Wrath of Khan: Idiots on the Loose (Fake Healthcare Disruptions)

daveydbanner

Share/Save/Bookmark//

Idiots On The Loose (Fake healthcare Disruptions) 

by Nida Khan

Freelance Journalist Nida Khan

Freelance Journalist Nida Khan

They’re not racists. They’re not angry because they’re increasingly becoming the minority in an ever-mixing society. They’re not infuriated that an African American man is leading the country, and moreover recognized as the most powerful man in the world … nope, the mobs of loud, vicious, instigating White folks storming local governmental meetings are mad over health care – and they’re not afraid to cling to their religion or guns to prove it.

As Congress prepares to take its annual August recess, members are returning to their constituents who are eagerly anticipating a thorough discussion surrounding health care. The debate has been waging for some time now as President Obama pushes a dire change to our costly, inefficient system. As the battle lines have been drawn – and redrawn – something more sinister has been taking place. Instead of engaging in insightful and informational conversations, many citizens are being brainwashed to ante up.

Frustrated over job losses, an ailing economy and a sense of hopelessness, angry Whites have now galvanized around a well orchestrated ‘protest’ against health care reform. Fueled by right wing media, pundits and so-called GOP leaders, these Whites have taken their subconscious hatred of ‘Black power’ and change to the streets and into governmental buildings in towns across America. Holding ‘R.I.P.’ signs with Democratic leaders’ names, and in some cases assaulting such leaders, these fundamental groups are yelling and disrupting order so that no real discussion can take place at all.

If you ask how many of these anti-health care reformers have Medicare, the overwhelming majority will answer ‘yes’. Can someone please tell these idiots that Medicare is a GOVERNMENT run program. So before chanting ‘less government’, perhaps these geniuses should take a good look at all the benefits they have received from our government over the years. And more importantly, they may want to take a look at why, just why, they are so damn mad.

(Nida Khan is a freelance journalist for print and radio visit her site http://wrathofnkhan.blogspot.com )

—————————————————–

(peep out the videos below.. the first is an orchestrated Mob attack where hired conservatives attempt to shut down a town hall meeting and prevent discussion.. The second video is award winning journlaist Eric Boelhert explaining whats really going on..)

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

Obama to Reform Hutto and other Detention Centers

Share/Save/Bookmark//

In what appears to be a shrewd calculated decision by the Obama administration folks who have been demanding Immigration reform and an end to some harsh anti-immigration policies have been smiling.

As pointed out in the NY Times article below, President Obama plans to reform the way notorious detention centers operate. Most notably is the Hutto detention center near Austin.

Luissana Santibanez has long been protesting the closing of Immigration detention centers

Luissana Santibanez has long been protesting the closing of Immigration detention centers

We caught up with long time activist Luissanna Santibanez who noted that she and numerous organizations have been holding lots of protests in front of this facility since 2006 when started locking up kids and entire families.

Santibanez who’s family was profiled in the short film ‘Exiled In America’  is no stranger to these facilities. As was shown in the movie her mom spent two years in a detention center leaving Santibanez barely 20 years old to look out for her 4 brothers and sisters.

In our brief conversation this morning she noted that she can’t believe this change is happening especially since many Immigrant organizations were beginning to openly challenge and criticize the Obama administration for appearing to further the Bush policies toward immigration. His appointment of former Arizona governor Janet Napolitano to head up the Department of Homeland Security where she promised to ramp up the 287 G policy which paired up ICE and local police agencies. Currently the city of Houston is undergoing such a program as this was recently approved by the city council. That’s not a good look Houston

Santibanez noted that there is still a long road ahead as she revealed that the detention center that incarcerated her mother is still intact and will go unchanged. But she does think this was a big move in the right direction.

I posed the question to Santibanez as the timing of Obama’s decision on the same day that votes will be taken to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. At issue is the fact that our two state Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Coryn will not be voting for the nation’s first Latino judge. One can’t help wonder if Obama’s move was a way to send a strong signal to the Latino community and draw a sharp contrast both in Texas and around the country as to where he stands on issues important to Latinos and where the GOP stands.

Santibanez acknowledged that this is very possible. She added that almost everything Obama does is politically calculated  and that he could’ve made this move when he first took office. She noted that he probably had a long range goal in mind and the timing in bringing about these new changes worked out now. 

In anycase the move was a breath of fresh air for those have long been protesting Hutto and detention centers like it

-Davey D- 

U.S. to Reform Policy on Detention for Immigrants

By NINA BERNSTEIN

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/us/politics/06detain.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

The Obama administration intends to announce an ambitious plan on Thursday to overhaul the much-criticized way the nation detains immigration violators, trying to transform it from a patchwork of jail and prison cells to what its new chief called a “truly civil detention system.”

Details are sketchy, and even the first steps will take months or years to complete. They include reviewing the federal government’s contracts with more than 350 local jails and private prisons, with an eye toward consolidating many detainees in places more suitable for noncriminals facing deportation — some possibly in centers built and run by the government.

The plan aims to establish more centralized authority over the system, which holds about 400,000 immigration detainees over the course of a year, and more direct oversight of detention centers that have come under fire for mistreatment of detainees and substandard — sometimes fatal — medical care.

One move starts immediately: the government will stop sending families to the T. Don Hutto Residential Center, a former state prison near Austin, Tex., that drew an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit and scathing news coverage for putting young children behind razor wire.

“We’re trying to move away from ‘one size fits all,’ ” John Morton, who heads the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency as assistant secretary of homeland security, said in an interview on Wednesday. Detention on a large scale must continue, he said, “but it needs to be done thoughtfully and humanely.”

Hutto, a 512-bed center run for profit by the Corrections Corporation of America under a $2.8 million-a-month federal contract, was presented as a centerpiece of the Bush administration’s tough approach to immigration enforcement when it opened in 2006. The decision to stop sending families there — and to set aside plans for three new family detention centers — is the Obama administration’s clearest departure from its predecessor’s immigration enforcement policies.

So far, the new administration has embraced many of those policies, expanding a program to verify worker immigration status that has been widely criticized, bolstering partnerships between federal immigration agents and local police departments, and rejecting a petition for legally binding rules on conditions in immigration detention.

But Mr. Morton, a career prosecutor, said he was taking a new philosophical approach to detention — that the system’s purpose was to remove immigration violators from the country, not imprison them, and that under the government’s civil authority, detention is aimed at those who pose a serious risk of flight or danger to the community.

Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, said last week that she expected the number of detainees to stay the same or grow slightly. But Mr. Morton added that the immigration agency would consider alternative ways to assure that those who face deportation — and are not dangerous — do not flee.

Reviewing and redesigning all facilities, programs and standards will be the task of a new Office of Detention Policy and Planning, he said. Dora Schriro, special adviser to Ms. Napolitano, will become the director, assisted by two experts on detention management and medical care. The agency will also form two advisory boards of community groups and immigrant advocates, one focusing on detention policies and practices, the other on detainee health care.

Mr. Morton said he would appoint 23 detention managers to work in the 23 largest detention centers, including several run by private companies, to ensure that problems are promptly fixed. He is reorganizing the agency’s inspection unit into three regional operations, renaming it the Office of Detention Oversight, and making its agents responsible for investigating detainee grievances as well as conducting routine and random checks.

