Oil In The Gulf Evangelical leaders: Gulf oil spill raises moral issues
The Associated Press
Leaders of a group that encourages evangelical Christians to care for the environment say the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico raises moral challenges for the country.
The Revs. Jim Ball and Mitchell Hescox, leaders of the Evangelical Environmental Network, are visiting southern Louisiana to pray with people who have lost jobs because of the spill.
Joining them is the Rev. Galen Carey of the National Association of Evangelicals.
Ball says they took a boat ride off the coast Thursday and were saddened by sights of oil-spattered marshes where birds were nesting.
He says the oil spill is a stain on the nation's stewardship of God's creation, and should inspire people of faith to embrace cleaner energy sources. Ball says how the nation responds to the disaster is a matter of values.
Kenule "Ken" Beeson Saro Wiwa (October 10, 1941 – November 10, 1995) was a Nigerian author, television producer, environmental activist, and winner of the Goldman Environmental Prize. Saro-Wiwa was a member of the Ogoni people, an ethnic minority in Nigeria whose homeland, Ogoniland, in the Niger Delta has been targeted for crude oil extraction since the 1950s and which has suffered extreme and unremediated environmental damage from decades of indiscriminate petroleum waste dumping. Initially as spokesperson, and then as President, of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP), Saro-Wiwa led a nonviolent campaign against environmental degradation of the land and waters of Ogoniland by the operations of the multinational petroleum industry, especially Shell. He was also an outspoken critic of the Nigerian government, which he viewed as reluctant to enforce environmental regulations on the foreign petroleum companies operating in the area.
At the peak of his non-violent campaign, Saro-Wiwa was arrested, hastily tried by a special military tribunal, and hanged in 1995 by the military government of General Sani Abacha, all on charges widely viewed as entirely politically motivated and completely unfounded. His execution provoked international outrage and resulted in Nigeria's suspension from the Commonwealth of Nations for over 3 years.
The Case Against Shell: 'The Hanging of Ken Saro-Wiwa Showed the True Cost of Oil'
As the US government takes BP to task over the disasterous Gulf of Mexico spill, many Nigerians are asking, ‘what about Shell?’. There is nothing clean about Shell’s operations in the Niger Delta, where daily oil spills are frequently ignored for months and where ‘clean up’ methods include dumping oil-drenched soil into pits before burning them.
So poor is Shell’s record that over the weekend, the Nigerian government had to remind the company to respect international standards when it does get around to cleaning up a fraction of over 2,400 spill sites in the Delta.
The Deepwater Horizon disaster caused headlines around the world, yet the people who live in the Niger delta have had to live with environmental catastrophes for decades
“If this Gulf accident had happened in Nigeria, neither the government nor the company would have paid much attention,” said the writer Ben Ikari, a member of the Ogoni people. “This kind of spill happens all the time in the delta.”
I have been hearing bits of information and suggestions about the organized workings of the very rich in this country and the world for over 40 years. What is the truth, what is going on, why is this happening? We need to find the truth.
President Obama named Elena Kagan, the Solicitor General, as his second pick for the Supreme Court today, paving the way for the most gender-balanced court in American history.
If she is confirmed Ms Kagan, 50, would become the youngest member of the highest court in the US and the only justice with no experience as a judge. Her appointment would also radically alter the religious composition of the court: she would be the third Jewish justice, alongside six Catholics, leaving no Protestant voice on the court for the first time.
Mr Obama today introduced her as “our Solicitor General and my friend”, emphasising his decades-long personal relationship with Ms Kagan.
“I have selected a nominee who I believe embodies ... excellence, independence, integrity and passion for the law,” Mr Obama said. “Elena is widely regarded as one of the nation’s foremost legal minds. She is a trailblazing leader.”
The President said that he was proud that she would become the third woman on the court and highlighted her reputation as a “consensus builder” who had a strong working relationship with the conservative members of the court and a “habit of fair-mindedness”.
Before Mr Obama chose Sonia Sotomayor last year Democrats had waited for 15 years for the chance to select a Supreme Court judge. Justices stay on the court until their death or retirement, which means that appointments to the court are among the most significant opportunities for any administration.
George W. Bush managed to shift the court towards conservatism by appointing Samuel Alito to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a moderate.
Ms Kagan has enjoyed a stellar legal and political career. She was the first female dean of Harvard Law School and the first woman to serve as the Solicitor General, the country’s most senior legal advisor.
