Martin Luther King's Words of Peace

Excerpts from "Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution" By the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Commencement Address for Oberlin College, Oberlin Ohio, June 1965:
What we are facing today is the fact that through our scientific and technological genius we've made of this world a neighborhood. And now through our moral and ethical commitment we must make of it a brotherhood. We must all learn to live together as brothers - or we will all perish together as fools. …
All I'm saying is simply this: that all mankind is tied together; all life is interrelated, and we are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. For some strange reason I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. ...
We must get rid of violence, hatred, and war. Anyone who feels that the problems of mankind can be solved through violence is sleeping through a revolution. …
We must find some alternative to war and bloodshed. …
We must see that peace represents a sweeter music, far superior to the discords of war. Somehow we must transform the dynamics of the world power struggle from the negative nuclear arms race which no one can win to a positive contest to harness man's creative genius for the purpose of making peace and prosperity a reality for all of the nations of the world. In short, we must shift the arms race into a peace race. ...
All that I've said is that we must work for peace, for racial justice, for economic justice, and for brotherhood the world over. We have inherited a big house, a great world house in which we have to live together - black and white, Easterners and Westerners, Gentiles and Jews, Protestants and Catholics, Moslem and Hindu. If we all learn to do this we, in a real sense, will remain awake through a great revolution.
Full text available at:

The Bad Samaritans

I’m frustrated by Republican candidates’ pandering for the votes of Christian conservatives. The candidates love to talk about their faith and their values. They love to tell us America was founded on Christian values, but they fail to follow the example Jesus set in His ministry: compassion for the sick.

By threatening to repeal health care reform—without offering another plan to provide coverage for the millions of uninsured Americans—the Republican Party shows an utter lack of compassion.

Some Tea Party Republicans even go so far as to advocate hospitals’ turning away patients who can’t pay. This is the antithesis of what Jesus taught and did.

Review the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37). Are you going to vote for someone who acts like the Levite and the priest who walked by while the injured man lay bleeding?

DRILL BABY DRILL!* (*for a limited time only)

“Go green” and “Drill, baby, drill” are conflicting slogans for environmentalists who want the United States to develop clean energy technologies and climate change skeptics who think increased domestic oil and gas production is the key to energy independence and economic growth. The truth is, both groups are right.

The U.S. needs to invest in clean energy, but these technologies will take time to develop, and the transition to clean power, whether it is wind, solar, or some new source, will be gradual.

As an intermediate measure, the U.S. needs to exploit our vast natural gas resources. Natural gas is not a permanent solution—it is not a “clean” fuel, but it is cleaner than oil and much cleaner than coal. And in the short run, we need to drill for as much domestic oil as possible. This needs to be done in a safe and environmentally responsible manner, but it should be done. As long as we are using petroleum, we should be ones profiting from it.

We should exploit our domestic energy resources even as we subsidize the development of new energy technology with a goal of phasing out coal, then oil, and finally natural gas over several decades. Of course, doing this would require a far-sighted national energy policy and cooperation between Democrats and Republicans—two resources that are truly scarce.

Dirty Money Fuels Climate Change Denial

The news stories in 2011 should have put an end to climate change skepticism once and for all. Data from 2010 found that the year tied for the warmest year on record and that unexpectedly high amounts of greenhouse gasses were being spewed into the atmosphere. Former climate change skeptic Richard Muller announced that his research confirmed that earth’s surface temperatures are rising. A U.N. panel reported that climate change is responsible for some of the worldwide droughts and high temperatures. These events should have ended the public debate about climate change and served as a call to action.

So why are the climate change deniers louder than ever? Because oil and coal industries, which create greenhouse emissions, have a well-financed propaganda machine aimed at casting doubt on the overwhelming scientific consensus about man-made climate change.  

A 2006 article in The Guardian pointed out that oil companies—especially Exxon—used the same tactics the tobacco industry used to create public doubt about the dangers of smoking:

There are clear similarities between the language used and the approaches adopted by Philip Morris and by the organisations funded by Exxon. The two lobbies use the same terms, which appear to have been invented by Philip Morris's consultants. "Junk science" meant peer-reviewed studies showing that smoking was linked to cancer and other diseases. "Sound science" meant studies sponsored by the tobacco industry suggesting that the link was inconclusive. Both lobbies recognised that their best chance of avoiding regulation was to challenge the scientific consensus. As a memo from the tobacco company Brown and Williamson noted, "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy." Both industries also sought to distance themselves from their own campaigns, creating the impression that they were spontaneous movements of professionals or ordinary citizens: the "grassroots".

