What to Make of Bruno

Lost in the sea of hype for the new Sacha Baron Cohen film, Bruno, is the question of the roles and responsibilities of the satirist who tackles controversial and taboo subject matter in an effort to critically examine and change public perception. What if the satirist isn't taken as such? What if the public isn't in on the joke? What if the intentions and consequences are in opposition?

These questions have received some media attention, but not nearly enough. I haven’t seen the film yet, so clearly I can’t comment on specifics from the movie. But I am a fan of Da Ali G Show and know the Bruno character well. I have also seen Cohen in several media appearances designed to promote the film.

Bruno is a mock documentary, much in the same style as Cohen’s previous film, Borat. The premise of the film is that Bruno is an Austrian fashion reporter who loses his job in Austria and comes to the US in search of fame. He seeks the elusive and desirable job of celebrity. The off-the-charts stereotypes Bruno embodies includes wearing sheer or mesh shirts and talking with a pronounced lisp.

The film covers Bruno’s encounters with Americans, ranging from the man-on-the-street genre of encounters to arranged meetings with prominent figures like US Representative (R) and former Presidential candidate Ron Paul. The folks in the film all believe Bruno is real, and hijinks ensue.

Given the current political and social climate, it’s no surprise that even though the issues associated with the dangers of satirizing homophobia when many won’t take it as satire aren’t getting much in the way of mainstream media attention, they are being addressed by prominent GLBT organizations and activists.

In response to one scene that shows Bruno appearing to have sex with a man in a bathtub while his adopted baby sits close by, Rashad Robinson, Senior Director of Media Programs for The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) said:

That wasn't really unmasking homophobia, and especially in a country where same-sex couples can still be denied the ability to adopt children that they've raised since birth. Trivializing gay families isn't a joke.

Commenting on another sequence from the film, Robinson states:

In one extended series of sequences, Bruno adopts a baby from Africa, giving Baron Cohen an opportunity to take aim at those celebrity parents who seem to treat their children like fashion accessories. What follows, though, shifts the film from smart social satire to something else entirely - a parade of over-the-top stereotypes that, whatever their intent, play to and could affirm troubling attitudes about gay people.

Bruno appears as a guest on a local TV talk show with the baby in tow. Then, following racially insensitive comments by Bruno in the presence of the largely African American audience, that audience is shown photos of what appears to be Bruno in a hot tub having sex with men inches away from the child. Horrified and outraged, the talk-show audience turns on Bruno.

What's disquieting about this scene - and others in the film - is that it doesn't call attention to or unmask cultural homophobia...in a country where gay and lesbian parents can still be denied the ability in some states to adopt the children they have raised since birth - and where those children can even be taken away from the only parents they've ever known - the idea of trivializing gay families, making them the butt of a series of crude jokes, and reinforcing pernicious stereotypes about gay men and children didn't feel funny. It felt dangerous.

Robinson adds:

We do feel the intentions of the filmmakers are in the right place -- satire of this form can unmask homophobia -- but at the same time it can heighten people's discomfort with our community.

With that in mind, GLAAD asked in vain for Universal Pictures, the studio behind Bruno, to add a message from Cohen addressing the importance of gay rights and tolerance.

Universal says in a statement it believes most moviegoers will understand the film's positive intentions: "Bruno uses provocative comedy to powerfully shed light on the absurdity of many kinds of intolerance and ignorance, including homophobia," the studio said.

And while it may come as a surprise to those who think of GLBT folks as a monolithic, single-minded group, there are those who see things differently. Brad Luna, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign offers this:

Bigotry and homophobia still today get cloaked in many different nuanced ways, so a movie like this has the potential to let everyone in on the joke and to really change the way homophobia is viewed.

HRC is not alone in their disapproval of what many see as GLAAD's attempt to dictate to others what to think of Bruno. Queerty sees his character as a possibly strong weapon in the fight against homophobia and heterosexism.

Yes, he plays a flamboyantly gay Austrian fashion reporter, but heterosexual Sacha Baron Cohen's character Bruno is, for all intents and purposes, a comedic exercise in exploring gay stereotypes and going on a witch hunt for homophobes — both concepts that, on their face, we're perfectly fine with...

Finally, The Human Rights Campaign chimes in with this:

If the context and intent behind this kind of particular humor is about exposing and making fun of homophobia to show the ridiculousness of it, that is one thing. What is undeniable though is the impact on the audience is going to vary. Although we view the movie for what it is, a satirical portrayal of stereotyping, we shouldn’t lose sight of the seriousness of this issue. The #1 epithet used on schoolyards across the country remains anti-gay slurs. In the last few months, we have had to continually witness the heartbreaking suicides of young boys who were taunted and bullied using anti-gay epithets. It continues to remain a serious problem in this country. As Sacha Baren Cohen and Universal Pictures prepare for the upcoming release of Bruno, they have a responsibility to make sure that the viewing public understands this character is done as satire to poke fun at stereotyping. Otherwise, they run the risk of 16 yr old high school boys across the country feeling empowered to bully schoolmates. And tragically we already know what the consequences of that are.

In the end, I think I side with Queerty when they write:

Bruno doesn't need to be a finely tuned teaching moment; that's asking too much of mainstream cinema fare. But the film let's us laugh with and at stereotypes. It's a pornographic enterprise into America's remaining taboos. If the film starts even one conversation about "how wrong" all of that is, it's a success — and, dare we suggest, something we should support.

Voting Rights Still Need Protection

On Monday the Supreme Court voted not to overturn the historic Voting Rights Act. The court narrowed the scope of the landmark legislation ruling that municipalities across the South that have had a clean record for the last decade can seek an exemption from the law.

Passed in 1965, the Voting Rights Act requires states and municipalities in the South to "pre-clear" any changes in their voting or election standards with the Justice Department in Washington. In 2006 Congress reauthorized the legislation, voting to extend the provision for another 25 years. The case the court ruled on yesterday was brought by a North Austin water district who claimed that the law it was unfair and outdated.

In writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said,

We are now a very different nation” than the one that first passed the Voting Rights Act. Whether conditions continue to justify such legislation is a difficult constitutional question we do not answer today.

Justice Roberts went on to say

The historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable... Things have changed in the South. Voter turnout and registration rates now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.

Oh no he didn't. He might as well have said, "Come on people, we have a Black President. Isn't it time to just remove 'end racism' from our national to-do list? What else can we do?"

