At the Congressional Black Caucus last week, Cong. John Conyers approached Pres. Barack Obama to ask for an invitation to the March 5 meeting Obama is having on healthcare for the nation.  It seems Obama denied the request.

So no one who is an advocate of single-payer healthcare--including the man responsible for HR 676, a viable method of providing Medicare for everyone in the country while boosting the economy--will be at the meeting during which Obama may well decide the future of American healthcare.

Why?  Beats me.  The last I heard, Obama was open to hearing every option, and he'd only dismiss something if it didn't have support (as well as not being any good).

There's lots of support for HR 676 and single-payer healthcare.  There's more and more evidence that the Massachusetts system, which word has it Obama is leaning towards, doesn't work.

I wish I had time to give you all the cites, sites, and specifics about this, but I've got to get off to a doctor's appointment to deal with strep throat.  But there's been plenty written about this.

What needs to happen now is that Obama needs to be told by everyone who realizes that healthcare for all is central to this country's spiritual as well as economic recovery that single-payer healthcare is on the table for the majority of Americans who have it described to them without inflammatory rhetoric from the Right and the insurance companies.

Get Conyers and representatives from Physicians for a National Health Plan, the California Nurses' Association, and the Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Health Care to Obama's meeting!  Do it now!

Part I:  How Ohio Lawsuits Sought to Bring Crimes to Light

Crossposted at Progressive Democrats of America.

