LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Clean Up Our Global Home
Scientists were stunned recently when it was revealed that air bubbles trapped
in fossilized amber had been analyzed and found to contain oxygen levels
of 38%. Yet today it is well known that the average content of the air is
only 19% to 21%. It appears that since the early history of our earth there
has been a stunning decrease of 50% in the average oxygen content of the
air we breathe.
Worse yet, analysis of the air in various parts of the world today reveals
the frightening fact that the oxygen content continues to decline. In fact
in some of the larger and therefore more polluted cities the oxygen levels
have been measured at a disturbing level of 12 to 15%. Scientists claim
that anything under 7% oxygen content in the air is too low to support human
life, even for short periods.
There are many factors contributing to the depletion of the oxygen in the
air we breathe. Combustion of the fuel in the cars and trucks we drive is
one problem. Another is the decrease in the size of the earth's oxygen-producing
forests. The oxygen-producing forests of the planet have now shrunk to the
smallest size in recorded history. I am sure you can identify many more.
We are all aware of the amazing achievements the medical community has accomplished
in prolonging our lives and successfully treating a host of diseases that
just a few years past would have been life threatening. It seems with all
of their amazing accomplishments, diseases continue to flourish and new
diseases appear. Two-time Nobel Laureate, winner of the Nobel peace prize
for cancer research, Dr. Otto Warburg was convinced that cancer cells can
only proliferate in the human body when the cells become oxygen deficient.
Dr. Stephen Levine, a renowned molecular biologist and geneticist, has concluded
from recent research that lack of oxygen in human cells and tissues is indeed
the underlying root cause of not just cancer but, quite possibly, of all
chronic degenerative disease
We as citizens on this global home should be concerned and begin to take
responsibility for our actions that contribute to pollution of our global
home. In fact, our government to its credit began to take some steps to
correct this problem when they met with other nations in Kyoto, Japan, recently.
The outcome of these meetings was the Kyoto agreement. The problem with
this agreement, like almost all the other agreements our government engages
in: It is unfair to American workers and consumers.
It will result in a massive loss of jobs, lower wages and higher prices.
Why? Because of the multinational corporations that have and will move our
jobs and manufacturing base overseas. They desire to operate in nations
with cheap labor, slave labor and child labor and no environmental laws.
It is apparent they insisted their right to exploit not be infringed on.
Our negotiators caved in. Therefore, this treaty will solve nothing. Developing
nations such as China, Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia and others will not have
to abide by this treaty, as I understand it.
Imagine if you will that our planet is like a large house with many rooms.
... It will do little good to insist the occupants of some of the rooms
clean up their atmosphere if the open doors to other rooms will let the
pollutants flow from the other rooms and spill back into the rooms the occupants
have committed to clean up.
This member of the "Reform Party" and other members agree we must
do something now about our global environment. We also agree that any treaty
must address the complete global problem fairly. It should not be a tool
to further the agenda of greed for the New World Order gang.
Fort Madison. Iowa
Powell Counseled the Right
The headline of the New York Times' lengthy obituary of Lewis Powell
(August 26) labeled Powell a "Crucial Centrist Justice." But Justice
Powell did not represent the "center" when the issue was human
and environmental rights in conflict with the market economy, or people
in conflict with corporate privilege having proper access to the civil justice
The obituary, by Linda Greenhouse, closed with President Clinton's unexamined
comment that Powell "approached each case without an ideological agenda
..." But when the United States Chamber of Commerce, on behalf of the
nation's giant corporations, sought Powell's advice in 1971, Powell recommended
the creation of non-profit law corporations "to attack the Naders and
others who openly seek destruction of the system." As justification,
he railed about environmentalists, consumer activists and others who "propagandize
against the system, seeking insidiously and constantly to sabotage it."
It is time, wrote Powell in his memo entitled Attacks On the American
Free Enterprise System, "for the wisdom, ingenuity and resources
of American business to be marshaled against those who would destroy it."
