Monday, February 4, 2019
Sunday, February 3, 2019
Venezuela Fake Coup, Truth About Kamala Harris, & Yellow Vests
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLkzE8-tQyk
Bayer-Monsanto Merger: Endangering Our Health, Food, Farms & Planet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=u6e8Jf3n-Bk
Sherrod Brown: Medicare for All Not 'Practical.' Progressives: 'OK. Thank You, Next.'
"Fight for single-payer
or get kicked out of Washington trying."
While not a 2020 presidential
candidate yet, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) broke from the pack of announced and
expected Democrats on Friday by coming out against Medicare for
All—characterizing a system that would cover everybody and leave nobody as not "practical"—and
was greeted by
a widespread reaction of "Thank
you, Next" and "Adios"
from progressives no longer willing to entertain half-measures when it comes to
solving the nation's healthcare crisis or bolstering the private insurance
industry.
"I know most of the
Democratic primary candidates are all talking about Medicare for all. I think
instead we should do Medicare at 55," Brown said during a question and
answer session at the Chamber of Commerce in Clear Lake, Iowa. Brown said that
reducing the age or letting people over 55 buy into the existing Medicare
system early would have a better chance of getting through Congress.
"I'm not going to come
and make a lot of promises like President Trump did ... I'm going to talk about
what's practical and what we can make happen. And if that makes me different
from the other candidates so be it," Brown said.
Progressive critics like Splinter's
Libby Watson, however, took issue.
"You know what isn't
practical?" she added. "Spending twice as much as other rich nations
for worse outcomes."
"It's always 'practical'
to leave people behind, and maintain corporate power," tweeted Michael
Lighty, a healthcare policy expert and founding fellow at the left-leaning
Sanders Institute. But with the right kind of "leadership," he noted:
"We can make the necessary possible."
Ahead of Brown's comments,
Watson on Friday wrote a
long and detailed column explaining why the kind of "Medicare at
55" or "Medicare buy-in" plan the senator is proposing—basically
a public option, but available only to certain segments of the population—is
not just bad policy, but bad politics.
It's not necessarily that what
Brown is calling for would "make things worse," she argued,
"it's that things are already catastrophically bad, and anything that just
tinkers around the edges keeps us in dire straits." And by not taking the
fight over healthcare to the next level by demanding a policy that would
actually solve the problem, Brown is exemplifying the worst tendencies of the
Democratic Party's old guard:
Democrats frequently admit
defeat before they've even got their trousers on. This is one of the major
differences between establishment Democrats and the newly popular leftist
politicians, like Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: They understand that
you don't turn up to a knife fight with a banana and a shirt that says I Am So
Frightened on the front. But prominent Senate Democrats and at least one
presidential candidate have already shown that they're willing to compromise on
single-payer. That is not how you win a fight.
As The Hill notes,
"Brown has increasingly been seen as a presidential candidate since his
reelection victory in November, when he easily won another term in a state that
voted for President Trump in the 2016 election." The senator, the outlet
added, "has been cast as a Democrat who could win states in the industrial
heartland that the party lost to Trump in 2016, such as Michigan, Wisconsin and
Pennsylvania."
But Brown's comments on Friday
appear very out of touch with national voter sentiment—whether in the mid-west
or elsewhere—by calling a solution that garners
massive (and growing)
public support, and which
studies show would be less expensive and more cost-efficient than the
current profit-driven system, not politically realistic:
For Watson, however, not even
the strong polling numbers tell the whole story. "Single-payer supporters
don't say we should have the policy because people support it,"
she wrote. "We believe it's good, just, and more humane than our current
nightmare, and that the conventional wisdom that it would be deeply unpopular is
wrong."
While all the Democratic 2020
candidates will ultimately be pressed on their solution to the nation's ongoing
healthcare crisis, Dr. Carol Paris, former president of Physicians for a
National Health Program, which advocates for a single-payer system like
Medicare for All, told Think
Progress this week that anyone who runs must demonstrate they understand
that only Medicare for All—a system with "No co-pays, no deductibles, no
need for supplemental policies, no private insurance"—has the ability to
confront the current system's inherent failure.
"I want to know that
candidates," she said, "are using that term to mean improving
traditional Medicare and expanding it to everyone from birth to death residing
in the United States."
Because they've taken great
pains to lay it out clearly and succinctly, other Medicare for All proponents
like the Democratic Socialists of America have said the American people should
"accept nothing less."
