Saying Goodbye to a Lion

Hi Everyone,

Well, I know this is late in coming. On wednesday, I had to go to work, then I left that night to go visit my cousin up north, and I had to work most of yesterday, so I haven't had much time to blog. Anyway, I knew I had to blog about this matter. If Walter Cronkite deserved a special tribute, this man certainly does.

I am speaking tonight of the Late Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA). Say what you will about the Kennedys, say what you will about Ted's flaws as a person (I won't deny that he had some), I do believe that when he was working in Washington, at the end of the day, he was looking out for the common good.

He came to the Senate in 1962, and throughout his whole career, worked tirelessly on passing legislation which ensured power to the formerly powerless, and generally forwarded the common good. In spite of being known as the liberal "lion," the liberal stalwart of the Senate, he gained much respect, even some admiration, from colleagues of all political stripes. One of the last bills he passed was cosponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), which set up more ways for Americans like me to ask "What can we do for our country?"

Anyway, I can't say much more about this, not having much authority on the late Senator, so I'll just turn it over to President Obama, who was a protege of Kennedy's when he was just a teeny little US Senator from Illinois.

Let me just add one last note here. For all of Kennedy's achievements, for all the good that he did, there was one good that he worked for his whole career and life, but which eluded him throughout. This was, of course, the passage of a health care plan that would guarantee health care for all Americans. Kennedy's work did not end with his passing from this Earth. He did not end the journey; he handed the torch to us. Now it's time for us to run with it. And with that tireless spirit of hardwork and decency which guided Sen. Ted Kennedy throughout his life, I know this race can be won.

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.

"Economist Thinking" and Looking Out for the Other Guy

Hi Everyone,



Well, it took a while, but I'm back after a while. I started work today, I mean really, really started it this time, unlike the other times where I thought I was starting, but wasn't really. Anyway, thought I'd update you on that. Anyway, today's post won't be very long, because the video above presents the first part of the point I want to lay out here today.

Don't misunderstand, though. The point of this post is not to promote socialism or any other economic system for that matter. Rather, the point of this post is to highlight a pattern of thinking among professionals. The point that Thom Hartmann, which is this man's name, lays out, is that people do think about others, and, to use Hartmann's college analogy, people are interested in learning and working hard for its own sake.

You're probably wondering what that phrase in the title means. We can use the term "economist thinking" to describe the prevalent thought pattern among the economic and advertising professionals. This attitude sees people only as consumers who want to get more things for themselves. It doesn't take into account that people care about more than just themselves, and getting more for themselves. In the view of this blogger, it is this economist thinking, which is sort of inhuman its implications, that has driven us into our present economic dilemma.

But enough out of me. What are your thoughts, experiences, philosophies on this? I'd like to know.

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.

We Need Healthcare Reform!

Hi Everyone,

Well, I'm back with a vengeance. I started slacking off, though there's been plenty to write about in the last week plus. I then took a camping trip into the Anza-Borrego desert, and a daytime visit to San Diego. Then in between my parents returning (yes, I still live with my parents), and doing some work in my garage, I kept forgetting to post, though there is plenty of material to post on. But I'm back, baby! And I've got a lot to tell you about.

Since HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius declared that the public option is "not the essential element" of reform (what is the essential element, Kathy?), political observers everywhere have been rushing to write the death certificate of the public option. First, the left wing activist base was in despair, but today, they've gotten fired up anew for the public option. This is exactly what needs to be happening right now. This is exactly the moment when we need to step up and make the people's real voices heard.

The powerful insurance lobby and right-wing lobby groups like "FreedomWorks" and "Americans for Prosperity" have been organizing and sending anti-health care protest mobs around the country. Some disagreement is legitimate, as this health care plan has flaws. The reason I and others have said "mobs" is because these crowds are shouting down all other views with disingenuous slogans, harassing congressmen, even sending out death threats. One man even showed up at a town meeting where the President was going to speak in New Hampshire with a gun in plain site. This is the only time I can recall where someone did that without being arrested on the spot.

