I would like to take this opportunity to welcome Congressman John Boehner as the new Speaker of the House come January. (Sorry conservatives, Nancy Pelosi is keeping that chair warm for him for two more months.) Sir, I look forward to providing a profile on your past accomplishments in the weeks to come.
Now, I'm not here to applaud the last two years of leadership under President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, or really any of the other Democrats (although, Mr. Grayson, you will be missed). They definitely got themselves into the mess that occurred on Tuesday -- the levees broke and the "Red Sea" flooded the nation -- or more accurately, the Democrats and liberals were too busy (fill in: disorganized/lazy/jaded/incompetent) to get out the vote. The Dems have done some good things, I can't deny that, and I will fully support my belief that they remain the lesser of two evils (later).
As of Tuesday, we can look forward to spending the next two years with a Republican controlled House, under the leadership of Mr. Boehner. In the coming months the ramifications of this power shift will become more apparent. They are already pontificating that their primary goals will be to renew Bush's tax cuts and repeal Obamacare. (Great ideas, no?) But beyond this, their ultimate goal is to make Obama the 13th one-term president. It's no secret. Obama would be in good company with Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush, both finer men and better presidents than our previous two-termer...yet I digress...(actually no. Did you hear about the statement made by the aforementioned president that I am alluding to? That his lowest point in all 8 years of his tenure was when he was dissed by Kanye West? You'd think I'm making this up.) However I'm really not ready for President Palin (fill in the blank with your favorite teabagger.)
So half of Obama's presidential term is over. The Republicans/TEA Party are making their resurgence, and it looks like Obama has kind of lost his mojo. This was quite apparent in Wednesday's press conference. It was depressing. A reoccurring theme seems to be that Obama doesn't "get" it; he doesn't connect with the average American, and now he's being sent a message by the voters and the party that, supposedly, do "get" it.
However, what it seems Obama doesn't grasp, is that his diplomatic and conciliatory attitude toward the Republicans and the right isn't working for him or the Middle Class(although it's working great for the GOP thus far). Now I won't blame the loss of the House solely on Obama, but I don't know how many times the bully on the playground has to smear sand up your nose until you realize that he just isn't going to be your friend, and she isn't going to oblige when you suggest she put it down your shirt instead. Just a thought.
More to come on John Boehner.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Health Care
I recently finished an article for a class about health care. I've decided to post an edited version.
Part of being an American is being raised in a culture of fear. My parents raised me well: I fear being alone at night, not being a student, credit card debt, traffic accidents, large bites of steak. Chances are, if there's any risk involved, I've probably sat rationalizing it. Recently, I added hospitals to my list of scary things after learning the hard way that if you go to a hospital, you will pay. And pay. And pay some more. My first taste of American debt has not come from student loans or credit card statements, but from a hefty hospital bill I thought would be covered by my parents’ insurance company. While I struggle to afford my monthly payments, Ronald A. Williams, the CEO of insurance company Aetna made $23,045,834, almost $500,000 per week, in 2007. This is the same year that 62% of Americans went bankrupt because of their medical expenses (Ricciardelli, 2009). This isn't me - yet.
In a recent speech, President Barack Obama described our health care system as “an unsustainable burden” on the American people. For the first time in the last sixty-five years of limited health care discussion, our country’s lawmakers are having a serious debate in Congress about our current system. A public option has been proposed, and if it is passed into law, America's health care system will face some of its biggest changes since the beginning of the twentieth century. The health care system in the United States is like an old and decaying tree, with roots of rot that stretch back to pre-WWII years and reach deep beneath the surface of its apparent shortfalls.
A public health care option was first a countrywide debate in 1948 when President Harry Truman proposed a national health insurance plan in response to increasing health costs. Today, Americans generally assume that they should be provided some form of health insurance through their employers, but most Americans don’t know that before WWII, this luxury was not offered. During the Second World War, the government placed wage and price controls on the economy to fight inflation, and in an attempt to lure in scarce workers, companies began to offer “free” health insurance as a fringe benefit. But everyone knows that nothing is really free - fringe benefits are great for employees, but very costly to companies. (Drake, 1994).
