Another Military intervention (Libya)...Here We Go Again!

Let me jump right into the conclusion first: the “allied” (hardly an accurate affiliation since America is providing the lion’s share of the effort in terms of material and cost) air strikes against Moammar Gadhafi’s forces are ill-advised. My bad. I didn’t mean to state my position so cryptically, as if I were either running for public office or were a career politician trying to avoid being pinned to a policy position which could go either way…good or bad.
I am stating for the record that I am firmly against the American military intervention going on in Libya. And before any critics out there start popping off at the mouth about how its unlike you to be against a policy which is at essence a humanitarian endeavor, there are several practical reasons why the country needs to reconsider its direct intervention in the growing political (and now civil) unrest in the Middle East.

Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi from earlier this month (AP photograph)

For one thing, America simply does not know the identities of all of the Libyan rebel movement’s key players. This reflects the reality that going into a political/military hotbed without knowledge of who or which organized faction(s)is/are leading the opposition against the longtime leader of the North African nation was a hastily-crafted (and executed) opportunistic foreign policy endeavor. And such an undertaking under these circumstances could be perceived as questionable decision-making at best. Who after all, jumps feet first into a fight where the combatants are someone who is a longtime enemy, and an implied opponent whose intentions are likewise implied? The last time this happened with regards to American foreign policy, we got the quagmire that was and continues to be Iraq.
Another reasonable justification as to why America should not be involved in what is essentially an internal affair of Libya is that being so gives off the more-than-valid perception—to both would-be friends and foes alike—is that America’s Middle Eastern policy is inconsistent, and biased…no matter the White House administration in authority. With regards to the current wave of popular uprisings throughout the Arab World, and up until the very moment the first million-dollar-apiece cruise missile began hitting targets on Libyan soil, America kept its interventions to the level of democratic (small “d”) rhetoric. Even when America’s regional ally Saudi Arabia—whose own popular protests helped topple longtime pro-American president Hosni Mubarak—sent its own troops into neighboring Bahrain to help quell political unrests there which threatened to unseat the unpopular Bahrainian king, very little in the way of calls for any kind of Western action was heard from within the Obama Administration. Granted the level of brutality brought to bear by (the) Arab governments under siege against their respective opponents varies, the fact of the matter is that there seems to be an unspoken line of demarcation in Middle Eastern sand with regards to suppression of protests against unpopular leaders/leadership; in one country it’s an internal affair, while in another it’s a violation of human rights. Even this morning, Syrian authorities have been shooting protesters down in the streets as reported by CNN and other news outlets, with no word of calls for action coming from Washington as of this writing.
The final reason against military intervention is simply cost. With the estimated cost of just one Tomahawk cruise missile at $100 million dollars each, one can only estimate how much money this little excursion into ill-advised geopolitical territory is costing the American taxpayer. And one would think that with the conservative political wolves (i.e., The Republican Party and their Tea Party patrons) already at the door, President Obama would be a little more discriminating about how to best spend the American taxpayer dollar, especially in light of the often-cited justification against the president's propensity to "spend wildly"as a result of his domestic policies.

Indeed, one could conceivably argue that Libya’s brutal actions against opponents of its ruling regime could have been nipped in the bud if American military intervention were consistently applied based on human rights instead of the concept of real politick, and if we were clearly stating our positions and telegraphing our intent to intervene with regards to such. It seems that America’s foreign policy, especially with regards to the Middle East reflects its domestic political policies of inconsistency and ideological cherry-picking…which results in nothing in the way of substantive change.

