This should clinch the debate for health care reform or at least show that there are still people out there who will stand up and watch members of their own group shame a man who is in need.  They talk about "Freedom"?  Where's the "freedom" for someone who faces death because they can't afford health care?

*The following article is located in the author's home town Maplewood Minnesota news flyer:  THE CITIZENS REPORTER.  It refers to the following story regarding Maplewood's Mayor Will Rossbach: http://www.twincities.com/ci_14644197?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com

As I sit down to write this piece, I'm being told by media pundits and yes, by citizens too, that on the national level, "our government is broken". There is no doubt;  a grid-lock of destructive proportions cripples the avenues of our representative democracy, causing a surging flow of apathy and anger among the citizens and voters of this great country.

So, if our government seems to be crumbling apart at the top levels of government, what about at the local level? After all, as we've been told by that endearing old fellow, the late Tip O'Neil: "All politics is local".  It's becoming increasingly clear to me that in order for "the people" to push back against the grid-lock and "special interest" groups in Washington, we need to take Tip O'Neil's lead and get involved in "speaking out" about the good and bad where it matters the most:  in our own cities and towns.  It's where we live with our families and it's where politics affects us the most.  It may seem like moving a pebble up against the boulder of Washington politics but if we don't start moving that small tiny pebble, which is a symbolic embodiment of our own core values, we're going to be crushed under the weight of that Washington boulder and our values and all that we hold dear, will continue to be pushed aside.

Integrity and responsibility should always be foremost in our minds when we step into the voting booth to vote for any candidate whether it be a local or a federal election. The candidate must display a level of experience and or a level of knowledge in governing and above all, he or she must always put "the people" first. This means that even when our elected official assumes a seat of power, it doesn't mean that the official should wallow in that power and plug up the conduit of communication or do anything that would diminish the necessary oversight into the affairs of the peoples office.

 The first amendment gives us the right to expect transparency to a degree where a door should always allow us unfettered access to the business of our government, at any level of government. When the window shades are drawn and the door is bolted, are citizens are thus deprived of a transparent government and our concern should be great and of a magnitude where the pebbles of politics should begin to roll. 

Just recently a story broke regarding our Mayor and a violation of law which occurred during a hunting trip on November 8th, 2009- the week-end after he was elected Mayor of Maplewood. Mayor Rossbach issued a statement on his blog site under the title “Poor Decision” which in part reads:

 "I have no defense of my actions. In the process that followed I cooperated with the DNR and the Cook County prosecutor. I appeared in court and took responsibility for my actions."

"I issue this apology to all the citizens, staff, and friends who have put their faith in me. I have let you down."

I responded in the comment section:

“Your apology holds little weight. My concern is: why did it take a story in the Pioneer Press to bring you forward almost 4 months after the event??? This happened back in November. In the story, you said, regarding there being a building behind you, "I wasn't thinking". Were you also "not thinking" AGAIN about the citizens of Maplewood? If an event, such as this, is so important as to deserve an apology, why not put it out there especially when you violated a law?

You owe more than an apology. You owe an explanation to the citizens of Maplewood for your delay in addressing this matter. "

One thing that should not go without mention here, I am a member of Mr. Rossbach's political party and also a proud member of the union which endorsed him during his campaign. But, I did not vote for him. With that being said, I'd like to make this point:  One of our most basic core values is honesty and integrity and if we continue to sell our principles out to cater to party politics, in the same way that fans root for and defend their favorite sports teams and their players, we're going to continue to go down the drain and our country will continue to suffer as a result.  Being a member of any party affiliation should never stop anyone from calling someone out- even if they are of your own party or even if you voted for him or her.

Of more concern than the "hunting incident" is the underlying unknown reason of why Mr. Rossbach felt that the seriousness of violating the law would fail to move him to do the responsible and right thing of letting the citizens know of his “Poor Decision”- before the St. Paul Pioneer Press printed the story four months after the fact.

These indiscretions by Mr. Rossbach can only lead to more speculation and it opens up the question:  Is there anything else our Mayor has decided not to tell us?  Further compounding this are the rumors that are afloat that suggest that he and others on the Maplewood City Council  are contemplating or are in the process of taking action against  The Citizen’s Reporter for exercising their first amendment rights.  It is true that the council can implement rules of order at council meetings and at monthly Citizen’s Forums that may limit, move “Visitor Presentations” to the end of the agenda or even eliminate citizen participation, but these actions can only be detrimental to our democratic process.  There have been several documented instances where such actions have taken place- which is precisely why I could not give Mr. Rossbach my vote.

