I know many might take offense to the title of this diary, but I plan to elaborate, and keep in mind, I respect Senator Obama for his work as a civil rights attorney and a community organizer. However, civil rights means all civil rights, not just racial discrimination, in which John Edwards has also led the way, but the issue comes down to Corporate Abuse and neglect of the consumer, whether it’s from substandard health care, dangerous drugs, or dangerous housing, like let’s say the FEMA trailers that are killing Katrina residents as we speak. It’s not working out for people in New Orleans, which also reiterates the point John Edwards is making about fighting these important battles instead of compromising.
As MLK said, "Freedom is never given away by the oppressor!"
Props to grannyhelen for the video. Two Americas. No one can say that John Edwards does not have a winning message to drive home electoral victory when he’s the nominee. You see, as I mentioned earlier, civil justice is not given away; that is why we had important battles in our history in the courts through Brown vs. Board of Education, Rowe vs. Wade, and countless other legal battles that equaled change and civil rights for black people and women. The Judicial branch is just as important as the Legislative branch. The problem is, that John Edwards seems to be the only one who really speaks on a continuous basis, on behalf of the victims of Katrina and he brings it up in every debate. John Edwards is trying to block deconstruction of residents of NO houses as we speak. So now that since no other candidate has spoken of this; your Fortress accusations are now rendered merit-less, because residents of NO are in serious danger of losing their homes without even a glance from any other candidate.
Ask them which candidate cares about them. And yes, I’ve noticed barrack Obama has made a speech or two this year, not speech after speech in every campaign forum and debate; it’s simply not enough, especially if you’re going to really energize the black vote. I will reluctantly support Barrack Obama if he wins the nod, so I say this only in a tactical fashion, because we can’t assume that the vote will be there. Barack Obama should have been more tentative to the Jena 6 case and the victims of Katrina, who are still being victimized to this day. He was asked about this in one of the debates and he said he talked to Jesse Jackson Jr. about it, but he couldn’t be there because he was working on ending the war. But funny thing, shortly after that, he announced that he would just then, finally not support a funding bill that didn’t have a timetable. Kind of seems inconsistent to me, since the war is apparently the big issue for him and his supporters.
Anyway, so now what are civil rights? To begin the discussion:
http://dictionary.reference.com/...
civil rights
–plural noun (often initial capital letters )
- rights to personal liberty established by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and certain Congressional acts, esp. as applied to an individual or a minority group.
- the rights to full legal, social, and economic equality extended to blacks.
Reminds me of civil actions:
http://dictionary.reference.com/...
civil action
noun
legal action to protect a private civil right or to compel a civil remedy (as distinguished from criminal prosecution)
Notice both have the emphasis on the word "legal." Just in case someone wants to say I’m drifting off subject. Whether you want to dance around it or not, Insurance companies, Pharmaceutical companies, and their lobbyists also impede any progress towards UHC by enacting their LEGAL agenda through the Judicial system in the same vein as the "Right to Life" movement’s efforts overturn Roe vs. Wade. This is another one of the many reasons why it is so important that we win this election so that our civil rights, all of them, are properly defined in the SCOTUS according to the Constitution. I hope everyone can see the relevance here. Of course, the Legislative branch is also bought and paid for by their money and influence as well.
So much, that they get authorship rights to legislation that affects the country as a whole, because they basically own Congress. That’s why it actually does matter that John Edwards has not taken a dime from Washington lobbyists, EVER. So really, you cannot denigrate John Edwards in this fight at all. As I mentioned earlier, there are many landmarks that have brought forth real, intangible, progressive change that have been fought in the courtroom, and this fight is no different, because this issue affects the civil rights of everyone, whether we are fighting this in the courts or the halls of Congress. I have been accused of harping on this issue too much, but having the civil right to protect myself by holding corporations accountable for their actions and their responsibilities is very important; always has been.
This is the same reason the Judicial Branch and the Separation of Powers were set up in the first place. This is why we can sue our government for grievances as well as petition them as stated in the Constitution. That’s why John Edwards’s record is the right kind of record, because he fought for a Patient’s Bill of Rights to curb this agenda, so John Edwards’s record on this issue actually does expand to the senate, so it’s grossly inaccurate to denigrate it.
Obama really has repeatedly said that health reform should be negotiated at a "big table" that would include insurance companies and drug companies, but like John Edwards says, if that was going to work, we would have UHC. Obama has been on the attack, lately, maybe because he realizes that John Edwards’s message is really resonating with Iowans across the state. This is what he had to say:
"We want to reduce the power of drug companies and insurance companies and so forth, but the notion that they will have no say-so at all in anything is just not realistic."
