Save the Public Library books and card catalog (1994)

This is the original article I wrote protesting the discarding of thousands of valuable, important books from our Public Library.  It is still happening, and any moves in this direction are met with fanatical resistance by the City government machine and even the School district, which has also decimated school libraries.  Even UGF has done this to a considerable extent, and other local libraries in Museums, the Symphony, etc. are told to ignore me....
                        

          Save the Public Library books and card catalog
                         by Paul Stephens


     A campaign is now being organized to save the card catalog and restore the traditional
richness and variety of books which long characterized the Great Falls Public Library collections.  For reasons which are still not clear, the policy of the Library over the past five or six years has drifted away from its traditional mission of accumulating and providing access to all the important books which people want to read or refer to, but don't want or need to buy for themselves.  
     Lifelong learning, and explorations in literature and all areas of knowledge are very
important in a place like Great Falls, and our exceptional educational and cultural richness for an isolated town of our size is in large part due to our public library, which was founded by Paris Gibson and his wife, and for many years named Valaria in her honor.   
     Yet, in recent years, it seems to many of us that the mission, direction, and accessibility
of our Library has been significantly altered for the worse.  According to a letter from Bob
Doerk, Chairman of the Great Falls Public Library Board of Trustees, the current Director, Jim Heckel, "was hired with a primary focus on computerizing the library collection."  Meanwhile, with the end of funding for the Pathfinder Federation (which had its regional center here in Great Falls), Mr. Heckel claims that it has been deemed necessary to dispose of tens of thousands of books.  This has been accomplished more or less arbitrarily, and without consulting library users or other public organizations and libraries as to their needs and interests.  Many people in this community have been very concerned at seeing thousands of valuable, important books being donated to the American Association of University Women (AAUW) book sale each year (for
which the AAUW returns a donation of $1500), and then sold for $1.00, 50 cents, or a dollar a bag in the fall sales.  
     At one point, the Friends of the Library (the traditional volunteer library support group) wanted to do its own fundraising with these discarded books, and thus realize more benefits for the Library and have some say over which books should be retained.  The Friends of the Library is no longer active, and Mr. Heckel recently expressed the view that a Friends of the Library organization isn't needed if the Library is well-managed.  Apparently, he thinks the Library is being well-managed, but others would dispute that.
     Allen Clark, a retired teacher, participant in several book discussion groups, and a former President of the Friends of the Library, has been vocal in expressing his dismay at this turn of events, and should be contacted for more information, and to support his efforts to make the library more useful and accessible.  
     Paul Stephens' a teacher and cultural activist who grew up here in the 50's
and 60's, has long protested the Library's policies and hopes to organize a campaign to save the card catalog and preserve and expand the collection.  The traditional card catalog, which is an index of every book in the library, has not been updated for the past 5 years or so since the computer system was installed.  Therefore, thousands of new books are not listed in the card catalog, and many thousands more books which were unnecessarily discarded have not had their cards removed from it.   Several offers by volunteers or concerned organizations to update the catalog have been flatly rejected by the Library staff.  According to Mr. Doerk, "Resources are not being committed to update the card catalog system because that would be counter productive."  Yet, many of the most devoted library users are not comfortable using the computerized catalog, and valuable staff time must be devoted to helping non-computer-users find books.  
     Those whose complaints have not been answered or whose needs aren't being met by a
public institution often simply stay away from it, and there is evidence that this has happened for a number of Library users in Great Falls.  Many older users have also expressed complaints about no longer having access to books they have long known and read, used as references, or recommended to others.  Apparently, it was determined by Mr. Heckel and staff that the Library had too many books for a community of this size, and their response has been to deaccess or discard tens of thousands of books on the grounds that they are "dated", "didn't circulate", or "have other titles on this subject."  
     The intrinsic value of any particular book is apparently not an issue, and is not being
taken into consideration by the Library staff.  Although they claim that every book discarded was either damaged or dicarded for some other valid reason, no effort is being made to repair them or answer the objections of those of us who want a bigger, more accessible, more "user friendly" library rather than a smaller, computerized, "modern", "professionalized" one.   
     Most of these complaints have been "answered" by the claim that any book in print can
be special-ordered in a few days through Interlibrary Loan.  But there is a cost (presently to local and state taxpayers) of $15 per transaction, yet the books are not here for immediate reference or to be browsed through by someone interested in a particular author or subject.  The cost is certainly a deterrent to doing this very often, and some users have already had limits placed on their accessing books in this way.  A user charge will probably have to be imposed at some point. 
Yet, library officials insist they are saving money by disposing of books rather than by maintaining the collection of books which are already paid for and known to be worthwhile.  
     If you are concerned about the size and accessibility of our Library collection, please
make your views known to Mr. Doerk, Mr. Heckel, and local city and county officials.  Vicky Everson and School Superintendent Larry Williams are also members of the Library Board. 
Volunteer to help update the card catalog, and help reorganize the Friends of the Library as a watchdog support group to preserve the quality and richness of our collection, much of which can be returned to the shelves from local residents who purchased public library books from the AAUW.

Time for real "Health Care Reform"

Daybook:   Jan 3, 2017

Health Care Reform

I can't help but ask:  

Just how far is this going to go?  - Confusing for-profit "health insurance" with real public health care, financed by tax dollars and our own steadily-declining real incomes and wages?   

And how long is the media, public and private, local and national, going to keep pushing this pleasant fiction that all we need is "insurance coverage" without any caveats, disclaimers, or sourcing?

When we say "It's all the media's fault" we weren't kidding.  There's hardly a major issue out there  which the media, individually and co­­llectively, hasn't totally distorted and misled the public.  Health care and climate change, along with foreign policy (the Russian "threat") are among the­­­ most catastrophic. 

