Stricly Public

For your consideration

Hillary and the Health Care Issue January 24, 2008

Filed under: american law,politics — javiguedes @ 8:33 am
Tags: , , , , , , ,

healthinsurance_h.jpg

Please Hill, we all saw Sicko.

Hillary knows very well that the health care system in the US cannot be solved by “talking to the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies so that we can an agreement that will make health insurance affordable to everybody.” She knows this because she was part of the board of directors of Walmart, and at the time I’m sure no one could have talked her into making less money!

On the other hand, she wants everyone to be insured by these companies, which of course works wonders for their shareholders. Note the difference between universal health care system and FREE universal health care system. In the former, you will have insurance coverage (as bad or maybe worse as the one you have now) but if you don’t, you will be forced to get one because the government will make it affordable, i.e. will make the insurance companies even richer by helping you pay them if you are too poor to pay it yourself. No, this is not what I want. If I have an accident, I don’t want to worry about the ambulance bill. I want a god damned socialist free health care system.

Advertisements
 

Terrible News: Benazir Bhutto Assassinated December 27, 2007

Bhutto

Shocking, but not surprising.

Bhutto’s return to Pakistan after years in self-imposed Exile in London brought a renewed hope to the opposition. It was President Pervez Musharraf himself who allowed for her return under the weak agreement that power would be shared by both leaders.

But Musharraf declared the emergency rule instead, she was put under house arrest, and prevented from attending a previous rally.

Now, after the emergency rule has been lifted, she finally had the opportunity to lead her people in protest against the newborn dictator, but she was put down by a double sting of bullet and bomb.

What now, Mr. Musharraf? And Mr. Bush, are we still in support of the dictator? I suppose not!

Ms. Bhutto will always be remembered as the woman who changed Pakistani (and Muslim) politics and fought for the freedom of her people.

 

We Have a Little Problem, Sir: The World Hates Us December 18, 2007

g8-russia

Six years ago, at the wake of 9/11, we came to the realization that what we’ve done to the world through our foreign policy is getting back at us — a global political warming of sorts.

During the McCarthy days we fought communist countries that were rather poor and the average revolutionary dude was a working folk. In some cases, the people in these countries did not even realize that their governments were overthrown by puppet dictators controlled by the CIA. So they didn’t fight back.

But we went along getting our nose into more and more countries’ business making far more dangerous enemies along the way, like Russia. The Russians have always scared the living daylights out of US governments, and for that reason we’ve supported Islamic Organizations working against Russia and hired people like Bin Laden to help out with our Intelligence operations. Professor Michel Chossudovsky puts it as follows in this article:

Prime suspect in the New York and Washington terrorists attacks, branded by the FBI as an “international terrorist” for his role in the African US embassy bombings, Saudi born Osama bin Laden was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war “ironically under the auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders.”

And you know the rest of the story. Bin Laden bombs us, we bomb Afghanistan and Iraq along the lines of Bush’s War on Terror and we threaten Iran, under the presumption that 1) They may be enriching Uranium (though the latest CIA report claims they stopped their nuclear weapons programs on 2003) and 2) only US and out NATO allies are entitled to have nuclear weapons.

And there goes Russia again, playing the devil’s advocate. They just gave Iran nuclear fuel, clearly unconcerned about what Bush may think of them. For more on this, read this NY Times article. And what did Bush do? Was he outraged?

The Bush administration, for its part, took pains not to publicly criticize the Russian move, and said that the fuel delivery means Iran should suspend its nuclear enrichment program. “If the Iranians accept that uranium for a civilian nuclear power plant, then there’s no need for them to learn how to enrich,” President Bush told reporters on Monday.

Not quite outraged, but rather… pathetic.

The US is the only country that has ever used a nuclear weapon against another country. And we didn’t target the middle of the ocean, as to scary people off. They put the bomb right in the middle of a city populated by civilians. Doesn’t that make us the most dangerous country in the world?

 

NY Times — A Campaign Against China? December 8, 2007

Filed under: politics — javiguedes @ 5:02 am
Tags: , , ,

chinese dragon

Throughout the last few months the New York Times has published a series of articles highlighting (usually disastrous) aspects of the uprising Chinese economy. The series is called Chocking on Growth, and it’s so far comprised of seven articles:

I. The Overview — As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deathly Extremes

II. China’s Water Crisis — Beneath Booming Cities, China’s Future is Drying Up

III. The Activist — In China, a Lake’s Champion Imperils Himself

IV. Three Gorges Dam –Chinese Dam Projects Criticized for Human Costs

V. Energy Rules — Far From Beijing’s Reach, Officials Bend Energy Rules

VI. Wildlife Threatened — China’s Endangered Turtles, Emblems of a Crisis

VII. A Suffocating Cost — Trucks Power China’s Economy, at a Suffocating Cost

What arises my suspicion is the tone of the articles: they sounds like a campaign against China, the country that is the closest competitor of the Unites States in the market economy game. This defamatory campaign is, of course, very convenient to this administration or rather corporatocracy (as John Perkings calls it) and to the corporations they sustain. Take Boing. They already suffered a billionary loss when China bought their new planes from Airbus, which is French.

These articles sound to me like a reaction of a scared sector of the economy to the unforgiving growth of a superpower. And I’d also like to point out: WE HAVE SERIOUS PROBLEMS IN THE US TOO!