Now we all know the reason why these anti-health care protesters are getting so much press. The media is controlled by a handful of corporations, as we detailed earlier. The health care industry is at the mercy of insurance executives. Would it be a stretch to say that the media has a vested interest in keeping the insurance industry wealthy and free of reform? I don't think so, but maybe I'm just paranoid.

This much I do know: more and more people are going bankrupt because of insurance. People are having to go without insurance. Thousands of people (18,000 the last time I checked) are dying a year because of a lack of insurance, a lack of preventative care, and all the rest. Imagine if 18,000 Americans were killed in a year because of some foreign military threat. What would the people who are now protesting health reform would be advocating. Maybe if you go to one of these town halls, you can mention to the protesters that because of the companies' extra profits, 18,000 Americans end each year in their graves.

You've probably heard all the scare tactics that so-called "teabaggers" have been using at these town halls. They have gotten all their information from Fox and Rush Limbaugh. Most of them will believe anything these sources tell them, and the voices they're hearing are about as honest as used car salesmen. They say "socialism" "communism" "fascism" and, my personal favorite, "get your government hands off my medicare!" Medicare is that goverment hand. It seems like, for all the suspicion people have about government, it works surprisingly well for them. It is hardly surprising, since most Americans still support health care reform, that the insurance lobby has had to set off this firebomb to keep reform at bay.

They have their slogans, their buzzwords, manufactured to make already scared and upset get mad at the people that are trying (however imperfectly) to fix the problem, instead of the people who are truly doing them wrong. Do I blame the people at the town halls, doing the shouting? Not particularly (unless they're making death threats and all). I blame the corporate executives and crooked politicians who will do anything, even leave people to die, to get more. More profit, more power. And I blame their well-paid cheerleaders in the media (you know who you are) who are equally hungry for wealth and fame. They bear the true responsibility in this, and they are the ones that need to answer for this.

If you've heard, or followed, President Obama for any length of time, you've probably heard him say "Change doesn't come from Washington, it comes to Washington," or some variation thereof. Ever wonder what he means by that? It means that it is not his job alone to help bring lasting reform to Washington; the rest of us must work to sway our Representatives, Senators, even the President himself, in that direction. I've noticed that, throughout our history, when movements have developed, the cry for change, justice, and the common good, eventually became so great that those in Washington had to heed the call, if they wanted to keep their jobs.

The cry for health care reform is not being broadcast in the media, but it is there. The news media is not reporting on it because it isn't convenient for the media. It's more convenient for the media to report on the mobs shouting their meaningless, hollow cries of "socialism," "communism," "marxism," and everything bad under the sun, because that makes news. People standing for real reform doesn't make news as readily. But make no mistake; the voices are there. It's up to us to make the voices calling for a healthier, more compassionate America heard.

We need our own catchphrases and slogans that make people feel good about it, instead of bad. I've got some ideas. How about "A healthy America is a safe America," or just saying "Health care for everyone is a GOOD thing." I just wish that would get home to people. The most rotten thing that opponents of reform have done have taken good things, like community organizing, leveling the economic playing field, or getting affordable health care plans to all our citizens, and made people deride them or suspect them. Well, I've got news for the far right faction in this country: community organizing, leveling the economic playing field, and getting affordable health care to all our citizens are ALL GOOD THINGS! And don't let anyone tell you differently.

Just think back to last election. The skinny kid with a funny name was promising change, first he was ignored, then he was mocked, then he was attacked, then he was elected president. All this happened because people decided they wanted to send him money, they wanted to knock on doors, to make sure the change we still need could come. The election was an important first step. But it didn't guarantee that things would change. Obama himself may need to be persuaded at some point, but, in the President's own words "This is no time to slow down, and it is certainly no time to lose heart." Call your Representative, your Senator, or the White House and tell them you support the public option (I called them today). Organize a rally or attend a town hall meeting to show your support.

If you want to correspond directly with me on how you can do any of these things, email me at ttechnician@hotmail.com for some direction. It doesn't matter what you choose to do. As long as you stand for affordable health care for as many Americans as possible (the public option being the best route toward that goal), that's the important part. Let me leave you with a quote from a British health administrator,taken from Sicko, to which I applauded, and which you can use to answer some criticisms on grounds of too much government spending, "If we can get government money to kill people, we can just as easily get it to help people." Now is the time to say, Yes We Can.