Advising corporate counterattack at university campuses and in the press,
he urged corporate leaders to devote special attention and resources to
the courts: "Under our constitutional system, especially with an activist-minded
Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social,
economic and political change." Powell's advice led to the creation
of the Pacific Legal Foundation in 1973 (with seed money from anti-environmental,
anti-human rights corporate mogul J. Simon Flour), and similar non-profit
corporations specializing in advantaging corporate property interests over
human rights. (A 1993 report by the Alliance for Justice, "Justice
For Sale: Shortchanging the Public Interest For Private Gain," described
Powell's memo and the Chamber's strategy in detail.)
Where on the political spectrum did Mr. Justice Powell sit? Readers of the
Times could have decided this for themselves if Linda Greenhouse
had examined Powell as corporate ideologue, and had explored his role in
helping the United States Supreme Court expand the privileges of business
corporations while diluting the constitutional rights of people.
RICHARD L. GROSSMAN,
Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy
211.5 Bradford St
Provincetown, MA 02657
A Practical Single Payer Medical Plan
Is there anyone who would not like to have a medical card that would allow
her or him to go to any doctor or medical facility anywhere in the United
States, and be accepted as a patient without question? Wouldn't it be a
good thing to have a medical card that was not tied to a particular job?
What if you want to go off on vacation, wouldn't it be nice to know your
medical card would go on vacation with you? Isn't this something that every
person would like? Wouldn't doctors and hospitals like to know that they
no longer would have to give free medical care to the indigent? Wouldn't
it be nice for Medicare and Medicaid to be obsolete? If we had a single
payer medical plan, all these things could happen. The problem is how to
make the system good for everyone.
First of all, to finance such a plan there could be a 7.5% tax of adjusted
gross income which is the amount IRS says you should expect to pay for health
care. It is only amounts greater than this that are deductible for income
tax. The plan would provide that doctors who felt their services merited
more than the amount which the card would pay could have what are familiar
to all of us who are in HMO's i.e.. co-payments. The insurance companies
could insure for co-payments i.e.. card plus 5%, 10% etc. Employers would
like it, as they would no longer be looked to for medical coverage as part
of the job. Also the tax could be collected along with income tax thus relieving
the boss from collecting it. The hospitals and medical people at all levels
would no longer be expected to do pro-bono work, and Congress could forget
about Medicaid and Medicare.
It seems to me this kind of a plan should be acceptable to nearly everyone.
I say nearly, because there always seem to be someone that no one and nothing
can please. But almost all of us would like such a plan, so let's go for
Resolved: AARP is committed to a single payer medical plan.
LENDRUM A MacEACHRON
Morality's Many Sins
Immorality? President Clinton has been bombarded in the Starr wars battle
that, in my opinion, is an immoral campaign in itself. It seems the Republicans
are pursuing this issue to sidetrack peoples' thinking about the REAL immoral
conditions of the homeless, jobless, lack of health care and social security,
A very immoral thing is the existence of the World Trade Organization that
is controlled by transnational corporations and supersedes our laws. We
seem to be destined for one great president per century. Thomas Jefferson
and his, Abraham Lincoln and his and Franklin Roosevelt and his. I hope
the next century can start with a great one: Paul Wellstone, a proven supporter
of grass-roots peoples' welfare.
Take Back Government
The stock markets are tottering, the Russian ruble is tumbling, and the
scandalmongers are tittering over a stained dress. A stained romance brings
down the Clinton presidency? Who cares!
It didn't take a massive military build up to take down the Soviet Union.
Not a shot was fired, but billions were wasted in military hardware, especially
during the Reagan years.
A massive dose of capitalist greed, a corrupt Russian bureaucracy, and IMF
funding did the job. The losers are, in addition to the Russian people,
the rest of us who saw social programs like universal health care go up
in hot air.