In the closing argument of her
column, Watson put it this way:
The American healthcare system
is fundamentally broken. We spend twice what other rich nations do for much worse
outcomes, with the highest infant mortality and the lowest life expectancy.
Like the Affordable Care Act before it, the public option would preserve the rotten
system that leads to this. It is motivated by a cowardly, straight-up wrong
idea of pragmatism, the kind of half-hearted idea that Democrats—willingly
bullied for 30 years by Reaganite, anti-government, Chamber of Commerce-funded
slimeballs—think is all we can possibly achieve.
"Fuck that," she
concluded. "Fight for single-payer or get kicked out of Washington
trying."
Updated: Sen. Brown spars with
Iowa Democratic voter over his refusal to embrace Medicare for All.
On Friday night at meet and
greet event at the home of a local Democratic leader in Black Hawk County,
Iowa, Sen. Brown was pressed on his Medicare for All stance by Ruth Walker, a
78-year-old retiree from Cedar Falls. The following transcript of the
"lively exchange" was posted Saturday morning in a
news story by Cleveland.com reporter Seth A. Richardson:
Walker: “It isn’t like it
won’t work. I think advocating part way measures is not going to work. We tried
part-way messages and it doesn’t work.”
Brown: “I want to get there,
but I want to help people’s lives.”
Walker: “But we’ve been doing
this forever. We need to get there.”
Brown: “I understand that. I
understand that. We missed by one vote getting Medicare-at-55 because of one
guy.”
Walker: “I mean
Medicare-for-all. That’s the problem, though.”
Brown: “I know you did. I know
you did. I understand that, but we are no closer to Medicare-for-all today than
we were 15 years ago.”
Walker: “We haven’t been
advocating very long.”
Brown: “OK, well, I want to
improve people’s lives today. I know Congress won’t pass Medicare-for-all.”
Walker: “They will if they
found out the people are brought – educate the people.”
Brown: "Well I try to
educate the people. But I want to help people make their lives better right
now. If we can pass Medicare-at-55 tomorrow, two things would happen: a whole
lot of people’s lives would improve and a whole lot of voters would think that
the next step is to do more.
"My ideology says
universal coverage today, just like yours. But I want to see people’s lives
better. We’ll keep having this debate and people will say, ‘Medicare-for-all.
Medicare-for-all,’ and nothing will change. I think if we can make that change
of Medicare-at-55 or Medicare-at-50, it will make all the difference in the
world and then we get to the next step. Otherwise it’s this sort of tilting at
windmills where everybody feels good saying, ‘I’m for Medicare for all. I’m for
Medicare-for-all,’ but nothing changes.
“And I want to educate people
too, but I want to change people’s lives and help people now. We have a
different disagreement there. We want to end up in the same place, but we’ve
got to get Congress to act as quickly as we can when we were so close before.”
Malcolm X Warned About These Bourgeois Hustlers
By Teodrose Fikre
January 30, 2019
Barack Obama was not an
outlier but the norm when it comes to the tokens who are paraded by Democrats
to represent faux-progress and counterfeit diversity and Kamala Harris is the next in line, says Teodrose
Fikre of the Ghion Journal.
Growing up, one of my biggest
heroes and the person I wanted to emulate when I got older was Malcolm X. This
was during my time of militancy and youthful rebellion, when I thought the only
way to arrive at justice was through a revolution. The insurgent within me was
captivated by Malcolm X’s take no prisoner approach and the way he spoke harsh
truths to the status quo.
It was not until I matured and learned through hardship and
indigence that I realized Malcolm X’s power was not his fiery rhetoric but his
unifying message after returning from Mecca. However, as much as I’ve become an
admirer of El Hajj Malik El Shabazz’s latter days, there are still aspects of
his earlier reflections that ring true given the times we live in.
What I’m referring to are not
his blistering speeches where he would call “white” people devils or his
addresses where he echoed the teachings of Elijah Muhammad—Malcolm X himself
walked away from that type of demagoguery. Rather, what intrigued me the most
was his dissection of the political and social dynamics that kept “black” folks
subjugated.
To this day, one of the most
compelling arguments that Malcolm X made about the evils of both political
parties is found in a speech he gave about the political and economic
state of “black” America. He brilliantly exposed the false-distinction between
Democrats and Republicans as a choice between the lesser of the same evil.