Her age gives her the opportunity to extend Mr Obama’s legacy for a generation, reinvigorating the court’s liberal wing by replacing the 90-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens.
People all over the country are choosing to move their money out of bigger banks and into smaller, community-oriented financial institutions that generally avoided the reckless investments and schemes that helped cause the financial crisis.
Fueled by the personal initiatives of thousands, it’s a grassroots effort that has the potential to shift power in the financial system away from Wall Street and to Main Street.
Check out the video, read up on what inspired the idea, connect with others through Facebook and Twitter and then use the tools and links provided to find a community bank or credit union in your area
Move Your Money: A New Year's Resolution
Too-big-to-fail banks are profiting from bailout dollars and government guarantees, and growing bigger. Tell us which community bank you use, and why.
Last week, over a pre-Christmas dinner, the two of us, along with political strategist Alexis McGill, filmmaker/author Eugene Jarecki, and Nick Penniman of the HuffPost Investigative Fund, began talking about the huge, growing chasm between the fortunes of Wall Street banks and Main Street banks, and started discussing what concrete steps individuals could take to help create a better financial system. Before long, the conversation turned practical, and with some help from friends in the world of bank analysis, a video and website were produced devoted to a simple idea: Move Your Money.
The big banks on Wall Street, propped up by taxpayer money and government guarantees, have had a record year, making record profits while returning to the highly leveraged activities that brought our economy to the brink of disaster. In a slap in the face to taxpayers, they have also cut back on the money they are lending, even though the need to get credit flowing again was one of the main points used in selling the public the bank bailout. But since April, the Big Four banks -- JP Morgan/Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo -- all of which took billions in taxpayer money, have cut lending to businesses by $100 billion.
Meanwhile, America's Main Street community banks -- the vast majority of which avoided the banquet of greed and corruption that created the toxic economic swamp we are still fighting to get ourselves out of -- are struggling. Many of them have closed down (or been taken over by the FDIC) over the last 12 months. The government policy of protecting the Too Big and Politically Connected to Fail is badly hurting the small banks, which are having a much harder time competing in the financial marketplace. As a result, a system which was already dangerously concentrated at the top has only become more so.
We talked about the outrage of big, bailed-out banks turning around and spending millions of dollars on lobbying to gut or kill financial reform -- including "too big to fail" legislation and regulation of the derivatives that played such a huge part in the meltdown. And as we contrasted that with the efforts of local banks to show that you can both be profitable and have a positive impact on the community, an idea took hold: why don't we take our money out of these big banks and put them into community banks? And what, we asked ourselves, would happen if lots of people around America decided to do the same thing? Our money has been used to make the system worse -- what if we used it to make the system better?
Everyone around the table quickly got excited (granted we are an excitable group), and began tossing out suggestions for how to get this idea circulating.
Eugene, the filmmaker among us, remarked that the contrast between the big banks and the community banks we were talking about was very much like the story in the classic Frank Capra film It's a Wonderful Life, where community banker George Bailey helps the people of Bedford Falls escape the grip of the rapacious and predatory banker Mr. Potter.
It was a lightbulb moment. And, unlike the vast majority of dinner conversations, the excitement over this idea didn't end with dessert. It actually led to something -- thanks in great part to Eugene and his remarkable team, who got to work and, in record time, created a brilliant, powerful, and inspiring video playing off the It's a Wonderful Life concept. Watch it below.
Within a few days, the rest of the pieces fell into place, including an agreement with top financial analysts Chris Whalen and Dennis Santiago, who gave us access to their IRA (Institutional Risk Analytics) database. Using this tool, everyone will be able to plug in their zip code and quickly get a list of the small, solvent Main Street banks operating in their community.
The idea is simple: If enough people who have money in one of the big four banks move it into smaller, more local, more traditional community banks, then collectively we, the people, will have taken a big step toward re-rigging the financial system so it becomes again the productive, stable engine for growth it's meant to be. It's neither Left nor Right -- it's populism at its best. Consider it a withdrawal tax on the big banks for the negative service they provide by consistently ignoring the public interest. It's time for Americans to move their money out of these reckless behemoths. And you don't have to worry, there is zero risk: deposit insurance is just as good at small banks -- and unlike the big banks they don't provide the toxic dividend of derivatives trading in a heads-they-win, tails-we-lose fashion.