More recently, The Guardian reported that one of the world's most prominent climate change skeptics has admitted to being paid more than $1 million U.S. oil and coal companies:

Dr Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, is known for his view that global warming and the melting of the arctic sea ice is caused by solar variation rather than human-caused CO2 emissions, and that polar bears are not primarily threatened by climate change.

But according to a Greenpeace US investigation, he has been heavily funded by coal and oil industry interests since 2001, receiving money from ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute and Koch Industries along with Southern, one of the world's largest coal-burning utility companies. Since 2002, it is alleged, every new grant he has received has been from either oil or coal interests.

Instead of funding research to make oil and coal use cleaner, or to develop clean alternative fuels, the oil and coal industries are fund research they hope will confuse the public debate. By financing and publicizing the tiny (and shrinking) minority of scientists who disagree with the consensus that man-made climate change is a real and imminent threat, companies that profit from pollution hope to create the illusion that there is scientific controversy. As with the tobacco industry, the ultimate price of this disinformation campaign will be human death and suffering.

2011 News
2010 Tied for Warmest Year on Record
2010 Saw Record Increase in Greenhouse Gasses

Links Between Energy Industry and Denial Propaganda
The Denial Industry
Who Funds Contrariness on Climate Change?
9 of 10 Climate Denying Scientists Have Ties to Exxon-Mobil Money
Climate-Science Contrarian Roy Spencer's Oil-Industry Ties
Climate Sceptic Willie Soon Received $1m from Oil Companies, Papers Show

Scientists Reach Climate Change Consensus, but Politicians Move Backward

Recent headlines announced that the debate over climate change has officially ended. This came as scientist Richard Muller, a former climate change skeptic, announced that his study of the world's surface temperatures confirmed data from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showing that earth’s temperature is indeed rising. This announcement was all the more remarkable considering that Muller’s research was partially funded by the oil-rich, ultraconservative Koch bothers.
Another recent news article stated that about 564 million more tons of carbon were dumped into the atmosphere in 2010 than in 2009—the largest increase in history.
Unfortunately, despite the scientific consensus that carbon emissions are the main cause of climate change, our elected representatives from both political parties seem to lack the vision and the leadership ability to develop an energy policy that will decrease our dependence on fossil fuels. President Obama’s green jobs initiative is largely considered a failure, and Republicans—many of whom still refuse to believe the facts about climate change—want to diminish the EPA’s power to regulate industrial pollution. In fact, this year House Republicans have passed at least 75 measures to cut environmental regulations.
I agree with the economists and business leaders who say developing a clean energy is the key to future prosperity. We need political leaders who want to move forward, not backward.
 Skeptic finds he now agrees global warming is real http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/skeptic-finds-he-now-1213505.html
Republican congressmen take aim at Environmental Protection Agency http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/10/republican_congressmen_take_ai.html
Small Business Owners: Clean Energy Economy Will Increase Prosperity http://www.ombwatch.org/node/11868

Can Democrats and Republicans at Least Agree to Fix the Roads?

It’s no surprise that President Obama’s jobs bill did not make it through Congress. It is now being broken into smaller bills so that each proposal can be considered individually, which is probably what should have been done in the first place. Now that both parties have done their political posturing, I hope that some items in the bill will get the consideration they deserve.
Like the original stimulus bill, the new jobs bill proposes spending on infrastructure projects. This is spending that creates immediate jobs and provides long-term benefits to businesses.
“The Cost of Doing Nothing” by Kathy Caldwell, president of the American Society of Civil Engineers, in the Oct. 2011 issue of  Science points out that deficient surface transportation infrastructure would cost U.S. businesses an added $430 billion in transportation costs by 2020, and billins more in export revenue would be lost. “Nearly all sectors will suffer, but those associated with technology and innovation would probably be the hardest hit,” Caldwell wrote.  She continued:
“To meet the many infrastructure challenges, more financing is needed. Now that the American Jobs Act has failed to pass Congress, there is discussion of breaking the bill into pieces that should be easier to pass. The proposed act includes $50 billion to modernize road, rail, and air transportation systems, and it would establish a National Infrastructure Bank to leverage public and private capital toward these endeavors. This level of priority and investment is needed, or the United States will continue its downward slide.”
 I agree. If Democrats and Republicans can’t even agree that we need to fix the roads, then our democracy truly is broken.
“The Cost of Doing Nothing” by Kathy Caldwell. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6054/289.full

Why All Americans Should Have Health Insurance

As opponents of the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act continue attempts to overturn, defund, or otherwise derail the law, it’s important to remember that the law addresses a crucial need to provide insurance coverage to all Americans.

