Medicare for All

True health care reform is the new anti-slavery movement. Not since the dark days of yokes and chains have we faced an issue so burning with the moral imperative for change.

The current profits-over-people private health insurance industry must go, just as it has in nearly the entire expanse of the planet. Just like slavery, America stands alone as the last developed country that not only allows, but actively encourages, a private profit-making middle-man industry to thrive at the expense of human health. This industry made $17 billion in profits last year alone, while an average of 122 people die each day from the inability to get health care.

None of us are secure. A lost job, changing family dynamics, grave illness or any other of life's many vagaries can lead to a termination of one's ability to get insurance. Ever-soaring premiums leave the rest of us a worried, financially depleted mess.

The real crime is that the current system is absolutely unnecessary. From the start, it was conceived as a profit center for the few at the expense of the many. Private insurers are nothing more than meddling middle-men who do nothing to add value to our life-saving health delivery system. This is why they spend hundreds of millions greasing the politicians, who do Olympian-sized acrobatic maneuvers to put on the appearance of "reform" while protecting the insurers' lock on the system.

BILLIONS in profits in a system that were the American people to awaken, they would see is so useless we would end it in a heartbeat. This is the reason they spend millions in propaganda, to paint reformers as "socialists," and the United States government as an evil, incompetent good-for-nothing enemy of the people.

Newspapers, themselves the beneficiaries of insurance advertising money, are tripping all over themselves promoting reform, but they perform the same acrobatics with noble prose made meaningless by the omission of the key to real reform: abolition of our current for-profit health insurance system.

It is imperative to note here that those in the industry are good people, doing what they are supposed to do by maximizing profit. It is the system that is the problem. And it is only a matter of time before we change it, for the immorality of this system that puts profits ahead of people is so great, so obvious, that this truth will not long remain hidden.

Expanding Medicare for all is the only true reform. We could harness the tremendous efficiencies of a system we already have in operation. Total overhead costs and waste would go from the current 33 percent (the approximate low end of the scale) to under 4 percent, providing enough savings to cover us all and do so more cheaply.

Never again would we lose insurance. Never would we be denied for pre-existing conditions. Never would a private insurer meddle between us and our doctors. Medicare for all is the only true reform solution. It is the future. And the future has arrived.

Me? Savvy?

**This was my off the cuff (from the heart) response on the Courier-Journal's Point Taken blog to a detractor's charge that I was not "savvy". As it turns out this perfectly summarizes my philosophy, and why I would not be a good political candidate--at least in the conventional sense.
-------------

Me? Savvy? I have no idea--I hate labels and do not live my life with them in mind. I am probably not at all savvy in the sense of political gamesmanship. As I just said I do not let "public opinion" influence what I see as truth, as what will best benefit our greater public interest, long term. Thus, I will always choose speaking and standing for truth before I help encourage my country, my people from charging over the cliff, be that an illegal, immoral and counterproductive war or the continuation of a philosophy that lets the wolves guard our henhouse, that protects the wealth of the few at the expense of the many.

Single Payer Universal Healthcare is Economical, it is Moral, it is Constitutional, it is doable and it is TIME!

The following speech was presented to the Central Kentuckians for SINGLE PAYER Universal Healthcare reform Forum, Saturday, August 29, at the historic Kentucky Theater....


A. GOOD MORNING! It’s a beautiful day to talk about healthcare reform!! I am excited, FOR I know we will have MEANINGFUL Healthcare reform! Americans proven over and over that when we follow the truth, and act with justice we stand united and come together for our greater good—AND WE WILL DO IT AGAIN!


You know, on the way over I met a man who suffered a serious heart attack and they took him to the nearest hospital over to St. Joe and they fixed him up good. The nun from the billing dept came up and asked how he was going to pay.
“Do you have insurance?” “NO,” he said in a raspy voice.
“Well, do you have any money?” “No, no money at all.”
“What about family?”
“Ah, all I got is this old spinster sister of mine who is a nun.”“SIR! I’ll have you know, we nuns are not spinsters! Nuns are married to GOD!”
His face lit up as he said, “GREAT! In that case send the bill to my brother-in-law!”


B. I am going to share with you FOUR BIG TRUTHS:

1) THAT SINGLE PAYER universal HEALTHCARE is the MOST economical, most effective and fairest system possible. Everybody in, nobody out, no pre-existing conditions, no terminations, no exclusions, denials, rationing, or bankruptcies, quality health care for all!

2) THAT SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE is a CONSTITUTIONAL imperative, that is, our federal government has an AFFIRMATIVE DUTY to act on our behalf;

3) THAT SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE is a MORAL IMPERATIVE

4) THAT CONTRARY TO THE ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA, OUR GOVERNMENT IS GOOD, and has for our 230 year history has helped make America the finest country on the planet.

C. The FIRST TRUTH---- SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE IS THE MOST ECONOMICAL, EFFECTIVE AND FAIREST SYSTEM.


1) YOU just saw the terrific film, Sick around the World, and you saw how good other’s systems are compared to ours—THEY ALL have UNIVERSAL, NON-PROFIT health care system, and many have Single Payer. THE REASON Single Payer works is that it is SO MUCH MORE EFFICIENT it will make every dollar we currently spend go nearly TWICE as far.

Essentially SINGLE PAYER replaces the more than 1300 for-profit private insurance companies with ONE BIG INSURANCE POOL, ONE BIG PLAN that is owned and operated by…..US, the people of the United States of America, and JUST LIKE MEDICARE, along with Social Security, the most successful and endearing government program, WE THE PEOPLE will administer this non-profit UNIVERSAL PLAN. PUBLICLY financed with our tax dollars and PRIVATELY delivered by our current medical system. MEDICARE FOR ALL.

2) HOW IS THIS MORE ECONOMICAL? Right now we have 1300 for profit HEALTH INSURERS whose primary mission is to MAXIMIZE PROFIT AND MINIMIZE CARE.

**NOW LET ME GET THIS OUT THERE right away—the PEOPLE in the private insurance industries, including the CEO’s are not bad people, many are community leaders, compassionate and generous people. It is not them, but THE SYSTEM that is bad. They are just doing their job, which is to maximize profits…

At any rate, our CURRENT SYSTEM allows the private insurance companies to make many billions each year by PUTTING PROFITS OVER PEOPLE—BY basically denying care & by denying coverage to those most in need, cherry picking the healthiest clients, then being tight fisted on what they cover even with them. Their profits have risen nearly 5 times since 1999, well over $15 billion per year, the top 10 CEO’s average $14 million per year salaries..

All these private insurance companies have huge overhead. They spend about 22% of their revenues on administration, marketing and profits—HUGE profits, not to mention the money they spend to grease the politicians’ palms!! THEN there are the additional costs to the DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS, the providers of care, for they must deal with all the bureaucratic red tape of all the different insurance companies.

SO IN TOTAL, this needless overhead consumes about ONE THIRD—33% --of every dollar we spend on health care.

With SINGLE PAYER we can save more than $350 BILLION a year on this wasted paperwork, enough to provide coverage to everybody without paying more than we are now.

TO REPEAT: IN TOTAL ABOUT 33% OF EVERY DOLLAR WE SPEND GOES TO WASTED ADMINISTRATIVE FEES and corporate profits and bonuses. By contrast MEDICARE’s administrative costs are AROUND 4%!!

ONE BIG POOL, ONE BIG PLAN, owned and operated by…US, you, me the taxpayer!! EVERYBODY IN, NOBODY OUT. A HIGHLY EFFICIENT MEDICARE FOR ALL!

3) HOW IS S/P THE FAIREST, MOST EFFECTIVE REFORM? We currently spend twice what other developed countries spend per capita but get much less quality and quantity. The very unfairness of putting profit over people is why every other advanced country—all of whom have higher rankings than the US—have gone to a UNIVERSAL H/C and most have a SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM.

4) HOW DOES IT WORK? Every employee/worker will pay around 3% of their salary AND employers will pay around 4.5% PLUS there will be a slight tax rise for the wealthiest among us.

5) HOW DO WE GET CARE? You simply go to the doctor of your choice DR/PATIENT RELATIONSHIP PROTECTED. THERE WILL BE NO DENIALS FOR PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, you cannot lose your insurance if you get seriously ill OR lose your job, YOU CAN NOT GO BANKRUPT from medical bills—AND—BONUS—it will cover everything—ALL DR visits—NO CO-PAYS, DEDUCTABLES, limits or exclusions AND it includes all DENTAL, EYES, even nursing homes.

6) WILL STOP rationing and death squads! NOW we have a system where the for-profit private insurers are DENYIN’, DENYIN’ DENYIN’ AND PEOPLE ARE DYIN’, DYIN’, DYIN’!


