Paris, The New American City

In Paris, France the poor and immigrants live outside the “inner-city,” with the very rich and well connected being close to the city center. As gas prices will continue to rise, jobs move back to cash strapped cities lowering taxes, and the facade of better living in the suburbs vanishes with my generation of disillusioned home buyers; the city will become more and more gentrified. And why not, music, good food, access to the newest and best things reside closer to city centers. As our jobs move out of manufacturing and into cubicle work, the city – where people can work in boxes that go up and up and thus utilize space better – will become more attractive as a destination to house future businesses. We are seeing it more and more especially in the North East, once communities where white resident was pitied for presumption that they were somehow “left behind,” or lost and a nice car was assumed to be owned by a drug dealer or a white kid coming to buy drugs, are now being overrun by condos and gentrification as the sons and daughters of white flight return to the city. When I lived in Washington, DC communities that American University professors would ask why I dared to go to are not hot spots for new residents of the city; as gentrification marches east and the poor residents keep being pushed farther and farther out by higher and higher rents. I don’t know how a poor person could even afford to live in Manhattan; let alone the increasingly gentrified Bronx and Brooklyn. In Philadelphia blocks that would get you shouted down, “Whitey go home” I know because my father would be told that as he went home, are now up-incoming neighborhoods with local organic markets. Gas prices will go up, the suburbs will increasingly be abandoned and the poorer you are, the farther you will have to travel into the city to service the needs of the wealthy. That, like Paris, will be the new American City. RSS

Health Care in America Far Worse Than Anywhere in Western World: Wish We had Canada's

I want to thank Not My Mother's Blog for this great post. For all the annoying talk of the problems with universal coverage, not a single "negative" is ever born out by facts. As someone who had the pleasure of experiencing the English Health Care system I find all the lies about universal coverage to be shockingly disengenious. I got great care start to finish. On a system that was set up to benefit me the patient not me the paying customer. What I mean is that my doctor called me (or his office) to make sure I was up to date on my shots and that my health was good. He held information sessions to make sure I had the best data on how to stay healthy. I had costly preventative tests, comprehensive asthma treatment and consistent care. And when I had an emergency trip to the hospital (one were similar horrible experience I would have someone drive me to their and my risk to save money) it was an ambulance ride from heaven, professional, put me at ease and cost me nothing. In the long run I cost less, because I would be healthier and not need the costly corrective strategies that our system where we only go when things REALLY go wrong. Yes they had problems with funding, but those are minuscule problems compared to the behemoth of terrible care in the American health care company enrichment system we have. One of the dumbest rationales is the wait time. I never had to wait longer for ANYTHING in England...apparently neither do the Canadians. ...the Canadian Institute for Health Information released their report on wait times for several common health procedures across Canada. ...More than 75% of patients requiring cancer radiation treatment received that treatment within 28 days of being ready to treat. Let me give you a comparison here - my dad was diagnosed with melanoma in November. If he had been diagnosed in Canada, there is a better than 75% chance that treatment of that cancer would have started before Christmas. Here in the U.S., a guy with the kind of health insurance he has (read: excellent) should have been treated well within that time frame, right? His actual date of treatment: April 15. That’s right, here in the US, where we supposedly don’t have the nasty wait times brought on by nationalized health care, he waited four months longer for treatment than he would have waited in Canada. How about cataract surgery? The Canadian benchmark for cataract surgery is 16 weeks - within 112 days of the “booking time”. The data shows that 50% of the patients referred for cataract surgery in Canada have that surgery within 38 to 78 days. Ninety percent have the procedure performed within 199 days. In five of the eight provinces reporting, more than 75% of those waiting for cataract surgery have it performed within the benchmark 112 days. It’s another place where I have some personal experience. My mother had cataract surgery on April 17. She was referred in early January for that surgery. In other words, if she lived in Saskatchewan, there’s a 50% chance that she would have had that surgery done and out of the way by Valentines Day. In fact, in almost every single one of the provinces, there’s a better than 75% chance that she would have had her cataracts removed sooner. at which Deb Powers asks a great question. So I guess the question is - why are we so invested in maintaining the fiction that health care reform results in substandard care and longer wait times, when all the evidence points to the exact opposite conclusion? RSS

Money Number One Indicator if Democratic Senator Will Sell Out Citizens on Health Care