The Supreme Court rules on individual cases using a slew of criteria, including many legal precedents, doctrines, and interpretations that I am not equipped to argue about. But the important issue here is not the legal rationale used to uphold the law; the important issue is the court's declaration about racial equality and equity that is dangerously close to a stance that minimizes the important role race and racism continue to play in our culture.

A recent piece on ColorLines.com illustrates that as much as White Americans want to pat ourselves on the back for electing a Black President, a closer look at the election results paint a picture of a nation still mired in a racist ideology. And as much as I love The South, there are significant geographical differences in voting paterns. Quoting from the ColorLines piece,

Exit polling discovered that between 84 and 88 percent of whites in Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana voted for John McCain. In Georgia, South Carolina and Texas, the McCain white vote ranged from 76 to 73 percent. In other words, the white vote in the former slave states remained about what it was during Reconstruction. Overall, Obama won 46 percent of white women and 41 percent of white men, but not in the South, which, according to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, is “moving contrary to the rest of the country.”

The NAACP released a statement commending the court's decision to uphold the law, but made sure to draw a distinction between their organizational view on racial progress and that expressed by the high court.

Benjamin T. Jealous, President and CEO of the NAACP said,

While some may think that voter discrimination is a thing of the past, it is clear that it is not. Jim Crow might be dead but James Crow Esquire is alive and well, and while we may not see fire hoses and police dogs any longer, [but] they have been replaced by false emails and polling station trickery.

Hilary O. Shelton Vice President for Advocacy and Director of the DC Bureau of the NAACP added,

When Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights act of 1965 in 2006, they compiled more than 16,000 pages of documentation and head from scores of witnesses in support of Section 5 and its continued relevance. We are very pleased that the Supreme Court ruled to keep this crucial provision [Section 5] intact.

Evidence of voter intimidation and voter discrimination are ongoing throughout our country. From thousands of people being turned away from the polls in 2000 in Florida, to the Ohio controversy in 2004, and even to polling place problems in St. Louis during the past election, it is important now more than ever that Section 5 remain intact. The Supreme Court did the correct thing and protected all people of color from voter discrimination and ensured that their voices will be heard.

It is extremely important that we not lose sight of the fact that a great deal of racism exists in our culture today. It's not hard to find examples of the manifestations of racism today, with acts of voter intimidation being merely one such example.

We must keep the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on the books and not be lulled into complacency because we elected a Black President. We need to remember that while the results were not as close as the previous two elections, Senator McCain was the nominee of a party in deep turmoil whom the public rejected in Senate, House, state, and local races.

Though he wasn't personally running, the fact that President Bush is a Republican can not be overstated. He was wildly unpopular at the end of his term, as evidenced by historically low approval ratings. Senator McCain is not President Bush, but the fact that they are members of the same party, the party that at the time of the election many publicly blamed for the problems facing the country, must be critically examined in terms of how the election played out. And the fact that the Democratic nominee was not a White man is crucial in understanding what the elction results said.

Instead of basking in the celebration of electing a Black President (though he's really mixed-race or bi-racial, but that's a whole other discussion) and using it as a justification for tearing down all legal protections for people of color, we should realize that the fact the election was ever in doubt is more telling than the results.

And isn't it time we reexamine this whole states' rights thing? How much pain, anguish, and exacerbation of inequality does this outdated concept need to impose before we finally evolve to the point of just chucking this shit?

This is What Democracy Looks Like

While the Iranian people struggle and fight to have their voices heard, we should recognize that they are providing a great model of what participatory democracy should look like. These folks are risking their lives to stand up and fight for what they believe in. We Americans, on the other hand, are too apathetic to stand up and speak out because it might require a little time and effort that could detract from our busy, yet simultaneously vacuous lives. Write a letter to my Senator about health care? I can't; There's a Jon and Kate Plus 8 marathon on right now. Besides, they don't listen anyway.

Remember the Presidential election of 2000? You know, that was the one that Gore won, but the Supreme Court handed to Bush. Remember the protests in the streets? Remember the outrage? Remember the tireless, enduring protests that demanded justice and promised to continue until justice was served? Yeah, me neither.

Check out these live blogs from Iran:

Nico Pitney - Huffington Post

Matthew Weaver - The Guardian

That's It? Seriously?

Reacting to an avalanche of bad press and contributors pulling out of an upcoming fundraiser specifically targeting GLBT donors and issues, at 5:45 tonight President Obama will sign a Presidential Memorandum that extends some benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. While some is more than none, in this case the difference is not so great.

The White House press office has issued a Fact Sheet that outlines the benefits to be made available to same-sex partners of federal workers. Here is the text of the press release titled, "Fact Sheet: Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination":

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 17, 2009

Fact Sheet: Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination

In an Oval Office event later today, President Barack Obama will sign a Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination. The Memorandum follows a review by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management and the Secretary of State regarding what benefits may be extended to the same-sex partners of federal employees in the civil service and the foreign service within the confines of existing federal laws and statutes.

Over the past several months, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management and the Secretary of State have conducted internal reviews to determine whether the benefits they administer may be extended to the same-sex partners of federal employees within the confines of existing laws and statutes. Both identified a number of such benefits.

For civil service employees, domestic partners of federal employees can be added to the long-term care insurance program; supervisors can also be required to allow employees to use their sick leave to take care of domestic partners and non-biological, non-adopted children. For foreign service employees, a number of benefits were identified, including the use of medical facilities at posts abroad, medical evacuation from posts abroad, and inclusion in family size for housing allocations.

The Presidential Memorandum to be signed today will request that the Director of OPM and the Secretary of State act to extend to same-sex partners of federal employees the benefits they have identified. The Memorandum will also request the heads of all other executive branch departments and agencies to conduct internal reviews to determine whether other benefits they administer might be similarly extended, and to report the results of those reviews to the Director of OPM.

The Memorandum will also direct OPM to issue guidance within 90 days to all executive departments and agencies regarding compliance with, and implementation of, the civil service laws, which make it unlawful to discriminate against federal employees or applicants for federal employment on the basis of factors not related to job performance.

It is important to note that a Presidential Memorandum expires when the President who signs the memorandum leaves office. In addition, the most expensive and valuable benefit federal employees receive, health insurance, is one of the many benefits that remain out of reach for same-sex partners of federal employees.

