These big-time courtesans don't sell sex. It might be better for all of us if they did. They sell our trust in them; they sell their power to make laws and policy; they sell the country right out from under us. The procurers on K street – they're known as lobbyists, though they're pimps, pure and simple – set up liaisons between corporations and the whores in the various houses who then put legislation together to raise corporations above the law, and make it easier for them to make money. The latest trick is to force people to give money to directly to corporations. That's what “mandated health care” is all about. Forcing us, not to give over money to the government in the form of taxes, but money directly to corporations, for the purposes of fattening executive salaries and shareholder profits. In the past, this was mostly done by Congress, through legislation which would transfer public funds to corporations. This is what the bank bailout is. Laws are also made to make it harder for the people to get the money back.

Now, these whores will doubtless tell you that they're motivated to seek public office by a profound sense of public service. In the past, I thought that they were at least motivated by a desire to keep a cushy job. Now, I know better. It is really to get on the high-priced Washington Stroll, first as a whore, and later as a pimp – I mean, lobbyist. If Democrats – or even Republicans – were really concerned with keeping their seats, they'd pass a Medicare-for-all health care bill. They'd be assured of being re-elected for at least a generation by a grateful nation. In no country which has such a system is there any widespread, grass-roots movement to get rid of it. If there is any at all, it is from a right-wing fringe or some disgruntled doctors. Politicians in those countries wouldn't voice a desire to do away with universal medicare for a second, unless they were tired of their jobs. Even a right-wing nut like Bush-loving Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of a minority government in Canada, would not openly try to do away with Medicare, even though it appears to be the most cherished of his demented dreams. Yes, friends, our politicians are, for the most part, only seeking public office to get in the way of the K-Street Pimps and their money.

When these whores come looking for your vote, tell them to forget it. Vote for a candidate from a party other than the Democrats or Republicans. If you can't, either because their isn't one to your liking on the ballot, or because your local Democrats and Republicans have passed laws making it impossible for other candidates to get on the ballot, go to the polling place on election day, and take your ballot, and return it without making a choice. You'll do this in different ways depending on the way your ballot is set up. After that, get involved with ways of effecting change in other spheres of public life. Remember, democracy is much more than an election or rigged referendum. In short, we've got to stop playing along in this game where we can only lose.

The U. S. Supreme Court has made political prostitution legal. You might write the justices and ask that, when laws against prostitution come before them in the future, that they look as favourably upon sex-trade workers as they have on politicians and corporations.

Afghanistan is a losing battle. Invaders over many centuries have known that. Indeed, one has to wonder why the US and NATO wanted to invade Afghanistan. After all, the 9/11-Al Qaeda argument is thin: weren’t the alleged perpetrators from Saudi Arabia? Chasing after Bin Laden (or whomever) in the mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan has proved ridiculous. He hasn’t been “smoked out” as the former president said he would, and he never will be. Besides, what’s to gain by it? Bin Laden is one of those people that, if he didn’t exist, he’d have to be invented. I’ve been convinced that he is just that: someone invented to fill the role of bogey man par excellence.

Afghanistan is the centre of poppy growing, and never forget that illegal drugs and commerce in them is big business. Could it be that the US, etc. wants to control this business in these tough economic times? Now, it’s said that the Taliban are in on the drug trade. Before, it was said that they stopped much of it, for religious reasons. In fact, the West’s warlord friends were and are running it. Think about it: if the Taliban were opposed to it, as was reported in the past, then, as it went on in the days of their rule, their opponents, the West’s friends were running it. With the Taliban deposed, it is hardly likely that, in a weakened state, they took over the drug trade from their now-strengthened opponents, is it? No, to allege this is just propaganda. Moreover, we now link the Taliban to Iran, but that wasn’t the case before, either, as they are not Shi’ites, and this is likely not the case now. Other strategic considerations might be Russia.

...and so on. These are the excuses for military adventures. The fact is that people are getting killed, troops are being needlessly sent to yet another country other than the one they are supposed to be defending (their own), and the American policy of Endless War continues, the policy that started with Pearl Harbor and has continued in one way or another ever since. We have a country that is so constructed as to be unable to function without some sort of war going on. Barack Obama knows this, and he’s cool with it.