The real problems and real solutions are well-known by every well-educated specialist with knowledge of the field.   It's beyond "misleading" or "corrupt" - it's a crime against democracy and self-government, as well as established principles of journalism and public access to accurate information. 

Public media, especially, has failed us dreadfully, which is why I'm continually exposing its stupidity and corruption.  Here,  "public" means closer to the power centers - and thus subject to control by the political machines.  And it is often much worse in distorting the reality, as well as the values and decisions which we as intelligent voting citizens need to apply in our collective decision-making and policies.  Private corporations, networks, and newspaper chains are powerful, but they must provide a product which people want and will look at or buy.  No so with our so-called "public media."  And once a certain mind-set or political faction gets control, it's almost impossible to replace or correct them.  

Since "health care reform" is now cast primarily as an issue in economics (and budgets/funding, from the perspective of Congress or state legislatures), why don't we simply hire some real economists - start a committee of them, chaired by someone like Ralph Nader or other dedicated public interest activist, and then listen to what they tell us?  There are plenty of "conservative" or "free market" economists, as well as the tradtional advocates of the Welfare State and the Public Interest who understand that corporate fascism isn't good for us, or for our economic future. 

The numbers don't lie - we pay more than twice as much, per capita, as any other "developed" country for our health care, and all the medical statistics - infant mortality, longevity, cancer and other disease rates, and most importantly, public satisfaction with the "insurance model",  puts us somewhere near the bottom of our "peer nations."  

"Insurance", in this instance, is a complete fiction.  No one's health is being insured.  If you have wealth or property, you need insurance to protect your assets from the medical bill collectors (who in America charge - and collect - at least 4 times more than high quality services in other countries would cost), and often the same margin even when compared with richer countries like Norway or Germany, where everyone's health care is covered, in a way each prefers, with medical philosphies and techniques they agree with.  

While "Obamacare" was being developed (recycled Romneycare, after Republicans had totally rejected it as any sort of "answer"),  none of the sustainable, public-health models were even considered.  There were no representatives for a National Health Service like the UK, and not even the widely-accepted, popular Canadian "Single-Payer" system was allowed to be presented or considered. According to Sen Baucus, it was the insurance lobbyists who refused to "support" any such a system, and since they had already paid to play at Camp Baucus, who was he to refuse them?  

There was a PBS series around 2008 which examined all the best public health care systems in the world, in hopes that our Congress and other authorities might learn from them.  None of this information was applied to the problem.  Americans are exceptional. Sen Baucus said (falsely) over and over again that "Americans like the present system, and if they want to keep their insurance (which few pay for out of their own pockets, and if they do, they know they're being swindled), they'll be able to do so."  Even then, polls showed that at least 80% of those polled were very dissatisfied with our health care system, but all we were told was that "socialism had failed" and Canadians by the millions are coming South to enjoy the wonders of US  "private enterprise"  healthcare, free from "government takeovers" like Obamacare.

Yeh, right.  A few hundred rich Canadians can jump the queue and negotiate real "market prices" with American doctors and hospitals, which the rest of us cannot do.  Probably a third of Canadian health care professionals (trained, I'm sure, much better than our own medical schools do) come South for salaries which are the same ratio as other health care costs - 2-4 times higher than they could get at home.   We do allow a lot of foreign-trained doctors to practice here (often out of necessity - we're turning out only a small fraction of the doctors we need, and they're all expecting a minimum of $200-400K/year in their first job.)  

Both med schools and hospitals are "downsizing" in order to increase their monopoly power and profits.  Even if a doctor or dentist wanted to charge fair and reasonable prices, chances are he or she wouldn't be allowed to practice, here.

Gov Romney himself said that the Massachusetts system he got passed (designed by the Heritage Foundation more or less under contract to the insurance industry) was devised for "progressive", liberal Massachusetts, as a lesson to them on how this model is totally unsustainable, subsidizing corporate profits and the "professional class" rather than patients or the public's health (statistically measured) as a whole.  

As a Mormon, Romney (and most sane Republicans wanted to maximize the taxpayer's dollars, not in "proving that socialism doesn't work", but in actually delivering as much and as good health care services as they could, which is why everything has been standardized and corporatized.  Obviously,  no one would voluntarily participate in such a system, so it is illegal not to.  

Such are the "libertarian" and  Heritage values under which we live, but few who voted for Obama expected any outcome like this.   We were continually promised "a robust public option" - meaning something like Medicare for anyone who wants it, financed out of tax dollars and sliding-scale fees.  One of the problems with "Single-Payer" advocates, here, is that they insisted that "everyone is in, nobody out."  So, if you don't like that "model" of health care and the corporate (or socialist) philosophies behind it, you don't have any alternatives.  

As a First Principle, any sort of health care must be free and independent of political control and forced participation.  That would seem to be self-evident - especially for those who call themselves "libertarians" or pro-liberty.  But it is not.  

What the Republicans and any other "reformers" need to look at is maximizing value in facilities and a focus on providing everyone with the best possible health care (which might be far inferior to what is deliverable as "the best", today).  But it would be delivered health care, instead of all sorts of rackets to extract as much monopoly rent from everyone - patients, taxpayers, insurers,  and even their own employees, without giving a damn about what sort of health care is actually delivered, or who is left out. (That is the present system, as exemplified by Mr Goodnow, the CEO of Benefis - created by the same "consultants" who designed Enron and other monumental failures - Arthur Andersen.  After Enron, it was forced to dissolve, but last I heard, the same people, now based in Bermuda, are running our "Homeland Security" Gestapo.)  

