For advocates of guaranteed truly universal healthcare the debate over Obama’s reform efforts have been rather disappointing.

Despite the fact that a clear majority of Americans prefer joining the rest of the developed world and having a comprehensive government plan that cover everybody, President Obama and most of Congress, all of whom have received large sums of campaign donations from the drug and insurance industries, have made a government run plan that would not sell healthcare as a commodity to make profit, a non-starter. As a result, single-payer healthcare advocates, despite having overwhelming grassroots support, have been dismissed in Washington.

Now, with few other options, liberal members of congress and advocacy groups have largely focused their advocacy and money behind what appears to be the most heated battle over possible healthcare reform this summer: the fight to include a “public option” to compete with private plans in the healthcare package.

Predictably, ideologues opposed to any kind of government involvement in healthcare are fighting tooth-and-nail to oppose this option, ridiculously, calling it a step towards socialism. But as much of the left rallies to counter these shameful distortions, they may want to consider a very important question. What exactly are they fighting for?

By taking single-payer off the table at the start, Obama and his supporters may have put all of their fuel into a sputtering vehicle. To date, two state governments Massachusetts and Vermont have attempted to implement “hybrid” pseudo-public solutions to major healthcare problem. Both of these plans have been floated as possible templates for national reform; the Mass plan is often cited as a possible angle, and Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vermont, has introduced legislation for a public option that is somewhat similar to Vermont’s state-wide plan. Sadly, in both cases the results of these efforts have not been promising.
Those of us living with the new and once-highly touted Massachusetts plan, which aims to cover everyone by requiring that everyone buy insurance (and providing subsidies for those who cannot afford it), have become all-too familiar with the problems of this arrangement, which was worked out in 2006 between Mitt Romney and the Legislature.

The Boston Globe’s recent front-page article highlighting how Boston Medical Center, which provides more healthcare to the poor than any other hospital in Massachusetts, is facing major deficits largely because the 2006 healthcare legislation has bled money from the “free care pool,” is only one example of how this legislation, well-intended it may be, is not sustainable.

By June 2011 enrollment in the plan is projected to be 342,000 people at an annual expense of $1.35 billion up considerably from the original projections of covering 215,000 people at a cost of $725 million.

Moreover, because so much of the funding for the plan has come from the state’s free care pool, many low-income residents who were once able to get care, now face unaffordable co-pays, premiums and deductibles (which have already risen 9.4 percent since passage of the reform.) According to a study done by the Physicians for a National Health Program, if a middle-income person on the cheapest available state plan got sick, he or she could end up paying $9,872 in premiums, deductibles and co-insurance for the year.

“The Massachusetts reform law is not providing universal access to care even in a state with highyl favorable circumstances including previously high levels of spending on health care for the poor, high personal incomes, and low rates of uninsurance,” the report said. “It is not a model for the nation.”

A recent New York Times article, aptly titled “Massachusetts Takes a Step Back from Health Care for All,” reported problems as well. The July 14 article states, “The new state budget in Massachusetts eliminates health care coverage for some 30,000 legal immigrants to help close a growing deficit, reversing progress toward universal coverage just as Congress looks to the state as a model for overhauling the nation’s health care system.”

Vermont’s Catamount Health, public-private hybrid effort to cover the state’s uninsured population now at 11 percent is also failing. Passed in 2006 as a compromise after Gov. Jim Douglas vetoed single-payer legislation, the bill, unlike the Massachusetts plan, does not mandate residents buy insurance. Instead it offers residents a chance to purchase healthcare from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont with help of government subsidies based on income. But the plan, even according to its own advocates, does little to solve the problem.

One reason: the plan is unaffordable for many working Vermonters. Even those with no income must pay a monthly premium, and someone earning $30,000 a year still must pay $160 a month for coverage, plus monthly deductibles and co-pays for prescription drugs and doctor visits. Accordingly, less than a quarter of those eligible have signed up for the plan. Catamount can also deny coverage for pre-existing condition and the recently unemployed must wait a year before they are eligible for the program.

Since Vermont, like Massachusetts and so many other states, is facing dreadful revenue forecasts, the co-pays and premiums may well be raised in the near future, or services cut. A Democratically-controled Legisalture was able to avoid cuts in the most recent state budget, but more cuts may well be needed during the year, according to Tom Kavet, Vermont’s Legislative economist.

As Peter Sterling, Catamount Health’s outreach director told Seven Days, Vermont’s largest weekly paper, “It doesn’t solve the big problem, and we know that.”

Sterling’s words, and the failure of both of these reform efforts, could serve as a warning for healthcare activists as the national debate over a public plan reaches critical mass. Putting all of our muscle and money into a potentially doomed public option something that “doesn’t solve the big problem” may yield little benefit in the fight for universal healthcare. Worse, if Congress pushes through a failed public option, neutered by congressional Republicans, it could give the concept of public healthcare an undeserved black eye in the eyes of many Americans.

In fact, a more intriguing consolation prize in Obama’s health reform bill could come from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) who has a plan to fund pilot programs for universal healthcare in five states — one of which would be a single-payer plan. This could prove to be a sterling example of the cost-effectiveness of such a program. If Sanders’ home state, Vermont, were to implement state-wide single-payer, it would save the tiny state a sizable $51 million a year, according to a study commissioned by the Vermont Legislature in 2006. Predictably, however, the Senate has not been very open to this idea, moderate as it may be, and voted it down in committee. One can only hope this idea will resurface as the debate rages on.

Despite such unceasing opposition from Washington, giving up on single-payer healthcare is not a wise move. As healthcare costs continue to skyrocket, the likelihood of a single-payer plan becoming reality in the US will only increase. The United States currently spends about 16 percent of its GDP (and rising fast) on healthcare more than any other country in the world and still has embarrassing rankings on infant mortality, life expectancy and overall healthcare rankings, according to the World Health Organization and BMJ, a peer-reviewed international medical journal. 46 million are left uninsured with many more underinsured, and an estimated 18,000 people die each year from lack of insurance.

Since nearly half of healthcare costs go towards corporate profits and administrative waste, two expenses that are virtually eliminated by implementing a single-payer system, in time some kind of not-for-profit government-run system is the only option that will make any fiscal sense. This reality should not be lost in the battle for a doomed-to-fail half measure that may or may not be attached to healthcare reform in the coming months.

Further Reading:

• PNHP Report on Massachusetts Reform Plan
• Vermont Workers’ Center: Health Care is a Human Right Report (Features information on Catamount)
• Study commissioned by VT Legislature on economic impacts of a single-payer system
• *Hasta la vista single-payer movement? (Article I wrote in 2007 on a hybrid plans vs. single-payer)

The economic crisis has literally changed the rules of government. The executive branch has overseen an injection of trillions of public funds into the private sector — and without admitting it, has essentially conceded that American-style capitalism, which has been viewed as holy writ by economists, journalists, academics and politicians for 30 years, is not sustainable.

