Featured

YouTube Channel Reboot

I rebooted my YouTube channel today. First video I have done in over a year, just been too busy for videos. Things are a bit more stable now, so I thought this was a good time to get back to it.

The reboot has a new look. Trying to make the videos more professional. More changes will be coming in the near future but so far I am using a digital background and a full studio lighting setup. I also have a better microphone. I have a better camera on order, to go full HD. This camera isn’t bad but I may as well go all in.

From this point on, I will be alternating between written articles and videos. I will not be duplicating articles and videos as I did before. Though I may pick up on a topic started in writing and expand further in video. So be sure to follow both. I will post links to new videos here.

Hope you’ll be following!

Featured

New Site Launch, Art Contest

This article is to announce the launch of the promised website intended to list protests and rallies nationwide. I had mentioned building this site not long ago. I just needed time to work on the back end functioning, which will be an ongoing project.

With this, I am asking for submission of original digital artwork to use for the banner on the website. I have a temporary banner in place, though when you see it, you’ll understand why I am seeking submissions from other people. lol! Unfortunately I cannot offer money or prizes for the winner. However, I will post the winner’s name on the main page winner announcement and permanently on the credits page. If the winner has their own web page, I will also link to their page.

This project, if successful, will wind up being the largest project of my life so far. Right now just the beginning stages are still a work in progress. Largest, not most difficult. Crap, I hope not!

The address of the new site is www.RallyAndProtest.com

Hope you join me there!

IG Report Contradicts Itself

The Inspector General released a report on the findings of an examination into the FBI investigation into Trump/Russia “collusion”. The report is over 400 pages long and I will admit that in this case I have no plans to read the whole thing. Just what I have seen thus far tells me what I need to know.

This report states that the beginning of this investigation was not biased. This is one key point to pay attention to. The stress is being placed on the beginning of the investigation. It actually does not state that the investigation was not biased, only that the beginning was not biased.

No matter what, this alone contradicts the findings of the report. If only one candidate in an election is being investigated, that is the definition of bias. Throughout Russiagate, I have written many times that what illustrates clear bias is the fact that Clinton was not investigated regarding Russia. Keep in mind that Clinton signed off on Uranium One, where Russia gained processing rights to 20% of uranium mined in the US. In addition, Bill Clinton gave a speech in Russia, promoting investments in Uranium One, for which he was paid $500,000. This occurred while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, yet was never included in the Russia “investigation”. In addition, Robert Mueller signed off on the intelligence regarding Uranium One. Later on, Uranium One resulted in widespread charges of bribery, coercion and corruption, along with unaccounted for uranium shipments. All those charges were for events which took place right here in the US. So, Clinton was never investigated regarding Uranium One and Mueller went on to be named special counsel to investigate Russian interference in the election.

Serious performance failures. The report goes on to state that there were “serious performance failures” conducted in the course of the examination. This is basically the same as Comey’s statement where he talked for 14 minutes detailing all the things Hillary Clinton did wrong, even criminally so, with her private email server which placed national security at risk. Then talking for one minute exonerating her by saying he found no intent. Kind of like saying, “She knew she was breaking the law and had the entire State Department to advise her but she didn’t mean to do it.”

Legality versus ethics. What this report attempts to do is state that the FBI did not break the law. It does not actually prove in any way that there was no bias. Even regarding the law, the report details that one FBI lawyer claimed that Carter Page was not a CIA asset, while Page was indeed a CIA asset during the time he was being investigated. That FBI lawyer may well be charged with a federal crime as a result. The US federal attorney in Connecticut is currently looking into that possibility. In addition, relevant information was omitted and some information was not corroborated during the repeated applications for FISA warrants. There was one person who was not being investigated at all, yet was monitored by the FBI during the investigation.

Major changes. Christopher Wray, FBI Director, has said that the report will result in over 40 changes being made to procedures. I accept the fact that changes in procedure happen all the time for many reasons. However, one has to question why it takes such a public and high level examination to force changes in procedures for one of the largest intelligence agencies in the world, a massive percentage of an organization which is comprised of legal professionals. I have my suspicions that if these changes were applied retroactively, the entire Russia investigation would be declared invalid. I also have to question how many other investigations these processes have affected over how long. Yet in those less visible cases no changes were made because the processes did not gain widespread public attention.

Ultimately, the claims that there was no bias in the entire process fall flat. Anyone who has a sense of justice or respect of legality understands this.

I know some people are going to claim that in some way I support Trump. There is absolutely no truth in this and is highly evidenced in past articles I have written. I have written a multiple part series on why universal healthcare is the best system. I have written articles raging against racism. I detailed how immigrants benefit the economy on more than one occasion, even running numbers on the subject to back up my statements. I am an avid defender of Venezuela. Have demonstrated clearly that the economy is not doing well and a crash is coming soon. Called the claim of low unemployment into question using facts and published numbers which detail just how false those numbers are.

One does not have to support Trump to still support actual justice. One does not have to have TDS to call him out on lies, lies which are too frequently echoed in neoliberal media as fact. One does not have to support Trump to oppose an impeachment process which sets a precedent which is literally more dangerous than Trump himself. One does not have to be a Russian asset to realize that the intelligence agencies have demonstrated an absolute bias and have gone absolutely rogue in their duties, loyal only to their own agenda.

This is not justice. This is not legality. This is not democracy. This is not right. This is not anything close to what this nation is supposed to be about. Right now, what we need to be aware of is not the danger Trump poses but the much greater dangers posed by the “resistance”. We have seen the rise of censorship and return of McCarthyism. We have seen the “resistance” oppose recall of the military while silent on increased militarization. We have seen the military budget explode beyond all belief. We have watched evidence fabricated or told something was evidence as millions claim to see something which is not there in extended mass schizophrenic episodes. We are seeing huge numbers of people denying the risk or even cheering on the risk of war with nuclear powers.

