As we wait for Congress to come up with a viable health care policy for the country, there are things we can personally do to get started on our own health care reform. It has nothing to do with politics or money, big business or insurance. Instead it has to do with breaking a cycle we’ve all grown far to comfortable with.

The fact is, we are all slaves! Slaves to a life style that is, frankly, unhealthy. One of the goals President Obama wants to include in the country’s health care reform, is a health initiative to encourage people to act more responsibly when it comes to their own bodies. Without too much pondering, its easy to see how doing things to prevent illness will drastically decrease the need for pharmaceuticals, doctor and hospital visits, and the over all costs of treating the sick.

For example, we’ve all been snowed into believing the most important aspect of food intake is taste. If it tastes good, we’re all over it. So our food manufacturers go through great lengths and chemical expense to create “delicacies” to attract our pallets with little regard for nutritional value. Our mouths are delighted, while our organs strain to accomplish their natural filtering processes.

As a result, we store too much fat which leads to obesity. We ingest far too many chemical compounds, which leads to illnesses like breast cancer. And we lose the taste for natural foods with their natural healing properties, neglecting their rejuvenating benefits to our bodies.

The sad truth is, we’re destroying our body’s ability to heal itself. So this creates the need for pharmaceutical intervention to right the wrongs that we could have avoided all together by eating the right foods. Naturally, to get those drugs we need to make doctor and hospital visits that add to the demand and the cost of health care.

And this all snowballs because, as we stop feeling well due to what we put into our body, the less active we get. Thus we tend to sit more and walk less, watch TV rather than do some other activity that can pump blood and purify our systems, and seek more comfort foods while we sit depressed in front of the tube.

If we’re going to have successful health care reform, it has to start with us. The way we can lighten the load off the expensive system is to take care of our own body and change our lifestyle choices in a way that gives us a fighting chance to stay healthy.

And we don’t have to wait for a Congressional vote either. We can start right now, this very minute to begin our own health care reform process.

Technorati Tags: eating habits, food, health care reform, lifestyle, lifestyle changes

I didn’t write immediately after I heard the news about the passing of Senator Ted Kennedy, because I think I needed to absorb what it meant. In a nutshell, I feel like we now know what the country felt like when Benjamin Franklin passed. Senator Kennedy was that kind of man. The type of person who comes far less often than necessary.

He’ll be especially missed here in Massachusetts, where we all felt just a little safer knowing he was our senior senator. He brought integrity to politics here, as well as throughout the country. We knew, whatever he was working on or promoting, it was for the benefit of the people.

What grieves me the most however, is that he had such an impact. I mean, he was one senator out of a hundred, and yet he stood out so glaringly as opposed to those who “play” politics rather than respecting it.

His life and passing are a challenge to all remaining senators to care about what they’re doing, to follow suit with his tireless fight for the common folk, and to just stop “playing politics” and do the work they were elected for.

Sure, his passing effects us because he is the last of the Kennedy brothers. But I really don’t believe his legacy will be about that. Being a Kennedy surely brought him to our attention, and no doubt helped him achieve his stature, but I think he will be most remembered, and most missed for how he lived up to his family’s motto ,”To whom much is given, much will be required.”

Technorati Tags: Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, Ted Kennedy

Hey, did you know if you have the most money when the planet is no loner capable of sustaining life, you win? Well at least that’s what the oil and coal industries believe. They’ve recently unleashed the hounds and sent them attacking any legislation that would reform clean energy.

All evidence shows that our use of carbon based fuels is causing serious harm to our environment. Beyond the scientific evidence, we also have common sense. If you spew chemicals into the air, the delicate balance of air will be thrown off. We’ll begin breathing stuff we were never meant or designed to breathe.

This isn’t something future either. We can see these effects now in the environment, in the increased rate of specie extinctions, and in our own bodies. It’s indisputable, and getting worse. Yet the oil and coal industries will tell you its not really happening, and that we’re just going through a normal Earth warm-up cycle.

Even if this were true, and its not, contributing to the effects of “a natural global warming” will still set the process off balance and put life as we know it in jeopardy. So regardless of the facts, the oil and coal industries are just blowing smoke. Whatever unnatural things we do to our environment will have and are having an impact.