The days when any sick person could check into the ER, get some pain pills, and a taxi-ride home are long gone.  Or have a serious operation and pay a small monthly charge to keep the account open, without killing the patient so that lawyers could collect from the estate, or else refusing any sort of real care for lack of "insurance."  

Alternative medicine, midwives, herbalists, acupuncture, reflexology, etc have long been the standard for those who don't like corporate, for-profit medicine, and prefer a wholesome, natural approach to health and wellness.  An enlightened public health care system would also cover such things, or at least not "regulate" them so that the prices are 10 times higher than they should be, as is the case with the aliopathic medicine we have, now. 

Raise your hand if you want Charter Schools...

Daybook-  July 13, 2016

Raise your hand if you're in favor of Charter Schools

I'm listening to the Tribal Relations Committee (of the MT Legislature) live on 21-5, and I just saw a fascinating presentation about how Charter Schools can greatly benefit education and cultural development for Native Americans.  I confess: I've always been in favor of trying any and all kinds of educational alternatives, including vouchers and Charter schools.  

Less than 20% of the thousands of Charter Schools nation-wide (serving some 3 million students, nationally) are sponsored by any sort of "corporate chains", of which Gates and Walton are the best-known.   Most are single-building, locally owned and controlled, and often part of an existing school district or other local authority.  
There are only two in Montana (because of the fanatic opposition of local politicians supporting Mr. Feaver and the MEA/MTA).  The one I'm familiar with is Bridger Alternative High school in Bozeman, which was started as a school for those not doing well at the high-pressure Boulder High.  It will remain a public school, under the control of the Bozeman School Board.  But by having its own charter, it can set its own policies and standards. 

Paris Gibson Education Center in Great Falls occupies a similar position, although they had very different educational philosophies and practices 20 years ago - who knows what they are doing, now, although Paris is certainly flourishing with almost no bad reviews.  

Monopolies are always bad, whether they are public or private.  And that is why, even under "totalitarian Communist rule", countries like the Soviet Union and other bureaucratic states are more or less run by consensus - that is, policies which all can live under, and keep arguing for particular changes.  It's only when the discourse and collaborative thinking is blocked that they become real tyrannies - something which is now the case in Montana - both in education, and in politics generally.  

===========

Ronald Reagan's Welfare Queens are running the nation's schools....

I'm watching a PBS program called "180 Days," a year in an American High School" - in this case, DC Met, an "inner city" high school in the Nation's capitol.  

And I just received in the mail, our local School District's brochure to promote a controversial major bond issue of nearly $100 million, which is about 150% of the District's yearly budget.  "Low interest rates" seems to be the main reason to do all of this now, in one piece, rather than spreading it out over a decade or so.  Of course, bonding allows them to pay it off over 10-30 years, plus interest, which usually doubles the original "sticker price."  And there are always representatives of the local banking monopoly, D.A. Davidson, and in this case, it's the present Mayor, former City Manager, plus two other bank executives on the School Board.  If you don't think any of these have anything to do with the kind of "borrowing" in this deal, you need a wake-up call, which is what this is intended to be.  

Am I trying to make a comparison, here, between the worst public schools in the country (located in Washington, D.C.) and our own local top-ranked public schools, serving one of the most important nuclear-armed missile complexes in the country?  If the safety of the country (not to mention the rest of the world) depends on those who have custody of this massive war crime waiting to happen, then we damn well better have 1st rate schools, right?   And spend whatever it takes to maintain them.

Everything is to military specs.   A good part of the $30 million+ to be spent on my alma mater, Great Falls High School, is to implement a comprehensive ROTC curriculum and "harden" the school to more resemble a secure military or prison facility.  Believe it or not, this is popular in a city like Great Falls.   Some of us have been warning against the militarization of the public schools (and the rest of civic life) for many decades, now.  And we have been punished severely for doing so.   So the "lesson" which has been learned is not to question authority, and if you feel strongly about something, or have information which is important, but is being ignored, you'd damn well better learn to keep you mouth shut.  Friends and family are at risk, as well, so "take care of your own" and don't let them get out of line....

The amount of fear of "saying the wrong thing" or "offending authority" is palpable everywhere - not just in politics.   Another symptom, no doubt, of "the war on Terror" - which completely ignores the greatest Terrorists of all - those who threaten a nuclear holocaust against any and all "enemies."  That would be us, and our "Minuteman" nuclear strike force at Malmstrom AFB.  

==========================

Not just Charter Schools...   Charter Government

Remember Gayle Morris, the former Mayor of Great Falls and County Commissioner whose life was destroyed by the Lawton Machine?   When I ran for County Commissioner, it was for the seat that he had been forced to vacate, and I talked with him a lot about many different local issues.   

Trained as a Special Ed teacher, and originally from Belt (where my father's family also "traded"), Morris had an alcohol problem, and was following a more or less religious "cure".  I believe he started a weekly "Mayor's Prayer Breakfast" as well. 

One of Morris's favorite issues was something called "Charter Government",  in which the County would have a separate charter apart from the regular County government and its prescribed rights and duties under Montana law.  At first, it didn't make much sense, but as I moved deeper into the local democracy movement, and community sovereignty, I came to see it as vital to our survival (against corporations and others who have been empowered to loot us at will under corporate-written laws and policies).   I believe, if I remember correctly, that Butte-Silverbow's consolidated local government has one - I guess it would have to, if only to define how it is different from "the standard model."

As Mayor, Morris ran afoul of the Lawton Machine, which was then consolidating its power and control over city budgets and expenditures.  This was long before the disastrous "Electric City Power", but there were already a number of cases where Lawton projects had served all the local corporate and financial interests, while often dis-serving the regular citizens in their use of city services.  The "shit cooker" would be the most obvious (and never mentioned) example of a Lawton Folly.  

