I received the following e-mail from 10 Downing Street today, in response to the petition I signed asking the PM for an apology to Alan Turing, one of Britain’s greatest mathematicians.

2009 has been a year of deep reflection – a chance for Britain, as a nation, to commemorate the profound debts we owe to those who came before. A unique combination of anniversaries and events have stirred in us that sense of pride and gratitude which characterise the British experience. Earlier this year I stood with Presidents Sarkozy and Obama to honour the service and the sacrifice of the heroes who stormed the beaches of Normandy 65 years ago. And just last week, we marked the 70 years which have passed since the British government declared its willingness to take up arms against Fascism and declared the outbreak of World War Two. So I am both pleased and proud that, thanks to a coalition of computer scientists, historians and LGBT activists, we have this year a chance to mark and celebrate another contribution to Britain’s fight against the darkness of dictatorship; that of code-breaker Alan Turing.

Turing was a quite brilliant mathematician, most famous for his work on breaking the German Enigma codes. It is no exaggeration to say that, without his outstanding contribution, the history of World War Two could well have been very different. He truly was one of those individuals we can point to whose unique contribution helped to turn the tide of war. The debt of gratitude he is owed makes it all the more horrifying, therefore, that he was treated so inhumanely. In 1952, he was convicted of ‘gross indecency’ – in effect, tried for being gay. His sentence – and he was faced with the miserable choice of this or prison – was chemical castration by a series of injections of female hormones. He took his own life just two years later.

Thousands of people have come together to demand justice for Alan Turing and recognition of the appalling way he was treated. While Turing was dealt with under the law of the time and we can’t put the clock back, his treatment was of course utterly unfair and I am pleased to have the chance to say how deeply sorry I and we all are for what happened to him. Alan and the many thousands of other gay men who were convicted as he was convicted under homophobic laws were treated terribly. Over the years millions more lived in fear of conviction.

I am proud that those days are gone and that in the last 12 years this government has done so much to make life fairer and more equal for our LGBT community. This recognition of Alan’s status as one of Britain’s most famous victims of homophobia is another step towards equality and long overdue.

But even more than that, Alan deserves recognition for his contribution to humankind. For those of us born after 1945, into a Europe which is united, democratic and at peace, it is hard to imagine that our continent was once the theatre of mankind’s darkest hour. It is difficult to believe that in living memory, people could become so consumed by hate – by anti-Semitism, by homophobia, by xenophobia and other murderous prejudices – that the gas chambers and crematoria became a piece of the European landscape as surely as the galleries and universities and concert halls which had marked out the European civilisation for hundreds of years. It is thanks to men and women who were totally committed to fighting fascism, people like Alan Turing, that the horrors of the Holocaust and of total war are part of Europe’s history and not Europe’s present.

So on behalf of the British government, and all those who live freely thanks to Alan’s work I am very proud to say: we’re sorry, you deserved so much better.

Gordon Brown

Comment by “Bronxdude“ posted on http://www.huffingtonpost.com

The average American refuses to accept that the Republican Nation is at war with the working-class, which is why republicans support the status quo and vehemently oppose single-payor healthcare, public education, government oversight, minimum wage hikes, worker rights, access to higher education, middleclass tax relief, and, in general, any legislation that would jeopardize the continuation of a credit-dependent, employer exploited, unhealthy, downtrodden, underpaid, debt-laden, undereducated and permanent class of laborers. Similar to exploited sharecroppers, it’s in the best interest of republicans to keep the working-class hopeless, oppressed, unhealthy, undereducated and debt-laden. Republicans staunchly supported the bailout of Wall Street to protect their own assets, but opposed the bailout out the automobile industry, which employs thousands of middleclass Americans. The republican aristocracy opposes any kind of governmental oversight that will interfere with their pursuit of exploitive capitalism; republicans would like to abolish the Departments of Agriculture, Transportation, Interior, Education and The Food and Drug Administration, because these agencies advocate for workers. Just like feudal lords, the Republican Nation requires a formidable army to protect their financial interests, which is why republicans defend unrestrained military spending. According to the CBO, the Iraq War will cost $2.6 trillion over 10 years; health insurance for every American would cost $1.2 trillion over the same period. Republicans want to keep America angrily divided by class and race. Universal health insurance provides hope and would elevate the standard of living for every American, something republicans don’t want.