“Foxes and wolves usually are
of the same breed. They belong to the same family—I think it’s called canine.
And the difference is that the wolf when he shows you his teeth, you know that
he’s your enemy; and the fox, when he shows you his teeth, he appears to be
smiling. But no matter which of them you go with, you end up in the dog house.”
It took a mean mugging by
reality—one that shook me out of cognitive dissonance—for me to realize that
Democrats are no different than Republicans. They differ in their methods, but
in the end they feast on us regardless of their gang affiliation. Both parties
are subsidiaries of corporations and oligarchs; our entire political system is
based on two
factions bamboozling their respective bases while manufacturing
dissension on all sides.
Gone When They Get Your Vote
Now that I’ve shed my
political blinders, I see how this game is played. I’ll be honest here and
admit that Democrats irritate me more than Republicans for this one simple
reason. I’ve come to expect Republicans to be malicious—there is honesty in
their advertisement. However, it’s the Democrats who smile like foxes as they
pretend to be our allies only to stab us in our backs the minute they get
elected. They have maintained power for decades by successfully treading on the
pains of marginalized groups as they concurrently enact legislation and
regulations that inflame the very injustices they rail against.
If there is one group that has
been leveraged the most by Democrats, it’s the descendants of slaves and
“black” diaspora as a whole. For generations, supposed liberals—who now call
themselves progressives—have cunningly used the pains of “African-Americans” to
further their own agendas. The Democrat’s most loyal voting bloc have time and
time again been taken advantage of only to be tossed to the side as soon as
Democrats gain power. They talk a good game and pretend to be for us right up
until election day, soon as the last ballot is counted, they are nowhere to be
found.
It’s on this front that
another observation by Malcolm X comes into clear focus. One of the things that
really grabbed my attention while I was reading his autobiography is the way
Malcolm described the dynamic between the impoverished masses and the black
bourgeoisie during the Civil Rights Era.
“There are two types of
Negroes in this country. There’s the bourgeois type who blinds himself to the
condition of his people, and who is satisfied with token solutions. He’s in the
minority. He’s a handful. He’s usually the hand-picked Negro who benefits from
token integration. But [it’s the] masses of Black people who really suffer the
brunt of brutality and the conditions that exist in this country.”
What Malcolm X was describing
was the class hierarchy within the construct of race. He railed against the
select few “negroes” who willingly stepped on their own people in order to
advance their own selfish ambitions. Malcolm X was against integration for this
reason; he realized that a modification of a racist system that benefits a
fraction of society while keeping the majority repressed was morally bankrupt.
This same realization eventually dawned on Martin Luther King Jr when he confided to
his closest advisers that he might have “integrated his people into a burning
house.”
Fast forward fifty years and
it’s evident that the bourgeoisie “negroes” who Malcolm X talked about have
been unleashed by the establishment to work against the interests of their
people. As the majority of “African-Americans” suffer economic inequalities and
are burdened by financial uncertainties, black politicians, pundits and
so-called “activists” are enriching themselves while they pretend to be
fighting injustice.
Forget Plymouth Rock, the
biggest hoodwink of them all that landed on us was a boulder named Barack.
After losing a Congressional primary to Bobby Rush in 2000, Obama’s inner
circle realized that he was not embraced by “African-Americans” in Chicago
because many did not see him as one
of them. He quickly adapted and learned the art of duplicity; Obama
perfected his ability to talk eloquently about our issues and suffering as a
means to an end. The end was his unabated ego. After he scaled the heights of
politics, he ended up enacting
policies that exacerbated the wealth gap. For his brazen act of
betrayal, Obama was rewarded handsomely.
The Audacity of Trope
Barack Obama was not an
outlier but the norm when it comes to the tokens who are paraded by Democrats
to represent faux-progress and counterfeit diversity. Kamala Harris is the next black bourgeoisie in line
who is hoping to use the plight of African-Americans and the tribulations of
“black” folk to win the White House. After spending a career locking up brown
and “black” folk with impunity and resurrecting the ugly legacy of penal
slavery, she is now shamelessly pretending to be the next coming of Sojourner
Truth—hers is the audacity of trope.