This was a sewage treatment plant which actually cooked raw sewage with natural gas burners, stinking up the whole Southwest Side (and lower North Side, where I live, when the wind was right).   Rumor has it that when Lawton was Assistant City Manager in Billings, he secured a similar plant for them.  It took them two years to shut it down and fire Lawton (with great references to the City of Great Falls!).  It took us more than 20 years to finally listen to some environmental engineers and replace it with the anaerobic digester which produces as much natural gas as the previous plant consumed.  The complaints against the smell were never answered, and attributed, no doubt, to "environmental extremists."  

Because of mis-management and probably some unnecessary contracts, the municipal golf courses have been in crisis for more than  20 years.  (Lawton arrived around 1989-90).  I testified at one hearing where Lawton was trying to hire another "consultant" (from Florida) to tell us how to run our golf courses.  The golf community, here, is well-organized and dedicated to maintaining affordable, pleasant activities for retirees and working-class people in general.  They did their research, and had all the facts and numbers of what should be done to fix the golf system in an affordable way.  

 Lawton and the City Commission, largely privatizers, wanted to sell them off or make them into private clubs.  After all the testimony, Lawton went on insisting that the consultants be hired - that he was in charge, etc.  I was the only one to take on this dictatorial stance to his face, and some of my golfing friends were amazed that I had done so (never being known as a fighter).  I said, "Well, what's he going to do, shoot me?"   

I've been in Great Falls a lot longer than Lawton, and if I figure correctly, he's here somehow pretending to "represent" my mother's side of the family - Nelson's, Moses Lake (where my grandfather Nelson did some construction business).  When I heard he was from there, it made a lot more sense.  But none of his projects which have destroyed or diminished our local public services and sense of ourselves (for me, it's always been the Library) make any sense, and wouldn't have (I hope) to any of my relatives.

Cont. 10-6-16

Now, John Lawton works at the real power center of "public finance" - selling municipal bonds which usually double or triple the cost of any public works.   And our present Mayor was an officer in the same company.  There are two other bankers on the School Board, and the recent "manufactured consent" to borrow nearly $100 million through these banks (which charge a commission) can be seen as a continuation of the Lawton strategy to bankrupt local government in order to promote "economic growth" and tax-free income for the "individual investor".   Presumably Lawton got this job due to his faithful service to the local oligarchy as City Manager.  

The "Municipal Bond" racket is the main reason our public infrastructure (including education) is a shambles, since every project (mostly unnecessary or padded with "frills") ends up costing twice or more what was budgeted.  Now that interest rates are at historical lows, those with liquid capital are desperately looking for something, anything, which pays interest and is "safe" from depression or other defaults.  It doesn't matter to them how the money is spent, or what kind of education system we have, while the essential stuff is held up as a scare tactic to make sure all bond issues are "approved" by the voters).  

Adminstrators and teachers have learned  how to pander to the bankers and technocrats, as well as the National Security State, while ignoring or suppressing anything seen as "leftist" or "radical."   
The present favorite targets in Montana would include peace and anti-nuclear activists (cowards and traitors) and "radical environmentalists" (anyone who opposes fossil fuels, stripping public lands of timber, and GMO and chemical-drenched Factory Farms). 

The real First Freedoms- Speech, Press, Assembly

There was a PBS show recently which identified "the First Freedom" as freedom of religion, and its protections under the Bill of Rights and Constitution.  That same First Amendment also includes freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and petionning for a redress of grievances.

I've been working on this all month, along with major articles on the university system, as a result of watching some Regent's meetings and other events in Missoula and Bozeman, and some summary comments about the HELP act and why it is far from optimal, given all the constraints health care providers now face.  Every day, it seems like there are new idiocies to deal with, and sort out from the useful parts of these policy changes. 

 Framing the Debate

A Berkeley journalism professor, George Lakoff, became briefly famous for a series of presentations (on Alternative Radio, for example) which he called "Framing the Debate."  It's a kind of censorship or "news management" which is based on telling people a vast fabric of lies, and then "polling" them to get a "scientific understanding" (i.e. official and marketable to candidates, advertisers, lobbyists, etc.)  of their preferences and thinking on the various issues. 

This is most of what the media does nowadays.  It crafts its "product" to attract the wealthiest and most powerful advertisers, and to make sure that elections are never too "one-sided" because one side spent a lot more money than the other.    

The "news stories" and analysis isn't the main reason for maintaining vast corporate broadcasting networks and newspaper chains.  Of course it's all about jobs and profits, and providing some sort of "product" to whomever pays, in whatever ways, for their services.  And it's the secondary and tertiary effects of what is printed or broadcast, and people's willingness to pay to see these effects in action.  That might mean having their story told in such a way that it benefits them politically or economically.  Not only is this considered "fair", but any media outlet which doesn't maintain certain views or let its staff maintain their own views is considered derelict - to the cause of Capitalism, God, and Country, if nothing else. 

A "free press" was supposed to tolerate this state of affairs, but not when vast media monopolies connected with the government and its surveillance apparatus, or outright spying and disinformation campaigns like the CIA did for many years via the foreign press journalists who were "recruited" after they had already established a reputation for integrity.   It's all part of the package.  There's too much money involved to let elections and public opinion much less scientific and academic understanding, develop spontaneously and naturally, instead of from some centralized "authority."

Most people no longer "respect authority", the government, elected officials, or anyone else unless we know them personally.  But the power of propaganda (or better put, "brainwashing") or other psychological manipulation and conditioning to reach "conformity" in thinking and behavior is now more powerful and all-pervasive than ever before.  Major issues (like the economy, health care, strategic diplomacy, food safety, military spending, etc.) are only discussed within the framework of certain "opinion leaders" like the major TV networks, public broadcasting, The New York Times/Washington Post group, etc. 