I hate Trump but even more I hate what this country has become and am terrified of what it is becoming.

Gabbard Would Outperform Sanders In Debate With Trump

Tulsi Gabbard would have a considerable edge in debate against Trump which Sanders would not have. The ONLY exception would be voters rabidly pro-Sanders or ANYONE-but-Trump. For all other voters, in debate with Trump, Sanders would struggle with certain topics which most Americans find highly important.

Russiagate and Sanders. The first example of this came this week. Hillary Clinton went on a talk show and tied Sanders to the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. Now, most of us have little interest in what Clinton has to say on any subject, so this should be a non-issue. However, it was picked up by the Russiagate media and talked about widely.

Now the biggest problem with this subject is the fact that Sanders has not opposed Russiagate. He has propagated it. He has stated publicly that Russia helped his campaign in 2016 without his knowledge. He has previously accused his own supporters in 2016 of being influenced by Russian propaganda if they did so much as question Hillary Clinton.

What this means is that Sanders has bound his own hands regarding Russiagate. So far the media on this subject has gone easy on Sanders. You may think not but trust me, it will absolutely get worse. Sanders has not faced any accusations regarding Russiagate in DNC debates. Trump will absolutely bring up the subject, even if only in an attempt to deflect accusations against him by the media. This will place Sanders on the defensive because the questions will come not only from Trump but also neoliberal AND conservative media. Trump has denied any political ties to Russia and can point to how hawkish he has been against Russia. Sanders has no effective defense, since he has promoted the Russiagate narrative and claims that Russia helped him in 2016.

Russiagate and Gabbard. Gabbard would not have this problem. She makes her foreign policy stance very clear. She will work toward diplomacy and easing tensions with other countries, including Russia. The risk of maintaining those tensions is too great to allow them to increase further. Aside from wild-eyed schizophrenic talking heads who see Russians in their closets and refrigerators, there has been no accusation of Gabbard having any ties to Russia and those claims cannot be in any way quantified rationally. I’m sure Rachel Maddow will try, though.

Election integrity. Another issue on which Gabbard has the upper hand is her defense of election integrity. It has been absolutely proven that the DNC committed election fraud in 2016, with Hillary Clinton at the helm. Trump will absolutely bring that subject up. Sanders will have no defense on the subject at all. Not only did he campaign for Clinton in 2016 but he has been completely silent regarding election fraud in the primary up to this very day.

Gabbard, on the other hand, stepped down from the DNC vice chair position to protest election fraud, did NOT campaign for Clinton, has been publicly critical regarding the DNC and openly opposed Clinton only weeks ago. She also has announced that she will not be running for her Congressional seat again, so the DNC holds absolutely no power over her political future, as far as we know at this time.

Foreign policy. On foreign policy, Trump would likely not even challenge Gabbard. While he has failed at his campaign promises of ending wars and easing tensions with allegedly hostile leaders, he can point to efforts he has made. Gabbard also shows she will meet with those leaders and states the absolute goal of ending wars. Trump can absolutely challenge Sanders on foreign policy because Sanders has only offered platitudes on foreign policy. He has not offered any specific policies, goals or methods for his foreign policies.

Healthcare. Trump’s healthcare policies have been an absolute tragedy, leaving millions without medical insurance coverage of any kind while insurance and medical costs have continued to rise drastically. The one thing he can point to is that he eliminated mandatory private coverage and the penalty for not being insured. He will use the last part as a weapon against both Sanders and Gabbard, who both support universal healthcare.

With Gabbard, she openly states she supports universal healthcare with no private insurance involved for basic care. She does support the availability of supplemental care through private insurance, which is consistent with most countries that have universal healthcare. Much of her proposed healthcare plan would be paid for by reducing military spending. That reduction would be constant, not affected by stock market performance.

With Sanders, his plan also has the same components. However, he has been less prone to discuss the supplemental insurance aspect, which can be construed as an attempt to hide that fact. His plan is largely financed through a tax on stock market trades. Problem is, the amount available would decline if and when the stock market declines. Which the stock market is poised to do precipitously. He states he would decrease defense spending but without a plan in place for reducing conflicts, that would be difficult to justify and accomplish.

Debate style. One has to look at debate styles and behavior. On his own, Trump goes on tangents, we all know this. However, if you recall the RNC debates in 2016, he tends to remain rather composed and on the offensive at all times.

Sanders can be put on the defensive easily. He does try and keep a strong focus on the issues but can become visibly shaken. Trump has the tendency to change subjects and use more personal attacks, which tends to put Sanders on the defensive and he is rather consistent about it. When faced with subjects for which he actually has to defend himself, he stutters a lot.

Gabbard is a lot harder to shake. She can go on the offensive very easily. She goes into debate well prepared regarding her opponent. That is, in addition to being well versed on the issues. On top of that, she thinks on her feet and can transition without blinking an eye. She can face an aggressive opponent down with a smile on her face, never show fear and not stutter a single time.

Between Sanders and Gabbard in debate against Trump or any aggressive opponent, I would definitely say Gabbard would fare much better. Sanders fosters the image of the grandfather figure focused on domestic policy. Gabbard projects the image of a warrior, ready to fight the Establishment while working to ease international tensions. In a world currently at war, with raging international tensions, highly aggressive characters and forces in our political parties and a blatantly dishonest, adversarial corporate media, at this time the warrior/diplomat is what this country sorely needs and the one who will fare far better in debate in this environment.

Don’t Be Impressed By Black Friday Sales Numbers

The media has been making a huge deal out of the large consumer spending numbers on Black Friday this year, touted as the most ever spent on Black Friday and a considerable increase over last year.

However, all of this is being viewed through a laser-focused lens. Absolute tunnel vision is in effect, giving a distorted image of the truth. There is a lot more which has to be taken into consideration than the numbers of a single day or weekend.

