Can't win an election with votes? Try intimidation!

Vandals broke windows in the offices of representatives who voted in favor of health care reform. Bart "baby killer" Stupak is receiving death threats on his home phone. The photographs of an Ohio Democratic lawmaker AND HIS DAUGHTERS was published in a newspaper along with an advertisement suggesting that the lawmaker rethink his position on health care. Mike Troxel, an organizer for the Lynchburg (VA) Tea Party posted what he believed to be the home address of Rep Tom Perriello (D-VA). Unfortunately, the address was that of Perriello's brother, which was subsequently vandalized. The address remains on the Tea Party Web site and will remain there until someone gives Troxel the representative's proper home address.

Of course Troxel will not be involved if and when the perpetrators are found. After all, he simply suggested that his followers drop by and express their thanks for Periello's pro- health care reform vote. Fortunately, no one was killed--this time

If we are to use the actions of the anti-abortion activists as an example, this is just an opening salvo that will probably end in blood shed. In 1993, Dr. David Gunn, Pensacola, FL, was the subject of wanted-posters distributed by Operation Rescue. He was murdered by anti-abortion activist Michael Griffin. A year later, two receptionists were killed by followers of Human Life International. The list goes on, but you get the point.

Last year, Catherina Wojtowicz, organizer of the Chicago Tea Party, openly mocked Dan and Midge Hough at a town hall meeting as they recounted the story of how their daughter, Jenny, and unborn child died because Jenny could not afforded pre-natal care. Wojtowicz claims the Hough's fabricated the story.

Tea Baggers are armed, dangerous and attempting the overthrow of the US Government through violence and terrorism. If this were the 1960s, the FBI would be all over them. The Tea Party movement emerged in early 2009 partly in response to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act but their ire knew no bounds once the Republicans lost the presidency and control of the Congress. The consider themselves real Americans and the rest of us as Stalinist Liberals (although Stalin would be surprised and insulted to know that some one considered him a liberal). They claim to support the US Constitution but are dedicated to repealing those parts of the Constitution with which they do not agree.

They are out in force and in a neighborhood near you goaded in part by the Republican Party, still smarting from their election losses and out for blood. Where Homeland Security is when you need them?

What's interesting in that those who advocate violence are rarely those who actually do the violent act. They will never be held accountable. They will never be tried for the murder and mayhem they advocate. They are simply suggesting that protesters take aim at those legislators with whom they disagree, said Sarah Palin, who will be shocked and appalled when some Democratic legislator is carried on it a body bag.

On a lighter note, Rep. Randy Neugebauer claims he was misunderstood when he yelled "baby killer" as Rep. Bart Stupak spoke in favor of the health care bill. Neugebauer clarified the matter by explaining that he was calling the legislation a baby killer not Stupak, for whom Neugebauer has the highest regard. I'm glad that's been cleared up.

War is never healthy: A movie review (of all things)

I've never been a great fan of Japanese film, but there are Japanese films that I like. The Seven Samurai figures high on my list, which was remade in the United States as The Magnificent Seven. Throne of Blood, a retelling of MacBeth, is another of my favorites. But down there among the usually forgotten is a gem called Fires on the Plain, which asks the question: Is there a point beyond which civilization and humanity is no longer possible?

I was reminded of that film this week while watching HBOs The Pacific, which tells the horrendous story of the Marines who fought World War II on one miserable island after another. It's a good series, brought to us by Stephen Spielberg and Tom Hanks, who also produced Band of Brothers.

As might be expected of American film, The Pacific is expensively and beautifully produced with an eye to the small details and the kind of in-your-face battle scenes that place you in the midst of the action albeit with a magnificent soaring score. However, it lacks the kind of grit that Clint Eastwood managed to imbue in his two movies on the same subject and Fires on the Plain. I think, oddly, that the problem, if it is a problem, is that The Pacific is in color, while Eastwood bleached his colors so that his film had the feel of old photographs or news film. Fires on the Plain is done in stark black and white. It is also an anti-war film and not as overtly manipulative as Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan (which is really a buddy-road film with explosives).

The film follows the grim progress of one Japanese soldier through a doomed wasteland of desperate men caught in the losing battle for the Philippines. If a bullet doesn't kill the protagonist his tuberculosis will. There are no victors in this film, also no food, no medicine, and no way out. There is the relentless reality of what war means and the ends to which men will go to survive. The ever advancing American soldiers are the least of their problems.