As a result, the Obama administration’s first six months will be dominated with plans for a massive (though many say, not massive enough) $850 billion stimulus plan that, while not yet fully crafted, will involve a major public works project, large amounts of aid to state governments – most of which are running large deficits and are in or near recession — increased aid to homeowners and endless other possibilities for major reform and ambitious programs.

Obama is also taking the reigns of two wars and the largest military in the history of humanity just as the country faces complicated geopolitical conflicts in India, Pakistan, Palestine, Israel, Africa, Lebanon and elsewhere.

While few presidents aspire to take office while the country is in war, the economy is sputtering and the quality of life for Americans is expected to decrease dramatically, it does give the president enormous power.  “You never want serious crisis to go to waste,’” said Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.

But what Obama makes of the opportunity remains to be seen. Obama has continued to trump the idea that his recovery package will serve the interests of “Main Street” as well as Wall Street; however, like all U.S presidents, Obama was put into office with the help of elite, moneyed interest – he received more money from the finance sector than any other candidate in presidential history.   And despite his rhetoric of helping out the regular guy, Obama, while in the stretch run of the 2008 campaign, elected to support a $700 billion bailout to the financial sector which was opposed by virtually the entire population and, unlike packages implemented by other developed nations struggling with recession, was practically toothless in regulating these businesses and in limiting executive pay.

On the other hand, Obama could implement something akin to a new “New Deal” which could shape American governance for decades.  He has amassed a mountain of good will from his supporters, as well as the media; and a weakened Republican party will be unable to kill most of his proposals, as the electorate is yearning for wide scale changes.

So many are left to wonder what Obama’s first six months in president will look like. Here, we seek to assess the possibilities. But before we do so, it is important to understand the ebb and flow of the power structure of the federal government. For it is not only the economic crisis that has afforded Obama such immense power, but also and eight-year campaign to expand the power of the executive branch by the office of his predecessor.

The precedent of power

During the last few years of George W. Bush’s presidency many speculated power the executive branch would be diminished when a transfer of power took over.  Bush went as far as any president in recent history – maybe ever – in expanding the power of the executive branch.

His unrivaled use of signing statements, which undermined legislation behind the scenes in lieu of making a far more visible veto, were condemned by legal groups and politicians alike. In his first six years a Republican-controlled Congress, gave him a blank check on foreign policy issues: torture, wiretapping, rendition, troop escalations and unconditional funding for two brutal military campaigns. When the Democrats took over in 2006, things did not change much; Democrats continued to fund the war in Iraq and refused to prosecute executive branch officials for their clear abuse of powers.

Claus, 145, is holding his annual Christmas preparation meeting, which takes place every Dec. 1.

Among those flanking Claus are his director of transportation, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer as well as several veteran elves who head his manufacturing team. They look anxious as Claus begins the meeting.

The annual meeting is typically a festive — if dizzying — affair, as key Christmas officials plan for their busy season. It is, after all, almost Christmas: a multibillion-dollar, worldwide project that not only brings joy to millions of families, but may also be the most ambitious commercial enterprise in modern history.

But this year is different. Faced with the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, this year’s meeting is absent the yuletide giddiness that Christmas executives often exude as they enter the home stretch of the holiday season.

While the North Pole may be, from a geographical standpoint, the most isolated place to work in the entire world, Claus and his staff of more than 1,000 now find themselves in the thick of the global recession.

And, as is always the case when standing at the North Pole, all directions are pointing south.

“My friends, I cannot mince words. The global economic downturn has turned our financial structure on its head, and we must find a way to make ends meet,” said Claus, whose bright red nose contrasted mightily with the look of abject fear in his eyes. “Nothing is off the table — layoffs, cuts in services, government aid, increased fundraising — we must act now to remain sustainable, or there may be no Christmas this year.”

‘Perfect storm’

Indeed, the finances are not pretty. While Claus maintains that he kept impeccable records of all his expenses, he said the current crisis constitutes a perfect storm of economic trouble.

In July, facing record-high oil prices, Claus feared that, if the cost of heating fuel rose any further, he would struggle to heat his headquarters, which are located in a region where winter temperatures range from 45 below zero to minus 15. So Claus locked in on a contract for heating oil at about $5 per gallon; since then, the price of crude oil has plummeted from its peak of $147 at a barrel to around $40 now, and heating oil is now selling for less than $3 a gallon.

“It is so frustrating,” he said. “I thought it was going to keep going up. I thought I was doing the right thing.”

And that is just the start of the problems facing the Christmas industry this year. Claus’ elves, who live together in a large housing complex, foolishly bought into an adjustable-rate subprime mortgage in 2006, before the housing bubble had burst. Now, unable to make their monthly payments and still send the kids through Elf School, they are 23 days into a foreclosure process.

Further, Claus has been disproportionately affected by the rising costs of health care. Elves, which make up the bulk of Santa’s work force, are thought to be immortal, meaning their pensions and health-care benefits never stop. Further, they are also thought to be “gods of fertility,” according to Germanic mythology, and reproduce more often than humans.

“My labor costs are through the roof. If I hired elves overseas, they could work for 8 cents an hour,” Claus said, who noted that massive elf layoffs are possible if they are not willing to make concessions.

The Elves Union has publicly cautioned Santa to rule out layoffs.

“Elves are the lifeblood of Christmas, even if they may not get the recognition that Santa Claus gets,” said one representative of the Elves Union. “Besides, maybe Santa ought to consider ways to cut his own health-care costs. I have heard of him eating thousands of cookies in a single night, and he has a body mass index of 34.9, which makes him morbidly obese.”

Too big to fail

“I don’t want to see anyone lose his or her job,” Claus said, and layoffs will be used only as a last resort.

Claus has sent formal letters to President-elect Barack Obama; Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee; and Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Finance Committee, asking for a government loan of $39 billion.

“AIG gets a bailout. Citigroup gets a bailout,” said a disheveled-looking Claus as his sipped his third cup of eggnog. “I bring Christmas cheer to millions of people all over the globe and singlehandedly keep the retail sector afloat for months at a time. Where is my bailout?”

According to The Economist, American retailers make 25 percent of their yearly sales and 60 percent of their profits between Thanksgiving and Christmas.

“Christmas is simply too big to fail,” Claus said.

Frank, the Massachusetts congressman, said he’s aware of how important Christmas is to the national economy, and his committee will look at a Christmas bailout. But, he warned, any package would include far more intrusive regulations than Claus has been subject to in the past.