The Democratic Party of FDR has been mortally wounded by a coalition of
Clinton Democrats and a Republican Congress. It's time to rally an angry
and effective coalition to take back the Government for the people.
Worried About Deindustrialization
Recently a retired V.P. of Avon Corp. told me Avon pays the Mexican workers
65 cents an hour. Obviously the workers cannot exactly provide the necessities
of life on such meager wages. I hear no one in the Congress, [or the] White
House show concern over the deindustrialization of America. We've had the
U.S. Playing Cards Company now printing playing cards over in China. Two
Fisher Body plants close, maybe 14,000 union industrialized jobs. Mosher
Safes, Diebold Safe closed forever.
Is it because the elite control the Congress, White House? On down the road
won't we "Americans" lose our sovereignty?
The next step will be G.A.T.T. [the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade]
as soon after Nov. 3rd, 1998. That's a given. The only political leader
is Pat Buchanan that is addressing these so important trade deals. Was this
all worked out by David Rockefeller and the Trilateral Commission?
Perhaps you people could write an editorial addressing this issue. I'm a
"F.D.R" Truman Democrat. If Ross Perot is serious, why doesn't
he back Pat Buchanan for President? I'm a WWII vet now 73 years old but
I'm concerned for the future of America. Thank you very much.
Editor's Note: By GATT, perhaps you mean the move to require
Congress to consider future trade deals on a "fast track," limiting
the debate. Also, the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investments, a
proposed "bill of rights" for international investors, which is
being drafted in Paris would sharply limit the authority of local, state
and national governments to restrict the operations of multinational corporations.
Let's Vote on Lewinskygate
No matter where we live in America, the question is, "what can we do
about the Presidential sex scandal?" With the media's intense, inside
the Beltway focus on Lewinskygate, few other issues of importance are getting
attention. Here's an idea. Why not leave the question of Clinton's fate
directly to the American people? As voters, we can exercise our democratic
rights in the upcoming November congressional elections to settle this dispute.
Those voters who want to see Clinton removed from office should vote Republican.
If the GOP keeps control of Congress, then the investigation continues through
1999 at a cost of millions of dollars and the President will be impeached
or forced to resign. Those voters who prefer to see the investigation come
to a close should vote for Democrat candidates. If the Democrats win control
of the House, the investigation ends, Lewinskygate disappears off the airwaves,
and the President gets back to running the nation's business. By making
this ongoing drama a referendum on Clinton and which party controls Congress,
the American people can best decide what should happen. I am telling my
friends to register to vote if they have not already. Then it's a simple
choice: vote Republican to remove Clinton or vote Democrat to keep Clinton.
We can send our message loud and clear to Washington and the media. At the
least, it's a solution. And most importantly, democracy wins.
Social Security is Not a Retirement Program
Victor Massara of Omaha, Nebraska (Letters, 7/98 Progressive Populist)
makes the same old specious argument against Social Security that its enemies
always do. He wants a retirement program. I believe he could go out and
buy one if he really does.
Social Security, however, is not a retirement program. It's insurance against
job loss through disability, age, or death of the family's prime provider.
If he can go out and find an insurance company that is willing to sell him
the equivalent, he should let us know.
WALTER E. DOERFLER
Coos Bay, Oregon
Sounds like Grandfather
I received a "sample copy" of The Progressive Populist
today. Wow, I am so impressed. How many people did you give this opportunity?
I hope a lot. It was so honest, it read like a letter from my Grandfather.
I think Benjamin Franklin is up in heaven, smiling all over, pointing at
you (with a whole lot of pride) and saying, "Let freedom reign."
Count me in. I have enclosed a check for a one-year subscription. Thanks
for giving me the opportunity to subscribe.
San Clemente, California.
Send letters to The Editor, Progressive Populist,
PO Box 150517
Austin, TX 78715.
News | Current Issue
| Back Issues | Essays
About the Progressive Populist | How
to Subscribe | How to Contact Us
Copyright © 1998 The Progressive Populist