At $15,000.00/yr for every man, woman and child, Americans currently spend more on "healthcare" than anyone in the history of health or money. Covering the uninsured wouldn't add a dime to that; they're already counted in that average. What will change that is matching our spending to our values. Currently, we spend over sixty percent of our entire health budget in the last six weeks before death. Until we decide to spend our resources on the health of the living, rather than on prolonging dying, our medical sector will continue growing until it devours our entire economy.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: barry levine<email@example.com> Date: Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:35 AM Subject: re: 9/11 Case Could Bring Broad Shift on Civil Suits To: firstname.lastname@example.org
To the Editor:
The Supreme Court's decision in re Iqbal is a very consequential precedent for us. It's impact is dwarfed however by this same court's finding in the previous session that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. constitution does not mean what it says. In the Medellin case, this court moved from interpreting the constitution to negating it. Since that decision, all of American law is played on a whole new landscape.
To the Editor: In the Medellin case, the Roberts court determined--outrageously--that the supremacy clause of the U.S. constitution doesn't mean what it says. To any reasonable jurist, it is clear that our international treaty obligations are the supreme law. Until this precedent is overturned, the Obama administration may advocate statutory patches but it is not clear that this activist court run amok won't gut them as it has gutted our constitution. Barry Levine
To the Editor: If our representative democracy is to be more than a fig leaf, we the people must know what it is that our public servants do and have done in our name. This requires full and timely disclosure not only of the crimes alleged, but of their coverup. We might start with asking why the U.S. electorate went to the polls in 2004 in ignorance of a warrantless wiretapping program that had been ongoing for three in violation of both our Constitution and statute. This paper knew of the wiretapping before the election. Did not the electorate have the right to this information before voting? Barry Levine
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: barry levine <email@example.com> Date: Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 12:01 PM Subject: re: C.I.A. Had Plan to Assassinate Qaeda Leaders To: firstname.lastname@example.org
To the Editor: We have a name for civilian-clad assassination teams; we call them unlawful combatants. We have a name for the governments who dispatch them; we call them state sponsors of terrorism. It may be time for us to revise our whole philosophy and rhetoric of war. For the U.S. to reclaim its place in the community of civilized nations, we will first have to learn to apply to ourselves the labels we apply to others. Barry Levine
To the Editor: The constitution of the U.S. requires the president "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". This requires that he/she should look back as well as forward; that is where evidence of crimes exist. I have no confidence that a president who will not prosecute those who placed warrantless wiretaps will defend my other constitutional rights. Foreign governments might well question our word on new treaties as long as we fail to prosecute violations of our existing treaties banning torture and inhumane treatment. Barry Levine
In two hundred years since the Industrial Revolution, we have pumped gigatons of carbon from stable fossil pools into the atmosphere. If we mean to prevent disastrous acidification of our oceans and warming of our atmosphere, we must now rebury that carbon. Coal is a nearly ideal form in which to sequester carbon; it is known to be stable for geological ages. To dig up this excellent vault of sequestered carbon and then dry to re-sequester it in the unproven form of supercritical carbon dioxide doesn't make sense to anyone who isn't in the pay of the coal industry.