I know a lot of people disagree, but I agree with Paul Krugman that these really are big table fantasies.
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Hmm. Do Obama supporters who celebrate his hoped-for ability to bring us together realize that "us" includes the insurance and drug lobbies?
O.K., more seriously, it’s actually Mr. Obama who’s being unrealistic here, believing that the insurance and drug industries — which are, in large part, the cause of our health care problems — will be willing to play a constructive role in health reform. The fact is that there’s no way to reduce the gross wastefulness of our health system without also reducing the profits of the industries that generate the waste.
As a result, drug and insurance companies — backed by the conservative movement as a whole — will be implacably opposed to any significant reforms. And what would Mr. Obama do then? "I’ll get on television and say Harry and Louise are lying," he says. I’m sure the lobbyists are terrified. As health care goes, so goes the rest of the progressive agenda. Anyone who thinks that the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world.
And sitting down and dealing with this lobby at the "big table" who will not adhere to any reforms unless you force them to, will only prove that they will keep looking out for their bottom line at the detriment of our civil rights; for we all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. At least that’s what I was told as a child; it kind of seems like a fairy tale now, for how can health care not be associated with life? I know that out of the big three top tier candidates, John Edwards plan is the only one to mention single payer as an option, if the public demands it. He also has mobilization strategies to educate the public in just how much better the Medicare plan will handle costs compared to the private plans they will still demand, until they stop believing the right wing’s lies about UHC.
John Edwards’s history of fighting for our civil rights in all aspects by fighting the RW tort reform agenda, which is the legal version of the Washington lobbyists’ agenda, is important, whether anyone likes it or not. John Edwards has seen first hand, that corporations would rather watch children die or suffer for the rest of their lives than hold themselves accountable for their actions; which is why he had to fight for that little girl who was disemboweled by a faulty, dangerous swimming pool drain. He gave that corporation hell and he won. This speaks to another important point, and keep in mind, I’m not praising his run in 2000 at all, but as a consumer advocate, Ralph Nader has praised John Edwards for his important work in this area. For the Ford Pento would still be on the market today, if it were not for Nader taking them on to save people from dying in a horrific fire caused by the Pento exploding. And whether you like Nader or not, consumer advocates are still relevant today, considering all the dangerous toys coming from China etc.
This really goes down to the age long battle between big business and your everyday citizen. Ever since it was slipped into the 14th Amendment that a corporation has the same rights as an individual, corporate accountability has been severely lacking and tort reform is their fondest pipe dream. Don’t believe me? Think this is just a new rash of greedy citizens and plaintiffs’ lawyers who want something for nothing? Well I’m going to give you a little history lesson. This agenda has been working behind the curtain ever since the early 80’s:
http://www.rkmc.com/...
Initial industry efforts to shape the tort-reform debate began in the 1980's and concentrated on the editorial boards of large newspapers and small-town publications. Editorial writers themselves described direct links between industry-sponsored tort reform campaigns and the content of the editorial articles they wrote. In the mid-1980s, for instance, three tobacco firms (Lorillard, Brown & Williamson and Philip Morris) hired the law firm of Arnold and Porter to gather news clippings on "out-of-control" personal injury claims and send them to influential reporters, columnists, editors and TV producers. These clippings inevitably contained biased accounts of lawsuits in which plaintiffs won large verdicts for seemingly small or nonexistent civil wrongs. Public relations campaigns like these, targeted at the press, produced positive results for their industry sponsors. Commentators soon noted that " . . . the media began to reflect the anguish of business leaders who complained that a "tort explosion" was undermining Corporate America.
They will not give that power away unless you fight them, the same way you would fight them in court. BTW, did you know that Punitive damages have been proven to be the best deterrent so that Insurance Companies and HMO’s have to abide by the rule of law? It’s true. And by supporting this agenda, Barack Obama is also tarnishing the seventh amendment:
http://www.thenation.com/...
Not satisfied with nibbling away at the welfare state, already the thinnest in the industrialized West, conservatives have spent more than twenty years demonizing lawyers and ridiculing victims in order to eliminate a uniquely American right, rooted in the Seventh Amendment, that allows juries to assess damages in civil courts for corporate misbehavior.