Reacting to today's announcement, Leonard Hirsch, president of Federal Globe: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Employees of the Federal Government said, "Our analysis has been that it will take an act of Congress for the full suite of benefits such as health benefits and retirement benefits to be provided for same-sex couples and families." According to Hirsch, the executive branch has the authority to extend certain other benefits through departments and agencies, such as providing relocation costs for partners of federal employees.

Joe Solmonese, President of The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), made the following statement concerning the upcoming signing of the Presidential Memorandum,

Today’s Presidential memorandum committing to a federal workplace free from discrimination, including the extension of some benefits to same-sex partners of federal workers, is a welcome and long-overdue step toward bringing the government’s policies closer in line with what America’s largest companies understand is good for business. Today’s presidential signature is the first brick in paving what is a long path toward equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans. We commend President Obama and his administration for taking this beginning step to level the playing field but we look forward to working with him to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and guarantee the entire American workforce is free from discrimination.

HRC has worked with the President’s Transition Team since the election and White House Staff since the inauguration to provide them with substantive steps they can take to advance LGBT equality. The HRC's recommendations are outlined in “A Blueprint for Positive Change” – an exhaustive document detailing actions the President can take to make the lives of LGBT people better.

Sometimes Presidents need to take dramatic stands in order to advance their agenda. They need to not worry about polls and popularity, and do what they think is right. And it's much easier to do this when your party is in power in Congress. It appears that President Obama is either unwilling to take such a stand, or achieving equality for GLBT folks is simply not on his agenda.

What's worse is that the same can be said when it comes to health care, ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, climate change, poverty, drug policies, and anything having to do with race and racism. This is indeed an administration that may be characterized as one ushering in change. President Bush rammed his agenda down the throats of Congress and the American people. His ideas were awful and misguided, but at least the dude's actions refelcted his beliefs. Is there anything other than consensus and getting along that this President believes in?

One Soldier's Perspective, Part 1

I said last week that a childhood friend of mine who served in Iraq and Afghanistan agreed to write about his experiences and have me post them here. He is using a pseudonym, but the rest of his bio is accurate.

His story will not be limited to his experiences and time spent in combat, but will instead be a broader narrative about the wars, public opinion, what it's like to be in the military and not be in combat when others are, and some thoughts on the War on Terror. We hope to make this a weekly occurrence. Today we present part 1.

R.J. Strapper
US Air Force Academy, Class of 1997
317th Airlift Group, 40th Airlift Squadron, Air Mobility Command. We flew the mighty C-130H.

I don’t find myself having much of a perspective on the War on Terror. I fought in both Afghanistan and Iraq and while I was there I thought they were “just” wars. Take the meaning of “just” any way you’d like. My life changed forever on September 11, 2001.

I had just come back from Ft Bragg, North Carolina, late the prior evening. I went straight to bed and was awakened by an errant phone call at 7 a.m. As was the usual, I could not go back to sleep and decided to switch on CNN and try to fall back to sleep. It was at this time I noticed the burning World Trade Center. I remember thinking to myself that it was funny, someone had finally hit that building. The air traffic in the New York City area is some of the busiest and aircraft are always flying close to the buildings. I was up brushing my teeth when the second aircraft hit. Five minutes later I received my first phone call from the squadron. Pack your bags, we don’t know where or for how long. I know this sounds theatrical, I promise it is real.

Turns out we were designated into Alpha and Bravo alert status. Each alert posture has different criteria which is not important to the story. We did this for more than 48 hours and all we could watch was the news. My parents called, fear in their voices. They made the three hour drive to my station. They decided it was important to be with me. I was more than happy to have them with me as I was concerned where the future would take me. I asked them to rent some movies on their way. If you recall, there wasn’t anything on television or radio that was not “9-11” coverage. I had seen enough for a day and wanted to put my mind somewhere else. We did just that and had a nice evening. The next morning they left back to San Antonio and I faced an uncertain future.

My squadron would spend the rest of September and October preparing.

Homophobic Much?

In another move signaling reluctance to deliver on the promise of change, the Obama administration continues to defend a Justice Department motion filed last Thursday that reaffirmed the validity of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The motion moved to dismiss the case of Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer. Smelt and Hammer were challenging DOMA and its current governing authority that allows states to refuse to recognize marriages of same -sex couples performed in states that do allow same-sex marrriage. It also prevents couples marrying in states that recognize same-sex marriage from receiving Social Security spousal benefits, filing joint tax returns, and receiving any of the other benefits heterosexual married couples receive.

While the Justice Department's actions and the Obama administration's defense of these actions are not surprising, the manner by which these decisions were defended were.

Central to the Justice Department and the Obama administration's arguments are that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not bar states from denying out-of-state gay marriages. In justifying this claim the Justice Department cited prior cases of out-of-state marriages that were between (a) an uncle and niece, (b) a 16-year-old and adult and (c) first cousins. What the fuck? Nice change. I'm so glad I worked for the election of a President that would defend the portrayal of two consenting gay adults' desire to wed as analogous to pedophilia and incest.

In defending Part 3 of DOMA, which bars same-sex couples from any federal benefits, the lawyers from the Justice Department cited "cautious policy of federal neutrality towards a new form of marriage,". Then these asshole lawyers had the nerve to argue that Part 3 "does not discriminate against gays for federal benefits." Huh? How the fuck is that possible?

Because Part 3 of DOMA explicitly states that the federal government will not recognize gay couples, even if a state chooses to acknowledge their marriage, any claims of neutrality are out of the realm of possibility. It is equally as ludicrous to argue that DOMA is a "cautious policy". DOMA represents one of only two incidents in the history of the United States where Congress acted to restrict marriage. The only other time this happened was in 1865 when it made polygamy a crime.

Quoting now from Paul Hogarth on The Huffington Post:

Many federal employees are civil servants who cannot be replaced because the new Administration disagrees with their politics. And because the gay couple in this case had previously challenged DOMA when George Bush was President, it is no surprise that the Justice Department had attorneys ready to defend the suit. In fact, one of the lawyers who wrote the brief - Scott Simpson - is a Mormon Republican, and a holdover from the Bush Administration. Alberto Gonzales even awarded the guy for his legal defense of the Partial Birth Abortion Act. Arguably, the Obama Administration could not replace him with a new attorney.