“We want coal and wood to be placed in each stocking, so we can help needy families who are struggling with heating their homes,” Frank said. “And we will make sure that Claus is investing in green technology as well.”

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has also come out in favor of a Christmas bailout.

“Darn right Santa needs a bailout. He is crucial to U.S. economic stability and bringing good jobs,” she said. “I should know; I can see the North Pole from my home in Alaska.”

Santa Claus and an Elf leave the Capitol Building after testifying before the House Finance Committee; Claus is asking for money from U.S. taxpayers to help fund Christmas this year

If Claus is unable to secure a bailout, he said he will have to make painful cuts.

He has already raised his standards for children to be put on his “nice” list, and as a result more than 27,000 children who were eligible for Christmas services in 2008 will be placed on the “naughty list.” That saved Claus more than $3 million, but he said it is still not nearly enough.

Christmas officials have suggested other controversial ideas, such as having Claus send e-cards to cut down on shipping and administrative costs, basing eligibility for services on income, and even selling some treasures from his headquarters.

“Did you know that I, St. Nick, am the ‘patron saint of pawnbroking’?” Claus joked. “It is true. So maybe we will start liquidating some of our items. There must be a museum or two out there that would want a titanium sled with NORAD tracking capabilities.”

But above all else, Claus said, he is concerned about the children and how they may be affected this Christmas.

“I want children to know that, just because there may not be as many gifts under the tree this year, that does not mean it cannot be a great Christmas,” Claus said. “It is just a tough year for a lot of parents, and for Santa. But we will get through it.”

Photo Credit: Timothy A. Clary/AFP/Getty Images

The outgoing president still has almost two more months in office, but barring anything unforeseen, it is likely that Bush will end  up as one of the stingiest presidents in recent history when it comes to giving out pardons. 

His predecessor, Bill Clinton, gave out 140 pardons in his last day of office alone, and more than 400 in total.  This pales in comparison to Franklin D.  Roosevelt, who gave out 3,687 pardons, the most ever for a U.S. President. 

Ronald Reagan gave out more than 800 pardons during his two terms.   Jimmy Carter issued 233 during his lone term. Gerald Ford issued 409 pardons, while the man who he replaced, Richard Nixon averaged 463 during each of his terms. Nixon, of course, also received one of  Ford’s 409 pardons. 

Interestingly, the only  recent president to be tighter with this presidential mercy was Bush’s father, who gave out only 77 pardons during his four years in office. 

This seems to be consistent with Bush’s tenure as Governor of Texas, where he gave out only 14 pardons, the lowest such figure for a Texas governor since the 1940s. 

(Note: I say recent history because George Washington only gave out 16 pardons, and William Henry Harrison and James Garfield, did not use pardons at all.)

So if one views pardons as a bad thing — a needless and irreversible power — Bush could be commended for showing restraint. If one views them as noble and merciful action,  Bush could be criticized as heartless. 

I imagine a case-by-case look would reveal that for most presidents some pardons seem more justified than others. Giving a second chance to a non-violent drug addict who sits in jail while his or her children grow up without a parent is one thing; giving Scooter Libby or President Nixon a pass for crimes done while serving the public is another.

(For a full list of the recent pardons, see Sachin Seth)

Photo Credit: FBI

When State Sen. Dianne Wilkerson’s arrest hit the news, everyone knew that there would be a messy fallout. Other Boston-based power brokers, in the state and city levels, would likely be implicated, leaving the leadership stuck with a major public relations hit and ongoing anxiety. The public, of course, would become increasingly skeptical of their leaders. This fallout was rearing its head today.

Chuck Turner, a charismatic Boston City Councilor,  who was arrested last week for allegedly taking a bribe, was all over the news again this week. Not only did Turner hold a press conference to claim innocence and plead for public support, but Maureen Feeney, city council president, preempted that 2:30 p.m. press conference with one of her own.

At 1 p.m., at City Hall’s Curley Room, Feeney said that while she respected Turner’s rights to claim innocence, thought the investigation would render him ineffective as a councilor. Feeney had already, and unilaterally, stripped Turner of his committee assignments.

But Turner, a Roxbury member of the Green-Rainbow Party, said he was being abused by city officials and members of the media.

“Obviously, the press is working to publicly destroy my reputation before I even have an opportunity to have a day in court,” he said. “Since I am being tried by the media and my fellow councilors, I have made the decision to publicly defend myself. That is, I will act as my own lawyer in this media trial in which I find myself. Some argue that I should keep quiet for fear that I may make some statement that can be used against me. So be it! I will not sit back silently and allow my reputation to be ripped to shreds.”

He added, “They are criminals.”

Chris Faraone, writing for The Phoenix, observed the situation.

Turner stepped to his crowd as planned. Even before a working microphone arrived, he launched into a condemnation of his colleagues and the pad-and-camera-wielding culprits who he deems responsible for his predicament.

The crowd was energized. Everyone expected fireworks, as the councilor’s operatives circulated an announcement declaring war against the media. “My main concern is that I am not being tried by a jury of my peers, I am being tried by the Globe, the Herald, Fox News, Channel 7, Channel 5, etc…,” Turner wrote and went on to say

Vocal support rang loudly. Some folks belted pro-Chuck chants, while others were noticeably angrier. When it became obvious that the sound system was busted, one participant suggested that evildoers “Stop controlling the truth and let him be heard.” “Get him a mic,” another person yelled.

Welcome to the surreal state of Massachusetts politics in 2009. It is sure to be a constant stream of drama, accusations, arrests and subpoenas.

The public is left to watch, and wonder who to trust.

A statement issued by the Attorney General

“As you may have heard, I collapsed briefly last night at the conclusion of a speech. All tests at the hospital have come back with good results, and I feel fine. Accordingly, I plan to report to the Department this afternoon and to continue doing the work I swore to do last November and which it has been an honor to do with you ever since.”

The Governor’s Clean Energy Challenge, developed by the New England Clean Energy Council and the Massachusetts High Technology Council in cooperation with the state’s electric and natural gas utilities, will offer recognition to participants who meet or exceed the 10 percent target.

“I offer the Challenge to everyone to do their part to dramatically reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency measures, innovative energy technology products, and the use of renewable sources,” said Governor Patrick, who announced the Challenge at the New England Clean Energy Council 1st Annual Green Tie Gala in Boston this week. “As in any competition, there will be recognition for extraordinary accomplishment and leadership.  But this is a contest in which everyone who participates will be a winner.”

Millipore and Pfizer accepted aims to inspire action by businesses, municipalities, and residents to reduce their energy consumption in an effort to combat climate change.