The voices of real experts who have demonstrated a profound understanding of our present global crisis and what to do about are simply never heard, or when they are, in such a context that they have no impact.  Our only hope seemed to be in the kinds of information networks which now exist, but didn't prior to about 20 years ago.  Yet, the ability to shape mass public opinion and election results remains elusive.

The issues are always "framed" (or "spun", as they used to say) to fit the needs of the advertisers, and these "corporate sponsors" pay millions ($billions, collectively) to make sure the right people get elected, and have the right advisers and corporate bill-writers to pass the "laws" which we elect "legislators," supposedly, to write.

It is these media moguls who will both direct policy and "spin" it so that people will think that something good is happening.  Of course, there are always real people at the front lines of whatever the policy is addressing, and if we hear from them, it is likely that we will lose all confidence in what "our government," on whatever level, is doing.  Therefore, censorship and disinformation are the orders of the day, and whistle-blowing, rather than being a public virtue, has been designated as "treason" be nearly every Presidential candidate running, including Bernie and Hillary.  

Because we are now in an election cycle, we are more concerned with "the political process" rather than the issues and policies actually proposed or defended by the candidates.  And so, it is vain, indeed, to expect the successful candidates to actually deal with the matters at hand in some responsible fashion after they are elected. 

The way that political issues are "framed" determines the outcome, and who benefits from the supposed "solutions."   Obviously, very little changes from year to year or from election to election.  The same issues are debated (or rather, mis-debated or whitewashed) over and over, again, with nothing but partisan loyalty and class affiliation to distinguish one "position" or candidate from another.

For future discussion...
"Bi-partisanship" - Ayn Rand's "The New Fascism:  Rule by Consensus"

Ivan Illich's "De-schooling Society"

Healthcare & Education Vouchers for All

Single-Payer Healthcare = Local Independent Schools

One of the points I often made as a Green journalist (and Libertarian-anarchist before that) is that a voucher system to fund education is precisely the same in all formal respects as the Canadian-style "Single-payer" healthcare system.  I don't think anyone who read the Montana Green Bulletin agreed with me, and it pissed a lot of people off - like the Teacher's Union stalwarts whom I rely on for a political "moral compass."  The fact that it would have immediately been compatible with the late Albert Shankar's AFT plan for teacher-run schools did not impress them.  They were never for that, they said, and more so once it was revealed that Shankar worked with the CIA for some "education-related" project.

The ideology of Trade Unionism is foreign to my experience, as are "professional associations" based on State licensing and regulation.  All my training in economics and liberation politics assures me that any sort of monopoly, with the power to hire and fire, and restrict the entry of new providers who might compete on price and quality, is absolutely wrong and harmful to everyone except those who own or control those monopolies, which in this case is the Corporate State, fully owned and controlled by various corporate "interests" whose views are manifested by ALEC and similar "associations."

In these two vital areas - health care and education - monopolies are tantamount to the very end of civilization, which we might be witnessing even as we live our "disengaged" lives basking in the fruits of a fully-funded public education system.   If people studied history, they would understand.  The Catholic Church and other state churches did that for 1000 years - acted as sole providers of God-related goods and services, as well as health and education.  The reason it survived at all was because there was a lot of diversity within the Church, and the underlying ethical values were valid and universal (quite Buddhist, actually).

Today's People's States are much less morally defined and responsible than even the more corrupt churches or other organized relitions. Indeed, they are vicious competitors, as we see in current attacks by secular courts against the religious practices of people now long dead.  I have long marveled how any of those cases win.  And they never did until quite recently, which indicates either that people are much more ethically concerned to "compensate" victims with large financial "settlements" or that the Criminal Injustice System has finally run amok, and threatens to bankrupt or destroy any institutions and individuals who stand against them.  They're not much concerned with us as individuals, of course, unless we have a lot of money.  Thus, they might serve the Revolution in spite of themselves....

My home town, seemingly an obscure village in the wilds of Montana, is actually a major center of the Military-Industrial Complex and the destruction of the planet by scientific means.   That's what people do, here.  That's what I grew up with.  When my high school class recently celebrated its 50th anniversary, I suggested a "Jubilee Year", as in the Bible, in which prisoners are freed and debts are forgiven.  Leonard Bernstein wrote a "Jubilee Games" for the 50th anniversary of the State of Israel, mentioning that tradition.  Even if it didn't work for Israel, it might work for us.  

As we recounted stories and legends about how our families came to be here,  we realized how much the divide between "military" and "civilian" has dissolved.  The Anaconda Smelter and the Great Northern Railroad were the largest employers and dominant players in state and local government.  Basically, they got whatever they wanted, and in the case of Anaconda, it actually owned 5 of the 6 largest newspapers in the state.  The exception was the Great Falls Tribune, completely unionized, considered one of the best papers for its size in the country.

During WWII, we became the major Lend-Lease Base, ferrying thousands of aircraft to the Soviet Union, including everything about American technology, government, etc. which Soviet agents could collect and ship back in sealed "diplomatic" cases.  And thus, our fate as a military power was sealed.  We were first to get the new solid-fuel "Minuteman" missiles which could literally be launched in a few minutes from hardened "silos" which were billed as major "deterrents" and "defenders of our freedom."

 It was 30 years later before we discovered it was actually a first-strike weapon, and that American strategic policy had long been based on exactly the scenario portrayed by George C. Scott in "Dr. Strangelove."  Hit them first, and then we can worry about retaliation, but if it costs us a few millions, it's worth it to get rid of the vast evil of "communism."   Believe it or not, this "doctrine" still exists in various guises, and we see it acted out in the NATO "response" to a fascist coup in the Ukraine, as well as the almost universal demonization by Neo-liberals of Vladimir Putin as though he were some sort of modern-day Stalin.