7) ALSO, SINGLE PAYER will RESCUE the American free enterprise system.

Without health care reform, small businesses will pay nearly $2.4 trillion dollars over the next ten years in health care costs for their workers, 178,000 small business jobs will be lost by 2018 as a result of health care costs, 11. The Economic Impact of Healthcare Reform on Small Business, Small Business Majority, June 2009.


Right now small businesses have a disadvantage compared to large companies. As an employer I can tell you that nothing was more gutwrenching then when one of our employees or their child got sick and they could not afford health insurance. Especially a single mom, no way to pay $12,000/year! It lowered morale, made others sick, hurt productivity. And now over 30% of small businesses offer no plan. WITH single payer, all companies big and small are on a level playing field. And for BIG companies their costs will be lower and they will be more competitive with foreign companies.

8) Finally, SINGLE PAYER will be a boom to our economy! MANY new jobs in health care will be created. More schools to train MORE doctors, more nurses and tech and support. Those working in HMOS in lower and middle position will get two years of unemployment, MONEY for re-training and opportunities to join the expanded MEDICARE administration.


SECOND TRUTH—SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL IMPERATIVE

1) THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, history’s most respected and enduring political document, practically screams for A SINGLE PAYER healthcare system! The pre-amble to the Constitution is its spirit, it lists the reasons why our founders set off on their bold experiment of self-government, and the reasons for creating the CONSTITUTION and new country. Here is what it says:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, ]promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE! Nothing today can better promote the general welfare than Single Payer Universal healthcare my friends!


THIRD, SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE IS A MORAL IMPERATIVE:

Now when I speak of a morality here I refer to a greater moral purpose that exists beyond any and all religion. We all have different paths, but I truly believe they diverge at the point of heartfelt human compassion. And that is what I am talking about. So when I mention God, that is my own personal insertion and is not necessarily representative of all who have an equal sense of morality but follow a different path.
.
1) There is no question but that God AND the highest callings of MORALITY would have us—the RICHEST NATION ON EARTH—FIND A WAY, to provide health care for all, before another private health insurer, an unnecessary MIDDLE MAN, makes another billion dollars in profit.
2) WE have heard over and over: “to bear each others’ burdens, that we are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers, to love one another as you love yourself, that as you do to the LEAST of these you do unto me.”

3) It is fundamentally immoral to make human health, a matter of human life and death, a slave to profits! We KNOW this, we KNOW this in our hearts. This is NOT difficult. It’s so simple a caveman would know it, and CERTAINLY a child.

4) We must live up to Alexis De Tocqueville’s observation about America in his book, Democracy in America:

"America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good America will cease to be great."

Is there any doubt that a health care delivery system that puts PROFITS over PEOPLE is contrary to being a good and moral nation? It is therefore a moral imperative to adopt a Single Payer Universal, everybody, in nobody out healthcare reform.

FOURTH TRUTH, GOVERNMENT IS GOOD!

1) CONTRARY TO THE ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA, our government for over 230 years has been the backbone, the glue, the enabler of the wealthiest, freest, and fairest nation in the history of the world.

2) HOW DARE them lie about the proven quality and effectiveness of our government!

3) From DAY ONE in America our strong UNITED federal government has overseen the building of our nation’s infrastructure, created the world’s most esteemed system of justice; Social Security, Medicare, public education, Mail delivery—through rain, snow, sleet or gloom of night!, The MILITARY, the coinage of money, our beautiful national parks, scientific and medical research, the space program, FOOD AND DRUG safety, consumer protection, interstate highways, product safety, workplace regs and child labor laws, etc, etc,

4) When naysayers ask Does government work?

a. WHO provides a first class military that’s successfully provided for Common Defense? THE GOVT.
b. When you get up and turn on the radio or cable tv—OUR GOVT!
c. WHO INSURES that when you eat your breakfast without worry the food is safe—GOVT
d. WHO INSURES that when you drive in a safe car, down I-75—THE GOVT.
e. WHO INSURES tht if you breathe clean air and drink clean water—THE GOVT
f. WHO INSURES that take drugs that are safe, do what supposed to—THE GOVT!
g. When you mail a letter in snowstorm and it arr. Next day—GOVT!
h. If you get a Medicare check/soc. Sec/unemploy----THE GOVT
i. Student loans, food stamps—OR corp bailout, subsidy—GOVT
j. Visit a beautiful national park—THE GOVT
k. WHO INSURES Vaccination and protection from diseases—THE GOVT
l. WHO INSURES THAT YOU Feel safe about having money in the bank—THE GOVT.
m. Had a baby, or need to miss work to give care—GOVT.
n. WHO SEES that you have Workplace safety regs, child labor laws—THE GOVT.
o. Contract and commercial transactions protected—THE GOVT.
p. WHO PROVIDES Justice, law and order, fire protection, disaster response—GOVT
q. WHO OVERSEES Safe products, informative labeling, truth in advertising—THE GOVT
r. If you got a good free public education—THE GOVT.

5) THROUGH THESE AND MANY, MANY more ways does the government help create the environment, the atmosphere which enables us to FULLY PURSUE life, liberty and happiness. Govt helps form the COCOON out of which the FRUITS OF INDIVIDUAL freedom can flourish, be it in commerce, science the arts or whatever. GOVT is a BOON to commerce and creativity, NOT A BARRIER.

6) Often we lose sight of the big picture and need a new set of eyes to see reality. For America this new set of eyes can often come from immigrants. My grandfather loved his new country, he EASILY saw that his opportunity to create a business, serve customers, grow a family were only possible through a strong, compassionate, citizen-oriented GOVERNMENT.
The GOVT came in and saved his business after the FLOODS in Eastern Ky— SBA loans. The GOVT helped insure his kids got an education.
His govt created laws of commerce and treated all equally, and on and on.

7) My grandfather UNDERSTOOD so much that America would and could not be America without its Government. He loved it so much he said “Taxes are the CHEAPEST RENT I could pay to live in the GREATEST COUNTRY in the world.” He named three sons after presidents—Woodrow Wilson, my dad, uncle Warren Harding, and Herbert Hoover, who was born on election day, 1928. It was a close election and they had to wait three days to name him. If Al Smith would have won he’d have been uncle Al Smith!

8) THE BOTTOME LINE: GOVT is the enabler of this beautiful inter-connected quilt we call America. And GOVT. therefore has AFFIRM. DUTY TO insure affordable, quality H/C for all like in other countries.

9) SO HOW DARE they lie about the Government of the United States of America. NOW the people falling for the lies are good people. But they are misled. And who can fault them—who has time…..

10) So we must engage others with love—LISTEN, acknowledge truth, but CORRECT mis-statements, point to all that govt has done FOR OVER 230 YEARS.

11) BUT----JUST WHY IS THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY SPREADING THE LIES AND PROPAGANDA that government is bad, even worse—EVIL? BECAUSE THEY ARE REAPING BILLIONS AND BILLIONS in profits, and HUGE salaries and bonuses in the current system that they PAY for. They are spending $1.4 MILLION per day lobbying Congress, and millions more on the deceitful propaganda in order to keep their profits, profits made at our expense.

12) Worse, they are corrupting our democracy, paying off politicians who act on THEIR behalf instead of OURS. * WHEN WILL THEY ACT FOR US, FOR THE PEOPLE, AND NOT FOR THE BIG MONEY special interests?? ****

13) The KEY TEST of any policy matter is WILL IT BEST BENEFIT THE LONG TERM GREATER PUBLIC INTEREST?? But too often politicians do what benefits them or the hand that is feeding them, keeps them in power and then when they leave a lot go to that industry for big bucks.

14) So, HERE IS WHAT TO DO! Call your congressperson and Senator. Write letters to the editors. Find people you TRUST will put the PEOPLE FIRST, make candidates COMMIT TO SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE and to following the KEY TEST—what will best benefit the LONG TERM greater public int.

15) Personally, I have no ulterior motive except that which best promotes our long term greater welfare. I have from the time of my youth, been trained by uncles and parents that noble political service means doing what is right for THE PEOPLE. I have long been interested in public policy and always strove to promote that which is best for the LONG TERM GREATER GOOD. I study the truth, the facts, what works elsewhere, what is just, moral and effective and that is why I am so passionate about SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE. IT IS NOT ONLY GOING TO BEST BENEFIT US IN THE LONG TERM, but it will help us RIGHT NOW! PEOPLE NEED IT NOW, BUSINESSES NEED IT NOW, AMERICA NEEDS IT NOW!