But the first lawyer listed on the brief is Tony West, an Obama political appointee. West served as California finance chairman for Obama's campaign, where he raised at least $500,000. He is the brother-in-law of San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, who strongly supports gay marriage and is running for California Attorney General. His wife, Maya Harris, was until recently Executive Director of the Northern California ACLU. The ACLU issued a joint statement this weekend with other groups condemning the legal arguments in the brief, saying they were "very surprised and deeply disappointed" with the Obama Administration.

Of course, there is no evidence that West wrote the legal brief - or even knew about it. His name was on the brief, because he heads the Justice Department's Civil Division (which handles all lawsuits filed against the federal government.) But that means he supervises the attorneys who wrote it, and he can be held accountable. Before gay marriage advocates start asking whether Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder authorized the legal brief, they should ask West: (1) did he review the legal brief before it was filed, (2) if so, why would he agree to have it submitted as written, (3) if not, would he have done so and (4) why were the arguments appropriate?

I often hear that the Obama administration does care about the issue of civil rights for all individuals, but now is simply not the right time to address this matter. The economy is in the toilet, we are engaged in two wars overseas, and energy policy is in dire need of an overhaul. But this excuse is just that. It does not justify the administration's marginalizing of the issue, and these latest comments reflect an explicitly homophobic and heterosexist perspective.

It is difficult to find much coverage of this on the network and cable news channels; but thank god for Rachel Maddow. Maddow is talking about the issue, and doing so in a manner that accurately reflects the importance of denying civil rights to all non-hetero Americans. And last night Howard Dean joined her to discuss the matter. As Governor of Vermont, Dean was the first Governor to enact legislation that recognized same-sex unions. I still can't believe one stupid yell cost him the opportunity to run for President. I said it throughout the 2008 campaign, and still wish he was the President.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

For more on this issue, check out the Human Rights Campaign's response.

Waiting for Change

I'm not a big fan of the instant analysis culture we live in. I can't stand watching news coverage of a breaking story when the reporters on the scene and the studio commentators have no idea what's actually happening, but they're glad to guess. They seem all too eager to simply talk over video, while admitting they have no idea what's going on. So, if you don't know what's going on, what can I possibly gain from listening to you? Why can't we just wait a few minutes, perhaps even hours, get the story right, then launch into premature analysis? I've given up on the idea of contemplation, reflection, and critical, thoughtful analysis filling the airwaves.

Because of my dislike for knee-jerk analysis that requires virtually no thought and marginalizes time as an enemy, I feel somewhat hypocritical making judgments on the Obama Presidency, as it is still in a stage of infancy. But clearly my hesitancy is not shared by those in the media, and there is perhaps no greater evidence of this than the insane amount of coverage that was given to his first 100 days in office.

I knew it was coming, but I was still overwhelmed by how much was made of the first 100 days of his administration. The internet, TV, an radio programs were filled with commentators assessing how successful the President had been in advancing his policy agendas. We were told of the seemingly endless amount of polls documenting how many Americans approved of his first 100 days. Folks were eager to make pronouncements about his historical legacy, comparing him to Presidents from the past, after this fraction of his term in office. It seemed odd to make such a big deal of a time period that represents about 7% of the four years he was elected to serve. How much can we expect anyone to achieve in this small amount of time?

So I tread carefully in my assessments of the early stages of the President's time in office, making sure not to make any statements or generalizations that might be construed as judgments on his entire term. But that being said, I do think it is important to take a look at what's happened, and perhaps more importantly, what has not.

While those on the right, and even some close to the center, did their best during the campaign to portray President Obama as a far-left radical, Socialist, and the like, those of us on the left knew that if elected, President Obama would be a center-left President, with an emphasis on the center part of that descriptor. His voting record gave no indication to think anything else. But we were hopeful that once in office we would see a changed man who would put less emphasis on consensus as a divine mandate. We held out hope that he would take advantage not only of his victory, but of the Democrats' new-found control of Congress, to push through an agenda that was reasonably close to progressive. It's only been 5 months, but we're still waiting.

So far we can only see the President as an extension of the 1980s New Democrat movement that produced folks like Bill Clinton. Democrats love Clinton and view him with a less-than-critical lens that fails to recognize all that Clinton's administration did. This list of hits includes dismantling welfare, supporting every pro-business and anti-labor trade agreement, escalating the incarseration rate of non-violent drug offenders, continuing the deregulation of the financial industries, and a widening of the income gap.

If we look at just a few of the important issues of the day, we see that President Obama has done little to nothing to usher in the age of change he promised. Troop levels are on the rise in Afghanistan and our presence there, in Iraq, and elsewhere in the region is not ending anytime soon. The healthcare changes the President is advocating are limited and weak, to put it mildly. He has ceded control of the debate to the for-profit insurance companies, beginning from a point that concedes that the end result will still leave them in charge. He has poured more money into the financial institutions that were the catalyst for the financial meltdown we find urselves in. He has refused to take on the military's don't ask tell policy because it's not the right time - maybe if every single interpreter is dismissed from the ranks the time will be right. And he has all but given up on real, meaningful, transformative environmental policies that might actually make a difference.

I am willing to give the President more time, and make an assessment on his performance that is based on a longer time period. But, for now, I am not happy that the President we have is the one I thought I we would have when I voted for him in November.

I don't love Bill Maher; I find him to be a bit smug and a lot sexist. He often oversimplifies issues, and his position as a sorta Libertarian, sorta leftist, while categorically different, is dangerously similar to intellectually vapid position of being liberal on social issues but conservative on economic matters. But I do find his program entertaining, and every once in a while I find his points intelligent and amusing. That was the case on Friday when he outlined some of the issues I mentioned in expressing his disappointment in the President's first several months in office.



While I don't really love Bill Maher, I do love Rachel Maddow. She is intelligent, thoughtful, respectful, and one of the few folks on any cable news network that doesn't believe that screaming makes your points more valid. Last week Maddow discussed President Obama's failure to act on a campaign promise to end don't ask don't tell in a manner only she can.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

All Together Now: "Fuck You, AMA!"

Perhaps its time for doctors to replace lawyers as the profession we love to hate. Instead of using lawyers, let’s tell jokes like, “How many doctors does it take to stop a moving bus? Never enough.”

Fueling my rage today is the American Medical Association’s (AMA) decision to oppose any health care reform that includes a public insurance plan. This decision is nothing short of disgraceful and unmasks the AMA for what they have become – a self-interest group that first seeks to make medicine a more lucrative profession for doctors and then worries about patient care and issues related to access, costs, and equity.

