From India corespondent Divyaa Kummar…

“There is a thought in your mind right now. The longer you hold on to it, the more you dwell upon it, the more life you give to that thought. Give it enough life, and it will become real. So make sure the thought is indeed a great one.”

Thoughts matter – and indeed literally become matter  – that sense of awareness that can change your life! Scientific research tells us that we have some 90,000 thoughts a day! This is a great storehouse of ammunition to further problems or potential miracles. Do try to view the slide-show within you and think about what you see.

Yet we often see miracles in terms of providential events, orchestrated by a source outside and higher than us, and made possible only through the circumvention of the natural laws we live by!

Alternatively, let us become aware of the genie that lives within us all – you are the source of miracles, not an outside higher power! Wishes are not granted at random, but by your sense of focus that becomes their life force! And thus miracles are not a divine suspension of natural laws, but indeed our own optimal utilization of the same through exploring how thoughts (become) matter. In doing so, we can increasingly hone our skills to coalesce such miracles – both big and small.

And understanding the power of optimal focus is a simple eureka! It helps us take positive thinking one step forward – for correct focus is your genie! Indeed, it is literally our focus that gives our passing thoughts life. So do not fear your thoughts, for varied thoughts will make up any given day. Sure, some may be angry and others worrying, but our incessant brooding and nagging focus only enhances the life of such thoughts! Allow these thoughts to drift by,  much as we allow storm clouds to pass by our windows, opening them only to sunshine – and they will lose their ability to rain into our lives.

Take this anology of the worldwide web; We come across many thoughts and images whilst surfing the net, but only save in our ‘to print’ folder that which we choose to have in hard copy! Indeed the annoying pop-ups, never entirely avoidable, worry us not because we can always hit delete!

Come conjure with me, that our ever ready to please genies have diligently taken a crash course in 3-D color printing so that they may retain their effectiveness throughout the 21st century! And computer savvy that they now are, all that we ‘save’ in our focus folder is what we indeed print out for ourselves – the rest is not our concern!

But let’s take this off this academic blackboard and hear it directly from our genie within.

Appreciation – a powerful means to maintain a positive focus and indeed whenever you can, breathe more of it into life! Make a game of it if you will; how many people, events, things and aspects within you can you find to appreciate every day? Discover new aspects to appreciate in the usual and customary around you. This is true value addition! Try viewing the gift of each day before you go to sleep and you will give your genie a long ‘stretch’ to whip up your miracles!

Joy – often ignored bit this emotion carries great importantance to the purpose and truly the hallmark of a life well lived! Ancient Egyptians understood the significance of their joy quotient and even worshipped the goddess Hathor towards this sacred responsibility. Make it a point over the next few weeks to zoom into joy, in however small a way, and recognize it consciously as your true state of being, without the clutter you have placed around it.  Joy is indeed a high priority folder for the genie to print out into your life – with free extra copies to boot!

Visualization – build up an inner collection of feel-good DVD’s, your personal ‘dreams come true’ visualizations. These are effective homing devices for those moments when things seem askew and you wonder how to switch your focus to something positive. Insert one of these into your focus folder and achieve the double benefit of shifting your life force (focus) from nonconstructive thoughts, to your highest visions of self! And watch your genie print them out frame by frame, until life becomes the movie you’ve directed from within!

Introspection for today: Set a series of alarms on your cell phone to ring at random times through they day and become aware where your focus was at that very moment. Life affirming or life negating?

You can find Divyaa on her blog and Facebook

Photograph taken by David Anthony Hohol

Pride can often be both seen and felt, as in the photo above. Taken in Jordan’s capital of Amman, in the Eastern side of the city, the merchant sits in one of the many outdoor fruit and vegetable markets scattered throughout the impoverished end of town. While the West End is home to Starbucks, Movie Cinemas, and Shopping Malls, the East, almost entirely made up of uprooted Palestinian refugees, represents the true soul of Amman.

His chin pointed outward and an ever so slight smile stretched across his round face, the man in the photo reveals the undying dignity and pride in the face of hardship that has come to symbolize the steadfast spirit of the Arab World.