In 1947 the Supreme Court ruled that health insurance could be debated through collective bargaining. With enrollment in labor unions rapidly on the rise, it didn’t take long for 72% of the population to have health insurance by the end of the 1950s (Drake, 1994). What President Truman recognized in 1948 was that not all Americans would be covered by their employers; these Americans would be left to fend for themselves. Truman’s nationalized plan, that would have covered every citizen, was defeated by the American Medical Association, who was terrified of competition, and decried a Communist plot by a House subcommittee (PBS). Sound familiar? These methods are oddly reminiscent of today's right wing, "those socialists are going to kill your grandma," scare tactics.
Today, the nation that spends 17% of its Gross Domestic Product every year on health care (more than any other nation) revisits this issue (Commonwealth Fund, 2009). I talked to Sacramento's Capital Public Radio health reporter, Kelley Weiss, and she explained to me that the public option was a complicated economic issue, but that “it’s all about competition and cost control. A nationalized program would bring together a large pool of beneficiaries that would be powerful enough to demand a good rate for services. This kind of competition would drive down the cost of health care across the board.” The “large pool” that Kelley spoke of includes a wide variety of people. They may be unemployed or recently laid off workers, but many of this group are employed and don’t receive benefits. A public option would be particularly helpful for small business owners who can’t afford to provide benefits for their workers, themselves or their families.
A Gallup poll, released in September 2009, states that 87% of American people rate their private health insurance quality as either good or excellent. The problem with this kind of statistic is that it doesn’t take into account the opinions of those Americans who don’t have any health coverage. David Hilzenrath of The Washington Post compiled data from a 2008 Kaiser Family Foundation poll and found that the people who like their health plans most are those who use them the least. If they do need to go to the doctor, their employer covers the majority of the cost, and they never have to see the entire bill. The unfortunate truth about these fringe benefits is that they can disappear in a heartbeat when they start to cost a company more than it can afford. In 2006, Cigna, one of the country’s largest insurance companies, cut its own employees benefits, leaving them only with the option of high-deductible coverage. Many of them declined and joined the millions of other Americans with no coverage at all.
The year after Cigna cut its employees benefits, New York Magazine told the story of Jake Hollner, a twenty-four year old Home Depot employee and artist who, like all of us, gets little aches and pains. He represents an entire generation of uninsured people hoping to live through their twenties without any health problems. Jake Hollner wasn’t that lucky. Plagued with reoccurring stomach ulcers, Jake first went to a public clinic where he spent his week’s paycheck on the visit, only to travel home by bus with a $73 dollar prescription for Nexium. Just a few hours later he experienced excruciating pain and took a cab to the closest hospital where he faced a long emergency room wait and, later, his bill. According to a Huffington Post report based on another Gallup poll, over the last year 4.8 million adults have lost their health insurance, joining the ranks of Jake Hollner. They bide their time, hoping that those little aches and pains don’t turn into something more.
While a public option would be helpful to the ranks of uninsured, some economists don’t think that this is a cost-effective solution to our country’s financial and health problems. According to the Cato Institute, a Washington DC non-profit public policy group, government programs are less effective than private ones, and if we had a public option, the government would use its ability to subsidize programs while not turning a profit against private companies who don’t have the same power. The Cato Institute also predicts that health care reform and a public option will cost more than projected because people will change their behavior and seek more medical attention than they do now. The Commonwealth Fund, an organization that promotes improving health care, wrote a report entitled “How Will Comprehensive Reform Improve Health Care for Americans?” in which they argue that reforming health care is actually America’s best chance at improving its entire economy, preventing us from spending a projected 21% of our GDP on health care by 2020. They state that over the next ten years, if reform occurs, businesses can save $231 billion and households can save over $2,000 a piece. It may not sound like much, but by 2020 there will be over 340 million people in this country and that creates a lot of households.