CONCLUSION
The true test for any nation, especially one that claims so righteously to be “under God” is how it treats its poorest citizens, those meet disaster, AND how they treat their elderly—can they have an old age in which they will find security and care.

To our great credit we went a long ways for the elderly with Medicare. And now it is time for us to complete that equation.

SINGLE PAYER UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE is ECONOMICAL, IT IS MORAL, IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL it is doable and it is TIME!

YOU + ME = WE and WE can do it!

THANK YOU!


Richard Frank Dawahare 8/29/09

Gambling's endgame: economic armaggedon

Stripped of all emotion, political gamesmanship, ulterior motives and special vested interests what remains are these facts on the slots/expanded gambling issue.

First, good people gamble. In fact those who gamble slots machines include some of the finest people I know. Grannies gamble for goodness sake, so there is nothing inherently evil about people who make this choice. But that is not the point.

Second, some Kentuckians do gamble away their money in out of state casinos. About 16% of Kentuckians have done so, that’s it, 16%. Yet our venturing gamblers have neither hurt Kentucky nor, more importantly, have they helped casino states. For the fact is that casino state budgets are busted, and have historically been more stressed than Kentucky’s. They have waited in vain for the financial salvation slots were supposed to bring, even before the current recession. In fact, most states have seen their budgetary situation worsen with the advent of expanded gambling. But that is not the point.

Third, the fate of the horse industry may or may not be as dire as those with a vested interest in expanded gambling allege. With fear-based emotional appeals they have been allowed to frame the issue in a way most to their liking. Regardless, there are many funding alternatives should such be necessary. Slots are the worst option for they will usher in far more damage to our overall welfare than the short term infusion of cash to a select few. But that is not the point.

Fourth, pro-gambling legislators, including some of our top leaders, truly want what is best for Kentucky. They are sincere in their belief that it will solve much of our financial needs, that it will save the horse industry, help our schools and lower our taxes. Yet not only are their forecasts wildly inaccurate (35% of a billion is $350 million, not the $700 plus million being tossed around) but they are shortsighted. Gambling’s costs will outweigh its revenues at least three to one over the long term, which is why gambling states’ budgets are such a wreck, see above. But that is not the point.

Fifth, a court will eventually rule that a Constitutional amendment is necessary in order to expand gambling to slots, vlt’s or any other type of electronic or casino gambling. The voters, in approving the 1988 Constitutional amendment allowing the lottery, intended to permit only the traditional scratch off and online lottery games then in existence. This traditional lottery, and only this, is what the state promoted to us before our vote. In no way whatsoever did we vote to approve additional gambling beyond that limited exception, nor did the legislature intend for us to. We would, therefore, have to amend the Constitution once again in order to allow for expanded gambling.

But why would we want to? It is an absolute certainty that the unchecked spread of gambling will destroy our nation, economically and socially. I guarantee this eventuality with every last ounce of intellectual credibility that I may be fortunate enough to possess.

I can see the future for I have studied the past. This is the point.

In the late 1800’s we Americans saw our communities being destroyed by the lotteries (then the only widespread form of gambling) which is why not only Kentucky but every state changed their constitutions to prohibit gambling’s ugly head from ever rearing itself again. Today’s electronic gambling explodes that harm exponentially, which is why slots are called the “crack cocaine of gambling.” It may take a few more years, but eventually this same harm will be so noticeable that we will once again demand a return to sanity and a prohibition of the most lethal form of gambling.

It is only a matter of time before Americans finally connect the dots between community decline and casino style gambling. Overnight gambling will be seen as the pariah it truly is and the process of tearing it apart will take hold. This is the point.

Why should Kentucky not, for once, get ahead of the curve and lead? Why should Kentucky not follow the tried and true ways of building long term vitality instead of the illusion that we can get something for nothing? Why should Kentucky not resist contemporary society’s worst habit, the all too common quest for immediate gratification and short term gain that inevitably leads to long term pain?

Why must we let our leaders use gambling to slough off our problems on our most vulnerable citizens? Why must they continue to evade responsibility for tackling our real problem, which is an antiquated tax system?

We must stand tall and not allow ourselves to get sucked in by the propaganda, the doomsayers and the politicians, who are well meaning, but all too willing to take the easy buck rather than seek long term solutions. Just because other states have lost their minds is no excuse for us to lose ours.

The facts are clear: casino style gambling has worsened states’ budgets, hurt economies, destroyed lives, and thereby lowered our overall well being. Kentucky must do something it has rarely done since the first pioneers crossed the Cumberlands: lead.

Richard Frank Dawahare 7/30/09

Health care is a RIGHT in 21st century America

Health care is a right in 21st century America! One of the most gut wrenching experiences as an employer was to see an employee or one of their children come down with an illness yet be unable to afford a doctor. I found it utterly incredible that in this country of such great riches and high moral bearing that many of its citizens could not afford even minor treatment.

Most small businesses simply cannot afford to provide health care to their employees, and increasingly even large companies are shifting more of the burden on them. Uninsured workers who fall ill lower a company’s productivity and endanger others by spreading their untreated disease. Even worse, this inability to get health care has a very depressive effect on total company morale. In essence unaffordable health care threatens our free enterprise system and the human capital so necessary to its survival.

This is intolerable and we must not let it continue. While America has wonderful medical capabilities our nearly 48 million of our citizens are unable to access them. In fact, America is the only developed country that does not provide comprehensive care to all of its citizens. This is why the World Health Organization ranked the U.S. 37th in health care, just behind Slovenia, but ahead of Costa Rica.

While those who can afford it get very good care, there is a wide gap between the top and bottom in America. By contrast those in the lowest income group in countries with universal health care get care that is equal to that of our highest group. And they enjoy this level of care while spending half as much per person as do we.

This is because our current for-profit private health insurance system is riddled with inefficiencies. Administrative costs, profits, sales and marketing combine to take nearly 50% of our health care dollar before it even reaches health care providers.

The National Health Insurance Bill, HR 676, provides the solution we seek. HR 676 is a single payer health insurance system that will create huge cost-saving efficiencies by funneling routine administrative functions through one body instead of the complex quilt of for profit private insurers. Hundreds of such companies—each with their own forms and reimbursement procedures—create a multi-billion dollar expense for hospitals and doctors’ offices.

Add to that the insurers’ own overhead, huge executive salaries (the heads of the top five firms made $73 million in 2007) and profits—remember, the prime duty of any business is to make profits— and we can understand how the current system wastes over $400 billion. 15%-25% of each dollar we spend comes right off the top for health insurers who make all that money largely by scheming how NOT to insure people. By comparison, Medicare takes less than 3% for overhead.

The single payer National Health Insurance feature of HR 676 will eliminate this incredible waste, as inhumane as it is inefficient. Such streamlining is a hallmark of successful best business practice. Our best college MBA programs teach it, and the best run companies do it all the time. The American taxpayer should do so as well.

HR 676 essentially expands Medicare, along with Social Security America’s most revered program, so that it covers everybody and everything including prescription drugs, dental care, and nursing home care for less than we currently spend. Never more would there be expensive co-pays, deductibles or exclusions for pre-existing conditions. Never again will any American be forced into bankruptcy because of health care debt. Never again will American businesses be unduly burdened by the anchor of sick but untreated employees.

Best of all we retain the freedom of choice and our doctors will make the health care decisions, not corporate executives whose top priority is profit maximization by service minimization.

Those working in the insurance industry will have new opportunities. Some will take on similar roles in the expanded Medicare system. Others will take advantage of retraining programs and educational opportunities for truly productive pursuits, using our skills to enhance life, instead of figuring out ways to profit by denying life-saving services to those most needing it.

Contrary to critics propagandistic claims HR 676 is NOT socialism. The single payer feature simply takes the collection and distribution of payments away from the private insurers—who are profit, not patient, oriented—while leaving the medical system itself completely alone and intact. This will save billions of dollars each year by eliminating the hundreds of complicated and redundant HMO payment plans foisted upon our doctors and hospitals, thus freeing up their time accomplish their core purpose of providing superior health care services to their patients.

The new National Health Insurance plan, HR 676, will save our free enterprise system both by insuring the health of its workers, and by freeing business to do what it does best, namely the innovation and delivery of goods and services, while allowing the federal government to fulfill its constitutional duty to act on behalf of our greater welfare.

Finally, by passing HR 676 America can reclaim moral leadership in human rights and fulfill our founding purpose to promote “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” which is not possible without good health.

Universal health care is humane, it is economical, it is doable and it is time. Call your Congressperson and ask them to support HR 676.