“Millipore is pleased to take the Governor up on his challenge of reducing greenhouse emissions because it is important to our company and the environment,” said Millipore President & CEO Martin Madaus. “We appreciate the Governor’s leadership in positioning Massachusetts and its employers ahead of the curve when it comes to the adoption of clean energy technologies and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. This is a critical program for the Commonwealth’s environmental and economic health, but also for the quality of life of its 6 million residents.”

Other companies that are considering participating in the Challenge and serving as mentors to other companies are members of Massachusetts High Tech Council’s Sustainable Energy Program, a component of the technology trade group’s 10-year-old energy aggregation program, which includes forward-thinking energy consumers like Boston Scientific and Varian Semiconductor. Participants will work with utilities NSTAR, National Grid, and Western Massachusetts Electric.

Clean energy advocates praised the program.  

“Massachusetts is in position to lead the way toward a clean energy future for the Commonwealth, the nation, and the world, and to capitalize on it in terms of innovation, entrepreneurship, and jobs,” said Nick d’Arbeloff, executive director of the New England Clean Energy Council. “The Governor’s Clean Energy Challenge is a way to focus attention and effort on both the environmental imperative and the economic opportunity.”

In my college days I used to walk from my North End apartment to the Emerson College campus, which, for the most part stretches around the corner of Boylston and Tremont, just south of Boston Common.

Each time I made that walk, I was startled by a wondrous juxtaposition. From the century-old colonial architecture scattered throughout the city, to the tiny cobbled stone roadways that take one from Quincy Market to Little Italy, a stroll through Boston can truly seem like a trip to our simpler, storied past.

That is with one notable and unfortunate exception: Boston City Hall.

This monstrosity in architecture is in the heart of Boston proper at the Government Center Plaza, just a stones throw away from Fanuel Hall. The building is nine-level, horizontally-oriented brutalist design ( by Kallmann McKinnell & Knowles). It is a rectangle, I guess, but is an inverted pyramid in elevation.

It is doubtful a tourist would last 10 minutes in the Hub, without coming face-to-face with this albatross that was planted in some of city’s most treasured real estate more than 40 years ago. One cannot help but wonder: How is it possible that city officials allowed this to happen? Exactly how potent was the LSD that was evidently handed out at planning meetings in the early-1960s when this attempt to merge “Old and New Boston” first started.

Ugliness can be interpreted in countless different ways, but according to a recent report by VirtualTourist.com, the planet is starting to reach a consensus on at least one thing: no building on Earth is less attractive than Boston City Hall.

Virtual Tourist observed that the building gets routinely criticized for “its dreary façade” and “incongruity with the rest of the city’s more genteel architecture.” They listed City Hall as one, in their top ten list of the “Worlds Ugliest Building.”

This is not the first such dishonor for the building. In 2004 the Project for Public Spaces identified it as the worst single public plaza worldwide, out of hundreds of contenders.

Here is the rest of Virtual Tourists list of the World’s Ugliest Buildings.

2. Montparnasse Tower; Paris, France
3. LuckyShoe Monument; Tuuri, Finland
4. Metropolitan Cathedral; Liverpool, England
5. Port Authority Bus Terminal; New York City, New York
6. Torres de Colon; Madrid, Spain
7. Liechtenstein Museum of Fine Arts; Vaduz, Liechtenstein
8. Scottish Parliament Building; Edinburgh, Scotland
9. Birmingham Central Library; Birmingham, England
10. Peter the Great Statue; Moscow, Russia

(Photo Credit: Kjetil Ree (Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike 3.0)

It was more than four years ago that Howard Dean put an exclamation point of his sinking presidential campaign, with his now infamous “scream speech” after the New Hampshire primary in 2004. The speech featured a dejected Dean, coming off of a crippling second-place finish, screaming something along the lines of “yeeaargh” as he listed off a large chunk of the remaining states in the union that he was hoping to win.

Contrary to the ruminations of many pundits, the scream is not what did Dean in. The New Hampshire primary effectively ended his hopes for the nomination. Nonetheless, it was this speech that came to define Dean and his campaign.

But now, in the wake of an historic election which saw President-elect Barack Obama pull out a blowout win that included victories in traditionally red states, Howard Dean seems to have found redemption -amongst his party, its supporters and, in some instances, the media.

Earlier this week, as expected, Dean stepped down from his post as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. As speculation abounds over Dean’s future and his prospects for a cabinet level position in an Obama administration, it is worth looking into his role in this presidential election and in the Democratic Party’s campaign apparatus. Dean, by many accounts, deserves credit for two major elements of the Obama campaign and the Democratic domination of Congress: the implementation of the 50-state-strategy and his role in the growth of the “Netroots” which has grown into a crucial fundraising tool for the party establishment.

The road to the chairmanship

When Dean took the chairman job in 2005 it was viewed as a fairly benign post that provided little opportunities for its holder to shape the direction of the Democratic Party in any
meaningful way. The Party was coming off an embarrassing presidential loss to President Bush, after a lackluster campaign led by John Kerry that failed to take advantage of growing anti-war sentiment that had been fostering among the country, and would eventually catapult the Democrats into power in the legislative branch during the 2006 mid-term elections.

Dean had previously attempted to harness this energy into his presidential campaign, and for a while was quite successful. Weeks before the New Hampshire primary, Dean was leading in the polls. But, in the days before the primary, his stock started plummeting dramatically. Democrats feared Dean would be unelectable in the general election and members of the democratic establishment were resistant to Dean and went on the attack.

While Dean’s liberalism was often overstated (he is actually a fiscal conservative and a staunch drug warrior), he and his supporters represented something of a shift from the centrist, pro-business wing of the party that had dominated it for much of the 1990s and early 2000s.

Channeling the words of the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, Dean would argue that he was “from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.”

But this line of thought did not sit well with the party establishment, the most powerful of whom (Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman etc …) had aligned themselves with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a group which was started in 1984 in reaction to Ronald Reagan’s blowout win over George McGovern in the 1984 presidential election. The basic goal of the DLC was to move the party to the right, especially on matters of economics and foreign policy, under the theory that this was the only way to curb Republican dominance of the federal government.

The DLC sharply attacked Dean, saying he was from “The McGovern-Mondale wing” of the Party, defined “principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest group liberalism at home.”
In July of that year, Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, then- chairman of the DLC, said “The [Bush] Administration is being run by the far-right. The Democratic Party is in danger of being taken over by the far left.” They also joked about Dean’s web site following by asking: “Will he be the next dot com bust?”

“It has been one of the highest honors and privileges of my life to have served the people of Illinois in the United States Senate,” Obama said in a statement released Thursday afternoon.

Obama’s seat will remain empty until Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich appoints a successor to fill out the remaining two years of the term. An appointment is expected by the end of the year.

