The Texas Paradox: How Lab-Grown Meat Bans Undermine the Dream of Mars

When the same states cheering for SpaceX ban the food technology we'll need to get there

On June 25, 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed legislation banning the sale of lab-grown meat, making Texas the seventh state to outlaw cultivated protein. "This ban is a massive win for Texas ranchers, producers, and consumers," declared Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller. "Texans have a God-given right to know what's on their plate, and for millions of Texans, it better come from a pasture, not a lab."

Eight months earlier, on October 13, 2024, SpaceX successfully launched Starship's fifth test flight from Boca Chica, Texas. Governor Abbott was there, celebrating Texas as the launchpad for humanity's multiplanetary future. "Texas is leading the charge to the stars," he proclaimed.
No one seems to have noticed the contradiction.

The Unasked Question

If we're serious about becoming a spacefaring civilization—and the billions being invested by SpaceX, Blue Origin, and others suggest we are—then we need to answer a simple question: What are we going to eat?

The same legislators celebrating rocket launches are banning the food technology that would make permanent space settlement possible. They're cheering for the destination while outlawing the journey's most essential supply.

Consider what it would take to have beef on Mars using traditional ranching:

For cattle, you need:

• Pastureland (in pressurized habitats or domed environments)
• Water systems (scarce on Mars, expensive to transport)
• Grain/feed production (requiring more land, more water, more infrastructure)
• Waste management (for tons of manure in closed environments)
• Veterinary facilities
• Slaughter and processing equipment
• All of the above multiplied by your desired herd size

For that grain, you need:

• Arable land (Martian regolith is toxic and lacks organic matter)
• Pollination systems (no bees in space)
• Additional water
• Fertilizer production
• Pest management in closed systems
• Harvesting and processing equipment

Now imagine you want fish for variety. Suddenly you need:

• Ocean-like aquatic systems (thousands of gallons)
• Temperature and salinity control
• Phytoplankton cultivation (requiring light systems)
• Zooplankton to feed the phytoplankton eaters
• Small fish to feed the larger fish
• Breeding and spawning infrastructure
• Water filtration and recycling
• Everything an ocean ecosystem requires, maintained artificially

The capital costs are staggering. The system complexity is absurd. The resource consumption is prohibitive. And this is for a single protein source.

The Engineering Reality

Space habitats demand closed-loop systems. Every gram of mass matters. Every liter of water is precious. Every watt of energy is calculated. The efficiency losses in maintaining entire food webs—where you feed grain to cattle that convert perhaps 10% of that energy into meat—are simply unacceptable.

This isn't ideology. It's engineering.

NASA knows this. They've been researching alternative protein sources for decades. The ISS experiments with cellular agriculture. Every serious long-duration mission plan includes synthetic nutrition as a necessity, not an option.

But apparently, Texas—home to SpaceX's Starbase and its Mars ambitions—believes we can ranch our way to the stars.

The Ocean We're Destroying

The absurdity becomes even clearer when we consider Earth's oceans. We're currently fishing them toward extinction—90% of large fish populations are gone since 1950—to harvest perhaps two dozen species at commercial scale. Industrial fishing destroys entire ecosystems, creates vast dead zones, and generates billions of tons of bycatch for what? Salmon dinners. Tuna sandwiches. Shrimp cocktails.
And we think we can replicate this in space?

Build ocean ecosystems in orbital habitats? Maintain the full food web from phytoplankton to apex predators? Transport and manage billions of gallons of saltwater? All to have fish tacos on Friday?
Cultivated meat offers an alternative: identify the specific proteins, fats, and nutrients we value, and synthesize them directly. No ocean required. No ecosystem maintenance. No extinction.
On Earth, this is controversial. In space, it's mandatory.

The Precedent We're Setting

Here's what makes the bans particularly shortsighted: we're not just protecting current industry—we're actively preventing the development of technology we'll desperately need.

The companies working on cultivated meat aren't just creating Earth-based alternatives to traditional agriculture. They're developing the closed-loop biological systems, the bioreactor technologies, the cellular understanding that will be essential for space food production. Every innovation in cellular agriculture is a step toward sustainable space nutrition.