FiveThirtyEight.com Nate Silver who did a great job predicting the election in 08 turned his mathematical attention to the Health Care Debate and how senators are saying they will vote on a public option. If you want to know how they can expect to vote the easiest way is to see how much money they received from corrupt corporate health care system. Its a scary to know that people are dying because Senators are more interested in funding their campaigns than passing legislation that not only is desired by 70% of Americans, but will actually help. Nat Silver's 538 has more in his speak: Lobbying contributions appear to have the largest marginal impact on middle-of-the-road Democrats. Liberal Democrats are likely to hold firm to the public option unless they receive a lot of remuneration from health care PACs. Conservative Democrats may not support the public option in the first place for ideological reasons, although money can certainly push them more firmly against it. But the impact on mainline Democrats appears to be quite large: if a mainline Democrat has received $60,000 from insurance PACs over the past six years, his likelihood of supporting the public option is cut roughly in half from 80 percent to 40 percent. ...The single senator who's position on the public option is most likely to have been changed by lobbying money is Mark Warner of Virginia, who has already raised $69,000 from insurance industry PACs in spite of having been in the Senate for less than six months. Absent industry money, the model estimates about a two-thirds likelihood that Warner would support the public option; with it, the model thinks the chances are very low. Indeed Warner has been mum on the public option to date. RSS

The Star Spangled Banner

from Fireworks in North Andover, MA So a little known fact about me, I love the Star Spangled Banner. Or more accurately I love the poem, "Defence of Fort McHenry," written by Francis Scott Key in 1814 as the Flag continued to fly after a night of bombardment by the British Navy. The song was actually a British drinking song which was acquired later to become our national anthem. But as a child, I had a cherished book the history of this important song. Not the history of Scott Key or the drinking song which make this anthem. It was a book from Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia with the words of the song matched in pictures to the story behind America's creation and survival of the 1812 war. The book captivated my mind and gave life to this poem that to many just say at sporting events. Is a beautiful ode and homage to our country through the story of our flag. I have to admit that when I hear it I think to those amazing precious moments when our country was founded, to the moments when my family fought for freedom in this country to freedom for our country in wars abroad. And just as the little kid sitting in the back of the car flipping through the pages amazed at the story behind our anthem, the rendition still stirs that excitement and amazement to all we have built together. So much sacrifice represented in this important song and so much promise to be proud of. RSS

Poor More Generous Then the Rich

If you need more reason to despise the elite in this country here is yet another reason. (if being bad at running our country, the greed, the laziness, the complete narcissism, selfishness were not enough)via the soon to be defunct Portfolio: ...Americans at the bottom of the income-distribution pyramid are the country's biggest givers per capita. The 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey shows that households with incomes below $20,000 gave a higher percentage of their earnings to charity than did any other income group The people who have the least, gave the most. RSS

Honduran Coup Wrong, But So Is Left Leaning President And His Western Apologists

There is something fundamentally wrong with left leaning politicians wanting to make themselves less accountable to the people they purport to want to help. That is the problem with the Honduran President’s proposal to change the constitution. Yes it was a referendum to move on a constitutional convention, but it is not like his intentions were not clear. If you were unsure the support from Venezuelan President Chavez who equally has little respect for the people he claims to be helping. What is going on in Honduras is wrong. An elected President should never be overthrown by a standing Army. There are democratic means to deal with an over zealous executive officer. I think the message is clear, Honduran President needs to be returned to power immediately. But this post will require you to hold 2 Thoughts at the same time. One this coup is illegal, wrong, should never happen and needs to be peaceably opposed. The other important point is, when did it become ok to have the people your policies are supposed to be helping, less able to hold those policies and the politician who pushes them less accountable. It reminds me of Amartya Sen’s book that changed my world (and won him a noble prize) Development as Freedom. It's not good enough to just work for economic security for the poor, development must also increase the desired freedom’s of a population. Development work and indeed developing countries have learned that simply giving citizens more money is not enough for true success, we must make the human experience more fulfilling and viable. That with money must come, better access to schools, hospitals, and indeed the desired political freedoms of a nation’s citizens. Freedom to petition the government for change is just as important as the ability to buy a new car. Leaving aside for more familiar commentators whether or not the President’s move was constitutional under Honduran law. Also letting more familiar writers tackle the question of US involvement in toppling regimes in Latin America, the role of the School or Americas in this coup. And despite the complete lack of morality using supposed Presidential violation of the law to throw out the law and have military coup as a solution. An underlining problem of leftist country heads wanting to consolidate power in themselves and liberal apologists in western countries for it is very disturbing. We should not and cannot condone leftist leaders making the change they so passionately advocate for be about them being in power. We see where that goes, Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe being a perfect example. Or the real desire to overthrow a corrupt corporate dictator in Cuba leading to a left-leaning dictator in Cuba who won’t give up power. Ultimately the economic gains giving to the poor and middle class of society lose out to political corruption. And the very populations we are on the sidelines cheering for get cheated of the freedoms we take for granted. If Manuel Zelaya wants to be in power longer, if Chavez wants to get rid of term limits fine (they are un-small d-democratic) but then they must be MORE accountable to the voters they claim to be serving. Make terms in office 2 to 3 years and beef up protections against voter fraud. REALLY SERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE – make sure they have access to fresh water and the means to challenge the people who have power over access to that water. It is only when democratic change goes along with economic development is it successful for the people you are trying to help. Change is not about ONE person’s right to be in power, liberal change must not be to benefit one person or plutocracy as was the desire for Manuel Zelaya . RSS