Indeed, it appears the criticism may be starting to accumulate. Dean Baker, one of the few economists who predicted the housing bubble, wrote the following for The UK Guardian.

Those following the meeting of President Obama’s economic advisory committee could not have been very reassured by the presence of Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, both former Treasury secretaries in the Clinton administration. Along with former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan, Rubin and Summers compose the high priesthood of the bubble economy. Their policy of one-sided financial deregulation is responsible for the current economic catastrophe.

[...]

While the Bush administration must take responsibility for the current crisis (they have been in power the last 8 years), the stage was set during the Clinton years. The Clinton team set the economy on the path of one-sided financial deregulation and bubble-driven growth that brought us where we are today. (The deregulation was one-sided, because they did not take away the “too big to fail” security blanket of the Wall Street big boys.)

For this reason, it is very discouraging to see top Clinton administration officials standing center stage at President Obama’s meeting on the economy. This is not change, and certainly not policies that we can believe in.

Former President Jimmy Carter, who has been spending the last few years trying to help forge a just peace in the Middle East, said Obama will “not wait for even a month after he is president to start working on the peace process, where as you know, the previous two presidents waited till the least year they were in office before they began the peace process.”

Carter was criticized by Obama during the campaign for meeting with members of Hamas, a political party that took power in the 2006 Palestinian elections.

“I think is a very important issue, I don’t have any doubt in my mind that to find peace and security and human rights for the Palestinians and also for Israel would be a major factor in reducing the threat of terror,” Carter told CNN.

Three leading electronics manufacturers – LG Display Co. Ltd., Sharp Corp. and Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd. –have agreed to plead guilty and pay a total of $585 million in criminal fines for their roles in conspiracies to fix prices in the sale of liquid crystal display (LCD) panels, the Department of Justice announced. Of the $585 million in fines, LG will pay $400 million, the second highest criminal fine ever imposed by the Department’s Antitrust Division.

Today’s charges were filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. The companies have agreed to cooperate with the Department’s ongoing antitrust investigation.

Thin-Film Transistor-Liquid Crystal Display (TFT-LCD) panels are used in computer monitors and notebooks, televisions, mobile phones, and other electronic devices. In 2006, the worldwide market for TFT-LCD panels was approximately $70 billion. Companies directly affected by the LCD price-fixing conspiracies are some of the largest computer, television and cellular telephone manufacturers in the world, including Apple, Dell and Motorola.

“Today’s charges and criminal fines emphasize the commitment of the Department of Justice to crack down on international cartels,” said Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey.

LG Display Co. Ltd, a South Korean corporation, and its wholly-owned subsidiary, LG Display America Inc., a California company (LG), agreed to plead guilty to participating in a conspiracy from September 2001 to June 2006 to fix the price of TFT-LCD panels sold worldwide. During the conspiracy, LG Display Co. Ltd. was known as LG.Philips LCD Co. Ltd. (a joint venture between LG Electronics and Philips Electronics) and LG Display America Inc. was known as LG.Philips LCD America Inc.

Sharp Corp., a Japanese consumer electronics manufacturer, has agreed to pay a $120 million fine for its participation in separate conspiracies to fix the price of TFT-LCD panels sold to Dell Inc. from April 2001 to December 2006 for use in computer monitors and laptops; to Motorola Inc. from fall 2005 to the middle of 2006 for use in Razr mobile phones; and to Apple Computer Inc. from September 2005 to December 2006 for use in iPod portable music players.

Chunghwa, a Taiwanese TFT-LCD panel manufacturer, has agreed to pay a $65 million fine for its participation with LG and other unnamed co-conspirators in a conspiracy from September 2001 to December 2006 to fix the price of TFT-LCD panels sold worldwide.

“These price-fixing conspiracies affected millions of American consumers who use computers, cell phones and numerous other household electronics every day,” said Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department’s Antitrust Division. “These convictions, and the significant fines they carry, should send a clear message that the Antitrust Division will vigorously investigate and prosecute illegal cartels, regardless of where they are located.”

LG, Sharp and Chunghwa are each charged with price fixing in violation of the Sherman Act. Each violation carries a maximum fine of $100 million for corporations. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.

LG Display Co. Ltd., based in Seoul, South Korea, reported $15.3 billion in revenue for 2007.

Sharp, based in Osaka, Japan, reported $34.2 billion in revenues for its fiscal year ending March 31, 2008, including $6.8 billion in revenue from LCD sales.

Chunghwa, based in Taoyuan, Taiwan, Republic of China, reported $4.8 billion in revenue for 2007.

These pleas are the result of a joint investigation by the Antitrust Division’s San Francisco Field Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in San Francisco. The plea agreements are subject to court approval.

Anyone with information concerning illegal conduct in the TFT-LCD industry is urged to call the San Francisco Field Office of the Antitrust Division at 415-436-6660.

The jury ruled that Connolly leaked information to James “Whitey” Bulger and Stephen “The Rifleman” Flemmi, which led to the murder of John B. Callahan, who was killed in Florida 26 years ago, at the age of 45.

Connolly, 68, faces the possibility of serving the rest of his life in prison. The verdict followed seven weeks of testimony in a South Florida Courtroom. Flemmi, 74, who is currently in prison for several murders, was a key witness for the prosecution, according to reports.

Fred Wyshak, a federal prosecutor from Boston who was involved in the prosecution, told The Boston Globe that, barring an arrest of long-time fugitive Whitey Bulger, “this ends what is really a sad chapter in the history of law enforcement in Boston.”

The Associated Press is reporting that Rahm Emanuel has been asked to serve as Obama’s Chief of Staff. Emanuel, who is apparently still mulling over his options, is a curious choice. While few doubt that Emanuel has the respect of his party — he is the fourth ranking House Democrat and has chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) — he is not generally viewed as a change agent.

In fact, as a member of the “New Democrat” Caucus and the conservative-leaning Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), Emanuel is a pro-business Democrat who supported the War in Iraq and advocated for a run-to-the-right strategy that many think doomed the party for years. Adding to the intrigue, is the fact that Obama has made serious efforts to distance himself from this centrist coalition of Democrats, which is now infamous for its enthusiastic support for the invasion of Iraq.

In May 2003, when the DLC included Obama on its list of “100 New Democrats to Watch,” Obama responded in kind.

“I don’t know who nominated me for the DLC list of 100 rising stars, nor did I expend any effort to be included on the list…. I certainly did not view such inclusion as an endorsement on my part of the DLC platform.”

“The message was clear: The DLC needed Obama a lot more than Obama needed the DLC,” wrote Ari Berman in the Nation.