Richard Frank Dawahare 7/8/09

Too much hate, too little love

The rise of "fanaticide," i.e., extremist violence, is but a symptom of the more serious issue facing our world today: too much fear and hate, too little faith and love. We've allowed our hard-held truths to slam our minds shut to the point we permit, even welcome, the most vile attacks on "the other."

What once was unspeakable vulgarity is now acceptable in arena for the battle of ideas. Those who believe differently than radio shock jocks are ruthlessly demonized as worthless pieces of humanity.

Even worse, radio and TV give these attackers a patina of credibility they do not deserve, for the public assumption is that they would not be allowed to say such things on the air waves -- our air waves -- unless it were true.

Locally, think of WHAS, a proud Kentuckiana institution for many a decade. When the same mega-tower-of-power 50,000-watt blowtorch that carries the Crusade for Children also features prime-time piranha Michael Savage, an air of credibility is automatically attached to his hate-filled propaganda that he should never have.

Where have you gone, Mr. Milton Metz, our nation turns its lonely ears to you.

Such contempt enters our consciousness, festers in our hearts, spews through our mouths and e-mails and eventually finds physical expression by those without a moral compass.

The cure is up to us. First, we must realize that just as we truly believe in the righteousness of our causes, those with contrary views feel the same. We must therefore embrace the paradox of inconsistent truths and allow space for the other even as we take our stand. This demands a faith in the ultimate authority of a higher power that most of us profess and a serenity to accept that the process, the way we treat each other, is as important as the cause, if not more so.

Second, we must love, and I mean love as a verb. Intentionally and with concentrated effort, work hard at being the best person you know your higher self to be, each and every day. Yes, be more diplomatic, tame the impulse to lash out, refrain from sexist or racist jokes. Focus on trying to understand the other and always wish them well, secure in your faith that taking the high road will lead to eventual reconciliation.

In short, we should be the person we'd want our children to be.

Sanity on the slots debate

"100,000 jobs and $4 billon." The slots promoters have been throwing these numbers around so often and so loudly that Kentuckians now know them by heart. These are the total number of jobs and money that they say will be lost if we are not scared enough to give in and support casinos in Kentucky.

But nothing good ever resulted from actions made out of fear, especially fear based on exaggeration. First, if they really want to stick to those numbers they will be admitting, absolutely admitting, that Kentucky's horse industry has grown exponentially since 2002, about the time that other states' racinos began.

The Kentucky Horse Racing Authority's 2004-2005 Biennial Report states: "According to a 2002 study by the Gatton College of Business and Economics at the University of Kentucky, the horse industry generates over 31,800 jobs and had a total economic impact estimated at $1.77 billion."Therefore, according to the pro-casino camp, Kentucky has actually managed to triple the number of jobs and more than double the economic impact of our signature industry despite the arrival of racino competition in other states.

Of course, the more likely scenario is that they grossly exaggerated the real state of the industry as part of their propaganda campaign to rile emotional fervor for casinos to a fever pitch.

Now, I don't deny that our horse industry needs assistance. I am sure most Kentuckians would want to help Kentucky's breeding and racing industries, which is a policy matter for the legislature to decide. Once decided in the affirmative, the issue becomes one of funding, of how best to support them.

Casino-style gambling options like VLTs are but one option, and by far the worst for the long run. First, to pursue this poverty-inducing enterprise now, in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, is a gross failure of vision and leadership.

Second, they amount to a voluntary tax, one paid disproportionately by the poor. Long term, they will destroy economies around the country, just as the main gambling activity, lotteries, did in the late 1800s.

If the state needs more money to fund breeder and racing incentives, the legislature need only do so through the traditional tried-and-true methods that best preserve our long-term welfare.

Tax reform that makes Kentucky's tax system more progressive would help. Perhaps adding a small sales tax, say 3 percent, to out-of-state buyers at Kentucky's world-leading horse sales would bring in much needed revenue without hurting the industry (currently we get nothing).

The point is that we must look coolly, objectively and accurately at the totality of issues surrounding our whole economy, a major part of which includes the horse industry. Only then can we assure ourselves of ideal solutions that will lead to the best overall long-term outcome.

Casinos will Kill Kentucky's Horse Industry

For want of a slot machine Kentucky’s horse industry will be lost. Or so the gamblers would have us believe. Yes, the horse industry is vital to Kentucky. Yes we should nurture it. But never must we let emotional fervor and exaggerated, unsubstantiated claims mis-direct us to a non-solution that will not only harm our long term welfare, but that will also destroy the thoroughbred industry itself.

First, let’s examine the claims of those who want to add slot machines (or VLT’s) to Kentucky’s tracks. Essentially they say that Kentucky’s horse industry is in crisis because Turfway, Ellis Park and now Churchill have had to cut racing days, an event caused not by a historic recession and economic downturn but by owners taking their horses to states that allow their tracks to have slots (racinos) which in turn enables them to offer higher purses.

Yet the fact is that tracks all over the country are cutting race dates, even in racino states. In 2008 the total number of races declined 2.2%, including West Virginia which had 256 fewer races, a 6% drop, and Louisiana with 143 less, a 4% drop. Kentucky held up quite well, only down 2%. Nationally, pari-mutuel handle dropped 7.3%.

This year tracks continue to cut dates, specifically citing the economic downturn as the reason. Historic Del Mar is going to 5 days a week, first time since 1947, and according to its president, Joe Harper, it has nothing to do with the absence of slots and everything to do with the economy: “There’s a pinch on everyone due to the economy, there’s a pinch on the number of racehorses available in the state.”

Kentucky’s world-leading breeding industry is not threatened in the least. In fact Kentucky increased its share of mares bred from 36% in 2006 to 41% in 2008. The next closest was Florida at 10%. All racino states except Pennsylvania (2%) and Indiana (1%) lost ground. Kentucky-breds earned more than $436 million, an increase of 1.5% from 2007 and Kentucky-breds increased their share of the total purse money earned in 2008 to 36%.

In any case higher purses do not guarantee increased attendance or wagering. Maryland subsidized higher purses from 1998 to 2000 by 25% yet live wagering actually decreased. And in both West Virginia and Delaware live wagering and attendance remained stagnant despite tripling purse sizes following the introduction of slot machines. Each state spent a staggering $100 million and got basically nothing in return.

These facts thoroughly contradict the frantic over-the-top claims of the casino interests trying so desperately to get their foot in our door. If our signature industry is truly threatened to the point of extinction then we should unite in developing a list of options properly addressed to the root causes of the problem, none of which will include slots.

The fact is that slots at the tracks will eventually kill the thoroughbred industry. Slots hook gamblers who will rush in droves for that option over horse racing. For this reason casino style gambling is a long term mortal threat to racing. Leading economic experts Dr. John Warren Kindt and Dr. Earl Grinols have for many years warned of this danger. And the Congressional National Gambling Impact Study Commission specifically directed states to refrain from putting slots at the tracks.

The racing industry must instead creatively improve and market its product to attract new customers, while also working with casino opponents to staunch its cancer-like spread. Tim Capps, a University of Louisville professor in the College of Business equine program said that racing has “has been very insider-ish…It has been run more for itself than it has for its fans. I think one thing racing has to do is make participation in our sport easier for the fan, because the fan has not come first in our industry for a long time.”
Richard Shapiro, the Chairman of the California Horse Racing Board agrees. “I really question whether we are a sport anymore. We have taken the entertainment away and pushed it just as gambling. We need to invent very simple wagers…and package racing better. If we do that and present it to the right people we have the opportunity to receive more revenues.”
In any case Kentucky would have to first amend its Constitution before any such expansion of gambling could occur as both the legislative history behind the lottery amendment and an opinion of then Attorney General Ben Chandler show.

Still, I understand the plight of Ellis Park. Indiana’s casinos have over the past 12 years caused a permanent 35% drop in their revenues and their slot-supported racing is another blow. Yet surely there are other ways to help Ellis than to dirty our state with a proven long term societal killer of casino style gambling.

And that is exactly what slots, VLT’S, and casinos are, a long term killer. History has proven that gains are short-lived. In just a few years the economic costs to pre-existing, traditional businesses and social costs will become unbearable and states will see gambling for what it is and ban it yet again. This is what happened in the late 1800’s when states around the nation, including Kentucky, put in their Constitutions prohibitions that would make it nearly impossible for future generations to repeat their mistake.

Kentucky need not follow. We are a pioneer state—we lead. Kentucky should lead in repelling the spread of casino-style gambling. We should lead in exposing the truth about the harm it causes. We should lead in showing how healthy and vibrant our community, our economy our foundation can be by focusing on time honored fundamentals—just as we have with Education reform.

Above all we must not fall for horse tales, old or new.