By banning these products before they can even reach market, states aren't just protecting ranchers—they're delaying the development of space settlement infrastructure. They're choosing short-term political gains over long-term civilizational capability.

Imagine if early automotive pioneers had faced state bans protecting horse breeders and buggy manufacturers. "Automobiles are unnatural. We have a God-given right to know our transportation comes from a stable, not a factory." The argument sounds absurd in retrospect because we can see how it would have delayed inevitable technological transition.

The lab-grown meat bans will age the same way.

The Innovation Disconnect

The states leading these bans—Texas, Florida, Alabama, Nebraska, Montana, Mississippi, Indiana—have positioned themselves as pro-innovation, pro-space, pro-future. Florida hosts Kennedy Space Center. Texas hosts SpaceX's Starbase. These states celebrate every rocket launch, every mission milestone, every step toward human expansion beyond Earth.

Yet they're banning the food technology that expansion requires.

They're saying: "Yes to billion-dollar rockets. No to cellular agriculture." "Yes to Mars colonies. No to sustainable protein synthesis." "Yes to humanity among the stars. No to the nutrition systems that would make it possible."

The disconnect is remarkable. It's as if the same legislators championing renewable energy were simultaneously banning solar panel development to protect coal miners. The immediate constituency wins the battle; the future loses the war.

What We Actually Need

Let's be clear about what cultivated meat represents: it's not about replacing traditional agriculture on Earth (though it might). It's about developing the capability to produce nutrition from base materials in resource-constrained environments.

This technology enables:

• Protein production without maintaining food webs
• Closed-loop systems for long-duration missions
• Scalable nutrition for growing space populations
• Independence from Earth-based supply chains
• Adaptation to any environment (orbital, lunar, Martian, asteroids)

These aren't luxury features. They're requirements for permanent space settlement.

When Elon Musk talks about making humanity multiplanetary, when Jeff Bezos envisions millions living and working in space, when NASA plans Artemis moon bases—they're all implicitly assuming we solve the nutrition problem.

We can't solve it by exporting traditional agriculture. The physics doesn't work. The economics doesn't work. The engineering doesn't work.

The Real Question

So here's what Texas and the other ban states need to answer:

Are you serious about space, or is it just theater?

If you're serious—if you genuinely believe humanity's future includes permanent settlements beyond Earth—then you need the food technology you're currently banning. You need synthetic nutrition, cellular agriculture, closed-loop biological systems. You need innovation in how we produce protein, not protection of how we've always done it.

If you're not serious—if space is just good PR for rocket launches and tourism—then the bans make sense. Protect the current industry. Celebrate the spectacle. Let someone else worry about the boring details of actually living in space.

But you can't have it both ways.

You can't cheer for Starship while banning the innovations that would stock its pantry. You can't celebrate Mars missions while outlawing the technology that would feed Mars colonists. You can't position yourself as the state leading humanity to the stars while preventing development of the systems that would sustain life there.

The Path Forward

The irony is that Texas has everything needed to lead in cultivated meat technology: research universities, biotech expertise, available capital, entrepreneurial culture, and political will for innovation. Instead of banning this industry, Texas could be incubating it—developing the food systems that SpaceX rockets will eventually carry.

Florida could be positioning itself as the home of both space launch and space nutrition. The state that sends humans to orbit could also feed them there.

These states could choose to lead. Instead, they're choosing to protect. And in doing so, they're undermining the very future they claim to champion.

The dream of becoming a spacefaring civilization is inspiring. The investments are real. The technology is advancing. The vision is achievable.

But we can't get there while banning the food technology we'll need to survive once we arrive.

Somebody needs to tell the governors cheering for rocket launches that they're simultaneously outlawing the systems that would make those rockets meaningful. We're not going to ranch our way to Mars. We're not going to fish our way to orbital habitats. We're not going to pack ocean ecosystems into lunar colonies.

We're going to synthesize what we need from base materials, using closed-loop biological systems, with efficiency impossible in traditional agriculture.

That's not a threat to ranchers. It's the price of admission to the stars.

The sooner we recognize this, the sooner we can develop the technology that makes permanent space settlement actually possible. The longer we delay—protecting current industries while celebrating future dreams—the longer those dreams remain just that: dreams.

