of being denied health care so that others could profit while you struggle financially as well as medically. Imagine yourself in that situation. Would it be acceptable to you?

Republican politicians like to paint support for Obamacare as a desire to get something for nothing. This characterization may satisfy some, but many of us recognize it a as an opportunity to ensure getting what you pay for from an industry that would prefer to stiff their customers after taking their money.

The other reason some citizens will never accept the arguments that Obamacare will be a disaster and lead to the financial ruin of the country and/or ruin our health care system is because the people who are making those claims also claimed that George W. Bush's Medicare Part D program would cost $400 billion over ten years, under-estimating the actual cost* by more than half. (By the way, Medicare Part D is responsible for much of the national debt which Obama is currently being blamed for. Yeah, I dislike Obama as President but I am just trying to be honest here. I don't dislike him so much that I would be dishonest in an attempt to discredit the man or his job performance. There are enough honest arguments about him to do that sufficiently.)

The same people that drastically underestimated Medicare Part D also underestimated the cost and efficacy of the Iraq War and other predictions that seriously call their credibility into question.

[For anyone that hasn't figured it out: like any other political issue, there are two sets of liars, one on each side. Each will say whatever will help achieve their political objective and we are left to sort out all of the BS. We cannot have an honest debate about health care, or any other issue, until we eliminate corruption from government. Then the politicians will have no reason to be dishonest and shady. Since we haven't figured that out and we haven't made eliminating corruption our top priority, we deal with the consequences.]

Step 2: Demand a better law than Obamacare. Many people find going back to the US healthcare system before Obamacare untenable. The reason is that--as I stated before--the system was broken and left many people vulnerable and/or victimized. Even prominent Republcians such as Clint Murphy now support Obamacare. Why? Because he has cancer and has never been able to get health insurance coverage due to that pre-existing condition. Obamacare changed that and now he has affordable health care.

Could Obamacare still be a disaster? Of course it could. Although, I know nothing in the law that leads me to believe that that will be the case. But someone with cancer who can finally get affordable health care to treat it will likely prefer to take the small risk of some negative outcome in exchange for the very likely positive outcome that they would stand to receive, personally. And, I feel that any compassionate person would support that.

The only viable avenue for repealing Obamacare is to replace it with a plan that addresses the same concerns in a smarter way. I imagine that few people are married  to Obamacare and they would embrace any health care reform that would address all of the issues that Obamacare does. If Republicans came up with an alternative plan that was smarter and could be implemented more easily, I suspect that many Obamacare supporters would embrace it. I would. Unfortunately, Republicans do not want that. I suspect that they are far more concerned that Obamacare may be successful than they are that it might be a disaster. For them, Obamacare being successful would be a disaster for their party. That is what the fight is really about. As with all issues, politicians seek political victory, not a solution to a social problem. It is another distinction that we are unfortunately not often intelligent enough to recognize.

Afterward: All of the facts, figures and information above create a solid case for demanding an alternative plan before accepting the repeal of Obamacare. Is it all lies and BS from the "liberal media"? Perhaps. although not likely, considering I got the information from various sources which have been corroborated by many other sources that I have found to be incredibly accurate and trustworthy over the years. If it is all lies and BS, then where are the real numbers? Do you have them? Please share them if you do. Otherwise, to say that this is all lies and BS makes you political operative. It is lazy, unfounded activism and it is 'phoning it in'.

*The Forbes article linked to admittedly contains some spin but the dollar figures in it and facts concerning the legislation are completely accurate, according to my recollection.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

Fight the Slog or Advance to VICTORY?

For what cause will you fight?

Are there any chess players out there? Are there any that look at our current political situation and see a classic match underway? Do you see the citizens of this country behaving as pawns for the politicians that are dominating and controlling the game? We argue out all of the issues that the politicians want us to battle each other over. Hashing it out with fellow Americans because we are told that the left/right issues are the important issues. More important than determining whether our foreign policy decisions are making us more or less safe, moreover, whether they're moral and just. We're told that the left/right issues are more important than examining the salaries, budgets and perks of members of Congress. And more important than getting corruption out of government and constructing a fairer election system.

Who do you think is controlling the message? Is it merely coincidence that the issues that get discussed ad nauseum in the media are the issues that seem to shield politicians from scrutiny and unite the political bases to defend their parties, to the detriment of the country as a whole? Which makes me wonder: can we stop focusing on the issues that divide us and instead cooperate on fixing the issues that would really create some positive change in the government and drastic improvements to our quality of life?

After all, how do you win the game of chess? How do you vanquish an opponent that has all of the powerful pieces on the board when your ranks have been reduced to a handful of pawns? When those pawns work in concert, they can traverse the board, take the fight to the powerful and when they reach the opposite side, they become a queen!

OK, not a perfect analogy. But the queen is the most powerful piece on the chessboard. A queen can take out all of the other players and turn the game around.

Why defend politicians when we instead could harness our power, become the most dominant force on the board and control the game? So, as much as I never imagined that this would ever be my rallying cry... BECOME A QUEEN WITH ME!