In addition to being taught to fear as I grew up, I was taught that I lived in the best county in the world. If I worked hard, saved my money, and went to school, I would lead a successful and happy life. Today, I’ve found at least one fatal flaw in that plan, and it started with my first hospital bill. Before the task grew too incomprehensible, the World Health Organization released a list in 2000 that ranked the US as 37th in a study of the world’s best health systems. That’s right between Costa Rica and Slovenia. Why is the best country in the world number thirty-seven? Shouldn’t we be number one?
We are only about seventy years down the road from when this system was born, but we are sixty years overdue in supporting proposed legislation to reform it. There are economic arguments from analysts who oppose “big-government,” that support keeping the system as it is and promote giving private corporations more power, rather than less. But we saw what happened in the fall of 2008 when big corporations have too much power. They collapse, taking the rest of the economy with them. As we recover from recession, there is no better time to reform our health system and the ways we think about our government. A healthier society will not simply help those without health insurance, it will help everyone exist in a more equal society and improve everyone’s quality of life (Wilkinson, 2009). While the Congressional debate may boil down to economics, isn’t it about time we stop putting a price on the value of someone’s life?
Part of being an American is being raised in a culture of fear. My parents raised me well: I fear being alone at night, not being a student, credit card debt, traffic accidents, large bites of steak. Chances are, if there's any risk involved, I've probably sat rationalizing it. Recently, I added hospitals to my list of scary things after learning the hard way that if you go to a hospital, you will pay. And pay. And pay some more. My first taste of American debt has not come from student loans or credit card statements, but from a hefty hospital bill I thought would be covered by my parents’ insurance company. While I struggle to afford my monthly payments, Ronald A. Williams, the CEO of insurance company Aetna made $23,045,834, almost $500,000 per week, in 2007. This is the same year that 62% of Americans went bankrupt because of their medical expenses (Ricciardelli, 2009). This isn't me - yet.
In a recent speech, President Barack Obama described our health care system as “an unsustainable burden” on the American people. For the first time in the last sixty-five years of limited health care discussion, our country’s lawmakers are having a serious debate in Congress about our current system. A public option has been proposed, and if it is passed into law, America's health care system will face some of its biggest changes since the beginning of the twentieth century. The health care system in the United States is like an old and decaying tree, with roots of rot that stretch back to pre-WWII years and reach deep beneath the surface of its apparent shortfalls.
A public health care option was first a countrywide debate in 1948 when President Harry Truman proposed a national health insurance plan in response to increasing health costs. Today, Americans generally assume that they should be provided some form of health insurance through their employers, but most Americans don’t know that before WWII, this luxury was not offered. During the Second World War, the government placed wage and price controls on the economy to fight inflation, and in an attempt to lure in scarce workers, companies began to offer “free” health insurance as a fringe benefit. But everyone knows that nothing is really free - fringe benefits are great for employees, but very costly to companies. (Drake, 1994).
In 1947 the Supreme Court ruled that health insurance could be debated through collective bargaining. With enrollment in labor unions rapidly on the rise, it didn’t take long for 72% of the population to have health insurance by the end of the 1950s (Drake, 1994). What President Truman recognized in 1948 was that not all Americans would be covered by their employers; these Americans would be left to fend for themselves. Truman’s nationalized plan, that would have covered every citizen, was defeated by the American Medical Association, who was terrified of competition, and decried a Communist plot by a House subcommittee (PBS). Sound familiar? These methods are oddly reminiscent of today's right wing, "those socialists are going to kill your grandma," scare tactics.
Today, the nation that spends 17% of its Gross Domestic Product every year on health care (more than any other nation) revisits this issue (Commonwealth Fund, 2009). I talked to Sacramento's Capital Public Radio health reporter, Kelley Weiss, and she explained to me that the public option was a complicated economic issue, but that “it’s all about competition and cost control. A nationalized program would bring together a large pool of beneficiaries that would be powerful enough to demand a good rate for services. This kind of competition would drive down the cost of health care across the board.” The “large pool” that Kelley spoke of includes a wide variety of people. They may be unemployed or recently laid off workers, but many of this group are employed and don’t receive benefits. A public option would be particularly helpful for small business owners who can’t afford to provide benefits for their workers, themselves or their families.
