I am writing to express my outrage at your fund-raising effort in support of rabid Blue Dog Jane Harman. As I am sure you are aware, Harman is a corporatist, a militarist and a big fan of the all-powerful national-security surveillance state (except for a brief moment when her own conversations were secretly recorded and made public, suggesting her own improper relationship with AIPAC).

I have always considered you one of the very finest members of the House. To this point I have supported you on almost every issue. I once considered it almost axiomatic that you would use your position and power, the power we gave you, to do the right thing for the citizens you represent.

But your support for Jane Harman flies in the face of all you stand for, and is inexcusable. What agenda will be served by returning this cynical multi-millionaire Blue Dog hypocrite to the House?

You, in this one move, have undermined a lifetimes worth of trust many progressives have had in you.

Even worse, you make it more likely that a champion of elitism, illegal surveillance and militarism will continue to make things worse in the House of Representatives with her right-wing world view and positions on issues.

Whatever happens now, I will never view you in the same light again. I can only speculate as to what possessed you to provide direct fund-raising support for Jane Harman. All such speculation however, leads me to the same conclusion.

Many of us that have been in the trenches these many years in support of progressive causes can find no good reason to excuse this unconscionable act. Harman supported Bush, his wars, his spying, all of it. By virtue of your position and reputation, your association with Harman weakens the term progressive, and is a slap at all those that have supported you over the years.

I call on you to immediately resign from any position of leadership in the Progressive Caucus because it is clear your strategic vision to achieve progressive change is self-canceling. You cannot be taken seriously as a ‘progressive’ when you directly support a right-wing candidate with an anti-progressive agenda and a clear record of negating your vote numerous times on important legislation.

And while so many of us in your district feel that any support for Harman is inexcusable, I have yet to hear you defend or explain your actions. Representative Woolsey, what are you thinking? How, in your mind, does your direct support for a Blue Dog make sense?

We in your district would appreciate a thoughtful response, as so many of us are big fans of accountability when it comes to the actions of politicians that we have supported.

I will personally do all I can to bring this matter to the attention of progressives here. I assure you support for Harman or anything resembling her politics, is very hard to find in this district. This is particularly so amongst those that are most familiar with her extreme right-wing views and voting record.

Harman is no friend of democracy, progressive causes or fair play, and your support for her is incomprehensible.

Paul Dean

Sebastopol Ca

They understand that to keep in place a fundamentally irrational system, they have to maintain an eternal vigilance to prevent dangerous principles like logic, reason and fairness from entering into the healthcare equation. The ‘industry’ must make for-profit medicine seem normal, acceptable, and our only reasonable option. They must also make the kinds of publicly funded healthcare systems operated by most every other nation on the planet seem weird, subversive and dangerous.

Much of the vacuous banter about “healthcare reform” that appears in the press and in speeches by our politicians seems designed to be both boring and to make healthcare issues appear very complex. Health insurance, in concept, is really not a devastatingly difficult thing to understand.

Here’s how it works: The insured pool their resources so that when any of them get sick the pool pays for their care. The pool must also pay the system’s administrative costs. This is the comprehensive list of essential elements.

It only seems so simple because it is.

Most of the complications involved in “reforming” our present system can be traced back to its fundamental design defect. We place a huge burden on our health care system by demanding that “profit” be extracted from its operation. It is this design characteristic that twists, perverts and distorts the very notion of health care in America.

It seems obvious that the first goal of a “health care provider” should be to give the best possible care to those that are “provided” for. Just as obviously, we can see that in our for-profit health care system, delivery of actual care is a side effect.

Is there really any question that a “healthcare” system that allows insurance companies to deny coverage to people on the grounds that they may actually need medical care is one that has been hideously deformed, diverted and subverted? It might be more accurately described as a “profit delivery” system.

But to the dismay of those that are committed to spreading fairy dust, every healthcare system creates a product that can be examined. According to the World Health Organization, our nation ranks 37th in the world in quality of care, placing just below Costa Rica and Dominica. Our system now leaves about 50 million people without access to even basic medical care.

But we are number one, and by a large margin, in cost of medical services, executive compensation, and percentage of healthcare dollars spent on administrative overhead. Without a generous quantity of fairy dust, a phony debate in the corporate media, the complicity of a bought-off Congress, and a new President whose words support reform but whose timid, incremental approach will likely only diminish the possibility of systemic change, the inexcusably lame performance of our health care system would be recognized for what it is: intolerable.