This along with John Edwards’s background representing victims of malpractice and gross negligence on part of big corporations makes John the best civil rights candidate running for President, because he cares about all rights, including consumer rights and patient rights, which really is a moral issue. You can tell by the way that James Lowe is still on John Edwards’s mind, for meeting James has personally affected John. John Edwards is rightfully angry that James had to spend most of his life, where he is close to John’s age, where he could not talk, because he could not afford a simple operation till he was in his 50’s. That kind of empathy and relevance speaks to me, when it comes to whom I would trust in making sure UHC is passed.
Now, the numerous times I have pointed out that Obama voted in favor of "tort reform" particularly George Bush’s tort reform bill of 2005 might tire some, but to me, it’s relevant to who we want as Commander in Cheif. Now, before someone muddles this debate, let’s say Obama supporters who don’t know the significance of this bill, let’s take a look at the context of this movement and the bill:
http://www.reference.com/...
The terminology tort reform describes a change in United States civil law system to improve litigation efficiency or reduce litigation's adverse effects on the economy.
While the phrase "tort reform" might imply any change in tort law or procedure, the commonly understood use in political and academic arenas describes a movement to limit tort litigation and damages. It does not include reforms that would expand liability, such as laws that create new causes of action or that increase damage awards. The term is also commonly applied to a political movement that advocates several such changes.
And there was no confusion on what this bill entailed, at all:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/...
This bill sought to curtail the ability of plaintiffs to file class-action lawsuits against corporations by making cases that were filed in multiple states the responsibility of federal courts. The bill was backed by the White House and business groups as an essential tort reform measure that would reduce what they said was a debilitating number of frivolous lawsuits. A Washington Post report said proponents believed that moving the suits to federal court would lead to "more rational and more consistent rulings."
The bill was opposed by consumer advocacy groups and trial lawyers who argued that many valid claims against corporations would be dismissed, leaving consumers without legal recourse.
The bill passed both the Senate and House by large margins and was signed into law by the president on Feb. 18, 2005.
Now I thought I heard something about Obama criticizing Edwards on his ability to fight these particular entrenched interests, and that we all need to just sit at the table and bargain it out through hope and change, but surrendering to the "tort reform agenda" is not the same as just making a mistake about a vote, which BTW Obama bragged about and still has not changed his position to this day:
http://www.cmsdocs.org/...
There is a crisis in Illinois. Malpractice insurance premiums are going up and making it too expensive for doctors to provide the care our citizens need in crucial areas. Something must be done - there must be a short-term and longer-term remedy - on both a state and federal level. That is why I have been working in Springfield to ensure that real medical malpractice reform will pass this session and why I want to go to Washington to fight for those reforms on a federal level. Any malpractice reform package must attack the problem at all levels - reducing frivolous lawsuits by cracking down on bad lawyers and shaky lawsuits, reducing insurance premiums by cracking down on malpractice insurance companies who are driving up doctors' payments in order to make their own profits increase, and reducing medical errors by cracking down on bad doctors.
But senator, how can you decrease medical malpractice companies driving up doctor’s payments, if you buy their RW lies about frivolous lawsuits being the cause of the said malpractice rates for doctors you are referring to in the first place? He just implied, essentially, that because you have rights as a patient and a consumer, and people have exercised that right in pursuing justice via those civil rights, you deserve a cap on the damages you can receive if a doctor blinds you or cripples you for life, because of the CLAIMS paid out. Problem is, when actually studied; this is simply false and fits the agenda set forth against UHC when Bush criticized John Edwards with the same kind of rhetoric Barack is supporting:
http://www.centerjd.org/...
Put another way, in 2004 the leading medical malpractice insurers took in approximately three times as much in premiums as they paid out in claims.
Oh and BTW, I know there are some abuses, but this also proves that as a whole, frivolous lawsuits are going down, not up. So claims paid out by so called frivolous lawsuits, when a small percentage of people ever file them; this not what is causing the problem that Obama is referring to at all. I was disappointed to find out that Obama really believes this. In short, anyone who believes this is getting spoon fed the Insurance/Pharmaceutical lobby’s propaganda. How does it taste? To me, when I had two Insurance lawyers attacking me when I was hit by a car, it didn’t taste very god, because they got personal.
They brought up bad grades I made in high school; they brought up that I had family problems and tried to push it as me wanting something for nothing, when I almost died as a pedestrian crossing the street. I eventually lost my case, because people are spoon-fed this stuff and the jury was also convinced, except for two of them, even though all pedestrians have the right of way by law. Don’t take my word for it; this agitprop campaign has been steadfast for quite a while.