The one lesson learnt since Viet Nam is that it’s best if we keep the war out of the papers and off of the television. This will continue. This is even true of "progressive" websites. Iraq is more or less off the so-called “progressive” websites like MoveOn or True Majority, those thinly-veiled Democratic Party fund-raising machines. Also, there is no mention at all of Afghanistan. The Credo Action website has a petition to the Defence Secretary to come up with a long-term strategy on Afghanistan before sending in more troops, though it doesn’t oppose sending more troops per se. It reads (with my emphasis)

"Secretary Gates, we urge you to reconsider the timing of your proposal to send an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. We do not want to see Afghanistan turn into another Iraq. While we recognize that more troops may be needed there to serve a long-term strategy, we believe that it is unfounded to deploy the troops before such a strategy (including an exit strategy) is in place. Additionally, we encourage you to exhaust all other possible options before putting more American troops in harm's way."

In other words, these so-called “progressives” come right out and endorse the Afghan occupation. That is reprehensible, but not surprising. Reprehensible, because Afghanistan is another American imperial adventure, an invasion and occupation, with all the destruction, killing, and disruption of the lives of the people living there as any other invasion and occupation. It is understandable, because “progressives” in this country aren’t. “Progressives” -- liberal supporters of the Democratic Party – have a long history of supporting American imperialism and unquestioning deployment of troops in other people’s countries, bidden or not, in spite of the evidence proving that this is never in our long-term interests. These “progressives” swing round to an anti-war position in the end, but not until they’ve cheered on the military blunder in the beginning. Then, they come to see the consequences, and change their tunes. Their president is no progressive, either: the president they’ll cheer through killings, bombings, shattered returning troops and all.

The foreign occupation of Afghanistan is wrong. It is always wrong to invade another country. Afghanistan was picked for invasion because it is very poor, very weak, and because the people there are very different from ourselves, and thus easier to dehumanise and hate and kill. It’s also stupid to invade Afghanistan. It’s militarily difficult to occupy and control, because of terrain, and because the people there are very effective at making their dislike of invasion manifest. If Iraq is a quagmire, it will have nothing on Afghanistan.

Why is the conventional “wisdom” of American foreign policy – the Endless War – never really questioned or challenged? Why is it always a case of being sort of against war, but falling into discussions of long-term strategies, or exit strategies and the rest: that is, entering into the discussion accepting the premises of the military invasion? Why aren’t these premises rejected out of hand for what they are? This is war: killing, bombing, maiming, dismembering, disfiguring, destroying. People are dying. Their homes, cities, villages, and towns are being destroyed. Everything dear to them is a target for bombs, bullets, and other more horrific weapons. At the same time, those bombing and shooting are becoming something less than human. Is it any wonder why so many people serving in the military come home broken in body, mind, and spirit?  It all adds up to needless destruction and death.

implacably opposed to single-payer, universal health care, preferring to leave this in the hands of insurance companies,

in favour of continuing military presence in Iraq, and for an expanded war in Afghanistan,

not willing to put aside the policy of pre-emptive wars (as with Iran),

ready to side with Israeli policy, no matter what humanitarian catastrophes results from it, and no matter how much at variance with international law it might be,

ready to appoint a war-mongering, blood-thirsty Secretary of State like Hilary Clinton, who cheered and nearly salivated over the destruction of Lebanon in 2006

ready to retain the Bush Administration’s Secretary of Defense

willing to bail out Wall Street and their buccaneer banker buddies whenever they ask for it

No doubt their are more of these impressive “progressive” credentials to cite, but these are sufficient for demonstration purposes. No politician in most other countries would ever be thought of as anything but a conservative with policies and stances like Obama’s. None the less, he is portrayed as a “progressive,” and associations with progressive people and ideas and Obama are frequent.

Great pains have been taken to portray the election of Barack Obama as a fulfilment of the dream that Dr. King articulated back in 1963, to link the March on Washington and the election of Barack Obama. First, if Barack Obama were, as is his wife, a descendant of the slaves brought to this country, rather than the son of a recent immigrant from Kenya, in other words, from the majority African-American population who made the movement that culminated in the March on Washington, he’d likely not have been nominated in the first place. And second, and most importantly, this is less the fulfillment of that dream than it is this the ultimate co-opting of that dream. Another point to be made is that Obama is the first Democratic candidate of whom nothing was asked by African-Americans.

Hope is a great thing. Never give it up. But hope is also something easily sold to dispirited people. My hope is that those who are buying Obama right now will come to their senses when they see the administration in action.