“A lot of this exists already,” he said. “A lot of it is making it work better” while Dr. Schriro’s office redesigns the detention system, which he called “disjointed” and “very much dependent on excess capacity in the criminal justice system.”

Asked if his vision could include building new civil detention centers, he said yes. The current 32,000-bed network costs $2.4 billion a year, but the agency is not ready to calculate the cost of a revamped system.

Vanita Gupta, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who led the lawsuit against the Hutto center, was jubilant over the decision to stop sending families there, but cautious about the other measures.

“The ending of family detention at Hutto is welcome news and long overdue,” she said in an e-mail message. “However, without independently enforceable standards, a reduction in beds, or basic due process before people are locked up, it is hard to see how the government’s proposed overhaul of the immigration detention system is anything other than a reorganization or renaming of what was in place before.”

Ms. Gupta said the changes at Hutto since 2006 illustrated the importance of enforceable rules. Before the A.C.L.U. lawsuit was settled in 2007, some children under 10 stayed as long as a year, mainly confined to family cells with open toilets, with only one hour of schooling a day. Children told of being threatened by guards with separation from their parents, many of them asylum-seekers from around the world.

Only through judicial enforcement of the settlement, she said, have children been granted such liberties as wearing pajamas at night and taking crayons into family cells. The settlement also required the agency to honor agency standards that had been ignored, like timely reviews of the decision to detain a family at all. Some families have been deported, but others were released or are now awaiting asylum decisions in housing run by nonprofit social service agencies.

That kind of stepped-up triage could be part of the more civil detention system envisioned by Mr. Morton and Dr. Schriro, who has been reviewing the detention system for months and is expected to report her recommendations soon.

But the Hutto case also points to the limits of their approach, advocates say. Under the settlement, parents and children accused of immigration violations were detained when possible at the country’s only other family detention center, an 84-bed former nursing home in Leesport, Pa., called the Berks Family Shelter Care Facility. The number detained at Hutto has dropped sharply, to 127 individuals from as many as 450.

Advocates noted that Berks, though eclipsed by the criticism of Hutto — the subject of protest vigils, a New Yorker article and a documentary — also has a history of problems, like guards who disciplined children by sending them across the parking lot to a juvenile detention center, and families’ being held for two years.

The Hutto legal settlement expires Aug. 29. In the most recent monitoring report last month, Magistrate Judge Andrew W. Austin wrote: “Although the use of this facility to hold families is not a violation of the settlement agreement, it seems fundamentally wrong to house children and their noncriminal parents this way. We can do better.”

Mr. Morton, a career prosecutor, seemed to agree. Hutto will be converted into an immigration jail for women, he said, adding: “I’m not ruling out the possibility of detaining families. But Berks is the better facility for that. Hutto is not the long-term answer.”

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

southernshifthat-225

Are Texas Democrats Afraid to Step Up and be Counted?

Share/Save/Bookmark//

southernshifthat-225Saw this article today by Dave McNeely and he makes some good points about the upcoming gubernatorial race, the challenges facing the state and the likely changing political landscape of the Lone Star state. However, what he’s not saying is the obvious-Why are the Democrats so Spineless? Are they cowards afraid of stepping up and being counted in any of the upcoming races? I just knew after all the excitement that President Obama inspired with his impressive victory that shattered the myth that those politically waving a blue flag can only win in states along the Pacific or North Atlantic seaboards. Obama and Howard Dean prior to him showed and proved that the rest of the country is up for grabs including Texas if you run the right type of campaign.
 
For the average person electoral politics on a national level is diluted down to Red state or Blue State.  Its a winner take all system so unfortunately what gets missed are the growing demographic trends within a state.  There was a breakdown of voting trends that was studied by Robert Vanderbei of Princeton University after the 2004 elections and what he showed was that in many of those red based states it was actually purple. Meaning that there was an equal or very close strong representation of Blue-(Democrats) and Red (Republicans). Texas was one of those states in 2004 that was showing a lot of purple with a prediction that it would eventually over take the bright red shade dominating this place.
2004 Map from Princeton University shows the country is purple. The blue areas are usually much more heavily populated then read areas.

2004 Map from Princeton University shows the country is purple. The blue areas are usually much more heavily populated then read areas.

 
With this in mind and an oppressive Obama win showing that if you tap younger, Browner, and Blacker demographics you can do quite well for yourself.  Texas has all the right ingredients so where the hell are the Democrats eagerly chomping at the bit ready to shake things up?  Has there not been any long term planning? Have people not been groomed? Did anyone not take page from Obama and start a media campaign a couple of years out from a major run to create a buzz and become known factor amongst untouched demographics as well as those who are moderate and dissatisfiedwith the status quo?
 
Insiders say Austin Democrat Kirk Watson might run for Governor, but he needs to step up his profile game and be better known to newer and younger voters

Insiders say Austin Democrat Kirk Watson might run for Governor, but he needs to step up his profile game and be better known to newer and younger voters

I been asking around from Houston to Austin and most of the folks I come across who were excited about Obama and came out to enthusiatically help put him in office seem to not know anyone on the Democrat side who they feel should be running for governor or the eventual vacated Kay Bailey HutchinsonSenate seat. Thats not a good look. Not a good look at all. Sure political insiders like to toss out Kirk Watson as a possible candidate for governor, but too be honest I get more excitement and better name recognition when I ask if rappers Bun B or Chingo Bling should run for office.  Who knows one of them might just do that if for any reason to

1- bring attention to some key issues that are resonating with  2- do what the Democrats seem to not be doing -brand themselves which is an important currency to have  in a celebrity culture driven world.
 
A lot of people are looking for a hero or shero of sorts. Someone who can symbolize the sparking of change that Obama talked about during his campaign. They’re looking for someone to come talk to them and champion their causes. They’re looking for someone to step up, pull out their political sword and fight. Even if you lose folks will respect your willingness to go out there and mix it up.  Right now all we see  a bunch of empty seats and hear crickets chirping.  Are there no more Mickey Lelands or Barbara Jordans?  The closet we have to that right now is Congressman Ron Paul who found himself a nice niche.. That would be quite a show if he ran for Governor.. but lets not digress. Say what you will, but I keep getting this nagging feeling that Democrats are purposely holding back. Why? I know not-
 
According to a recent Quorum Report Democractics Chet Edwards and Ciro Rodriguez  were huddled up in a corner talking with Republican  Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst who has made no bones about his desire to take over Kay Bailey Hutchinson‘s seat. What the hell were they talking about?   Here’s what the Quorum Report noted..
 
Dewhurst spent Thursday afternoon chatting with the two Democrats in the halls of the U.S. Capitol Building. They ran through issues ranging from the Hispanic vote to the partisan breakdown of Texas to Dewhurst’s chances of success in running for the Senate seat being vacated by Kay Bailey Hutchison (R).
 
Dewhurst has not-so-quietly been ramping up a campaign to replace Hutchison, who confirmed Wednesday that she will resign her seat this fall to run for Texas governor. She plans to formally announce her 2010 gubernatorial run next month..
 