As for debtors, we get frequent lessons on how monopoly banksters have managed to steal most of the world's wealth and use it for their own purposes - all in the guise of "savings and investment", "retirement," "insurance," and other financial rackets which are quite legal and protected in the Finance Capitalism State.   That's what we are, today.

My Class of '65 (or its self-appointed "leaders") retired us to the Country Club.   Since I was boycotting it because they cancelled a Planned Parenthood fund-raising event last Spring, I didn't go.  I found no support for having a "protest reunion" in a different venue.  So, I guess that's the last we'll hear from the Class of '65, whose most visible members might be HIllary Clinton and David Letterman.  

Welcome to the Barry Beach College of Law and Justice...

A Blewett Law School?  How about Barry Beach College of Law and Justice, instead?

Notes on the School to Prison Pipeline, ALEC, and the end of Democracy in America...

If you're not up on the condition of today's "criminal justice system" which costs the economy $100's of billions a year, and destroys countless lives to feed the maw of for-profit prisons and other police state jobs and contractors, read the following article first...

===============

40 Reasons Our Jails and Prisons Are Full of Black and Poor People
by BILL QUIGLEY

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/02/40-reasons-our-jails-and-prisons-are-full-of-black-and-poor-people/


The US Department of Justice (DOJ) reports 2.2 million people are in our nation’s jails and prisons and another 4.5 million people are on probation or parole in the US, totaling 6.8 million people, one of every 35 adults. We are far and away the world leader in putting our own people in jail. Most of the people inside are poor and Black. Here are 40 reasons why....

==================================

I listen to the university Regents meetings whenever I get a chance, on 21-5 - which is included with our MT-PBS signal (a sort of local C-Span, but not dependent on the cable industry). 

I've always been highly critical of school and university administrations, and the "public education culture" in general - especially as it develops in a place like Great Falls, with a large ethnic population (historically exploited) and little interest in developing a world-class education system which would actually prepare people for a sustainable future (instead of the corporate/military/prison system which they now support).   

The micromanagement is staggering.  How do they possibly expect anyone to succeed in teaching difficult material (not to mention patriotism and loyalty) if we get nothing but lies and excuses from our elected officials and the media, not to mention those already employed in the school system?  And teachers are forced to "assume" or "obey" all sorts of nonsense which we know is harmful to our students and the community at large.  

Today's "topic" is the acceptance of the Zander Blewett "gift" of $10 mill to rename the UM Law School for Mr. Blewett and his wife.   His former law partner, John Hoyt, was a well-known local ambulance chaser and oil speculator (he claimed he lost money on the latter ventures), who gave enough to the Griz Football Program that they actually named the "field" after him (while the Stadium is named for Dennis Washington, the main investor and controller in the Max Baucus machine).   Now that Max is Ambassador to China, where Mr. Washington has huge contracts and a fleet of container ships to bring home the loot, the value of a name has gone way up.  But isn't a football stadium a little different?  Should we actually name the Law School (not just a building, but the School, itself) after a particular lawyer who became vastly wealthy from his political and social connections? 

Not that Hoyt and Blewett were not Baucus people, too.  Friendly rivals, one might say, but all Democrats.  [Correction:   his son, who is now a State Senator, claimed to be the first Democrat in the family....   The plot thickens...]  Baucuses in Great Falls were lawyers for 2 generations before Max (who was raised in Helena).  I'm not sure what party the older Baucuses preferred, if any.  Great Falls was a strongly Democratic city up to the 1960's, though. 

Perhaps this is to forestall naming the Law School after Baucus (which would certainly be even more ridiculous).  But Max used dirty tricks to win his first Senate primary (D) over local Judge Paul Hatfield (a former Jardine, Stephenson partner, I believe - possibly before the first Blewett joined that firm).   I have historic family connections, both pro and con, with all of the above.  

Another bizarre twist was that Zander's father and the Jardine, Stephenson, Blewett and Weaver firm was a Homeland Security "rendition" contractor which was identified early-on by the international authorities policing torture and other war crimes.  Mr. Bjelland of that firm (who is also on the board of the McLaughlin Institute) was the "registered representative" for the "rendition express", last I heard.  This was a private contractor for the CIA, to take torture victims to "friendly" countries - including Libya and former Communist countries which were better-equipped to torture people "off the books."  But the planes could be identified and their ownership traced by their registration numbers....

Most of John Hoyt's accumulated wealth came from buying up a number of bankrupt farmers and ranchers (myself included) and then forming a 10,000 acre ranch called "The Jolly Roger" - named for his WWII B-24 from which he rained havoc on various targets in Europe.  Nearly all his legal work was "worker's comp" claims, for which he received a fourth to a third of the payments for the rest of the worker's life.  I believe this system no longer exists, but it created a legal "establishment" which still seems to dominate the field in Montana.  

One of the Regents, Ms. Shea, who is apparently a lawyer, herself, found fault with the whole process, done in secret, and basically giving the Blewett firm unprecedented clout in the future education and practice of lawyers in Montana.  She's right.  The name should be left off, and Mr. Blewett should hang his head in shame for promoting such self-glorification.  

Otherwise, his motives may be pure, or at least geared to the long-standing interests of the legal profession.  The "criminal justice system" in Montana has absolutely nothing to be proud of, and to spend a good part of this $10 million "recruiting" more people from the Liberal Arts and other "humanistic" backgrounds to become lawyers is probably an excellent idea, except that it will only turn them into the legal illiterates who presently pack the rolls of the Montana Bar Association.  If there are any who don't fit this description, they're lying low, and refusing to jeopardize their future prospects as millionaires. 

