Short and informative, amazing story of George Orwell's volunteered service with the P.O.U.M. militia during the Spanish Civil War.
http://www.george-orwell.org/Homage_to_Catalonia/0.html
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Swedish-Afghan Hospital Raided by US Soldiers
The military raided the Swedish-Afghan hospital
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/militar-razzia-mot-svensk-afghanskt-sjukhus-1.946596
A hospital that operates Swedish Committee for Afghanistan, not far from Kabul has been scanned with harsh methods by U.S. soldiers.
The hospital is located in Shaniz in Wardak province. The soldiers arrived late Wednesday evening in a convoy of military vehicles. They were quickly into the clinic without asking for permission or even giving an explanation. Four staff and two relatives of patients were tied up. Locked doors were opened by force with violence. And patients, even in bed sick, were forced out of the hospital during the raid, as reported by the committee on Sunday. -
This is not acceptable. It is a violation of international agreements, and also a threat to our operations and personnel safety, "says Anders Fänge, director at the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan, told TT.
All the rooms and halls were searched, including the Department for Women. Around midnight, the soldiers went away. But first they ordered the hospital staff to report to the NATO-led ISAF forces in case suspected Taliban seek care. -
Our hospital takes care of all wounded and sick, regardless of which ethnic group they belong, or whether they are rebels, government soldiers or civilians. And we do not report to either side, "says Fänge. (my note-hippocratic oath, international law)
The hospital is located in the province of Wardak, south of the capital Kabul, and the area is often shaken by conflict and attacks. Earlier this summer, got the same hospital raided by a private security force that appeared threatening, destroying equipment and beating employees. The Force was hired to protect from a convoy of insurgents - and wanted care after a violent assault.
The hospital is situated in a conservative, religious Pashtun area. Important to note that that foreign men infringing on the women's department brings bad blood. At the end of August, NATO and Afghan army attacked a hospital in the province of Paktia after information that a Taliban leader was treated there. All parties to the conflict - the Taliban, NATO, the government army and the warlords - have at various times harassed or attacked a hospital and medical staff.
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/militar-razzia-mot-svensk-afghanskt-sjukhus-1.946596
A hospital that operates Swedish Committee for Afghanistan, not far from Kabul has been scanned with harsh methods by U.S. soldiers.
The hospital is located in Shaniz in Wardak province. The soldiers arrived late Wednesday evening in a convoy of military vehicles. They were quickly into the clinic without asking for permission or even giving an explanation. Four staff and two relatives of patients were tied up. Locked doors were opened by force with violence. And patients, even in bed sick, were forced out of the hospital during the raid, as reported by the committee on Sunday. -
This is not acceptable. It is a violation of international agreements, and also a threat to our operations and personnel safety, "says Anders Fänge, director at the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan, told TT.
All the rooms and halls were searched, including the Department for Women. Around midnight, the soldiers went away. But first they ordered the hospital staff to report to the NATO-led ISAF forces in case suspected Taliban seek care. -
Our hospital takes care of all wounded and sick, regardless of which ethnic group they belong, or whether they are rebels, government soldiers or civilians. And we do not report to either side, "says Fänge. (my note-hippocratic oath, international law)
The hospital is located in the province of Wardak, south of the capital Kabul, and the area is often shaken by conflict and attacks. Earlier this summer, got the same hospital raided by a private security force that appeared threatening, destroying equipment and beating employees. The Force was hired to protect from a convoy of insurgents - and wanted care after a violent assault.
The hospital is situated in a conservative, religious Pashtun area. Important to note that that foreign men infringing on the women's department brings bad blood. At the end of August, NATO and Afghan army attacked a hospital in the province of Paktia after information that a Taliban leader was treated there. All parties to the conflict - the Taliban, NATO, the government army and the warlords - have at various times harassed or attacked a hospital and medical staff.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
When Will America Wake Up?
Front Page News here today translated from http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/analys/wolfganghansson/article5737972.ab
President Obama will be able to close the Internet with one touch.
Sounds like a joke?
In the name of combating terrorism is everthing permitted. Behind the U.S. bill to "turn off" the Internet is a legitimate fear. Next time Al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations strikes, it is perhaps not the skyscrapers, but the computer network that controls the U.S. electricity supply, banking, or anything that would create chaos in a modern society. Yet lies a dark cloud of big brother-wacthing-you over the bill which the government can force private companies to disclose any information with reference to the law.