It should be our vision to move forward with the goal of making Maplewood and this country a better place to live in.  In these times of social and economic turmoil we should never lose sight of our own principles, responsibilities and rights, which we all share under our Constitution.  If we can begin to roll those pebbles of politics forward- and hold our elected officials accountable for their actions- we’ll soon create a mountain, which is a force that any politician or political party will have to look up to.

Thomas P. Riddell

tomriddell.com

First the Plot (From Wikipedia):

In 2154, the RDA corporation is mining Pandora, a lush, Earth-like moon of the planet Polyphemus,^[22] in the Alpha Centauri star system.^[5] Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) heads the mining operation, which employs U.S. Marines for security. The corporation intends to exploit Pandora's reserves of a valuable mineral called unobtanium. Pandora is inhabited by the Na'vi, a blue-skinned species of sapient humanoids with feline characteristics.^[23] Physically much stronger and taller than humans, the Na'vi live in harmony with nature, worshiping a mother goddess called Eywa.

From this, an angst grows among several conservative pundits and bloggers. 

 '"Conservative" movie critic ' John Nolte pans:

 "AVATAR is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC Revenge Fantasy" 

 (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/12/11/review-camerons-avatar-is-a-big-dull-america-hating-pc-revenge-fantasy/)

******SPOILER AHEAD*********

 Mr. Nolte ends his long-winded critique of Cameron and his "gaudy blue" creations with this unabashed warble- that we "leftists" all knew was coming:

 "Think of “Avatar” as “Death Wish 5” for leftists. A simplistic, revisionist revenge fantasy where if you freakin’ hate the bad guys (America), you’re able to forgive the by-the-numbers predictability of it all and still get off watching them get what they got coming."

Before I fall to my knees  in front of Mr. Nolte and offer up my contrition for enjoying a cinematic masterpiece of a movie, in which I did cringe with a certain amount of guilt in watching "American Marines" get scrubbed out by the "gaudy blues", I believe there's a much deeper lesson to be learned here and it resides in the embodiment of my culpability.  It's one thing to "Support Our Troops", but when it's in a direct and horrific conflict to our sensibilities and morals, when the mission that "our troops" are duty bound with  involves the killing of others  for the mining of a mineral for the monopolistic greed of a corporation, a line needs to be drawn between what is right and what is wrong.

Clearly, no good reason can be made for  "The Marines" mission in AVATAR and obviously, comparisons were made to 9/11 and the Iraq war, which left out the "terrorist" equation that sparked our involvement, but the movie once again teased us to ask the all important question of:  What was our true mission in Iraq?  We may never know for sure...the answer to that question.

John Podhoretz, writing a critique for the Weekly Standard, goes so far as to call the movie "anti-American.":

"The conclusion does ask the audience to root for the defeat of American soldiers at the hands of an insurgency. So it is a deep expression of anti-Americanism-kind of,"  

Not trying to blur reality with fiction, which John Podhoretz seems to be making an effort at doing here, the only conclusion I came to is this:

1- It was a GREAT movie in all aspects of content.

2- Terrorism and Insurgency are all a matter of perspective. The insurgents in this movie were not the Na'vi.

3- The movie did indeed have political and moral slants mixed in together. Now, we just have to decide which of these slants are more important and can we really sift through it all and be honest with ourselves when it comes to judging what is right and wrong in both a movie and in real life?   

I'm not completely happy with the bill that seems primed to win the required votes in the senate.  I'm in a much more heavier lean towards the one that passed in the House in November which includes a public option. You know, the PUBLIC OPTION that you hear so much about on those commercials that want to derail any vote which includes it:  "Please contact your represenative and say NO to a public option..."

 I find it interesting that even with the senate version, without the public option, the Tea Party People are saying nothing about their apparent victory there.  They should all be getting in line to kiss Joe Lieberman full on the lips. But- it's not happening and what I would like them, the tea party people, to do is to tell it like it is:
 
THEY WANT NO KIND OF HEALTH CARE REFORM WHATSOEVER.  

To them it's a myth that so many people out there are suffering without any kind of health care coverage.  I just heard a senior woman standing on the protest lines with the Tea Party say this in response to a question about the 18 million or more uninsured and I think it sums up the complete and willfully ignorant disregard that she and others have for people who are literally on their last legs....:
 
"I don't see anyone dying on the streets..."   To them, it's a taking away of their freedom if the government tries to reform a troubled system.

 Another Tea Party member shouts:  "We want lower costs and less government!" My question to him would be: How would you propose we deal with the current trend in the health insurance industry without the government?  How do we get to your "lower costs" in a market place which is geared toward higher profits? 

And whose freedom are we talking about here- yours or the ones who are in desperate need to have their health care needs met?  Aren't they also entitled to FREEDOM to choose a health care plan that they can afford?

tom riddell.com