A Gallup poll, released in September 2009, states that 87% of American people rate their private health insurance quality as either good or excellent. The problem with this kind of statistic is that it doesn’t take into account the opinions of those Americans who don’t have any health coverage. David Hilzenrath of The Washington Post compiled data from a 2008 Kaiser Family Foundation poll and found that the people who like their health plans most are those who use them the least. If they do need to go to the doctor, their employer covers the majority of the cost, and they never have to see the entire bill. The unfortunate truth about these fringe benefits is that they can disappear in a heartbeat when they start to cost a company more than it can afford. In 2006, Cigna, one of the country’s largest insurance companies, cut its own employees benefits, leaving them only with the option of high-deductible coverage. Many of them declined and joined the millions of other Americans with no coverage at all.
The year after Cigna cut its employees benefits, New York Magazine told the story of Jake Hollner, a twenty-four year old Home Depot employee and artist who, like all of us, gets little aches and pains. He represents an entire generation of uninsured people hoping to live through their twenties without any health problems. Jake Hollner wasn’t that lucky. Plagued with reoccurring stomach ulcers, Jake first went to a public clinic where he spent his week’s paycheck on the visit, only to travel home by bus with a $73 dollar prescription for Nexium. Just a few hours later he experienced excruciating pain and took a cab to the closest hospital where he faced a long emergency room wait and, later, his bill. According to a Huffington Post report based on another Gallup poll, over the last year 4.8 million adults have lost their health insurance, joining the ranks of Jake Hollner. They bide their time, hoping that those little aches and pains don’t turn into something more.
While a public option would be helpful to the ranks of uninsured, some economists don’t think that this is a cost-effective solution to our country’s financial and health problems. According to the Cato Institute, a Washington DC non-profit public policy group, government programs are less effective than private ones, and if we had a public option, the government would use its ability to subsidize programs while not turning a profit against private companies who don’t have the same power. The Cato Institute also predicts that health care reform and a public option will cost more than projected because people will change their behavior and seek more medical attention than they do now. The Commonwealth Fund, an organization that promotes improving health care, wrote a report entitled “How Will Comprehensive Reform Improve Health Care for Americans?” in which they argue that reforming health care is actually America’s best chance at improving its entire economy, preventing us from spending a projected 21% of our GDP on health care by 2020. They state that over the next ten years, if reform occurs, businesses can save $231 billion and households can save over $2,000 a piece. It may not sound like much, but by 2020 there will be over 340 million people in this country and that creates a lot of households.
In addition to being taught to fear as I grew up, I was taught that I lived in the best county in the world. If I worked hard, saved my money, and went to school, I would lead a successful and happy life. Today, I’ve found at least one fatal flaw in that plan, and it started with my first hospital bill. Before the task grew too incomprehensible, the World Health Organization released a list in 2000 that ranked the US as 37th in a study of the world’s best health systems. That’s right between Costa Rica and Slovenia. Why is the best country in the world number thirty-seven? Shouldn’t we be number one?
We are only about seventy years down the road from when this system was born, but we are sixty years overdue in supporting proposed legislation to reform it. There are economic arguments from analysts who oppose “big-government,” that support keeping the system as it is and promote giving private corporations more power, rather than less. But we saw what happened in the fall of 2008 when big corporations have too much power. They collapse, taking the rest of the economy with them. As we recover from recession, there is no better time to reform our health system and the ways we think about our government. A healthier society will not simply help those without health insurance, it will help everyone exist in a more equal society and improve everyone’s quality of life (Wilkinson, 2009). While the Congressional debate may boil down to economics, isn’t it about time we stop putting a price on the value of someone’s life?