"What happens after 2012, nobody knows"
Interestingly, the "attack" against the open network, this time coming from one of Obama's fellow party members and not from the neo-conservatives. Senator Jay Rockefeller - grandson of the famous oil magnate John D. Rockefeller - voted for the Iraq war, but very soon he turned to Bush and the war. The wording of the bill are very general in nature and would give the president broad powers to decide when a cyber emergency situation "exists. Although in practice it is more about turning off individual servers than the entire Internet. With a reasonable person in the White House, it is perhaps no danger. Right now, Obama seems to have no Dr. Strangelove-trends. It can be changed. What happens after 2012, nobody knows.
The will to defend their country is strong
Instead of Obama maybe it sits a Sarah Pallin in the White House. The will to defend their country with the means whatsoever is very strong in the U.S.. Just look at how George W. Bush acted after the terrorist attacks in New York in 2001. He allowed one million Americans to intercept phone calls and e-mail. Without the support of any law (Jay Rockefeller voted for the nolle prosequi of those involved in the illegal interception). Bush authorized torture as an interrogation method to get suspected terrorists to tell what they knew. Some of which subsequently turned out to be innocent.
"When Americans wake up?
With a vague cyberlag in the back increases the risk that a president might be tempted to take the methods of many perceived as a threat to the rule of law and democracy. The fact that there are both Democrats and Republicans who supports the bill increases the possibility that it will be adopted by the Senate. So far, most political commentators and civil rights organizations who reacted against the bill. The broad American public seems not even have a clue that it exists. Reminds a bit of resistance to the FRA law in Sweden until the eleventh hour run by a small "elite". When Americans wake up?
President Obama will be able to close the Internet with one touch.
Sounds like a joke?
In the name of combating terrorism is everthing permitted. Behind the U.S. bill to "turn off" the Internet is a legitimate fear. Next time Al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations strikes, it is perhaps not the skyscrapers, but the computer network that controls the U.S. electricity supply, banking, or anything that would create chaos in a modern society. Yet lies a dark cloud of big brother-wacthing-you over the bill which the government can force private companies to disclose any information with reference to the law.
"What happens after 2012, nobody knows"
Interestingly, the "attack" against the open network, this time coming from one of Obama's fellow party members and not from the neo-conservatives. Senator Jay Rockefeller - grandson of the famous oil magnate John D. Rockefeller - voted for the Iraq war, but very soon he turned to Bush and the war. The wording of the bill are very general in nature and would give the president broad powers to decide when a cyber emergency situation "exists. Although in practice it is more about turning off individual servers than the entire Internet. With a reasonable person in the White House, it is perhaps no danger. Right now, Obama seems to have no Dr. Strangelove-trends. It can be changed. What happens after 2012, nobody knows.
The will to defend their country is strong
Instead of Obama maybe it sits a Sarah Pallin in the White House. The will to defend their country with the means whatsoever is very strong in the U.S.. Just look at how George W. Bush acted after the terrorist attacks in New York in 2001. He allowed one million Americans to intercept phone calls and e-mail. Without the support of any law (Jay Rockefeller voted for the nolle prosequi of those involved in the illegal interception). Bush authorized torture as an interrogation method to get suspected terrorists to tell what they knew. Some of which subsequently turned out to be innocent.
"When Americans wake up?
With a vague cyberlag in the back increases the risk that a president might be tempted to take the methods of many perceived as a threat to the rule of law and democracy. The fact that there are both Democrats and Republicans who supports the bill increases the possibility that it will be adopted by the Senate. So far, most political commentators and civil rights organizations who reacted against the bill. The broad American public seems not even have a clue that it exists. Reminds a bit of resistance to the FRA law in Sweden until the eleventh hour run by a small "elite". When Americans wake up?
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Outstanding Members of Congress
http://www.actblue.com/page/theytookthepledge?refcode=moveon1
A list of pretty amazing people who should be noticed, IMHO
A list of pretty amazing people who should be noticed, IMHO
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
My View on Healthcare
To have the confidence that your family can see the doctor without the fear that it will result in years at a credit counselling service is priceless. I am surprised at those who defend degradation. I am calling my representatives and asking them to support Conyers/Kucinich Bill HR676. During his July 22, 2009 news conference, in responding to a question from MSNBC's Chuck Todd, President Obama conceded that the only way we can insure that every American has health care coverage is through a single-payer system.
At the fourth prime time health care news conference, President Obama said "I want to cover everybody. Now, the truth is that unless you have a -- what's called a single-payer system, in which everybody's automatically covered, then you're probably not going to reach every single individual."