Driving While Black Can Get You Killed, Even When You Are the Police

The NY Times had a great oped in the wake of the New York City PD officer being shot while chasing down a suspect. It is good that the NY Times runs an oped making an important statement on the current state of race as paper after paper and media outlet after media outlet talks about a post-race America where apparently the racist undercurrent of our country somehow vanish. President Obama is an important step in this country, but he does not wash away the deeply held racism that infects all aspects of our society. (Just as electing a female President will not mean patriarchy is dead). But in truth this isn't just about the ingrained racism that in the hands of the Police is deadly to people of color, it is also an important lesson on police brutality which is spiraling out of control. Shooting after shooting the police are being put into uncomfortable positions and their only answer seems to be to shoot first and hope for the best later. In the case of Omar Edwards the young police officer who was chasing the suspect pulled out a gun while chasing someone who had simply broke into his car. Then, the white police officer on the scene instead of asking questions or finding out what was happening, shot first and then came to regret was is usually ok, shooting a black man in New York City. And it wasn't until they check the body of Omar who was HANDCUFFED WHILE HE WAS BLEEDING TO DEATH that they learned it was a mistake. Of course this to is standard procedure, not enough to kill someone, you handcuff their dying body. The lack of humanity the police have in dealing with people of color is part of the symptom of a fundamentally racist society that it is. The experience of being mistaken for a criminal is almost a rite of passage for African-American men. Security guards shadow us in stores. Troopers pull us over for the crime of “driving while black.” Nighttime pedestrians cower by us on the streets. And black men who work as undercover cops are occasionally shot to death by white colleagues, as happened to a young officer named Omar Edwards when he was off duty and in plain clothes last month in New York City. We have often been seen as paranoid for attributing these things to bias. But the racial stereotypes that link blackness and crime have recently become a hot topic in social science. These pervasive and often unconscious biases affect social transactions of all kinds. They drive voting behavior. They make it likely that black defendants will receive longer sentences than whites for comparable crimes. They wreak havoc with the job possibilities of young black men. And they give the lie to the idea that the Unites States is becoming a “postracial” country. The psychologists Gordon Allport and Leo Postman showed more than half a century ago that preconceptions about race distorted human judgment and sometimes caused people to recall things that had never happened. Their best-known study mimicked the parlor game “telephone.” In this version, subjects who often included students were shown a now-famous slide depicting typical passengers in a New York City subway car. At the center of the image stand two figures: a black man dressed in a natty suit and a white man in shirtsleeves holding a straight razor. After being shown the slide, subjects were asked to describe it to others who had not seen it. These people then described it to others, who then passed on their descriptions as well. Those who had heard the story secondhand were then asked to recount it. More than half the time, the razor was said to be held not by the white man but by the well-dressed black man, who was sometimes described as brandishing it wildly. ...“Being black in America today,” Ms. Pager writes, “is just about the same as having a felony conviction in terms of one’s chances of finding a job.” We experience the on going scourge of racism in all parts of our society today. But in the hands of the police around America it is just dangerous. RSS