Read More

National Heathcare - How Other Countries Do It

Anyone who's a regular to this blog knows that I am a huge proponent of universally affordable health care. It has nothing to do with conspiracy-level "Socialist agendas" or any such narrow thinking; its simply about something that the American people need. After all, health is more important than wealth. Even more so, its a ridiculous reality that in the most materially abundant nation (as well as the premiere economic powerhouse on earth) that the inability to pay soaring medical costs is the leading reason for personal bankruptcy filings in any given year.
Despite organized opposition to the Obama health care plan (and admittedly, the plan is far from perfect but at least its a starting effort that opponents didn't seem willing to make and/or to confront on the issue), many Americans, including those precariously entrenched within the Middle Class continue to struggle with being able to not only pay but simply afford medical coverage for themselves.
Back in 2008, the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) aired a piece on its long-running documentary program, Frontline entitled "Sick Around The World: Five Capitalist Democracies & How They Do It" (Notice these countries were described as Capitalist, not Socialist in the title). In an effort to separate fact from fiction when it comes to whether or not other countries struggle with their attempts to bring health care affordability to their citizens, Beyond The Political Spectrum has opted to bring you that program in its entirety so that you can judge for yourself (and to potential critics of this particular post, yes...both the good and bad in these systems are chronicled).
I invite you to watch with an open mind.

Watch the full episode. See more FRONTLINE.

Read More

Hope -- An Unreported Human Interest Story

Whenever I think about the state of the American people as I observe my surroundings and absorb daily media reports, I am reminded of the Old Testament story of God telling the prophet Jeremiah that He would hold back His wrath if Jeremiah could find “even one righteous person” in the ancient city of Jerusalem. Between my own personal experiences in dealing with downright dishonest, unscrupulous individuals and what I see in America, I can’t help but think of the myriad of issues and policies that affect Americans negatively. And when I think about the seemingly endless number of individuals, policymakers and organizations—both in the governmental and private sectors—who aren’t able (or willing) to think beyond the walls ideology in order to work toward substantive (and positive) change, I wonder could I myself find one good (or even worthy) person in America to give me pause to believe that there is simply no hope for America. Then, over the last 2 weeks, a couple of news items were brought to my attention which made me believe that there is hope for the people of America to take their individual (and collective) destinies into their own hands and effect positive change for the nation. The first one was more of a human interest story which reminded me how for some, the human spirit can rise above circumstances in order radiate an unlimited capacity for positive thinking…and even a capacity to thrive despite those circumstances. The focus is on Blair Griffith, the current Ms. Colorado who through a series of unfortunate circumstances found both herself and her mother evicted from their home last November—a month after winning the coveted crown—and have been homeless since (and still are as of this writing). To make matter worse for the reigning state beauty champion, the Saks Fifth Avenue store where she works is closing this month. During one recent interview, the young woman joked, saying how "It seems to happen once a month. Something new is being thrown at me." That type of gallows humor as it were seems to be part and parcel of this remarkable young lady’s remarkable optimism. Despite her current trials, she still finds the time to spend her days making appearances at schools and children’s hospitals, where she openly talks about being homeless to the younger audiences. She plans to enter the Miss USA Pageant in June of this year, where she is hoping to parlay her plight into a crusade to bring a face to the issue of the homelessness in America. The second story involves how an act of kindness can overcome both long-held symbols of hatred and acts of responsive brutality. Last week, and African-American reporter found himself in the middle of a story, partially of his own making. Shomari Stone, a news reporter for a Seattle-based television station was in a local park filming a report when he and his cameraman noticed a fight breaking out several feet away from their location. Ignoring his training to be objective to events, he rushed in to break up the fight between an imposing black male dressed in a hat and coat, who was beating away on an equally imposing white man with a shaved head and covered in tattoos. “I didn't want to jump in, but "when you see [the] suspect just pounding the victim while he's laying on the concrete, instinct just snapped in" Stone said of his decision. As Stone struggled to separate the two combatants, he was aided by one of the several bystanders who stood watching the events unfold. After the fight was broken up and police were called, it was discovered that the tattoos the white male was covered with were Nazi-related, and that he seemed to be a racist skinhead. Despite Stone’s skin color, the man thanked Stone, who it was reported responded by telling the victim, "Remember to judge a man by his character, not the color of his skin."
Both of these examples display the idea that the human capacity for hope and compassion for our fellow man is well within our individual as well as collective grasps. And that we could, if we are willing to exercise the will, work together and make practical and substantive policies which could benefit all Americans—and not just a selective group—if we are able to overcome the imagined barriers, namely prejudicial personal beliefs, which often get in the way of doing what’s needed and what’s right. (http://clutchmagonline.com/newsgossipinfo/black-reporter-saves-white-supremacist-what-would-you-do/ or http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-03-02/news/28666806_1_white-supremacist-white-supremacist-victim)