We are in a battle for time, and its running out.

The sad truth is, when money and profits become more important than the quality of life, then there’s something gravely wrong with today’s version of Capitalism. It too was meant to be balanced, with a steady flow of give and take to keep the economy healthy, not to be a “winner take all” scenario, and certainly not at the expense of our quality of life on this planet.

So if you’re exposed to their “Pollution is Prosperity” tour, tell the oil and coal companies its time to start using their heads for more than number crunching.

Lies can kill!

Technorati Tags: coal industry, Environment, greed, money, oil and coal, oil industry

People have been having ideas for eons. It’s what we do. “I think, therefore I am,” as the saying goes. Literally everything we now do and have came from someone thinking it up and launching it into the world. But sometimes the best concepts don’t always remain good ideas, at least as a whole. Concepts are peculiar that way.

Take for example, democracy. What we know to be democracy now isn’t the same as it was when it was born in ancient Greece. Some democratic concepts only applied to the Greek lifestyle, others just didn’t cut it as civilization grew. So democracy morphed as time went on. Some principles stayed, some were discarded, and others were changed to suit the needs of the times.

Yet its all still good. Democracy is still the best form of social structure we’ve ever had, and will remain so if we allow it to evolve with the needs of the people. Because after all, democracy is adherence to the will of the society its put in place to fulfill the needs of.

But society changes as we all time travel from the past to the present. Democracy, by its definition then, also needs to change with society. In fact, one could surmise that a great democracy would have to change more frequently than one set too rigidly, because the better the democracy is, the more liberty it dispenses. Thus, in a democracy that gives liberties liberally, people are allowed to pursue their own preferred lifestyles, which in turn gives rise to needed adjustments in the over all concept of what democracy means to that society as those lifestyles begin to impact society as a whole.

However, when a democracy refuses to be fluid enough to fulfill the needs of all its people, other concepts begin to emerge. Socialism, Marxism, and Fascism are examples of democratic offshoots brought about because the society they were born in didn’t allow democracy to bend to the will and needs of everybody.

Conceptually these ideologies weren’t terrible, but where they went wrong was, they attempted to replace democracy rather than being used to fix the problem democracy was having with run-away Capitalism.

Now the really cool thing about society is, it has the ability to learn from its mistakes. But will it?

Apparently many European nations have, including England and France. They’ve remained democracies while injecting some socialist concepts in to keep their playing fields level. Does this make them Socialist countries? Or does it make them Democratic countries using some socialistic principles to fix their problems?

What we’re seeing now in the United States indicates there’s a need for an adjustment in how its democracy handles an imbalance. Once again, run-away Capitalism with all the greed that comes with it is becoming oppressive to many of its citizens. The administration is making attempts to fix the problem, but many on the right are screaming “socialism.”

So where do we draw the line? When does a democracy become a socialist society?

Well when does a philosophy become a religion? Isn’t it when the philosophy becomes the only guideline in a person’s life? After all, you can subscribe to some Buddhist teachings without being a Buddhist, right? You certainly have the ability and the right to “take what you like and leave the rest.”

Then what’s wrong with understanding why the philosophy of socialism came about, determining if any of it might be something we’d want to “take” and use to fix a similar problem in our democracy, and “leave the rest”?

We have to remember, democracy as it was designed in the United States, fulfilled the needs of all its people at the time. If we hold to that rigidly, even though the needs have changed, we will create an imbalance in the liberties and freedoms of all the people.

Yet at the same time, changing doesn’t have to mean “throwing the baby out with the bath water.” If an idea or concept creates a better balance and thus a “more perfect union,” rejecting that idea or concept solely because of the stigma the ideology as a whole represents, would be foolish to say the least.

But on the other hand, merely calling something a democracy when its no longer for all the people doesn’t automatically make it so either.

Technorati Tags: concepts, democracy, democratic principles, socialistic society, socialsim

The polls vary somewhat, but what is a sure bet, most liberals want a public option and a full reform of the health care system. But what about the part where the government takes over health care completely and decides when someone is too old to bother with?

Well either 70% of the country really doesn’t care about granny, or something is wrong with the picture some people have painted about health care reform. I mean, does it really seem reasonable that so many people subscribe to the Logan’s Run scenario?

