MWM 49 ISO SWF soulmate 40 - 45 for long walks, long-distance relationship

MWM 51 ISO MWF for short walks, large cash gifts

7MWM + 1 MWF w/steady jobs, ISO Single Wise Latina for discreet, measured, but contentious relationships

MWF 45 ISO numerous relationships with real Americans

MWJM 70+ ISO forgiving bunkmate for lifelong relationship

14,700,000 ISO jobs, healthcare - will work for food

I can't add much to this Democracy Now piece on a former insurance PR executive who has left his career to campaign for better health care. There's a video at the site.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean, "dumping the sick"?

WENDELL POTTER: Two different ways that they do this. In the individual insurance market, we've seen quite a bit of news coverage, especially in California. When insurance companies who are active in the individual market--and this means when you don't get your insurance coverage through your workplace, about the only option you have is to buy it directly from an insurance company, and usually it's much more costly than it is through--if you buy it or get it through your employer. Once you file a claim, if you are unfortunate enough to get very sick or have an accident and file a claim, you very often will find that your insurance company will go back and look at your application to see if there might be a chance that you either didn't disclose something that you knew about in the past or inadvertently didn't disclose something or might not have known about a pre-existing condition. They'll use that as evidence that you were committing fraud, and they'll revoke your policy, or they call it "rescinding" your policy, leaving you holding the bag, making you completely responsible for all the medical bills. That's one way that they dump people who need insurance the most.

Another is, if you are employed, particularly with a small business, and your insurance--your employer gets his or her insurance through one of the large insurers, and if just one person in your company files a claim that the underwriters think is too high, if it skews what they think is the appropriate medical experience or claim experience, when that business comes up for renewal, they very likely will jack up the rates so much that your employer has no alternative but to leave and leave you and all of your coworkers without insurance. Either that or they may cut benefits or try to shop for coverage somewhere else. But the end result is, you may find yourself dumped into the rolls and the ranks of the uninsured.

AMY GOODMAN: Was there a seminal moment when you were head of communications at CIGNA that really made you start to look? And how were you isolated there from, well, most people in the country, you know, who were increasingly talking about the massive problems of healthcare and access to it and being cutting off, the dumping of the sick, as you put it?

WENDELL POTTER: I was very isolated, along with most insurance company executives who deal with numbers all the time--profit margins and medical loss ratios and earnings per share and how many millions of members you have, or things like that. It's just--they're just numbers. And I didn't really associate that with real people as much as I should and as much as most insurance company executives should, until I went to visit my relatives in Tennessee.

And while I was there, I happened to learn about a healthcare expedition that was being held at a nearby town across the state line in Virginia. And I was intrigued, borrowed my dad's car and drove up to Wise County to see what was going on there. And this expedition was being held at the Wise County fairgrounds, and it was being put on by this group called Remote Area Medical that got its start several years ago taking volunteer doctors from this country to remote villages in South America, where people really don't have any access to medical care. The founder realized pretty soon, though, that the need in this country is very, very great, and he started holding similar expeditions in rural communities throughout the country. And this one was nearby. I decided to check it out.

I didn't have any idea what to expect, but when I walked through the fairground gates, it was just absolutely overwhelming. What I saw were people who were lined up. It was raining that day. They were lined up in the rain by the hundreds, waiting to get care that was being donated by doctors and nurses and dentists and other caregivers, and they were being treated in animal stalls. Volunteers had come to disinfect the animal stalls. They also had set up tents. It looked like a MASH unit. It looked like this could have been something that was happening in a war-torn country, and war refugees were there to get their care. It was just unbelievable, and it just drove it home to me, maybe for the first time, that we were talking about real human beings and not just numbers.

AMY GOODMAN: And so, what did you do with that?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, it took me a while to just really process it. I came back to work. I knew at that time that I couldn't continue doing what I was doing. It just didn't seem like it was ethically the right thing for me to do. My first career, I was a journalist, and I had been in PR, though, for many years. And I came to realize that much of what I was doing now--or then--in my PR career was just the opposite of what I was trying to do as a journalist. But still, you know, I had mortgage payments. I had other bills to pay. And it was just--it was difficult to work through this and figure out what do I do and how do I--what do I do next?