    In October of 2004, polling showed John Kerry ahead of or even with George Bush.  Kerry's lead was pronounced among voters making under $50,000 a year--a significant number in blue-collar and low-income Ohio districts.  ABC's detailed poll, published on October 19, noted that the economy and jobs ranked highest among Ohio voters polled, and those voters said they would vote for Kerry over Bush, 73% to 25%.
    On election day, November 2, exit polling favored Kerry, but when the Ohio votes were reported that night, Bush was the winner.  By the next day, Ohioans were already speaking out about touch-screen problems, which registered votes for John Kerry as votes for George Bush; four-hour or longer waits in line to vote; and forced provisional ballots for young and black voters--all of which favored the Republican candidate, since these problems occurred overwhelmingly in low-income and blue-collar precincts.  Other issues included a flier distributed in a predominantly black neighborhood with the Franklin County Board of Elections name on it, telling voters that due to record turnouts they could vote on Wednesday.  More problems were revealed as the days passed, sometimes reported in the media but more often noted on the Websites that followed developments in the wake of the election.
    Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell implemented a rule in Cuyahoga County on November 9, 2004, declaring that no provisional ballots without a written date of birth would be accepted for counting, contrary to previous Cuyahoga procedure, requiring simply the voter's name, voter's address, and a signature that matched the county database.  This resulted in what observers declared was a deliberate disenfranchisement of black voters and students, since these were the groups especially required to use provisional ballots.
    On November 11, the presidential candidates for the Green and Libertarian parties called for a recount in Ohio.  Among the reasons they cited were voter intimidation, ballots that were mis-marked or discarded, and voter suppression and disenfranchisement for black voters.  When a recount became inevitable, the National Voting Rights Institute (NVRI), representing these plaintiffs, sought to have the recount conducted speedily, so that the results would be known before the Electoral College's results were declared.  When this was unsuccessful, the NVRI amended the suit to challenge the inconsistent methods the various Ohio counties used in the recount.
    Also in November 2004, the King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association, the Ohio Voter Rights Alliance for Democracy, and others united to file suit against Ken Blackwell to, as attorney Cliff Arnebeck commented when interviewed, "conduct discovery and seek to prove that the irregularities in this election, if corrected, would produce a different result, and indeed, John Kerry was the person who Ohioans voted for."  Arnebeck--Chair of Legal Affairs Committee of Common Cause Ohio and a National Co-Chair and attorney for the Alliance for Democracy (AfD)--noted that there was an "attack" on black citizens and black precincts through a shortage of voting machines that resulted in unreasonably long lines at polling stations.  Both black people and students had been aggressively developed for voter interest and registration, he stated, which posed a threat to the Republicans.
    Arnebeck Law Office and Marshall and Morrow LLC filed the suit for the King Lincoln Bronzeville group.  The claims made included:
•    Voting machines were unevenly distributed, disenfranchising minority voters.
•    African-American voters were disproportionately assigned provisional ballots and those ballots were disqualified at higher rates than in nearby white-majority precincts.
•    Provisional ballot rules were enforced in minority districts but not applied to voters in white-majority precincts.
•    Voter purges targeted precincts with high concentration of minority voters.
    The Green Party, the Libertarians, and the Ohio Honest Election Campaign, a group launched by Arnebeck and AfD founder Ronnie Dugger, cooperated in moving their respective lawsuits forward.  The Greens and Libertarians filed for the recount with the support of the NVRI.
    The King Lincoln Bronzeville lawsuit moved forward slowly, being amended as more information came to light.  The final amendment in October 2006 added more charges and emphasized the Constitutional violations it alleged.  The court granted a stay in the proceedings in August 2007, until a status conference among the parties could proceed.  The case had changed with a new Secretary of State, Jennifer Bruner, and Attorney General, Mark Dann, now "exploring the settlement of other cases filed against the predecessor Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell."
    In the meantime, on July 28, 2005, the League of Women Voters (LWV) in Ohio filed a lawsuit against the State of Ohio--naming Ken Blackwell among the defendants--that sought redress for what it termed was decades of an election system operating in violation of the Constitution.  Blackwell himself was deemed to have "promulgated and promoted, through action and inaction, non-uniform and wholly inadequate standards and processes ... with respect to ... voter registration, absentee ballots, provisional ballots, disabled voters, and poll worker hiring and training."  The LWV emphasized that its suit encompassed voting deficiencies that started in 1971, but it cited specific instances from 2004 in its complaint. 
    On February 10, 2006, the U.S. District judge in Toledo threw out the case brought by the Green and Libertarian Parties.  The judge decided that Blackwell's actions in delaying a recount until the election was certified--thereby producing a result after the Electoral College declared George Bush the winner on December 13, 2004--was not a policy action that could affect future races.
    More than three years after filing, the LWV received a ruling from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati that its case should be heard in court.  The State of Ohio had claimed that the LWV case should be thrown out, because Ohio has made changes in its election process since 2004.  However, the November 26, 2008, ruling noted that the LWV's case cites elections problems dating back to 1971.  The LWV's case does not challenge the results of the 2004 election, but, if successful, it could rectify some of the problems cited in the other lawsuits.
    The King Lincoln Bronzeville suit sat inactive until July 2008, when Arnebeck filed a motion to lift the stay on the case.  The case that had lain seemingly moribund for almost a year was revived on September 19, 2008, with an order to lift the stay "for the sole purpose of permitting the plaintiffs to take the deposition of Michael Connell [a Republican media consultant in Ohio] and any other witnesses whose testimony, in the judgment of these parties, may be warranted based upon the deposition of Michael Connell."  This decision, more than any other in these cases, would change lives.

End of Part I

I was inspired by TheraP's post on her husband's surgery experience and its contrast to what's going on in Gaza.  So I dedicate this to you, dear lady.

I have spent much of my life immersed in my own and my parents' surgeries and illnesses. Worries about the costs of medical care--above what private insurance covers--left us all with a split focus during a time that should have been dedicated to recovery.

In this country, we have a deeply cynical approach to getting the medical attention we need: If we can afford it, we can get it. If we can't afford it but we get it anyway, we risk our futures by putting everything we have on the line to get that care--up to and including our homes. If we can't afford it and we are at the "mercy" of a profit-based medical system, our care is at best cursory and inadequate.

As I've read and heard about the medical workers struggling to help the injured in Gaza, I've not only been deeply impressed by the dedication they give to caring for the people, but also how they are blind to who the people are and what they have. The only goal is to help and heal.

I'd like to think that this would be the attitude to carnage like this in the US, but as more information about the post-Katrina nightmare emerges, I'm not so sure.