Well said, bronxdue. I couldn’t agree more.

Good News!

“Missouri ranks third in the nation for new wind power generating capacity, an industry report says.

The state doubled its wind capacity in the second quarter, adding 146 megawatts for a total of 300 megawatts, according to a report released Tuesday by the American Wind Energy Association, a Washington, D.C.-based trade group.

Texas ranked first.

Missouri topped the list at No. 1 for the state posting the fastest growth in the second quarter, with wind power installations expanded by 90 percent.”

St. Louis Business Journal
Tuesday, July 28, 2009, 4:18pm CDT

Today on C-Span’s Washington Journal, a caller told a story of how he was forced to see numerous doctors at different hospitals in the area in where he lives, some as far as 100 miles away, to get a diagnosis. The caller then faulted health insurance companies for preventing the practice of having “diagnostic tests done under one roof.” “So in essence,” the caller noted, “the insurance companies are the ones controlling what tests you can get, when you get them, how you get them and if they’re accepted or not.”

In a remarkable moment of candor, C-Span’s guest — Republican Congressman Tim Murphy (PA) — agreed:
MURPHY: Yeah and that brings up the point here that with regard to one of our big frustrations with insurance companies is they control the market place, they control what’s done, a lot of times doctors not making the decisions here. And you recognize the frustration.

Watch here:

From ThinkProgress.org

According to this Information Week article (full text below), IT jobs are down, but the unemployment rate is much lower that the overall national rate whoch last week was said to be 9.5%. Good news and bad, I suppose.

The job picture shows IT jobs suffering along with the rest of the economy, but the hemorrhaging appears to have stopped in 2Q.

By Chris Murphy
InformationWeek
July 6, 2009 08:07 AM

The hemorrhaging of IT jobs stopped in the second quarter, as the IT sector added about 44,000 jobs amid a moribund white-collar job market, the latest government surveys show. However, the IT unemployment rate, at 5.5%, remains at its worst mark in five years.
The economy employs about 8% fewer IT professionals than one year ago, a 343,000 job decline, with just under 3.8 million employed today. The analysis is based on Bureau of Labor Statistics household surveys, in which people classify themselves into job types. The BLS recognizes eight IT job categories.

The IT unemployment rate continued to rise, reaching 5.5%, even as the sector added jobs because more people entered the IT workforce, which includes both the employed and the unemployed.

The IT workforce is just over 4 million, including 221,000 unemployed. For management and professional occupations, the unemployment rate is 4.4%. For the economy overall, unemployment rose to 9.5% last month.

IT employment had held up well for the first half of 2008 as the recession began, holding above 4 million jobs, but then starting losing jobs in the third quarter of last year before sinking 6% in the fourth quarter.

The job segments with the biggest second quarter declines compared with a year ago are the two largest IT job segments, computer scientists and system analysts (down 17% from a year ago), and software engineers (down 12%). Programmer jobs are down 5%, and IT managers down 3%.
Broadly, the employment picture suggests IT jobs are suffering along with the rest of the economy, but there doesn’t appear to be the kind of fundamental restructuring that happened in the last recession, when a number of factors including the growth of offshore outsourcing led to the U.S. losing a quarter of programmer jobs.

A public insurance plan will help heal a broken health care system
BY MICHAEL BLOOMBERG

The principles that President Obama has outlined for national health care reform are driven by a goal that I share: universal access to affordable health care. Last week, I went to Washington to speak with members of Congress about an idea that can help make that goal a reality: a public health insurance option.

Today, most Americans get their health coverage from private insurers. A public health insurance option would create a competitor to private insurers that could potentially drive down costs across the board. I support the concept of a public plan, because if it’s done right, it means introducing exactly the kind of competition our system needs.

Choice and competition are almost always in the best interests of our economy. When I started a small business 28 years ago, there were other companies that offered financial information to banks and businesses. But we found a way to do it better. That gave our customers more options, and it strengthened the marketplace of financial information.

The public option in health care – which President Obama is supporting as a central part of his proposed reforms – grows out of the same idea. If you like the coverage you have, you keep it. But if you don’t have coverage – or if you lose your coverage – you’d have another option. And virtually everyone agrees that a well-managed public option has real potential to provide – for less money – the same benefits that private insurers provide.