Bipartisanship, in modern politics, is a lie – a falsehood, a hopeless dream, a fantasy based on nothing.  And yet this doesn’t prevent either side of the political divide from using the idea of it as a tool for derision, division, and justification, even when those employing it know it to be nothing but empty words.

In the purest sense of the word, bipartisanship is a meeting of groups or individuals with opposing views, while sharing some common points of interest, that results in a healthy compromise between the disparate positions for the overall better.  American politics has not seen this kind of bipartisanship in the last few decades, if not longer, and the roots of partisan voting, including its vitriol, can be traced all the way back to the Declaration of Independence, with 2010 Washington doing their very best to continue this unhealthy state ad infinitem.

Recently, bipartisanship, or a lack thereof, has been used by Republicans in attempts to kill legislation of any kind, but their cries of partisanship avoid a certain fundamental truth:  President Obama’s Administration, and its Congress, have not been bipartisan for the simple fact that the Republicans have refused to participate.  The lack of a desire to govern is not at all comparable to a lack of bipartisan efforts, the latter of which has not been in short supply over the last fourteen months.  This is not so much a battle of diametrically opposing ideologies as it is a distinct dislike for President Obama and his efforts and goals, not to mention the striking characteristics of the GOP’s childlike political tantrum.

It’s time to give up, at least for the remainder of the Obama Administration, the idea of bipartisanship – on everything.  If the opposing party, in this case the Republicans, wish to participate with the President and his Congressional majority in the process of running the nation, they may do so, but concessions should not be made to a group of corrupt individuals that have absolutely no intention of being part of the legislative process except for their own personal gain.  While this applies to Washington at present, the same criticisms can be made for Administrations past, on both sides of the party line, and will no doubt continue into the future.

Until politics reaches a state of enlightenment that includes the ability to have reasoned, unemotional debates, bipartisanship is a lie.  Once the American people realize that the idea of bipartisanship is merely a tool used to garner votes for the party out of favor at election time, the country will have a chance at finally moving forward, as those within Congress will recognize the farce as being over.  Applied immediately, great benefits could be had within a very short period of time.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

From Tanzania Correspondent Lute wa Lutengano…

I have this tendency to surrender myself to the law enforcement officers in any town I visit and plan to spend a night or more. It is not that I am prone to breaking laws but rather I feel more secure when I know that the Police chiefs in my new destination do now of my presence. That is just in case. And luckily I am acquainted with many of them in the various Tanzanian towns.

So as I drove towards Morogoro town the other week I called the Police chiefs in that town to inform them of my arrival and overnight stay. I arrived in the evening and checked at a recommended newly established facility, Gwami Hotel. I must admit that this is a homely and clean facility which is very convenient to transit travellers like me, because it is near the Dar es Salaam , Dodoma and Iringa highways.

There is not much night life at this establishment, no wonder I found myself patronising the nearby Gold Park night club. It is here that my Police friends caught up with me and we sat down for some drinks and the attendant ‘nyama choma’.

Naturally the topics we discussed veered towards crime in the region. I was told they, the Police chiefs, had undertaken some heavy crackdown on crime in the region and now it was on the wane. Remember Morogoro, I was told, was always the main hideout or playground for Dar es Salaam criminals.

However, I must admit, some of the crimes I was told of must be unique to Morogoro only. Take this case of a young man who cut his own manhood after being told he could sell it, or rather it could fetch a cool 10 million/- on the market. I saw the naked picture of the young man without his pendulum. Poor him, I was told, he died before he could suffer more for his folly.

Then there were the Kilombero Bank robbers. Theirs was an enterprise which assembled criminals, who were actually prominent businessmen from Dar es Salaam , Morogoro and Dodoma . The group of a little more than ten formed a special committee on the Bank job. They also had special sub-committees on transport; security; gas works; gate-away; and financial matters. Little did they know that they had been infiltrated by the police.

