back so soon? Yep ... got done with the day's allotment of duties and thought I would post results here as well:
1. latest editorial on Medical Freedom Channel:
As I review the topics of my editorials so far, I notice I’ve not yet addressed the way I got into this “medical freedom” interest in the first place: seeing, up close and personal, what a travesty the localized version of HillaryCare has proven itself to be.
I refer of course to
TennCare, that bastard child of Mrs. Clinton’s nightmarish prescription for socialized medicine that took over the erstwhile Volunteer State in January of 1994 — and has been destroying budgets and dividing healthcare advocates ever since. The program was supposed to serve as a “safety net” for the (relatively few) residents of Tennessee who are either truly disabled, (temporarily) indigent, elderly or terminally ill. It has become instead a typical government bureaucracy, serving its own interests instead of those whom it was designed to assist. That is not surprising; what is puzzling, and even disturbing, is how the recent “reforms” to the system have effectively resulted in FEWER services to those deemed ELIGIBLE for them, with MORE coverage for those who have been DISQUALIFIED from receiving any!
more at site ...
2. latest header-comment for Progressive News Digest (full text here, only available in e-mail version):
PND Issue 25, Vol II - Defining our terms?A few words about the word "progressive" ...
John Nichols of The Nation had a blurb worth quoting this week: "
Every day in every city and town across America, progressives get up in the morning and go about the work of fighting racism and homophobia, defending the environment, organizing trade unions and tackling corporate hegemony. Sometimes they win -- on the picket line, at the ballot box, in the streets and outside the WTO meetings in Seattle. ..."
If that's your sole definition of "progressive" ... I may be wasting my time here.
To me, although most of what Mr. Nichols has laid out is PART of the picture, there is actually both a lot more and a lot less to the issue. For me the word has to do with "moving forward" ... which automatically means going beyond what has been done before. Since the entire history of civilization has been a gradual process of moving from "rule of men to rule of laws" -- and from despotic control (tribal chief, emperor, king, president, ...) to personal autonomy -- any true "progress" should be measured in how it enhances that zone of individual sovereignty, while encouraging the voluntary cooperation of each with each -- not because someone else imposes it from without, but because we are evolving into feeling it from within ("forced charity" is an oxymoron, after all)! Since each of the methods listed above (including the falsely revered "ballot box" whose "demoncrazy" is merely the least recognized instrument of tyranny we know of -- recall Hitler was elected to office, as was the current U.S. throneholder in some fashion? -- may be used as a means of imposing one's will on others, they hardly seem very "progressive" to these eyes ...
As I said ... "a few words" ... intended to provoke discussion.
Comments most welcome; what does "progressive" mean to you?
And now to this week's issue ...
In the
News it's about court cases, legislative hearings and Congressional investigations (what, again?), as well as (dark) humor fodder in Germany, the actual indictment of Joseph Padilla, further word on Iraq (they want us to leave ASAP, but Bush has the lobsters in his ears, and is going NEENER NEENER NEENER until they stop asking), and a bit more.
In
Commentaries, there are two from my fevered brain: a TennCare query (26) and the first in a series of columns (34) stemming from a rather bizarre story in Arizona (which is only getting stranger as I dig deeper). R. Lee Wrights (27) offers his own take on the biggest obstacle to true educational reform, and Lloyd Kinder (29) gives a fine comparison of authoritarian vs. libertarian (which Mr. Nichols might want to consider?). Then we have Tom Knapp (31) with a piece on unions and free markets; Daniel Schorr (32) with more lessons from Vietnam, Cindy Sheehan's (33) "Blessings" (for the season as well as the Cause); Nicholas von Hoffman (35) praising John Murtha' Jim Davies (37) on "what one person can do"; and The Nation's editorial board (38) prodding Democrats into taking a stand for ending the war in Iraq. There are also commentaries by the likes of Howard Zinn, Justin Raimondo, Claire Wolfe, E. J. Montini, H.D.S. Greenway and Steve Kubby, to name a few.
As always, the PND website has all this and much more, including constant updates throughout the week, at:
http://www.rationalreview.com/pnd3. Well, it's not up online yet, but here's the lead:
"Virtual" child sex, Part Two: The vigilantes exposedBy Steve Trinward
When I wrote the previous column on this topic, I had a sense I might be opening a can of worms. Little did I know I'd be turning over a bunch of rocks, and that all kinds of slimy and unsavory life-forms would crawl out from under. I'm not talking about the true sexual predators in our society. As any sociologist who's studied the subject will tell you, those are most often NOT some degenerate hanging around a schoolyard, or lurking on the Internet. Far more often, a "molester" turns out to be a family-member, a neighbor … or someone else who has actually known the targeted "child" personally for some time.
In this case I have another target in mind: the group or groups of self-proclaimed "saviors" that have sprung up to exploit the fears of parents, and besmirch the names and lives of peaceful and harmless private citizens, for no purpose (it turns out) beyond their own sick amusement and desire to dominate and destroy others. And the most high-profile and brazen of these self-styled vigilante crusaders calls itself "
Perverted Justice" – a moniker that could hardly be more appropriate, since these vicious thugs are indeed perverting the criminal process, while destroying any hope of ever bringing to trial (let alone conviction) those among its "targets" who might actually BE guilty of child endangerment or abuse.
... there is LOTS more, but it may not be up until tomorrow; check
http://www.fmnn.comall for now ...