Imagine your car came in 37th in the race, after you dropped more money than anyone thought possible on the most expensive model that was available. If you really wanted to win, wouldn’t it be best to pay attention to the fact that all 36 of the much faster cars that beat you in the race use an engine design that is completely different from yours? What if you discovered that the other cars, in addition to being faster, used only about half the fuel your car burned?

Would you then go home and tinker with your carburetor in the hopes that a little tweaking would somehow overcome the poor performance that results from the basic design of your machine? Or would you consider it obvious that your only chance to compete successfully would be to replace your obsolete and incredibly expensive racecar with one that has been designed to deliver a higher level of performance?

When it comes to healthcare, President Obama seems to support the carburetor-tweaking approach. According to an article by Bill Moyers, Obama was asked at a town hall meeting a couple of weeks ago about the possibility of switching to a single-payer national health care system. He said that single-payer might “make sense” but only if we were “starting from scratch” to build a new health care system. Obama says our current for-profit healthcare system is “too large a percentage of our economy” to consider changing.

To the fifty million Americans without any health insurance at all, and to the millions more that are struggling under the crushing financial burden of our current system, I am sure it appears that health care is too large a percentage of our economy to consider not changing. It is only so very large because it has gorged itself on our misery until it has become insupportable.

If you discovered that leeches were attached to your flesh, would you decline to remove them on the grounds that they had already consumed such a large a percentage of your blood that it would not be wise to disturb them now?

Granted, if I were designing a brand new health care system “from the ground up,” I would not create one in which the primary mandate was to establish and maintain a parasitic executive class whose main function was to generously award itself the largest share possible from funds that would otherwise be available to care for sick people.

But regardless of whether we are in the process of creating, operating, maintaining, or “reforming” our health care system, what does not make sense is to retain the one design element that contains within it a terminal conflict of interest that no tinkering can ever resolve. A for-profit system assumes that we can somehow make people rich as a result of caring for the sick, but what we really do is make people sick by caring for the rich.

One thing is clear: despite spending tens of millions of dollars worth of their ill-gotten profits to buy off our politicians and deform public opinion on the issues, Americans are not buying the traditional array of industry excuses any more. Even absent any substantial support for the idea in Washington or in the corporate mass media, about two- thirds of our citizens want to switch to a single-payer system now.

What is there really to argue or debate? Healthcare industry executives, some of the best paid people on the planet, seem less than eager to appear before the public in front of a banner that reads, “We’re number thirty seven — and that’s good enough!” So they and their politicians and media outlets spread fairy dust.

Virtually all of the current “reform” plans being tossed about by our politicians, including the much-touted “public option,” leave in place a network of for-profit private insurance companies to administer the system.

This arrangement fails completely to address our systemic defect. For-profit healthcare is the problem. It cannot possibly be the solution.

This is why I will not be joining with the liberal groups that are frantically calling for us to support “Obama’s public option” against the forces of darkness. I don’t believe that this is where the battle should be fought. In my cosmology, it seems clear that the forces of darkness have already wormed their way into Obama’s plans and processes, rendering any and all detailed discussion of them a waste of time.

Democrats control the White House and both branches of Congress, and could count on the overwhelming support of a large majority of citizens on the single-payer issue. Yet they refuse to even put real reform “on the table.” Instead, they choose to put all of their effort into a battle over incredibly complex sets of half-measures that are designed to placate the insurance and drug industries by leaving them in firm control of our system. Even then, they seem to be preparing us for the idea that they may somehow actually lose this little skirmish to the big bad evil Republican obstructionists.

This approach is absurd and should be considered unacceptable. It will leave us with no option other than to continue tiptoeing around the elephant that has taken up permanent residence in our living room.

The solution to our perpetual health care dilemma is actually far simpler than all of that. What we need and should demand is fundamental systemic reform. In this situation, the only reform worthy of its name will be of the kind that unequivocally removes the profit motive from our health care system, and covers everyone under a federally administered single-payer plan.

“If you don’t give us trillions”
The CEOs began to squeak
“It’ll cost you zillions
The market’s gonna freak!”
Then those hungry eyes all turned to Bill
To question his intent
Was Bill a friend to billionaires?
Or from some demon sent?

But if ever there was question
Bill soon left there be no doubt
The first words that he spoke
Made them jump for joy and shout
Though there never was much question
The whole thing became a rout
When right away he told them
“Boys, we’re gonna bail you out!”

Then he said “I came here thinking bailout
Cause I’ve got bailout on my mind
And we want to do this bailout
Before bailout gets defined
And then we’re gonna bail out
Go sip champagne and wine
We won’t be here when they find out
Bailout Bill just robbed ‘em blind!”

