South Texas Liberal

Stifling the debate

2007-09-26T07:01:00.000-07:00

As you may know, Dennis Kucinich was excluded from a presidential debate earlier this week that focused on health care. The reasoning is obvious: Kucinich has the only plan that attacked insurance companies and how they are driving up the costs of health care. AARP, an insurance company, insisted Kucinich be excluded. Kucinich wants the government to directly fund health care from taxes and eliminate the profits we pay to insurance companies that do not go toward providing health coverage. Basically, he wants to eliminate the middle man. The other Democratic candidates are proposing universal health insurance, not universal health care. Ugh. The plans from the other candidates just throw more money at health care. As a country, we don't need to spend more money on health care, we just need to spend it more wisely. One way to do that is to get rid of the middle man. Other ways include putting doctors on salaries instead of allowing them to make unlimited sums of money and allowing the government to negotiate with drug companies to get the lowest possible price for each prescription. Not allowing voters to hear the variety of ideas each candidate has is censorship and a calculated attempt to suppress voters from knowing what their options are. Anyway, afterward Air America radio host Randi Rhodes called Dennis Kucinich a weakling and told him to stop whining. That was irresponsible of her, so I wrote her this e-mail that she probably won't read:

Hi Randi Rhodes,

I think the comments you made about Dennis Kucinich were inappropriate. Kucinich is a strong candidate, but the media (I'm a former newspaper editor) is so caught up in the horse race and not the ideas debate. Hilary Clinton led the race before it started because her husband had been president, so naturally she lead the polls. Because she led the polls, she "deserved" the most stories. Because she got the most stories, she continued to led in the polls. See the circle here? The way the media should cover presidential campaigns is to talk about as many of the candidates' ideas as possible and compare them to each other. That way voters can choose among who has the best ideas, not who is most popular (What ever happened to those idiots in high school anyway?). How can Dennis Kucinich get the word about who he is when he doesn't get fair time. I subscribe to The New York Times and I've seen dozens of front-page Hilary Clinton articles and even one about her daughter and some about her husband, but I haven't see one article anywhere in the paper about Kucinich. When the Times ran a story about each candidates' health care plans, guess who they left out? He can't even get mentioned in the position articles. That's pathetic. You calling him a weakling is a gutless bow to the powers that be. You are one of the reasons why we will never get another president who will inspire us. If Clinton or Obama or Edwards gets elected, none will have any particularly profound proposals. I expect more from a liberal talk show host.

Sincerely,
Andrew Keese
Harlingen, Texas

We can take back the roadways; look at Columbia

2007-09-20T06:16:00.000-07:00

This story is amazing. Taking the roadways back for the greater public good is possible, and it is happening in Bogota, Columbia. This is from a story in the Toronto Globe and Mail, a Canadian newspaper:

In the mid-1990s, Bogota was, citizens recall, un enfierno – a living hell. There were 3,363 murders in 1995 and nearly 1,400 traffic deaths. The city suffered from the cumulative effects of decades of civil war, but also from explosive population growth and a dearth of planning. Wealthy residents fenced off their local public parks. Drivers appropriated sidewalk space to park cars. The air rivalled Mexico City's for pollution. Workers from the squalid shanties on the city's south end spent as much as four hours every day commuting to and from Bogota's wealthy north.

In 1997, a study by the Japanese International Co-operation Agency prescribed a vast network of elevated freeways to ease Bogota's congestion. Like cities across the Third World, Bogota was looking to North American suburbs as a development model, even though only 20 per cent of people owned cars.

The tide changed with Mr. (Enrique) Peñalosa's election in 1998.

“A city can be friendly to people or it can be friendly to cars, but it can't be both,” the new mayor announced. He shelved the highway plans and poured the billions saved into parks, schools, libraries, bike routes and the world's longest “pedestrian freeway.”

He increased gas taxes and prohibited car owners from driving during rush hour more than three times per week. He also handed over prime space on the city's main arteries to the Transmilenio, a bus rapid-transit system based on that of Curitiba, Brazil.

Bogotans almost impeached their new mayor. Business owners were outraged. Yet by the end of his three-year term, Mr. Peñalosa was immensely popular and his reforms were being lauded for making Bogota remarkably fairer, more tolerable and more efficient.

Moreover, by shifting the budget away from private cars, Mr. Peñalosa was able to boost school enrolment by 30 per cent, build 1,200 parks, revitalize the core of the city and provide running water to hundreds of thousands of poor.

To read the full story, click here.