Richard Frank Dawahare 5/14/09

SOURCES:
These are my sources for the statistics and quotes: I got all the stats from Equibase on the Jockey Club's site: http://jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp under which are the figures for: 1) number of races -- http://jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=6 2) Gross purses-- http://jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=7 3) Pari-mutuel handle-- http://jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=8 4) Distribution of Stallions and Mares bred-- http://jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=3 5) Distribution of registered Foal Crop by state-- http://jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=4 I GOT the information about Maryland, West Va. and Delaware performance after the introduction of slots from THIS researchpaper by Jeffrey Hooke, Chairman of the Maryland Tax Education Foundation -- http://www.marylandtaxeducation.org/horserace.pdf 6) The quotes I got from this article by Liz Mullen in Business First, Louisville--

http://www.bizjournals.com/louisville/stories/2008/05/05/story1.html?t=printable

7) The reference to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission directive against slots at the tracks
is here, at SECTION 3-12 http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ngisc/reports/fullrpt.html

Believe With Me

Hello! Since the news reported that I was considering a run for the US Senate many of you have responded in a most encouraging and positive way and I thank you for this “vote” of confidence. The fine print in the article was more accurate than the headline, however, in that I am truly considering any and all viable avenues for public service. The Senate is such a dream and in reality is such a long shot that it seems most improbable.

I only allowed myself to dream this vision publicly after some others had, over the last 6 months, encouraged this gigantic reach. I cannot emphasize this enough—this would never have reached this stage without the urgings of a few close friends, and the further prodding of a savvy political marketer (Dea Riley, thank you (I think?) Dea!) who I met by sheer coincidence through a mutual friend on Facebook.

I must also note that the political pros, the real insiders, have discouraged this effort, saying that it will be impossible to raise the necessary millions in such a huge statewide race, especially for a political outsider with no previous elected experience. I quite understand and for that reason never seriously considered this quest until the wave of serendipity moved me in a different direction. I try always to let the Spirit lead, and to do as my late fraternity brother, Norman Vincent Peale taught: “Think Positively.”

My “Pre-Exploratory” Committee met last week. These are some very sharp individuals and together we spoke about all the options, the pitfalls and opportunities and while we agreed the Senate is a long shot, the group unanimously agreed that we should do a POLL that would assess my message and prospects for both statewide and local options. They also directed me to raise the funds by asking for $200 from whoever may be so inclined, BUT of course being grateful for whatever one offers.

I have been calling and writing friends over the last few days and I am most uplifted. I am struggling to find the right words here…every donor, every well-wisher, has truly heartened me. But when one makes a financial donation at such an early stage, it is such a show of confidence that who I am, that the principles and values I represent are so right, and so needed by our ailing political system, that I am truly, truly humbled. I darn near feel like Jimmy Stewart in It’s a Wonderful Life!

Since I believe in what I am doing, since I know I am in it for the right reasons, that I have no ulterior motive and am not beholden to any special interest or agenda save that which best benefits the Greater Public Interest I have had no hesitation in asking for assistance. I am not seeking to serve and possibly to run for me, rather I am doing it for YOU.

And for that reason I invite you to help me in any way you can. Funds yes, but more. I seek and WANT your ideas, your concerns and your input on how we can better our world. Anything that concerns you concerns me too.

I have spent a lifetime listening to others and responding to their wants and needs, be it the customers I served, or the manufacturers with whom I built win/win relationships the world over. These same principles, when combined with the values (honesty, integrity, fairness, compassion) instilled in me by my parents, uncles, and aunts and of course God, are exactly what our political process needs.

I invite you to engage with me in this quest. I invite you to envision an inspirational future, while savoring the precious present. I invite you to dream big, to think long term and to walk in faith no matter what.

I invite you to Believe With Me.

Richard Frank Dawahare March 6, 2009

--------------------

Considerations on a run for the Senate

What do I want to do with the rest of my life? What is the true desire of my heart and soul? These are the questions I perhaps have avoided most of my life and that I now muse and pray about.

This is what I know: that I want to make a positive mark on the world and to help others while letting my spirit soar. Beyond that, I’m not sure what truly makes my heart sing. Career interest tests confirmed that I was in the right field as I had a high aptitude for marketing, advertising, promotion, but also in writing, teaching/counseling. To that end I am considering both teaching or consulting.

But serving in politics has always been a dream. I grew up with the image of the politician as a person of the highest integrity performing one of the noblest roles in society. I suppose the story I heard many, many times that my grandfather wanted one of his sons to be president—and naming three of his sons after presidents—helped cement this image in my mind. Having an uncle (Willie Dawahare) serve as the mayor of Hazard and another (uncle Hoover) in the legislature solidified my absolute conviction that there could be no higher calling for decent, honorable community-oriented people. My parents, my uncles and aunts hung the moon. They were of the highest character and morality, the very personification of the Golden Rule.

When I was a young boy, 7 or 8, Uncle Willie would talk to me about great political leaders. He spoke with the highest regard about FDR and Churchill. He told me of the JFK-Khrushchev conflict and then gave me what was to become my most prized possession: a Kennedy dollar inscribed with “Ask not what your country can do for you, rather ask what you can do for your country.” I was awestruck by that coin and clung to it as Frodo did the ring.

From that day forward the highest calling, the most good a person could do—in my young mind—was to serve as an inspirational political leader. Such people had, I always thought, the highest moral principles and clung tenaciously to truth and justice. And regardless how many dispiriting examples of political self-dealing, dishonest acts abound, I still believe in this ideal.

But surely, I thought to myself, there are many other ways than politics to use these values in serving society. Of course there are and I—like most people—have served and helped others in many different ways throughout my life.

Yet I feel uniquely privileged by the happenstances of my birth, my upbringing and my life’s course that thrusts me in this position. I almost feel duty-bound to take advantage of this opportunity to help others in this way, to bring to the political arena the high ideals and values that my family instilled within me, to campaign and then to serve wholeheartedly with these values, no matter how severely they may be tested, being guided solely by what will best benefit the greater public interest.

I know I can bring positive energy and influence to Washington for I understand that it is the process and the attitude that matters most to ideal policy-making. My whole career was based on listening to others’ needs, seeking—and reaching—win/win solutions with suppliers and customers alike and leaving both happier than before we interacted. Thus, I know I can add civility and improve the legislative process through open-minded and empathetic engagement while holding firm to immutable principles of truth, justice and our social compact.

My philosophy is always about putting people first and legislating on behalf of their highest welfare. Yet I realize that it is a multi-stranded yarn that weaves our complex social quilt. Commerce and capitalism is essential to making our system work for people just as it is the people who make commerce and capitalism flourish. Thus, balance is key as well as focusing on facts, not emotion.

- - - - -

But what about other candidates—can they not do the same? And others who might run have more experience, a track record in politics, connections and MONEY (and/or contacts to a big purse), so how can I even begin to think about this pipe dream?

Whether it’s fate, karma, whatever our company’s closing removed a major obstacle to this opportunity. Others always encouraged me to be in politics. Many years ago I started to get involved in the Young Democrats, but this kind of political involvement seemed forced and unnatural. So I was determined to just ride the course I was on: be the best person I could be while helping my dad, my family and our business. If there ever was to be a future for me in the political world, I thought, God would open that door. I’d say that an unplanned and historic end to a 100-year-old business is a pretty big opening indeed.

Then there are the “signs.” Random encounters with messages such as ‘the saddest thing a man may ever face is what might have been,’ to Keith Olbermann’s quote on the Starbucks coffee cup that exhorts one to go for any job, seek any dream. Everything, it’s all positive-go-for-it messaging.

Still, I am not yet sure. The cake’s in the oven, but it’s not quite done. So for the moment it’s still a dream, and a sweet one.

RFD 2/11/09

Meeks Meets Dido

Inspired by my buddy Charles....

Score tied, clock ticks down and Jodie Meeks, who plays like anything but,
Dribbles, weaves feigns forward, then fades back—wayyy back—on a
Desparation three with Nick Colathes perfectly, tenaciously guarding him.

Jodie goes up and back, Colathes bodies him, jumps in sync with him, has his arms and hands practically on Jodie’s (Colathes claims he even tipped the ball) yet Jodie
Spent his entire body in willing the shot up…
AND IN! Three-pointer, Kentucky wins by three
Thus avoiding a historic, first time ever 3 in a row SEC home losses.

ON this night, with his never-say-die, “I will do whatever it takes
For my team who I love, for my school that I love, to WIN”
Meeks met Dido.