No one has ever survived a war without carrying some permanent scar on his or her soul. Warriors return home either in victory or defeat and are required by society to resume their antebellum life without exploring how this experience has forever changed them. We prefer the John Wayne approach in which warriors are cosmetically grimy without ever being shown as filthy, always heroic, everlastingly cheerful, and unscarred by what they've seen or done. And yet how does a man embrace his family with the same hands that carried a gun and killed people? Don't we, as the people for whom these warriors ostensibly fight, have the responsibility to accept them as irrevocably changed?

My father, a World War II veteran, confined his stories to what was amusing (including his characterization of Patton as "that SOB who tried to get me killed"). It was only later, as he lay dying, when he told us one horrendous story that I realized that his war was always with him. To a large extent his experiences created the man who was my father and it explained a great deal. Like most of the men of his generation, my dad returned home, settled in and lived out his peaceful life. But he had terrible dreams for a time and terrible memories for the rest of his life. Although my dad initially supported the Vietnam conflict, his attitude changed when my brother's number rolled to the top. "I've been to war," he said, "and it is not for my son."

It doesn't matter whether the war is popular or not and it certainly doesn't matter who won. Victor or vanquished form a brotherhood of men and women who have seen the worst that man has to offer and survived. We who have never been to battle cannot possibly understand. Perhaps it is easier to accept if you are a victor because then everything you have experienced or done seems worthwhile. Or maybe not.

Yes, most people who survive a war, whether as civilians or soldiers, move on. But I don't think they ever recover from the savagery and depravity that they have seen or maybe in which they participated. There is a reason why some US Marines covered the portholes of the ships that took them home from the Pacific. They did not want to look back.

War is not good. All it does is destroy real estate and kill people. It rarely resolves the issue, because the problems remain under different names and in different times. I suppose I must accept that war is sometimes unavoidable and inevitable. But I cannot help but think that there are other ways of dealing with problems.

In any event, if you are interested in gritty, unrelenting, and grim, grim, grim war films I recommend Kom Ichikawa's 1959 war classic Fires on the Plains. The action in this film is strictly from the Japanese point of view. The actions are taken by Japanese soldiers against Japanese soldiers. It is not possible nor will this film erase memories of Japanese atrocities but you will be haunted by the story and its vision. You may need to watch it more than once to ingest the story.

Baby Killer

Randy Neugebauer (R-Tex) shouted "baby killer" at Rep. Bart Stupack (D-MI) when Stupak spoke on Saturday in favor of health care reform. Neugebauer is concerned about the tragic consequences to the unborn as a result of a health care reform bill. Neugebauer is not, apparently, equally concerned about children who receive little or no care because of a pre-existing condition or because their parents cannot afford health care. No doubt Neugebauer will be made to apologize to his colleagues in Congress. No such apology will be forthcoming to uninsured people who stand to benefit from this bill. Neugebauer, like most who oppose a woman's right to choose whether or not she will have an abortion, is not concerned about children. Not in the warm hearted way he regards the unborn.

I doubt Randy Neugebauer goes around kicking small children, but he has done nothing to help small children who need it, or their parents who cannot afford health care. And why should he? He is, after all, covered by a nifty little health care plan paid for by the taxpayer. These are the same guys who had no problem when it came to nationalizing banks on the backs of taxpayers. Socialism apparently is good when it helps the wealthy but health care reform is NOT socialism and is not a step toward socialism regardless of what conservative attack dogs say.

I'm not sure what health care reform will do but I do know that the system needs to be changed. As it now stands, some faceless bean counter makes life and death decisions. This may be an ideal arrangement for health benefit programs and for their investors, but it is not so good for the rest of us.

The Republicans may be down, but they are not out. We can expect an increase in the inflammatory and often specious claims made by the right about health care. John McCain promised that Republicans "will challenge [health care reform] every place we can." No doubt it will figure prominently in campaign rhetoric as the Republicans campaign to increase their power in the Congress.

Subsidizing health care has been around since Theodore Roosevelt's Administration. And while it remains to be seen how much good health care reform can do, it is better than doing nothing.

Roughly 25 million people in the United States are underinsured. Underinsured and uninsured people do not receive adequate care. Do not take comfort in the myth that the uninsured have access to adequate care because in the United States emergency rooms have an open-door policy. Who do you think absorbs the cost of that care? You, the comfortably insured pick up the tab through higher premiums and increased hospital costs. It's actually in your best interest to have the uninsured covered. Moreover, it costs more to treat advance disease than it cost to treat an illness in its early stages.