Emmanuel was also an opponent of Howard Dean’s “50-state strategy.” Implemented in 2005, the year Dean was chosen to chair the Democratic National Committee, the plan eschews the old strategy of ignoring red states to focus on more winnable contests. The strategy has been widely viewed as a major success: Democrats have made huge gains in the 2006 and 2008 elections, including in some former Republican strongholds.

Of course, given the state of the economy, many are wondering who will replace Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. Some media reports have heard names, and if the reports are accurate, it appears Obama may pick someone whose approach to solving the current crises is not too distant from Bush’s.

CNBC reports (Bold text in original article):

Newspaper reports suggested New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine is being vetted for the position. Meanwhile we’re hearing other names on the short list include former Clinton Treasury head Larry Summers, New York Fed president Tim Geithner, former Fed Chair Paul Volker and possibly BlackRock CEO Larry Fink.

According Dylan Ratigan, it’s widely believed that Larry Summers is at the top of the list. What does that mean for the Street?

“I don’t think Larry Summers’ bag of tricks will be any different than Hank Paulsons,” says CNBC’s Steve Liesman on Fast Money. In other words Summers basically agrees with the prescriptions made by the Bush administration.

The names listed above are all friends of Wall Street, and in most cases, have direct ties to the industries that have caused the most damage to the US economy. They would all likely favor the status quo on the crises, trade policy and the other basic staples of the American finance system.

Now, Obama has earned a lot of good will from liberals, so he may be afforded some latitude from his supporters – such as unions and the liberal blogosphere. But the possibility exists that if Obama appoints a cabinet loaded with the old guard that dominated the last 30 years – and certainly both parties have supported the deregulation that is now blamed for economic collapse – some of his supporters may not be pleased.

Joe Trippi, who managed Howard Dean’s campaign in 2004 and John Edwards in 2008, made an astute observation on C-SPAN the other day when he suggested that GOP operatives knew damn well that John McCain would lose the general election, and crafted a strategy to cope with this inevitability.

The theory, Trippi explained, is that Republicans went on the attack – calling Obama a socialist, a terrorist sympathizer, an enemy of Israel and a baby killer – not to appease independents in swing states, but rather, to energize the right-wing conservative base in the hopes that they would vote GOP down the ticket, and prevent possible Democratic takeovers in hotly-contested Senate races. The race was over and they were trying to cut legislative losses, so to speak.

“They were not using swing-state language,” Trippi said.

And, it appears the strategy may have paid off. Republican Sen. Ted Stevens is up in Alaska , despite his fraud convictions last week; Sen. Norm Coleman is beating Democrat Al Franken in Minnesota (in a race that may be decided in a recount); Gordon Smith may hold on to Oregon and Saxby Chambliss may hold Georgia.

These were closes races, but a week ago Coleman, Smith and Stevens were all behind in the polls.

Make no mistake, this elections stands as a clear and unambiguous rejection of the GOP. But the sinister attacks that came from a desperate campaign, may have kept the Democrats from expanding the senate even further.

Today, an African American stands at the most powerful man in the world. It is remarkable. But it must be the beginning of something new, rather than the end of something old. The fight against racism must continue on Nov. 5.

]]> http://blastmagazine.com/the-news/2008/11/a-new-beggining/feed/ 1 http://blastmagazine.com/the-magazine/features/2008/11/its-over/ http://blastmagazine.com/the-magazine/features/2008/11/its-over/#comments Wed, 05 Nov 2008 02:50:30 +0000 Michael Corcoran http://blastmagazine.com/?p=5309 McCain will lose the election. The Ohio and New Mexico losses are death blows. There is no forseeable path to victory for McCain.

Now we watch the Senate race with great interest.

It should come as no suprise that Vermont went this direction. The state. arguably the most tolerant and liberal in the nation, has a self-identified socialist in the Senate, a vibrant third party with seats in the State House, and openly supports the impeachment of Bush.

The state is known for it independent streak. 80 years ago, President Calvin Coolidge, said of the Green Mountain State, “If the spirit of liberty should vanish in other parts of the Union and support of our institutions should languish, it could all be replenished from the generous store held by the people of this brave little state of Vermont.”

There is also a curious gubernatorial race going on in the state. Incumbent Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, is going to beat out a Democratic challenger, Gaye Symington (speaker of the Vermont House) and progressive Anthony Pollina, who is tied for Symington in second place, with about 24 percent of the vote, according to recent polls.

Interestingly, Douglas will win, but may not be re-elected right away. If he wins with less than 50 percent of the vote, the Legislature (which is dominated by Democrats) gets to choose the governor by secret ballot. I think they would likely choose Douglas, who will win with a double-digit lead, but I imagine the Douglas campaign is hoping they never have to find out.

McConnell has a “narrow advantage” in the race, but if he manages to lose, it will be a huge blow to Republicans and perhaps an ominous sign of the long night ahead.

Despite the United States recent economic woes, there is no doubt amongst serious observers that the country is still, by far the most powerful nation in the world. The United States military budget – which, I think it is fair to say, gets quite a bit of use – is astronomical. The U.S. accounts almost half of the world’s military spending, with the FY 2009 budget allocating more than $650 billion. To put this in perspective, the next highest spender is the United Kingdom with just over $50 billion. And the U.S. figures do not count the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan which are paid for with supplemental bills and have cost the nation hundreds of billions more over the last five years.

Further, the world economy, for better or worse (worse is the popular answer in 2008), is directly dependent on the U.S economy. Even though China, for example, continues to grow, they are only able to do so by sending 80 percent of their exports to the U.S. Now, as American consumers are becoming thrifty, or broke (or both), Chinese growth is in trouble.

Russia – China’s partner in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which many see as a blossoming counter to the US and NATO – is now losing out on all the revenues that they were getting from $147 barrels of oil. And this drop in oil occurred, at least in part, due to the massive deflation that has occurred since the US economy really hit the skids in September. Venezuela and Iran, two other oil-rich nations with hostile relations with the U.S, are facing the same problems as oil prices go down.

So why is this relevant to the 2008 election? It is a reminder of how important this election, and American policy in general, is to other parts of the world.

In Israel, for example, the right has expressed fears over an Obama presidency. While Obama has said all of the right things, and spoke in front of AIPAC when he finally won the primary, some in Israel are not sure he will be 1) as aggressive on Iran as a McCain or Bush Administration or 2) as willing to continue America’s unconditional (and totally unique) package in aid, which is at $3 billion, the most in the world. This is why the right started singing the “Obama-is-anti-Israel” tune when McCain fell sharply behind (as did Hillary Clinton when she was gasping for anything at the tail end of the divisive primary, which gives you a sense of how predictably low politicians can go when in trouble).

It is a fairly empty tale. Obama has toed the Party line with Israel, pledging continued and increased aid, and insisting that Iran poses a grave threat, despite the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said the opposite.