On the grand day as they assembled the gas tanks and began cutting the iron grills to the Bank safe room, the police ambushed them all, except for the planner, a young man with expert computer knowledge who is still on the run. In the fire exchange that ensured they were all killed. Again I saw the pictures of the dead and heavily built ‘entrepreneurs’.

Another group of bandits was betrayed by the love of a woman who befriended one of them. This group specialised in robbing lorries laden with luxury goods on the steep slopes between Dodoma and Iringa. Little did they know that the woman, with a generous posterior, was actually a cop. The bandits were ambushed as they slept in a guest house with their ‘woman.’ They put up a gunfight and all perished in the resultant heavy police fire. Again pictures of their dead bodies were there to prove all.

The next day I proceeded to Makambako in Njombe district. The southern road from Mikumi is being done by some Scandinavian company. It is a great and amazing job they are doing. At the Iringa town escarpment, for example, the company has decided to widen the meandering road by cutting deep into the imposing rocky face of the slope.

I scaled the road into town amidst the heavy road – works. As is always the case, I proceeded straight to Miami Bar at Mlandege where all connoisseurs of ‘ugali’ and ‘nyama choma’ in Iringa town assemble for their lunch. It is here that I called the Makambako Police chiefs that I would there in the evening and naturally for several overnights.

From Saudi Arabian Corespondent Eman Al Nafjan…

It’s true, abayas are regulated and policed. And I don’t only mean the PVPV trolling the malls shouting at women to cover. For a Saudi woman that’s minor when compared to what we have to go through at schools and colleges. You can gauge the political stance of the administration of an educational facility by its abaya rules.

All schools that are run by the ministry of education, i.e. public schools, make female students and employees wear abayas tent style over their heads. Students in particular have to wear complete face covering that has no opening for the eyes. This is implemented by teachers, usually in pairs, that stand at the inside of the school entrance and not allow a student to go out unless she has the proper abaya and face cover on. This is also done at small women-only colleges and at Al Imam University, except instead of a rotation of gate duty between teachers, they actually employ a few women whose sole job is to police students to make sure that they wear a tent-style abaya with full face covering, wear long skirts and sleeves underneath and confiscate camera cell phones.

Many but not all private schools, colleges and the relatively more liberal King Saud University do not subject their female students to such scrutiny. As long as you wear a abaya and have a scarf on your head, you’re fine. And as long as you’re not actually pointing your cell phone camera and taking pictures, no one cares whether or not you have one. Unfortunately this flexibility is rare since the majority of Saudi women do attend public schools or at least the more conservative private schools.

I have had a lot of experience with this type of policing throughout my education and work career. Although I have not attended public schools as a student, I did work in a few as part of my practical training and also at the beginning of my teaching career. Of course I had to wear the tent style abaya too. But my way to get around it was to wear my regular shoulder abaya underneath and as soon as I was past the guards, I would shed the top abaya like it was on fire. I also had to do my share of gate duty and felt like a hypocrite. However it helped that I did happen across the principal at a restaurant with her face uncovered and wearing a fancy abaya. So many of us are enforcing rules that we don’t believe in.

What is underneath the abaya is also regulated. The first school I taught at the principal had an issue with my sneakers. She deemed them too western and ordered me to wear “regular” shoes such as loafers or high heels! At another school, at the first meeting the principal told me that she would let it go because it was my first day but my elbow long sleeves were against the rules. But nothing breaks the rules like a pair of pants on a Saudi woman. One time I was going for an interview at a university here in Riyadh. As I wasn’t a student and I had no intention of taking off my abaya for the interview, I went wearing pants. I knew the rules but since I was neither an employee nor a student there plus my abaya was the sort that did not have an opening in the front, I thought it would be ok. As soon as the female guard saw the cuffs of my pants under the abaya, she stopped me and told me that I could not enter the university until I bought a skirt from her and gave her my pants for safekeeping. She was serious! And she had a stack of 30 riyal black long skirts in a drawer. I did not want to miss the interview so I compromised (with a lot of back and forth arguing) by wearing one of her skirts on top of my pants with the abaya still on. Call me petty but as soon as I got past her I took the skirt off and stuffed into my purse.