And Bailout Bill became their Savior
His blessed words did soothe their souls
When he said “I’ll never leave you Wall Street boys
Outside in the cold
You boys are not some average Joes
You’re in a different class
It just won’t do if boys like you
Fall down on your ass”

“Cause when you reach a certain size
(Much bigger than a whale)
If we let you fall you crush us all
‘Cause you’re too big to fail
Yes, you’re all much too big to fail”
Bill told each giant firm
“So here’s a great big pile of Federal cash
For all of you to burn”

(Chorus unison “Here’s a great big stash of federal cash
for all of you to burn”)

“Let me tell you about free markets” Bill said
“Freedom isn’t free
Because failure’s not on option
For great big men like you and me
So my bi-partisan shipmates and I
Implore you: do not fret
As sure as my name’s Bailout Bill
We’ll socialize your debt!”

And as Bill stood there before them
Those titans on the Hill
It warmed their hearts (and private parts)
As only bailouts will
Said Bill “I’ve got one more thing
To say before I go
This is Bailout Bill from Capitol Hill
And it’s the Billionaire Bailout Show!”

(Chorus unison “Bailout Bill will be back next week
For the Billionaire Bailout Show!”)

The president (whose expertise on the subject of addiction is said to have been built upon a solid foundation of direct experience) seems to have proposed a bold strategy here to cure our ills. If we define addiction as a disease, the approach bears scrutiny to see if it can have crossover potential as a cure for other forms of this same disease.

Let’s deal with just the obvious: perhaps America’s Drug Czar should announce that the country has a drug addiction problem, but that we are taking bold steps to increase production of heroin and cocaine, with the goal of providing every addict enough substance to meet demand.

You see where I’m going with this. We’re talking Enron-style, heavyweight Republican outside-the-box stuff, like “gambling therapy” bus tours to Las Vegas casinos for gaming addicts.

Here is a news flash for Mr. Bush: This “addiction” to oil he has only recently discovered was built into our cities and suburbs, into our transportation systems, our agricultural production systems, our manufacturing systems, and our political structure as a matter of deliberate policy over decades. Millions of Americans and citizens of other industrial societies have been acutely aware for more than thirty years that there are and will continue to be huge social, economic and environmental problems associated with our increasing reliance on oil. Many serious questions, which demand real answers, have also arisen from insightful critiques on the negative effects to society of the huge accumulation of capital and political power as a result of the emergence of oil-based multinational corporate economies with near-monopoly power and nearly unlimited wealth. People have for years been questioning what effect oil depletion will have on the availability and affordability of oil as a reliable commodity into the future. These are not trivial questions, especially in light of our increasing societal dependence on the stuff for survival.

Bush, in typical fashion, wholly enabled by a conspiratorial media wind at his back, addresses none of these concerns in the slightest. Sure, we know that reducing all media presentation to its simplest intellectual level, to create powerful emotional inducements to specific behaviors, is an effective tool for disseminating propaganda and controlling perceptions. Repetitive sloganeering, gross reductionism of complex ideas into simplistic concepts, and appeals to instinct over intellect — all of these are at least peripheral characteristics of fascism. These techniques have already been routinely employed by US corporate media for decades, but they have gained in prominence in recent years. Even so, given the reductionist, paternalistic, pathetically overly simplistic “news” media world of George Bush and his handlers, the master propagandists do not look like masters of anything in this latest effort.

Whereas treatment for many addictions may require a twelve-step program, Bush’s plan reduces the number of steps to two, one of which is entirely passive. Step one: admit you are a junkie. Step 2: Get junk. End of story.

There is not even enough dynamic tension in Bush’s addiction/cure scenario to use it as the basis for the plot of a Hollywood movie. For example, look at The Days Of Wine and Roses, the classic 1962 Oscar winning film about alcoholism and its associated despair, which featured a brilliant performance by Jack Lemmon in his portrayal of a fundamentally decent man caught in the downward spiral of addiction. In that work, the writers felt it necessary that the main character should struggle against his alcoholism. I can’t help but feel the overall dramatic effect might have been diminished if, instead of producing heart-wrenching revelations of his despair in front of his Alcoholics Anonymous group, Lemmon’s character Joe Clay had stood before the group and said, “Hi I’m Joe and I’m an alcoholic. As a matter of fact, I’m headed for the liquor store right now. Who’s with me?”