Port Arthur native Bernard Freeman is one of the most recognizeable and popular people in the entire state of Texas. Him entering the governor's race could seriously shake things up

Port Arthur native Bernard Freeman is one of the most recognizeable and popular people in the entire state of Texas. Him entering the governor's race could seriously shake things up

Well all that sounds fine and dandy, but Edwards and Rodriguez be better off  huddling up with the folks who put Obama into office and making sure they are household names to that audience.   In anycase  what may wind up being being the real story here is the lack of a compelling Democrats in a wide open race in a wide open state. If someone doesn’t put their hat in the ring soon, we might be placing a call to Port Arthur Texas, to a gentleman named Bernard Freeman and encourage him to toss his hat in the ring and shake things up.  He just might just be what the doctored ordered for a party that is winding up to be a bit uninspiring right about now.  Note to Democrats: new Obama voters know who Mr Freeman is quite well-Do you?

 – Davey D-
 
  
WHAT IF DEMOCRATS WIN STATEWIDE IN 2010
GUEST OPINION DAVE MCNEELY

http://www.kilgorenewsherald.com/news/2009/0805/advice/031.html 

 

The Republican primary dogfight between Gov. Rick Perry and principal challenger U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison is already on the national political front burner.

Not often does a sitting United States senator challenge a governor of the same party, in the nation’s second most populous state.

Republican pollsters say Texas is still solidly Republican. Democrat Barack Obama got less than 44 percent in Texas in 2008.

But the governor’s general election race in November of 2010, regardless of who the GOP nominee is, could also draw a lot of attention. Texas might become a player in presidential elections again.

The only serious announced candidate for the Democratic nomination is Tom Schieffer of Fort Worth, former President George W. Bush’s ambassador to Australia and then Japan. Humorist/songwriter Kinky Friedman also might seek the nomination.

But if the Perry-Hutchison mudfight keeps intensifying, other Democrats may run.

Most-mentioned is state Sen. Kirk Watson of Austin, who already has one statewide race under his belt. His weekly newsletters to supporters are decidedly sharper recently – mostly potshots at decisions by Perry.

Watson’s Senate seat is also up in 2010. He said he’d decide what to run for at the end of the summer.

Most prognosticators think the Republican nominee will win the November general election. Perry certainly does.

But hopeful Democrats point out that Perry won reelection in 2006 with just 39 percent.

Republicans nationally think their chances to make gains are better in 2010 than in 2006 and 2008, when Democrats won control of Congress. Reasons:

— With few exceptions, a new president’s party usually loses congressional and other offices in the first mid-term election after his inauguration.

— Some pollsters say the bloom has worn off Obama’s reformist rose, with growing concern about borrowing to provide economic stimulus, and about the costs of reforming the nation’s health care system to cover virtually everyone.

Depending on which way issues cut leading up to the election – health care, unemployment insurance, housing prices, economic stimulus, the overall economy, Iraq and Afghanistan – Democrats may have a shot.

If the Republican nominee emerges seriously tarnished from the negative TV ad war Perry and Hutchison are expected to wage, the Democrat may have a shot.

Adding to the buzz this election cycle will be a special election to succeed Hutchison in the Senate. That also should draw a lot of national attention.

Two significant Democrats – former state Comptroller John Sharp and Houston Mayor Bill White – are already running, regardless of when the election is held.

Both have appeal to centrist Independents, and some Republicans, so are particularly suited to run in a special election. There are no party primaries; all candidates run on the same ballot, regardless of party. If no one gets a majority, the top two have a runoff.

Sharp and White are serious, thoughtful, cagey politicians, who aren’t running just for exercise. Both are raising money, and Sharp has put more than $2 million of his own into his race.

Several Republican candidates already raising money include state Sen. Florence Shapiro of Plano, Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams, former Secretary of State Roger Williams (no relation), U.S. Rep. Kay Granger of Fort Worth, Attorney General Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst.

The wealthy Dewhurst is thought to be the most formidable Republican, since he can fund a campaign from his own pocket. That’s a huge head start in a federal race, where the size of campaign donations is limited, but the amount a candidate can give to their own campaign isn’t.

If Democrats win for governor, or senator, and especially both – that should put Texas back on the presidential political map for 2012 and beyond.

A Democratic presidential candidate hasn’t won Texas since 1976. There had been an adage that a Democrat couldn’t become president without carrying Texas – until Bill Clinton did so in 1992 and again in 1996.

Just to demonstrate the math, in 2004, President George W. Bush carried Texas, and won, with 286 electoral votes to Democrat John Kerry’s 252. Had the Democrat carried Texas’ 34 electoral votes, Democrats would have won, 286-252.

If a Democratic presidential ticket carries Texas, plus California (which has been solidly blue the last few elections), Florida (a swing state), New York and Illinois, that’s around 170 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House.

A Democrat who demonstrates they can win either of the top two Texas statewide offices in 2010 could easily be on the short list for a presidential ticket in 2016.

Contact McNeely at davemcneely111@ gmail.com

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

 

Method Man being Sued for Shooting a Houston Woman

daveydbanner

Share/Save/Bookmark//

It’s always disturbing when we hear stories like this. One would think after all these years that artists would stay as far away from scenarios like this as possible, especially as veterans. Sadly over the years we’ve seen charges levied on vets ranging from Snoop to Akon to Busta Rhymes who have laid hands on fans.  There are two things puzzling about this story. First, what’s real disturbing is that its a woman Meth is accussed of assaulting.  Why would you shoot a woman top gun or not? Was he trying to be funny?

Second disturbing thing, is that Houston  and Texas in general is real quick to smash on folks and hand out felonies at the drop of a dime. Heck, if you get caught smoking weed in H-Town you can have a problem. So any police involvement would’ve had Meth hemmed up on that alone.  So why just the lawsuit? Where’s the criminal charges? This incident went down in November, why the long wait?  Either this is an anticipated quick pay day or there’s more to this story .. we’ll keep you posted.

-Davey D-

Houstonian Woman sues rapper Method Man

 

Why hasn't Method Man been criminally charged for shooting a woman with a pellet gun?

Why hasn't Method Man been criminally charged for shooting a woman with a pellet gun?

HOUSTON (KTRK) -A local woman is suing a popular rapper and actor all for what she claims happened outside a popular Houston nightspot. She claims Method Man shot her six times with an air gun because she asked for an autograph.

In the eight-page lawsuit, the woman claims she suffered not only physical trauma, but emotional trauma as well.

According to the lawsuit, Method Man, aka Clifford Smith, performed at the House of Blues last November. In the complaint, the victim, Mary Anderson of Fort Bend County, claims after the concert, Smith was signing autographs for a group of people out of the back window of his tour bus, when she approached trying to get her concert ticket signed.

Anderson claims as she waited for her ticket to be returned, Smith pulled out an air gun and began firing pellets into the group striking her at least six times. Anderson claims she suffered multiple injuries to her stomach and chest causing her to go to a hospital.

Ironically, this lawsuit comes just days before Method Man is expected to perform at the House of Blues in Houston this Friday. Anderson’s attorney says he hopes this lawsuit sends a strong message.

“These aren’t life or death injuries. She’s alive. She’s not paralyzed. She’s moved on with her life as far as the injuries are concerned, but punitive damages are to punish the person who did the damage and that’s the reason we’ve done this,” said her attorney, Daniel Horowitz.