Think of the message it will send to Wall Street -- and to the White House. That we have had enough of the high-flying, no-limits-casino banking culture that continues to dominate Wall Street and Capitol Hill. That we won't wait on Washington to act, because we know that Washington has, in fact, been a part of the problem from the start. We simply can't count on Congress to fix things. We have to do it ourselves -- and the big banks are the core of the problem. We need to return to the stable, reliable, people-oriented approach of America's community banks.
So watch Eugene's amazing video, then go to www.moveyourmoney.info to learn more about how easy it is to move your money. And pass the idea on to your friends (help make this video -- and this idea -- go viral!).
JP Morgan/Chase, Citi, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America may be "too big to fail" -- but they are not too big to feel the impact of hundreds of thousands of people taking action to change a broken financial and political system. Let them gamble with their own money, not yours. Let's turn big banks into smaller banks. We'll all be better off -- and safer -- as a result.
Make it your New Year's resolution to move your money. We can't think of a better way to start 2010.
By JANET ADAMY and NAFTALI BENDAVID (Edited by Kitty)
WASHINGTON -- The House narrowly passed its sweeping health bill late Saturday, marking the biggest victory yet for Democrats in their drive to create near-universal health insurance.The bill passed by a 220-215 margin after fractious debate and garnered the unexpected backing of only one Republican, Rep. Joseph Cao of Louisiana. Thirty-nine Democrats voted against the measure. The narrow passage in the House, where the Democrats have a large majority, underscores the divisiveness of the legislation.
The vote was a victory for President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), and moved them toward a goal that has eluded presidents for decades. Mr. Obama came to the Capitol on Saturday morning and assured Democrats they would remember the vote as their finest moment in politics should he sign it into law. "Opportunities like this come around maybe once in a generation," he said. Its passage pushes Congress closer to the largest social safety net expansion since 1965, when the government created the Medicare insurance program for the elderly. The measure spends slightly more than $1 trillion over a decade to provide health insurance to an additional 36 million Americans and creates a new public insurance plan to compete with private insurers by 2013. It requires most Americans to carry insurance, creates a new exchange where they can shop for it and gives the lowest earners tax credits to help them pay for it.
As the vote count hit the 218 needed to secure passage, Democrats erupted in cheers. They turned to hug and kiss each other and then shouted out a countdown of the last 10 seconds before the vote closed. Republicans were silent. On the rest of the bill, Republicans offered nothing but sharp opposition. Democrats easily voted down Republicans' attempt to pass their own bill, which would have more narrowly expanded health insurance and cost $61 billion over a decade.
Democrats portrayed their legislation as a moral imperative that would achieve a goal sought by presidents since Theodore Roosevelt. They argued it would fix the worst aspects of the medical system by preventing insurers from denying coverage to the sick and protecting consumers from financial ruin caused by medical bills. "It is testimony to how we care for our fellow citizens," said John Larson (D., Conn.). "It is at the very core of all that America stands for, and why we came here to serve."
The vote was perhaps the most far-reaching consequence of the Democrats' sweeping election victories in 2006 and 2008. Democrats have felt pressure to produce results to show for those victories.The health vote also put newly elected Democrats from conservative areas in a tough political position, caught between party leaders and their election prospects in 2010.
One of the day's most dramatic scenes of the day came when lawmakers sparred over an amendment that would exclude coverage of abortion for those gaining new health insurance under the overhaul. The 240-194 vote to pass the amendment flipped the usual voting lineup, with 176 Republicans joining 64 Democrats in favor.The block of ANTI-ABORTION Democrats led by Rep. Bart Stupak (D., Mich.) refused to sign onto the legislation unless House leaders agreed to take up an amendment preventing anyone who gets a government tax credit to buy insurance from enrolling in a plan that covers abortion.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops threatened to withhold its support from the entire legislation unless House leaders took up the amendment. Anti-abortion advocates lauded the change and described it as the most significant House vote on the issue in more than a decade. They said it preserves existing abortion laws that restrict the government from funding the procedure.