What is needed is a totally different law school which actually sees the role of lawyers as DEFENDERS rather than predators on a rapidly-collapsing welfare/labor state.  My long-standing proposal was to simply close or suspend the UM Law School until such time that it can select a staff and program which actually benefits the people of Montana, our lives, our freedom, and our economic and environmental sustainability.  

At present, it serves nothing but corporate interests, from the prison industry to the military industrial complex, and now the National Security State.  If a judge makes a correct decision, he is immediately charged with all sorts of malfeasance, and removed.  With only a few exceptions, the whole "criminal justice system" is beneath contempt, and even the tiniest reforms are strenuously resisted by an almost united front.  

One such reform (which is only a restoration of traditional jury rights and duties) is jury nullification or a "fully informed jury" law, where jurors can ask questions and otherwise pursue the truth of the case rather than just doing what judges and prosecutors tell them to do.   And they can also judge the applicability of a law to the particular case, or even the legitimacy of the law, itself (most of which are now written by lobbyists for the prison industry, insurance companies, and other corporate interests). 

Tell Zander to keep his money, or donate it to scholarships or an endowed chair which reflects his philosophy or views (which seems to be the core of his proposal, anyway).  How about $1 mill to the Fully Informed Jury Foundation or whatever it is, started by Montanan Larry Dodge?  Leave the naming and "monument-building" to others....

Medicaid Expansion in MT - Framing the Debate

Health Insurance Slavery (HIS), or Ripped off by the ACA

I think I've finally understood the real purpose of the "health insurance racket."   Obviously, it's to make money, and use healthcare as a means of social control and class warfare.  But there is more.

Americans for Prosperity spent a bundle to defeat Medicaid expansion in Montana. Here's why they lost

ERIC STERN  (an official in the Bullock Administration)

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/21/kochs_defeated_in_montana_6_lessons_the_country_can_learn_from_this_rural_western_state/

Kochs defeated in Montana: 6 lessons the country can learn from this rural Western state

==============

Let me add some additional commentary, not restricted to Democratic Party dogma...

"Americans for Prosperity" is the notorious lobbying and "dark money" group based on ALEC's projects to repeal or abolish the entire "welfare state" along with the EPA,  protection of workers, consumers, the poor, veterans, minorities, immigrants, etc., while massively increasing military procurements and contracts, prison and police state spending, and turning Montana into a "resource colony" for the Asian "Tiger Economies."  

Unfortunately, the Democrats here or anywhere else still cling to the corporate model of "health insurance" which is totally wrong as a means of actually providing health care to people who need it, or even those who want to pay for it at an affordable price.  

Americans for Prosperity has framed the debate in such a way that all the sociopathic prejudices are marshalled and reinforced:  socialism is wrong, along with any kind of state-supported "welfare" or even health care programs like Medicare.  We don't want people to be healthy and happy with their health care system, because then they'll want more of it, and think that socialism actually works.  

Thus, these "conservatives" are obsessed with "welfare fraud", "free-loaders", and lazy people who just don't want to work at those fantastic minimum wage jobs which pay half or less, in real terms, than they did 40 years ago, while the top 10% and most of all the 1% are making many times what they did only a few decades ago....

"Health insurance" was always seen as a privilege, not a right.  "Do you DESERVE health insurance?  This is for the best and brightest workers, the God-fearing, patriotic Americans, not the riff-raff who have acted irresponsibly.  We, the corporations, want to keep "our people" healthy and productive.  But if you're a marginal worker, and sick a lot, a drug addict or a criminal, then we don't want you.  Rely on private charity or die."

In effect, that's what the ALEC types are saying, along with some pleas for "balanced budgets" and "reducing dependency on the Federal Government"  (except when it's military spending, bailing out the banks, or building more prisons and surveillance infrastructure). 

Why Obamacare?

The ACA was immediately branded "Obamacare", although President Obama was always for Single Payer or at least "a Robust Public Option" - whatever it takes to provide everyone with "health care coverage".  "Single-payer" became Medicare for All, (or at least anyone who wants it - but if you're rich, you'll pay the full price) - still much cheaper than any private insurance scheme. 

The bill as it finally emerged was reminiscent of Hillary's plan in the '90's, which provided "something for everyone" - except that hers was even better - everyone would have some access to health care.  You'll remember the horror and outrage which was expressed towards the Clinton Administration on that account.  And that was the plan which the insurance companies promptly destroyed because they would only get part of the action - the Middle Class and those who had good-paying jobs and were thus covered by their employers.  One would have thought that they would be very satisfied with that.  Perhaps they understood that if there really was a "robust public option", no sane person would want to buy their flawed and monopoly-ridden "coverage", which is all dead weight for the healthy, or those whose bills don't exceed the deductibles.  

Co-payments are another racket.  Providers should either take the Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements as full payment, or give up their  licenses.  Every doctor or clinic should have at least half of their patients come from public "coverage", and they should be restricted in what they can charge others, including private insurance companies.  

Then, there's cost-shifting.  This is the excuse invariably given to justify their fraudulent billing, and why people with no insurance are billed much higher than those who have it.  Hospitals and insurance companies must hire batteries of lawyers and accountants just to get paid, and that, too, is blamed on cost-shifting.  Instead of standard billing reflecting real costs and alternatives, it's all about maximizing total revenues from whatever source.  

If everyone is covered to a minimum extent, there is no reason to bill the healthy for the care of the sick - as if there were ever any reason to do that.  That is the greatest injustice, besides the basic principle that we must be free to select whatever health care facilities, treatments, and philosophies we prefer, and not be forced to pay for a system which is not only financially exploitative, but which is medically suspect in any number of ways, depending on our own philosophies and preconceptions.  