The exact amount of money Anderson is seeking is not being disclosed. Our calls to Method Man’s representatives have not been returned.

source: http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=6948876

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

Houston We have a Problem-Racism & Sexism Allegations Singe Fire Department

Share/Save/Bookmark//

Houston City Council Woman Jolanda Jones has been holding people's feet to the fire over incidents of sexism and racism inside HFD

Houston City Council Woman Jolanda Jones has been holding people's feet to the fire over incidents of sexism and racism inside HFD

(Houston TX) we have a problem. Sadly its the age old problem of racism and sexism which was supposed to be disappearing in this new Era of Obama within a city that is now the third largest in the country. For those who haven’t been following the drama, what’s been going on is an ugly series of racial incidents including 2 or 3 noose hanging incidents, racial epithets being spewed over the departments tactical radio system and disturbing remarks targeting two women sprawled on the walls of  Houston’s fire station #54.

At the center of the most recent controversy are two women Paula Keyes and Jane Draycott who reported that for months they’ve had to endure a series of incidents including the recent defacing of a picture of Draycott’s  daughter who was killed in a car accident. Someone wrote ‘dead’ across the photo while referring to her as a ‘nigger lover’ and a writing the words ‘die’ on her picture. Here’s a link to a local news report on this incident

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=6905444

Other incidents include having someone turn off the cold water while taking a shower so the women would get scalded  and tossing firecrackers while using the bathroom stalls. The incidents were appalling to say the least.

This recent drama comes at the heels of two high profile noose hanging incidents including one involving a fire fighter cadet who during a training tied a noose and made some racial remarks. He was allowed to resign but then later reapplied and has successfully completed his courses. He is soon to join HFD.

Captain Keith Smith a 28 year veteran said he kept a noose in his locker to remind him of his early training days

Captain Keith Smith a 28 year veteran said he kept a noose in his locker to remind him of his early training days

The other incident involves a white HFD captain named Keith Smith who was discovered to have a noose hanging in his locker earlier this year. Smith was reprimanded by the Chief for the incident while the City Council coughed up a bunch of money-60 thousand dollars for sensitivity training.  Smith a 28 year veteran who has held the rank of captain for 15 years recently issued a public apology where explained that he kept the noose as some sort of memento for his training days. He said he had no idea the noose meant something racial. 

One has to wonder what sort of training Smith had received. Maybe things were more racial charged 28-30 years ago. I find it hard to believe that Smith was that oblivious when you consider the national brouhaha that occurred because of the noose hanging incidents in Jena, La (Jena 6) which is about 6 hours away from Houston. Was Smith not following the news when all this went down back in Fall of 2007?  

What’s even crazier is that Rev D.Z. Cofield vice president of the Houston NAACP defended Smith saying he was unfairly being put on blast and they recommended that the letter of reprimand be removed from the captain’s record.

I’m not sure how they came to this conclusion, but these series of incidents have not sat well with Houston City Council member Jolanda Jones who has been on the case. She’s been pushing hard demanding that the city implement a zero tolerance policy for  sexism and racism. She also rebuffed the assertions that the racial incidents were isolated by getting a letter signed by 68 retired, current and former emploeyees who noted that there has long been a pattern of racism and sexism. Jones has even gotten involved in a war of words with HFD Union chief  Jeff Canyon who accused her of calling him a House Negroe.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=6930503

In our interview w/ Jones she expressed the litany of incidents and the gravity behind them

Since our interview a group of women firefighters have met with Houston Mayor Bill White to say that they are proud of of the fire department and that although there are some problems things aren’t all that bad.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=6948558

Written by Davey D for www.theSouthernShift.com

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

Too Many Funerals, Too Many Early Deaths-No Time to Grieve

daveydbanner

Share/Save/Bookmark//

The passing of Baatin is sadly one of many high profile deaths we had to deal with this year.

The passing of Baatin is sadly one of many high profile deaths we had to deal with this year.

With the recent passing of Baatin of Slum Village, many of us have found this to be a bit too much. For fans of the group and Hip Hop in general, one is left wondering how in the world two mainstays from a group could be gone before 40?  It’s been two years and I am still going to parties where DJs are doing tribute sets for producer and Slum Village co-founder Jay Dee aka J-Dilla. Some people say these tribute sets are done because dude was so dope and he was.. but I think deep inside we play Dilla’s music to reconnect. It’s a way for us to consciously and unconsciously mourn and heal although we don’t all openly admit it.  With Baatin passing there is no doubt tribute sets will intensify.I can only imagine what Baatin’s passing means to a city like Detroit which is still mourning the deaths of J-Dilla and Proofwho was the unofficial mayor of the Motorcity. How has it effected people’s psyche?

I know in the Bay Area where there was a rash of high profile deaths within including the passing of 2Pac, Mac Dre, Cougnut, Mike Dream, Hitman and Mr. Cee to name a few, people are still trying to make sense of things. Same thing in Los Angles where folks within a 2 month period were faced with the loss of three icons DJ Dusk, Michael Mixxin’ Moore and Skeeter Rabbit of the Electric Boogaloos.  In Houston people saw the quick passings of DJ Screw, Big Hawk, Big Moe and of course Pimp C. You can’t say this doesn’t have an effect on people’s outlooks considering so many of us live vicariously through these iconic figures. They become soundtracks and important backdrops to our world.

The sudden passing of Pimp C left many in his native Texas as well as throughout the Hip Hop world mourning

The sudden passing of Pimp C left many in his native Texas as well as throughout the Hip Hop world mourning

The death of Baatin is troubling because it was unexpected and it comes on the heals of the death of Michael Jackson. There’s been little time to even began processing. We had to deal with the shock of his death and then reconcile ourselves with the media onslaught that followed where one too many pundits  were gleeful in taking an adversarial point of view. In short we could not grieve in peace. Many of us were reeling from Michael while simultaneously still struggling to put our heads around the deaths of  other high profile figures  ranging from comedian Bernie Mac to singer Isaac Hayes and James Brown to entertainer Eartha Kitt to Civil Rights icon Coretta ScottKing all of these folks and many more have left us within the past two years.

Adding to our angst are what sometimes appears to be the routine passings that occur everyday in our communities.  I was just in Omaha, Nebraska for their big event and came to find out that a whooping 15 people had been killed within a 10 day period.  Sadly this is not all that unsual when you state this to people. We’ve gotten used to early deaths to the point that we have concluded that death is part of life and we keep it moving. We’ve become hardened to it. For some they say there is no time to grieve. But if we adapt that sort of attitude- then we best be prepared for the unintended consequences which is ‘No time to grieve-No time to live and No time to care’.  I’ll let that sink in for a minute.

The hostile treatment levied on public figures and icons we hold dear has made it difficult for us to fully grieve and heal

The hostile treatment levied on public figures and icons we hold dear has made it difficult for us to fully grieve and heal

When death becomes such a matter of fact occurance in our lives, then we behave callously in other areas. We stop looking for ways to uplift ourselves and our communities. Life offers little or no hope and our full participation in things ranging from community  activities to even parenting  is next to impossible. It simply doesn’t happen. We’re so busy trying to escape the pain that sudden and early losses bring that we create a cycle that eventually brings more death.  To not properly mourn and to constantly seek escape  means we behave recklessly.

From this day foward lets promise ourselves to take time to reflect on those who have gone before us. Cherish their good parts. Learn from their mistakes and lets take some crucial first steps to love one anotther and live fully. The video we put together is dedicated to those who left too early. Its taken from the song ‘Too Many’  from spoken Word artist D-Knowledge. Its off his album ‘All that and a Bag of Words’.  Check for it and  lets stop that trend of early deaths.