In White Flag Dido cries out the depths of her love and commitment
crying,

“I will go down with this ship
And I won't put my hands up and surrender
There will be no white flag above my door
I'm in love and always will be”

Jodie Meeks hustle and heart expressed an identical passion.
In his play he was saying,

“I will go down with this ship
And I won't put my hands up and surrender
There will be no white flag above my door
I'm in love and always will be…

MEEKS, 30 FEET DEEP, COLATHES ALL OVER HIM, LEAPS UP AND BACK

I will go down with this ship
And I won't put my hands up and surrender
There will be no white flag above my door
I'm in love and always will be

MEEKS MUSCLES IT UP, A LONG ARCHING SHOT…IT’S GOOOOD!

I will go down with this ship
And I won't put my hands up and surrender
There will be no white flag above my door
I'm in love and always will be

KENTUCKY BEATS FLORIDA 68-65 ON MEEKS HEROIC SHOT!

A Clearer Picture of Afghanistan

The following is an assortment of articles on Afhganistan that offers a surprising view of what's really going on--and why...



The reality of war in Afghanistan
By Stephen Kinzer October 15, 2008

DESPITE their differences over how to pursue the US war in Iraq, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama both want to send more American troops to Afghanistan. Both are wrong. History cries out to them, but they are not listening.

Both candidates would do well to gaze for a moment on a painting by the British artist Elizabeth Butler called "Remnants of an Army." It depicts the lone survivor of a 15,000-strong British column that sought to march through 150 kilometers of hostile Afghan territory in 1842. His gaunt, defeated figure is a timeless reminder of what happens to foreign armies that try to subdue Afghanistan.

The McCain-Obama approach to Afghanistan, like much of US policy toward the Middle East and Central Asia, is based on emotion rather than realism. Emotion leads many Americans to want to punish perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. They see war against the Taliban as a way to do it. Suggesting that victory over the Taliban is impossible, and that the United States can only hope for peace in Afghanistan through compromise with Taliban leaders, has been taken as near-treason.

This knee-jerk response ignores the pattern of fluid loyalties that has been part of Afghan tribal life for centuries. Alliances shift as interests change. Warlords who support the Taliban are not necessarily enemies of the United States. If they are today, they need not be tomorrow.

In recent weeks, this elemental truth has begun to reshape debate over Western policy toward Afghanistan. Warlords on both sides met quietly in Saudi Arabia. The Afghan defense minister called for a "political settlement with the Taliban." Secretary of Defense Robert Gates would not go that far, but said he might ultimately be open to "reconciliation as part of the political outcome."

Gates, however, struck a delusionary note of "can-do" cheeriness by repeating the McCain-Obama mantra: More US troops can pacify Afghanistan. Speaking days after a National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the United States was caught in a "downward spiral" there, Gates asserted that there is "no reason to be defeatist or underestimate the opportunity to be successful in the long run."

In fact, long-run success in Afghanistan - defined as an acceptable level of violence and assurance that Afghan territory will not be used for attacks against other countries - will only be possible with fewer foreign troops on the ground, not more.

A relentless series of US attacks in Afghanistan has produced "collateral damage" in the form of hundreds of civilian deaths, which alienate the very Afghans the West needs. As long as the campaign continues, recruits will pour into Taliban ranks. It is no accident that the Taliban has mushroomed since the current bombing campaign began. It allows the Taliban to claim the mantle of resistance to a foreign occupier. In Afghanistan, there is none more sacred.

The US war in Afghanistan also serves as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. It is attracting a new stream of foreign fighters into the region. A few years ago, these jihadists went to Iraq to fight the Great Satan. Now they see the United States escalating its war in Afghanistan and neighboring regions of Pakistan, and are flocking there instead.

Even if the United States de-escalates its war in Afghanistan, the country will not be stable as long as the poppy trade provides huge sums of money for violent militants. Eradicating poppies is like eradicating the Taliban: a great idea but not achievable. Instead of waging endless spray-and-burn campaigns that alienate ordinary Afghans, the United States should allow planting to proceed unmolested, and then buy the entire crop. Some could be turned into morphine for medical use, and the rest destroyed. The Afghan poppy crop is worth an estimated $4 billion per year. That sum would be better spent putting cash into the pockets of Afghan peasants than firing missiles into their villages.

Deploying more US troops in Afghanistan will intensify this highly dangerous conflict, not calm it. Compromise with Al Qaeda would be both unimaginable and morally repugnant, but the Taliban is a different force. Skillful negotiation among clan leaders, based on a genuine willingness to compromise, holds the best hope for Afghanistan. It is an approach based on reality, not emotion.

Stephen Kinzer is author of "A Thousand Hills: Rwanda's Rebirth and the Man Who Dreamed It."
----------------------------------------------
TIME Magazine article

As the world's finance ministers wring their hands over the global financial crisis, a quieter multilingual chorus of dismay is emanating from the military compounds and foreign offices of one of the planet's most powerful nations. Afghanistan, NATO's first post[EN]Cold War, non-European experiment and the U.N.'s most significant mission to date, has been termed a failure, leading many decision makers to contemplate the unthinkable: negotiations with the very same Taliban leadership that was defeated in 2001.

The only problem is, negotiations are unlikely to be successful, and reliance on such stopgap solutions may only make things worse.
Among top military and diplomatic strategists, the failure of the current approach in Afghanistan has been accepted as inevitable. Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, Britain's top military officer in Afghanistan, has said, "We're not going to win this war."

At best, he says, international troops can hope to reduce it "to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat." U.K. ambassador Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, in a leaked diplomatic briefing with the French deputy ambassador, is said to have described the current situation in Afghanistan as "bad; the security situation is getting worse — so is corruption — and the government [of President Hamid Karzai] has lost all trust." The American strategy, he said, "is doomed to fail."

While the U.K. foreign office disputes the veracity of the briefing, the sentiments are echoed in diplomatic circles across Kabul and have even found traction in the U.S., which has long persisted in regarding Afghanistan as the "good war." Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, told reporters last week that "the trends across the board are not going in the right direction," and in a year in which violence has reached its worst levels since the U.S. invasion of the country in 2001, he voiced concerns that next year in Afghanistan could be even worse.

His fears echo a nearly completed U.S. National Intelligence Assessment that has described a "downward spiral" in Afghanistan unless major improvements are immediately implemented. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration has launched a major review of its Afghanistan policy just as new ground-based intelligence indicates that this winter may not yield the expected lull in fighting that would have allowed a deployment of extra troops to wait until the spring. U.S. and Afghan forces patrolling the eastern border near Pakistan have uncovered caches of cold-weather gear and weapons in areas that are usually closed off during winter snows.

The Impossibility of Winning
In June, Dan McNeil, the outgoing NATO commander in Afghanistan, estimated that it would take some 400,000 troops to win the war. Currently, the total allied force stands at just over 70,000, with an additional 60,000 poorly equipped Afghan troops in various states of training. McNeil's replacement, U.S. General David McKiernan, has appealed to the White House for 15,000 more U.S. troops "as quickly as possible" but has been promised less than half that number by spring of next year. More troops are unlikely to be forthcoming until the U.S. starts pulling out of Iraq. In the meantime, McKiernan has cautioned reporters that Afghanistan "might get worse before it gets better."

With the global financial situation spiraling out of control, countries are even less likely to contribute troops and treasure to a war that seems, on its face, less threatening to the West by the day. Al-Qaeda has so far failed to replicate the devastating attacks of 9/11, and low-intensity efforts to keep Osama bin Laden on the run appear to have been effective. With the ebbing of public support for the war, and with casualties and costs reaching record levels, world leaders and military commanders are now clutching for solutions and exits, including possible power-sharing deals with Afghanistan's Taliban insurgents.

Kai Eide, the U.N. special envoy to Afghanistan, said on Oct. 6 that "if you want to have relevant results, you must speak to those who are relevant." U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates reiterated the new philosophy a day later, saying at a press conference that the only way to win the war was "through political means."

President Karzai seems to be moving in the same direction. Last week he appealed to Taliban leader Mullah Omar for peace and offered to talk. And in September, during the holy fasting month of Ramadan, representatives of Karzai's government sat with former Taliban leaders and Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah in Mecca to discuss Afghanistan's problems over a sunset feast of more than 100 dishes. Both Karzai's government and Afghanistan's current Taliban leadership deny that any negotiations took place. But one of the attendees, Abdul Salam Zaeef, the former representative of the Taliban's Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in Pakistan before its overthrow in 2001, characterized the meeting to TIME as a "consultation about the future of Afghanistan, about stability, about peace and what we can do to bring it to our country."

The Plausibility of a Taliban Pact
Reconciliation with the opposition is an inevitable part of the end of any war, and no leader, military or otherwise, has ever said that total military victory is the only path to a stable Afghanistan. But the sudden courting of Taliban leaders appears to be more an act of desperation than strategy.