Read More

The Real Health Insurance Industry -- An Insider Speaks

For anyone who has vehemently defended the status quo when it comes attempts to address the lack of universal affordable health care in coverage in America, BTPS invites you to listen to a podcast featuring former health insurance industry insider Wendell Potter.
Potter, who spent years as the head of corporate communications (Public Relations) for both Humana and CIGNA, left his successful career after witnessing first-hand how his former employers' unethical tactics worked against the interests of their policy holders...and by extension, potentially endangering policy holders' health. He subsequently turned his disenchantment into a public crusade against abuses within the insurance industry, even testifying before Congress.
According to Potter, "insurers have every incentive to deny coverage — every dollar they don't pay out to a claim is a dollar they can add to their profits, and Wall Street investors demand they pay out less every year."
I invite you to listen to listen to the words of this whistle blower and determine for yourself if the current system of health care coverage is worth defending.

http://wunc.org/tsot/archive/Deadly_Spin.mp3
(download the mp3 of this podcast here)

Read More

Opinion -- If I Were Conservative, Would I Be Right?

As I write and blog about important political and social issues, I suppose that it’s a matter of general principle that people will invariably rant and rage against whatever conclusions I arrive at (and yes, I know that sentence ends with a preposition). Despite the fact that my observations are based on—arguably so by some of you—what I consider reason (sans the passions, emotions, and political ideological dogma), there are those who still insist on making judgments based on their efforts to try to fit their perceptions of reality into rubrics which adhere to conservative ideology rather than what reality says about itself. Granted I have been accused by both liberals of not understanding the nature of a particular issue, and by conservatives of being a liberal in sheep’s clothing, I find conservative individuals’ lack of tolerance for any assessment of a particular social, economic, or political issue which isn’t routinely espoused by right-of-center ideologues to be particularly disturbing. While liberals can be as every bit as acerbic as conservatives when it comes to defending their beliefs, conservatives tend to resort more to vitriol and ad hominem attacks on given issues.
I cite as an example an instance where on another well-known site’s political section, one conservative commentator attacked my blog as “more liberal crap” simply because he took note of the last posting, which supports the idea of universally affordable health care/access in America. Obviously without even reading the article, the poster predictably went into reactionary mode and attacked the idea of universally affordable health care by stating his own esoteric “understanding” of how market realities in America should be (because of the conservative assertion that the idea of universal access to health care is a “socialist” concept, and an anathema the notion that Free Market-driven competition between providers is more than enough to provide universal access). My own support for this idea is not only borne out of personal experience, but the factual reality that the numbers simply support that the economic strain of the current system, which shortfalls some 30-50 million Americans without affordable health insurance, is not sustainable for the nation economically.
If the commenter had been more in control of their faculties, they would have been able to withhold such stinging criticisms of my post/blog until they had actually taken the time to read…and respond with informed persuasion rather than inflamed passions. If they had been more in control, they would have taken note that, for equally pragmatic reasons, I have assailed the policies of abortion (along with the capital punishment—murder is simply wrong), gun control (people have an inherent right to defend themselves and others—and no, that doesn’t include lunatics killing to “protect the rights of the unborn”), government interference in a parent’s right to use corporal punishment on unruly children, and unnecessary government spending (which I will address more in an upcoming posting). As an African-American, I find this notion of having one “liberal” idea making one a “Liberal” to be analogous to the traditional (and somewhat outdated racist) belief that having one drop of black blood makes one black; one idea does not what a Liberal (or Conservative) make. Both notions reflect a lack of tolerance for one doesn’t agree with.
I’m sure that blind adherents (as opposed to those who are open but adherent) to conservative beliefs will respond to this by claiming that “liberal ideas simply don’t work.” The truth of the matter is that both liberal and conservative policies and ideas have a mixed track record for being effective in remedying the nation’s social and economic ills. Fiscal restraint and controlled budget spending has been proven effective when it comes to economic policies; trickledown economics has not so. Cutting taxes (along with a commensurate level of spending cuts) is good for individuals and families and has tangible benefits; cutting taxes for those who already have the ability to shelter their abundant assets from taxes in order to spur the economy is only beneficial from an ideologically abstract perspective. And one can only imagine how much individual economic chaos was averted by opposition to former president George W. Bush's proposal privatize the Social Security and tie it to stock market.
What most conservatives don't see is that rabidly attacking someone who's ideological beliefs are to the left of Pat Buchanan doesn't help their own cause; they seem as every bit as "elitist" as they claim leftist ideologues are. And just as there is a tolerance for varying degrees of conservatism among conservatives themselves, the same level of tolerance should be extended to those outside and beyond that particular ideological block. Blinding one's self to another ideological perspective based simply on the fact that it goes against one's core beliefs is not an example of how beliefs and ideas are exchanged. Its how possible policy remedies are avoided on the strength of opposing stubbornness. Having an allegiance ideology rather than reality itself reveals more about an individual and their political affiliations than how "enlightened" they would like to think others to think they are.