Something to Ponder

-Davey D-

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

MacDre-500

John McCain Says No To Sonia Sotomayor-What is the GOP Thinking?

daveydbanner

Share/Save/Bookmark//

When I read about guys like John Mccain from Arizona or the two Texas Senators Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Coryn saying they aren’t gonna vote for Sonia Sotomayor, it makes me wonder what sort of plans does the GOP have for courting a growing Latino vote?

As the country grows Blacker and Browner and both communities find they are facing similar economic, social and political oppression the potential for a game changing Black-Brown coalition to form is in place.  I can only wonder how the GOP will reconcile this, especially in places like Texas and Arizona where you have large Latino populations.

Granted an entire community’s vote is not hinged on a Yea or Nay nomination for a seat even one on the Supreme Court, however, the rejection of Sotomayor has been laced with some unavoidable racial undertones. This is coupled by over-the-top hate speech from Right-wing talk show hosts  who pull no punches.  Is the GOP really trying to shoot itself in the foot?

I keep thinking the GOP is soon going to be doing some divide and conquer type things to split the potential strong hold a solid Black-Brown political coalition one can have. It won’t be the first time they’ve done this.

-Davey D-

FLOOR STATEMENT BY SENATOR JOHN McCAIN
ON THE NOMINATION OF JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR
TO SERVE AS A JUSTICE ON THE UNITED STATED SUPREME COURT

August 3, 2009
 
Washington, D.C. ¬- U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today made the following statement on the floor of the U.S. Senate:  
 

John McCain says he ain't gonna be supporting Sonia Sotomayor. Here's a guy who can suypport an idiotic racist like Sarah Palin, but he can't get behind a strong intelligent sister like Sonia Sotomayor-Go figure.

John McCain says he ain't gonna be supporting Sonia Sotomayor. Here's a guy who can suypport an idiotic racist like Sarah Palin, but he can't get behind a strong intelligent sister like Sonia Sotomayor-Go figure.

“Mr. President, it is with great respect for Judge Sotomayor’s qualifications that I come to the floor today to discuss her nomination to the Supreme Court. 
 
“There is no doubt that Judge Sotomayor has the professional background and qualifications that one hopes for in a Supreme Court nominee.  She is a former prosecutor, served as an attorney in private practice and spent twelve years as an appellate court judge.  She is an immensely qualified candidate.
 
“And obviously, Judge Sotomayor’s life story is inspiring and compelling.  As the child of Puerto Rican parents who did not speak English upon their arrival to New York, Judge Sotomayor took it upon herself to learn English and become an outstanding student.  She graduated cum laude from Princeton University and later from Yale Law School.  Judge Sotomayor herself stated that she is ‘an ordinary person who has been blessed with extraordinary opportunities and experiences.’ 
 
“However, an excellent resume and an inspiring life story are not enough to qualify one for a lifetime of service on the Supreme Court.  Those who suggest otherwise need to be reminded of Miguel Estrada.  Mr. Estrada also was a supremely qualified candidate.  And he too has an incredible life story.  Miguel Estrada actually immigrated to the United States from Honduras as a teenager, understanding very little English.  Yet, he managed to graduate from Columbia University and Harvard Law School magna cum laude before serving his country as a prosecutor and a lawyer at the Department of Justice.  Later, he found success as a lawyer in private practice.  However, Miguel Estrada, in spite of his qualifications and remarkable background – in spite of the fact that millions of Latinos would have taken great pride in his confirmation – was filibustered by the Democrats seven times, most recently in 2003 because many Democrats disagreed with Mr. Estrada’s judicial philosophy.  This was the first filibuster ever to be successfully used against a court of appeals nominee. 

Texas Senator and Gubenatoral candidate Kay Bailey Hutchinson says she will not vote for Sonia Sotomayor

Texas Senator and Gubenatoral candidate Kay Bailey Hutchinson says she will not vote for Sonia Sotomayor

 “I supported Mr. Estrada’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, not because of his inspiring life story or impeccable qualifications, but because his judicial philosophy was one of restraint.  He was explicit in his writings and responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he would not seek to legislate from the bench.
 
“In 1987, I had my first opportunity to provide ‘advice and consent’ on a Supreme Court nominee.  At that time, I stated that the qualifications I believed were essential for evaluating a nominee for the bench included ‘integrity, character, legal competence and ability, experience, and philosophy and judicial temperament.’ 
 
 “When I spoke of ‘philosophy and judicial temperament’ is it specifically how one seeks to interpret the law while serving on the bench.  I believe that a judge should seek to uphold all acts of Congress and state legislatures unless they clearly violate a specific section of the Constitution and refrain from interpreting the law in a manner that creates law.  While I believe Judge Sotomayor has many of these qualifications I outlined in 1987, I do not believe that she shares my belief in judicial restraint. 
 
 “When the Senate was considering Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Second Circuit in 1998, I reviewed her decisions and her academic writings.  Her writings demonstrated that she does not subscribe to the philosophy that federal judges should respect the limited nature of the judicial power under our Constitution.  Judges who stray beyond their constitutional role believe that judges somehow have a greater insight into the meaning of the broad principles of our Constitution than representatives who are elected by the people.  These activist judges assume that the judiciary is a super-legislature of moral philosophers. 
 
“I know of no more profoundly anti-democratic attitude than that expressed by those who want judges to discover and enforce the ever-changing boundaries of a so-called ‘living Constitution.’  It demonstrates a lack of respect for the popular will that is at fundamental odds with our republican system of government.  And regardless of one’s success in academics and government service, an individual who does not appreciate the common sense limitations on judicial power in our democratic system of government ultimately lacks a key qualification for a lifetime appointment to the bench.
 
 “Though she attempted to walk back from her long public record of judicial activism during her confirmation hearings, Judge Sotomayor cannot change her record.  In a 1996 article in the Suffolk University Law Review, she stated that ‘a given judge (or judges) may develop a novel approach to a specific set of facts or legal framework that pushes the law in a new direction.’  Mr. President, it is exactly this view that I disagree with.
 
“As a district court judge, her decisions too often strayed beyond settled legal norms.  Several times, this resulted in her decisions being overturned by the Second Circuit.  She was reversed due to her reliance on foreign law rather than U.S. law.  She was reversed because the Second Circuit found she exceeded her jurisdiction in deciding a case involving a state law claim.  She was reversed for trying to impose a settlement in a dispute between businesses.  And she was reversed for unnecessarily limiting the intellectual property rights of freelance authors.  These are but a few examples that led me to vote against her nomination to the Second Circuit in 1992 because of her troubling record of being an activist judge who strayed beyond the rule of law. 
 
“For this reason, I closely followed her confirmation hearing last month.  During the hearing, she clearly stated that ‘as a judge, I don’t make law.’  While I applaud this statement, it does not reflect her record as an appellate court judge.  As an appellate court judge, Judge Sotomayor has been overturned by the Supreme Court six times.  In the several of the reversals of Judge Sotomayor’s Second Circuit opinions, the Supreme Court strongly criticized her decision and reasoning.  In a seventh case, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling noting that in her written opinion for the majority of Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor had ignored two prior Supreme Court decisions. 
 
 “While I do not believe that reversal by the Supreme Court is a disqualifying factor for being considered for the federal bench, I do believe that such cases must be studied in reviewing a nominee’s record. 
 