Texas can lead humanity to space, or it can protect its cattle industry. It cannot do both.

The choice should be obvious. The contradiction shouldn't exist. But here we are: banning the future in the name of the past, while celebrating the journey we're refusing to prepare for.

Someone needs to connect these dots before it's too late.

When "You Are Not Entitled to a Response" Becomes Government Policy

 A response to ProPublica's documentation of systematic obstruction

https://link.propublica.net/view/638cee32f4a4ae40600dedf1ppqxo.29zf/9e6ef6c9

ProPublica just published something remarkable – not the investigative story they set out to write, but the story of what happened when they tried to write it. For two months, reporters attempted basic journalism: calling press offices, emailing questions, trying to reach officials making decisions about public education. The response? "You are not entitled to a response from us, or anyone, ever."

That line deserves to be quoted in full, because it represents something more significant than one spokesperson's hostility. It articulates a philosophy that's metastasizing across government institutions: the idea that those wielding public power have no obligation to explain themselves to the public.

But there's something deeper happening here that we need to name.

The Infrastructure Nobody Sees

We talk a lot about infrastructure – roads, bridges, power grids. We understand that when infrastructure fails, everything built on top of it fails too. But we rarely think about information infrastructure the same way.

Information infrastructure isn't just servers and fiber optic cables. It's the systems and norms that let us verify claims, test assertions, and distinguish what's actually happening from what we're told is happening. When ProPublica sends detailed questions to the Department of Education, that's information infrastructure working. When press offices respond with context or corrections, that's information infrastructure working. When officials who make decisions can be reached for comment, that's information infrastructure working.

When a department spokesperson declares journalists "not entitled to a response," that's information infrastructure being deliberately dismantled.

Three Dimensions of Information Breakdown

The ProPublica article documents three simultaneous failures, each reinforcing the others:

Connection failure: Press phone lines disabled ("temporarily closed" for months). Personal cells declared off-limits. Home addresses labeled "intimidation." Every pathway for direct communication systematically severed.

Agreement failure: The basic social compact – that public officials should respond to questions about public actions – explicitly rejected. Not just ignored, but theoretically denied: "You are not entitled to a response."

Structure failure: The institutions supposedly designed for transparency (press offices, public information officers) maintained as facades while rendered non-functional. The appearance of infrastructure without the function.

When all three fail simultaneously, you don't just have unresponsive government. You have information silos – sealed systems where claims flow outward but verification cannot flow inward.

Why This Matters More Than You Think

Here's what's easy to miss: this isn't about whether you trust ProPublica or distrust the Trump administration or vice versa. It's about the substrate that makes trust possible at all.

Think about it: How do you know what's actually happening inside the Department of Education? You can't go there yourself. You can't examine the documents. You can't interview the decision-makers. You're dependent on information infrastructure to carry verified facts from there to here.

When officials can make claims ("most transparent administration in history") while blocking every attempt to verify those claims, you're not in a disagreement about facts. You're in a system where facts cannot be established. Where everything devolves to "who do you believe?" rather than "what can we verify?"

This is how democracies spiral into dysfunction – not through dramatic coups, but through quiet infrastructure decay. When verification becomes impossible, coordination becomes impossible. When coordination becomes impossible, we fragment into isolated groups, each certain of their own truth, unable to find common ground because the ground itself has been removed.

The Spiral ProPublica Documented

Notice the pattern in the article:

1. Journalists attempt normal verification

2. Officials obstruct and ignore

3. Journalists escalate to direct contact (as they must)

4. Officials reframe escalation as harassment

5. Obstruction is now justified as self-defense

6. Future verification attempts are chilled by threat

Each turn makes the next turn worse. Each refusal demands more aggressive verification attempts. Each aggressive attempt justifies more aggressive obstruction. The spiral tightens.

But here's what the article also shows: ProPublica kept trying. For two months. Through obstruction and insults and threats. They sent FedEx letters. They called cell phones. They knocked on doors. Not because they were harassing anyone, but because that's what verification requires when normal channels are deliberately destroyed.

The North Carolina GOP communications director told reporter Doug Bock Clark: "I'm sure you're aware of our connections with the Trump Administration and I'm sure they would be interested in this matter. I would strongly suggest dropping this story."