My point is that Saudi women are conditioned from fourth grade and up, even as professionals themselves, to be subjected to this type of moral policing. Imagine what it’s like for women from ultra-conservative families. At home, school and work they are made to wear the abaya in such a way as to maximize the ideology that women are objects to be enjoyed by their guardians and covered from others. No wonder they impose it on themselves and on their daughters; it’s all they’ve known throughout their lives.

From Filipino Congressman Mong Palatino…

“Immoral” rock concerts were banned in Malaysia. An “immoral” gay group was disqualified from participating in the Philippine elections. Immorality was blamed for the natural disasters that hit Indonesia this year. It seems public authorities are playing the morality card to uphold the dominant social order in many Southeast Asian countries.

To protect the morals of society, the youth arm of Pan Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS Youth) proposed the banning of the Michael Learns Rock reunion concert in Malaysia last August. This is the same political party which banned the concerts of “indecent” music stars like Beyonce, Avril Lavigne and Gwen Stefani in Malaysia.

Malaysian Muslims also weren’t allowed to watch the Black Eyed Peas concert because the show was sponsored by an alcohol company.

PAS Youth accused the foreign artists of corrupting the minds of the public. The group claimed that these types of concerts “will not help motivate the people to become good citizens, but instead will weaken their morals and mental strength, and at the same time will drag them down to drown in the turbulence of lust.”

For promoting same-sex relationships, which are contrary to religious beliefs, the Philippine Commission on Elections has rejected the petition of gay group Ang Ladlad to be recognized as a party that can run in the 2010 elections. The poll body used religious texts like the Bible and Koran, instead of legal documents, to justify its ruling.

The Ang Ladlad group was described by the government election body as an immoral party because it espouses same-sex marriage and other equality demands of the Lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender or LGBT sector.

Indonesia’s Communication and Information Minister Tifatul Sembiring surprised many when he asserted during a prayer meeting that the powerful quake that rocked Indonesia this year was due to declining public morals.

During an interview he said, “Television broadcasts that destroy morals are plentiful in this country and therefore disasters will continue to occur.” He cited the Indonesia-made porn DVDs which are available in street markets as proof of public decadence. His statement about the immorality-disaster link was supported by the influential Indonesian Ullema Council.

The concert ban in Malaysia, the anti-LGBT ruling in the Philippines, and the immorality equals earthquake thesis in Indonesia confirm the dominance of traditional and conservative values in modern Southeast Asian societies. Despite the economic and technological advances in the region, medieval thinking still reigns in many countries. Government bodies are still ruled by old bureaucrats who cling to feudal values and beliefs. Tech-savvy leaders like Tifatul Sembiring still espouse anti-scientific views.

Church leaders are expected to remind the faithful about the need to follow the teachings of their religion. On the other hand, public officials are not required to subscribe to a particular religious doctrine in fulfilling their constitutional duties. In fact, they are disallowed from using their power and position to advance and impose their religious beliefs on the public.

Secular institutions and public officials usurp the role of the church when they act as guardians of public morals. Their mandate is not to serve as spokespersons and proxies of church leaders. They should not behave like morality cops who dictate what is right and wrong for everybody. Asian countries may have won their political independence decades ago but many are still not free from the clutch of religious bigotry.

To maintain peace and order, governments always devise procedures to control the activities of their citizens. The morality card is being played to produce desirable attitudes, sentiments and behavior among the population.

Perhaps the morality issue is used today in response to the worsening global economic crisis. Governments are afraid that the jobless and hungry segments of the population will express their frustration through radical actions. By invoking morality, governments aim to discourage dissidence.

By banning concerts, denying equal rights and blaming immoral behavior for the occurrence of natural disasters, repressive governments with democratic trappings are hinting that they are ready to displease a certain segment of the population if it will serve their political interests.

Today, immorality is equated with rock stars, same-sex relationships and pornography. Soon the sin of immorality might be extended to all those who dare oppose the policies of the government. Moralist politicians want to normalize the practice of naming things they dislike as immoral. It is important to prevent the morality cops from monopolizing the debate on what constitutes moral and immoral behavior.