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

How the 1% is Hurting the Country (part 2)

In my last blog post--How the 1% is Hurting the Country (part 1)--I linked to an article that explains how the country has been harmed by those whose wealth is used to influence politics in a way that is unfair to the majority of us. That article very brilliantly enumerates the ways that this oligarchy has been detrimental to the greater economy and even to the long term interests of those in the so-called 1%.

The aforementioned article offers some great insight into the macroeconomic issues facing the country. This week, I'd like to focus in on a microeconomic aspect that ties into the previous article and illustrates the stark danger of the plutocracy that our country has become.

So, imagine that there is a business in a community and the business is doing well, paying all of its employees and therefore the entire community is thriving because everyone is working and everyone has money to spend. Then let's say that someone sees this all going on and decides: I would rather have all that money for me! That person buys the company, runs up its debt to pay himself hundreds of millions of dollars then, when the business cannot repay the new debts, closes the business, fires the workers and files for bankruptcy, hanging the company's debts on the taxpayers (some of whom were just fired from the company). Seem fair?

Of course, that scenario is not hypothetical. It is how private equity firms, like Mitt Romney's Bain Capital, sometimes operate. I bring it up because I often see comments from people online, suggesting that people who voted for President Obama may now be regretting their vote, as if Romney/Ryan was a viable alternative. I also bring it up because people still blame the poor economic recovery on the housing bubble, bank bailouts, the "takers" getting too much welfare, Obamacare, the wars, etc. Although most of those things may also be to blame, the business practices of private equity firms is certainly one of the most destructive forces and it is an issue that desperately needs to be addressed. It is also an issue that is largely ignored by the mainstream media, while people are all-too-eager to talk about the other possible causes. We are not going to have a strong economy again as long as people are more inclined to chase large, short-term profits as opposed to long-term growth and stability.

Personally, I could not vote for a person like Mitt Romney. The types of business practices he was involved in at Bain should be illegal. We certainly don't need a president that champions such business practices and might perhaps help others make out the way he did: by essentially stealing wealth from the common worker.

This relates to Joseph Stiglitz' article because, through the magic of plutocracy, such unethical business practices have not only been made legal, but the profits from such travesties are taxed at a rock-bottom rate, far lower than you or I pay on our income we receive from working and producing things. You see, when you or I request things from government--like tax relief, clean air and water, transparency and accountability in government, etc.--government usually yawns. But when a very wealthy and powerful person approaches government and asks to legalize theft and then get a sweetheart tax break on those ill-gotten gains, the government tends to listen and bend over backwards (and bend us over forward) to accommodate them.

We citizens in the so-called 99% are the majority in this country. And it is supposed to be a democracy. Therefore, if the majority of us are intelligent, we could come together to demand changes to the system so that it is no longer rigged against us; we can make destructive business practices illegal and we can make profits from "carried interest" deals taxed at the full rate. If...

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

How the 1% is Hurting the Country (part 1)



Can you afford a lobbyist? Will you get a fair shake without one?

I would like to share a link to a single article that I believe every American should read. The article puts some intellectual firepower behind the discontent of the 99% movement, which they themselves could not articulate and most did not fully understand: that the country has become a plutocracy which harms democracy, justice and fairness. Furthermore, the greed of the 1% and the income and wealth inequality that currently exists in the US is not only harming the country and many in the 99% but it is harming the 1% as well. Since people in the 1% control almost all of the news media in the country, they were able to mis-characterize the 99% movement as lazy free-loaders. Similarly, they re-directed the anger of the TEA Party movement from the abuses of big banks to instead demanding from government that the taxes on the rich can never be raised. The article brilliantly explains why our current economic structure is bad for everyone, including those currently benefiting from it.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/05/joseph-stiglitz-the-price-on-inequality

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

Incompetence or Corruption?

Who Runs Our Government?

I'm always intrigued by the notion that our country is in such bad shape because politicians are incompetent. Ask the people on Wall Street if they feel the government is incompetent. You will likely get a different response than you or I might give. Ask the labor unions and the CEOs of large corporations how they would grade the performance of our politicians. Celebrities get the attention and reverence that could have a positive impact on the government if it were bestowed upon someone that has new ideas and real integrity. Likely, all of these special interest groups would grade the government's performance higher than you or I would. You see, they all get what they want from government, you and I do not.

UNITY! (with Direct Democratic Action)

So how do we change that situation? How do we become more powerful and influential than the special interest groups? It is not logical to pool our money in an attempt to out-spend the wealthy with campaign contributions. Nor is it logical for us to hire lobbyists to battle the corporate interests and unions that have their meat hooks in politicians. The only way to take on special interest and reform government so that it works for We the People is to unite. When we do, we will become bigger and stronger than the special interest groups. We can prevent corporations from lobbying government to get tax breaks and government subsidies. We can prevent big banks from getting bailed out when they make risky bets for quick profits. We can prevent unions from having undue influence in government and in the industries in which they operate. We can prevent corporations from overturning laws that protect consumers and other citizens to maximize profits. We can even find ways to reform campaign finance laws so that celebrities have no greater voice or more influence than any other American.

To accomplish it means that we have to let go of the divisive issues that keep us at odds with each other. We need to start being more understanding of one another and more open to ideas. We need to work together to expose the schemes of government and special interest groups. We need to find common ground on the many issues which the majority of us would agree. Because, if we do...

Victory!

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/