Gaza's horrors are beyond my grasp and influence. They go far beyond the need for health care that is there for everyone, no matter what their illness or their circumstances.

But this country's problems frequently come back to this issue. Universal access to health care--preventive, curative, and catastrophic--would resolve many of them.

Imagine looking for a job without having to consider whether or not its medical benefits are sufficient. Instead, we could seek out jobs that fit our skills and our interests.

Imagine companies not having to factor in health care costs when setting their budgets for employment--or trying to figure out how to cut corners in their benefits.

Imagine getting sick and being able to focus on getting well, rather than on the fears of losing our jobs--and what little insurance we have--for being sick too long, or worse, our homes.

Imagine also a body of elected officials who can make decisions about the health care of the nation without the influence of the insurance and pharmaceutical companies corrupting those deliberations.

So many of the rancorous fights between management and labor, constituents and Congress, haves and have-nots would vanish if putting a price on health and its care were taken out of the equation. Much of the class struggle in this country would vanish, as well.

Americans seem to fear the terms "socialized medicine" and "universal health care" because of the associations drummed into us--the Soviet State, Marxism, and all of those un-business-friendly and thereby evil governments that threaten our "freedom."

Some clever people have found the term "single-payer health coverage," which is much less threatening to freedom-loving Americans. And there's a plan to give this to all of us in this country.

To me, the greatest freedom would be to live my life focusing on having my work and avocations contribute to my society, without factoring in the costs for my monthly insurance premium, my co-payments for therapy and check-ups, and my medications.

HR 676 is single-payer health coverage being called "Medicare for All." It's sponsored by John Conyers and 92 other members of Congress. It has the support of a majority of physicians and nurses, and their professional associations. It terrifies private insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies.

This is not the way Obama is going, sadly, but it can still happen. We can make it happen. We can make our representatives support it and commit to voting it in. We can make it clear that we want and need a country that doesn't dole out medical care on the basis of how good our insurance plan is but simply because we need and want it.

We can make this a country that has compassion for all of its residents, no matter who they are. And then, once we learn that assuring that every person in our country deserves health and security simply because we exist, we might be able to apply that to how we treat the rest of the world.

HR 676 is a big step toward that goal.

Alaskans can make the distinction between someone they approve of as their governor and someone they think should be vice president of the United States.

If you haven't seen it yet, take a look at the Mudflats story on Sunday's "Alaska Women Reject Palin" rally.

Here's an excerpt from this excellent blog's entry on the rally:

The rally was organized by a small group of women, talking over coffee.  It made me wonder what other things have started with small groups of women talking over coffee.  It’s probably an impressive list.  These women hatched the plan, printed up flyers, posted them around town, and sent notices to local media outlets.  One of those media outlets was KBYR radio, home of Eddie Burke, a long-time uber-conservative Anchorage talk show host.  Turns out that Eddie Burke not only announced the rally, but called the people who planned to attend the rally “a bunch of socialist baby-killing maggots”, and read the home phone numbers of the organizers aloud over the air, urging listeners to call and tell them what they thought.  The women, of course, received many nasty, harassing and threatening messages.
...

Never, have I seen anything like it in my 17 and a half years living in Anchorage.  The organizers had someone walk the rally with a counter, and they clicked off well over 1400 people (not including the 90 counter-demonstrators).  This was the biggest political rally ever, in the history of the state.  I was absolutely stunned.  The second most amazing thing is how many people honked and gave the thumbs up as they drove by.  And even those that didn’t honk looked wide-eyed and awe-struck at the huge crowd that was growing by the minute.  This just doesn’t happen here.

Then, the infamous Eddie Burke showed up.  He tried to talk to the media, and was instantly surrounded by a group of 20 people who started shouting O-BA-MA so loud he couldn’t be heard.  Then passing cars started honking in a rhythmic pattern of 3, like the Obama chant, while the crowd cheered, hooted and waved their signs high.