When hypocrites accuse our favorite rock stars of being immoral, we should advise them that they can choose not to listen to these immoral entertainers. When gay groups are disqualified from running for public office, we should appeal that all corrupt politicians should be prevented too from holding a public position.

Asserting equality demands is a moral right. Rejecting bigotry is a moral stand. Defying unjust policies is a moral act. If we are labeled as immoral because we refuse to surrender our principles, then by all means, let’s prove that sometimes promoting immorality can be the most subversive act we can achieve in our lifetime.

From Dubai Correspondent James O’Hearn…

In 2005 I married a wonderful young woman named Nerissa D’Souza. Her family is Goan, and though she is Indian by nationality, she spent her entire life in Dubai. When I moved to Dubai in 2006, I moved in with her family, and by 2007 I had become a “traditional” Indian son-in-law, that is, I became the sole earner supporting a multi-generational family.

Embracing my “Indian” identity, I learned to eat spicy curries every day, I fell in love with cricket, I learned to name the major political parities in India and speak at some length about their policies, I became able to hold forth on the differences between the many different religious, cultural and lingual groups in India, and I learned to love Bollywood movies. But even though I am now far more “Indian” than my in-laws will ever be “Canadian,” I have only ever been merely tolerated, not accepted by them.

So what does this have to do with race or racism?

Before I moved to Dubai, my wife and I were in desperate straits. Prevented from finding work on account of a visa mix up, my wife had to stay at home while I worked three to four jobs at a go, dropping jobs and getting new ones wherever I could eke out a few more dollars. After our first child was born, and freshly out of university with a mountain of debt, we hit the wall, so to speak. We had no money left, not enough coming in, and could see no way of rectifying our situation but for one – we had to leave Canada.

When I arrived in Dubai, a few months after I had sent my wife and child ahead of me, I was a nervous wreck. With only a couple hundred dollars to my name, living at my in-laws, and upon their kindness, I felt lower than I had at any point in my life. Yet my wife was entirely unconcerned. Why? Because, as she told me, soon after I arrived, I was “white,” and we were in Dubai.

Three years earlier, when I had lived in Japan, I had my first taste of what it was like to be a “minority.” Words like “minority” and “mainstream” get tossed about so much in Canada, with such specific associations, that it took me a while to see myself as the minority. In Japan I encountered racism every day, from mild examples to extreme xenophobia. But Japan is very homogeneous, and Japan has a long history of fearing and avoiding outsiders, so I didn’t think much of what I saw. The racism was never specific, just a matter of those who exhibited nihonjinron (Japaneseness) and those who did not. You were wither nihonjin or gaijin – Japanese, or Foreign.

But in Dubai, when I again found myself in a minority situation, where the locals only account for up to 10% of the population, the dichotomous nature of racism I found in Japan morphed into something more along the lines of a shattered mirror, with innumerable facets reflecting each other, but each being separate and unique. Here it seemed that race or racism as not something widely spoken about or acknowledged as a social ill, but was actually a functioning aspect of the societal fabric, ubiquitous and universal.

My wife’s faith proved justified, when, inside of a month, I landed the best paying job I had ever had, a job where in only three years I found my salary rising to a level beyond what I could ever hope to earn in Canada. I chalk it up to luck, and serendipity, but sometimes there is a part of me that wonders if I was the recipient of this bounty not because of extensive credentials or experience, but because of how I looked, and how I spoke. Then again, I had experience in the field, and my employer-to-be was facing a sudden manpower shortage. But still, from some of the comments and attitudes I later encountered from other colleagues, I had to wonder, because regardless of the truth of the matter, it is the perception of that truth that carries weight day to day.

As a Canadian, and a product of that education system, it bothers me sometimes, even though I have proven myself at work over and again since being hired, that others might think I am where I am now not so much because of who I am, but because of what I am. But whatever my feelings are in the matter, the fact is, my situation is accepted as the norm here.