Nonetheless, this election is watched with great interest from the Israeli right. To follow the coverage in Israel, I recommend, Haaretz, which is widely viewed as the “New York Times of Israel.”

Another country that must be watching with watchful eyes in Pakistan, especially given Obama’s expressed a willingness to bomb the country (which President Bush actually did recently).

Interestingly, Iraqis and U.S. soldiers may have less at stake that one might think. While Obama ran in the primary with anti-war rhetoric , his staff has acknowledged to the Wall Street Journal that he will leave around 35 – 45 thousands troops in the country. Given that a similar draw down is likely under a McCain Administration (though the exact timeline could vary), it appears that the War in Iraq will continue in a lesser fashion, no matter who wins. Still, if anyone wants to read an English language Iraqi newspaper, visit Azzaman in English.

Iranians, too, must be watching with great interest. While both McCain and Obama are willing to talk tough on Iran, Obama has a far more moderate (supported by many Republicans from the Bush I days, such as James Baker and Collin Powell) and reasonable stance on engaging in diplomacy. To read Iranian media visit Press TV and the Islamic Republic News Agency (both state-owned, for what its worth).

And of course, every country has a stake in the U.S. economy. As I listed above, the ramifications of the economic crisis are indeed global, and countries have been scrambling with bailout and stimulus packages, request for aid from the (US controlled) International Monetary Fund and the nationalizing of some banks.

Here, world public opinion is clear: Obama is the favorite for most of the world, which has grown deeply skeptical of U.S. economic policies, and gives most of the blame to Republicans.

Some other foreign news outlets:

The Daily Star (Lebanon)

Russia Today (Russia)

The Independent (United Kingdom)

Dar al Hayet (Saudi Arabia )

]]> http://blastmagazine.com/the-news/2008/11/the-world-is-watching/feed/ 0 http://blastmagazine.com/the-news/2008/11/early-musings/ http://blastmagazine.com/the-news/2008/11/early-musings/#comments Tue, 04 Nov 2008 20:48:56 +0000 Michael Corcoran http://blastmagazine.com/?p=5205 Long lines reported already

*Reports of painfully long lines are already coming in. With record turnout expected, long lines are inevitable. But The New York Times is reporting of excessively long lines in Virginia and Pennsylvania.

From the Times:

By noon on Tuesday some precincts in Chester County, Pa., were reporting that up to half of their registered voters had already cast ballots, said Agnes L. O’Toole, the county’s deputy director of voter services. She said that voters waited in lines that lasted up to two hours. “This is above and beyond an anomaly,” Ms. O’Toole said. “Our phones are off the wall.”

Also, The Times reported that even lines for early voting were excessively long in places like Kansas City and Atlanta yesterday. And things have not gotten better in KC today, according to the Associated Press.

Voters in some Kansas City precincts had to spend extra time in already long lines this morning because poll workers were given the wrong voter registration books.

Voters at All Souls Church at 45th and Walnut Streets and at a polling place in Westport were told by poll workers that they were not on the list of registered voters for that polling place. There also were unconfirmed reports of other precincts suffering similar problems.

The problems caused delays in what was already expected to be a busy day at the polls.

Following the money

*Obama has been leading in each of the last 170 or so national polls, but if you are like many who don’t trust polls, perhaps you can look to the gambling community to better gauge the odds of an Obama or a McCain victory.

BetUS Sportsbook posts the best odds on Senator John McCain with +650 odds (a $100 wager pays out $650) and Sportsbook.com posts the best odds for Senator Barack Obama at -950 odds , (a $950 wager pays out $100). People may lie to pollsters, but in offshore sports books real money is thrown around – and they may actually be a better indicator that national polls.

As one better told the Lang Report,

Polls can be inaccurate. People may say what is politically correct, the questions may be leading, the pollsters may be biased. A pollster can still bill for an inaccurate poll. Bookmakers must make an accurate line or they lose — period.

]]> http://blastmagazine.com/the-news/2008/11/early-musings/feed/ 0 http://blastmagazine.com/the-news/2008/11/election-2008-blast-off/ http://blastmagazine.com/the-news/2008/11/election-2008-blast-off/#comments Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:51:11 +0000 Michael Corcoran http://blastmagazine.com/?p=5191 Hello there. Welcome to Blast Magazine’s election coverage. I am happy to say that my friend and colleague, John Guilfoil, has asked me to help out with today’s election coverage.

I have long been deeply interested in public affairs, and this election is no exception. I have previously been published in The Boston Globe, The Nation, AlterNet, Common Dreams, Campus Progress and elsewhere.

I hope to provide running updates with news, commentary and such as voting continues and the results come in. I will try to stay on top of developments with the presidential race, voter suppression, the senate races and the occasional state or local race, if they seem noteworthy enough. And other odds and ends will be covered as they come up.

While many are expecting an Obama victory to be declared fairly early, the fate of several senate seats, however, could go well into the night. And some of the more intriguing races are indeed there, where Republican incumbents such as Norm Coleman , of Minnesota, and Ted Stevens (who was convicted of seven felonies last week), of Alaska, are fighting for their political lives.

A decent election guide (with an open pro-Democrat viewpoint) can be found here. A look at television options can be found here.

Feel free to drop a line, debate a point or contact me for any other reason at m.corcoran(at)yahoo.com. Check back often for updates.

Of course, Vonnegut and Twain never met. Twain, who like Vonnegut was a humanist, died in 1910, at age 75.

Kurt Vonnegut was born in 1922.

So it is quite telling that Vonnegut would name his son after a man he never met other than through the written word; it shows he understood quite well how strong and lasting the relationship between an author and reader can be.

Vonnegut said he was influenced by Twain because he read him during his “formative years.” This is fitting, as Vonnegut, whose 14 novels for better or worse, are often in the “young adult” section of public libraries, is especially suited to shape the minds of young writers and readers during their formative years.

For example, when Vonnegut appeared on the Daily Show in 2005, in what would be one of his last television appearances, Jon Stewart introduced him as “the man who made my adolescence tolerable.” Doubtless that thousands watching nodded in agreement.

So what was about Vonnegut that endeared him to the idealists among us? After all, Vonnegut was known, and criticized, for his chronic pessimism. He once said that “all great literature is about what a bummer it is to be a human being: Moby Dick, Huckleberry Finn, The Red Badge of Courage, the Iliad and the Odyssey, Crime and Punishment, the Bible and The Charge of the Light Brigade.” He wondered why kids weren’t taught about failure in school, since it is the thing they would experience most in life. And like Stephen Crane before him, Vonnegut was wrote of a hopeless determinism, calling humans the “listless playthings of enormous forces.“ “[B]ugs trapped in the amber of the moment,“ he wrote in Slaughterhouse-Five, “there is no why.”