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Food Inc. -- Frightening and Insightful
I've been searching, over the past month or so, for a topic that I wanted to use as an entry point back into this blog. Last night, about half way through the movie Food Inc., I knew that I had found it. Judging by the dozen or so people who also attended this showing, most of us would rather be out spending money we don't really have on a good meal rather than in a theater watching a movie that will ruin any appetite. But to all of you who did go out last night, and even those who stayed in for a home cooked meal, do you know where the food on your plate came from? And I mean before you picked it up off a shelf at Safeway, or, God forbid, Walmart. I will be perfectly honest and say that I have absolutely no idea where any of the things in my kitchen were grown or processed. I don't know anything about the companies or their practices that get food to my table. But now, I know that the time for finding out is more than overdue.
I would like to discuss this topic in several segments because it is so expansive. Food itself can be divided between things that are grown, raised, and caught. What used to be left to independent family farmers has been overtaken by a few extremely powerful multinational corporations. This process is highly controlled, from seed to shipping, and is linked closely to industrialization, mechanization, specialization and globalization. Governmental organizations exist, to some extent, to regulate our food. Very few people in the world are left untouched by this phenomenon. Each player, from individual consumer to pig farmer to CEO to your state Senator, impacts the future of our food.
This is just an introduction. After doing a bit more research I would like to delve in to the plants that are grown in the US (mainly corn): how they're grown, what they're used for and how this impacts the rest of the globe.
I would like to discuss this topic in several segments because it is so expansive. Food itself can be divided between things that are grown, raised, and caught. What used to be left to independent family farmers has been overtaken by a few extremely powerful multinational corporations. This process is highly controlled, from seed to shipping, and is linked closely to industrialization, mechanization, specialization and globalization. Governmental organizations exist, to some extent, to regulate our food. Very few people in the world are left untouched by this phenomenon. Each player, from individual consumer to pig farmer to CEO to your state Senator, impacts the future of our food.
This is just an introduction. After doing a bit more research I would like to delve in to the plants that are grown in the US (mainly corn): how they're grown, what they're used for and how this impacts the rest of the globe.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Sunday, January 18, 2009
On Freedom's Highway
The last day of George Bush's presidency is upon us. 1/20/09 is a day that has been burned into my mind like that of the Pirates of the Caribbean sequel or the release date of the 7th Harry Potter book. I'm having a hard time believing that it's actually here, that the waiting period (of 8 years) has been whittled down to under 24 hours. The conversation around the dinner table last night was a debate about whether George W. Bush was evil or just not fit to be president. I am of the second persuasion myself, but as my father has said, "Only time will tell."
Rather than remarking on all of the atrocities of the Bush Administration (September 11, Katrina and Michael Brown, Torture and Abu Ghraib, Iraq and WMDs, Bin Laden, the economy, ignoring global warming, a failed Medicare plan, No Child Left Behind, Alberto Gonzales, Scooter Libby, Valerie Plame... -- okay I couldn't stop myself) I've set off to find what George W. Bush did right. Unfortunately my quick search on The Google of "Successes of the Bush Administration" (as well as: George W. Bush successes, positive aspects of the Bush presidency, Bush's achievements, and Bush's positive legacy), didn't return the results I was hoping for. "What Bush Got Right" returned slightly more illuminating hits, but none of which strike me as very redeeming. His $15 billion commitment to fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean in 2003 (PEPFAR) and his Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, the Hawaiian sanctuary, seem to be the most poignant. Big round of applause? I suppose I would also be thanking Bush if I were a Late Night talk show host or John Stewart.
Okay, so my desire to see the positives was about as realistic as the 2003 Mission Accomplished banner. But what are the ramifications of making George W. Bush the scapegoat for all of the problems this country is now facing? My true issue is really not with Bush, but with the 62,040,606 million idiots, yes IDIOTS, who voted for Bush in 2004. This brings to mind: "There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again." I'm not going to even get into the axiom of what begins in chaos, ends in chaos; I'll leave the 2000 election alone.
