-
Green “Super Hero” Van Jones VS the Kryptonite of the Far Right
I’ve been tracking former Obama green czar Van Jones since his days as founder of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in Oakland. He’s a good guy with a good vision who is very grounded in the working-class neighborhoods of California.Jones has got the deep West Coast understanding about environmental issues plus the analysis of race and class. It’s a very needed combination.
He and Far-Right propagandist Glenn Beck have been fighting each other since the presidential campaign. With Jones’ forced resignation from the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Beck struck a blow against Obama.
I’m afraid this shows that the virulent Far-Right spasm that’s rippling across the country has got the Obama crew scared and off their game. They should have backed Van Jones up and kept moving forward.
Maybe the West Wingers need to re-read The Politics of Unreason by Lipset and Raab and Richard Hofstadter’s essay “The Paranoid Style in American Politics.” It’s time for them to get caught up on the history of Far-Right backlash and how to handle it.
Van Jones is the kind of real “super hero” we need to organize us for the fight to save the planet. But Beck and others have the kryptonite to weaken even the best of leaders, unless we surround them with a shield of truth.
Here’s an excerpt from a commentary by Francesca Rheannon on Jones’ resignation:
Green jobs champion Van Jones was dropped from the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) last week after being targeted by a conservative smear campaign. Exceeded in its shamelessness only by its dementia, the right wing attack was spearheaded by Glenn Beck, a radical racist schlock jock host on Fox News.
Beck had a personal bone to pick with Van Jones, who was a senior advisor on the CEQ. After he called President Obama a “racist” who was “trying to enact a socialist agenda“, Beck’s show became the target of an effort to get advertisers to drop sponsorship. The campaign was mounted by Color of Change, an organization Jones co-founded but is no longer associated with. Fifty seven companies have already responded by pulling their ads. The roster includes some of Amerca’s best known corporations, including AT&T, Bank of America, Best Buy, General Mills, Johnson & Johnson, Lowe’s, Procter & Gamble, Verizon Wireless, Sprint, and Wal-Mart.
The White House didn’t show the same courage against Beck’s mendacious spew the companies did. It failed to back up Van Jones in the days leading up to his technical resignation, nor, tellingly, did the Administration urge him to stay on after he tendered it. Jones had been one of its most visionary appointments in the effort to promote green jobs and wrest the economy out of recession.
Read Rheannon’s whole commentary here.
California, class, Color of Change, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, enivornment, Far Right, Francesca Rheannon, Glenn Beck, kryptonite, Lipset, Oakland, Obama, politics, Politics of Unreason, Raab, race, resignation, Richard Hofstadter, schlock jock, The Paranoid Style in American Politics, Van Jones, White House -
Beyond Health Care Debate to Viable Reform

James Smith, left, waits at the Wise County Fairgrounds (VA) to access a health clinic that offers free medical, dental, and vision care on a first-come, first-served basis, so lines start early and get long quickly. By Michael Williamson (Washington Post) Below is a good article, A Leading Health Researcher Looks Beyond the Reform Debate, on health care reform options beyond the hype. It’s out of the RAND Corporation – which has used its excellent researcher skills for ill (e.g. how to more effectively kill North Vietnamese and the most efficient way to nuke Soviets), rather than good at times.
But much of RAND’s current research provides balanced look at economic realities and long-term viability. RAND is going to err on the side of what’s good for business rather than care for “the least of these,” but it’s important to have as much information as possible as we wade through the issues.
I’d also recommend checking the RAND Compare Web site and and their hot health care legislation issues Web site for more on sorting through the health care debate.
Here’s an excerpt from the article:
Meet Elizabeth McGlynn. Associate director of RAND Health and one of the top 100 U.S. health care “innovators,” according to healthspottr.com, McGlynn is also codirector of the Comprehensive Assessment of Reform Efforts (COMPARE) initiative, which includes an online tool, developed at RAND, to help policymakers, the press, and others understand, evaluate, and design proposals for health care reform, not just for the current legislative session but also over the long term.
“Much of the information being provided in the health care debate comes from individuals or organizations that are advocates or opponents of particular ideas for fixing the health care system,” said McGlynn. In contrast, the COMPARE initiative offers “objective analysis from a neutral third party about the likely effects of policy choices on cost, quality, and access at the national level and for different stakeholders.”