Bookmark Mudflats if you want an intelligent, perceptive, and progressive view on what goes on in Alaskan politics. Its unnamed blogger had the dope on Sarah Palin before most of us had even heard her name.

The Seattle Times has a front-page story today entitled "Inside Palin's turbulent first year as mayor."  It's at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008163431_palin070.html.  The article deserves national attention.

The story draws from three boxes of documents from the wrongful termination suit filed in federal court by Irl Stambaugh, the police chief in Wasilla, AK, fired by recently elected mayor Sarah Palin.

In addition to recounting what led up to Stambaugh's termination, the article describes Palin's campaign for mayor, which brought partisan politics and ideology into what had previously been a nonpartisan elected office. 

From The Seattle Times:

A Palin campaign ad displayed the slogan, "Positively Sarah." "Endorsed by the NRA," it said. The ad encouraged people to vote for "Conservative, More Efficient Government," and called Palin "ENERGETIC ... DETERMINED ... POSITIVE."

The ad pictured Palin with four state lawmakers — all Republicans, pledging their support. More than 100 other supporters were also listed, including the owners of the Mug Shot Saloon and the Wasilla Bar, two taverns that stayed open until 4 or 5 a.m.

To Stein, the three-term mayor, this campaign had unusual overtones, raising issues that had no bearing on local government. He would marvel at how abortion became an issue — he was labeled pro-abortion — and how some people noted that his wife's last name differed from his. He later noted how Palin's backers included what he called the "Liquor Cabinet" and Wasilla's religious conservatives.

Ideology didn't end with the campaign, however: 

Afterward, a TV station called her Wasilla's "first Christian mayor." This prompted a letter from Stein, saying: "Really?" He listed eight previous mayors, all Christian, and added: "With a name like 'Stein' some suspected that I must be a non-Christian, have non-Christian blood or at least have sympathized with a non-Christian sometime in my career. I'm proud of such a reputation but I, my family and forbearers are of the Christian persuasion, too."

I got an email from my very conservative (and bitter) cousin today.  He wrote, “In the interest of fairness and openness I forward the following.  But this election is a fraud.  This country is a corporate dictatorship.  Both candidates are lying to the extent that they are helping to facilitate the deception.”   What he forwarded was an email about Sarah Palin written by a woman who lives in Wasilla, AK, named Anne Kilkenny.  

A post here I read earlier today by aboyer made reference to an item on Palin, and one of the comments, by kgb999, found the source at http://thepoliticalcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/09/alaskans-speak-in-frightened-whisper.html.  This man, Charley James, noted that the information he was reprinting was confirmed by The Nation (at http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/354444/the_word_from_wasilla).  The Nation had reprinted the same email my cousin had sent me.

I don’t like to accept something as fact, just because it fits with what I believe—or would like to believe—is true.  So I went to Mudflats, a lovely little Website by an unnamed Alaskan, which he subtitles “Tiptoeing Through the Muck of Alaskan Politics” [http://mudflats.wordpress.com/].  I found this (like many other people) after Palin’s nomination was announced.

It was through Mudflats that I found the document it’s amazing the McCain campaign didn’t find:  It’s a 63-page 2006 PDF compiled by the Alaskan Democratic Party from government documents and newspaper sources.  It confirms everything Anne Kilkenny asserted about Palin, but it does it in, what is to me, a much more sobering fashion.

There’s barely any commentary in the PDF, which doesn’t even have a title page but just comes up with the title tab “palin-2006-vetting.”  

This is something than anyone who does not want McCain and Palin elected needs to read and distribute.  Go to Mudflats at http://mudflats.wordpress.com/ and scroll down to “Palin Vetting Documents from 2006. For Hard Core Palin Addicts Only.”

Everything you’ve never wanted to know but now need to know about Palin is in the PDF.  I was left feeling queasy—and also worried that Palin could stand toe to toe with Cheney in a ruthlessness contest.  I’m not sure she wouldn’t win.