Timing is everything. The first thing to take into consideration is when Black Friday occurs during a given year. This year it occurred on 11/29/19. What does that mean? It means that 12/1 occurred on a weekend. The result is that Social Security, government and many other paychecks typically paid on the 1st of the month were deposited instead on.. Black Friday. If you have ever been shopping, especially grocery shopping, you know that the first weekend of the month is generally much busier than other weekends because of those consumers forced to live paycheck to paycheck. The last time that Black Friday and December 1st occurred on the same weekend was in 2013. (7 year cycle.) Guess what the media was reporting at the time? They reported how consumer sales had increased over the previous year for Black Friday. Not to the same degree, of course. We were allegedly coming out of the Great Recession and one has to take inflation into account, which affects absolute numbers AND percentages reported.

Changing shopping habits. Another thing to take into consideration is that remote orders for store pickup increased considerably this year. While part of this is technology-driven, it also indicates consumers are planning their purchases in advance. They know what they are going to buy and that is what they order. This has the effect of reducing impulse purchases made while shoppers wander through stores and buy more than they originally planned. If shoppers only buy what they have planned for, this indicates that spending will most likely taper off very quickly before mid-December, which will negate the gains reported right now.

A wider view. When we take all the above into account, the obvious becomes clear. We cannot look at a single day or weekend to judge consumer spending or confidence. Instead, we have to take a wider view and look at consumer spending both before and after Black Friday weekend. Not meaning an isolated view of one week before and after but at least 1 month before and after. This gives us a much more accurate view. Obviously we cannot really predict what the coming month will bring but we can look back at previous months. In October, retail sales increased by 0.3%. Statistically this is negligible to begin with. However, go back one more month and we find that sales in September had declined by 0.3%, which brings even the October increase to a flat even number.

Consumer sales do not equal consumer spending. Something else to look at is how these sales are funded. Consumer credit spending has increased and that is likely how much of the current spending was funded. Many consumers are still paying credit card debt from 2018. This is debt spending, which is not truly consumer spending. Rather than indicating consumer confidence or any improvement in the economy, it tends to indicate the reverse, that consumers are not in the position to spend actual income at this time. Even if they have the liquid assets to spend, they are not willing to part with those assets, which demonstrates a lack of confidence in the ability to recuperate those assets in the near future.

The Trump irony. It is extremely ironic that the neoliberal media is reporting how well sales are doing, which amounts to a claim that the economy is doing extremely well. In effect, they are stating that Trump is having a positive effect on the economy. This, even as they make concurrent claims that he is destroying the economy and the country. The numbers they are reporting literally increase support for Trump, even as the neoliberal media is pushing for his impeachment. Meanwhile the same corporate media on both sides report falsified employment numbers and simply do not report comprehensive numbers of layoffs and retail or manufacturing closures which have taken place this year. What they are doing is trying to play both sides in an attempt to force the illusion that capitalism is successful while trying to bring down the most capitalistic president to ever hold US office.

The rebound effect. Consumer debt is already at a level higher than any time in history, while labor income is the lowest it has been in decades in terms of real wages. Now consumers appear to be taking on new debt. If jobs which offer living wages are not created in mass numbers in the very near future, meaning the next few months, as debts come due we will see consumer spending plummet drastically as consumers are forced to reduce immediate spending to pay the debts. This will cause more layoffs in an increasing spiral downward for the economy. This is likely to concur with the end of the Federal Reserve bailout of unstable banks, resulting in the perfect storm for an economic crash the likes of which few people have imagined.

Prove Me Wrong. Convince Me.

This article is directed specifically toward Bernie supporters.

I have made a number of statements that I am not convinced Bernie is nearly as anti-war as he claims to be. Apparently I am not the only one. This article from CounterPunch from April of this year shows they are not convinced, either. https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/04/12/no-bernies-not-anti-war/

Still, I remain open minded to new information. Just before starting this article, I did a short web search and found nothing which convinces me that my view is incorrect. However, we all know that censorship is a real thing, so maybe there are things I have not seen. I certainly have not seen any convincing statements shared on social media, where it would surely be used to contradict my statements.

No matter what I or other anti-war activists have to say, Bernie supporters absolutely insist with their very last breath that Bernie is anti-war, anti-regime change.

So, this is your chance. Prove me wrong. Fully convince me that my view is incorrect and Bernie is fully committed to ending the wars we are in, not starting any new wars, not going to endorse regime change operations, that he is against the sanctions which are killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians in other countries.

It has to be proof. I will not be swayed by vague rhetoric. I need direct quotes. I need video evidence. I need current policy positions on general foreign policy. Show me something proving that Bernie has literally stated he will enact policies which do any of what is stated above. Convince me. Convince yourself. Remove all doubt.

Here’s what I will not accept- I will not accept excuses. I will not accept your opinions or insults. When you must resort to that, you have nothing else to offer of substance. I will not listen to how any politician can lie. We all know this but if there is no promise, no specific policy stance, there is no reason to believe there will be any effort. There is nothing to use to hold an official’s feet to the fire if they can respond, “I never said that.”

“No more wars.” That was one line uttered in 2016. Something to realize this does NOT mean is that there will be FEWER wars. The number can remain the same but locations can change. Labels mean everything. Politicians can claim “the war on terror” is literally one war spanning numerous countries with global implications.

As anti-war activists, we need to be waging our own war against war itself. You are in or you are out, there is no in between.

Now, Bernie supporters. It’s your turn. Gimme what you’ve got. Show me.

Respect Workers For The Holidays

So, this week is Thanksgiving. Once upon a time, Black Friday began on Friday, the morning after Thanksgiving. In recent years, more and more stores have been starting their Black Friday sales on Thanksgiving day. Even that first started in the evening, then moved earlier and earlier. At this point it may be all day Thanksgiving, taking away any chance for employees to spend with their families on that day.