Mr. Stupak argued that the bill "in no way prohibits any individual from purchasing a supplemental abortion coverage. ABORTION -RIGHTS SUPPORTERS were stunned by the change and argued it erodes existing laws that protect women's access to abortion. Those who receive an insurance subsidy and want coverage for abortion would need to buy a rider policy since private plans wouldn't include it in their coverage. "What woman would buy a plan for an unplanned pregnancy?" asked Laurie Rubiner, vice president for public policy for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2019, the bill would leave about 96% of legal residents with health insurance, up from 83% now. To pay for expanding insurance coverage, the bill calls for hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare aimed at eliminating its wasteful spending. It levies a 5.4% tax on the wealthy that targets individuals earning more than $500,000 a year and couples earning more than $1 million a year. All employers would be required to provide insurance and pay for most of the premium, or they would face a fine of up to 8% of their payroll. The small businesses would not be required.
The focus now turns to the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said Saturday that he expects to get cost estimates for the Senate bill from the Congressional Budget Office in the next couple of days, and that he hopes to bring a bill to the Senate floor "as soon as possible.
Democratic leaders had aimed to deliver a bill to the president this year but have effectively acknowledged that deadline could slip into 2010. The challenges are facing Senate Democrats, who will be working with no Republican nor Democrats support to hold together a fragile coalition.
The challenge in the Senate is greater, since Mr. Reid must cobble together 60 votes out of 100 to proceed to a final vote, rather than a simple majority. (100 Senators; 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans and 2 Independence) Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman(Conn.) has already planned to oppose any legislation that includes a government-run health-insurance plan like the one in the House bill.
The health overhaul still has before it can become law, and its final passage is far from assured. The Senate must pass its own bill and meld it with the House bill before sending it to President Obama's desk. It's more difficult to pass legislation through the Senate, and despite Democrats' wide majority there, leaders are straining to bring together their fractious coalition.
Any final bill is likely to be more moderate, and possibly less ambitious, than what passed through the more liberal House. It faces a tougher fight in the Senate where Republicans and some Democrats argue that the bill is too costly and won't achieve its goals.
The abortion issue is likely to arise in the Senate as well. And because rules in the Senate give more power to individual lawmakers, the debate is likely to take weeks, rather than hours.
African Americans for Barack Obama Digest, October 29th
Dear friends,
The Senate is closing in on a health care bill with a public health insurance option, a key ingredient of meaningful health care reform.
But conservatives and insurance companies are fighting hard against the public option, so Senate leadership has compromised by including an "opt-out" clause, which would allow individual states to choose not to participate in the program.[1]
There's a real danger here. In the stimulus fight, we saw Republican governors and legislators refuse federal dollars for political gain. The same thing could happen with health care reform, with everday people in states like Lousiana, Alabama, and South Carolina -- states with large Black, poor, and working-class populations -- left out.[2]
That's why I've joined ColorOfChange.org's campaign calling on Congress and the White House to make the public option available everywhere. Please join me:
I understand the need for compromise and negotiation, but I also want to make sure that no community gets negotiated away in the process.
Including "opt-out" may be the best way to get a bill through the Senate with a public option--but that won't be the end of the process, and it doesn't mean "opt-out" will be in the final bill. The House still needs to decide exactly what will be in its health care bill. And once both the House and the Senate have passed legislation, they'll have to negotiate with each other, and the White House, to reconcile the differences between the two bills.
That's why we need to make it clear that we're watching and that we will demand a public option that's available in every state. Please join me in sending this message to Congress and the White House, and ask your friends and family to do the same:
President Barack Obama today won the Nobel Peace Prize, becoming the first sitting American president to win the award since Woodrow Wilson. As day broke across the United States, the International Nobel Committee announced the decision in Oslo, Norway ,taking both foreign policy watchers and ordinary citizens by surprise. The Nobel citation emphasized Obama’s efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament and reach out to the Muslim world:
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons. ...Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. ...The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
The 108th annual award, which comes with a cash prize of $1.3 million, puts Obama in the company of diverse historical figures including Wilson, Anwar Sadat, Hugo Chavez, Henry Kissinger, Martin Luther King Jr., Yasser Arafat, Itzhak Rabin, former President Jimmy Carter and Vice President Al Gore. The committee said Obama, a former state senator from Illinois, has made a remarkable leap to global prominence as the first African-American president of the United States--and has moved swiftly to establish his own brand of government and diplomacy in his first year in office. Part of the surprise at the news stems from the domestic focus of Obama's political agenda for 2009; notably his ambitious stimulus package and plan to overhaul health care delivery in the US--and slowness to act on matters of international cooperation such as climate change. Still, hıs achıevements on nuclear securıty ıssues and engagement wıth Muslıms abroad in his dual speeches from Ankara, Turkey and Cairo, Egypt, have been well-receıved by the ınternatıonal community.