Price Competition

When you compare prices for various procedures and services, as well as the standard rate for a hospital room of whatever grade, with other countries, you find that Americans pay 4-10 times more, on average, than patients in other countries.  The prices are entirely fictional, and have only a proportional relationship to costs - that is to say, a multiple of what the actual "market-clearing" and cost-based price would be.  They've had programs on 60 Minutes and other places about how hospitals and clinics bill their patients.  And if you know anyone who has been in the hospital, and seen their bills, you know what they're talking about.

 The "list price" is about 3 times the private insurance reimbursement (supplemented by co-pays, etc).  Yet, they can collect that bill from insurance companies who don't contest it (or aren't recognized by the providers), and more importantly, from the patient, himself, or his estate.   What other name for it but outright consumer fraud, extortion, and with malfeasance..  

Is there any real "Health Insurance"?

Employers offered health insurance (often HMO's like Kaiser Permanente) to recruit people with families and higher health care needs, as a kind of bonus and evidence that the employer cared about the well-being of employees.  The rest of us would be served in our local communities by church-connected or public hospitals and clinics, with staff doctors (emphasizing different specialities) working for the various hospitals and clinics on salary.  The idea of "free markets" where any health care provider could charge whatever they like, and use the courts and collection agencies to foreclose on dead patients' homes and pensions was considered preposterous.

Is there such a thing as "Compulsory Insurance?"

Insurance, as it developed in business and protection of homes, automobiles, etc. against theft or loss by fire, flood, etc., has a very simple rationale.  It is a hedge - a way to protect one's material assets from accidental loss or destruction.  You buy it if you calculate that it is worth the cost, or necessary to protect your family.  But it is not a means of supplying one of the "necessities of life" - health care services and products.  In that sense, "Health Insurance" is a category mistake.  The only people being protected is the providers of health care services, who know they will get paid if the patient has "insurance" - even if she dies or the care was less than adequate for whatever reasons.   

I suspect that this "compulsory" aspect was sold as "socialized medicine" precisely to "prove" that it was "too expensive" and not very good - even though most of the rest of the world does very well with universal coverage and health care being seen as a prime responsibility of government - at an average of 1/4 the cost to patients and taxpayers, alike.  More than half of our "health care dollars" (what we spend both publicly and privately) provides no health care at all, and that is the crux of the problem - an inherent flaw in the "Insurance Protection Racket."

What we have, today, is more vicious than ever before, and health care as a percentage of GDP has risen from about 6% in the 1950's to more than 18%, today, all the while reducing actual access to health care services desperately needed by people who can't begin to pay for them.   Medicine has always been charitable, with "cost-shifting" from those who can't pay to those who can, along with generous (sometimes enormous) endowments and donations from the estates of people who were happy with the care they received, as well as all kinds of government support. Religious communities had their own health care facilities, reflecting their beliefs, with a lot of charitable outreach to the larger population. 

Since the 1960's, we've had Medicare and Medicaid which saved millions of families from medical bankruptcy, or simply provided health care which elderly and low-income people would have never sought or purchased with their own or family resources. 

Because of price-fixing and fraudulent billing which is all but universal these days, approximately 3/4 of our health care dollars (the total amount paid by taxpayers, employers, and individual patients) goes not to health care providers, but to the various middle-men such as lawyers, collection agencies, and the "insurance racket" itself, which only wants to make money and couldn't care less about whether the now-enslaved "customers" actually get what they want and need.  

Instead of maximizing public health and patient satisfaction with the system, today's medical industry maximizes two things - revenues (profits, higher incomes for providers) and political clout.  By politicizing the issue, all the wrong people are in charge, and profiting themselves and their "corporate sponsors".  Literally, the worst of all possible health care systems.

Sen. Baucus actually defended his monstrous scheme on the lie that "most people are happy with the insurance they have, and that won't change."  Satisfaction with existing health care in the US is something like 15% or less - the same proportion who thinks that Congress is doing a good job managing whatever it is (the Federal government and 28% of total GDP) they control.  No wonder that Republican cries for "smaller government" resonate widely.

After 30 years of service to the banksters, Boeing, Monsanto, the nuclear mafia, prison industry, and other ALEC groups, Max Baucus became the architect of the ACA.  They knew they could depend on him to do whatever they asked.  His lobbyist-backers from "Club Baucus" designed nearly every aspect of it - the "insurance" rackets, the drug cartels, private hospital associations, all the "research institutes" and universities which rely on the NIH and other federal sponsorships, etc.  

The real mystery is why Chambers of Commerce and other "pro-business" and "economic growth" advocates support it.  Forcing employers and individuals to participate in a racket is not good for business - especially since it wastes at least 10% of our national income on an "industry" which grossly under-performs by any standard.

"Obamacare" (as enunciated by Obama, himself) explicitly shifts the burden of health care for the poor and terminally ill (estimated to be 75% of all health care services) on to the workers, employers, and taxpayers through subsidies to private, profit-making insurance companies, which are now forced to "cover everyone" and to ignore "pre-existing conditions" and other "high-risk" insured, which added at least 1/3 (over what they were before the ACA) to insurance costs for everyone.   But it really isn't "insurance" at all.  It's simply a scam by which the medical "industry" extorts an additional 10% of GDP from workers and taxpayers.  

If you've ever had your insurance company refuse to cover something, you know that the doctor or hospital can still sue you and collect their (unregulated, massively inflated) bills.  It's time to resist this massive injustice and transfer of wealth to those who provide no health care or any other useful goods or services, but use the power of the state to prevent us from creating better alternatives and "opting out" of their rackets.