I mean, it was pretty clear to me by 15 years old, an age when I was not yet allowed to legally operate a motor vehicle, that George W. Bush was plain and simple bad news for this country. So why is it that I could discern this, and 62 million people could not? My qualm is with these people. Those who were too stubborn or too narrow-minded to see beyond women's rights or gay rights or "flip-flopping", those who actually believed the incendiary lies connecting Iraq to 9/11 because they refused to look beyond the square box in their living room projecting Bill O'Reilly on Fox News or their daily dose of Rush Limbaugh during those long commutes to work in their Hummers and SUVs. I'm trying not to rely solely on stereotypes here, but I know these people. They have been my neighbors, coworkers, classmates, educators, and yes, friends. It is easy to point a finger at George W. Bush and curse him for our current state of affairs, but I think it's time to look in the mirror.
I don't need to preach about fiscal responsibility or our individual responsibility concerning the environment, in fact, like so many of us, I'd much rather look forward. We have a lot of work to do, as a nation. We have an infrastructure, economy and a reputation to rebuild. Global warming is still melting the icecaps. Our prison system needs a face lift. Immigration laws are still in limbo. Health care, social security, and education issues have not declined. We have a lot of work to do. And we have a new captain at the helm. While I do believe President Obama will lead us in the right direction, he is by no means more than just a man. It is going to take each and every one of us, working together, to get this train back on the tracks.
Happy Inauguration Day!
Rather than remarking on all of the atrocities of the Bush Administration (September 11, Katrina and Michael Brown, Torture and Abu Ghraib, Iraq and WMDs, Bin Laden, the economy, ignoring global warming, a failed Medicare plan, No Child Left Behind, Alberto Gonzales, Scooter Libby, Valerie Plame... -- okay I couldn't stop myself) I've set off to find what George W. Bush did right. Unfortunately my quick search on The Google of "Successes of the Bush Administration" (as well as: George W. Bush successes, positive aspects of the Bush presidency, Bush's achievements, and Bush's positive legacy), didn't return the results I was hoping for. "What Bush Got Right" returned slightly more illuminating hits, but none of which strike me as very redeeming. His $15 billion commitment to fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean in 2003 (PEPFAR) and his Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, the Hawaiian sanctuary, seem to be the most poignant. Big round of applause? I suppose I would also be thanking Bush if I were a Late Night talk show host or John Stewart.
Okay, so my desire to see the positives was about as realistic as the 2003 Mission Accomplished banner. But what are the ramifications of making George W. Bush the scapegoat for all of the problems this country is now facing? My true issue is really not with Bush, but with the 62,040,606 million idiots, yes IDIOTS, who voted for Bush in 2004. This brings to mind: "There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again." I'm not going to even get into the axiom of what begins in chaos, ends in chaos; I'll leave the 2000 election alone.
I mean, it was pretty clear to me by 15 years old, an age when I was not yet allowed to legally operate a motor vehicle, that George W. Bush was plain and simple bad news for this country. So why is it that I could discern this, and 62 million people could not? My qualm is with these people. Those who were too stubborn or too narrow-minded to see beyond women's rights or gay rights or "flip-flopping", those who actually believed the incendiary lies connecting Iraq to 9/11 because they refused to look beyond the square box in their living room projecting Bill O'Reilly on Fox News or their daily dose of Rush Limbaugh during those long commutes to work in their Hummers and SUVs. I'm trying not to rely solely on stereotypes here, but I know these people. They have been my neighbors, coworkers, classmates, educators, and yes, friends. It is easy to point a finger at George W. Bush and curse him for our current state of affairs, but I think it's time to look in the mirror.
I don't need to preach about fiscal responsibility or our individual responsibility concerning the environment, in fact, like so many of us, I'd much rather look forward. We have a lot of work to do, as a nation. We have an infrastructure, economy and a reputation to rebuild. Global warming is still melting the icecaps. Our prison system needs a face lift. Immigration laws are still in limbo. Health care, social security, and education issues have not declined. We have a lot of work to do. And we have a new captain at the helm. While I do believe President Obama will lead us in the right direction, he is by no means more than just a man. It is going to take each and every one of us, working together, to get this train back on the tracks.
Happy Inauguration Day!
Thursday, January 8, 2009
The End of My Lame Duck Period
After taking almost two months off from the political sphere after the election (to reacquaint myself with my friends, fresh air, and food that doesn't come from a freezer -- not to mention my textbooks), I'm diving right back into the fray as we quickly approach Barack Obama's inaugural address on January 20.