The list below is a bit long, but these are just a few of the studies that demonstrate that Americans without health insurance have worse outcomes than those with insurance. It’s worth noting that some studies show Medicaid recipients also have worse outcomes, which some researchers speculate may be due to lapses in coverage. Please browse these excerpts from the articles' abstracts and note that all are from peer-reviewed medical or scientific journals. You may still think the Affordable Care Act is bad legislation, but repealing it without replacing it would cost lives.

Am Surg. 2010 Oct;76(10):1108-11.
Does health care insurance affect outcomes after traumatic brain injury? Analysis of the National Trauma Databank.
Alban RF, Berry C, Ley E, Mirocha J, Margulies DR, Tillou A, Salim A.
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
Increasing evidence indicates insurance status plays a role in the outcome of trauma patients; however its role on outcomes after traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains unclear. A retrospective review was queried within the National Trauma Data Bank.... However, when controlling for confounding variables, the presence of insurance had a significant protective effect on mortality ... indicating insured severe TBI patients have improved outcomes compared with their uninsured counterparts.

Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Jul;122(1):63-8.
Insurance status and racial differences in uterine cancer survival: a study of patients in the National Cancer Database.
Fedewa SA, Lerro C, Chase D, Ward EM.
American Cancer Society
To examine the impact of race and insurance on survival among a large cohort of uterine cancer patients from the National Cancer Database (NCDB).... Patients without private health insurance had worse uterine cancer survival that may be improved through future health care reform aimed at improving access to preventive services and adequate treatment.

Am J Med. 2010 Aug;123(8):741-7.
Health insurance and cardiovascular disease risk factors.
Brooks EL, Preis SR, Hwang SJ, Murabito JM, Benjamin EJ, Kelly-Hayes M, Sorlie P, Levy D.
The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
Compared with those with health insurance, the uninsured receive less care for chronic conditions, such as hypertension and diabetes, and experience higher mortality.... The treatment and control of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia are lower among uninsured adults. Increasing the proportion of insured individuals may be a means to improve the treatment and control of cardiovascular disease risk factors and to reduce health disparities.

Ann Surg Oncol. 2010 Dec;17(12):3104-11.
Health insurance status affects staging and influences treatment strategies in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.
Zaydfudim V, Whiteside MA, Griffin MR, Feurer ID, Wright JK, Pinson CW.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center 
Lack of health insurance is associated with poorer outcomes for patients with cancers amenable to early detection. ... Uninsured patients with HCC are more likely to present with late-stage disease. Although insurance status did not affect chemotherapy utilization, Medicaid and uninsured patients were less likely to receive surgical treatment.

Cancer. 2010 Sep 1;116(17):4178-86.
Insurance status and survival disparities among nonelderly rectal cancer patients in the National Cancer Data Base.
Robbins AS, Chen AY, Stewart AK, Staley CA, Virgo KS, Ward EM.
American Cancer Society
Among patients with colorectal cancer, insurance status is associated with disparities in survival as well as differences in stage and treatment. 

Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010 May 1;181(9):1003-11.
An official American Thoracic Society systematic review: the association between health insurance status and access, care delivery, and outcomes for patients who are critically ill.
Fowler RA, Noyahr LA, Thornton JD, Pinto R, Kahn JM, Adhikari NK, Dodek PM, Khan NA, Kalb T, Hill A, O'Brien JM, Evans D, Curtis JR
American Thoracic Society
One in three Americans under 65 years of age does not have health insurance during some portion of each year. Patients who are critically ill and lack health insurance may be at particularly high risk of morbidity and mortality due to the high cost of intensive care.... Patients in the United States who are critically ill and do not have health insurance receive fewer critical care services and may experience worse clinical outcomes. Improving preexisting health care coverage, as opposed to solely delivering more critical care services, may be one mechanism to reduce such disparities.

Am J Surg. 2010 Apr;199(4):554-7. 
Insurance status is a potent predictor of outcomes in both blunt and penetrating trauma.
Greene WR, Oyetunji TA, Bowers U, Haider AH, Mellman TA, Cornwell EE, Siram SM, Chang DC.
Howard University College of Medicine
Penetrating trauma patients with insurance still had a greater risk of death than blunt trauma patients without insurance.... Insurance status is a potent predictor of outcome in both penetrating and blunt trauma.

J Trauma. 2010 Jan;68(1):211-6. 
Does insurance status matter at a public, level I trauma center?
Salim A, Ottochian M, DuBose J, Inaba K, Teixeira P, Chan LS, Margulies DR.
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center 
It has previously been demonstrated that a lack of insurance impedes access to health care services and may affect outcome after acute medical events. ... Despite being younger and less severely injured, uninsured trauma patients had a significantly higher mortality rate.