The problem with any potential Taliban agreement lies in incentives. Chaos in Afghanistan has always played to the Taliban's advantage, which makes the notion that its leaders could be seduced by promises of stability myopic. Besides, Zaeef, who is no longer a member of the Taliban leadership but still adheres to the Taliban philosophy, says the Taliban are not fighting for power but for ideology. "Until the Americans and other foreigners leave, this war is not for share in the government, but a war of obligation, a holy jihad."
(Click here for a photo essay on Afghanistan's mean streets.)

Taliban spokesman Zaibullah Mujahid took it a step further, telling TIME by telephone that "no one from the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan [the name of the country under Taliban rule from 1996-2001] is ready to negotiate with this government. The conditions that the government and the Americans offer is that the Taliban accept the constitution and the presence of American and other foreign troops in Afghanistan. Our condition would be the withdrawal of all foreign troops, and without that we are not ready to negotiate."

While the relationship between the Taliban and al-Qaeda has frayed over the years, bin Laden's group is still a principal financial supporter, and as such would have input on major decisions that the Taliban make. Needless to say, it will be impossible for any negotiations to take place unless the Taliban renounce all ties with the terrorist group. That's an unlikely scenario, says Zaeef. "I am not sure the Taliban will say to al-Qaeda, 'Leave the country and don't support us,' because there is no one else funding the Taliban, so there is no way they would beak with their key supporters."

Disaffection Inside the Taliban
Even if Taliban leader Mullah Omar and Karzai were able to overcome their glaring differences to hammer out a power-sharing agreement, the real question would be: How much power could Mullah Omar actually wield?

While he does hold sway over a large mass of the former Taliban command structure, which has largely taken refuge in Pakistan's lawless mountain sanctuaries, the bulk of what is currently known as the Taliban in Afghanistan is made up of disaffected and alienated bands of Pashtun tribesmen who have been leveraged out of their traditional power bases and are disillusioned by the increasingly corrupt and ineffective government in Kabul. The only point that these groups — some of which are made up of opportunistic criminals, narcotics kingpins and smugglers — can agree on is that they are against the Afghan government.

Any true reconciliation would have to include these groups, as well as the Taliban leadership, and that is an almost inconceivable task. "The West tends to imagine a rather more coherent organization than the Taliban really is," says Joanna Nathan, Afghanistan analyst for the International Crisis Group. "They imagine there is a single element of control over a wider organization. This view that it is somehow going to be Mullah Omar sitting at one end of the table while President Karzai sits at the other as they sign a power-sharing agreement and we can all go home — that is a fantasy."

A better strategy might be to cut at the roots of this dissatisfaction with the central government. The Taliban has capitalized on widespread disillusion with corrupt, centrally appointed officials to recruit to its cause.

Few Afghans feel that they have an adequate outlet for settling grievances, like land disputes, so they are more likely to turn to Taliban courts that have sprung up in government vacuums. Real reconciliation, says Nathan, should be taking place at the grass roots, with Afghans who have become alienated from the government. If they can be persuaded that the government is looking after their needs, they are less likely to support the Taliban.
This approach would also be much more palatable to Afghans from the largely non-Pashtun north, who bitterly fought Taliban rule during the civil war and are more likely to launch another war than submit to a Taliban-led government.

The Taliban today operate in virtually every Afghan province, and in several places they have been able to create a parallel system of government, but they do not have the support of a majority of Afghans. Most still vividly remember the deprivations of Taliban rule, and if given a choice, they would prefer their current situation to that of eight years ago.

The international community has already wasted seven years and billions of dollars in failed attempts to reverse the depredations of Taliban rule; a far better solution to the Talibans' resurgence would be correcting the mistakes of the past and delivering, for once, on international promises of democracy and development.



about Sweeta's case and promised to look into it, but Sweeta's sister Saleha had already given up on the government, and wondered if the past seven years of foreign intervention have brought any progress at all to Afghanistan. "If the Taliban were still here, that rapist would have already been executed by now. It would have been a lesson for all," she says. "If there is no law, and the government does not listen to people's complaints, then it is better to go back to the Taliban era. At least then we had justice." —With reporting by Ali Safi / Shebergan


Tuesday, Dec. 09, 2008
Warlords Toughen US Task in Afghanistan
By Aryn Baker / Kabul

Like many mothers in Afghanistan, Maghferat Samimi has affixed the photo of a child to her mobile phone. But the two-and-a-half-year-old is not her daughter. She is a rape victim, one of scores that Samimi, a researcher with the Afghan Human Rights Organization, has documented in the country's northern provinces over the past six months. Witnesses to the child's abduction by a local militia commander — a person who would once have been called a "warlord" — have had their rape claim backed up by a nearby hospital, but the district police chief maintains that the child fell on a stick. The police chief's refusal to issue an arrest warrant, he says, has nothing to do with the fact that he is friends with the militia commander. Seeking justice from government officials, says Samimi, "is like going to the wolves for help, when the wolves have stolen your sheep." That is what it is like in Afghanistan, where lawless warlords are now the law. (See pictures here of the perils of motherhood in Afghanistan.)


The Afghan warlords largely responsible for assisting the U.S.'s ousting of the Taliban in 2001 are now deeply entrenched in Afghan society. They have positions in government, in the police, in the army and in business. Though they have largely relinquished their tanks and heavy artillery, most have been able to maintain their core militias in the form of private security companies, political parties or loose business networks.

Allegations of land grabs, rape, murder and kidnapping are rife. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Afghan human rights organizations such as Samimi's have documented extortion rackets run by former warlords and militia-run prisons where captives are held for ransom. Afghan journalists covering their crimes have been harassed by police or thrown in jail. Last year Samimi received a phone call from General Abdul Rashid Dostum, a U.S. ally who was appointed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai as Army Chief of Staff, threatening to have her raped "by 100 men" if she continued investigating a rape case in which he was implicated. Dostum denies ever making such a threat and calls the rape allegation "propaganda." A witness to the phone call, military prosecutor General Habibullah Qasemi, was dismissed from his post soon after, despite carrying a sheaf of glowing recommendation letters penned by U.S. military supervisors.


Faced with a rapidly spreading insurgency that threatens to overturn seven years of incremental progress in Afghanistan — a survey released Monday by the International Council on Security and Development reports that the Taliban are present in 72% of the country — the U.S. and its allies are struggling to find a new strategy to stabilize Afghanistan. President George W. Bush has announced that about 4,500 more soldiers will be sent there early in the new year, but that is a fraction of what General David McKiernan, head of NATO forces in Afghanistan, has said that he needs to successfully conduct the war. Meanwhile, allied forces have been forced to rely on local militia leaders for intelligence gathering, delivery of supplies and to better understand the country's southern tribal networks.

In the north, where the Uzbek and Tajik warlords' historic hatred of the Pashtun-dominated Taliban has maintained a stability that has so far been unattainable elsewhere, both national and coalition leaders are loathe to upset the balance by pushing for prosecution. One former NATO official in Afghanistan compares the warlords to shrapnel lodged in an artery — infection is a risk, he says, but pulling it out could be even worse. "There are so many other things we have to worry about, so why go and open this can of worms?"

In a new article in Foreign Affairs magazine, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates writes, "Over the long term, the United States cannot kill or capture its way to victory. Where possible, [military] operations should be subordinated to measures aimed at promoting better governance ... and efforts to address the grievances among the discontented, from whom the terrorists recruit."

But so far, the U.S. is failing to do that. With the possibility that Indian threats of retaliation over last month's terror attacks on Mumbai could force Pakistan to move its military to the east from the Afghan border, where it is currently fighting elements of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, it is more important than ever that Afghanistan's central government be strengthened. The perception that warlords, protected by their influence and threats of violence, can commit crimes with impunity has rocked Afghan society, and threatens to undermine the very government that the United States and its allies are trying to build up.

This is not the first time warlords have had positions of power in Afghanistan. Following the 1989 withdrawal of Soviet troops, rival mujahedin groups that had united to drive the foreigners out turned on each other, further destroying the country in a brutal civil war marked by warlord rule. The government collapsed, and militia commanders were able to seize territory, terrorize the population and, in some cases, even issue currency.

The Taliban capitalized on widespread disgust with their savagery, eventually coming to power in 1996. The U.S., unwilling to commit large numbers of ground troops when it went to overthrow the Taliban government, relied instead on the northern warlords and their militias. In a grave mistake that was to haunt Afghanistan for years to come, many of those leaders were given prominent positions when the new Afghan government was formed, enabling them to claw back credibility that had been lost due to their abhorrent behavior in the civil war. Samimi laments the lost opportunity for Afghanistan to start over. "Right after the collapse of the Taliban, the government had the opportunity to go after these commanders because they were scared and weak," she says. "Instead the international community and the government supported them and made them stronger. They didn't bring them to justice; they waited until they committed more crimes. For this we ousted the Taliban?"

