by Vito de la Cruz

Politicians and profiteers who contribute to politicians use the phrase “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.” Most often they use it when they are in power and want to stay there. The quaint logic underlying the saying provides that if something functions there is no need for improvement. The question is, however, functions for whom?

Those who oppose health care reform argue that the current system works. They conjure up socialist ghosts, Nazis, and contradictory logic to whip up the public against a health system overhaul, even when such reform is sorely needed. These folks don’t understand political systems or logic. They understand fear and profits. They clearly bank on the rest of us being as easily hoodwinked as those who nod in blind agreement with “pundits” who declare President Obama to be Muslim, Kenyan, the new Hitler, and hater of all white men. In this, they are well versed. Distractions, after all, serve the status quo and profits. They also bet that Americans will knuckle under red hobgoblins just as before.

Affordable, quality health care isn’t a socialist pipe dream or a fascist goal. It’s a human right that most democracies (think all of Europe and Japan) and some non-democracies (Saudi Arabia) and emerging countries (Brazil, Bhutan and most of Latin America, to name a few) allied with America have provided for their citizens in myriad creative ways. America prides itself on providing ample freedoms, liberties and privileges. Yet, America does not provide 48 million citizens health care coverage other than emergency room triage and allows seventy-three percent of us to be at the mercy of for-profit insurance carriers and health care profiteers. America remains the only industrialized country without universal health care. Is this a system that works for all Americans or one that values illness-derived profits before humans?

Among the false myths such as “death panels, health care for illegal aliens, and government financed abortions,” circulates this other laugher—government-run health care is socialism and doesn’t work. Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, SCHIP and TriCare cover twenty-seven percent of us, mostly the poor, elderly, disabled, veterans, and children from low income families. These programs are funded and administered by the government. They have worked for decades. Lest the red-baiting naysayers forget, Harry Truman, never a socialist or a fascist (he presided over the defeat of true Nazis and utilized atomic devices against Japan), was the first person to sign up for Medicare. Why? Symbolically, of course. In 1946, Truman proposed universal health care and failed to deliver. Two decades later in 1965, America fought off the red-scare and deep-pocket tactics of profiteers and their political allies and President Johnson signed Medicare into law providing public health coverage for the elderly.

Sixty-four years after ‘Give ‘em hell’ Harry’s proposal failed, the battle over universal health care continues. The medical and insurance complexes that profit from human illness have dipped into their overflowing pockets, dusted off their red-scare rhetoric, and lined up their politicos. They don’t mind if the debate goes on for another generation or two. They profit by it. But if we don’t overhaul our health system now, it is we who will be broken and we will have only ourselves to blame.

Alfred Walking Bull

As we prepare for this time of action to reform health care and improve the lives of 40 million uninsured Americans, I'd like to take a moment to reflect on Sen. Edward Kennedy, who died yesterday of brain cancer at his home in Hyannis Port, Mass.

The senator died one year, to the day, after his final speech at the Democratic National Convention where he rallied Americans to believe in a better country, a newer world and a new hope. He spoke of the need not just to vote, but to take leadership for those who have no voice – those without champions.

And Kennedy was a champion for every American in need, whether his leadership ensured health care for children, ensured bilingual education or guaranteed public access and accommodation for disabled Americans, he fought the good fight. He was a shining example of egalitarianism in American politics.

The late senator spoke eloquently one year ago about the need to advocate for the sake of our fellow citizens, “ We have never lost our belief that we are called to a better country and a newer world … For me, this is a season of hope, new hope for a justice and a fair prosperity for the many and not just for the few, new hope. And this is the cause of my life, new hope. That we will break the old gridlock and guarantee every American, north, south, east, west, young, old will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege.”

Although his life was near its end, Kennedy vowed in March to be a foot soldier in the president's fight for health care reform, saying, “This time, we will not fail.”

Unfortunately, with the death of this political powerhouse, it seems as though health care reform might fail. According to an Atlantic magazine obituary, Kennedy's bipartisan efforts with Republican colleagues like Sen. Orrin Hatch might have opened up room for compromise from the opposition. In addition, the late senator left a vacancy on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, now assumed to be chaired by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who would have to resign his chairmanship on the Banking Committee, before Congress would alter Wall Street regulations. Kennedy's death leaves a gap in leadership and will test the efficacy of the health care reform movement.