Nevertheless, just eight months into the Obama presidency, the honor may seem premature to some, including the White House, reportedly stunned when the news was delivered today. Nobel Committee chair Thorbjoern Jagland said today: "We have not given the prize for what may happen in the future. We are awarding Obama for what he has done in the past year. And we are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to do." Congratulations Mr. President you continue to make us proud and aim higher.
Has anyone ever before heard such ranting and rages in polite society these days as that found at constituent meetings held by Congressmen during the recent summer break all across the country? Is it as earnestly appalling to you as it is to me to see and hear the jeers, sneers, shouts, crudeness and rudeness of U.S. citizens toward their elected officials these days? They barely give them time to present or respond to inquiries. Is there anyone else out there who thinks this is a most disgusting misrepresentation of democracy in action for the entire world to see? What is more frightening is that in several venues around the U.S., there have been found people with open arms right in public, and it is considered legal for them to do so if they are registered. Doesn't it seem as if this should be illegal in a public forum? How is it that so many of the majority population are allowed to get away with this, when it most likely be another story if the gun bearers were minorities? Only time will tell. It was discussed on the radio that there were citizens bearing weapons at events where our newly-elected President was speaking. I find this dangerous and outrageous and can hardly believe this is permissible by the Secret Service and any other law enforcement agency standards, especialliay where a president of the United States is concerned.
News casters and others are suggesting that many of these so-called detractors have been paid off and/or urged to react erroneously by the affected business (pharmaceutical, hospital or insurance) companies, lobbyists, and other political agents. Many are spouting off irrational statements that show they have no inkling about what is actually taking place. Sure informed dissent is useful in a democratic society, but pushing and shoving your point of view across without regard for others' rights to speak or be heard is the first step toward anarchy. It is one thing to shout and chant raccously at a rally (I've been involved in many of them), but it is quite another very different thing to act irresponsibly in a formal social setting where a polite give and take is appropriate. Where or what does this flagrant disregard for social standards stand to gain for the dissenters? What a hideous lesson for their children to learn to see their parents acting so disrespectfully of one another. We hear people saying they have no concern for their fellowman who is sick and in trouble and cannot pay for health care. Does our religion speak to that? Why we have just heard of a white Baptist minister who openly proclaims he wants Obama dead and his two daughters to be fatherless. (He should be incarcertated for communicating threats -- just after he is thrown out of the church for fraud) We hear people discredit universal health care as Socialism. What's wrong with Socialism if it helps us help one another when they need it? What is even more appalling is that these same people will go to church on Sunday as if they have acted piously to the height of their religious beliefs all during the week.
Is there anyone else out there who sees this as a sad day for America? Is there anyone out there who believes what is needed is massive Intercessory Prayer. Are there those who believe that the Obama election machine and its supporters need to come together to help promote the cause? After all, the over 50% who voted for Obama knew he was going to deal with this universal health care issue. He was candid about it. What now must be done or must we do to help ensure his success?
I'm at the end of my rope. What CIGNA is doing to me is—well, it's outrageous.
I have a brain tumor. Doctors are ready to help me. But CIGNA has been blocking me from getting testing and treatment for two years, while almost doubling my premiums.
Then, this week was the kicker. CIGNA's pharmacy called to say that the co-pay on the medicine that helps control my debilitating head pain is skyrocketing from $10 to $1,115. That's not a typo. They're making me pay one hundred times what I'm paying now, in addition to my $753/month premium.
I can't afford that. So when the pain comes, I won't have any defense. I'll spend hours in the fetal position, out of my mind with pain.
When my story went public a couple of weeks ago—with the help of over 100,000 MoveOn members—CIGNA said they would pay for a test I'd been asking for at Cleveland Clinic. It was a step in the right direction. But after two years of denials, and with a long course of treatment ahead of me, I knew better than to just take them at their word.
So I asked questions. But they wouldn't offer any explanation for why they denied my coverage for so long, or any assurance that they had changed their procedures so I wouldn't face the same unjust denials again. And I began to wonder if they were more interested in just sweeping my story under the rug than actually helping me.