There are two reasons for this. First, the public option is likely to have lower administrative costs than private insurance plans. We know this based on our experience with Medicare, which spends a lower percentage of every dollar on overhead than private insurance plans do, on average. And second, if the public plan proves popular, it will be able to use its market share to negotiate lower prices for consumers. These two steps would also positively affect the rest of the health insurance market, making it more efficient, innovative and customer-oriented, which is exactly what we need.

A public option would be particularly beneficial to areas where just a few insurance companies control most of the market. This is especially true of cities. According to the American Medical Association, 94% of metropolitan areas in the United States are dominated by one company or a small group of companies. This kind of anti-competitive concentration protects private insurers from ever having to feel the urgency to provide more for less. When you don’t have to find ways to cut costs and produce a better product, you tend not to do it. The public option offers the opportunity to force the system to innovate, evolve and improve.

To create and sustain a more competitive market, it is critical that the public option operate under the same rules that private plans follow. That means it could not be unfairly subsidized by the government. Working through the details of these rules will not be easy, but it is critical that Congress not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We need a reasonable solution to a fundamental problem that is hurting millions of Americans and weighing down our economy.

Creating more competition – which has produced major cost savings in other industries – makes the most sense.
Nearly everyone agrees that the status quo is not acceptable. Not only are costs crippling many family budgets, but nearly 50 million Americans do not have insurance – and yet we pay more for health care than any other nation.

If an effective public option is put forth that makes health care more affordable and accessible for New Yorkers and all Americans, I’ll do everything I can to help it become a reality.

New York Times
Thursday, July 2nd 2009, 4:00 AM

Below is a copy of the e-mail I sent to Senator Claire McCaskill today. We’ll see what she has to say in response.

Dear Senator McCaskill,

I understand that you are concerned that an energy/climate bill may have a negative impact on potions of the Missouri economy, because we are so dependent on coal. This is certainly a valid concern, however, I hope you will not let this outweigh the global consequences of inaction. As we transition to a sustainable energy future, some localities will be hurt in the short term. However, we need to think globally, and long-term. Missouri can and will adapt to the future. As President Obama said “we must not be prisoners of the past.”. Please don’t let the lobbyists at Peabody win. We need to think about the planet we leave to our children and grandchildren. Not corporate profits. As our senator, I ask to provide the leadership to our state to move forward into the new green economy, to develop renewal energy, so that we are no longer so dependent on coal.

Thank you for your consideration.

The House of Representatives passed the landmark American Clean Energy and Security Act, sponsored by Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Edward J. Markey, Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
This landmark bill will revitalize our economy by creating millions of new jobs, increase our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and preserve our planet by reducing the pollution that causes global warming.
“Today we have taken decisive and historic action to promote America’s energy security and to create millions of clean energy jobs that will drive our economic recovery and long-term growth,” said Chairman Waxman. “After more than three decades of being held hostage to the influence of foreign energy suppliers, this legislation at long last begins to break our addiction to imported foreign oil and put us on a path to true energy security.”
“Today the House has passed the most important energy and environment bill in our nation’s history,” said Chairman Markey. “Scientists say that global warming is a dangerous man-made problem. Today we are saying clean energy will be the American-made solution. This legislation will create jobs by the millions, save money by the billions and unleash investment in clean energy by the trillions.”
The bill contains the following key provisions:

• Requires electric utilities to meet 20% of their electricity demand through renewable energy sources and energy efficiency by 2020.
• Invests $190 billion in new clean energy technologies and energy efficiency, including energy efficiency and renewable energy ($90 billion in new investments by 2025), carbon capture and sequestration ($60 billion), electric and other advanced technology vehicles ($20 billion), and basic scientific research and development ($20 billion).
• Mandates new energy-saving standards for buildings, appliances, and industry.
• Reduces carbon emissions from major U.S. sources by 17% by 2020 and over 80% by 2050 compared to 2005 levels. Complementary measures in the legislation, such as investments in preventing tropical deforestation, will achieve significant additional reductions in carbon emissions.
• Protects consumers from energy price increases. According to recent analyses from the Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency, the legislation will cost each household less than 50 cents per day in 2020 (not including energy efficiency savings).