 “Most recently, in 2008, the Supreme Court noted in an opinion overturning Judge Sotomayor that her decision ‘flies in the face of the statutory language’ and chided the Second Circuit for extending a remedy that the Court had ‘consistently and repeatedly recognized for three decades forecloses such an extension here.’  Unfortunately, it appears from this case, Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., that Judge Sotomayor does not seek ‘fidelity to the law’ as she pledged at her confirmation hearing.  As legislators, we enact laws.  The courts must apply the law faithfully.  The job of a judge is not to make law or ignore the law. 
 
“Further, in Lopez Torres v. N.Y. State Board of Elections, the Supreme Court overturned Judge Sotomayor’s decision that a state law allowing for the political parties to nominate state judges through a judicial district convention was unconstitutional because it did not give people, in her view, a ‘fair shot.’  In overturning her decision, the Supreme Court took aim at her views on providing a ‘fair shot,’ to all interested persons stating, ‘it is hardly a manageable constitutional question for judges – especially for judges in our legal system, where traditional electoral practice gives no hint of even the existence, much less the content, of a constitutional requirement for a ‘fair shot’ at party nomination.’
 
 “In her most recent and well-known reversal by the Supreme Court, the Court unanimously rejected Judge Sotomayor’s reasoning and held that white firefighters who had passed a race neutral exam were eligible for promotion.  Ricci v. DeStefano raised the bar considerably on overt discrimination against one racial group simply to undo the unintentionally racially skewed results of otherwise fair and objective employment procedures.  Again, this case proves that Judge Sotomayor does not faithfully apply the law we legislators enact. 
 
“Again and again, Judge Sotomayor seeks to amend the law to fit the circumstances of the case, thereby substituting herself in the role of a legislator.  Our Constitution is very clear in its delineation and disbursement of power.  It solely tasks the Congress with creating law.  It also clearly defines the appropriate role of the courts to ‘extend to all Cases in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties.’  To protect the equal, but separate roles of all three branches of government, I cannot support activist judges that seek to legislate from the bench.  I have not supported such nominees in the past, and I cannot support such a nominee to the highest court in the land. 
 
 “When the people of Arizona sent me to Washington, I took an oath.  I swore to uphold the Constitution.  For millions of Americans, it is clear what the Constitution means.  The Constitution protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms to protect himself, his home, and his family.  The Constitution protects our right to protest our government, speak freely and practice our religious beliefs.
 
“The American people will be watching this week when the Senate votes on Judge Sotomayor’s nomination.  She is a judge who has foresworn judicial activism in her confirmation hearings, but who has a long record of it prior to 2009.  And should she engage in activist decisions that overturn the considered constitutional judgments of millions of Americans, if she uses her lifetime appointment on the bench as a perch to remake law in her own image of justice, I expect that Americans will hold us Senators accountable.
 
 “Judicial activism demonstrates a lack of respect for the popular will that is at fundamental odds with our republican system of government.  And, as I stated earlier, regardless of one’s success in academics and in government service, an individual who does not appreciate the common sense limitations on judicial power in our democratic system of government ultimately lacks a key qualification for a lifetime appointment to the bench.  For this reason, and no other, I am unable to support Judge Sotomayor’s nomination.”

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

Baatin of Slum Village Passes-Memorial Held in Detroit

daveydbannerShare/Save/Bookmark//

Memorial tribute organized quickly for rapper Baatin 

BY B.J. HAMMERSTEIN • FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER • August 3, 2009

http://www.freep.com/article/20090803/NEWS05/908030313/Memorial-tribute-organized-quickly-for-rapper-Baatin

Baatin

Baatin

As the sun set Sunday, members of the tight-knit Detroit hip-hop community gathered to pay tribute to one of Motor City rap’s brightest stars.

Titus (Baatin) Glover, the Detroit rapper who cofounded the acclaimed trio Slum Village, was found dead at the age of 35 Saturday morning.

“He taught me so much, not just musically but about life,” Miz Korona, the evening’s host, said Sunday. “The way he was on his songs was the way he was in life.”

Held at 5 Elements Gallery in Detroit, “Gone Too Soon: A Benefit for the Family of Titus ‘Baatin’ Glover” had drawn about 70 people by 9:30 p.m. and was expected to feature performances and DJ sets by Jessica Care Moore, DJ K-Fresh and DJ Sicari, who owns the gallery.

Ty Townsend, road manager for Slum Village the last 7 years, said he organized the benefit to help Glover’s family. Townsend added that a second memorial is planned for the African World Festival on Aug. 14, which is to feature Detroit musician Amp Fiddler.

“When people talk about Detroit in hip-hop circles it was because of people like Baatin,” said Kelly Frazier, DJ K-Fresh. “He brought so much energy. He was different. He was Detroit soul.”

The Wayne County Medical Examiner’s Office said Sunday it found no evidence of trauma on Glover’s body and that toxicology tests results are pending.

The Detroit Police Department said it isn’t treating the death as a homicide, unless the medical examiner provides information to the contrary.

Glover left Slum Village in 2002, later telling the Free Press he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. He continued to record and play occasional solo dates before returning to the Slum fold for the group’s upcoming album, “Villa Manifesto,” due Sept. 22.

————————————————————————————————

 

Baatin dies at 35; rapper co-founded progressive hip-hop group Slum Village

Born Titus Glover in Detroit, he formed the group with Jay Dee and T3 while in high school.
By Valerie J. Nelson
August 2, 2009

 

Baatin, a rapper who co-founded the progressive hip-hop group Slum Village, was found dead Saturday morning in Detroit. He was 35.

Ty Townson, a family friend, confirmed Baatin’s death to the Detroit Free Press. Details were not released.

Baatin, who left Slum Village around 2003, had said in interviews over the years that he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and struggled with emotional problems. He embarked on a solo career but reportedly had recently rejoined the group.

Born Titus Glover in 1974, the Detroit native adopted the name Baatin in the 1990s to reflect a newfound spirituality. “Baatin” was “Islamic for ‘hidden,’ ” he once said.

While in high school on Detroit’s east side, he started rapping and formed what would eventually be called Slum Village with Jay Dee — who died in 2006 of complications from lupus — and T3.

At a nondescript Detroit storefront called the Hip-Hop Shop, the group honed its skills at open-mike nights along with a young Eminem.

Slum Village was “among the best” of the hip-hop groups to come out of Detroit, Soren Baker said in The Times in 2000.

“Where Eminem relies on lyrics full of violence and confrontation, the trio . . . takes a more universal approach,” delivering “a balanced, soulful sound and attitude that separates Slum Village from rap’s two dominant trends: the glossy glamorization of excess and the hard-core gangster sound,” Baker said.

Slum Village’s lauded major-label debut, 2000’s “Fantastic, Vol. 2,” was “widely decreed the torchbearer of progressive hip-hop,” and the 2002 follow-up album, “Trinity,” reaffirmed that position, reviewer Kris Ex wrote in The Times in 2002.

“Trinity” contained the group’s first bona fide radio hit, “Tainted.” By then, innovative DJ-producer Jay Dee had largely been replaced by lyricist Elzhi.

Slum Village shunned trends and injected spiritual and social commentary into its work.

“If people could open their minds,” Baatin told The Times in 2000, “they could see a broader perspective of hip-hop instead of categorizing it as 95-beats-per-minute, loud snares and muffled samples. . . . It could be anything.”