The VA Secretary accused reporter Vernal Coleman of "stalking" for knocking on a door.

These aren't bugs in the system. This is the system working as redesigned – to make verification so costly, so risky, so personally threatening that journalists stop trying.

What We're Actually Losing

The First Amendment protects speech. It protects the press. But it doesn't protect the infrastructure that makes speech meaningful and press effective. Officials can claim anything (protected speech). Journalists can report anything (protected press). But if the verification mechanisms connecting them are destroyed, both freedoms become hollow.

You end up with a strange paradox: everyone's speech is protected, but nobody can verify anyone else's claims. Maximum freedom, minimum truth. Maximum noise, minimum signal.

This is what philosophers might call a "failure mode" – a way complex systems break down that looks like it's working until suddenly it isn't. The forms remain (press conferences still happen, press releases still flow), but the function collapses (nothing can be verified, nothing can be challenged, nothing can be corrected).

The Choice We're Not Discussing

Here's the thing nobody's saying clearly: we're at a decision point about how we want our information systems to work.

One path: Officials and institutions operate in sealed environments, making claims we cannot verify, blocking attempts to examine their work, vilifying those who try. Information flows one direction. Trust becomes tribal. Coordination becomes impossible.

Another path: We recognize that verification isn't harassment – it's infrastructure. That the "right to verify" isn't some reporter's privilege but a public necessity. That institutions wielding public power have an obligation to submit to public examination, not because it's comfortable but because it's how we prevent the spiral toward sealed-system dysfunction.

We're choosing right now, whether we realize it or not. Every time an official declares "you're not entitled to a response," every time a verification attempt is reframed as stalking, every time institutional opacity is defended as appropriate, we're choosing the first path.

What This Requires of Us

If you're reading this and thinking "well, ProPublica is biased anyway" or "those reporters probably were harassing people," you're missing the point. This isn't about trusting ProPublica. It's about whether anyone can verify anything when institutions decide verification is optional.

If the Department of Education can refuse all questions, can the EPA? Can the Pentagon? Can your state government? Your city council? Your school board? Can corporations refuse shareholder questions? Can hospitals refuse to explain medical errors? Can anyone who wants to avoid scrutiny simply declare verification attempts "harassment" and seal themselves off?

Once you establish the principle that those wielding power don't owe explanations to anyone, ever, you've dismantled the infrastructure that makes accountability possible. You've chosen the spiral.

Building Better

There's another way, but it requires something we're not great at: recognizing that verification infrastructure is as essential as physical infrastructure, and just as vulnerable to decay.

It requires establishing – culturally, legally, institutionally – that the "right to verify" is foundational. Not unlimited (genuine harassment is still harassment), but presumptive (attempting verification is not inherently harassment just because it's persistent).

It requires understanding that when we block verification pathways, we're not protecting privacy or preventing harassment – we're destroying the substrate that lets us coordinate as a civilization.

It requires building information systems that work like healthy ecosystems rather than fortified silos. Where information can flow, be tested, be challenged, be refined. Where errors can be corrected. Where claims can be verified. Where trust can be earned rather than demanded.

The alternative is what ProPublica documented: a slow spiral into sealed systems, where everyone makes claims, nobody can verify anything, and we fragment into mutually incomprehensible tribes, each certain of their own truth, unable to coordinate on anything.

The Question Before Us

When the Department of Education spokesperson wrote "You are not entitled to a response from us, or anyone, ever," she posed a question to all of us: Is she right?

Are journalists – and by extension, citizens – entitled to responses from those wielding public power? Is verification infrastructure something we maintain as essential, or something we allow to decay as inconvenient?

Your answer matters. Not in some abstract philosophical way, but in immediate practical ways. Because the infrastructure that lets ProPublica verify what's happening in the Department of Education is the same infrastructure that lets you verify anything about anything. When it fails for them, it fails for you.

We can rebuild it. But first we have to recognize it's broken. And that requires looking past the immediate political allegiances and seeing the structural pattern: the systematic dismantling of our capacity to know what's true.

That's the story ProPublica documented. Not what's happening in the Department of Education, but what's happening to our ability to know what's happening anywhere.