As an American voter I was lured repeated by the rainbow on the horizon. No more. There is absolutely no transparency in these private alternatives, unless I am a share holder, I have no idea what ABB pays for a transformer for example. The problems we see are due to lack of Democracy, not because of Democracy. Citizens who are held under threat of loss of their families’ healthcare by their employers have not experienced democracy. Private, non-democratic entities already expanded our money supply and destroyed our savings and investments in the US, if my retirement fund is any example. HR676 does keep healthcare delivery privately owned. We must eliminate extraneous for profit health insurance. Avoiding competition, maintenance, and services is exactly how private for profit companies increase profits. Moral hazard can be reduced when we give the powerful market forces just enough regulation to keep them from hurting each other by eliminating all competition, or hurting us as the case with denying healthcare. Nobody wants to nationalize the pharmaceutical companies either, they will have to compete, and working for us is what we pay the government to do. If a company is not profitable to its investors it is destroyed, profit can be made from the falling price of stocks. Planning on the corporate level is done for three months ahead. Healthcare, preventative care we do today will pay off in 30-50 years or more, governing is a job to execute political will of the constituents. It is true that a reform in the US political system is needed and the healthcare issue is like a litmus test, we can now see who is working for us or not. Healthcare funded by private insurance which receives government subsidy removes competition and collective bargaining which are both tools of a healthy market. I insist that healthcare for profit is fraught with great moral hazard. I support HR 676, not healthcare vouchers. Vouchers for private insurance will never keep citizens free from medical bankruptcy, or give them the choice to see any doctor they want. They will constantly fear that a treatment goes outside the boundaries of their approved plan. That is not liberty.
Having a large population is an advantage for saving money in a single payer system. More people can benefit from expensive medical equipment, for example. If little Sweden can do it, it should only inspire you in the US. (Those higher taxes in Sweden also give access to higher education and vocational training, btw.) In the case of an example of expensive kidney dialysis, it is not the same as a purchase of a BMW! But when government is paying they do research ways to lower the cost and spend more money on research. Sweden currently spends 4% of gdp on R&D according to Scientific American Magazine. (Not all the money is spent on medical research. The dialysis machine, for an example, is an investment and can used by many people. Dialysis machines are not built to wear out soon after purchase, like a cd player. As Americans we all have a similar goal. A government is meant to serve you, remember, you are the government. Sure we should not disregard the emotive element in a discussion of a budget! Doesn't our fear and paranoia justify the over bloated defence budget? Paying a deductable or surcharge is standard practice in a single payer system. Citizens are protected from too high costs, which relieves stress and this is essential to the health of your nation, your overall lifespan and the health of mothers with small children particularly. Then perhaps removing the burden of healthcare from industry is a way to facilitate innovative new business. Learn how these same problems were solved by different countries around the world, I am an American who has moved to a country with a single payer system so Iwill tout the virtues of that because of my experiences with it. I commend effort to craft a uniquely American solution and Medicare is a single payer idea of the same line as HR676, which I support.
According to the OECD, health expenditures per US citizen 5,711, rated 37th in the world for quality and coverage. France NO1, 3,048 per citizen, Sweden 23rd with 2,745, the UK is 18th 2,317 per citizen, Cuba at number 38th around 40$ per citizen, Cuba with the same lifespan as Americans and have a lower infant mortality rate.(CIA fact book updated since this post, this month). There is competition in a single payer system. Companies compete for the government contracts. Collective bargaining and direct competition between companies for the government contracts will lower the costs in a single payer system. If my insurance allows an ointment purchase at 30$, by eliminating the insurance company and my state or national healthcare plan negotiates the price of said ointment at its public facilities, the same or competing brand will cost a fraction of that. It is childlike to believe that an individual can navigate such things alone, and a delicious source of corruption for any despot. If you believe this, then you attract corruption with your gullibility. According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, the Healthcare industry in the US spent more than $134 million on lobbying in the first quarter of 2009 alone. Administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars. With a single payer financed system we could recover more than $350 billion per year. (Source PNHP)
To dispel the myth of death panels I must say this. The same end of life legislation is debated in the US and EU. Currently in VA you can watch Senator Warner questioning Director of the finance committee for his input on YouTube. EU legislation discussing assisted suicide is demanded by the people for conditions where nothing more can be done for the patient when medical solutions are exhausted and the patient themselves has demanded it, to secure the dignity and liberty of that individual, to honour their wishes and is unique the EU country in which the law is crafted, as it will be in Virginia.
At the fourth prime time health care news conference, President Obama said "I want to cover everybody. Now, the truth is that unless you have a -- what's called a single-payer system, in which everybody's automatically covered, then you're probably not going to reach every single individual."