So, what have I failed to report on since the beginning of November? A continuously slumping economy which is beginning to look like a piece of silly putty hanging from a high rise that is slowly stretching toward the sidewalk, getting thinner and thinner...please excuse this horrible metaphor. Terrorist attacks in India, Obama introduces his cabinet, a massive stimulus plan and Reverend Dick Rick Warren, Bush's pardons and un-pardons, a domestic circus ring around Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (which to be perfectly honest doesn't really concern me nearly as much as our economic issue-- which for some reason seems to be less important than governmental corruption and, let's face it, this is about as common as the potholes on California's freeways. Not that I'm saying either of these things are okay with me. Especially the potholes). A new series of violent attacks between Hamas and Israel has left at least 700 Palestinians dead, and counting. Today, Lebanese militants opened fire on Israel and Israel responded with mortar fire into Lebanon. I know there was some good news...the anticipated Britney Spears comeback. That was it.
So, as of Monday, President-Elect Obama has been in Washington waiting out Bush's last 12 days in office. He is not staying at the historic Blair House because apparently the entire premises will be occupied by former Australian Prime Minister John Howard who will be receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom for...supporting Bush's preemptive war against Iraq. Excellent.
This little news story about Russia's natural gas supply to Europe came to my attention today and I find it to be quite interesting. This issue is not new, but due to an ongoing conflict between Russia's OAO Gazprom and Ukraine's NAK Naftogaz over export pricing and division, many European countries are now facing major gas cut-offs. On average, Europe depends on Russia for 25% of its gas but many countries depend on it for a much higher percentage.
Dependence on Russia for gas:
100% dependent on Russia: Latvia, Slovakia, Finland, Estonia
More than 80% dependent: Bulgaria, Lithuania, Czech Republic
More than 60% dependent: Greece, Austria, Hungary
Source: European Council on Foreign Relations, 2006 figures
So what does this say about Russia's relationship with Europe? The terms monopoly, dependence and power are coming to mind. Last I checked, the United States has a similar dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Hm. Interesting.
Stay tuned for more news commentary and my upcoming list of concerns I would like to see addressed by the 44th President.
So, what have I failed to report on since the beginning of November? A continuously slumping economy which is beginning to look like a piece of silly putty hanging from a high rise that is slowly stretching toward the sidewalk, getting thinner and thinner...please excuse this horrible metaphor. Terrorist attacks in India, Obama introduces his cabinet, a massive stimulus plan and Reverend
So, as of Monday, President-Elect Obama has been in Washington waiting out Bush's last 12 days in office. He is not staying at the historic Blair House because apparently the entire premises will be occupied by former Australian Prime Minister John Howard who will be receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom for...supporting Bush's preemptive war against Iraq. Excellent.
This little news story about Russia's natural gas supply to Europe came to my attention today and I find it to be quite interesting. This issue is not new, but due to an ongoing conflict between Russia's OAO Gazprom and Ukraine's NAK Naftogaz over export pricing and division, many European countries are now facing major gas cut-offs. On average, Europe depends on Russia for 25% of its gas but many countries depend on it for a much higher percentage.
Dependence on Russia for gas:100% dependent on Russia: Latvia, Slovakia, Finland, Estonia
More than 80% dependent: Bulgaria, Lithuania, Czech Republic
More than 60% dependent: Greece, Austria, Hungary
Source: European Council on Foreign Relations, 2006 figures
So what does this say about Russia's relationship with Europe? The terms monopoly, dependence and power are coming to mind. Last I checked, the United States has a similar dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Hm. Interesting.
Stay tuned for more news commentary and my upcoming list of concerns I would like to see addressed by the 44th President.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
An Ally Against Hate.
I'm not Kieth Olberman's biggest fan, but I think that this speech that he gave last night to close his show, is very, very important. After being told by my own family members that Proposition 8 was not about homophobia or hatred, I encourage them to reconsider.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