When I got this latest news from CIGNA's pharmacy on Tuesday, I kept asking myself, is this a mistake? Or is this happening because I went public with my case? Are other CIGNA customers receiving the same phone calls?
I used to give CIGNA the benefit of the doubt, but after years of unexplained denials, I've had enough. So I'm asking for your help again. For myself, and for everyone else who is suffering, I am asking CIGNA for answers.
And I think it would help if thousands of people like you were to join me in demanding them. I'm writing them a short letter with a simple question: Why? Can you add your name to my letter?
Here's what I've written to Dr. Jeffrey Kang, CIGNA's Chief Medical Officer:
As you probably know, your company has denied me needed care for two years while I suffer from a debilitating but treatable brain tumor. I pay my $753.47 premiums. I follow the proper procedures. But CIGNA refuses to give me the care I need.
Instead, you keep increasing my prices. First my premiums rose by hundreds of dollars, and now my prescription costs are going up by more than 10,000%.
What makes you think you can treat sick people this way? When will you stop doing this to me and the thousands of people like me who are suffering? And if you solve this latest problem, how do I know you won't do this to me again next week—that you're actually changing your ways and not just trying to make your PR problem disappear?
Please answer these questions. I need to know, for the sake of my health and my life. Many others have signed this letter too, to support me and make sure I get answers.
Respectfully, Dawn Smith
Thanks for all you're doing. I don't know where I'd be without MoveOn members' help.
Last week, over 100,000 MoveOn members stood with Dawn Smith to demand that CIGNA cover the treatment for her brain tumor.
CIGNA had been denying Dawn's requests for two years, but when she went public, with the help of MoveOn members across the country, CIGNA reversed course. They took the first step toward resolving Dawn's case—agreeing to pay for the test she needs to determine her treatment plan. By reversing their denials, CIGNA made it clear that they didn't think their decision would stand up to public scrutiny.
But they didn't offer any explanation for all the previous denials. And they didn't guarantee that they'll approve the next step in Dawn's treatment. And for all we know, they're still doing this same thing to thousands of other people whose stories haven't caught national attention.
That's why Dawn is insisting that CIGNA explain the policies that led them to deny her care for so long. And—for herself and all the others who are suffering—she's demanding proof that they're changing those policies so this never happens again.
Dawn recorded a short message for MoveOn members. Can you watch the video and then add your voice to a statement of support?
Since Dawn went public, we've heard from hundreds of others who have been hurt by CIGNA. The stories range from simply frustrating to absolutely heartbreaking. If you or someone you know has been denied needed coverage by CIGNA, or by another insurance company, please share your story with us at:
All of these stories paint a picture of an insurance company that, as one former CIGNA executive pointed out, has every incentive to deny coverage.
In the case of Nataline Sarkisyan, CIGNA denied a liver transplant—reversing themselves only when public pressure became too intense. Unfortunately, their decision came too late for Nataline, who died.
Christopher Hanna told us the story of his wife's battle—she had to spend "hours every week browbeating [CIGNA] over the phone," fighting to get treated for the ovarian cancer that would eventually take her life.
And of the stories we heard, there were a stunning number where CIGNA authorized a procedure but then came up with an excuse—any excuse at all—to not pay.
It's clear that Dawn's experience with CIGNA isn't unique—in fact, it isn't even out of the ordinary. And even though CIGNA would love for Dawn to just go away, she isn't backing down. She's demanding answers and proof that CIGNA is changing their policies so that their mistreatment of her and their other customers comes to an end.
Will you watch Dawn's video and sign the statement of support?
Outside England 's Bristol Zoo there is a parking lot for 150 cars and 8 buses. For 25 years, its parking fees were managed by a very pleasant attendant. The fees were £1 for cars ($1.40),£5 for buses (about $7)
Then, one day, after25 solid years of never missing a day of work, he just didn't show up; so the Zoo
Management called the City Council and asked it to send them another parking agent.
The Council did some research and replied that the parking lot was the Zoo's own responsibility.
The Zoo advised the Council that the attendant was a City employee.
The City Council responded that the lot attendant had never been on the City payroll.
Meanwhile, sitting in his villa somewhere on the coast of Spain (or some such scenario), is a man who'd apparently had a ticket machine installed completely on his own; and then had simply begun to show up every day, commencing to collect and keep the parking fees, estimated at about $560 per day -- for 25 years. Assuming 7 days a week, this amounts to just over $7 million dollars!