In a paper sounding more like a part of a marketing campaign for capitalism than a statement from a group supposedly dedicated to providing health care, the AMA states that they oppose public options for providing insurance because

The AMA supports the insurance market reforms to create more choice and better access to affordable coverage for both individuals and small businesses.

Insurance market reforms? Are you fucking serious? These are the folks whose profits increase as our nation’s health decreases. And when was the last time you heard a physician speak well of insurance companies? I’m around doctors all the time, and all I ever hear is how insurance companies have made the provision of medical care worse for the patient and provider. They take the decision-making out of the hands of those who possess the most knowledge (physicians), instead putting them in the hands of business school trained insurance executives whose primary concern is profits, not health. Shit, at least they’re honest.

While the AMA’s latest action is extremely disheartening, it should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the path health care has taken in the US. And in many ways, the AMA bares much of the blame, as they have been behind the wheel, driving us all closer to the edge of the cliff. Examining the AMA’s history sheds some light on the issues, as it becomes increasingly clear that this is not an organization that is dedicated to human rights, including making health care a right for all people in the United States.

When the federal government was busy at work creating Medicare in the 1930s, the AMA was just as busy, engaging in a campaign to oppose the creation of the program, then proposed as a part of Social Security. They amped up their efforts in the 1960s, hiring Ronald Reagan to pump up the crowd at a meeting of the AMA Auxiliary by warning of the impending threat of Socialism if Medicare was created. Reagan concluded his not-so-prescient address by stating that if Medicare were to become law,

One day, we will awake to find that we have socialism.... One of these days, you and I will to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children's children, what it was once like in America when men were free.

Fast-forward to today and the landscape of health care remains under the control of that capitalist system, with for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical companies wielding virtually unrestrained power. Not surprisingly, these entities seek to increase their bottom lines and their stockholder dividends, not the number of people who have access to quality and affordable health care.

Somehow we managed to create Medicare and escape the predicted outcome of becoming the dreaded S-word. Maybe if we had become a country more concerned about the well-being of everyone, and less so about maintaining the illusion of the benefits of capitalism, the millions of Americans who are without insurance today would find themselves in a better, more humane position.

According to the most recent data, during the years 2007-2008, 86.7 million people under the age of 65 in the United States went without heath insurance for some period of time. That number represents one-third of the entire population. Clearly the private sector is doing a spectacular job in providing affordable, accessible care for all.

Of these 86.7 million, 60% were uninsured for at least 9 months, while 75% were uninsured for at least 6 months. One quarter of the 86.7 million were without insurance for the entire 2-year period, and 20 percent were without for 13-24 months. Only 5 percent were uninsured for 2 months or less.

And the numbers are even worse for racial and ethnic minority groups and those living in poverty. In 2007-2008, 55.1 percent of Latino/as, 40% percent of African Americans, and 34% of other racial and ethnic minorities went without health insurance, compared to 25.8 percent of Whites. Nearly 60% of individuals living under the poverty line went without insurance during the 2007-2008. And the poverty line is a bullshit number that doesn’t capture all folks any reasonable person would consider poor. In 2008 the federal government defined a family of four as poor if their income was $21,200 a year or less. Try telling a family of four with an income of $25,000/year that they aren’t poor. And make sure you do so in a metropolitan area where the costs of living are higher.

In indicting the AMA, I am not indicting all doctors. The AMA is an organization that speaks for its 250,000 members. Not all doctors are members, and as is the case with any organization, there are members who disagree with this and other positions the organization takes. But what about those that remain members? This issue should serve as a deal breaker to those sitting on the fence, wondering if they can be part of an organization that takes such a position on public health insurance.

A growing number of doctors have felt their philosophical belief that medicine should be about service not profits has become so far from what the AMA stands for that they have quit the organization. One such doctor, Chris McKoy, writes on The Huffington Post about quitting the organization and the factors that led him to the decision to do so.

In reflecting his belief that the AMA has become too focused on financial outcomes and profits, McKoy states, “the AMA represents a physician-centered and self-interested perspective rather than honoring the altruistic nature of my profession.”

McKoy goes further and place much of the blame of the current state of medicine at the feet of the AMA. In particular, he states his feelings regarding the AMA in aligning itself more closely with for-profit companies, not patients.

Instead of advocating for patients, the AMA is supporting the private insurance industry, which has been a driving force in creating the dysfunction health care system we have today.

In addition to ending their affiliation with the AMA, a number of doctors who have seen their commitment to patient care at odds with the AMA have established several organizations to counter the AMA’s positions. Most notably is Physicians for a National Health Program, whose mission is the creation of single-payer national health insurance. Their site is full of useful information, including resources documenting the need for and benefits of single-payer health insurance.

The AMA can now be seen as nothing more than a lobbying arm for doctors who see practicing medicine as a means to wealth, with service as a mere possible byproduct. Their commitment to defeating public health insurance is only made worse by their lack of commitment to pro-actively advocating and advancing ideas and practices that promote health. This includes their long-standing efforts to disparage virtually all homeopathic and alternative practices and beliefs that do not fit under the umbrella of Western medicine. And their power and reach can be seen everywhere.

On June 8, Newsweek’s cover contained a picture of Oprah Winfrey with superimposed text that read, “Crazy talk: Oprah, wacky cures, and you”. The article’s basis was that Oprah and other non-medical professionals who publicize anything other than the institutionally legitimized and sanctioned means for promoting health and treating ailments and diseases are causing more harm than they are doing good.

Deepak Chopra recently wrote in response to Newsweek’s piece, which was the Newsweek norm of mediocre writing, poor research, and a limited and uncritical perspective.

Chopra has long been a vocal critic of the American medical establishment. He has been a champion of those treatments and remedies the medical community labels as alternative. In addition to their fight to minimize the possible benefits of alternative treatments, the AMA has been quiet on the need to reframe the way we view health by adopting a mindset that prioritizes wellness and prevention.

On a daily basis doctors don't deal in these things; few take courses in medical school centered on them. That's why a massive movement has arisen driven by patients themselves.

Much of the blame, as Chopra points out, can be traced to the medical community’s relationships with the pharmaceutical industry and the need to pump up bottom lines.

Denial also plays a huge part in this story. Mainstream medicine continues to downplay the enormous drawbacks of a health-care system that is addicted to drugs and surgery as the two constant drumbeats of treatment.

All this leads to large expenditures that produce little in the way of improving health outcomes. We spend more than any other nation on health care, yet our health outcomes do not see corresponding improvements because of where we spend the money.