She explained that the health care debate in Washington today revolves around two of the key pressing issues: expanding health insurance coverage and decreasing health care costs. “There is a philosophical debate about how best to fix the system,” said McGlynn. “Some people believe we should get everyone covered and that this will make it easier to control costs. Others believe that until we figure out how to reduce health care spending, we should not bring anyone new into the system.” McGlynn went on to observe that both issues, coverage and cost, would have to be addressed simultaneously.
Another key issue – health care quality – has received less attention in the current health reform discussion than have coverage and cost. Numerous RAND studies have shown that the United States faces a substantial gap between what is known to work in health care and what is actually provided. For example, McGlynn and colleagues have shown that American adults receive just half of recommended care for the leading causes of death and disability and that American children receive less than half of necessary care.
Read more here.
-
‘The Ethics of Sustainable Healthcare Reform’
Here’s an interesting article The Ethics of Sustainable Healthcare Reform by bioethicist Jessica Pierce and Dan Bednarz, co-editor of Health after Oil, on the necessity of approaching the healthcare system from the perspective that Wendell Berry calls “solving for pattern.”Pierce and Bednarz look at the healthcare system costs in our national economy (16% of national economy) and why reform is necessary to get us out of the economic death-spiral in which U.S. market-capitalism finds itself. They also look at how the medical industry builds up massive ecological debt–a debt that will have to be paid sooner, rather than later.
Simply stated, the present healthcare system is unsustainable for two sets of (interconnected) reasons, fiscal and ecological. The fiscal side receives attention in the current debate, but most discussion underestimates the problems and proposes solutions that provide little more than temporary band-aids. It is in the main unappreciated that the nation is in socioeconomic decline—primarily in the form of massive debt and defaults on that debt, deflation of asset values, and unemployment—which threatens the present healthcare system. Our collective understanding of the ecological dimension is abysmal, especially its connection to the economy, and if grasped would lead to the abandonment of politics and business as usual in medicine and throughout society.
Read the whole article here.
-
Canadian Churches Speak Out on U.S. Healthcare Debate
The General Secretary of the Canadian Council of Churches, Karen Hamilton, sent a letter last week to the directors of the U.S.-based National Council of Churches, Catholic Bishops Conference, and the National Association of Evangelicals on how the Canadian Churches handled health-care reform since the mid-1960s when Canada ushered in a “publicly-administered system with universal coverage.”Canada’s Ecumenical Health Care Network also has A Health Care Covenant that’s well worth reading in the midst of our current national debate. Here’s Rev. Hamilton’s letter below:
Dear sisters and brothers in Christ,
Aware of the current passionate debates concerning health care reform in the U.S.A., I write to you today to share some of our experiences and reflections in similar debates that have taken place, and continue to take place, in Canada.
While we have been following the American health care debate with interest, our hope is that our own work on the topic might be of some service to you. We have no wish to advocate specific positions on the various public policy options being proposed by politicians in your country. Canadians are aware that certain lobby groups and media outlets in the United States regularly use critical references to Canada’s health care system and interviews with Canadian citizens to support their arguments. We are also aware that a publicly administered, single-payer system such as we have in Canada has not been proposed by Washington law makers. By means of this letter and its enclosures, we simply wish to inform you of our Christian reflection on health care in Canada, the implications of this reflection in our ministries, and the action we have taken to discern an appropriate role for Canadian Christians in terms of health care and health care advocacy.
Members of the Canadian Council of Churches have been involved in health care ministry since the earliest times, as you can read in the historical chapter (beginning on page 18) of our August 2007 publication, A Health Care Covenant. Before 1966, Canada had a health care system that failed to provide over 30% of the population with medical insurance. This created enormous human suffering and ethical problems for those who believed with Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:26, “If one member suffers, all suffer together with it…” With varying degrees of fervour, Canadian churches publicly began to advocate for the establishment of Medicare.
Canadian churches wanted health care for all. We rejected a structure that would force thousands into bankruptcy due to unforeseen medical expenses, would promote different levels of service in the many disparate regions of this vast land or would end health insurance for those who found themselves unemployed, for example. Beginning with the enactment of the Medical Care Act in 1968 a publicly-administered system with universal coverage was designed as one of Canada’s hallmark policies towards social inclusion and the alleviation of suffering related to poverty.