As an American voter I was lured repeated by the rainbow on the horizon. No more. There is absolutely no transparency in these private alternatives, unless I am a share holder, I have no idea what ABB pays for a transformer for example. The problems we see are due to lack of Democracy, not because of Democracy. Citizens who are held under threat of loss of their families’ healthcare by their employers have not experienced democracy. Private, non-democratic entities already expanded our money supply and destroyed our savings and investments in the US, if my retirement fund is any example. HR676 does keep healthcare delivery privately owned. We must eliminate extraneous for profit health insurance. Avoiding competition, maintenance, and services is exactly how private for profit companies increase profits. Moral hazard can be reduced when we give the powerful market forces just enough regulation to keep them from hurting each other by eliminating all competition, or hurting us as the case with denying healthcare. Nobody wants to nationalize the pharmaceutical companies either, they will have to compete, and working for us is what we pay the government to do. If a company is not profitable to its investors it is destroyed, profit can be made from the falling price of stocks. Planning on the corporate level is done for three months ahead. Healthcare, preventative care we do today will pay off in 30-50 years or more, governing is a job to execute political will of the constituents. It is true that a reform in the US political system is needed and the healthcare issue is like a litmus test, we can now see who is working for us or not. Healthcare funded by private insurance which receives government subsidy removes competition and collective bargaining which are both tools of a healthy market. I insist that healthcare for profit is fraught with great moral hazard. I support HR 676, not healthcare vouchers. Vouchers for private insurance will never keep citizens free from medical bankruptcy, or give them the choice to see any doctor they want. They will constantly fear that a treatment goes outside the boundaries of their approved plan. That is not liberty.
Having a large population is an advantage for saving money in a single payer system. More people can benefit from expensive medical equipment, for example. If little Sweden can do it, it should only inspire you in the US. (Those higher taxes in Sweden also give access to higher education and vocational training, btw.) In the case of an example of expensive kidney dialysis, it is not the same as a purchase of a BMW! But when government is paying they do research ways to lower the cost and spend more money on research. Sweden currently spends 4% of gdp on R&D according to Scientific American Magazine. (Not all the money is spent on medical research. The dialysis machine, for an example, is an investment and can used by many people. Dialysis machines are not built to wear out soon after purchase, like a cd player. As Americans we all have a similar goal. A government is meant to serve you, remember, you are the government. Sure we should not disregard the emotive element in a discussion of a budget! Doesn't our fear and paranoia justify the over bloated defence budget? Paying a deductable or surcharge is standard practice in a single payer system. Citizens are protected from too high costs, which relieves stress and this is essential to the health of your nation, your overall lifespan and the health of mothers with small children particularly. Then perhaps removing the burden of healthcare from industry is a way to facilitate innovative new business. Learn how these same problems were solved by different countries around the world, I am an American who has moved to a country with a single payer system so Iwill tout the virtues of that because of my experiences with it. I commend effort to craft a uniquely American solution and Medicare is a single payer idea of the same line as HR676, which I support.
According to the OECD, health expenditures per US citizen 5,711, rated 37th in the world for quality and coverage. France NO1, 3,048 per citizen, Sweden 23rd with 2,745, the UK is 18th 2,317 per citizen, Cuba at number 38th around 40$ per citizen, Cuba with the same lifespan as Americans and have a lower infant mortality rate.(CIA fact book updated since this post, this month). There is competition in a single payer system. Companies compete for the government contracts. Collective bargaining and direct competition between companies for the government contracts will lower the costs in a single payer system. If my insurance allows an ointment purchase at 30$, by eliminating the insurance company and my state or national healthcare plan negotiates the price of said ointment at its public facilities, the same or competing brand will cost a fraction of that. It is childlike to believe that an individual can navigate such things alone, and a delicious source of corruption for any despot. If you believe this, then you attract corruption with your gullibility. According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, the Healthcare industry in the US spent more than $134 million on lobbying in the first quarter of 2009 alone. Administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars. With a single payer financed system we could recover more than $350 billion per year. (Source PNHP)
To dispel the myth of death panels I must say this. The same end of life legislation is debated in the US and EU. Currently in VA you can watch Senator Warner questioning Director of the finance committee for his input on YouTube. EU legislation discussing assisted suicide is demanded by the people for conditions where nothing more can be done for the patient when medical solutions are exhausted and the patient themselves has demanded it, to secure the dignity and liberty of that individual, to honour their wishes and is unique the EU country in which the law is crafted, as it will be in Virginia.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Larry Summers Apologetics
Rescuing and Rebuilding the US Economy: A Progress Report by Lawrence H. Summers, Director of the National Economic Council and Assistant to the President for Economic Policy July 17, 2009 To read the recommended page: http://www.piie.com/events/event_detail.cfm?EventID=119
> Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics
> 1750 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
> Washington, DC 20036
> www.piie.com
This was a speach given by our treasury secretary Larry Summers. He was talking to a room of people and here they are for you to check outhttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Peterson_Institute_for_International_Economics
Perhaps this speach was meant to reassure a group of people who could sink the value of the dollar. And as I was reading this I thought of something Paul Krugman had published the day before "The American economy remains in dire straits, with one worker in six unemployed or underemployed. Yet Goldman Sachs just reported record quarterly profits — and it’s preparing to hand out huge bonuses, comparable to what it was paying before the crisis. What does this contrast tell us?First, it tells us that Goldman is very good at what it does. Unfortunately, what it does is bad for America.Second, it shows that Wall Street’s bad habits — above all, the system of compensation that helped cause the financial crisis — have not gone away.Third, it shows that by rescuing the financial system without reforming it, Washington has done nothing to protect us from a new crisis, and, in fact, has made another crisis more likely."http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/opinion/17krugman.html?_r=1&em
Summers' speech, I am not sure whether to laugh or cry about it, Is he really that out of touch? "As of May, the tax cuts, fiscal support for state and local government, and family assistance programs in the Recovery Act have boosted disposable income by nearly two percent. This has supported household spending as families have begun the necessary repairing of their household balance sheets."