"That is why I have been working in Springfield to ensure that real medical malpractice reform will pass this session and why I want to go to Washington to fight for those reforms on a federal level."
Barack Obama has supported some of the same rhetoric, which is BTW, the same rhetoric with the agenda behind it that Bush was pushing all through the 2004 campaign. You would have to be hiding under a rock somewhere, not to hear Bush cry foul when John Kerry chose John Edwards to be his running mate. Here’s a few of the eerie similarities compared to the quote from Barack up above:
http://www.thenation.com/...
The bill, like the other anticipated tort "reforms," was produced by the same right-wing think tanks that gave us the proposed Social Security overhaul and Medicare privatization and was marketed by the US Chamber of Commerce, which along with a coalition of businesses has spent tens of millions of dollars on the effort. Much of that money has gone to support like-minded elected officials. In the 2004 election, for example, the Chamber helped spend millions in seven battleground states to pay for ads urging voters to support lawsuit restrictions endorsed by Bush and opposed by John Kerry [see Zegart, "The Right Wing's Drive for 'Tort Reform,'" October 25, 2004]. Such efforts are part of a strategy embraced by Bush guru Karl Rove to drain cash from tort lawyers, who overwhelmingly support Democrats.
Considering we have also heard the same rhetoric about Social Security being in trouble from Obama, this is particularly worrisome, at least to me. As you can see, Karl Rove pushed for this agenda in the 2004 election. John Stossel has also been pushing this same kind of propaganda since the early 90’s:
http://www.rkmc.com/...
By the mid-1990s, corporate America had succeeded in achieving one of its primary goals: winning a place on the editorial boards of influential periodicals like the Wall Street Journal and controlling the framework through which issues like tort reform were discussed. Through writers like Max Boot and John Stossel, industry leaders were able to sway the course of public opinion and capture the attention of the regulators who were most likely to implement its tort reform agenda. The strategy? Demonizing trial lawyers, playing into the public fear of corruption and manipulation, and, ultimately, convincing the public that the victims of these misdeeds would be economic progress and public health. This strategy, however, relied on skewed facts about trial lawyers and the civil justice system in general.
A lot of people say they cannot trust John Edwards’s judgment, because of his admitted mistake in supporting this war on all fronts. Besides the obvious, that Bobby Kennedy was once really hawkish in supporting the Vietnam war as well as many senators who have progressed, because that is, by definition, what a progressive is. Even MLK remained silent about it for a while, understandably, because of LBJ being successful in pushing the Civil Rights voting act of 1964, so in a way, he felt as if he owed LBJ for that. But after awhile, it became increasingly evident that black community was bearing most of the burden, thus offsetting what was accomplished, for freedom became freedom to die in an unjust war. So then as MLK put it, "Silence is betrayal!" JRE coined the term when he admitted his faults in leading up to this war.
Well silence is betrayal on all fronts and if Barack once to restore my faith that he will do everything to give a voice to those oppressed by Corporate America who peddles "welfare state" and "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" propaganda, he will repudiate the lies that give strength to this agenda. The same lies he supported, when he supported the President’s push the RW tort reform agenda perpetuated by the same entrenched interests in Washington D.C and elsewhere that want to do away with true Jurisprudence in the Judiciary that protect any progressive causes and civil rights that we have fought for and won; in the name of representative government and checks and balances. The same lies that portray you and me as a bunch of selfish heathens who should have no rights with the seventh amendment or any civil rights, because of the same socialist, ‘red scare’ propaganda that keeps the American populous ignorant of the true reasons we don’t have real Justice or UHC in this country. This is all relative; this also gives me very many reasons not to trust Barack Obama’s judgment.
This is personal to me, because I have been a plaintiff, and by supporting the tort reform agenda, he is giving Corporate America what it wants and we must not let them have it. This relates to all levels of corruption, and the reasons why we don’t have UHC or Corporate accountability of any kind, unless you fight the entrenched business interests who are waging war against UHC and the consumer. John Edwards is the only candidate who has really fought this agenda his whole life, whether anyone likes it, thinks it’s relevant or not. It is; it’s a fact.
Sorry for the length, but I am going to have to write a sequel to this diary to touch upon everything, but this shows that this issue is relative to who can actually fight these Corporate interests that have America in a stranglehold. It’s not just one vote or bill, this is an agenda that must be fought tooth and nail. John Edwards will fight this agenda through every fiber of his being and he will give Corporate America HELL!