I got an email from my very conservative (and bitter) cousin today.  He wrote, “In the interest of fairness and openness I forward the following.  But this election is a fraud.  This country is a corporate dictatorship.  Both candidates are lying to the extent that they are helping to facilitate the deception.”   What he forwarded was an email about Sarah Palin written by a woman who lives in Wasilla, AK, named Anne Kilkenny.  

A post here I read earlier today by aboyer made reference to an item on Palin, and one of the comments, by kgb999, found the source at http://thepoliticalcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/09/alaskans-speak-in-frightened-whisper.html.  The writer, Charley James, noted that the information he was reprinting was confirmed by The Nation (at http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/354444/the_word_from_wasilla).  The Nation had reprinted the same email my cousin had sent me.

I don’t like to accept something as fact, just because it fits with what I believe—or would like to believe—is true.  So I went to Mudflats, a lovely little Website by an unnamed Alaskan, which he subtitles “Tiptoeing Through the Muck of Alaskan Politics” [http://mudflats.wordpress.com/].  I found this (like many other people) after Palin’s nomination was announced.

It was through Mudflats that I found the document it’s amazing the McCain campaign didn’t find:  It’s a 63-page 2006 PDF compiled by the Alaskan Democratic Party from government documents and newspaper sources.  It confirms everything Anne Kilkenny asserted about Palin, but it does it in, what is to me, a much more sobering fashion.

There’s barely any commentary in the PDF, which doesn’t even have a title page but just comes up with the title tab “palin-2006-vetting.”  

This is something than anyone who does not want McCain and Palin elected needs to read and distribute.  Go to Mudflats at http://mudflats.wordpress.com/ and scroll down to “Palin Vetting Documents from 2006. For Hard Core Palin Addicts Only.”

Everything you’ve never wanted to know but now need to know about Palin is in the PDF.  I was left feeling queasy—and also worried that Palin could stand toe to toe with Cheney in a ruthlessness contest.  I’m not sure she wouldn’t win.

Hot off the virtual presses:

"Religion and race are still powerful forces in rural America, and whether Obama can gain ground in traditional rural safe havens for Republicans could hinge on whether voters focus more on economic issues or cultural values when they go to the polls. Likability is also likely to be a strong factor.

"Republican Barbara Dettloff, 72, a retired bartender from Racine, Ohio, an Appalachian river town with about 750 people, voted for Bush in 2004 and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in this year's Republican primary. She's voting for Obama in November because 'I think he's nice and I think he's sincere in what he says.'

"But, she added, 'I'm probably the only person in this town that does.'

"Indeed, many of her friends have told her they're either not voting for Obama or are staying home. 'They just won't vote for him because he's black,' Dettloff said."

There it is.  Barbara Dettloff has matter-of-factly acknowledged what we'd better admit and discuss:  Some people won't vote for Obama because he's black.

I'd love to think that it's about the issues and the values about the candidates, but whether hidden or overt, when some voters look at the candidates and see that one is white and the other one is black, and that's all that matters to them.

I've been reading commentary and posts recommending— and sometimes urging—that the discussion about Obama be his positions, talents, and values and not his race.  That's great, if voting for a black candidate isn't an issue for you.

But race is an issue for millions of Americans, for whatever reason.  And I contend that ignoring the race issue is dangerous, because assuming color blindness allows people who are color "sighted" to act on racial feelings without judgment.  If no one calls them on their prejudice, hatred, preconceptions, traditions, ignorance, or any of the other self-justifications people use for not voting for a black person, it's as bad as giving those justifications—no matter how specious or reprehensible—tacit approval.

The race issue has to be discussed openly.  Every self-justification masks racism, and only racism.  Justifications need to be laid open, dissected, and then shown for what they are—indefensible.

I can already hear the argument that doing this would make a campaign of hope turn ugly.  I will state unequivocally here and now:  It already is ugly.

Even if an open discussion about why "they just won't vote for him because he's black" doesn't result in one vote changed, I want all those people whose racism has heretofore been unchallenged to know that they've been outed. 

Talking about racism against Obama isn't what's ugly; the racists are.