And that should concern all of us, regardless of which administration we voted for.

---

This response draws on emerging frameworks about information systems and civilizational coordination. If these ideas resonate, stay tuned – there's more coming about how we might build systems that work better than the ones we're watching fail.

Will Bitcoin replace the US Dollar? Depends on our choices.

In July, 1944, the Bretton Woods conference decided to lock the value of the US Dollar to $35 per Troy Ounce of AU-79. That lasted for almost 30 years, and those 30 years were some of the greatest decades of economic growth in our history.

Call me optimistic, but WHEN Bitcoin gets to a value of $1 Million per BTC, it means that 1 USD will equal 100 Satoshis, the smallest unit of the Bitcoin protocol. We will have a choice whether to take advantage of that conjunction, or we can ignore it. If we ignore it, we will have another opportunity at $10 Million and another at $100 Million per BTC.

If we take advantage of that opportunity, and lock the USD value to the value of Bitcoin, the Dollar will once again become a viable global transaction currency that everyone everywhere will be able to trust to keep its value over time.

I'm not expecting the US Government to take advantage of the conjunction. And we will see the complete collapse of our national economy and our place in the world. I hope I'm wrong.

That's a Moray lyrics

Something caught my eye this morning, so I did a quick search for lyrics.  Found a few.

That's A Moray
Malcolm Higgins

when you're diving at night, and your feet feel the bite,
that's a moray
when your hand's in the cave, suddenly you'll need saved,
that's a moray
when you blubber and scream, but you have a bad dream
that's amore
when he hits all your fingers, with teeth that are stingers,
a moray...

that's a moray that's a moray

little fella

when he bites on your thumb, takes a chunk of your bum,
that's a moray
when you reach in his cave, he's all bravo and brave
he's a moray

and it's not how it feels, and you know you have eels,
that's a moray....
scuzza me, but you see, let them be, or you'll see
lotsa morays.......

There's a thing on the reef, with big shiny white teeth - it's a Moray
If he's big and he's mean, and he's slimy and green - it's a Moray

Put your hand in the crack and you won't get it back - It's a Moray
When you're movin' your hands, best take care where they land - Watch for Morays

When some teeth catch your eye. and an eel wriggles by - It's a Moray
when something, bites your fin, and throws off your trim - It's a Moray

Keep your fingers in tight and you won't have a fright - It's a Moray
When you're moving by feel and then up pops the eel - It's a Moray

When an eel bites your thigh, as you're just swimming by - It's a Moray
When you scream, and you beg, but it still bites your leg - It's a Moray

Watch you don't get a shark, When you search, after dark - for amore
When you're out of your depth, and you run short of breath - that's amore air

When he's fanning his gills, Better head for the hills - It's a Moray
when your light, in the night, gets swallowed out of sight, - It's a Moray

When your horse munches straw, And the bales total four - That's some more hay.
When you're down and it's dark, Over there - that a shark?, No - It's a Moray

When you ace your last test, Like you did all the rest - That's some more "A"s!
When your boat comes home fine, And you tie up her line - That's a moor, eh?

When you've had quite enough, Of this daft rhyming stuff, that's "no more!", eh?

Don't believe the hype.

Instead, dig for the evidence.

In late May, I had researched enough about bitcoin to be willing to start dipping my toes into this new economic paradigm.  There are a lot of videos from "experts" who are saying that the value of a bitcoin could get as high as $10k, $50k, $100k or even higher.  After searching for some kind of perspective I found a post and a video that pointed out that when you put the price of bitcoin on a logarithmic scale, it tracks the creation of coins based on the original design.  That sold me.  It showed the bubbles as bubbles that popped, and showed the increase in value as par from the design.

So, starting in June, I started putting small amounts into bitcoin, with no real plan at that point what I was going to do with it.  I was getting messages from some friends saying that they were involved in some exciting things, and I did some research.  The potential was there.  Our finances were at a point where we could take a risk.  And I started getting excited about the possibilities.  My wife, bless her heart, got sick and tired about me being excited all the time without actually doing something about it, and pointed out that we could afford to take a risk.  "Just do it!!!"  Ok, fine.  I did.