 

The Constitution Argument December 6, 2007

habeas corpus is dead

Who doesn’t love law makers that work for the people. The following argument was made by Justice Stephen Breyer against the illegal inability of people to challenge their imprisonment in Guantanamo:

JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER: Suppose that you are from Bosnia, and you are held for six years in Guantanamo, and the charge is that you helped al-Qaeda, and you’ve had your hearing before the CSRT. And now you go to the D.C. circuit, and here’s what you say: “The CSRT is all wrong. Their procedures are terrible. But, Judge, for purposes of argument, I concede their procedures are wonderful, and I also can conclude it reached a perfectly good result.” OK? So you concede it, for argument’s sake. But what you want to say is: “Judge, I don’t care how good those procedures are. I’m from Bosnia. I’ve been here six years. The Constitution of the United States does not give anyone the right to hold me six years in Guantanamo without either charging me or releasing me, in the absence of some special procedure in Congress for preventive detention.” That’s the argument I want to make. I don’t see anything in this CSRT provision that permits me to make that argument. So I’m asking you: Where can you make that argument?

PAUL CLEMENT: I’m not sure that he can make that argument, Justice Breyer.
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER: Exactly.
PAUL CLEMENT: I’m not sure he can make—
JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER: If he cannot make that argument, how does this become an equivalent to habeas, since that happens to be the argument that a large number of these 305 people would like to make?

For the full discussion, go to the democracy now website.

 

If You Buy Starbucks Coffee… December 1, 2007

Filed under: middle-east,palestine,politics — javiguedes @ 6:48 pm
Tags: , , , , ,

starbucks logo upset

Don’t try to be my friend. And here is why:

One of the owners of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, is a renown Zionist with a reputation for supplying monetary funds to Israel and forging the connection between Israel and the U.S. In 1998, the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah gave Starbucks the “The Israel 50th Anniversary Tribute Award”, an honor that was mentioned at some point on the Starbucks awards website but was mysteriously removed after the uproar it caused among the supporters of Palestine. The original can still be seen in the archives.

Howard Schultz has also claimed publicly that Palestinians are to blame for the hostilities. As reported by Elisa Hahn for King 5 (Seattle), 04/04/2002:

What is going on in the Middle East is not an isolated part of the world. The rise of anti-Semitism is at an all time high since the 1930’s.

The Palestinians aren’t doing their job they’re not stopping terrorism.

Let me put it this way. If your home town (say, Quebec) was settled and occupied by another country (say, British Canada) and the US supported the occupiers with money, weapons, and media control, would you help the occupiers in any way? Would you help the occupiers spread the word that your people are terrorists and racists? Would you support those who bash your people as unable to comply with peace treaties that do not benefit them in the least?

It’s just a matter of perspective.

 

What They Call Peace November 28, 2007

Filed under: politics — javiguedes @ 3:57 am
Tags: , , , , , ,

Intrusion

Is a trap.

Under what circumstances do we want Israel and Palestine to sign a peace treaty? How can Mr. Bush say that it is terrorism what is stopping the peace process when it is precisely terrorists who are right now oppressing the Palestinian people? Today, there are 652 checkpoints in the occupied territories, embedded in a web of Israeli roads and settlements, making it virtually impossible to develop commerce. This generates fear, anguish, internal struggle, and above all, a burning desire for freedom that corrodes people. So let’s stop pretending that the Israelis are the good boys. As Desmon Tutu said in Democracy Now a few days ago, Israel’s God is always on the side of the ones who suffer. If not for your brothers, please stop this occupation in the name of your God!

And why are the people of Gaza so upset about the Israeli-Palestinian peace cheat-chat between Mr. Bush, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert? First off, Abbas was not even elected by the Palestinian people. They chose Hamas, so maybe we should include them in the “peace” talks? And what ever happened to the spread of democracy? Or is it not valid when the people vote for the “wrong” candidate like they did with Allende in Chile, or in Nicaragua or Congo? Second, a referee that has taken one of the parties’ side can’t be fair. The US is relentlessly in favor of Israel. A good referee is a neutral referee. As Tutu put it at the Annapolis summit:

The world needs the Jews, Jews who are faithful to their vocation that has meant so much for the world’s morality, for its sense of what is right and wrong, what is good and bad, what is just and unjust, what is oppressive and what sets people free. Jews are indispensable for a good compassionate, just and caring world.

And so are Palestinians.

And in Noam Chomsky’s words:

Bush no. 2 has gone to new extremes in rejectionism. He’s declared the illegal West Bank settlements must remain part of Israel. That’s in accord with the Clinton position, expressed by his negotiator Dennis Ross, who explained that what he called “Israel’s needs” take precedence over Palestinian wants. That’s Clinton. But the party line remains undisturbed. Facts don’t matter. Bush, Rice and the rest are yearning to realize Bush’s vision of a Palestinian state — somewhere, someplace — persisting in the noble endeavor of the longtime honest broker.

So let us be abide by the rule of decency and give the Palestinian what they deserve: a sovereign state. Let us not favor one or the other. I pay taxes and I choose not to give my money to Israel, unless the same amount is given to Palestine. Let us not accept a peace treaty that is unequal and gives Israel most of the resources.

The Palestinian Land was given to the Israelis as a compensation for their suffering, not by a Holy right. Now they need to respect the people to whom they took it from. Let us respect democracy and establish a link with Hamas. Let us invite them to the peace summits and hear their concerns, for they are the voice of the majority of the people.