Human power may just be the solution to global warming we need

2007-09-10T06:44:00.000-07:00

Like it or not, our city leaders need to begin preparing for a world that will likely be much changed as the effects of global warming continue to be realized.
Yes, it will cost money, but the good news is that the solutions the community comes up with to do its part in helping mitigate the effects of global warming could greatly improve the quality of life for area residents.
For too long, our obsession with our car culture has led us to develop cities that aren’t that liveable, and all of this excessive driving has led to poorer air quality, increased consumption of gasoline and, perhaps worst of all, a more sedentary lifestyle.
I believe we should create corridors of sidewalks and bicycle paths (real paths that are protected by curbs) throughout the city. Imagine more sidewalks and bicycle paths: You could actually commute to work or go to the store without getting in your car.
This is not just some pipe dream of mine. I have seen this work in Berlin, Germany, where I graduated from high school. I could simply get on bicycle and ride anywhere I wanted and not worry about getting pummeled by a car.
Not driving saves a lot of money; gasoline, as you know, is an expensive commodity. Heaven knows, I wouldn’t mind spending less on gasoline, and I’m sure there are plenty of residents who could use the money for other critical expenses.
City leaders should give pedestrian and bicycle traffic the same priority of funding that automobiles get. Why should we spend so much of our tax dollars to subsidize the automobile? Do we really want to stay beholden to the whims of big oil?
The reality is that oil is a finite resource. There’s only so much of it in the planet. Experts debate when we’ll start seeing a lot less of it, but evidence that this resource may not last forever comes from the ever increasing amounts that we pay to fill up our gasoline tanks.
Perhaps some miracle of science will rescue us, but if some new technology comes along to replace the gasoline-powered automobile, it likely won’t be cheap.
If we have safe pathways for people to walk or ride a bicycle, residents wouldn’t have to spend ridiculous sums of money for fuel to drive short distances. Cars that don’t get abused with excessive mileage probably will last longer and won’t need as much maintenance.
Using figures provided by the Texas Diabetes Council, as many as 42 percent of Brownsville’s residents could have diabetes. Medical experts say obesity is a key contributor to this disease. Obesity also contributes to other health disorders, such as heart disease.
If residents simply moved more, I am certain we would see fewer instances of obesity and perhaps an improvement with such problems as diabetes and heart disease.
That is why having more sidewalks and bicycle paths would be so beneficial and ultimately save more money than it costs.
City leaders could accomplish bicycle paths in a number of ways. First, they should budget some of the money meant for roadways for sidewalks and bicycle paths. Second, they should make sidewalks and bicycle paths a requirement for new developments.
In time, current roadways could be made smaller for more green space and room for sidewalks and bicycle paths.
By focusing on building more sidewalks and bicycle paths, Brownsville would become a cleaner city with healthier residents that would be the envy of the state. When asked about global warming, locals could proudly proclaim the actions their city is taking.
And when oil runs out, Brownsville residents won’t be scratching their heads in trying to figure out how to afford getting around the city.

Voting and shopping may just be what this democracy needs

2007-08-14T06:19:00.000-07:00

Too many of us lament the state of politics and the policies of our government, but not enough of us bother to take any action. As I see it, there are at least two ways to espouse your political beliefs in a capitalistic democracy: voting and shopping. Voting may be the most important exercise in a democracy. You are a shareholder in that democracy, and not voting merely makes the other shareholders more powerful. Think about this typical scenario: 50 percent of voters turn out for national elections in years when the presidency is up for grabs and 10 percent during times of hotly contested local races. That means just more than 25 percent of voters get to decide who will be president, congressman and senator and more than 5 percent who will be mayor and city commissioner. These are the people who make major decisions in the quality of our lives, such as which taxes to levy and which programs to support. Just in case you have any illusions, elected officials usually tend to their most important job first: keeping their job. To do that, the people in power will cater their policies toward the people who voted for them in the election or supported them in another way, such as fundraising. Even if the prevailing national opinion on a topic -- such was whether to have universal health coverage for every American -- was overwhelming one way or the other, elected officials will only represent the interests of their supporters. Another less talked about way of influencing the world around you is by how you shop. We don't just live in a democracy; we are guided by the game known as capitalism. In a capitalistic system, each one of your purchases is equal to the power of a vote. Consider your values. Does your money go to people and causes that you support? Let’s say you are a democrat, but the profits of your purchases go primarily to companies run or owned by republicans. Those republicans then peddle their influence and money to support the people they care about, which are probably not democrats. A Web site called BuyBlue.org (which will be up and running again in the fall) lists companies and the percentages of their political donations to either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. If there are two comparable companies and one supports your viewpoint while the other doesn’t, your purchases are the equivalent to voting, and it may be the difference between that company staying in business or being bought out by the company you don’t care for. There are other ways your purchases have power, such as supporting causes that matter to you. If say you are worried about farmers being enslaved and exploited in chocolate plantations, you can buy Fair Trade Certified chocolate that ensures the workers who produced that product were paid a fair wage and worked under reasonable conditions. If you worry about the environment and the lack of governmental action in that area, you can buy organic produce (which pollutes less than conventional farming methods), a car that get more miles per gallon and more efficient Energy Star appliances. Think about purchases on a national scale. Our safety from terrorism may rely on how our country collectively purchases oil. Our reliance on oil from the Middle East provides capital to some of the people who hate us. That money could conceivably go from an oil barren to a terrorist and come back and hurt our country and maybe even you. That country could even decide to withhold oil from us, potentially damaging our economy. If you don’t vote or consider the weight of your purchases, you may not have much room to complain when things don’t go the way you want them to.