But then, you know, just two or three weeks later, I was having to fly to a meeting, and I often would fly on one of the corporate jets. And while I was doing that, I was served my lunch on a gold-rimmed plate, was given gold-plated flatware to eat my lunch. I was sitting in a very spacious and luxurious leather chair. And it just dawned on me for the first time. I had done this many times. But because of the Wise County experience, I just realized for the first time that someone's premiums were helping me to travel that way and were paying for my lunch on gold-trimmed china. And then I thought about those men and women that I had seen in Wise County, undoubtedly not having any idea that this is the way that insurance executives lived and how premium dollars were being spent. And that got me closer to making an ultimate decision that I had to leave.

Blasphemy is one of those old issues that Westerners assume has passed into the realm of sketch-comedy or articles about Muslims losing their tongues. But now Irish atheists and religious alike are wary of Justice Minister Dermot Ahern's new Defamation Act, which revives awareness that blasphemy has been, and still is, a crime in the traditionally Catholic country. Although the new penalties may be less severe than in the 1961 version, fines of up to 25,000 euros may still be levied for the crime of blasphemy against religion - and now against any religion.

As reported in Reuters, Ahern said the matter had to be addressed:

Abolishing the crime of blasphemy altogether would require a constitutional amendment and a referendum. ... But the government has argued a referendum on blasphemy would be too costly and "distracting" for a country busy fixing one of Europe's worst public finances and the worst recession in the industrialised world.

Justice Minister Dermot Ahern also defends his bill by pointing to clauses which stipulate that blasphemous matter will only be prosecutable if it causes actual outrage among a substantial number of adherents of a religion. It also exempts works in which a "reasonable person" would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value.

According to the Irish Times, that's not good enough for, well, almost anyone:

WHY HAS Dermot Ahern, in 2009, made blasphemy a crime punishable by a fine of €25,000? When this anachronistic part of the now Defamation Act is signed into law (it passed through the Oireachtas last night but only on the casting vote of the chair of the Seanad), Atheist Ireland will quickly test it by publishing a blasphemous statement. People need protection from harm, but ideas and beliefs should always be open to challenge.

The new law is both silly and dangerous.

It is silly because it revives a medieval religious crime in a modern pluralist republic. And it is dangerous because it incentivises religious outrage, by making it the first trigger for defining blasphemy.

A Reuters commenter points out a rather obvious problem with the state enforcing blasphemy:

So when a Christian says accepting Jesus is the only way to salvation or a Muslim says there's only one god, Allah, and Mohamed is his prophet, are they both guilty of blasphemy and subject to a 25,000 euro fine?

Almost 70 years ago, the outbreak of World War II forced the Irish Government to declare a state of national emergency. The Emergency Powers Act of September 1939 gave it the authority "to make provisions for the maintenance of public order and for the provision and control of supplies and services essential to the life of the community." Today a similar attitude is needed to address an emergency of a different and even more compelling kind: global economic collapse, combined with crises in climate change, water and energy supply, soil erosion, and the massive over-exploitation of natural resources. The extraordinary growth in population, wealth, urbanisation and societal complexity witnessed since the Industrial Revolution cannot continue. Nature's life-support systems are failing fast. Humanity is facing what might be called "The New Emergency." If ours is to be a stable world, the restoration of resilience at a local and global level must become a priority. And this resilience has to be achieved with the commitment and pace that countries adopt when, as in 1939, there is an immediate and very real threat to people's security and well-being.

This conference, marking Feasta's tenth anniversary, will analyse the systems and the mindsets that have steered the world onto its grotesquely unsustainable current path. Discussions will focus on the new systems (financial, energy, food) and ways of thinking that are urgently required to correct the situation and bring about a rapid transition to a more secure future. Many of the ideas explored are Feasta's. Others will be presented by international speakers who broadly share Feasta's analysis of what needs to be done to build a truly sustainable world.