No, Bush (as is most often the case) gets no credit for originality, insight or scoop when he tells us we are addicted to oil. And while his “cure” for that addiction, i.e., to feed it, would seem to score points for originality of concept in a kind of sick and corrupt way, closer inspection will reveal that there is really nothing original in this concept either. Quite the contrary, feeding America’s oil addiction has always been official policy.

But curiously, Bush does not seem saddened, reflective, sorrowful, etc. in any way by his acknowledgment of the fact that we are an entire nation of oil addicts, in much the same way he seems stoic about the million or so people that have been killed in his oil wars. Of course, GWB, by any measure, is no Jack Lemmon, and thus does not have the depth and range of emotional expression to draw from for his performances. But I have to ding him on this one, more so than usual, and that is no casual statement. If television viewers wanted to see their leader evoke powerful emotions, they would have done better to tune into his dramatic revelation of the hardships and deprivation he has endured as a result of heroically sacrificing golf in solidarity with the war propaganda effort.

As a musician and performer myself, I have learned to recognize a song and dance routine when I see one. But the emotional content in Bush’s delivery of his addiction lament, the oily tone and timbre of it, seemed all wrong. Songs about addiction and its costs, by tradition, have a plaintive, melancholic tone. The archetype for this could be Neil Young’s 1971 hit “The Needle and the Damage Done,” in which the storyteller recounts with horror his gut wrenching observations of the destructive effects of heroin on his compatriots.

Far from elegiac, Bush’s tone was more like that of a sadistic Mick Jagger in the classic Rolling Stones celebration of pride in the humiliation of others, “Under My Thumb.”

I am a musician, writer and political activist, and a longtime Tom Petty fan. I am writing to tell you that I am very distressed by the fact that Tom is planning to perform at the Super Bowl this Sunday. The biggest cause of this distress is the fact that the main sponsor of the half-time event is, as I am sure you are aware, Bridgestone/Firestone. Perhaps you are unaware that Bridgestone/Firestone operates the largest rubber plantation in the world in Liberia, where it has employed child labor for much, if not all, of the past 82 years. Currently, workers there receive as pay the equivalent of $3.19 per day. Most live in company housing with no running water, in buildings that have not been renovated since they were constructed in 1926. The workers (and their families) are routinely exposed to toxic chemicals. Recent attempts at unionization have been brutally suppressed by police, in violation of internationally recognized labor and human rights.

Of course, Bridgestone/Firestone, the largest tire manufacturer in the world, is looking to raise its visibility and improve its image with the American public. I can hardly believe that Mr. Petty would participate in this effort by lending his name and talent in support of this despicable corporate misbehavior if he were to be made aware of the issues involved.

Mr. Petty has been (to this point) associated in my mind with rebels, rock and roll, and also loosely with a spirit of brotherhood and sisterhood that emerged from the activism and camaraderie of the global peace, justice and solidarity movement of the 1960s and ’70s. But his association with Bridgestone/Firestone and scheduled participation in this Super Bowl is giving me a new impression.

I know there is a great deal of money to be made from exposure to such a mass audience, but at what cost? I am willing to assume that lending tacit support to the brutal exploitation of the labor of desperate people trying to make a decent life for themselves is not something that Mr. Petty would support were he to be made aware of the extensively documented antisocial and brutal behavior of his corporate sponsor.

Here are just a couple of links. Please take a moment to review this material:

* “Super Bowl of Shame” (by Jamie Menutis, Foreign Policy in Focus, 1/28/08)

* “Stopping Firestone: Getting Rubber to Meet the Road” (by Roxanne Lawson and Tim Newman, Foreign Policy in Focus, 12/7/06)

I would very much appreciate it if you would pass this message, these links, or a synopsis of this plea to Mr. Petty.

Actions, they say, always speak louder than words, or song lyrics, or images of rock and roll rebellion. I really don’t want to believe that Mr. Petty values money and career advancement over the lives and welfare of children in Liberia, or of working people anywhere. That is why I have taken the time to try and make Tom Petty and your entire organization aware of the harsh realities that these desperate workers and their families face at the hands of the folks at Bridgestone/Firestone.

To my way of thinking, a rock and roll hero that knowingly lends a hand (or his good name) to corporate abusers is no hero at all, and deserves to have his image adjusted accordingly.

Unquestionably, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers would receive a career boost from exposure to a huge Super Bowl audience. I cannot help thinking, though, that their legacy would be better served if Petty were to announce his intention to back out of participation in the Super Bowl in order to better stand for principle over profit. That would be my idea of an action worthy of a respectable rock icon.

Thanks for your time and consideration,

Paul Dean
Sebastopol, CA