What's fair in a presidential election?

2007-08-13T06:46:00.000-07:00

Have you noticed something amiss about this year's Democratic primary season? Perhaps you didn't because it's more of the same. Apparently the media (I'm a former member of this institution.) doesn't think covering the candidates fairly and equally is of any importance. They believe that poll numbers should dictate who should get covered. In other words, the media is acting as a gatekeeper allowing information on the candidates that it approves of to reach most potential voters. Time and time again I see front-page stories in The New York Times about Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and occasionally John Edwards. These are mostly personality driven stories or horse-race stories (who raised the most money, who fared the best in the recent poll). They are also rarely challenged to answer the difficult questions, and they are rarely brought to task when they evade the questions. The reporters seldom, if ever, point out inaccuracies in the candidates' statements. I get the feeling that the media wants us to select the best personality out of their chosen candidates. Unfortunately, the media is doing a disservice to the country. The weight of each candidate's ideas should be the main barometer in each election. The media should make a point of covering each and every candidate equally, even the ones it doesn't think much of, such as Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and Chris Dodd. We should have topic-driven stories, and the media should show where every candidate stands on those topics, such as health care or the war in Iraq. The New York Times had a story it claimed would show how each candidate stood on health care. I didn't see a mention of Kucinich, Gravel or Dodd. How can you give voters options among the candidates if they don't know where each one stands? In health care, for instance, it is possible that most potential voters want universal health coverage, but the options that the media (in this case, The New York Times) let us know about were the universal health insurance plans of Clinton (She doesn't have a hard position. They were basing much of her ideas on when she tried to help reform health care when her husband was president), Obama and Edwards. So if universal health coverage were the most important topic to most voters, they weren't being given the chance to choose the one candidate who has proposed such a plan, Dennis Kucinich. If the coverage were fair and equal among all the candidates, and Kucinich's plan was given equal weight with the other candidates, then more voters might jump to Kucinich's camp. The other candidates would notice the switch in voters and would have to adjust their plans if they wanted to attract those voters back. We need to get away from this horse-race coverage of elections and get down to the niddy gritty of what the candidates actually want to do. Of course Clinton would lead the polls in the beginning because her husband had been the president and her name is well-known. Her position in the polls gets reinforced because she gets the most coverage by the media. The polls should be irrelevant to the coverage of elections. Let the power of a man or woman's intellect draw the interest of voters. Who cares about personality? We see where that got us with the current administration.

The president's healthy, but what about most Americans?

2007-08-09T06:57:00.000-07:00

I didn't expect to see an example of America's health-care woes from a story about the president's annual physical. President Bush was recently declared healthy by no fewer than 11 doctors. You heard me right, 11. Let that sink in. It's like the president is mocking the lack of adequate health care that most Americans have to put up with. With something like 40 million Americans without health insurance and the millions of people with health insurance that's not worth a damn, the president flaunts his privilege with a physical exam by 11 doctors. How much was his co-pay or deductible for such excellent care? Um, none, I'm sure. The last physical I had was when I was in the military more than 11 years ago. I get so frustrated when people talk about health care because it doesn't seem that they get the point. The money issue seems to bog people down. Think about it: 31 percent of health-care dollars go to insurance companies. How many patients do health-insurance companies treat? That's right, none. As a former journalist, I can tell you that companies that provide health insurance to their employees pay more than $350 per employee per month for it. Then, each person is riddled with deductibles, co-pays and bills above and beyond what the insurance covers. Doctors get paid by each service they provide, so they end up doing more expensive services or unnecessary services than what's required. We pay taxes already for Medicare, Medicaid and for each current member of the military or veteran who decides to use that benefit. We taxpayers also provide very nice health coverage for each member of Congress and for the president. We also pay exorbitant sums for prescription drugs because we don't have a government clearing house that negotiates the best prices for those drugs. We also allow private drug companies to basically charge whatever they want for drugs funded partially by public dollars. We allow prescription drug companies to spend money to advertise their products. Look, we can eliminate insurance companies and reallocate all medical services into one system. Why do we need a veterans' hospital when the veteran can go to any hospital? By eliminating health-insurance companies and taking profit motives out of hospital systems and doctors' offices, we have most of the money needed to fund a real universal health-care system. We can put every doctor on the government payroll with a designated salary (just like is done in the military). The government can make sure each doctor is qualified (just like teachers) and cover their malpractice insurance. The government can actively participate in developing new drugs and make them available at cost. We can legalize the cheapest of all pain-relieving drugs, marijuana. Why are people paying for an expensive prescription derivative of marijuana when they can use the real thing at very little expense? The government can provide free medical training at public medical schools. The health-care system can do things that make the overall cost of providing care cheaper. For one, every American should get an annual physical. That would catch potential problems at an early stage. Hospitals could screen for things like infections before patients are admitted, thus reducing the expense and surgeries resulting from outbreaks. Americans could get whatever preventative shots are available. The health-care system can conduct nutrition clinics and public service campaigns with the motive of simply making Americans healthier. We shouldn't have to fear going to the doctor because of the cost. We can have better health care in the United States, but believe it our not, our country doesn't have to pay more for it. We can probably have a great health-care system for far less than what we currently spend. The only problem is that the candidates who advocate a universal health-care system, such as Dennis Kucinich, don't get their ideas published in the newspaper. Instead, the only things that get reported are from the candidates who are advocating a universal health-insurance system. Which one do you think is going to cost more?