Now I have a response from Virginia department of social services on this please watch this video and tell me if families are getting assistance.
Poverty in Virginia Presentation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBY2ojUeZ5w
> Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics
> 1750 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
> Washington, DC 20036
> www.piie.com
This was a speach given by our treasury secretary Larry Summers. He was talking to a room of people and here they are for you to check outhttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Peterson_Institute_for_International_Economics
Perhaps this speach was meant to reassure a group of people who could sink the value of the dollar. And as I was reading this I thought of something Paul Krugman had published the day before "The American economy remains in dire straits, with one worker in six unemployed or underemployed. Yet Goldman Sachs just reported record quarterly profits — and it’s preparing to hand out huge bonuses, comparable to what it was paying before the crisis. What does this contrast tell us?First, it tells us that Goldman is very good at what it does. Unfortunately, what it does is bad for America.Second, it shows that Wall Street’s bad habits — above all, the system of compensation that helped cause the financial crisis — have not gone away.Third, it shows that by rescuing the financial system without reforming it, Washington has done nothing to protect us from a new crisis, and, in fact, has made another crisis more likely."http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/opinion/17krugman.html?_r=1&em
Summers' speech, I am not sure whether to laugh or cry about it, Is he really that out of touch? "As of May, the tax cuts, fiscal support for state and local government, and family assistance programs in the Recovery Act have boosted disposable income by nearly two percent. This has supported household spending as families have begun the necessary repairing of their household balance sheets."
Now I have a response from Virginia department of social services on this please watch this video and tell me if families are getting assistance.
Poverty in Virginia Presentation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBY2ojUeZ5w
Creigh Deeds and an Election Promise
Creigh Deeds will be Dem candidate for Governor of Virginia, so I was looking him up and found this, its something important to me, if he becomes elected can we please push him to fulfill his election promise?
"He also vowed to use his executive power to push non-partisan redistricting, if elected Governor. Sen. Deeds is hoping to eliminate the time honored political tradition of Gerrymandering(haha time honored?)
"Government ultimately belongs to the people, not elected officials," said Senator Deeds. "Yet, our broken redistricting process allows for legislators to protect their own interests by drawing districts that protect incumbents and political majorities. When I’m Governor, Virginia voters will be the ones to choose their elected officials instead of allowing legislators to choose their voters." (powerful words let's hold him to it)http://nbc12.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/deeds-presents-redistricting-plan Highlights of Creigh's Victory Speechhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9SLiSRNWwE
Reading some about Gerrymandering, its VERY importanthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
I am not telling you how to vote i am telling you that if this is important to him, it also happens to be something very important to me and I would love to see Gerrymandering GONE.
"He also vowed to use his executive power to push non-partisan redistricting, if elected Governor. Sen. Deeds is hoping to eliminate the time honored political tradition of Gerrymandering(haha time honored?)
"Government ultimately belongs to the people, not elected officials," said Senator Deeds. "Yet, our broken redistricting process allows for legislators to protect their own interests by drawing districts that protect incumbents and political majorities. When I’m Governor, Virginia voters will be the ones to choose their elected officials instead of allowing legislators to choose their voters." (powerful words let's hold him to it)http://nbc12.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/deeds-presents-redistricting-plan Highlights of Creigh's Victory Speechhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9SLiSRNWwE
Reading some about Gerrymandering, its VERY importanthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
I am not telling you how to vote i am telling you that if this is important to him, it also happens to be something very important to me and I would love to see Gerrymandering GONE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