The groups that started out being anti-war groups, like Moveon.org and others, are also doing their best to keep the Occupations out of view, in order to get Obama elected. That’s because they’ve ceased being anti-war organisations and joined the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, suffering continues in Iraq, under American and British occupation. As well, troops languish there, many with their time there extended. Troops that come back without limbs, with serious psychological problems, with other injuries. Troops who will stay there, no matter who wins the election. Yes, Obama says he’ll start bringing some troops out of Iraq, but he’ll leave many there. It will likely be that he’ll take out troops until the occupation is in danger, whereupon he’ll put them back. Remember, he does notwant to end the occupation. Besides, how many of those leaving Iraq will go to Afghanistan to fight in the “War on Terror”? A British commander has said that the Afghan war cannot be won, but that kind of information has rarely stopped American military adventures.

The fact that Obama is a Democrat and will continue this nonsense should be no surprise. FDR was the architect of the Endless War. After he got his declarations of war against Germany and Japan, not another was ever asked of Congress, who has never minded that its constitutional responsibility has been usurped. Truman and every president after didn’t bother with declarations. Roosevelt saw the war as a way out of economic troubles, especially if the wars were a long way away. All one needed was a “menace” and you were away. You always had a focus for fear. (All this not withstanding any “good” there might have been in fighting WWII.) Thousands of Americans have died in wars since World War II, billions have gone into wars, and people in many countries have known suffering and death as a result of these conflicts, which, taken together, are an Endless War.

The point is that the various occupations that the US is engaged in are not going to end with an Obama presidency. And remember, Obama’s not ruled out conflict with Iran. My guess is that when times get really tough, rather than tackling them, he’ll resort to declaring a new enemy on which to focus our fears and anxieties. Whatever “change” Obama is talking about, it isn’t a change in the conventional wisdom (a “wisdom” which is more conventional than wise). We are still to be engaged in endless wars, or an Endless War with endless bad guys. As well, wars and corporate bail outs will continue to be financed with large appropriations, without reference to how they’ll be paid for. When questions about health care, infrastructural renovation, relief for hurricane victims in New Orleans, etc. come up, rest assured the question, “How will we pay for this?” will come up. We could pay for it all if the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures were ended and the money redirected. It won’t be. That’s not in the nature of Obama’s “Change”.

As well, how “progressive” are all those self-styled “progressives” who’ve been busting their butts for a Democratic candidate. Is it the respectability that comes with being supporters one of the two “legitimate” parties? Maybe it’s in the word, “progressive”. Maybe that word sounds better in the professional world many of these people inhabit than “radical”. Maybe it’s more “grown up” to be a Democrat than a Green or a Socialist, or Social Democrat. More likely, it’s self-delusion. I’m reminded once again of the Obama tee shirt with the “O” in the form of a peace symbol.

If it is self-delusion, it will come home to people when Obama is seen, by this time next year, to be more of the same. Same wars, same system of non-health care, more corporate bail-outs.

Let’s look at policies, specifically around health care and the wars/occupations, etc. as illustrative of the kinds of approaches these clowns would take.

First health care. Senator McCain’s approach is simply cruel and sadistic. Tax the currently tax-free health insurance contributions made by employers, then give a tax credit – to be paid, not to the taxpayer, but to the taxpayer’s insurance company. He must get some pleasure out of seeing people suffer, proposing this sort of grand larceny.

Senator Obama, on the other hand, is laughing behind our backs with his proposals. He says that every American should have the same health care coverage as members of Congress. What he doesn’t say, however, is that we should pay out-of-pocket for ours, unlike members of Congress, who get it for free. Moreover, the plan rests on including current plans from insurance companies, making the big winners the insurance companies. These are the big winners also in Senator McCain’s plan. It is instructive to remember that, between them, these two have received close to $50 million in contribution from the finance, insurance, and real-estate sector over the past several years.

In both cases, discussion of taxes is made. Senator McCain would tax insurance contributions; Senator Obama talks, in ads of how a single-payer system would cause tax increases.

Tax increases, or special taxes never come up in either candidate’s message on wars and occupations, or would-be military adventures. I wonder if either would suggest a tax to cover expenses of wars, in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran. Taken one at a time, let’s look at the approaches suggested by the candidates to current or possible military actions.