Baatin is survived by a son, Michael Majesty Ellis, 9; a daughter, Aura Grace Glover, 1; his parents, Howard and Grace Glover; and a sister, Tina, all of Detroit, according to the Free Press.

valerie.nelson

 

The group’s 2000 national debut, “Fantastic Vol. 2,” landed on critics’ best-of lists and set the stage for Slum’s highest-profile commercial release, “Trinity,” two years later.

Free Press staff writers Brian McCollum and David Ashenfelter contributed to this report.

Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

Lil Wayne: Whippin’ it like a Slave in Black August

daveydbanner 

Share/Save/Bookmark//

Lil Wayne: Whippin’ it like a Slave in Black August

by Minister Paul Scott

“Young boys without substance or content.
You better slow your speed stop the nonsense.”

                                    -The Power Chill Rob G-

PaulScott-225A flick came out in the mid 90’s called “Tales from the Hood,” it was kinda like a ghetto version of “Scared Straight;” only with zombies. Perhaps the best part of the movie dealt with a gangsta named Krazy K who was undergoing some heavy sci fi rehabilitation by being forced to relive scenes of the many murders of black folks that he had committed against a backdrop of lynchings and cross burnings. After listening to the latest youtube hit “Whip it “(Like a Slave), I wonder if such a rehab session would work on Lil Wayne? Naw, he’d probably just sit there with that spaced out permanent grin on his face sippin’ Sizzurp through a styrofoam cup and mumbling auto tune lyrics as visions of black death flash before his eyes.

This month is known as Black August, a time when activists recognize the August 21, 1971 state execution of revolutionary George Jackson via an alleged prison escape attempt. Not to mention it is a month rich in black history, including the births of Marcus Garvey and Fred Hampton. Unfortunately, it is also a month when Lil Wayne and the America’s Most Wanted Tour will be hitting cities across the country.

LilWayne-225Unlike other rappers, Lil Wayne aka Weezy has never prided himself as being the “Malcolm X of the Hip Hop generation” and when he has his frequent run ins with the law he isn’t all over the TV yellin’ that he is “a black man being persecuted in America just for being black”  a la Dr. Henry “Skip” Gates.

He is what he is, a thug; a thug with a college education but never the less, a thug. So there is very little that would come out of his gold toothed grill that would surprise me.

However, his new collaboration with Dem Franchize Boyz got my attention on several different levels.

The song, which is the latest  Internet sensation, has been generating thousands of hits on social networking sites. While some will argue that Lil Wayne and the Boyz are not talking about literally tying someone to an old oak and pulling out a bullwhip but are metaphorically referring to cooking up crack, that makes the song even that much sicker as it embraces the genocide of black people, past and present.

While some may quickly point to the ignorance of the rappers to blame for “Whip it,”  the finger should really be pointed at the ignorance of a black community that would allow such a song without protest.

When I say ignorance, I am not talking about the negative connotation of lacking intelligence but the functional definition of lacking proper information in regards to the history of African people in this country.

The major problem when discussing the matter of slavery and race overall, in this country is a lack of a proper point of reference in order to put the discussion in the proper context.

For the last century, the issue of slavery has been glossed over by a Hollywood that was more than happy to give us the happy -go- lucky Uncle Remus type or the mammy who was happy to birth massa’s babies. Matter of fact, for most Americans, the image of slavery does not get any more graphic than “Kunta Kinte” getting 40 lashes for not accepting the slave name, “Toby.”

Also, the educational system of this country has relegated any discussion of black history to a 28 day period in February and the content of that discussion does not, in any way, seek to explore the depths of the brutality visited upon the victims of the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade confining it to a rosey picture painted of a post Emancipation America that merely substituted one form of slavery (chattel) for another (economic).

It must also be noted that while physical slavery was horrific it was the mental enslavement that has been the most destructive. For long after the physical chains are gone, the mental chains remain.

While many may say that this mentality is exclusive to the ‘ hood, it has historically been the black middle class that discouraged any identification with Africa, therefore pre-1865 history was a taboo subject for the upwardly mobile black bourgeoisie.

As Dr. Carter G. Woodson wrote in 1933, “the mis-educated Negro joins the opposition with the objection that the study of the Negro keeps alive questions which should be forgotten.”

So the severity of the slave trade was lost on future generations.

This is also exhibited among members of a Hip Hop generation who will constantly debate the lyrical prowess of rappers who celebrate the abuse of black women and glorify black fratricide but will shy away from any mention of the heinous crimes committed against black people by Europeans.

So we are left with an overly simplistic understanding of the thought process that allows songs like “Whip It” to be embraced in 2009.

This lack of historical depth is exacerbated by the fact that many perceive that we are living in a “post racial” America where the outrage over thousands of examples of police brutality against black men can can be squashed over beer and pretzels.

As Bruce Bridges writes in his book “Reclaiming the African Mind, “the intent of the system of slavery was to rob the African man of his responsibilities of manhood and emotionally castrate him.”

While rappers like Jay Z have dedicated themselves to DOA (the death of the auto tune) we must dedicate ourselves to DOI (the death of ignorance) by raising our voices against ‘Whip It Like a Slave.”

We must do this in honor of those whose lives we celebrate in August and whose deaths we mourn.

As Soledad brother George Jackson once wrote:

“When I revolt, slavery dies with me. I refuse to pass it down gain. The terms of my existence are founded on that.”

Paul Scott writes for No Warning Shots Fired.com  http://www.nowarningshotsfired.com
He can be reached at (919) 451-8283 info@nowarningshotsfired.com
Return to Davey D’s Hip Hop Corner

How the Healthcare Debate Got Hijacked

daveydbanner

Share/Save/Bookmark//

If we let these powerful interests get their way, we’ll see more outlandish increases in premiums, and millions more people being denied care.

How Corporate Media, Sellouts in Congress and Industry Bigs Have Hijacked the Health Care Debate

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted July 29, 2009.

If you can frame the terms of a debate, you’ve gone a long way towards winning it before you’ve begun. Tragically, Republicans, the health care industry and business-friendly Blue Dog Democrats have largely been able to do exactly that, with a substantial assist from the corporate-owned media.

They’ve successfully focused the health care debate on the short-term costs to the federal government’s bottom line, obscuring the potential impact that a meaningful realignment of the health care system would have on the economy as a whole. In so doing, opponents of reform have hoodwinked much of the public into believing that investments in America’s national health care system will wind up costing individuals more than they’d gain from the effort.

In fact, they’ve done such a good job that much of the discourse has revolved around what is arguably one of the least relevant aspects of the proposals being debated in Congress: whether they “cost too much” or are “deficit neutral” in terms of their impact on the federal budget over the next 10 years.

Much of that discussion has been fueled by a series of estimates issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) — estimates based on incomplete drafts of the legislation now moving through Congress. Yet by and large the mainstream media have dutifully repeated the spin without mentioning that the critics are touting the CBO’s preliminary projections as definitive and final.

Even worse, a study of cable news reporting by the media watchdog group Media Matters found that when the CBO issued a follow-up to an earlier, more pessimistic projection of the bill passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension (HELP) Committee, it went all but unreported by the cable news networks. CBO projected it would cost $611 billion, while an earlier estimate — which was dissected eight ways to Sunday by the same cable networks — suggested it would run an even trillion.