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.

Bubba's Done It Again

Hi Everyone,

No, he hasn't done that again. Thankfully, what he did this time is much more beneficial. I have some very good news, coming back to the blog. Remember those two journalists, I believe their names were Laura Ling and Euna Lee, who were taken hostage while doing a story in North Korea a few months ago? Well, they were released just this week, and they returned home and gave a tearful and heartfelt homecoming statement. In it they thanked President and Secretary Clinton, Vice President Gore, and President Obama for working to get them released. We are all obviously very happy and filled with joy that these two American journalists (who were doing a story on life in North Korea) are home safely, rather than at a North Korean work camp, where their chances of survival would have been virtually nil.

So where does good ol' Bill Clinton fit into this? Well, it turns out the women worked for a channel in San Francisco run by Former Vice President Al Gore, so he was working to get them released. Earlier this week, Former President Bill Clinton, the Secretary of State's Husband, traveled to North Korea to visit North Korean President Kim Jong-il and get the two women pardoned. CNN did an in-depth story on the event here. The point is that when we talked to the bad guys, we got our people out of there and home safely. Richard Nixon knew this when he talked to Mao, who had murdered many of his own people; even Ronald Reagan sat down with the leaders of the "Evil Empire." Imagine the result if this had happened when Bush was President. I don't even want to think about it.

One speculates that the State Department, under Secretary Hillary Clinton's and President Obama's direction, thought that this was a good idea, and okayed Bill's decision to go. Well, they certainly got it right on the money. It was a novel approach of having the current President perhaps collaborating with one of his Predecessors. Interesting how neither Clinton nor Obama was rushing to grab credit for the idea. Really well played on both their parts. As far as Clinton goes, as flawed a human being as he was, he does deserve some credit, especially for this. So, Mr. President, for what it's worth, the Daily Reeder salutes you!

Predictably, there are some critics of this approach who are sniping not only at this action, but at the very notion of getting the two journalists out of there. Dick Morris said that they should have "accepted the consequences of their decision to go into North Korea." John Bolton implied that we had somehow "rewarded" the North Korean government by doing this (don't ask me how). What? I thought we were supposed to be protecting Americans.

Isn't that the reason we've been fighting a war on terror? This is one reason it's very important not to just talk the talk of doing whatever you can to protect Americans, but to walk the walk, as President Clinton did throughout his Presidency. Now he showed that he wasn't going to stop just because of retirement. Let me close by just, again, expressing my profound joy and happiness that Laura Ling and Euna Lee are now home safely in America. Ms. Ling, Ms. Lee, the Daily Reeder salutes you, your courage, and wishes you well in your most important work.

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.

Happy Birthday, Mr. President

Hi Everyone,

Before I go, I just realized that today is President Barack Obama's birthday. I just thought I'd take a moment to wish the President of the United States a happy birthday (for what it's worth), wish him a happy and prosperous 48th year, and the same for the rest of his presidency. Since this is such a clutch moment in our history as a nation, I think this is very important to say for the President, whomever they may be. So let me just leave you, Mr. President, and you, the reeder, with this video.

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.

Liberal Media=Quality TV, Microsoft Works, Etc.

Hi Everyone,

Well, I'm back again. Work doesn't start as soon as I thought. Friday was just an orientation session, I go to a training session tomorrow, and I start the actual work sometime after that. I thought I'd just clarify that for you all. I don't want you thinking I'm slacking off at work now. Anyway, I thought I'd address this ongoing myth about some "liberal bias" in the media. I don't want to turn this into a partisan or ideologically driven blog. However, this time I must delve deep into this illusion, because it really is false and needs to be debunked.