How many voices will this border fence silence?

2007-05-13T11:00:00.000-07:00

Every night and morning this time of year in South Texas, the song of the white-wing doves fills the air. “Oooh, oooh, oooh.” I’m sure I’m not doing their sounds much justice.
Ole Petey Mesquitey from Tuscon, Ariz., on his radio show says they sound like, “Who cooks for you? Who cooks for you?” That is really close.
It really is beautiful. It makes you feel like nature has come into your house. It reminds us humans that we are a part of the animal kingdom no matter how much we try to deny it.
I feel like this when the red-wing blackbirds perch in our backyard tree or the cicadas, too. In North Carolina, I remember when the song of the frogs would almost overwhelm me.
I’ve heard the Atwater prairie chicken, now critically endangered but once numbered in the millions, would literally take over the prairie with their loud booms. How I would love to hear their call.
Now, our supposedly “conservative” leaders in this country are forging ahead with their bigoted security wall with Mexico. I have serious problems with Michael Chertoff, secretary of Homeland Security, waiving the Endangered Species Act and other environmental protections in the name of throwing up a border wall as quickly as possible. Conserving should be a conservative value.
The wall -- envisioned as two fences and a road that can handle speeds of up to 50 mph -- will take up an enormous amount of land with a 150-foot-wide easement needed.
Since I presume, they are not going to be following the contour of the Rio Grande, which zigzags north and south and east and west, they really are taking much more than 150 feet. They are also taking whatever is behind the wall along the riverbanks.
In the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, farming has been king for hundreds of years, and with modern development, less than 5 percent of wild lands remain here, according to the federal government’s estimates. A lot of those are hugging the Rio Grande.
It includes Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge, Texas Nature Conservancy’s Southmost Preserve, the Sabal Palms Audubon Center and several state parks. These are tiny places, and the government wants to rip a wall through them without for a second considering the impact it will have.
Many of our rare plants will be lost, and much critically needed habitat will be lost.
Why? Simply because we rushing to build this security wall.
There are ways to make a security wall less harmful to wildlife. Small openings that humans can’t get through, for instance, would be helpful. I’m sure with a little patience and cooperation, scientists could devise ways to make it more conducive to animal migration.
If we took our time building this wall of hate (You know that is what it is. We are friends with Mexico.), we could mitigate the loss of habitat by expanding these preserves and transplanting many of the plant species.
We could build a wall to the rear of the preserves and have a border checkpoint opening during the day allowing people through to visit the parks. Then, nothing would be destroyed but farm land, and the government could reach their cherished goal of banning Mexicans.
It is plain ignorance to rush ahead with something like this. What is the rush? Are Mexicans going to somehow do something to us in the interim? Please.
Remember the rush to go to war with Iraq? A little patience would have been a virtue there.
Building walls does not bring peace. Only taking them down does.
Remember, Republicans, what Ronald Reagan said at the Berlin Wall, “Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” This was a shout for peace, and as much as I hated Reagan, he deserved credit for his stance.
We should be working on opening the border, not making it tighter.
Look at Europe. It is achieving greater peace than ever by taking down border barriers between Germany, France, Spain and many of the other countries there.
By the end of this year, the barriers will be taken down between Poland and Germany.
Poland has been the Mexico to Germany. Now, Germans and Poles are looking at an open border to increase understanding between each other.
Our country wants international trade, but our leaders want to live in a box. Go figure.
Our obsession with a border wall is threatening some of the last precious wild space where I live. It is not right that the government is acting so rashly.
Will we not be satisfied until all of nature has been obliterated? Which animals’ voices will we silence next?