Overall, this country's health care system is actually a "sick care" system. In 2006, $2.1 trillion were spent in the U.S. on medical care, 95% of which was spent to treat disease after it had already occurred.

In light of all of this, it is impossible for me to reconcile the dissonance and outright hypocrisy inherent in an organization that claims to prioritize health and well-being above all else while simultaneously rationalizing taking a position against single-payer health insurance. Maybe if you just keep repeating the mantra that markets and capitalism are the best means of making health care affordable and accessible I’ll eventually ignore the facts and become a follower in the cult that the AMA has created. It seems to be working for the members of the AMA.

Let the AMA know how you feel by calling (202) 789-7447. You can also submit a comment on-line here. And finally, you can mail correspondence to:

American Medical Association
515 N. State Street
Chicago, IL 60654

Challenging the Company Line on Afghanistan

The vast majority of the media attention given prior to and during the war in Afghanistan has portrayed it as a war of necessity, not choice. This narrative eliminated virtually all dissent on the US's initial decision to invade Afghanistan, as all such voices were constructed as anti-American, out of touch, and not understanding the new world we live in. We failed to learn from history, jumping into war in a country whose history is filled with similar stories that never end well for the Afghani people or the invading nation(s).

But as the war rages on, now for more than 7 years, and we begin to understand the realities of the difficulties we face, the idea that this is not a war of necessity is beginning to ever-so-slowly garner media attention. It is still not the norm, but we are beginning to hear more voices that advocate a change in policy that does not include an increase in troop numbers. Key to the growing acceptance of this reassessment is our understanding of what's happening to the lives of the Afghani people, the people who will continue to live there with or without our presence. Or, at least those that survice our democracy outreach project.

Brave New Foundation has established the Rethinking Afghanistan project in an effort to document what is happening on the ground, as well as educate on the history and possible future for Afghanistan. Among the many amazing things they're doing is producing short video clips that provide different perspectives on the war and the need to rethink US involvement. The clips include statements from Afghan civilians, former US military personnel who served in the war, individuals who are experts in Afghan history and culture, foreign policy experts from across the globe, and US elected officials.

And further advancing the cause of silenced voices needing to be heard, I am thrilled to announce that beginning next week my blog will host a guest contributor. A childhood friend of mine who served in Afghanistan as a member of the US Air Force has agreed to do a series describing his experiences and perspectives. I am really excited and grateful. The two of us differ in our political views, and I'm sure that will be the case with at least some of what he contributes here. But that is not the point. The point is simply to expand the pool of voices we hear on important issues like this, and I think hearing from someone who has been there will do just that. Stay tuned.

Blue on Black (and Brown) Crime

There's an editorial in today's New York Times that discusses the disproportionate percentage of Black and Latino police officers who are shot by White officers' friendly fire. Just last month a White NYPD officer shot and killed Omar Edwards, a Black officer, as he chased a suspect. While I agree with much of what the piece says, I have some problems with the following proposed solution,

To fight this problem, police departments need to do a much better job of preparing officers to work in an environment where colleagues come in all colors and ethnicities — and of raising awareness about how even unconscious racial stereotypes affect how they see the world.

I agree with the sentiment that police officers need to be trained and educated about those they serve, and those they serve with. This should include some training on issues related to identity, though I would advocate for a broader approach that includes training on issues related to gender, power, sexual identity, nationality, and so on. I do, however, think that the articulation of the causes of these horrific incidents as "unconscious racial stereotypes" is problematic, bordering on racist.

First off, the internalization of stereotypes, race-based and otherwise, may occur on the subconscious level, but rarely if ever do they occur when a person is unconscious. That's more of an issue of language, but it is one of my many pet peeves related to language. Even if I accept the fact that the use of the word unconscious is meant to mean subconscious, I still find this statement incredibly misleading.

The fact that police officers, or anyone else for that matter, internalize stereotypes in a manner that reflects a belief in their accuracy by their subsequent actions is not an accidental occurrence. It may not be the result of critical thought at the individual level, and it may not be intentional. A person may act in a manner that reflects thoughts and beliefs they did not even know lay inside them until the stimulus that brings about the behavior presents itself. This is interesting, and somewhat important, but it still reflects a misplaced focus on individual thoughts and behaviors. Such focus on the individual is the usual path taken when discussing issues related to discriminatory and/or racist behaviors (and sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, etc.). But this discourse is itself a representation of the problem.

If we accept the fact that the majority of White officers who shoot Black and Latino officers do so not as the result of conscious racist beliefs and intent to kill a person of color, but rather as a result of buying into the racist ideology that permeates our culture, we simultaneously dismiss the notion of these racist ideas being unconscious or subconscious. The individual who acts in a manner that manifests their internalized racist beliefs, such as a White officer shooting a Black or Latino officer, may internalize racist ideologies individually and subconsciously, but the bigger problem is the source - the stimuli that cause this process.

While the process of internalization occurs within an individual, it is influenced, in many cases even controlled by external forces. By using the language the editorial board at the Times uses, the carefully and methodically constructed intent behind the production and dissemination of racist ideologies is softened. This further perpetuates the notion that we are a culture that has advanced past racism being a powerful force; that harmony is the norm and hatred the exception.

This advances the myth that in contemporary America only a small number of select individuals, crazy people living in the margins, harbor a racist worldview. The days of widely-held racist ideologies and the behaviors that follow are a thing of the past. They are not. This is the goal, but it is not where we are. Language like that employed in this piece paints a rosier picture than the one that exists, and it only serves to make reaching that goal more difficult.

And the Times should know better, as the piece that makes this claim is the very same piece that highlights the importance that racism plays in the disproportionate number of minority officers being shot by their White colleagues.

Finally, what's up with the use of the phrase friendly fire? I understand the meaning of the term, and am fully aware that it simply indicates that a member of law enforcement or the military has been shot by someone on the same side and not a suspect, enemy, etc.; but perhaps it needs some reworking. I'm pretty sure that those who are injured and/or killed under such circumstances probably don't find the fire to be so friendly.

Miami does something good? Seriously?

It's been just about five years since I moved to Miami, and I still feel like a visitor. I'm not so sure the feeling will ever wear off, nor am I sure I want it to. I feel better about living here because I don't really feel like I do.