Starting a Movement

The TPM community's movement to establish mechanisms for media consumers to challenge media bias, distortion, and lies is going forward.

raider99 is fine tuning the Sudden Citizens' Action Against Media Distortion (SCAAMD) mission statement before sending it to Dan Rather (through a contact).  Here is the mission statement as it now stands:

To develop or encourage the development of tools to facilitate immediate, large-scale citizen action against media distortions, lies and propaganda, and to create a viral campaign to inspire people to speak out.

I think it's a good, succinct statement.  The tricky bit, of course, if how to implement the tools to do this and keep it going.  The best way to do this, I think, is with the help of already established individuals, groups, or organizations that care about keeping the MSM honest and would support a group of people outside of the industry who care as well.

That's why raider99 is going to contact Dan Rather, is establishing contact with Thom Hartmann (though Hartmann's wife currently), and has corresponded with Josh Marshall about working through a TPM site.

CarolBG has written to Media Matters to see if they'd support a landing page for SCAAMD.

Ripper McCord's great post on trying to break through the wall around the AP is both inspiring and a warning about the frustration we will all be facing in much of this crusade.

I've written to Bob Garfield and Brooke Gladstone of NPR's On the Media and, spurred by research by gettex, Columbia Journalism Review.

I may well have omitted other efforts, and if so, I apologize.  I want everyone who is demonstrating commitment to this crusade to be acknowledged and to know that I appreciate their actions.

A Consumer's Crusade

I've referred to SCAAMD's project as a crusade twice, and I've done it pointedly.  A crusade usually comes about because like-minded people recognize the need to change something that has political or social relevance.  The distortions, lies, and propaganda we are all seeing and hearing in the MSM may well be clear to us here at TPM, but they are not to those who rely on the MSM for all of their information about this election in particular and the world in general.

Media Matters' posts just for yesterday included these stories:

<blockquote>In an editorial about the pay gap between male and female workers, The Washington Times falsely asserted that "the relevant factors that affect pay—occupation, experience, seniority, education and hours worked—are ignored by those citing the wage gap." The editorial also asserted that "women tend to place a higher priority on flexibility and personal fulfillment" than on higher pay. In fact, a GAO study found that a pay gap persists even when controlling for work experience, seniority, education, industry, occupation, race, marital status, and job tenure.</blockquote>
<blockquote>Since July 13, the Associated Press has produced four separate articles that have described Sen. John McCain's position on immigration reform without mentioning that McCain's current position that the borders must be secured "first" represents a reversal from his previous position that border security could not be disaggregated from other aspects of comprehensive immigration reform without being rendered ineffective. Nor did the articles mention that McCain said in January that he "would not" vote for the immigration reform bill he co-sponsored if it came to a vote on the Senate floor.</blockquote>
<blockquote>On MSNBC Live, Mika Brzezinski failed to correct Mitt Romney's false assertion that Sen. John McCain "said that [Donald] Rumsfeld needed to go." Although a McCain spokesman reportedly acknowledged that McCain "did not call for his resignation," MSNBC hosts have repeatedly failed to correct guests' assertions that he did so. </blockquote>
<blockquote>NPR's David Welna quoted Sen. Joe Lieberman saying "I don't have any intention" of joining the Republican Party "before the end of this session of Congress," to which Welna added: "Which still leaves unanswered what Lieberman might do in the next session of Congress." But Welna did not note that if Lieberman joined the Republican Party, he would be breaking his promise during the 2006 campaign to caucus with the Democrats if re-elected to the Senate.</blockquote>
<blockquote>In his July 7 Focus on the Family broadcast, James Dobson insisted that he and co-host Tom Minnery were "not throwing stones at Senator Obama for his faith" during an earlier show. However, later in the same broadcast, Minnery questioned if Obama is "even sincere with the way he talks about religion." </blockquote>
<blockquote>The Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti falsely suggested that Sen. Barack Obama opposed designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. In fact, Obama said he would have voted against the bill Continetti referenced—the 2007 Kyl-Lieberman amendment—because it "states that our military presence in Iraq should be used to counter Iran," not because it designated the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Indeed, Obama co-sponsored a different bill in 2007 that also would have designated the group a terrorist organization.</blockquote>

Media Matters performs an important service by reporting these instances poor journalism, but they remain merely information unless employed.  It's all a game of insiders when professionals critique professionals about the quality of their work.  The objects of criticism can accept it and make changes or they can easily blow it off.