Over the months of June and July, I bought 2btc, 1eth and 1ltc.  Not a small chunk of change for that time period.  And then I launched into some investments.  Trading, mining, one crazy site that flopped because it was silly.  I didn't lose much.  The bigger question is what I have gained.

A lot.  This is real, folks.  I know there is hype out there.  I have not paid any of my bills yet with bitcoin, but I'm planning to.  I haven't actually pulled any of the gains into US dollars yet, but I will.  More than anything else, I'm just having fun watching it grow.  And it is growing faster than anything else that I have ever tried.

I've been an invester for 17 years, learning slowly, growing my portfolio slowly, and planning for the long term.  I'm taking that mindset and experience into cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, etherium and interesting ideas like coss (Crypto-One-Stop-Solution).  I have not seen energy like this since the late 1990's when the Internet first came online.  Since Facebook really started building in 2006 after going public.  Anyone who thinks that this is a bubble is going to be kicking themselves in 10 years.  Because this train is moving.  Where exactly it is going, nobody can say.  Because nobody knows where this Administration is going to take us either.  But I'm going to place my bets on this new version of currency and what it can do to my bottom line.  I have a plan for 1 month, 6 months, 1 year and 10 years.  If you're interested, let me know.

It's time for me to start something new.  Join me, if you want to.  I'll see you at the top.

On Bitcoin and Taxes

Dear Congresswoman Jayapal,

I am getting into investments using cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, and I have been researching how to pay taxes on the gains from various investment opportunities in that industry.  The IRS has come out with some guidelines related to virtual currencies, most notably "Notice 2014-21".  I have a number of questions that I will be addressing directly to the IRS on the subject of income taxes and capital gains taxes, but I wanted to bring your attention to one aspect of the Notice that caught my attention, with the hope that you will be able to consider the implications and draft legislation to address my concern.

I would like to present two of the questions from Notice 2014-21, questions 6 and 8:

----
Question 6: Does a taxpayer have gain or loss upon an exchange of virtual currency for other property?

Answer 6: Yes.  If the fair market value of property received in exchange for virtual currency exceeds the taxpayer's adjusted basis of the virtual currency, the taxpayer has taxable gain.  The taxpayer has a loss if the fair market value of the property received is less than the adjusted basis of the virtual currency.  See Publication 544, Sales and Other Dispositions of Assets, for information about the tax treatment of sales and exchanges, such as whether a loss is deductible.
----
----
Question 8: Does a taxpayer who "mines" virtual currency (for example, uses computer resources to validate Bitcoin transactions and maintain the public Bitcoin transaction ledger) realize gross income upon receipt of the virtual currency resulting from those activities?

Answer 8: Yes, when a taxpayer successfully "mines" virtual currency, the fair market value of the virtual currency as of the date of receipt is includible in gross income.  See Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income, for more information on taxable income.
-----

The first question is dealing with capital gains, the difference in value between when the virtual currency is bought and when it is sold.  The second question is dealing with taxes upon generation of the virtual currency.

This would mean that gains from mining, even cloud mining contracts that people may purchase around the world, need to be tracked for tax purposes so that the fair market value of the coins generated by the mining can be determined according to basic accounting rules, whether that be First In First Out or some other method.  However, it also means that any transactions conducted in bitcoin for real world goods and services would be subject to capital gains taxes on the difference between when the coin was generated and when it was exchanged for real currency or goods and services worth fair market value.  That sounds to me like double taxation.

I would be interested in discussing this at some point if you are interested and in town.  I know that a lot of people are getting into these currencies, and ensuring that the rules are fair would make it easier for a lot of people to pay the taxes they owe so we can get on with growing the economy.

Also, I wish that the taxes we paid on bitcoin generation like mining could be paid IN bitcoin.  That might actually be kind of cool.  Might also help balance the federal budget.  Just a thought.

Response to Godfather Politics

I was sent an email from a family member copying and pasting from a recent post by Gary DeMar on Godfather Politics. I just spent about 20 minutes rewriting it. Too bad their comment section is limited to 5,000 characters, but maybe this will get back to them somehow. I'll put the link to the original in the first comment.

Think about this for a moment. We are debating how the health care insurance companies should control our healthcare choices by taking away our choices and our money. In essence, we are debating how these private corporations should control our lives. It’s maddening that we are sitting back and letting it happen.