All that said, it makes me happy when the city does anything right, and every once in a while I actually have feelings resembling pride. These feelings are rare because the city and county governments of Miami and Miami-Dade have become symbols of corruption and municipal governments' failures to act in a pro-active manner when it comes to anything related to planning.

In addition, remember that the Dade County vote count clusterfuck was instrumental in allowing the US Supreme Court to award the 200o election to Bush. Though I didn't live here at the time, I think it's fair to say that we all still feel the impacts of the recount being halted.

But today is one of those rare occasions where I feel pride in local government. Today the City of Miami, by a vote of 5-0, approved a measure that offers health benefits to its employees and their declared domestic partners.

While this measure in limited in terms of the scope of its impact, it will impact real people's lives in a significant manner and will also serve as a symbol that change and progress is indeed possible.

Henry Paulson's Makeover: Hero, Pig, or Both

Lost in the majority of news stories about the current economic crisis in the United States and around the world is how the current conditions impact the poor. Just as was the case during the 2008 Presidential campaign, most media coverage focuses on the impact of the current economic conditions on the middle class, namely what’s happening in the housing market and on the stock exchanges. And while these things clearly impact a large swath of the American public, including millions who are far from being considered well off financially, they don’t directly impact the poor the way other, less publicized components of the crisis do. Take, for example, the price of oil and other commodities whose prices are determined primarily by wealthy speculators who manipulate the prices for their personal gain.

Today Matt Taibbi asks us to consider this and other issues in examining the role former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson played in creating and prolonging our current recession. As you might expect, Paulson’s record on such matters is appalling. Take, for example,

his non-intervention last summer when gas prices hit $4.50 a gallon thanks again to his old buddies at Goldman and Morgan Stanley, who juiced the commodities market with so much speculative cash that oil prices soared despite the fact that supply was up and demand was down all year? Do you remember that part? How about the way food prices soared thanks to the same commodities speculators? According to the World Food Program at the UN, about 100 million people joined the ranks of the hungry last year during the commodities spike.

Though the topics he addresses deserve attention on their own merit, Taibbi writes today in response to a recent piece on the Wall Street Journal’s website. Taibbi is responding to Evan Newmark’s Mean Street blog where Newmark asks that we reconsider the legacy of Paulson, and in doing so appropriately remember him as the national hero he is. No shit; dude really said that.

It's 20 years after he left office and we still bathe in a tub coated with a ring of filth left as a reminder of Reagan's disastrous economic policies. Twenty years is not a long time to shrug off the impacts of an ideology and accompanying policies so heavily weighted to favor the rich and powerful at the expense of the now endangered middle class, let alone those who live in poverty. If Reagan's policies are still so difficult to scrub clean, what can we reasonably hope for when it comes to ridding ourselves of the shit stains that were the W years?

Perhaps the most we can hope for in the immediate future is a more realistic and honest assessment of what happened over the past few years. After all, in order to have a plan for the future we must understand where we are today, and that requires an understanding of where we were in the past and what got us to this moment. But everyday we see evidence this even this doesn’t appear to be plausible.

Evan Newmark’s dillusional worldview merely serves as a representation of the battle to manipulate and control our collective memory, constructing it in ways that suit political purposes but do nothing to take responsibility for past errors and make things better going forward.

We all know that the Wall Street Journal is just like any other publication – it’s created by human beings, thus it inherently reflects a certain political and ideological perspective. But that’s OK. Usually the paper tilts to the right while remaining outside of the realm of get the fuck outta here with that overtly politically motivated, acritical, adolescent hero-worshipping bullshit trying to pass for journalism. But there are exceptions for every rule and Evan Newmark is one of those exceptions.

In his praise of Paulson, Newmark conveniently omits that he once worked at Goldman Sachs, where his boss was none other than Henry Paulson. Shocking, I know. Maybe it’s because he forgets to mention to this previous relationship that he also fails to mention that in 2004, while working for Goldman Sachs, Paulson successfully advocated for the abolition of capital requirements for the nation’s top five investment banks. This meant that these institutions no longer needed to have any actual money on hand to conduct their business. It worked out swell as Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns saw their debt-to-equity ratios balloon to 32-1 and 33-1 respectively. You remember these companies, right? You have to remember because the policies that Paulson advocated for played a significant role in these supposedly indestructible institutions becoming nothing but memories. Newmark probably just forgot about this period of his life – a period that saw his personal wealth rise exponentially.

You can read more about the laundry list of offenses that Paulson and the policy changes he pushed for pull us further down the economic abyss by reading Taibbi’s piece. I’d like to just focus on the issue of how these issues impact the poor.

Speculators manipulate the price of oil and other commodities with a futures market (such as wheat, rice, soybeans, and precious metals) by pouring incredibly large sums of money into these futures markets. They are betting on the future prices of these commodities, but by dumping as much money as they do into these markets, they actually control and set the prices. Some might call this hedging your bets; some might call it cheating and immoral. Guess where I stand?

This is why last summer the price of gas at the pump rose to almost $5 a gallon while demand was low and supply was high. The price had nothing to do with supply or demand; it had to do with the behaviors of those who controlled the markets on which the commodity was traded. And this seems to be playing out again today in much the same way it did one year ago, as we’re seeing the price of gas once again rise, in a seemingly artificial manner.

Gas prices rising are bad enough, but when you compound that with the rise in food prices that usually follows, you see how these rich fucks’ personal game of monopoly impacts the lives of real people in dramatic ways.

Economic hardships impact those with less more than they do those with more. This sounds like common sense, but we construct a great deal of our economic policies in a manner that contradicts this. A uniform sales tax is but one example of a regressive means of imposing taxation in an equal yet inequitable manner. Paying a set percentage in taxes simply impacts those with less more than it does those with more. That is why this may be seen as an equally imposed tax that acts in an inequitable, and thus unjust, manner. It disproportionately impacts those who already have less. This is exactly the same as when oil and food prices rise.

People who are scraping to get by feel the slightest changes in gas and food prices in a way middle class (if there still is such a thing) and wealthy folks do not. The impacts of incremental price increases of essentials, when not matched with an increase in wages, is not merely a pain in the ass or even a hardship for poor folks. Such seemingly small changes can serve as the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back. And as the stress and strain increases, as it has for lower income folks in the US for decades, it’s much more likely that every straw you throw on will be that final one.

This is made all the more troubling when you consider that many of the hardships that folks feel are caused by the actions of others not simply seeking wealth, but more wealth. It is the actions of those who can never have enough that push the already marginalized further into debt and closer to financial ruin, despair, and even extremes like homelessness.