And so, it is our place, not just as Democrats, not just as activists, but as Americans to take the late senator's vow of not failing to our fellow citizens and to Congress in this time of transition. Now is the time to lobby every senator and every member of Congress for honest and true health care reform, because with Kennedy's death, every vote counts. It's up to us to seize this moment – for the sake of the senator – and talk to Sen. John Ensign here in Nevada. It's now our place to advocate in our homes, on the streets, with our hearts and with our words to reform health care in America so that – indeed – this time we will not fail.

If you are so moved by the words and actions of Kennedy, please come in to carry the torch passed by this great, American statesman and volunteer for a shift or two a week until we pass this much-needed reform in our country.

Aaron Benedetti

During Congress’s August recess, Republican malcontents have escalated their attacks on health care reform—and that’s only to be expected. I anticipated some of the usual conservative grievances: complaints about the federal deficit, concerns over taxes for families and small businesses, claims that big government is more dangerous than Big Insurance.

But I was unpleasantly surprised by some of the tactics I observed. Many opponents to health care reform have resorted to rumor-mongering and dispersing outright lies, and they have occasionally become quite vocal, and even physical, at some representatives’ town hall meetings. At one Colorado rally, a car bearing an Obama campaign sticker and a flyer for SEIU, a service workers’ union, sustained $3,000 in damage. These disruptions appear aimed entirely at producing bad publicity—I really don’t see how claims of forced euthanasia (like those perpetuated by conservative commentator Betsy McCoy on Fred Thompson’s radio show) can stem from any existing provisions of the bills in Congress.

I have noticed, though, that those who choose to disrupt these meetings seem fully and completely convinced that their wild claims are true. They have been manipulated—whether by an individual, by an interest group or by an entire industry—to believe that their propaganda is unbiased and no-nonsense news, that those who disagree are just condescending or ignorant, that they alone know what is best for the nation.

Though these people are undoubtedly entitled to express their ideas (or, rather, to express someone’s ideas), I find this behavior worrisome, especially considering the ease with which some reformists can disregard it. There is quite a large difference between a freethinking and rational citizen and an unthinking vehicle for misinformation. It’s the difference between being civically engaged and being, well, disengaged—and not knowing it.

Alfred Walking Bull

This week in northern Nevada, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community comes together to celebrate Pride Week. Pride is an important event in the community and has its roots in the Stonewall Riots of 1969, a series of riots that began after the New York City police raided a gay bar, the Stonewall Inn. For most in the community, it’s a historic event worthy of praise, veneration and celebration. 

For others within the community—myself included—the riots serve as a constant reminder and inspiration to never stay on the sidelines when it comes to political action and LGBT activism and to stay on the path set before us. That path has led us to this point in American politics where we’re able to even discuss the possibility of marriage equality for lesbians and gays as well as legal protections and anti-discrimination laws for the transgender community.  

In Nevada, beginning on October 1, lesbian and gay couples (along with our heterosexual brothers and sisters) are legally able to register as domestic partners. But that step toward equality wasn’t taken alone, thanks to the efforts of progressive legislators in the Senate like David Parks—who introduced the bill—and all of our strong, Democratic Washoe legislators Sen. Bernice Mathews, Assembly members Bernie Anderson, David Bobzien, Sheila Leslie and Debbie Smith who voted for that step closer to equality and political allies like Nevada Women’s Lobby, PLAN and the ACLU.  

But those allies also had help from local activists like Pamela and Angela Brooks, David Gordon, Jill Switzer and Paul Cain among other Nevadans who testified before the Senate and Assembly committees during the bill’s hearing phase. Our activists also had integral support from individuals like Lauren Scott of Equality Nevada and David White with Day of Decision for organizing rallies and their supporter bases to further the cause of equality with the Domestic Partnerships bill. 

These LGBT activists are shining examples of what can be done a state level for taking steps closer to marriage equality at all levels of activism. The challenge now is to supplement those activists by four or five times the amount of volunteers who can be activated to show their support for legislation, which can lead to more victories for the community in the future.  

Despite our victories here and around the country—or maybe even because of them—the LGBT community as a whole is on the brink of complacency. With each victory, we leave the table with a settlement of equality and we tell ourselves that will do. The challenge is to continue coming back to the table with our voting bloc, financial support and volunteerism to prove that we’re serious about equality on all levels. But that takes a staggering amount of work and it can foster despair. The actuality is that any civil rights struggle is constantly fraught with its ups and downs, sometimes, more downs than ups.  