I’ll be clear. I have spent my life in service industries of one kind or another. Years ago I was a chef in restaurants. Every restaurant I ever worked in was open on Thanksgiving and Christmas. I accepted it and went along with it. People have to eat, many have to or choose to eat out for the holidays. Later I was in the Army and was frequently not in the position where I had a holiday. Then I became a nurse, which is a 24/7 occupation. In my 25 years of nursing, I worked in positions where I had holidays maybe 2 of those years and had a couple of years I was not employed for one or both holidays. (I opted to suspend the job search until January for obvious reasons.)

Retail is not service. People do not have to shop for televisions, clothes and cheap plastic shit on Thanksgiving or Christmas.

What is happening here is that corporations are forcing people to leave their families on Thanksgiving and Christmas for the sake of corporate profits. In the majority of cases, these employees have no choice. They are threatened with personnel action up to and including termination from their low wage jobs if they do not work on these holidays.

If you surrender to the call of capitalist obsession and start shopping on Thanksgiving, you have become an active part of this process. You are rewarding the corporate oppression of employees while reveling in the subservience of low wage, unprivileged workers. You have personally become the problem.

I really do not care what kind of apathetic, arrogant, narcissistic, sadistic excuses may be offered by disgusting people attempting to justify their materialistic greed. I have heard every single contrived statement you can make by other cloned, indoctrinated, Xerox copied, stereotyped, sociopathic slugs that crawled out from under their rocks to spew their disease. You don’t need to say anything because you are nothing original. Just another asshole.

Your shopping can wait just a few hours to make Thanksgiving and/or Christmas less profitable for these employers. Just enough to make it more expensive to open their doors than to let their employees have two specific days of the year off to spend with families.

For the rest of you, have a wonderful Thanksgiving!!!

Anarchists: The Best Example Of Your Ideology Is Libya Today

I keep hearing people who claim to be ideologically left, yet continually espouse such sentiments as not voting, eliminating parties and outright eliminating government. This is more dangerous thinking than everything we are currently facing today.

Many, if they apply a label to themselves, call themselves Anarchists. Merriam-Webster defines Anarchy as, “ a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority”.

Of course, they will attempt to apply the third definition, which is, “ a Utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government”. We’ll get to that.

Many also adhere to Libertarianism, which I have raged against previously, pointing out clearly that Libertarians are NOT, I repeat NOT Progressives.

Libya is the best example of anarchy and capitalism. If you want to know what Anarchy and unrestricted capitalism looks like, look at Libya today, since the US-orchestrated destruction of the Qaddafi government. They have no elections and no viable government. They also have open slave markets in the streets, lack of food, lack of water, armed gangs running the streets. Unrestricted capitalism means unrestricted. That means anything and everything is for sale. Including human freedom and life. If you cannot pay, your freedom and perhaps your life will be surrendered. Because of lack of government, lack of laws, lack of law enforcement, your freedom and your life may be forfeit even if you DO pay. After all, who is there to insure that your abductors or abusers hold their side of that bargain?

Define no government. Those who call themselves Anarchists or Anarcho-Socialists (aka Libertarian Socialists) have an objection to the existence of a centralized government, especially one which controls the economy. In general, they protest against the collection of taxes. Meaning any existing government would have to be self-funded. In other words, only those who could purchase their way into office would hold office. They claim that all humans should be self-governing and they toss in the Socialist label to try and legitimize their claims that this would be freedom or “liberty”. Their ideas would serve to empower the rich and the most brutal in society. Why would anyone think that the rich and violent would not threaten and control anyone opposing them? That already happens right now!

Their labels are oxymorons. No matter which label they choose to apply to themselves is self-contradictory. You cannot be in favor of social liberties while denying funding or oversight to the very programs which provide for the welfare of the people, especially the young, elderly, poor and chronically ill. What they propose is survival of the privileged. Not very social, is it?

A Socialist government still needs a central government. Understand something. Any time you gather a group of people together, including civilians, to define rules of conduct in any way, you have created laws and regulations. Those laws must include penalties or there is nothing to stop anyone from violating those laws. Without defined laws, courts and means of enforcement, what results is mob rule and vigilante justice. Without laws and a system to enforce those laws, who protects the general public? Who stops businesses or anyone from selling unsafe medications and medical equipment? Who enforces food safety? Environmental protection? Worker safety? Consumer finance protection? Child labor laws? Wages?

Who saves capitalism? Opposing a government basically means opposing safety, security and the general welfare. It also means opposing capitalism itself. In 2008/9 it was inadequate financial regulations which led to the financial collapse. Who did capitalists turn to? Who saved them? The government. Right this minute, the Federal Reserve is creating roughly $180 billion PER DAY to bail out unstable private banks which would otherwise collapse. Those banks became unstable by placing money in risky investments. What are the banks doing with the money loaned to them? Bailing out the risky investments, of course. In all honesty, without government, what stops banks from taking your deposits and closing their doors?

Don’t vote? If you choose to not vote, that is your personal choice. You have chosen to silence your own voice which could at least be used to help raise the chances of increased ballot access for third and fourth parties. So do not act like not voting is making a statement. That is passive-aggressive whining. It is highly unlikely that there ever has been or ever will be one candidate for any office that you agree with absolutely. It is a matter of balance and priority. If you don’t see anyone you like running for office and you want to be so much of an activist, get out and run for office yourself. Instead of sitting on your ass criticizing, put yourself on the line and be the one being criticized. Be the one trying to find the balance needed to improve things. Be the one to offer solutions, not just complaining about problems.