It's a different story when the consumers of this careless or malicious journalism say they won't accept it any more.  We have more power than we sometimes realize, and we can influence everything from how news is reported to who gets to report it.  We are the ones who can make the examples above and all the examples of lies, distortions, propaganda, and bias count for something by taking action with them.

I'm not sure how all of this will play out, but I'm committed enough to doing something to push the MSM into making immediate corrections to stories and make more effort to get them right in the first place to offer my time, energy, and ideas to the project.

Take a look at raider99's post with the mission statement and tools for action and see if it matters enough to you to join in the effort.

 

The news that Obama's going to make it to all 50 states made me wonder how Illinois is doing without his paying attention to senatorial duties—or at least not giving them as much attention as the voters expected when they elected Obama.

I've long had this as an idea for votes and such, but I think the time has come to change whatever rules need to be changed and let Senators and Representatives telecommute to sessions.  These people have been elected to represent states or districts that they're greatly out of touch with when Congress is in session.

Conversely, when Congress is on its breaks, pretty much all business stops.  Most members go home (or at least that's the theory), even when urgent matters are hanging.

The time for the integration of technology into Congress is now.  Things move too fast today to wait for everyone to assemble in one room.  Fuel costs' rising will only add more expense to how the Congress currently accomplishes its job.  And if the airlines cut back flights' frequency and number, the result will be less flexibility for a member to get to a chamber or hearing when needed.

This can happen now.  All of the procedures the House and Senate go through to be recognized, speak, schedule, and vote can be done with a laptop offsite and a large screen in each chamber.

The worry that telecommuting members will have divided attention during hearings and debates becomes pretty moot after watching just an hour of C-SPAN.  They're talking to other people, reading, and walking in and out all the time.  Telecommuting members might actually pay more attention to what's going on.

The big thing will be that they will never have to miss a vote again.  It frustrated me when the primary candidates missed votes because they were out of DC campaigning.  Maybe Obama wouldn't be able to devote much time to his senatorial duties during the campaign, but by being able to telecommute, he'd be able to give more time than he does now.

You know what, folks? The sky is falling.

The Bush administration is merely the culmination of a strategy that's been undermining our free, open, and self-determining society for years, and pushing most of us into a cesspool while a few live in splendor.

All these years of letting the market regulate itself has led us here: an environment so raped and pillaged that to reverse the climate change—which is fast leading from over warming to water shortages to food shortages to famine to wars to death and chaos on a level we need to watch The Road Warrior to picture.

We may not see the worst of it, but our children or grandchildren will, and it ain't gonna be pretty. Only a few will be exempt from the effects.

Welcome to our world

What we have right now are airlines flying with unsafe aircraft, because a politicized FAA didn't want to squelch business growth by making the airlines maintain their fleet properly. We have mine disasters and vaunted "clean coal." We have profiteering in unmonitored student loans.  We have an FCC that protects media conglomerates, not the airwaves.  We have Bizarro-world taxation and environmental standards. But none of this hurts the few, and much of it benefits them further.

We have an educational system that is the laughingstock of the world's unsympathetic and a tragedy to our friends in the world, friends who remember the shining society the US was building and reaching, with secondary education that prepared children to become functioning adults and higher education available to any who were willing to pay the price in effort and intellectual growth, not devastating, life-long debt. This strengthens those few, turning social and economic gaps into chasms.

We have a "justice" system that slaps the hands of corporate malefactors while it methodically pits race against race, to keep the underclasses struggling just to survive, so they won't have the strength to fight the system that controls injustice. The few nod approvingly.