Read More

For The Last Time, Affordable Health Care Is Not Leftist…It’s A Right!

It’s no secret that I am a huge proponent of affordable health care for all Americans. It’s a belief that I’ve held since I was a child, and no, it’s not an ideological stance; it’s a belief borne based on what is simply a pragmatic need for the nation and its people. So suffice it to say that I am—outside of the knowledge that the fight against universally affordable health care is really a conflict of power between opposing parties—left scratching my head as to why individuals would be so vehemently opposed to such a laudable goal.
Obamacare. Socialism. And now job killing. There are just a few of the politically-charged pejoratives that opponents of health care overhaul use to slander the notion that all Americans should be covered by the best health care system in the world.
Last week, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted to repeal the Affordable Health Care for America Act (House bill - H.R. 3962) with their own act, the
Job-Killing Health Care Law Act (H.R. 2). Without control of neither the Senate or White House, this act was a largely symbolic measure meant to play to those constituents who are on record as being vocally opposed to health care reform, and who supported last year’s Republican electoral trouncing of the Democrats as they swept into power in the House.
The sad part about this affair is that outside of ideology, the Republicans don’t have a leg to stand on. First, in order to have brought this endeavor to the floor of the one chamber of Congress they control, they had to ignore the findings of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Earlier this month the CBO, which calculates the projected cost of legislation, concluded that repealing the health care overhaul act would increase the federal budget deficit to the tune of some $230 billion dollars for the projected period between 2012 thru 2021 (http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/cbo-health-care-repeal-797015.html). Needless to say, political foes against health care reform have taken a “figures-lie-and-liars-figure” stance in discrediting these numbers. In fact, Speaker of the House John Boehner told reporters, "I do not believe that repealing the job-killing health care law will increase the deficit” (naturally, any figures which opposition uses to justify its/their arguments are somehow “more accurate”).
The truth of the matter is that most analysts agree that health care reform does not “kill job” as claimed by opponents. In fact, the opposite is proves to be in evidence even now (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jan/20/eric-cantor/health-care-law-job-killer-evidence-falls-short/). Just this month, Forbes magazine has published two articles which demonstrate how small businesses have already benefited from the health care reform act. Based on preliminary results, major insurance companies are reporting increases in small businesses offering health care to their employees due in part to tax cuts created by the new law What’s more, the fact that many private insurers are apparently increasing the number of clients they are serving, and that small businesses are taking advantage of the tax benefits in order to shore up the number of employees they offer health care to also kills the argument that the law is a slippery slope to the road to “socialism’ (http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/06/more-small-businesses-offering-health-care-to-employees-thanks-to-obamacare/). This fear mongering slandering of health care reform is predicated on the argument by opponents that mandating that Americans purchase health care insurance “un-Constitutional.” History would disagree.
In 1798, the 5th Congress of the United States drafted and passed the Act for The Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen. Signed by non other than President John Adams—one of the Founding Fathers of the Constitution—the law created

the Marine Hospital Service, a series of hospitals built and operated by the federal government to treat injured and ailing privately employed sailors. This government provided healthcare service was to be paid for by a mandatory tax on the maritime sailors (a little more than 1% of a sailor’s wages), the same to be withheld from a sailor’s pay and turned over to the government by the ship’s owner. The payment of this tax for health care was not optional. If a sailor wanted to work, he had to pay up
(http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/).