Revolution? Anyone who reads my writing knows I absolutely oppose violent revolution. That kind of violence always gets out of hand and causes harm. The ones who advocate violence have some fantasy that they will be immune to that violence. There’s nothing humanitarian about their ideas. Does any of this mean that I do not expect violent revolution to occur in this country, at least in limited pockets? I fully expect that to happen. Does that mean I will shy away if it comes down to an outright physical confrontation between varying factions, including the government against the people? I will be right there if and when it happens.

However, IDEAS are what are truly revolutionary. Knowledge, truth, peaceful negotiation. Unity across party lines is revolutionary and what the oligarchy truly fears. We will not gain that unity by attacking one another using labels and contrived divisions between us. We will not gain that unity by violence. None of us can expect to agree on all points with all people or even most people. We have to be dynamic in our allegiances by joining with one group for one goal and another group for another goal, etc. Not only can we accomplish more that way but we gain stronger bonds with a wider variety of people. We build COMMUNITY.

Yes, we absolutely need changes to our system. That’s not a question. We need a system which bails and benefits the people, not the banks, not the corporations, not the warmongers. Let the ones throwing money into failed investments fail. Only then will they learn their lesson.

Banding together is anything but anarchy. Banding together as some propose for the purpose of destroying the government with no viable alternative is mob rule. Destroying the government would result in mob against mob, gang against gang. Which is not very Utopian, is it?

Pt 2- Universal Healthcare Would Have To Be Adopted Gradually

I really did not think I was going to have to write a follow up on this one. I should have known better. So, this follow up is really to address the contradictions I have encountered from the left.

Some have claimed that because I am stating that universal healthcare would have to be phased in that I am in some way against universal healthcare. The first thing that is obvious about that argument is that they have not read my writing, including the entire first article. They claim they did, of course but if they did, the indication is worse. It means they are arguing for the sake of feeding their addiction to conflict. I made it very clear on too many occasions to count just how much I am in favor of universal healthcare, so their arguments hold no water at all.

Rational approach. Every single thing that I write comes from a rational perspective. In this case, I have not only formally and informally studied economics for over 30 years but have direct experience with basically everything involved. I have been a nurse for over 25 years. I have written medical protocols. I have worked as a subcontractor for multiple insurance companies and the longest position in that respect I resigned from because of my own ethical objections to changes in criteria which denied needed imaging studies. Lastly, I have been writing about politics for years. Thus, I know politics, economics, medicine, medical protocols and the insurance/medical funding processes.

Compassionate approach. Not only is everything I write rational, it is also humanitarian in nature. My detractors on the first article are still absolutely set on the idea that insurance company employees would be able to transition directly and immediately to a government universal healthcare system. That would not happen. It could not happen. It is all but impossible.

Location, location, location. First, detractors are making the completely erroneous assumption that new jobs will be created in the same cities in which they currently exist. That would not happen in the majority of cases. There may be a select few jobs available in larger cities created but not enough to replace all the jobs which would be lost by a long shot. Maybe they think workers can simply pull up their entire lives and relocate to where the new jobs are created. Leave their homes, their families, their friends and all that they know for the sake of a paycheck. A few may be willing to do this but they will be an extreme minority. That thought process also takes no account of what that would do to the housing market. So, who is thinking about the direct welfare of those workers and their families? Me or my detractors?

Money is not healthcare. Detractors have said to me that insurance is not healthcare. I agree. Know what else is not healthcare? Throwing money at the problem. I explained in detail the challenges of training, building and expanding systems, contracts, staffing, etc. Just funding is not enough. Throwing money at a problem does not make it go away. The moment that universal healthcare passes, I explained that the stock market will plummet. Perhaps they think this only has implications for rich investors. However, it would definitely affect the average American who has a diversified 401k. People could lose a significant portion of their life savings within hours. Just funding would not create the needed systems and medically trained personnel needed to provide the care and services required. Who is thinking about the average American with retirement accounts and the lapse in services? Me or my detractors?

Staffing, education and licensing. I covered this in the first article but let me repeat it. Medical training takes years. Implementing universal healthcare will place a heavy burden on the system we currently have. Waiting times will lengthen and there is already insufficient staffing in many geographic areas. Yes, you can increase pay/bonuses/benefits but then you merely move the shortage from one place to another. More people will have to be trained and licensed. Would you want your family member in a hospital which was still accepting patients at half the minimum staffing levels? I have been a nurse long enough to have had 14 patients on a surgical unit, 40 patients in inpatient hospice with one CNA, over 60 in a nursing home or skilled nursing unit, over 300 patients one time in a long term rehab unit. Those are the kinds of things that led to the nursing shortage and almost made me leave nursing. Do you want that back? Who is thinking about patient safety and who is not? Me or my detractors?

Overburdening. One thing is absolutely true. Before you can train people into a new system, the system has to exist. While those opposed to me claim workers can be trained into the existing system, the Medicare/Medicaid system is not created or equipped with the resources or even protocols needed for a universal healthcare system. However, let’s say the protocols and computer systems existed. What happens then is that you overburden the current workers with training new employees. Even after a person is trained, they have to have their work overseen and reviewed for accuracy for weeks or months. That includes for fraud, waste and abuse. During this time, the processing time for claims would be extended considerably. Perhaps taking weeks or months. So, who is thinking of the people who are actually ill, acutely or chronically during this period? Me or my detractors? Who is thinking of the stress level placed on already overworked government employees? Me or my detractors?

Offshore effects. Not many Americans have any realization as to how much of their medical claims process takes place in other countries. Yes, your private medical information is sent to other countries on a daily basis. I know this because of my experiences doing preauthorization for medical imaging studies. One big reason for this is that the insurance companies pay workers in other countries far less than domestic workers. I have also worked in medical facilities that send imaging studies to Australia to have reports written. That’s so they do not have to keep a Radiologist PhD on staff at all times. Now, while I strenuously object to our medical information being sent to other countries, I accept the fact that the workers in those countries rely on that employment for an income. An immediate change to universal healthcare would leave them without an income with no warning. So, who is more compassionate to those workers? Me or my detractors?