The Scourge Persists By Bob Herbert Published : September 18, 2009
Did we really need Jimmy Carter to tell us that racism is one of the driving forces behind the relentless and often scurrilous attacks on President Obama? We didn’t know that?
As John McEnroe might say, “You can’t be serious.”“There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president,” said Mr. Carter.
I guess he was aiming his remarks at those who contended when Mr. Obama was elected that we had achieved some Pollyannaish post racial society. But it’s hard to imagine, after all the madness and vitriol of the past few months, that anyone still believes that.
For many white Americans, Barack Obama is nothing more than that black guy in the White House, and they want him out of there.(Mr. Carter knows a little something about kowtowing to that crowd. During his presidential campaign in 1976, he blithely let it be known that he had no problem with residents “trying to maintain the ethnic purity of their neighborhoods,” and he tossed around ugly terms like “black intrusion” and “alien groups.” He later apologized.)
More than three decades later we have Sherri Goforth, an aide to a Republican state senator in Tennessee sending out a mass e-mail of a cartoon showing dignified portraits of the first 43 presidents, and then representing the 44th — President Obama — as a spook, a cartoonist pair of white eyes against a black background.
When a gorilla escaped from a zoo in Columbia, S.C., a longtime Republican activist, Rusty DePass, described it on his Face book page as one of Michelle Obama’s ancestors.Among the posters at last weekend’s gathering of conservative protesters in Washington was one that said, “The zoo has an African lion and the White House has a lyin’ African.”
These are bits and pieces of an increasingly unrestrained manifestation of racism directed toward Mr. Obama that is being fed by hate-mongers on talk radio and is widely tolerated, if not encouraged, by Republican Party leaders. It’s disgusting, and it’s dangerous. But it’s the same old filthy racism that has been there all along and that has been exploited by the G.O.P. since the 1960s.
I have no patience with those who want to pretend that racism is not an out-and-out big deal in the United States, as it always has been. We may have made progress, and we may have a black president, but the scourge is still with us. And if you needed Jimmy Carter to remind you of that, then you’ve been wandering around with your eyes closed.
Glenn Beck, one of the moronic maestros of right-wing radio and TV, assures us that President Obama “has a deep-seated hatred for white people.” Some years ago, as the watchdog group Media Matters for America points out on its Web site, Beck said he’d like to beat Representative Charles Rangel “to death with a shovel.”There is nothing new about this racist rhetoric.
Back in the 1970s Rush Limbaugh told a black caller: “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.”But the fact that a black man is now in the White House has so unsettled much of white America that the lid is coming off the racism that had been simmering at dangerously high temperatures all along.
Eric Boehlert, a senior fellow with Media Matters, said, “If someone had told me in February that there would be mainstream allegations that Obama was a racist and a fascist and a communist and a Nazi, I wouldn’t have believed it.”
Republicans have been openly feeding off of race hatred since the days of Dick Nixon. Today’s conservative activists are carrying that banner proudly. What does anybody think is going on when, as Anderson Cooper pointed out on CNN, one of the leaders of the so-called tea party movement, Mark Williams, refers to the president of the United States as an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug, and a racist in chief.
After all these years of race-baiting and stirring the pot of hatred for political gain, it’s too much to ask the leaders of the Republican Party to step forward and denounce this spreading stain of reprehensible conduct. Republicans are trying to ride that dependable steed of bigotry back to power.
But it’s time for other Americans, of whatever persuasion, to take a stand, to say we’re better than this. They should do it because it’s right. But also because we’ve seen so many times what can happen when this garbage gets out of control.Think about the Oklahoma City bombing, and the assassinations of King and the Kennedys. On Nov. 22, 1963, as they were preparing to fly to Dallas, a hotbed of political insanity, President Kennedy said to Mrs. Kennedy: “We’re heading into nut country today.”
This is President Obama's speech to the joint session of congress concerning Healthcare. This is Part-1 of 3 of that speech. September 9, 2009
President's Healthcare speech Part-2 of 3
Part-3 of 3 President Obama's makes his speech to the joint session of congress in the Chamber of House. During his speech. Rep. Congressman Joe Wilson yells out to President Obama " LIE " And is booed by all...
National Campaign for Justice
-
National Campaign for Justice
Lorenzo Salgado Araujo shot and killed by ICE agent in Houston, authorities
confirm:
Tell Harris Count...
Posts