From the House Energy and Commerce Committee, See http://energycommerce.house.gov

New York Times, June 20, 2009

Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll

The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector.

See Americans favor a plan for government-run insurance to compete with private insurers, a Times/CBS poll finds.

Sen. Bernie Sanders
Independent U.S. Senator from Vermont

Posted: June 8, 2009 04:08 PM

Health Care Is a Right, Not a Privilege

Let’s be clear. Our health care system is disintegrating. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance and even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. At a time when 60 million people, including many with insurance, do not have access to a medical home, more than 18,000 Americans die every year from preventable illnesses because they do not get to the doctor when they should. This is six times the number who died at the tragedy of 9/11 – but this occurs every year.

In the midst of this horrendous lack of coverage, the U.S. spends far more per capita on health care than any other nation – and health care costs continue to soar. At $2.4 trillion dollars, and 18 percent of our GDP, the skyrocketing cost of health care in this country is unsustainable both from a personal and macro-economic perspective.

At the individual level, the average American spends about $7,900 per year on health care. Despite that huge outlay, a recent study found that medical problems contributed to 62 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007. From a business perspective, General Motors spends more on health care per automobile than on steel while small business owners are forced to divert hard-earned profits into health coverage for their employees – rather than new business investments. And, because of rising costs, many businesses are cutting back drastically on their level of health care coverage or are doing away with it entirely.

Further, despite the fact that we spend almost twice as much per person on health care as any other country, our health care outcomes lag behind many other nations. We get poor value for what we spend. According to the World Health Organization the United States ranks 37th in terms of health system performance and we are far behind many other countries in terms of such important indices as infant mortality, life expectancy and preventable deaths.

As the health care debate heats up in Washington, we as a nation have to answer two very fundamental questions. First, should all Americans be entitled to health care as a right and not a privilege – which is the way every other major country treats health care and the way we respond to such other basic needs as education, police and fire protection? Second, if we are to provide quality health care to all, how do we accomplish that in the most cost-effective way possible?

I think the answer to the first question is pretty clear, and one of the reasons that Barack Obama was elected president. Most Americans do believe that all of us should have health care coverage, and that nobody should be left out of the system. The real debate is how we accomplish that goal in an affordable and sustainable way. In that regard, I think the evidence is overwhelming that we must end the private insurance company domination of health care in our country and move toward a publicly-funded, single-payer Medicare for All approach.

Our current private health insurance system is the most costly, wasteful, complicated and bureaucratic in the world. Its function is not to provide quality health care for all, but to make huge profits for those who own the companies. With thousands of different health benefit programs designed to maximize profits, private health insurance companies spend an incredible (30 percent) of each health care dollar on administration and billing, exorbitant CEO compensation packages, advertising, lobbying and campaign contributions. Public programs like Medicare, Medicaid and the VA are administered for far less.

In recent years, while we have experienced an acute shortage of primary health care doctors as well as nurses and dentists, we are paying for a huge increase in health care bureaucrats and bill collectors. Over the last three decades, the number of administrative personnel has grown by 25 times the numbers of physicians. Not surprisingly, while health care costs are soaring, so are the profits of private health insurance companies. From 2003 to 2007, the combined profits of the nation’s major health insurance companies increased by 170 percent. And, while more and more Americans are losing their jobs and health insurance, the top executives in the industry are receiving lavish compensation packages. It’s not just William McGuire, the former head of United Health, who several years ago accumulated stock options worth an estimated $1.6 billion or Cigna CEO Edward Hanway who made more than $120 million in the last five years. The reality is that CEO compensation for the top seven health insurance companies now averages $14.2 million.

Moving toward a national health insurance program which provides cost-effective universal, comprehensive and quality health care for all will not be easy. The powerful special interests – the insurance companies, drug companies and medical equipment suppliers – will wage an all-out fight to make sure that we maintain the current system which enables them to make billions of dollars. In recent years they have spent hundreds of millions on lobbying, campaign contributions and advertising and, with unlimited resources, they will continue spending as much as they need.
But, at the end of the day, as difficult as it may be, the fight for a national health care program will prevail. Like the civil rights movement, the struggle for women’s rights and other grass-roots efforts, justice in this country is often delayed – but it will not be denied. We shall overcome!

From Health Care Is a Right, Not a Privilege
Huffington Post, May 8, 2009