As an activist, it’s disheartening to hear from friends within the LGBT community about how they’re “just not political.” As a Native American, I’ve seen first hand how not being political adversely affects a community; it dampens the fire and spirit of activism and creates a sense of hopelessness and complacency. In the LGBT community, with so many of our basic rights—the right to work, the right to housing and the right to marry to name a few—being a simple function of legislation, it’s hard not to see the connection and ignore that the personal truly is political. 

As Pride Week continues here in Reno, this offers us the opportunity to start work for our own equality—and for our brothers and sisters in their own struggles like health care—and be able to be proud of the results yet to come.

Voter turnout numbers good for Washoe, not for Nevada

Aaron Benedetti 

Monday, in the Reno Gazette-Journal, a small story on voter turnout for the 2008 election caught my eye. According to Census Bureau figures, it reported, 63.6 percent of U.S. citizens ages 18 and older voted in 2008. Here’s the kicker: That figure was down from 63.8 percent in the 2004 election. 

Now, don’t get me wrong. According to the RGJ, that 63.6 percent conceals the fact that the 2008 election saw about five million new voters cast their ballots. But, nonetheless, the percentage of voters who cast their ballots relative to the total number of eligible voters decreased from 2004 to 2008. 

There’s more. The article went on to report that Nevada—which was teeming with political activists, which some national political pundits had labeled a “battleground state”—ranked 45^th in the nation by the percentage of its 18-and-older population who cast a ballot in 2008. 

I couldn’t bring myself to read the rest of the article. Last fall, as a freshman student at the University of Nevada, Reno, I volunteered with the Obama campaign—I registered voters between classes, interrogated passersby as to whether they knew where to vote early, canvassed the university neighborhoods, made phone calls to Reno residents who were sometimes quite annoyed at being disturbed in the name of democracy. I had never been involved in a political campaign before, but I was amazed by the efficiency and commitment of my field organizers, and they couldn’t be unique to Reno, could they? I mean, weren’t we organizing across the country? 

I was so distressed that I decided to investigate further. I rifled through the Washoe County Registrar’s Web site for the county-level election statistics. The final numbers? Relative to its total number of eligible voters, Washoe County saw a turnout of 78.07 percent (that’s 180,676 voters) in 2008. 

Well, that makes me feel a bit better about my volunteer efforts, at least. 

Dan Burk, Washoe County’s Registrar of Voters, said that number is higher than any he has seen since taking up his position—the highest in about 24 years, in fact. He attributed the high number to the high interest in the election. 

“More than anything else, it looked, at one time, like Washoe County was going to be in play nationally,” Burk said. “Nevada became important. The rural areas generally vote Republican, and Clark County will go Democratic, so it was going to come down to which way Washoe County went.” 

Burk drew my attention to another peculiarity of the voting stats. According to the Registrar’s office, 59.7 percent of all votes cast in Washoe County were cast early. 

“The highest number of early voters we had seen prior to 2008 was 42,000,” Burk explained. “In 2008, it was more like 101,000.” 

This enormous increase in early voters was due to Democrats, who had heavily encouraged their members to vote early, Burk said. (I felt a small rush of pride at this point in our conversation, as I had spent hours expounding the virtues of early voting last fall.) The biggest advantage of the early vote process, he said, is the options it guarantees—on Election Day, your only option is to stand in line. 

“I’m not advocating, but it was a clever way to approach the election, to get the enthusiasm out,” Burk said. “I think it made a huge difference. (The Democrats) took Washoe County, and that was unexpected.” 

Burk acknowledged a number of other factors contributing the voter turnout increase in Washoe County, including Nevada’s January Democratic caucus, during which potential caucus-goers were free to register as Democrats, and the ensuing increase in statewide and countywide Democratic voter registration. 

As for future elections, Burk said he doesn’t put much faith in the 2008 numbers as an indication of future turnout results. 

“I think what will determine whether we have a large turnout is whether Nevada is in play again, or if there’s a lot of interest in the community, or perhaps a charismatic figure comes forward, for whatever race,” Burk said. “We could have an exciting primary for governor, but I don’t think we’ll see this kind of thing again until maybe 2012, but most likely 2016.” 

I’ve got to admit that Dan Burk has much more experience with these numbers than I do. But, considering that Nevada is still firmly mired in the doldrums of recession, and that UNR barely evaded near-fatal budget cuts in the state’s search for funds, I really hope the 2010 midterms generate the kind of interest that Dan Burk hasn’t seen in years. Or maybe since 2008. 