A Keralite colleague of mine was shocked, not too long ago, to find out that not only did I not have any “lands” or “houses” in Canada, but that I had debt. As she told me, she had assumed that because I was white, that meant I was wealthy. She had never questioned why I was hired or my qualifications for the job, and simply assumed that I “should” have that job.

Though she worked the same job as I (but in a different department), and earned the same income, and even though what she earns is ten times what I earn in terms of relative purchasing power parity, she did not even really need the money because her family was very wealthy in Kerala. I, on the other hand, desperately needed that job to support my family, to start to make some headway so that we could build a better life for ourselves. From my perspective, I saw my colleague as being privileged, and felt more than a little envy. Yet even with that in mind, my colleague still felt there was some sort of hierarchy at play, that regardless of wealth or upbringing, race really and truly mattered – that everything aside, perhaps I was the one to be envied.

In Canada, my colleague would be considered the “minority,” and I would be seen as a privileged member of the mainstream. Here I am seen as a privileged member of the “minority,” and she was seen as just an “Indian.” And in there lay the irony.

Few in Canada would know this, but there are about as many Keralites as there are Canadians in this world, even though Kerala is about half the size of New Brunswick. And when you take into account the diasporic nature of Keralite society, there are probably more Karalites than there are Canadians by a good margin. With this fact in mind, in the context of globalization, words like “minority” and “majority” really begin to lose meaning, but what about concepts like “race” or “racism?”

Racism, in the North American conception, is a matter of the privileged actively thinking or acting against the less privileged. In terms of academia, racism relates to the white male patriarchy, and pretty much the rest of society. While anyone can have a racist thought, only a member of the majority can be a racist. That is, only a member of the privileged majority can discriminate or alter their actions towards others due to race (meaning also culture/creed, etc) and have those actions be considered racist. That’s because the discourse on race and racism has, over time, devolved to being an issue of black and white (figuratively speaking).

But is that correct? Is that true? If not, then who, really, is a racist? What, then, is racism? What sort of behaviour would qualify as being racist in nature?

When I go shopping with my wife, when we go to a jewelry store, I am often asked to stay hidden, outside, and around the corner. The reason being that if the salesman does not see me, and does not see that my wife has a “white” husband, we will pay half as much as we would otherwise. And when we walk in public, and get into an argument, when my wife yells at me or castigates me in public, I have to restrain myself from replying in kind because to my wife it would appear as if I was talking to her like she were a maid. Why? Because to others, the sight of a white man talking harshly to a brown woman would be seen as such.

Regardless of my being her husband, and the love, children, and experiences we share, the colorblind nature of our relationship falls away the moment we step into public view. We both have to play roles, roles which change and evolve depending on who we talk to or interact with.

By conforming to these unspoken dictates, does that make my actions racist, or examples of common sense? By avoiding being seen by a South Asian salesman in the knowledge that my wife’s colour and nationality will help us get a better bargain, I can hardly claim to be “colourblind,” because I acknowledge differences in race, and I alter my actions towards other based on those differences, which is what racism is.

Which makes me what?

One thing we all know for sure is that despite our similarities,  men and women and very different. A key difference between genders has always been how we socialize with one another.  Sociologists have long pointed out men tend to mix best while in the midst of an activity of some sort. Women, on the other hand, socialize best when participating in activities involving emotional connection.  As a result, the items on our list involve some sort of action or at least the observation of action. Practicality was also taken into consideration, as week long camping trips would be great, but it takes just a little bit longer than getting together on the weekend to throw the football around. So, what are the 10 best way guys do guy-stuff with other guys? Here’s RELATIVITY OnLine’s own countdown of the 10 best ways to hang out and get to know your friends – in a manly way of course.

• 1. Watching Sports
• 2. Fishing
• 3. Working Out
• 4. Playing Sports
• 5. Fixing Something
• 6. Going to see an action Movie
• 7. Hiking / Camping
• 8. Hunting
• 9. Video Games
• 10. Complain about wives / girlfriends

Photograph by David Anthony Hohol

For many travelers,  Kathmandu’s immediate impact is exhilarating. The sights, smells and sounds of the bustling city overload your senses the minute you set foot out onto the street.  Whether you make your way through the crazy polluted traffic in a taxi or hit the narrow labyrinth-like streets of old town in a rickshaw, the energy is everywhere. Durbar Square is the center piece of the city and is both an architectural and artistic masterpiece of human achievement that rivals any place in the world. Often perched on the steps of the many temples scattered throughout Durbar Square are Hindu Holy men, the likes of which you see here.

