At a critical moment for health care reform in the United States, The National Economic & Social Rights Initiative has published an in-depth assessment of single payer proposals, finding that a single payer system goes further towards meeting key human rights principles than market-based plans.

The question of whether national leaders will consider a single payer system as an option for health care reform has become a question of basic democracy. Despite most Americans supporting a single payer solution, the Obama Administration and congressional leaders have denied it consideration. Key stakeholders such as health care professionals, patients and single payer advocates have been excluded from hearings regarding health reform, prompting courageous civil disobedience actions by health care advocates. One of the protesters at the recent Senate Finance Hearings, Dr Margaret Flowers of PNHP Maryland, said: “We have entered a new phase in the movement for health care as a human right: acts of civil disobedience. It is time to directly challenge corporate interests. History has shown that in order to gain human rights, we must be willing to speak out and risk arrest”.

On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on "Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks."[1] They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM's position paper stated, "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, "There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation," as defined by recognized scientific criteria. "The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies."

We hear it all the time. Nuclear reactors produce 80% of the electricity in France. Their reactors are “safe” and that means the U.S. should build new reactors.

This is the sound byte. But are reactors truly “safe” as advertised? After studying the facts, the answer is an emphatic “no.”

In France, politics has overwhelmed science in defining “safe.” For nearly 30 years after French reactors began operating, not one medical journal article was published on cancer rates near reactors. Intimidated by the power of the nuclear industry, French health officials didn’t dare look for dirty laundry, even though over 100 radioactive chemicals – the same in atomic bomb fallout - were routinely being released into the air and water.

President Obama could soon have the power to regulate dangerous greenhouse gases himself should Congress fail to do what’s necessary. It’s up to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and YOU to decide.
Here’s the deal: The EPA has concluded that there is overwhelming evidence that greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels endanger our health and welfare -- which means that by law they have the ability to regulate those emissions under the Clean Air Act. But, before they make a final decision they’re giving the public a chance to comment. Make sure that the EPA knows how you feel by submitting a comment today.

Tell the EPA to give President Obama the power to rescue the climate.

These comments really do make a difference. The more people who tell the EPA to finalize these findings the better chance we have of giving President Obama the tools he needs to be a leader on global warming. It really is that simple.

An association representing top advertisers on broadcast and cable television has proposed the creation of a new Cheney Channel dedicated exclusively to the Cheney family, the primary motivation apparently being to get Dick and Liz off all the other channels where their presence seems to be hurting the sales of advertised products.

OK, not really, but it wouldn't surprise me. One of the products that Liz Cheney seems to be hurting is in fact Dick. Ray McGovern just pointed out to me that with Lynne and Liz having probably replaced David Addington as Dick Cheney's editors, some big gaffes have slipped through. For example, in Thursday's speech Cheney listed U.S. support for Israel as one of the "true sources of resentment" for terrorists. True enough, but did Dick mean to say that?