To view the Census Bureau’s 2008 voter statistics, visit http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting/cps2008.html. 

For an interactive map of Washoe County’s precinct turnout rates, visit http://wcgisweb.washoecounty.us/website/Voters2008/viewer.htm.

Alfred Walking Bull

According to a recent article in the Reno Gazette-Journal, the number of registered voters in Nevada has dropped by 120,000 since the 2008 presidential election, leaving the Democratic Party's statewide advantage in voters down to 109,753 Democrats over Republicans.

Closer to home in Washoe County, that breaks down to 94,021 Democrats over 92,458 Republicans, leaving us with a razor-thin majority of 1,563 registered Democrats.

With Nevada's midterm elections looming, we'll see candidates coming to court our votes and support in hopes of advancing Democratic platforms, values and goals both statewide and in Washington.

However, the candidates' efforts and attention may be all for naught if we, as the Washoe County Democratic Party, can't produce enough registered voters to turn out on Election Day 2010. It is imperative at this point -- while we have the time to educate potential voters -- that we do educate and engage them at every possible opportunity. The most common question encountered during current voter registration efforts seems to be, "Why should I register? We just voted." Our job, as a the party of the people, is to remind the public that change doesn't just happen at the federal level, but at the state, county, city and municipal levels as well.

Will we register the thousands of voters we need to secure a solid majority in Washoe County? Probably not, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Every new Democratic voter is another voter who can support a Democratic Congressional representative or senator, governor, constitutional officer, assemblyperson, state senator, county commissioner, city councilperson or school board member.

The best way to achieve success is to maintain a constant presence in the community as a vehicle to enfranchising and educating potential voters. We, as a party, have two upcoming opportunities. The first is this Fourth of July at the Star-Spangled Sparks celebration from 3 to 7 p.m. where we'll be canvassing the crowd. The next will be on August 13 at the Sparks Farmers Market from 2:30 to 8 p.m. in two shifts (2:30 to 5:30 and 5:30 to 8 p.m.).

To ensure that Washoe County is truly blue, this is the simple work that remains to be done over the next year and a half. And it needs to be done.

If you would like to sign up for a voter registration shift, please contact Shaun Gray at 323.8683.

Aaron Benedetti

Souter called this a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. He's probably right about that.

But I disagree with the Court's decision, though I can see why the white applicants would feel they were discriminated against. This decision seems to minimize a good deal of the history and intent behind the Civil Rights Act. I'm no legal expert, but I think this could set a dangerous precedent -- are we to condone the kind of implicit discrimination that the Civil Rights Acts were intended to protect against? The majority rationalized its decision in the name of equality, but the exam results seem a bit biased.

Like David Souter said: Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The full text of the Court's ruling is available here.

Aaron Benedetti

Listening to NPR a few days ago, I was struck by one commentator's observation about the protests. She remarked on the symbolic differences between the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the current uproar over the election - then, bearded, middle-aged, male clerics were the face of the revolution; now, that face belongs to a young woman called Neda. She was reportedly a 16-year-old philosophy student living in Tehran, shot by a sniper while protesting for democracy with her father.

The cell phone-recorded video of Neda's death quickly found an audience on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, even as Iranian officials attempted to jam social media outlets. But fencing off the Internet just doesn't work, it seems. Communications can't be secured in the way that some believe national borders can, and this link between the pro-democracy movement in Iran and the social media points to a very important aspect of democracy itself - it may be individual at heart, but it only works with collective effort.

Technology, at least in this case, is not a tool for oppression. Rather than playing into the hands of some towering Orwellian conspiracy, the Internet is undermining the powers that attempt to control it. Media and news coverage of world events is nearly ubiquitous today, and I doubt, even without Twitter and YouTube, that the extent of the violence occurring in Iran would remain hidden for long. I'm pretty sure, though, that Neda's last moments would not have been broadcast on CNN were it not for Iranian officials' attempts to keep tabs on the social media.

What does Neda represent? The rebels? The force of social media? Iran's lack of control over the popular means of communication? She might represent all of these. But more than anything, I think, Neda represents herself. She was one individual, protesting, storming the streets with thousands of others, but she was killed. Neda, and the thousands like her, represents the real, collective tragedy of this conflict.

To view the video, click here.