These four shadhus, as they are called, are dedicated to achieving the fourth an final goal in Hindu life, moksha (liberation) through meditation and contemplation of the Brahman. They certainly are the spice of the city and  any visit to Kathmandu would not be the same without them.

It’s been over a year since the start of the healthcare debate, and for all the progress made there is little to yet show for it; however, President Obama released an outline for what he expects from a healthcare overhaul bill and while his direct intervention, however late, is welcome, it is not without problems.  The two glaring omissions of this entire process, President Obama’s efforts included, are that this reform process is not healthcare reform, but rather insurance reform, and that there is sill no public option or extension of Medicare.

President Obama’s outlines for a bill include a requirement for all citizens to purchase insurance plans, or receive a penalty – this is, to bastardize a phrase, feeding the hand that bites you.  One of the very reasons that the United States is in its current position of poor healthcare is the insurance companies that are more interested in profit than they are fulfilling the sole reason for their existence.  Besides argument of reactive vs. preventative care, insurance companies have continued to raise the financial bar for individuals to simply be able to see a doctor, have a broken bone addressed, or even visit a hospital in an emergency.  More importantly, in the event that an individual or family can afford to pay the absurd amounts demanded of them, their coverage is denied for a variety of obscure and self-serving reasons.

The entire process has focused almost solely on insurance, but from the substantially wrong perspective:  to provide insurance for the whole country, not to remove or, at minimum, fix the insurance system itself.  Rather than provide a Medicare-for-all package, public option, or the easy answer that would be socialized medicine, it has been deemed better to force some small, token amount of regulation on the insurance companies and require that their services be purchased.  Quite honestly, rewarding such abhorrent behavior with millions of new, coerced customers is not the rebuke of business and ethics practices that the insurance industry deserves, but is instead a twisted validation.

There is surprising growth of Congressional support for the public option, when it has been thought dead for months, that could be accomplished during the process of reconciliation between the House and Senate bills.  No matter that a public option, defined as the ability to purchase into a government-run healthcare plan, is not even close to socialized medicine does not seem to phase the screaming masses that can be found both inside and outside of the halls of Congress.  One of the typical arguments is that while Americans may go to Canada or Mexico for medicine, the citizens of those countries come to America for surgical procedures, but, like most of these talking points, it is a false and invalid comparison:  America has the best doctors not because of a better healthcare system or medical law, neither of which are true, but rather the simple truth that American doctors have substantially higher incomes and public visibility than any other nation in the world.

While a public option would not solve all the needs of true healthcare reform, where the system would be tightly regulated and converted into that of preventative medicine, it would be a substantial start.  A public option, essentially no different than paid-for Medicare, would provide the competition to the insurance industry that is sorely needed in order to stop their disturbing behaviors and insane price hikes.  Furthermore, the public option, if proven successful, could eventually be a gateway to a true nationalized healthcare system – one of the few talking points that the reform bill’s detractors have gotten correct.

If healthcare reform is to happen, it must happen now, in the immediate present – but healthcare reform without a public option, tighter industry regulation, or any substantial action against the predatory practices of those who latch on to the pockets of all Americans is not reform and should not, in any fashion, be passed into law.  For Congress, and ultimately President Obama, to approve such toothless and ineffective legislation is nothing less than political theater that will inevitably produce results only worse than those that currently exist – especially if the process takes another six months under the guise of false bipartisanship, consideration of a public option, or various other carrots to the American people that are truly just billyclubs.

Real healthcare reform must be passed now, not later, in order for both the American people’s faith to be restored in the political process and their health retained before another medicine, procedure, or facet of care is denied to them under false pretenses.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.