Probationary period. One cannot deny that implementing universal healthcare would be harshly scrutinized and criticized by capitalists. That includes the capitalist media who make many many billions per year hosting advertising for insurance and drug companies. So, how would they be reporting on this transition? If we suddenly had tens or hundreds of thousands out of work, waiting times and processing times extended to months, a stock market crash and seeming incompetence all along the way? Do you remember how much of a problem it was to bring the ACA online? The problems with the government portal? How many times the system crashed? The processing time to get people enrolled? Do you remember how the media reported on every single tiny problem? The absolute fact is that capitalists would be seeking any and every excuse to declare universal healthcare a failure. That is ALL they would report on all day, every day. While probably blaming Russia, of course. So, who is thinking of how imperative it is that universal healthcare be implemented in a way that considers all that can go wrong, plans for exceptions and has contingencies in place? Who sounds like they want it to be successful, me or my detractors?

Too many of my detractors are completely driven by emotion. That emotion is unreasoning, uncompromising, compulsive and selfish. As a nurse, I am trained and experienced in applying critical thinking to achieve results which are based on emotion, compassion, caring. As a nurse, I am also absolutely no stranger to setting my own emotions aside while applying that critical thought process or even doing what the patient wants when my own choice would be far different.

I am very much in favor of Socialism and my writing displays that. However, as a reasoning person I also think clearly that transitioning in that direction must be done gradually and with extreme planning. We cannot throw one system out completely without having a new system already built to replace it. That is the equivalent to learning you have lung cancer and the doctor’s response is grabbing a scalpel and removing your lungs with no anesthesia, no transplant organs. “Well, we have funding for it!” How would that work for you?

The whole point is that using critical, rational thinking to detail exactly HOW things can be accomplished effectively with the fewest complications does not lack compassion or emotion in the least. You would not want someone performing surgery on you or administering medications to you when they have no knowledge on the procedures. It doesn’t matter how much emotion they put into it, certain things take knowledge, planning and education. Your FEELINGS don’t matter if you sabotage the system you implement while causing very real danger to the beneficiaries of that system. If we cause more problems than we solve, we doom that system before it ever gets off the ground.

Care enough to THINK.

Universal Healthcare Would HAVE to Be Adopted Gradually

Many people voicing support for universal healthcare think it is some form of magic bullet that would be adopted and implemented in a single day and all problems would be resolved.

None of this is true. In fact, it would and should be adopted gradually over years to overcome the difficulties that would be encountered on many levels.

Supplemental insurance. This is a key sticking point for many people. I have pointed out that Tulsi Gabbard openly states her plan would include supplemental insurance, while Bernie Sanders admits his plan would as well but only under coerced admittance. Now, consider the fact that nearly every country that has universal healthcare also has supplemental insurance. If we moved to universal healthcare, think what would happen the day it was announced, if no supplemental insurance were included. That very day, the stock market would crash. Medical claims would be denied, even if previously approved. Tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Americans would lose their jobs. Doctors offices, clinics, hospitals and pharmacies would be forced to close their doors within weeks. Not out of greed. Out of necessity. That would suspend or eliminate hundreds of thousands of other jobs. From there, downstream spending would plummet, causing more complications.

Of course, these effects could be very slightly dampened by legislation mandating companies to keep their doors open, insurance companies to honor claims, etc. That does not keep investors from selling off stocks, cashing in bonds.

By allowing for supplemental insurance, many jobs would be maintained. Investors would still pull funding but not completely.

Timeline. There would have to be a plan which included a specific timeline which phased in the introduction. This could take many forms, such as introducing specific existing medical conditions by target dates and culminating in universal coverage.

Job creation. I have pointed out previously that universal healthcare would absolutely create more jobs than it eliminated. Meaning living wage jobs. However, this process would not be instantaneous. One crucial aspect would be funding the expansion of medical professional training. This could take the form of federal funding or even federal training programs for each state for various medical professions, especially nursing, nurse practitioners, licensed physician assistants (not to be confused with medical assistants), etc. This training takes years. Even as hospitals across the country have been closing at a rate of 35 per year, the nursing shortage has continued. Universal healthcare would make that situation far worse and spread the problem to other medical fields.

Waiting times. You can definitely count on wait times for medical appointments of all kinds to be temporarily extended. The implementation of universal healthcare should include new systems which require less direct interaction with providers for basic care. Telephone and internet consultation systems have been developed which help with this and could be adapted to such a new system. Those would have to be expanded. The current systems are for profit and if they choose to not take part in the new system, they would have to be replaced with government run systems. Self referral for some specialties should also be an option with prior approval.

Medical criteria. While Medicare/Medicaid has a strong set of medical criteria already in place, it is insufficient to cover the needs which would be required under universal healthcare. The criteria currently in place cover existing conditions and less preventative care. Some of the criteria needed could be derived from insurance companies but would still require review, rewriting and implementation to incorporate into the system. Once again, this is a process which would take years to accomplish fully.

Billing and payment. While universal healthcare would simplify medical billing, the specific systems necessary for the scale of the system would have to be not only expanded and updated but more systems put in place to reduce fraud, waste and abuse. Funding would be a challenge in the beginning, as there would absolutely be a massive surge of claims by those who may have foregone medical care for years. After 2–3 years it would decrease and level off but there would be numerous adaptations to even figure out the right balance between cost to taxpayers and payments to providers. During that time there would be a lot of bitching and moaning about how unfair the system was, it was a bad idea, etc. Nothing of this scale happens without some kinks to work out.

Contracts and logistics. Medical facilities and offices have contracts with providers of services, equipment and medications. In many cases, these are dictated by insurance plans. Many of these contracts will have to be renegotiated, which again takes time. Of course, if all service/equipment/pharmacies are obligated to accept referrals from any provider, this will simplify things. However, don’t count on this happening right away because of everything detailed above.