We are an economic version of zombies.

I realize that we didn't have any vote for the people who finance the campaigns of the candidates who said they would repeal Obamacare, but then these elected officials are unwilling to do it anyway because so many lives depend on the current insurance system. Five Supreme Court Justices, appointed by both Republicans and Democrats, ruled in a 5-4 decision that healthcare is the province of the State. It’s amazing. ”O well, I guess we’re going to have to figure out how to do this.” This is a republican democracy of the first order. Is it creeping fascism, creeping socialism, or something else? The debate rages forever.

Who believes that the multi-millionaire business executives are competent to tell the entire health care market how healthcare should be run and financed? What about the doctors that provide the care, the nurses that take care of us in hospitals or the pharmacists that provide our medicines? Shouldn't they have a voice in these decisions? These are literally the same multi-millionaire corporate board members whose banking companies finance our wars, heavy industry manufacturing builds the weapons and extra-governmental economic agents stir the pots in foreign countries directly or even through the CIA that get us into wars that we can’t win and spend money we can't get through taxes so we have to go further and further in debt for.

We’ve already let it happen with education. The education industrial complex is encouraging the privatization of the schools that teach our children and turning them into corporate slaves intellectually and economically, and yet there are the same people — conservatives included– who continue to support teachers unions and public schools financed by our property taxes. If it’s OK to turn our children over to private corporations to be educated, then why not our whole lives?

We need a massive nation-wide uprising. I’m not advocating violence but a loud voice and movement that says, “Stop controlling our lives and controlling our money!”

Let us make our own healthcare choices, without having the cost of those choices drive us into the poorhouse. Once this is done, we won't have to go back and say, “I can’t afford it. Please, save me.” There are fair-market ways to take care of everyone. Other countries already do it, and there are many different models that we can learn from and adapt to our circumstances. All we have to do is look. It might mean extra medical savings accounts to prepare for a medical emergency but many fully developed national health care systems don't require it. And of course we should be driving our cars a year or two longer or backing off on extravagant vacations or not eating out as much. Reducing our footprint on this green Earth is something we all need to take responsibility for.

We really do need to take better physical care of ourselves. Even with all the information we have on smoking and the higher taxes, people still smoke. I watch unhealthy-looking people stand in line and pay $45 or more for a carton of cigarettes. I see fat people waddle around who can barely step up on a curb. These people need motivation to change their habits, and they need the support of a strong community safety net to make sure that they don't fall through the cracks. Nobody is alone in this, if we pull together.

We did need the government when it came to automobile insurance, life insurance, or homeowner’s insurance. All of those insurance systems are heavily regulated on the back end where we can't see them. I can go online and shop for a policy and price for all three of them from a multitude of companies because of those regulations.

Why not do the same for health care? We've tried letting the market take on the job. The problem is that health care is so lightly regulated that any company in the world can claim to be a health insurance company for their own employees or anyone else. Amazon is probably already getting into the insurance business. Same with Wal-Mart? Heck, there are probably some churches that want to create their own insurance pool with their own rules, co-pays, deductibles and decision making panels. With this many actors in the insurance market, doctors and medical providers have to spend Billions of dollars paying people to make sense of it all. Why increase government regulation in the health insurance industry? Because it would save us those Billions of dollars every year!

Market mandated healthcare insurance has driven up costs tremendously, well over and above the natural increase in prices that we have seen over the last hundred years or so. Our grandparents had large families. They did not have to have health insurance, and yet they were able to pay the doctor. Or in GGrandpa James' case he could BE the community doctor and a very respected member of his community. How did they do this? Health insurance is the product of government mandates in the economy during World War II. It was a way to get around the wage and price controls after World War II because Congress was too slow to release those controls and it was also a way to start reducing what companies had to pay their employees. The marketplace did a workaround to beat a government edict, and it resulted in an insurance nightmare that we are now living in.