Given the fact that too many
are conditioned to think in binary fashion, I must take a pause here to clarify
one thing. This is in no way to excuse the pernicious nature of Republicans and
the vile racism of Donald Trump. After all, not only are Republicans insidious
when it comes to the way they treat “African-Americans” and minorities as a
whole, the party of Trump uses the same playbook of feigned concern to dupe
their respective side. However, the more I observe the rank opportunism of the
Democrat front-runners, the more I appreciate the sagacity of Malcolm X.
It’s not only politicians like
Barack Obama and Kamala Harris who traffic in this most insincere form of
paternalism, there is a whole cottage industry of black opinion leaders and
gate-keepers who actively work against our interests while passively speaking
against injustice. They abound on TV, in the press and throughout social media;
the surest way to make a name for oneself is to be a part of the “woke” intelligentsia
who lull their people into collective comas.
Adding insult to injury is the
fact that these same bourgeoisie mouthpieces are not only using the pains of
the oppressed to advance themselves, they are now employing the injuries of the
masses to deflect well-deserved criticism.
Identity has been weaponized,
instead of addressing the structural nature of racism and sexism, folks like
Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton and identity politics shysters across the
political spectrum are turning the victims of systematic oppression into human
shields to intimidate anyone who dares to question their
record. Enough is enough!
The Talented Tenth
There is a broader problem
beyond these two-faced grifters. The truth is that the “black” community has
become bifurcated; the bourgeoisie class feeling the blessings of capitalism
and enterprise while the vast majority are burdened by consumerism and debt.
DuBois once talked about the “talented tenth”, an educated sector of blacks
leading the bottom 90% out of bondage. Sadly, the talented tenth has been
convinced to seek self-enrichment and forget about collective wellness.
What is true of
“African-Americans” is true of society as a whole. In this richest nation,
there exists a breathtaking chasm between the few who have much and the many
who have little. Keeping this dynamic in place is a pyramid scheme that
transfers wealth upward being kept by the greed of politicians and the
indifference of the proletariat. We are being swindled by hustlers to keep this
most depraved system intact.
I don’t expect leaders to be
perfect, very few of us are guilt free when it comes to the iniquities of the
status quo. We all have have our battles as we vacillate between our better
angels and the allure of our desires. All we can do in life is seek to do
better; after all, Malcolm X’s very narrative is one of mistakes followed by
atonement. My aim is not to be pious nor pretend purity from people, I have way
too many planks in my eyes to demand others act blameless. However, there is a
vast difference between those who perpetrate infringements by commission versus
the rest of us who transgress through omission.
I would be the first person to
applaud Harris, Obama, Trump or any politician who sincerely admit their
mistakes and try to make amends. Far from doing so, these con artists pretend
to do the right thing as they pour fuel on the fire. There is a reason why
hypocrisy is the most egregious sin; it’s hard to be forgiven when the offender
is lying about his penance.
Malcolm X is painted by many
in mainstream media and academia as a firebrand who preached from the pulpit of
exclusion. But those who know his history understand very well that who he was
when his journey concluded was vastly different than the caricature of Malcolm
X that is presented by the institutions of power he spoke against. It never
fails, first kill the messengers then co-opt their message. The truth is that
he changed his approach, disavowed divisive rhetoric and embraced inclusive
justice.
These were the words uttered
by Malcolm X as he spoke against the system of inequality that shackles
billions around our planet into lives of servitude and bondage. His decision to
pivot from friction and instead seek the light of universal justice is the
reason why he was silenced, the status quo rewards charlatans but has a way of
killing off unifying voices.
On this front, the status quo
has succeeded beyond its wildest imagination. We are now being led by a
procession of overseers who pretend to be Moses. This hustle will not work too
much longer however, more and more people are waking up to their deception and
refusing to be doormats of Democrats, Republicans or anyone else. If we are to
find redemption, it will not be from the top nor will the revolution be
televised.
As I noted earlier, I’ve come
a long way from my days of would-be revolutionary. Malcolm X had an
eye-awakening moment in Mecca upon seeing a broad sea of humanity praying in
unison. I had my mecca moment by way of shelters and homeless missions and
observing a diverse dissection of Americans made invisible by the malice of the
gentry and the indifference of society. It’s for this reason that I
disavow sectional movements and pray for a day where all of us
unite beyond our trivial differences. We have more that unites us than the
issues that divide us; when we realize this is the day we will get the change
we all have been waiting for. The revolution that matters is not the one of the
gun but the one our hearts.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)