In keeping with the theme of cruelty shown in his health-care, Senator McCain wants to stay the course in Iraq, get down in Afghanistan, and “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”. I guess he likes the idea of killing thousands of innocent people and destroying whole countries while killing US troops or bringing them home without limbs to languish in underfunded veterans’ facilities. Anything to keep the Endless War going. (An explanation for this level of sadism is welcome, by the way).

Senator Obama is also a proponent of the Endless War, tee shirts with the “O” in Obama replaced by a peace sign not withstanding. Obama is for a partial withdrawal from Iraq. I’m not sure why he doesn’t support a complete withdrawal. At any rate, whilst pulling troops out of Iraq, he wants to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. I wonder if either Obama or McCain has read that a senior British commander has said that the Afghan war cannot be won, and that the Taliban must be included in a solution. As well, Obama has not ruled out bombing or invading Iran. So, Obama, like Kerry and all those Democrats who won seats in the 2006 Congressional elections, is not a peace candidate. He’s a military-business-as-usual candidate.

On the environment and the need for a green economy, McCain is worse than a dinosaur, and not worth mentioning further. Obama’s so sold out now that he’s not much better. He is okay with off-shore drilling and “clean coal”, and is still at improving mileage on existing cars.

Knowing where their money comes from, it should have come as no surprise that the two of them were out there selling the “No Tycoon Left Behind” bill.

Now, the big question is why so many people and organisations characterising themselves as “progressive” are so gaga for Obama, given that he’s not very progressive on these issues. I am supporting the Green Party, whichis progressive on these issues, and others. I think it is a colosal exercise in self-deception for progressives to see the Democratic Party, or it’s nominee as progressive. Many of the organisations so behind Obama started off as anti-war organisations. Now, they have collaborated with the media in ignoring the Iraq and Afghanistan disasters, which, along with the Bailout for Bankers is bankrupting the country. Remember: no new taxes or special funding plans are in place for these adventures, not War Bonds (hard, when the war is illegal) or special Save the Banks bonds.

Until the two party duopoly is broken in this country, change by means of the ballot is going to be impossible. In more and more states, the Democrats and Republicans have conspired to keep other parties off the ballot. The media will not cover other parties except as a joke. The debates are a joke, being run by the Democrats and Republicans, through their hand-picked commission. As I said, I’m voting Green. I hope you will, too, but if you don’t, I hope you’ll vote your dreams, and not your fears. Don’t be frightened out of expressing your beliefs by the Democratic or Republican Fear Machines. Obama or McCain will win this time, it’s true. Also, don’t buy the bullshit that by supporting the Greens or Libertarians, or any other party that somehow you’ll “cut into” the Obama or McCain vote. Those votes don’t belong to them: they belong to you, until you cast them. But, the country will win if you vote your dreams and your beliefs. In that way, we can move the debate out of the exclusive hands of the duopoly, who don’t want change. Demand ballot access, open debates, and media coverage. Demand an end to the quadrennial circus which has come to replace electoral democracy in the United States.

Meanwhile, democracy is more than elections. Press elected officials; demonstrate; protest injustice; build community; be imaginative by yourselves or with your friends and neighbours. Build a new society in spite of the politicians and their backers.

I am frustrated by the prevailing idea in the media and the public in general that we can shop our way out of our energy and environmental problems. Everywhere you turn, someone is telling you to buy new light bulbs, new cars, new refrigerators, new windows. However, no one seems to take into consideration the energy cost of raw materials, production or shipping. There is also an environmental cost in adding to landfills. What would really happen if everyone acquired all these new things?

Over consumption is what has brought us to the brink of environmental ruin. We cannot consume ourselves back from the brink. I know that there are situations when it makes environmental and economic sense to replace items that are no longer functioning at an acceptable level. But the pressure to purchase for some righteous cause is just one more symptom of our society’s search for meaning and purpose in all the wrong places.

Which side are you on?

Are you with us for a guarantee of quality affordable health care for all? We need coverage that meets our families’ health care needs and is affordable, based on a sliding scale. We need government to be an advocate for us and set and enforce the rules so insurance companies put our health care before their profits. We need to be able to keep the health care that we have and have the choice of a public plan so we’re not left at the mercy of the same private insurance companies that have gotten us into this mess. We need quality, affordable care we all can count on. 