You remember Logan’s Run don’t you? It was the movie where no one over 30 could be trusted, so they’d bring them to Carousel where they were put to death on the ride of their lives.

Or how about Solient Green, where old people were done away with and turned into food? Wow, imagine if instead of food we could turn them into fuel? Two birds with one stone!

Hey, if you’re going to allow your paranoia to run rampart, you might as well go all the way, right?

But while you’re dreaming up your narrow minded conspiracy theories, and calling President Obama a nazi, fascist, socialist, think about this . . .

No one in their right mind would go along with the crazy notion that anyone is expendable just because they’ve grown old or can no longer contribute to the money machine we call capitalism. Old people are loved, and most people, yes even liberals, go through great lengths and expenses to make sure their old people live out the rest of their lives with as much comfort and happiness as can be generated.

So you might be able to question the motives of one man, or one administration. But do you really think 70% of Americans would stand back and support a reform bill that would snuff out the people they’ve loved most in all the world?

Cracker anyone?

Technorati Tags: death panels, grandma, health care reform, Liberals, love grandmas

At President Obama’s recent town hall meeting in Montana, a bona fide member of the NRA got up and asked the question that is, what I feel to be root of the issue, and the real reason many are so easily churned in to a frenzy over false reporting on health care reform.

“How are you going to pay for it?”

The problem President Obama has in answering this is, the answer isn’t entirely available yet. It’s the main issue being worked on in Congress, so he can only explain what’s been initially agreed upon throughout the various committees thus far.

Unfortunately, Americans can be a bit impatient when it comes to money questions, and are easily lead into speculations that lean to the negative side. So all sorts of radical thought is coming out of the extreme right as to why the President is keeping this information about how he’s going to pay for health care reform, secret.

But the truth is, the answers (and the final plan) aren’t coming from the President. Though he certainly may know more than the average American on what’s going into the bills, he can’t possibly know more than those who are actually working things out in the closed door committee sessions. And they don’t even know the end results yet.

So we can only take a leap of faith and conclude that the longer it takes to come out with real definitive answers on how health care reform will be inevitably paid for, the more we can reason that its not going to be taken as a trivial matter.

Congress wants to get it right. The President is patiently waiting for Congress to get it right. And so all we can do is wait in hopes that they all get it right, and health care reform becomes a reality.

Once the final bill is brought forward, the American citizenry will have plenty of time to pick through it before its voted on. So let’s give them time to nail down the details before we go spinning ourselves into conspiracy theories and doomsday scenarios, OK?

Technorati Tags: health care reform, Obama, paying for health care reform, President Obama, town hall meetings

Let’s see . . .

1. Senator Grassley taught us what its like to sneer in the face of honesty, by playing the “fly in the ointment” game on his unaware fellow senators. Apparently integrity and good work ethics isn’t everything.

One thing that still puzzles me though. If he, as he claims, “stuck his finger in the dike,” wouldn’t that indicate a slow and methodical trickle was taking place (slow and steady progress) rather than the deluge (rushing health care reform on America) the Republicans claim is going on?

2. It’s typically American to scream in outrage over the assassination of Grandma without actually calling Grandma to find out she’s alright and comfortably at home enjoying her government run Medicare.

3. We are now the “What if” generation.

Cheney’s paranoia over “what if” the terrorists may someday get nuclear weapons of mass destruction; to “what if” President Obama is secretly plotting, in spite of everything he stands for, all he’s now telling us, and all the campaign promises he’s fulfilled already, to bring down America; to “what if” the census, after all these years, will now be used to round up people into concentration camps.

Here’s another one: “What if” everyone just waited to see how things turn out before jumping on the bandwagons of these right wing extremists who know how to push our buttons.

I have a feeling the volcano laying dormant under Yellowstone Park has a better chance of getting us all than any of these other things occur.

4. Americans have short-term memory loss.

Let me give you a recall. The government, during the Bush administration was listening in to your phone conversations, reading your emails, watching the websites you browsed, usurped the Constitution, lied to us, fed the corporations our hard earned money, and ruined our collective reputation by torturing people.

And that’s just what we know about.

So all in all it was a very revealing week!