This very similar to how truly socialized medicine operates in European countries today. Keep in mind that many member of that Congress were comprised of some of the drafters of the Constitution. Hence, the argument that “no where in the Constitution does it state that government has such authority” (or intention) is moot.
Such related arguments have been used by the dozen or so Republican state governors who have filed lawsuits in federal courts seeking to block enactment of the new law. These governors assert that the new federal health care mandate is an “unprecedented encroachment on the liberty of individuals” and “on the sovereignty of the states.” So does that mean that if a state mandates that its citizens must have insurance that they are similarly “encroaching on the liberty of individuals?” What then is the difference between whether a state government or federal government makes such a mandate? Massachusetts Republican governor Mitt Romney apparently has no issues with government mandates, as he was the brainchild behind his state’s requiring nearly all of its citizens to purchase health care insurance in an effort to cover them. In the early 1990s, in an effort to counter the plan then-President Bill Clinton was proposing, Arizona Senator John McCain (yes, that John McCain) first proposed “individual mandates” with regards to federal health care coverage for every American. And more recently under Bush II, proposed mandates were not a problem when they were proposed by former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/23/1544321/individual-health-insurance-mandate.html)
However, if you want a real anecdotal example of how health care reform is more of a political ideological jockeying for power by opponents, you needn’t look any further than the Republican-controlled House itself. Late last year, newly-elected House Congressman Andy Harris (R-Maryland), an anesthesiologist who defeated his incumbent Democratic opponent by riding an anti-Obamacare platform into office made a small media wave. When informed that there would be a one month lag in time before his federally-mandated, tax-payer-funded medical healthcare insurance plan kicked into gear after his January 3rd swearing in, he questioned why it took so long for his insurance benefits to kick in. He then asked if he could “purchase insurance from the government to cover the gap.” According to reports, he was “incredulous” and stated that “this is the only employer I’ve ever worked for where you don’t get coverage the first day you are employed” (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45181.html). The eye-opening magic of Karma in action.

Maryland Republican Senator Andy Harris after his November election win

In much the same way that many laws are passed yearly, opponents of affordable universal health care coverage need to give the political opposition a rest. Under the old system of every-American-for-himself, the prior system was simply unsustainable on both cost and individual coverage levels. And lastly, the lack of any proposed alternatives only proves how politically self-serving repeal is for those trying to do so.
Granted, the new law is not perfect—no where near being so—it does provide benefits to both individuals and businesses which the old system failed to do. Small businesses benefit by way of tax credits (up to 35%) which help in the costs for providing coverage for their employees. Young adults can now stay on their parents’ policies until the age of 26. Children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be excluded from health care coverage. And seniors have benefited from having the “donut hole” in coverage for prescription drugs from the Bush-era prescription drug overhaul (2003) filled. Finally, insurance companies get to bring on 30 million more people to insure. It’s simply hard to understand how when so many can benefit from an overhaul in health care affordability why opposition remains. Even more puzzling, how political interests groups and opponents of health care reform can manage to mobilize so many Americans to think and vote against their own their own self-interests.
If opposition to health care reform is a stance meant to protect my “rights,” you can have it; I’d much rather prefer my good health and an ability to maintain it without going broke.

Read More

Homelessness...It's Not As Big As You Think.

Now that I’ve gotten your attention by fueling your outrage with such an inflammatory implication in the title of this posting, allow me to state for the record that homelessness is a problem, a major one in this, the most materially gifted and wealthiest country on Earth. The issue was brought to the public’s awareness a couple of weeks ago via the remarkable story of Ted Williams.
For those of you who have been off-planet during the last two weeks, Williams was the down-on-his-luck homeless man in Columbus, Ohio whose luck changed when he was approached by a local television videographer while panhandling on a freeway off-ramp. As is the case with most similar scenarios, the man carried a piece of cardboard placarded with a plea for monetary assistances from passing motorists. In Williams’ case, he advertised a unique gift; a radio-friendly “golden voice” as a special talent which set him apart from other highway beggars. The videographer’s curiosity piqued, he took out his camera, began to roll tape, and gave Williams a chance to demonstrate his radio-friendly speaking abilities on camera. The resulting encounter was posted on You Tube and became a viral sensation, having been viewed over a million times and counting.
As a result of one chance encounter, the once unknown and homeless man with the unnervingly smooth baritone radio speaking voice became an instant celebrity, having been interviewed on dozens of different television news programs, and showered with an equal number of job offers from a moved public. But as usual with sensational news stories, we tend to miss the Big Picture when we allow ourselves to be swept up in cheering for an improbable turn of fortune such as Williams’.