-OR-

Are you for leaving us on our own to buy private health insurance?Leaving us to fend for ourselves in the complicated private insurance market? Do you want insurance companies to be able to sell bare-bones plans with high deductibles? Do you want to start paying income taxes when your employer pays for health coverage? You don’t want any regulations on private insurance so they can keep denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and raising rates on the sick. And you don’t want any limits on health insurance company premiums or profits or on how much drug companies can charge for prescriptions.

The second alternative is very much the Republican one.

Of course, I don't support either option, because I support a single-payer, universal system at the very least.. Further, I support a system that recognizes and pays for what are called alternative forms of health care.

This is the classic false dichotomy of American politics, all of which are analogous to the biggest false dichotomy of all, the two-party duopoly that runs this country.

On several levels, this dichotomy is shameful. First, it shows that True Majority, like MoveOn.org, are nothing but arms of the Democratic Party, trying to marshal progressive support for a reactionary, corporate party. Second, this nonsense has much less to do with health care than it does with insurance, which, though not related, is another issue. It is about insurance and paying for it. Many of the supporters of this effort are unions with their own insurance schemes, which they'd like to perpetuate and get others to pay for. The UAW and other so-called "progressive" unions long opposed universal health care, because they were in the insurance business. As well, nothing is said here about the bloated, convoluted, over-technological health care system, or "health-snare system" which traps people in a never-ending regime of high-tech tests, expensive drugs, and trips to specialists. Few alternatives are ever offered, because all of this is a colossal gravy train for doctors, and hospitals and the buccaneers that run them.

It is also shameful to limit debate by this basest of all rhetorical tricks, defining their own position as the only alternative to an awful one. The rationale is doubtless that this alternative, though not the only one, is the only one with a chance of succeeding. A more honest approach would be to tell the truth that millions of Americans support the single-payer option, and that the major candidates are pushing these plans because they are supported by the medical-insurance establishment and their big money. By keeping other alternatives out of sight (and there are certainly more ideas than these and the single payer plan), the perpetrators of this false dichotomy hope they can keep other alternatives out of mind, so as to ensure that people back their plan and, more importantly, their candidate, in this case, Barack Obama.

Which side am I on? The side of free, fair, and open debate, for one. The side of universal, no-strings-attached health care in as many forms as possible. The side that wants to take profit out of health care. The side that figures that a graduated income tax system is the only sliding scale necessary for fairness.

It was in the late fifties. We had just moved back to the Detroit Area, and we listened to CBE, the CBC Radio station in Windsor, Ontario. The morning presenter was a man named Alex Pavlini. Alex, as we referred to him around the house, was a zany character who played everything from classical music to pipe bands (at six-thirty AM, obviously, Alex was of the opinion that if he was up, we should be, too), to the Weavers (banned in the United States) to rather formal arrangements of folk songs. Although he was in his twenties, one could be forgiven listening to him for thinking that he was much older. He had a decidedly British accent.

Alex did truly zany things on air. He would sometimes pick up and strum an out-of-tune banjo (not trying to play anything) and once, he produced a piece of radio drama about the first Canadian satellite, which was launched from Windsor and orbited the globe on the top of Detroit's Penobscot Building (then the tallest building in Detroit). He would juxtapose seemingly unrelated pieces of music.

Alex had other shows on the radio throughout the day. On one, he'd often read a book aloud. One of his favourites to read was The Wind in the Willows which, to this day, is my favourite book. I remember being sick one time and hearing part of it read over the course of my illness. I think it was things like that that made me hate going to school, which was far less interesting that what I heard on the radio.

Alex Pavlini, then, introduced me to music, and my favourite book. I enjoyed his antics all the way up until we moved away, to San Francisco, and then to Chicago. I didn't hear him after we moved.

When I was contemplating going to university, I considered Canadian institutions. One was the University of Windsor. I wrote for their calendar, and leafing through it, found a mention of an "Alex Pavlini Memorial Bursary". So, Alex had died. My many efforts have never led me to finding out what happened to him. Indeed, in looking at the online calendar for University of Windsor a few years ago, I discovered that they no longer have such a bursary. I expect that they consolidated a lot of smaller bursaries or something like that.

The last mention of Alex I was able to find was a mention in the Guest Book for the late Karl Haas, who broadcast from Detroit, and was also someone I much admired.

I would still like to know what happened to Alex Pavlini, and hope that someone reading this will know and tell me. Any of you with Detroit or Windsor connections who remember him, let me know.