Health care reform will not impose rationing because insurance companies already ration care. This is particularly true when it comes to pre-existing conditions including congenital problems. Health care companies can, and have, denied coverage for people who need life saving procedures.

I have no idea where the idea sprung that health care will result in death panels. Have you, as I have, already discussed with your physician advance care planning? You don't have to and the reform bill does not demand that you do so. But somehow this common sense approach to end stage disease has been transformed by the rabid right wing into a death panel.

Health care reform will not cover undocumented immigrants. In fact, if you read the bill, or even parts of the bill, you will discover that it specifically stipulates that those who are in this country unlawfully may not receives subsidies to purchase health care coverage.

Finally, and perhaps most important to some, health care reform does not ban private individual insurance. If you are happy paying ever increasing premiums, you are free to continue to do so.

Although we don't know how much this will cost, we do know that the cost of early care will reduce the billions spent when people become seriously ill, assuming they have access to care in the first place.

Health care reform is not socialized medicine, which worked well in the UK until Margaret Thatcher declared war on the poor and began to eliminate funding. Conservatives like to trot out the "socialized medicine" scare, knowing that they are speaking to a public that doesn't understand the issue or doesn't actually care as long as they have theirs.

Oddly, those most vocal against health care reform claim that although they are happy with Medicare, they do not believe that the government can run a health care program. Makes one wonder if Medicare is managed by elves who live in magical trees. The reality is that Medicare cost have risen but more slowly than private insurance. If Medicare is as bankrupt as some would have us believe, maybe we should look at those administrations that used Medicare funds to fight wars in Southeast Asia and the Middle East. Despite President George W. Bush's best efforts, the VA system remains an leader in quality and safety. Again, I suppose, at the behest of those magical elves in their magical trees.

We in the United States do not have the best health care system in the world if that care is not available to all. People get sick, some because they live unhealthy lifestyles, some because of genetic imperfections, and some because as we age, our bodies begin to wear down. Should health care, like luxury cars and high priced real estate, be available only to those who can pay the ever increasing price?

Insurance companies and for-profit health institutions are partly to blame for this mess. And if you don't think it can get worse, take a look at the UK as it dismantles its own National Health System. Medical costs are huge because drug companies, hospitals, their executives, insurance companies, and doctors are greedy. Health care reform cannot change that, but it might curb this greed.

As I said, if you like things the way they are you are free to pay increasing insurance premiums and escalating hospital cost. But should you find yourself unemployed and uninsured you might be thankful that someone thought to vote in favor of health care reform.

The Black Agenda

President Obama was the target of some barbs from black leaders meeting in Chicago this weekend who believe the president has not address the "black agenda" of increasing employment and educational opportunities. I thought that as president of the United States he was suppose to do that for all of us.

Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said that as President Obama received the support of African-Americans, "we have a right to expect something of the brother." Well, the president was elected by a majority of people in the United States and not by one voting block. And we ALL have a right to expect that he will deliver on some of what he promised.

The racial divide in the United States continues, helped by racists of all colors. That famous slave holder Thomas Jefferson may have had it right when he said of slavery, "It's like holding a tiger by the tail. You cannot hold on forever and you dare not let go." Abraham Lincoln's initial plan was to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia. During the American Civil War, Lincoln negotiated contracts with businessmen to colonize freed slaves to Panama and to a small island off the coast o Haiti. He understood that scar of slavery might make it impossible for freed slaves to live in the United States. It appears that Lincoln was on to something.

Slavery continued after the Civil War in the South and Southern voters eroded any inroads Blacks made to assimilate into the whole of life in the United States. It really wasn't until the 1950s when the Caucasian population joined the struggle for Civil Rights that Black people became full citizens of the United States. People died in that struggle and some of them were Caucasian.

So, I understand why, 50 years later, the black community views the rest of us with a jaundiced eye. But the fact remains that Barak Obama, for whatever reason, appealed to a wide audience and was elected president. But he is president for all of us and no one group should expect special treatment or considerations.

The problems confronting the United States effect all of us. We all have a right to expect that as president, Obama will address these issues. He cannot and should not be expected to fix everything for everybody. It just doesn't work that way. But harkening back 50 years to the way things were and asking for special treatment now does not seem to me to be particularly helpful to anyone.

Unless, of course, the real issue is for a small cadre of Black activists to keep their agenda and names in the press.