What about the million or so other homeless people in America—men, women, and children—who lack a special talent which could conceivably spur the same outpouring of material sympathy by the more fortunate which Ted Williams was shown…what about them? Sadly, what the Williams story illustrates is how selective our memories are, and how we like to insulate ourselves from the harsh realities of life. Every year, particularly around the holiday periods, the usual stream of doom-n-gloom we are treated to via the evening news is punctuated by the obligatory human interest news story about the less fortunate, the final lessons being how the rest of us should be thankful for what we have…and how things could always be worse for us. What such a practice does is that while human faces are put on the tragedy of homelessness in America, we become somewhat desensitized to its reality, and invariably come to accept it as a death- and taxes-like given in our society. This in turn eats away at our resolve to potentially eradicate the problem (or at least try to).
The truth of the matter is that homelessness is not as insurmountable an obstacle as me might think to combat. So, in David Letterman style, I present the 3 top ways which Americans can help confront homelessness.


3 -- Personal Responsibility. This is perhaps the most effective means to combat homelessness (and potential homelessness) in America. We Americans have a strange tendency in this country of opportunity to try to escape our harsh individual circumstances—both real and imagined—by indulging in drugs, alcohol, and other counter-productive activities…and it needs to stop. I’ve personally never quite understood the concept of going through an experience as hard as life with one’s faculties inhibited by chemically-induced attempts to numb our perceptions. Quite simply, any plan of action to change one’s negative heading in one’s life requires a clear head, and attempting to escape the only reality there is—outside of death—is the surest path to sleeping on a concrete pillow. In addition, Americans need to adopt better lifestyle habits altogether, such as dietary, having children which one cannot afford, and financial literacy. It's all tied together.

2 -- Stop Criminalizing Misfortune. It sickens me that some local municipalities take the time to legislatively criminalize activities such panhandling and begging, while not giving a second thought to how to actually combat the problem of homelessness in their cities/towns; half-heatedly treating the symptom and not the problem.
While tightening local budgets are a reality, there is very little reason why towns and cities couldn’t work with their state governments (as well as the federal government) to create a different kind of shelter…one that has a concentration of resources such as employment staffing specialists, clinical/drug counselors, and other volunteers/staff which would actually work toward the interests of the homeless (this is afterall, how federalism is supposed to work in America).
If space is a problem, the federal government could provide emergency trailers for office space, or even temporary shelter until shelter services yielded results.
What we need less of are private, religiously-inspired “shelters” which often refuse service to individuals who wont adopt their way of religious thinking.


1 -- Systemic Changes. We Americans still need to decide what level of poverty we are willing to accept…sleeping in cars or sleeping on sidewalks? Most homelessness is a symptom, not the problem itself. It is simply a manifestation of larger societal problems. Lack of education, lack of family support, poor health, and unmoral concentrations of wealth in the hands of the few (no, I’m not talking about people who work for their money. I’m talking about CEOS and other cooperate types who run companies and banks into the ground and are rewarded with golden parachutes) are representative of misplaced priorities. We pay sports figures millions of dollars a year for entertaining our children, but throw peanuts at teachers who we put in charge of teaching them to read (and for putting up with their unruliness and disrespect).
Then there are the drug laws. It only takes 1 felony drug conviction to hamper any employment opportunity, and by extension housing and bank loans.
We also need to stop demonizing any attempt to help the less fortunate from the federal government as “socialism,” and look at it from a more realistic perspective as being an investment in human capital (such as the $1.5 billion in federal resources distributed through the Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program). Such politicized thinking is a chief reason why the resolve to help stem the tide of homelessness is absent among us. At the same time, we must closely monitor every cent aimed at such endeavors and ensure that spending goes to substantive local resources which yield tangible successes, and not those which only look great on paper.

Read More