Quality of care. Even if we solve the problems of training medical professionals, that does not insure quality of care. With a system which would be burdened by a new large number of patients, I would expect some decrease in quality of care for a time, until we achieve a strong enough density of medical professionals to weed out the weakest links. I’ve seen horrible incompetency in my years in nursing. Just last week I had to explain to another nurse that DNR means Do Not Resuscitate, it does not mean Do Not Treat. Then I had to explain the difference. If we had a mad rush to graduate a mass number of licensed people, chances are quality of education, testing and oversight would be decreased as well if more oversight is not included in the new system, which would also take time. Oversight would have to be done concurrently with the phasing in of the new system.

None of this means that we should not be pushing for universal healthcare. We absolutely MUST push for it. Medical care should not be available only for the wealthy. It should be considered a human right above and beyond profit motives.

My entire point is that just passing legislation is not going to solve all our problems in a single shot. Changing our entire system will take time. It is a huge and complicated task, not just a change in paperwork. It affects all of our lives, not just a few. There are aspects of this that some who have an unearned sense of privilege will obviously object to. Others will object because they want to move instantaneously to a state run system with no option for supplemental insurance. While an eventual move to a truly universal system may be possible, even that seems unlikely. There should be supplemental insurance for things like cosmetic care, which the rest of us should not have to pay for. I’m certain that insurance companies would be able to devise special insurance plans for that purpose, if they do not already exist.

The US Is Not Ready For Socialism

When the majority of people spoke of Socialism for many years, what they really referred to is Marxist Socialism. Some confuse Marxism with Communism but that’s not exactly accurate, either. If you want a better distinction between the two than I can offer, I advise listening to Dr Richard Wolff.

In summary, Communism and the Bolshevik Revolution initially began with Marxist Socialism as a goal. However, it was diverted along the way by numerous forces which distorted it.

However, this is not about a history lesson. Nor is a full college course definition of Marxism the point I am making here. There are many sources for that information easily available.

If a person is informed on exactly what Marxist Socialism truly is, one can easily define it as a society which places the welfare and well-being of the society above that of the individual. It is the members of that society utilizing the resources produced by that society to help all members of the community. It involves strict regulations of resources and oversight of monetary policies to enforce fair distribution of goods, services and money. The regulations are determined by the very members of the society in question. Policies and laws are debated and voted into place by a democratic majority of regular citizens taking part in the process, each with an equal stake in the outcome and/or consequences of their decisions.

In opposition to Socialism is Capitalism, in which there is little to no oversight of the distribution of resources. The distribution of goods and services are unfairly diverted to those who gain the greater share of those resources, by nearly any means possible. Goods and services are produced by the many for the benefit of the few. Laws and regulations are determined by what benefits the already powerful, with no input by the members of society. The elite suffer virtually no consequences for their actions or decisions, while the consequences are suffered in severe form by the successively lower classes. In modern times, we can clearly see the capitalist system as a direct descendant of slavery and feudalism.

Unfortunately, in this country we have been basically banned from even discussing Socialism for decades. To even mention Socialism raised the contrived specter of an evil enemy, a narrative construct created by elite propagandists to keep the masses in line, subservient to the masters and mistresses of the manors. Generations have been indoctrinated to believe that capitalism is the only system which offers freedom, even as we sacrificed our freedom and our very lives on the altar of the capitalist religion. The servants have warred amongst ourselves to defend our own oppression.

Times have changed. Much of this is thanks to one of the most Socialist constructions ever. The internet. More specifically, social media. While nobody can deny that much of social media is emotionally reactionary behavior, ideas still manage to get through and eventually discussed if perpetuated enough.

This is why the corporate culture has been rising to attempt to censor these ideas. Yet then they must face the backlash of protests, outcries and, most importantly, the threat of losing their audience and consumer base which provides their revenue stream. The threat exists that users will abandon their platforms and form new platforms, never to return. So, should the corporate media sources tolerate some ideas for short term profit? Or censor speech in an effort to control the narrative? Capitalists will always and consistently choose short term profit, even when they know they will suffer some level of defeat further down the road.

One big problem is that our society still believes too much in capitalism as a model. They listen too intently to corporate propaganda fearmongering about the dangers of Socialism.

We have been emotionally conditioned to react emotionally rather than think critically or understand concepts. We have been conditioned to fear simple words without knowing their meaning. Yet this country has had Socialist programs in place for decades, without which the economy would collapse and humans would suffer. Social Security, public schools, public roads, worker safety laws, health departments, environmental protection laws, wage laws, consumer protection laws and more are all Socialist in nature. These programs and other Socialist constructs are responsible for millions of jobs resulting in trillions of dollars in tax revenue.

It is not taxes which are the problem but how those taxes are spent which pose the problem. Our taxes benefit the rich far more than society in general. Bombs and weapons create very few jobs and save no lives at all. Medical care, infrastructure and education save lives, improve lives and don’t directly kill anyone. Yet they create jobs across the country, across the planet.

While our grasp of the benefits of Socialism is improving, we are not yet evolved enough for Marxism. Even the vast majority of those who support Social Democracy are still prone to the mindset of capitalism and consumerism which we have been immersed in for our entire lives. We are not yet evolved enough emotionally, educationally, intellectually or even spiritually to move directly toward Marxism. Just by virtue of the psychological and emotional maturity of our populace, any possible move toward true Socialism will have to be done by gradual steps. We already see the lesser evolved populace fighting in favor of their own oppression, their own suffering, their own insecurity, even their own deaths. They are simply unable to break free of their indoctrinated programming.