It’s sad that we need to regulate our economy. I wish I viewed the world in a way that made it possible for me to join the cause of limited government conservatives who insist that government is the problem and people need to simply be left alone. Their argument is that when left alone to make their own decisions, without interference from the government, most people do what’s right. But it’s hard to embrace this view when we trace the problems we have today to their sources and discover that people being left alone, to do what they think is best, often results in behaviors that are solely focused on and driven by individual wealth accumulation, regardless of how they negatively impact others.

Recognizing Henry Paulson as a national hero takes us one step closer to a becoming a culture that is completely devoid of any commitments to caring for others. Paulson’s professional life has been defined by a series of actions that do nothing more than promote the idea that there is no we, only me. His life is an instruction manual of steps powerful and affluent folks follow to take care of themselves and other privileged folks, and how these use these practices are then vaulted to the status of something akin to a guiding moral philosophy. Paulson’s staunch commitment to making it easier for those who already have more than they could possibly ever spend to accumulate even more, while simultaneously making it all the more difficult for those without enough to simply meet their needs is a symbol of everything wrong with unregulated capitalism. Come to think of it, maybe Paulson is a perfect candidate for national hero.

Inclusive torture: The innocent get it too

Back from a blog-free weekend. It wasn't intentional; I just didn't find myself with the time and/or motivation to post anything. I'll have to make sure that doesn't happen again. It is not my intention to make this a weekday thing. And thanks to all who have been reading regularly. I appreciate your support and hope the lack of posting for a couple days didn't cause too much of a disruption to your cycle of internet reading

Posts today are gonna be on the shorter end of the spectrum.

Former Guantanamo prisoner Lakhdar Boumediene's story is getting some much needed attention. Boumediene is an Algerian and Bosnian citizen. Shorty after September 11, 2001, he was arrested by Bosnian authorities for being involved in plans to blow up the British and U.S. embassies in Bosnia.

After Bosnian courts found him innocent, Boumedine was arrested and sent to Guantanamo, per the instructions of former President Bush.

He spent almost 8 years in Guatanamo where, surprise, surprise, he was tortured. Though he claimed innocence and protested his detainment for years, Boumediene remained wrongfully and unlawfully detained until last November when Federal Judge Richard Leon, a far right judge appointed by W, ruled that the government did not possess sufficient reason for detaining him.

Eight more months passed before Judge Leon ordered Boudemediene released. He was shackled and flown to Paris on May 15, 2009 aboard a U.S. military plane. Since then he has been in Paris receiving psychiatric and medical care.

He recently returned to his home in Bosnia and is now joining the swelling chorus of voices demanding that we take an honest look at the abuses (ie torture) of Guantanamo detainees. In addition to the Washington Post piece hyperlinked to above, you can also link to a great story on Salon.com that includes the televised ABC news interview with Boudemediene.

His story is fascinating, depressing, and important.

How about profit-free health care for all?

Throughout last year's campaign for the White House, the primary issues of concern were the economy and the wars we're waging in Afghanistan and Iraq. There were a host of issues lost in this narrow perspective. Chief among these issue is health care.

I don't want to overstate the lack of attention given to this important issue. It was talked about, but rarely in manner that provided much in the way of depth or substance. And the primary context under which such conversations were held was the relationship between health care and the economy.

It's true that health care is an economic issue, and the issues associated with the costs of delivering and providing health care (as well as research, training of health care providers, and so on) deserve attention. Economics should factor into decisions made about health care. But they should only factor into the conversation as we move to details, after broader decisions are made. Economics should factor into, not drive the direction of the future of health care in the United States.

Thanks to some recent polling, we now know that approximately 119 million Americans support single-payer health care. So then why are advocates of single-payer not at the table as representatives from the insurance industry, big pharm, Congress, and other for-profit industries that profit on our current reactive, for-profit model meet to discuss the future of health care?

It appears that public opinion is not factoring into the decisions that will be made regarding the future of health care. The only way single-payer advocates can be heard is if they disrupt and protest the proceedings to point out this glaring omission. This has occurred several times, as nurses and doctors have interrupted proceedings and been arrested to draw attention to the issue.

The issue is of vital importance as the lobbyists and marketing & PR machines hired by the for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical industries get moving. Side note - is there a greater convergence of evil than PR, marketing, big pharm, and insurance companies? Iraq, Iran, and North Korea ain't got shit on these douchebags.

It is an outrage that individuals who are not involved in research, prevention, and the delivery of care operate with a for-profit mindset. They run their companies as if health care was simply another commodity, like sweaters and stereos. And we shouldn't let the health care providers off easy either.

The American Medical Association (AMA) and other such professional organizations have been way too quiet on this issue. And some doctors are just as guilty as insurance and pharmaceutical companies in adopting a medicine-for-profit mentality. I understand you went to school for a long time, but if service isn't part of why you do what you do, you should do something else. I hear the pharmaceutical companies are hiring.

The reality is that while I surely don't think of health care as a commodity or service industry, as a culture we have constructed it as such. We believe access to health care is the same as access to designer brand clothing. It is determined by how much money you have and the highest quality of both is limited to those who can pay the most for it. That's the American way.

It's also the American way to pretend things aren't as bad as they are. As long as we can tune in to American Idol and wonder about the sexual identity of the participants, we're doing just fine. The problem is that we're not doing fine.

In addition to people not being able to afford and/or access quality health care, we also see the impacts of our current model in terms of developing new treatments and cures.

We see the impact of profit margins in the research and development of drugs that prolong life and, in some cases, improve the quality of live. A great example of this is the amount of money we've spent on cancer research and the results this spending has yielded. We have made great progress in early detection, treatment, and improving quality of life. But these are not cures.

But like all drug dealers, big pharm wants you to be a loyal customer that always comes back. The money is in treatment, not cures. Chris Rock said it best when he said, "You think the government is gonna cure AIDS? NOO! They can't even cure athlete's foot!!! The government curing AIDS? That's like Cadillac making a car that last for fifty years... and you know they can do it! But they ain't gonna do something that fucking dumb! Shit! They got metal on the space shuttle that can go around the moon and withstand temperatures up to 20,000 degrees. You mean to tell me you don't think they can make an El Dorado where the fucking bumper don't fall off?"

Just like we can make quality health care a right, and available to all; we just don't.