The few, the arrogant

We have a superclass of the few that has for decades methodically worked toward the massive gap we have between their wealth and the rest of us, based, I can only imagine, on pathological needs for money and power, because they sure as hell can't eat any better now than they did in 1965.

We have a "shadow market" of the few operating free from even minimal regulation and that benefits from the petty greed of players in the stock market, because investors' grandiose schemes for profit and distress at loss are merely tools for the real profit gained by the shadow puppeteers.

We have a society of the rest of us in which those recently disenfranchised by deregulation and free markets are those who in generations past  disenfranchised other races and ethnicities. And they're still reeling from the loss, so much so that their bitterness—yes, their bitterness—is aimed at people who had nothing to do with disenfranchising them.

But the superclass has had its minions tell the white former middle class over and over that it's the blacks, the Mexicans, the liberals, the Jews, the terrorists, the gays, the atheists—everyone but those actually responsible for it—who took away their jobs and their way of life.

How'd they do it? And who helped?

The superclass knows that if they tell us up is down and right is wrong long enough and often enough, they'll wear down the weakest of us, the most disillusioned of us, the most fearful of us, and the angriest of us, so we'll lash out at others and each other, rather than at them.  We've been turned so topsy-turvy that we focus on what they tell us are threats to our "way of life" and can't see outside of the tunnel they've built to see the builders themselves.

Their minions are the middle managers, the stockbrokers, the investor-players, the lobbyists, and the legislators, who buy into the superclass's vision and do their dirty work for them, dreaming their grand dreams. The minions think that by doing their masters' bidding and playing their game, they'll get a piece of the pie.  But even though it's a very, very big pie, only very, very few get to enjoy it.

So, wake up, little minions! Wake up, Condoleezza and Colin and Alberto and Alphonso, and really, Harriet and Karen and Lurita. Because the guys in charge have absolutely no intention of sharing the pie with you. Blacks, Mexicans, and women need not apply to the superclass, but you can work for them. Oh, and Johnny Yoo? Nice work on the memos. We'll call you if we need anything else done. You are not one of them, and you never can or will be. You are the pie makers. You steal from your own to make the pie, but you don't get to take it home.

Bush and Cheney and O'Neill and Rove, along with some select, moving-and-shaking (and correctly born, educated, and baptized) senators (sorry, not you, Joe L.) enjoy the pie, but no congressmen (Really, the grunts? I think not!). And of course, the business moguls who share the beds of of the politicos in the superclass win with them, and they gobble up the pie and get fatter than even Croesus could have imagined.

They're not going to give anything back

Unless those of us who are on to what the superclass has done to us rise up—and I mean that in its classical, revolutionary sense—nothing will ever get better for anyone but them. And unless we shove the faces of all of those minion-enablers into the reality that they can't eat that pie—which they were never intended to share—they're going to keep on helping those few who have done the world more harm than any war, any despot, any plague, or any disaster.

So anything they tell us? More smoke and mirrors to keep us from screaming out the truth and taking back our education, our health, our utilities, our infrastructure, our transportation, our communications, our media, and anything else that has been deregulated or allowed to be "free marketed" into its current state. And we've got to regulate the hell out of everything, and tax the bastards within an inch of their lives. Then at least we can stop them where they now stand and maybe even get something back.

Who will win?

But you know what? No matter what we do to the superclass—short of incarcerating the lot of them in Pelican Bay, looting their villas, or building some guillotines—they will always have more money than they rest of us can imagine. Just accept that now. It shouldn't stop us from doing what we need to do, though.

We can restore our freedoms. We can stop playing their games, using their oil, swallowing their pabulum, and blaming fellow victims. But we're going to have to fight for it, and we're going to have to convince their minions that facilitating the puppeteers is in no one's interest but the puppeteers themselves.

So take up metaphorical arms and do what we need done to save us all.  Winning an election isn't going to make things magically better.  But it's a necessary first step toward unraveling our knots and cutting the puppets' strings. Just don't expect the superclass to give anything back without a dirty, ugly, bloody fight.