One must recall that the two major countries that have utilized any form of expansive Marxism both did so only after being decimated by world wars, the USSR by WWI and China by WWII. People were desperate, their cities, infrastructure and economies laid waste. They enacted Socialism as they rebuilt their socioeconomic systems and even then only with extreme struggle and civil unrest. In addition, they both faced the exact same adversaries which we face now- Corporate influences and the capitalist-enabling US government, backed up by a massive military force. Yes, if we try and move too quickly toward Socialism, we will definitely confront US military force and militarized police on our own streets, in our own homes.

I have no doubt we can eventually make the move toward Socialism. It would be natural social evolution and maturation. It will simply have to happen over a long period of time and include mass education to prove the concept. Each of us in favor of Socialism can help by pointing out the Socialist programs we already have in place and their benefits to both society and the general economy. Still, even we must accept the fact that the only way it will stand a chance of occurring is for us to follow in the same economic path by which it has taken hold in other countries. That is to say, capitalism MUST fail completely, forcing the majority of the population to come to complete realization that a new system to replace it is mandatory. Our only other choice would be reinstating slavery. If that happened, who gets to choose who the slaves would be? What would happen to those who did not own slaves or resources? Their labor would not be needed on any significant scale. To a populace blind to the fact that they are already enslaved to debt, desensitized to our own suffering, to give up more rights may not seem like a frightening concept. Our society has become secure in our own insecurity.

The necessary collapse of capitalism is coming soon. It has been inevitable for many years and is completely unavoidable at this point. The illusion can no longer be maintained. It will be the capitalists who have used the capitalist system as a religion, a drug, a means of self definition who will collapse as the system collapses. People who define themselves as capitalists will be unable to adapt, unaware of who they are without their possessions. Sadly, we can expect many to take their own lives rather than adapt. Some may try and take the lives of others. It will be tragic but we must expect it.

It is time for us to face these facts at this moment, without waiting or trying to defer the mental evolution to a later date. It is time for each of us to be the grownups in the room. The already evolved will find no true challenge in adapting to such a reality. We will have no problem leading the way forward.

In Praise And Criticism Of The Green Party

I have stated many times that my preferred part is the Green Party. For some while, I have also promised to detail why I am for the Green Party in general, yet will likely not vote GP this election.

First, my praise.

The GP has the most extensive, Progressive, detailed, transparent party platform of any party at all. If you care to read it, be ready to spend some time. I really encourage you to do so. Each section goes into extreme detail and it will take hours to read the whole thing. This is especially impressive because it demonstrates how issues are woven together and must be viewed as such. Their platform can be found here: https://www.gp.org/platform

The GP is the most fervently anti-war and most humanistic party you can find. No other party comes close as far as human and environmental rights versus capitalism. I truly cannot praise the party platform enough because it is lucid, not based on special interests and tries the absolute hardest to work toward equality, peace, fairness and justice.

Now, my criticism.

My first criticism of the GP is to agree with many others who have criticized the GP previously and currently. The GP has a very big problem with organization. Rather than having a true national party, they have a collection of independent state parties which act autonomously. This is especially puzzling for a party that has such comprehensive views on rights as a nation. This also tends to call into question their ability to function as a national organization for the benefit of the country should a GP candidate be elected.

My second criticism is based on this specific election. This election cycle has been rife with accusations of unfair treatment of candidates. Multiple presidential candidates from the GP have filed formal complaints and press releases stating that the GP has suppressed certain campaigns and promoted a limited number of others. I can attest that this is true because I looked at the GP list of candidates months ago and several times over several months. During that time, I never even saw these candidates listed on the official GP website as active candidates. If the GP is basing party backing of specific candidates on monetary fundraising or something similar, that negates everything in their platform.

I also think the GP needs to move up their timing of naming their nominee. For a party that gets insufficient media coverage, it becomes more important for the party to unify behind a single voice. There is no single spokesperson for the GP. As noted above, they are not a national party, so a single spokesperson is next to impossible to name. For years, we considered Jill Stein the leader and spokesperson for the GP but she has bowed out of this election cycle. Thus, operating on a similar time frame as the two major parties really does not work. Delaying the naming of a nominee simply means that each candidate and the party as a whole suffers from lack of attention.

Right now, Howie Hawkins appears to be the most likely nominee. Hawkins has many very good policies which I agree with. In theory. However, Hawkins is basically a Marxist. I actually support Marxism as a concept. However, this country is far from being evolved enough to adopt Marxism at this point in time. This becomes even more crucial a concept to contend with after the petty, delusional Russiagate McCarthyism we have been dealing with for the past 3+ years. Trying to run someone that far to the left with no transition period would likely lead to civil war. Just think how corporate media would react to his campaign and/or presidency!

I’ll cover Marxism and this country in another article.

Hawkins is also a propagator of the Russiagate myth, so I rather fail to see how he can claim to be anti-war. Nobody who promotes Russiagate is anti-war. Nobody.

So, while the Green Party is the most socially Progressive party with the most well considered and constructed platform, this election cycle holds little or no hope for them. Sadly, I find it likely that they will lose ground this cycle compared to 2016. I’ll say that I am still donating to the GP. However, they need to organize themselves better and learn from their mistakes. It literally appears that they are engaging in some form of wishful thinking where elections are concerned. Their strongest suit is in critical thinking, so it’s a tragedy they are not applying it in this way. Socialism is an expansive concept which cannot be broken down into smaller state parties functioning separately from one another. Doing so leaves the door open for high chances of infiltration and corruption by external forces with little oversight or accountability. A national party is more likely to be able to gain ballot access in all states while gaining some level of media coverage. Yes, of course that media coverage by corporate sources would be intentionally negative but name recognition is important. Just look at Trump’s coverage in 2015/16 for evidence of that point. Until they slow their policies to graduated implementation, revealing the successive steps over time with success at each stage and form a more cohesive and defined structure, the GP will remain very low on the ballot.