I can't get embed to work, but here's a link to Dmitry Orlov's 9 June 2009 talk in Dublin. The talk is now on Vimeo, so you won't have to download the 120 Mb mov file like I did. Also on the link are videos of the opening talk by Ireland's Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Eamon Ryan, and Oil Drum editor Chris Vernon. More may follow.

In print, Orlov brings a wry sense of humor that lightens his grim subject matter. On stage he doesn't have the confident delivery, direct eye-contact or timing to let his humor take hold. But even so, his message is well worth hearing.

Ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya

Ousted Nicaraguan President José Santos Zelaya López

With the ouster of President Zelaya from Honduras, the Wall Street Journal looks at the phenomenon of Latin American strongmen:

The Cult of the Caudillo

"Some argue that Latin America's single most - and colorful - contribution to political science is the caudillo."

...

Tied to wealthy business interests and brought to power by the military, the provisional government brings back memories of the coup in which Chilean Augusto Pinochet tore down the Socialist project of Salvador Allende in 1973. On the streets of Tegucigalpa nowadays, some protesters have scrawled graffiti that merges the names of Mr. Pinochet and their new, unelected leader: "Pinocheletti."

...

To understand what is happening in Honduras today, it helps to know a bit more about Latin America's long love affair with caudillos, how these larger-than-life but power-hungry men damaged their countries, and why so many people are terrified that they are making a comeback.

In current MSM style, "Some argue" absolves the reporter from actually providing a reference for their premise, but my first instinct was to see whether the WSJ acknowledged an American role in creating Latin American strongmen for their own purposes. They mention the US role in two paragraphs:

As far as the U.S. was concerned, the cause of democracy in Latin America often took a back seat to fighting Communism during the Cold War. For years, the U.S. either looked the other way or supported coups with the aim of preventing the spread of Communism in the hemisphere. Military coups became almost ritual. In the 1970s, Honduras endured so many coups that the capital was jokingly called Tegucigolpe, for the Spanish word golpe, or coup.

The end of the Cold War radically changed politics in Latin America. As civil wars and guerrilla insurrections in Central America ran out of steam, pampered military establishments suffered deep budget cuts. The U.S. and the rest of the world made it clear that coups would not be tolerated anymore. The Organization of American States, which represents 34 countries throughout the hemisphere, adopted a democracy clause in its charter in 2001. By that point, Cuba remained as the only non-democracy.

But the US did far more than just "look the other way" or support coups to suppress Communism.

Under William Howard Taft, another Zelaya, Nicaraguan President José Santos Zelaya was forced to resign after US warships seized several of Nicaragua's seaports and US Marines landed from the Caribbean. The US installed Adolfo Díaz, former treasurer of American owned, La Luz y Los Angeles Mining Company. Diaz had used the mining company to fund the revolt against Zelaya. Marines occupied Nicaragua in 1910 and again in 1912. For the 1912 election, there were only 4000 eligible voters, and Díaz was the only candidate. Troops and advisors stayed until 1925.

Meanwhile, Zelaya's friend President Miguel Dávila of Honduras was toppled and replaced by former president Manuel Bonilla, aided by American banana tycoon Sam Zemurray and an American mercenary who became commander-in-chief of the Honduran army.

While Woodrow Wilson tried to keep us out of the impending European conflict, he allowed US intervention in four Latin American countries before WWI. Troops including my grandfather occupied Vera Cruz, Mexico, forcing out caudillo President (and former general) Victoriano Huerta. We occupied Haiti and stayed until 1934, setting the stage for the Duvalier regime. We occupied the Dominican Republic (which Pres. Grant had tried to annex), establishing a puppet administration in which Dominicans refused to serve, and staying until 1924, setting the stage for Trujillo. We intervened in Cuba over sugar exports, and in Panama, probably to protect the Canal.

One intervention was probably unavoidable. The US had supported former bandido (and self-styled Robin Hood) Pancho Villa against Huerta, but under Wilson, US policy turned against Villa, who retaliated by attacking US forces across the border. Wilson again sent troops to pursue Villa. They didn't catch him, but forced his retirement.

Extensive timeline of US interventions in Latin America