His cynicism did not waver with age. In the 1997’s Timequake, he said being alive was a “crock of shit.” In a 2004 essay for In These Times, he said “I know now that there is not a chance in hell of America’s becoming humane and reasonable.” More recently, he went as far as to predict, sincerely, that the end of the world was near. “We have squandered our planet’s resources, including air and water, as though there were no tomorrow, so now there isn’t going to be one.”

While this dark tone drew heat from many critics, it resonated with readers. Vonnegut opened wounds with the intent of healing them, not to throw salt on them.

Yes he confesses in Slaughterhouse-Five, that trying to end war is a futile endeavor. But he refused to allow this to deter his desire to try, telling his children that they “are not under any circumstances to take part in massacres, and that the news of massacres of enemies is not to fill them with satisfaction or glee.” He writes of our lack of free will, but in 1959’s Sirens of Titan says that “the purpose of life, no matter who is controlling it, is to love whoever is abound to be loved.” He was a proudly non-religious, and an honorary president of the American Humanist Association, yet wanted his epitaph to read: “The only proof he needed for the existence of God was music.”

His idealism was often on display. Perhaps no more than In 1965’s God Bless You Elliot Rosewater. Here Vonnegut’s protagonist, inherited enormous wealth, and decided to use it to provide help–financial and emotional– to those people who were of no use to society.

While this type of philanthropy was viewed as the result of a mental disorder by most of society, it made sense to Vonnegut’s most famous character (and alter ego) Kilgore Trout, who responded “it is news that a man was able to give that kind of love over a long period of time. If one man can do it, perhaps others can do it, too. It means that our hatred of useless human beings and the cruelties we inflict upon them for their own good need not be parts of human nature. Thanks to the example of Eliot Rosewater, millions upon millions of people may learn to love and help whomever they see.”

He also managed to turn his deterministic views into a positive. His writings rarely placed blame, nor had any villains. In Slapstick, the main character spoke of his sister saying: “Since Alice had never received any religious instruction, and since she had led a blameless life, she never thought of her awful luck as being anything but accidents in a very busy place. Good for her.”

In the hilarious novel Breakfast of Champions he drew up what Kilgore Trout wanted as a tombstone, and in doing so, described quite nicely Vonnegut’s views on the what one can hope to achieve in life. It read:

Somebody

[sometime to sometime]

He Tried

In his own way, Vonnegut did serve as a voice of hope to his readers. “Though he was sometimes derided as too gloomy and cynical,” an article in the AV club recently said, “Vonnegut’s most resonant messages have always been hopeful in the face of almost-certain doom.” And he wanted it this way. Passing along advice from his Uncle, Vonnegut suggested that we should celebrate the good times–perhaps a glass of lemonade, or a day of fishing– and simply say: “If this isn’t nice, what is?”

Vonnegut was a prisoner of war during the firebombing of Dresden during World War II. He survived what turned out to be one of the most disturbing examples of indiscriminate killings of civilians in modern history. “The firebombing of Dresden,” he wrote, “was a work of art … a tower of smoke and flame to commemorate the rage and heartbreak of so many who had had their lives warped or ruined by the indescribable greed and vanity and cruelty of Germany.”

This no doubt would come to shape his literary career, and propel him into becoming a fierce critic of war until the day he died.

His Dresden book, Slaughterhouse-five, which Reader’s Digest lists as the 18th greatest novel in American history, quickly became a classic anti-war novels. He subtitled it The Children’s Crusade, since the soldiers fighting in World War II “were just babies.”

He also coined the famous term, “so it goes” using it every time someone in the book died.

“Robert Kennedy, whose summer home is eight miles from the home I live in all year round was shot two nights ago. He died last night. So it goes. Martin Luther King was shot a month ago. He died, too. So it goes. And every day my Government gives me a count of corpses created by military science in Vietnam. So it goes.”

The AV club called these recurring phrase “three simple, world-weary words that simultaneously accept and dismiss everything.”

In Mother Night, he noted the dangers of patriotism and nationalism and their roles in legitimizing war. He wrote: “[Hating my country] would be as silly as loving it … It’s impossible for me to get emotional about it, because real estate doesn’t interest me. It’s no doubt a great flaw in my personality, but I can’t think in terms of boundaries. Those imaginary lines are as unreal to me as elves and pixies.”

The fame and credibility that Vonnegut received from his work, propelled him into the role of a social critic of sorts. He was especially outspoken about the United States roles in current wars. In his widely read essay Cold Turkey he said our leaders were “power-drunk chimpanzees” and that our troops “are being treated, as I never was, like toys a rich kid got for Christmas.”

He added, “We’re spreading democracy, are we? Same way European explorers brought Christianity to the Indians, what we now call “Native Americans.”

He also spoke candidly on the need other issues such as economic justice and the environment. He cited as an influence Eugene Debs who ran as the Socialist Party’s candidate for President four times in the early 20th century, including once from jail. He would participate in readings of Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. He also lamented what humans were doing to the earth writing in his last book, A Man without a Country, that “we could have saved it [the planet], but were too darn cheap and lazy.“ After Hurricane Katrina, Vonnegut told Bill Maher that he thought “the Earth’s immune system is trying to get rid of us, and it is high time that it did.”

While Vonnegut’s role as a fearless social and political critic no doubt endeared him to many, no doubt it was his astute ability to say what others thought, but couldn’t figure out how to say that cemented him as one the most influential American writers. Not only the did the author debunk conventional thought on religion, politics and humanity–but he did so with frighteningly simple ease: forcing his readers to see the absurdity of this world and the folly of the human condition. Such as the way he called smoking a “fairly sure, fairly honorable way of committing suicide” or suggested that ”If you really want to hurt your parents, and you don’t have the nerve to be a homosexual, the least you can do is go into the arts.”

In the heart of his themes, however, was to communicate with others who shared his outrage over the way humans treat each other. And to make this world a little less lonely. In Bluebeard he asked what is literature “but an insider’s newsletters about affairs relating to molecules, of no importance to anything in the Universe but a few molecules who have the disease called ‘thought.’”

But for all his talk of life’s hopelessness, and dread, in the end Vonnegut seemed to have found his place on this world–and he seemed to know it. In Timequake he asked himself why should one bother writing at all.

“So why bother [to write]? Here is my answer. Many people need desperately to receive this message: ‘I feel and think much as you do, care about many of the things you care about, although most people do not care about them. You are not alone.’”

Thanks to Vonnegut–our century’s Mark Twain–millions of readers, many in their “formative years” and some who have not even been born yet, will indeed here that message.

And if that isn’t nice, what is?