There are also benefits contained within the proposals that are impossible to score in limited budgetary terms. For example, if the House bill were passed as it stands today, it would all but eliminate health-care related bankruptcies by capping the amount of out-of-pocket expenses with which a family or individual can be burdened. A group of researchers from Harvard studied over 2,300 bankruptcies filed in 2007 and concluded that more than 6 in 10 were due to medical causes. What is it “worth” to our society to ease that kind of pain? It’s not in the purview of the CBO to say.

That’s just one of several reasons why the budgetary impact over 10 years of a program of long-term reforms is such a poor metric for judging its value. First, the very same preliminary CBO estimates that are being used to gin up fear of a budget-busting boondoggle that will saddle our grandkids with debt for generations to come also suggest that the proposals would extend health coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans. Why such a significant improvement in the health and economic security of so many real people should be expected to come at no cost to the government’s balance sheet is a mystery.

Second, it fundamentally obscures the actual terms of the debate in Congress. Leaders in both the House and Senate have promised that the final legislation will be fully-funded — “deficit neutral” — and the battle lines have in fact been drawn not only around what form the final bill will take, but also how to pay for it. 

Moreover, the narrative is based only on the impact of the proposals on the federal budget in isolation, all but ignoring the larger effect that fixing the system (if done right) might have on the economy as a whole. Under consideration are various proposals designed to rein in the spiraling cost of health care across the entire system.

So these are not sunk costs, but investments that analysts expect will have a significant pay-off. A study by David Cutler of Harvard and the Rand Corporation’s Melinda Beeuwkes Buntin estimated that just three elements within the larger proposals offered by Democrats so far — all of which come with start-up costs in the beginning — would result in $550 billion in savings to the larger health care system over the next 10 years (PDF).

Those kinds of savings are desperately needed over the longer term — the status quo, if allowed to continue on track, threatens to undermine the competitiveness of American business and leave more and more people without coverage (researchers have found that fast-rising premiums, more than any other factor, has driven the decades-long growth in the number of uninsured Americans).  And skyrocketing premiums force employers to squeeze wages, which impacts communities’ tax revenues and deprives the economy of consumer dollars.

So the more salient question is: how can we possibly afford not to fix the current system? In 1960, we spent less than 5 percent of GDP on health care and all but a small number of working-age Americans had access to care. Today, health care spending represents around 17 percent of our economic output, and about one in six lack coverage. And, according to virtually every projection out there, it’s only going to get worse unless we make substantial reforms soon.

In 2007, the U.S. spent an average of $7,290 per person on health in total (both public and private care). The average costs in other wealthy countries — generally with better outcomes — was $2,964. Here’s a graphic representation of where we’re likely to go in terms of costs if we leave things as they stand

healthcare1-blogimage_cbohealth

 (click for larger version)

As economist Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute wrote, the non-budgetary effects of fixing the system “will pay off big for American families in the form of lower premiums, co-pays, and space for wage growth.”

Bivens adds, “The reason is simple: health care is an area where the more costs are loaded up on the federal government, the more efficiently care tends to be delivered overall.” Bivens points out that although the U.S. spends far more than other advanced countries on health care, far fewer of those dollars are in the public sector, and suggests that the difference is a major reason why we get far worse results (in terms of access, life expectancy at birth, our chances of living until age 60 and most other meaningful metrics).

To illustrate the savings built into public-sector health spending, he goes on to cite an analysis by the Lewin Group of competing approaches to reform that measures the impact on both federal spending and overall health spending. The results are summarized in this graphic:

healthchart2lg-storyimage_lewin

(click for larger version)

On the left, is Pete Stark’s, D-Calif., proposal for a single-payer system (one that closely mirrors John Conyers’, D-MICH., HR 676, which has 85 co-sponsors in the House). As you can see, while it extends coverage to everyone — which obviously costs money — it is the only approach studied that would also result in a reduction of health care spending overall.

In the middle is a hybrid along the lines of the House bill (the Lewin Group used a similar proposal promoted by the Commonwealth Fund). According to Bivens’ analysis, although “federal health spending [would] rise” as the system was first implemented, the “increases in federal spending … are accompanied by large reductions in spending by households and businesses. Net total health spending would rise by less than $18 billion, an amount that is more than explained” by new funding to cover the previously uninsured.

The right column, appropriately, shows the impact of Mike Enzi’s, R-WYOM., plan, a boilerplate conservative proposal based on offering tax cuts to those who purchase private insurance and slightly expanding eligibility for Medicaid. It does increase federal spending by slightly less than the other approaches analyzed, but in the process it also increases total health care costs more than the amount of tax dollars sunk into the plan, while insuring only the relatively small number of people who make just a bit more than the current cut-off for Medicaid.

But even that standard doesn’t tell the whole story. Looking only at how the current proposals impact health spending over a 10-year window ignores the longer-term impact they might have. For example, contained within both the Senate and House bills are provisions that would create more incentives for preventive care. Most analysts agree that prevention costs a lot less than waiting for people to develop serious illnesses and then treating them, as we now do, but those savings can only be fully realized over the long term. If a young obese person visits a doctor whom he or she might not have seen because of a lack of insurance, and as a result of that visit makes changes that prevent him or her from developing diabetes — with all its attendant complications — it will save the health care system a small fortune, but probably not for several decades.

Finally, there’s a sad irony to this whole discussion — one that few commenters have bothered to note. It is true that the potential savings contained in the proposals currently on the table are limited, but it is also true that the reason for that shortcoming is that Congressional leaders have ushered through a series of bills that are far less expansive than progressive reformers have long advocated, and that’s only been done to mollify the very same Dems and Republicans — those ideologically opposed to the effort and/or especially cozy with the “disease-care” industry — who are now complaining about the limited potential for savings (It’s enough to make your head spin).

Just consider the “public insurance option.” While progressives were promised a “robust” public insurance program that would be open to all comers, what emerged from the Senate HELP Committee and from the leaders of three House committees was a pale shadow of what had been touted during last fall’s campaign season. Instead of insuring as many as 130 million Americans as candidate Obama suggested his public option would, lawmakers restricted eligibility for the program in such a way that the CBO’s preliminary estimate suggested that just 10 million Americans would be enrolled in the public insurance plan by 2019. (That’s out of about 30 million who could buy insurance — either public or private — through the publicly-run insurance exchanges.) This was a nod to the power of the insurance industry — nothing more, nothing less.

In designing a (pretty good) system, but then tightly controlling who could gain access to it, the potential for cost-containment — through greater economies of scale, more bargaining power with providers and a decrease in the shuffling of paperwork that’s estimated to account for about 30 percent of our health spending — has been greatly diminished.

So, next time you see some congressional meat-puppet on TV discussing how much a plan will cost, or lamenting its limited potential for cost-containment, keep in mind that it’s his or her ideology that is directly to blame for those shortcomings.

 It’s only because of pressure from industry groups, Republicans and Blue Dog Dems that congressional leaders took single-payer off the table (and threw advocates out of the room) and gave us a limited public insurance option — a pale shadow of what reformers had been promised. Now, those same forces are bent on killing an already watered-down proposal. If they succeed, we can expect more human suffering, more outlandish increases in premiums, more people being denied care, an increase in the numbers of uninsured and a continued drag on the American economy.