The truth is that far from there being a liberal bias in the media, the media is very corporate friendly. As we detailed with the passing of Walter Cronkite, nearly all the major news outlets are owned by a collection of five big corporations, Time Warner, Viacomm, Newscorp, and a few others whose names escape me. Liberal, progressive views, whatever you want to call them, emphasize strong social safety nets and keeping corporations responsible for thier actions. You think that these companies want to be held responsible for what they do? They want more money and power, and those so-called liberals and progressives want to hold them responsible. These are incompatible views.

Another thing is the tone all the liberal commentators and politicians talk versus the way the conservative commentators talk. Those on the liberal side who overstep the line (getting too extreme in their positions or advocating violence against opponents, for instance) are immediately either told to renounce their statements or effectively barred from media appearances, banished to the wilderness. Conservatives, on the other hand, routinely get away with the most blatant of falsehoods and the most vicious of attacks against their opponents while on the national media circuit.

Anyone on the left who had routinely misled his viewers like Sean Hannity does or advocate violence against others like Ann Coulter, they would have been banned from all the media outlets. There's no doubt about that. And yet the news anchors continue to invite Sean, Ann, Rush, Glenn, and all the other shills. And they continue on with their slots, appearances, and they continue to rake it in after having made numerous false statements, misrepresented facts, and villified, marginalized and advocated violence against anyone who disagrees with them. Yet all that, say, a Democrat or an Air America host has to do is make one out of line comment, and their career is either seriously derailed for a time or finished. Some liberal bias.

Remember that episode in Tennessee where some nut went to kill people in a church because he wanted to kill liberals? Remember that he had numerous books by Sean Hannity and Bernard Golberg in his possession? I asked you in a post last month to imagine if a democrat had gone into a megachurch and shot people up because he wanted to kill conservatives. Imagine the noise there would have been all over the media. Imagine the outrage of Republican commentators. Then imagine if that killer had had books by Thom Hartmann or Keith Olbermann in his possession. Their careers would be finished. People would be calling for their heads. They would have faced numerous lawsuits, and maybe even criminal prosecutions.

Yet the viciousness of commentators of the right have led people to harm, even kill, other Americans who see the world differently than they do (it has been demonstrated again and again) and few, if any, conservative commentators have accepted any responsibility and denounced violence as a tactic. Let me stress here, ANYONE, left or right, who advocates violence against anyone, should be thrown out of the media and held responsible. It's just that there has been a link developing in recent years between extremist language of conservative public figures and violence against those of the opposite variety, and no one in the media (except for a few) is stepping up and calling it like it is.

Republican and conservative establishments, going back to the Nixon Administration, have had a tradition of disdain for reporters. They used phrases like "liberal media," "mainstream media," "media elite," to marginalize any media critics of their policies. Any time news outlets would publish any criticism of a right-wing figure or their actions, and they would be lambasted for being part of some "liberal conspiracy," or some "snobby, elite cadre." This is a carefully manipulative way of marginalizing and villifying anyone in the media who reported negatively.

Any organization interested in gaining as much power as possible must intimidate any potential critics into submission or silence. This is how the conservatives were able to gain so much power over the public perception. But with great power comes great responsibility, and the conservative establishment under Bush became so preoccupied with keeping power for themselves that they ignored their responsibility to the people of America and the World, and it cost them.

My closing thought is this: left-wing, liberal, progressive commentators, the vast majority of them, would rightfully cringe at the thought of advocating violence against people on the other side. That's because most progressives, though they, too, wouldn't mind getting power, recognize that even those with power have to play by the rules, and strive to be better people, just like those of us with less power. That's why people keep coming to this country. What you do still has consequences when you have more power and influence, more so the more you get. This whole issue of media bias in favor of corporate wealth is an issue of a lack of this principle.

This principle needs to be remembered and reinstilled in our socio-political-economic structure. Political leaders, corporate executives, and others with power and influence need to come to their senses, realize this. Realize that when you gain power, wealth and such, you get more responsibility, not less. Most of those on the left side realize this, and predicate their work on this. The media, in their desire to keep their ratings and wealth, have played along with the corporate and political bid to gain power, presented favorable images of them and ignored the damage it was doing to our culture. Everyone, liberal, conservative, and every variation in between, needs to realize this and predicate their work and actions based on it.

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.