Technorati Tags: America, health care reform, paranoia, politics

I find it kind of strange that all those in Congress who are holding town meetings over the health care reform issue aren’t taking a more aggressive approach to the naysayers. It’s not like nobody knows what the talking points are, so why not come right out and nip it all in the bud with an opening statement?

We know key points from the dissenters are, they don’t want “Death Panels” deciding when to pull the plug on Grandma, they don’t want the government taking away their current insurance policies, they don’t want government run health care that will put the insurance companies out of business, and they don’t want abortion funded with taxpayer money.

Now anyone with a lick of common sense who knows what the current bills circulating Congress are including and excluding can honestly agree with these people. Nothing in these bills including any of those things.

So why not have the senators and representatives stand at the podium and announce they’d like to begin by making a statement about what they’re against? It could go something like this:

“Before we begin our discussion, I’d like to make a brief statement. I am vehemently and absolutely opposed to any health care reform that would bring about death panels, or would mandate which insurance policy a citizen must use, or would cripple the insurance industry and force them out of business. And, let me make this perfectly clear, I am definitely opposed to any reform that would use taxpayer money to fund abortions!

I will never, as long as I am a member of Congress, approve or vote for a bill that would include any of these things!”

It would seem to me, a statement that uses the pre-written script these dissenters come armed with, and agrees with them, would pretty much end the ruckus.

Wouldn’t you say?

Technorati Tags: Congress, dissenters, health care reform, town hall meetings

Robert Wright over at the Dish has a great conversation going about the “God Gene,” and how religion fits into society.

He writes:

The trouble is that the context of the biological evolution of human nature seems to have been hunter-gatherer societies. And certainly all the anthropological evidence suggests that religion had emerged in hunter-gatherer times, before the invention of agriculture. So I attribute the moral character of agrarian religion to cultural evolution, not biological evolution.

My take in all of this is, (and in many ways I agree with Robert’s take), the argument is omitting the real base of religion, namely the sense of the spiritual. If you add spirituality into the mix, then it can clearly be seen that in hunter-gatherer societies, a religious or spiritual occurrence would be more of a personal thing.

Now “spiritual” doesn’t necessarily mean something paranormal or supernatural. I mean it more in the way of the hormone-induced emotions one would feel when awed or inspired. In those times it wouldn’t take much to awe somebody, i.e. the poor fool who happened to be in the right place at the right time to see lightening strike a tree and produce fire.

Over time, these personal spiritual experiences may have been added to a collective and drawn upon by the community as a whole. This spiritual power then would come in handy as they moved more toward the agricultural, and thus needed something to protect their fields from both animal and human marauders.

In today’s societies, a sense of spiritual can still be felt in just about any experience from belonging to something with a clear path to success (religionism), to coming to the realization that we are basically alone and have the right to choose our own path (atheism).

But no matter what position we take, or where we draw our spiritual power from, its still a personal thing. Our leanings create our realities, and what awes us personally gives us the hormone-induced sense of the spiritual.

Who we choose to share this power with becomes our community and validation.

Technorati Tags: god gene, hunter-gatherer societies, Religion, spirit gene, spirituality

Back when gas prices were climbing up to the four dollar mark, the big concern was that all other product would need to see a price increase due to the added costs of shipping and delivery. It happened as expected especially when it came to groceries at the local food stores, and it was actually understandable when you did the math. But then the price of gas dropped.

So why are we still paying an average person’s hourly wage for a pound of hamburg? Why didn’t the two dollar box of cereal come back when the cost of delivery went down? Or didn’t they think anyone would notice?

Is it too much of a bother to put store clerks to work retagging items to match the lower overhead? Or is this just another example of the consumer not mattering in the least to the big corporate greed machine? Let’s face it, if the overhead cost of producing and supplying a product drops, but the product cost remains the same or goes up even higher in some cases, doesn’t that mean someone is making a killing?

You know, stuff happens, and its understandable when viable reasons are given for price increases. But when those reasons are no longer a factor, it would also be understandable and expected to see it reflected in what those products cost the consumer.

There’s a reason for everything, folks. But if you give a reason then it should be the reason. And if that reason goes away, then its reasonable to expect the effects of that reason to go away as well.

Technorati Tags: consumer, Economy, price increase, prices