It is the unfulfilled promise of a new, clean democracy that has alienated the very Afghans that the West depends on to build a strong, stable country. Educated moderates, such as Samimi, have no love for the Taliban, but they have also become disillusioned with the current government's failings, as exemplified by the unaddressed predations of militia commanders. Francesc Vendrell, the former European Union envoy to Afghanistan, holds that "warlordism," as he calls it, is just as much at the root of the insurgency as religious ideology. "In Muslim society justice is the most essential element and, here in Afghanistan, people simply don't see it exist. They see impunity; they see a few people become extremely wealthy and they see cruelty," he says. "Therefore I think many of them are fence sitters. And you can't hope to win an insurgency when the civilians are sitting on the fence."

For some Afghans, however, it may be too late. Among Samimi's other rape cases is 11-year-old Sweeta, whose attacker was protected by his employer, a local commander. The family's repeated attempts to bring the rapist to justice have been borne little fruit. In an interview with TIME this summer, President Karzai was told about Sweeta's case and promised to look into it, but Sweeta's sister Saleha had already given up on the government, and wondered if the past seven years of foreign intervention have brought any progress at all to Afghanistan. "If the Taliban were still here, that rapist would have already been executed by now. It would have been a lesson for all," she says. "If there is no law, and the government does not listen to people's complaints, then it is better to go back to the Taliban era. At least then we had justice." —With reporting by Ali Safi / Shebergan

It was malice in wonderland at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday as Bush Administration envoys insisted things are getting better in Afghanistan, while angry lawmakers from both parties cited facts and figures showing just the opposite. Even the senior Republican on the panel, Senator Richard Lugar, found the Administration's claims wanting. "I'm not sure that we have a plan for Afghanistan," he said.

Long seen as the "forgotten war" eclipsed by Iraq in U.S. priorities, Afghanistan is in the Washington spotlight this week with the release of three independent reports concluding that without a change in U.S. policy there, the erstwhile sanctuary of Osama bin Laden would remain a failed state. After spending $25 billion over six years to try to defeat the Taliban, the radical Islamist militia that had been dispersed into the mountains by the initial U.S. invasion is now a growing presence in large parts of the country. The Taliban is now setting off more bombs — including one in Kabul's fanciest hotel on January 14 that killed eight people — and fueling its insurgency with profits from the opium trade. (Last year, the country produced 93% of the world's supply.) The declining security situation saw foreign investment in Afghanistan fall by 50% last year.

The Taliban is also killing more Americans: From 2002 to 2004, an average of one U.S. soldier was killed per week in Afghanistan; by 2007, that figure had more than doubled. Indeed, nearly 500 U.S. troops have perished in America's "forgotten war." Despite the presence of 50,000 foreign troops, including 28,000 Americans, arrayed against the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Pentagon has just ordered another 3,200 Marines into the fight. And the reluctance of other NATO members to send additional troops is threatening the future of the alliance. "Make no mistake, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan," said a study by the Atlantic Council released Wednesday. "Unless this reality is understood, and action is taken promptly, the future of Afghanistan is bleak, with regional and global impact."

Despite such grim news, the message to the Foreign Relations Committee from the Administration was that things are actually getting better. "Progress is being made," said Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Richard Boucher at the hearing. "If you add together the achievements in roads, achievements in education, achievements in health care, we see a profoundly changed situation in Afghanistan."

The U.S. and its allies are driving the Taliban from some of its strongholds, he added, and the bad guys are striking back the only way they can — by blowing themselves up. Across the Potomac, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that "the rise in violence and attacks such as we saw in Kabul are the manifestation of a group that has lost in regular military terms in 2007, and is turning to terrorism as a substitute for that." And although Gates said he couldn't confirm it, a militant web site reported Thursday that Abu Laith al-Libi, a top al-Qaeda commander in Afghanistan, has been killed in Pakistan.
But at the hearing, Lugar remained unimpressed. He likened the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan to a political campaign in Indiana. A candidate can tell his supporters, "I've been to Clinton County, I've touched base, and we're doing well over here in Kokomo,'" Lugar said. "But if the final result is that you get 25% of the vote and lose three to one, this is bad news."

Retired Marine General James Jones, who once led the Afghan campaign as NATO commander and who contributed to two of the critical reports issued this week, also offered the panel a grim assessment. There is a "loss of momentum" in Afghanistan that could lead to "backsliding" if not soon regained, he said. Jones warned that the failure to curb opium production and stand up a government with functioning police and courts remain major problems. "The safe havens for the insurgents are more numerous now than they were one or two or three years ago," Jones added. "If we are correct and there's a spiraling situation in an unfavorable direction, the ultimate solution is not a military problem, but it could become one."

Democrats repeatedly cited the Iraq war as draining the resources needed to prevail in Afghanistan. Senator Joseph Biden, the panel's chairman, noted that the U.S. has spent the same amount on aid and development in Afghanistan over the past five years as the military burns through in Iraq every three weeks. "If we should be surging forces anywhere," the Delaware Democrat said, "it's in Afghanistan, not Iraq." But Boucher argued that the U.S. and its allies must be prepared to fight in multiple theaters simultaneously to prevent the emergence of terrorist safe havens that could hatch another 9/11. "You can't neglect any portion of the planet," he said.

There is, of course, a sense of deja vu here: Last year, Congress, much of the military and assorted think tankers were leery of President Bush's plans to surge 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq. But he did it anyway, and it has succeeded in quelling violence across that country, at least for the time being. For now, the Bush Administration seems to be willing to bet it can repeat that performance in Afghanistan

A Prayer over a Stale bag of Peanuts

Went to the Kentucky-Louisville basketball game at famed Freedom Hall a few weeks ago.

I have many great memories of UK games in Freedom Hall. In high school I used to go every New Years Eve and see the UK/Notre Dame game--always a classic! It was always a night game and Kentucky always won--that's why Digger ended the series after so long--and afterwards we'd go to Kingfish for a celebratory fish dinner. SCRUMPTIOUS! Then Joe's dad would drive us home to Lexington on those cold wintry nights and we'd pull in the wee hours of the morning. Of course, by our senior year we'd drive ourselves.

Anyway, the Louisville game is big time special, particularly since Rick Pitino is now coaching the Cards. He's an unreal coach--touches every inch of the program with passion and excellence. Plus he's just got a charisma that draws people. In many ways Rick is directly responsible for the reemergence of basketball prominence in the state. He "Gets it" in regards to the ultra-special tradition of basketball essence that is Kentucky. As a kid he'd get Kentucky games on the radio, you know the old fashioned kind where you'd turn the knob ever so slightly to find a clear channel. At night the breadth of stations exploded, like bugs on a hot August night.

Well, Rick told us of how when he was a kid lying in bed, he listened to Cawood Ledford broadcast Kentucky games on WHAS. He'd search and search for Kentucky games for he always knew that Kentucky was THE program. It was his keen passion and vision that brought him to Kentucky when the program was rock bottom, and by his vision we were all reminded once again of the special tradition unique to us.

I'm not sure how many Kentuckians truly appreciate what Rick did, especially UK fans scorned by his accepting the Louisville job. Anyway, future generation s most certainly will, because his imprint is massive and it is very, very real.

Anyway, I wanted SOMETHING to eat, but choices were few for I don't eat meat or junk food anymore. I chose a bag of peanuts. I tore into the bag, crunched the shell, threw the nut in my mouth and UGGHHH! Horribly stale! Another, another, another, oh yuck they are all stale. My face grimaced as I swallowed them.

I started to complain, but then thought about the proverbial starving masses in various parts of the world for whom these stale peanuts would be a feast. I thought that I should treat this bag of peanuts as if I hadn't eaten for a month--how stale would they taste THEN?

So I kept eating, ugh--another stale bite, grimace--chew--grimace--swallow--frown. And another, and another, until I simply could not stomach another stale peanut and then finally this prayer:

"Oh God, thank you, thank you, thank you for so much abundance, so much good food that I can refuse these peanuts, which I know many in the world would feast upon. Please forgive me my spoiled nature and, I pray, protect me from such wretched conditions that might find me groveling on the ground in hunger for just one of these nuts, although I don't know why I should be so favored when so many others are not. Please be with all, especially those who would do anything for this bag of stale peanuts."

I didn't mind much when Louisville won. Compared to life, winning lost its flavor.