In recent years the Ecumenical Health Care Network (EHCN) of churches in Canada was established to strengthen Canada’s public health care system. We agreed that health care need not be treated as a commodity (page 67) and in a submission to a Royal Commission the EHCN testified that, “The Medicare system is an expression of our belief that medical needs are too fundamental to be responded to solely on the basis of market forces and for reasons of profit” (page 55). The Ecumenical Health Care Network advocated for the expansion of public health services to cover prescription drugs (see pages 97-99) home care (pages 91-93) and to maintain and improve Canadian health care.
Canadian churches working together through the EHCN had an important impact on the Royal Commission on the Future of Health Care, which reported in 2002. Our recommendation that Canada develop a “Health Care Covenant” (pages 51-57) and our list of elements to be included in such a proposal (pages 69-73), was designed to allow churches to begin the debate on the future of health care by clarifying our values as a community. It was gratifying to see the first recommendation of the final report of this Commission (entitled, “Building on Values,” November 2002) adopt this very same call for a Health Care Covenant for Canada.
Throughout our engagement on the provision of health care in Canada, churches have discerned that health care advocacy in our country is directly related to God’s call to discipleship. We have seen firsthand that “public health care limits economic hardship” (page 15.) In the eloquent words of our former General Secretary, “Medicare can be the Good Samaritan parable writ large” (page 48.) We further believe that, “the principles guiding our health care system have an unmistakable affinity with the love of neighbour urged on us by God’s word in Scripture (page 45.)
These are our heartfelt beliefs. We believe, with you, that health care is a moral enterprise, firmly rooted in Matthew 25, “for I was sick and you took care of me.”
By sharing these words with you, we also offer our heartfelt prayers for the success of health care reform in your own country, based on your own values and the needs of your communities.
We are sending this to you as an organization representing traditions that correspond to our own membership. May our compassionate Lord and Healer grant you the grace to reflect, discern and act to bring health and peace to your people in the weeks and months ahead!
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Rev. Dr. Karen Hamilton
General Secretary, Canadian Council of Churches -
Catholic Hospitals “Walk the Talk” on Healthcare
Here’s a nice commentary on Catholics and healthcare reform by Sr. Mary Ann Walsh, director of communications for the US Catholic Bishops Conference.
She talks about Catholic hospitals, founded largely by the orders of Catholic sisters now being investigated by the Vatican, as places where healthcare is seen as a human right and sacred duty. I think we need more of that in our current discussion. Here’s an excerpt:
The Catholic Church walks the walk on health care. Its voice deserves to be heard. The church seeks four things in health care reform:
1. Respect for life and dignity, from conception to natural death.
2. Access for all, especially the poor and legal immigrants.
3. Pluralism, both through freedom of conscience and a variety of health care options.
4. Equitable cost, applied fairly across the spectrum of payers.What the church does not want is abortion. Abortion does not cure people; it snuffs out human life. The Hyde Amendment precludes using federal funds for abortion, and that same restriction ought to govern programs emerging from health care reform.
Read her whole commentary here.
-
Video: Rose’s Cameo in the Nico Colombant Mini-Doc “Summer of Protests and Rage”
At the pro-healthcare rally on Capitol Hill last Thursday, (see Water-Gun Rights at Health Care Reform Rally) I was interviewed by Nico Colombant for his mini-documentary called Summer of Protests and Rage. You can watch it below. My quote is in the first minute.
See more of Nico’s work here.
-
Merton: Love and Solitude
Catholic monk, author, and mystic Thomas Merton reflects here on the relationship between love and solitude. Our culture has put these two in opposition to each other–to be alone is to be loveless, to be loved is to never be lonely. Merton understand the connection quite differently.All I know is that here I am, and the valley is very quiet, the sun is going down, there is no human being around, and as darkness falls I could easily be a completely forgotten person, as if I did not exist for the world at all. (Though there is one who remembers and whom I remember.) The day could easily come when I would be just as invisible as if I never existed, and still be living up here on this hill. … And I know that I would be perfectly content to be so.
Who knows anything at all about solitude if he has not been in love, and in love in his solitude? Love and solitude must test each other in the one who means to live alone: they must become one and the same thing in him, or he will only be half a person. Unless I have you with me always, in some very quiet and perfect way, I will never be able to live fruitfully alone. –Thomas MertonFrom Learning to Love, edited by Christine M. Bochen (Harper SanFrancisco, 1997, p. 314-315)