At the present time, the claim is that “healthcare is plagued by barriers to entry for potential new suppliers of services”, which is false, and “patients do not see bills until after services have been offered,” which is true. No other industry does this, because no other industry has been allowed to get away with it. How many people sign a contract to buy a car before they know the price? Big healthcare companies often won’t allow their own medical facilities to build in certain areas because they have decided that there is no “need” because there is not enough profit in that area for them to make. Governments would love to have new hospitals, doctors offices and other types of medical offices, but if insurance companies decide that they can't make sufficient profit by offering insurance products to the people in a county, then the citizens of that county are left to rot by those insurance companies. There is nothing the government can do in those cases. Competition is supposed to be a good thing in a market, but profit taking is all that the current medical industry leaders seem to care about.

There are dozens of competitive pizza businesses near where we live. That's because competition works when there are enough small players in the game to be able to provide for the market need for that product or service. When big players get into an area, it stifles or destroys all of the other players, and government is helpless to restore those jobs because the tax dollars coming from the big players become necessary for the survival of the municipality. That's when you know that the corporations have really taken over, and it's happening all over the country.

-----

Evidence from other countries illustrates why lowering these barriers to entry is important. In India, Devi Shetty, a surgeon, has taken advantage of economies of scale to develop large, 1,000-bed hospitals that make health care more affordable. Dr. Shetty’s heart treatment hospital charges $2,000 for open-heart surgery—American hospitals average slightly more than 150 beds and charge between $20,000 and $100,000 —while providing high-quality care. Dr. Shetty is currently setting up a chain of similar hospitals in the Cayman Islands to make his services more accessible to patients from the United States as well as the rest of the world.

*****

The U.S. health care system is generally not a competitive marketplace. In particular, current law largely restricts consumers to purchasing insurance within their own states. Additionally, current tax policy offers a tax advantage to employer-based health insurance but not individually purchased insurance, causing most Americans to gravitate toward job-based coverage instead of buying insurance on their own. These distortions, generated by government policy, have largely insulated consumers from their health care choices. (Heritage)

------

These paragraphs are accurate enough, but the fault doesn't lie in the government policy because that could be changed if representatives would just change them. They are prevented from changing them because of the influence of the big players in the market who don't care about anything other than maintaining their own monopoly control.

We’ve seen what the market can do with the airlines after deregulation. More options. But also decreased quality of service, because shaving the food available down to Planters Peanuts and Coke products has saved a lot of money. And the objective of airline design is now to smash as many seats as possible into as small a space as possible. The giant media corporations took control of the broadcast television through well placed government operatives, so the market found a way around it and we got the cable and satellite industry. When consumers grew dissatisfied with fewer options and higher prices, the market stepped in. Now we have Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and a slew of other competing options, and that's great. But now the Cable companies are trying to take control by offering a version of ala carte services and driving all of the smaller players out of the market. Here's hoping that our anti-trust laws will be used to break these monopolies up like they did Standard Oil and AT&T, which by the way are both back bigger and stronger than ever. The government had a monopoly on mail, so UPS, FedEx, and others got in the package delivery service and the world is better for it. But these corporations are also heavily regulated and many of them use the Postal Service in their own routing of packages because it's cheaper than doing everything themselves.

Email has had a devastating effect on the Post Office, but so has the crazy scheme cooked up by Republicans in Congress that required them to fund their retirement system 75 years into the future in an attempt to destroy it entirely so that the big corporations like UPS, FedEx and others that finance their campaign can earn all of the profits instead of letting the Post Office fulfill it's Constitutionally mandated duty.

Our tax system is certainly a nightmare, and if healthcare insurance is so important to our elected officials, why not make out-of-pocket payments deductible? Because it would mean fewer people paying taxes and they're complaining about that enough already. Why not take the healthcare finance money directly from everyone and then pay the expenses through an efficient government-run program like Medicare or Medicaid which already do that? Of course, we know why — power and control. The insurance companies want the power and control over our healthcare decisions to rest in their hands, not ours. Because don't forget, we are by definition our own government, per our founding documents and based on everything we hold sacred in our country.

If we can fix this mess, there will have to be a transition period to a fair system. But the way we are going, we’re going to get the giant fast food version of healthcare. Would you like fries with that?

GOP launches effort to replace Obamacare with something that works (Satire)

Republican leaders in the House and Senate held a press conference today to announce their plan to replace the failing health care system in the United States.  Speaker of the House Paul Ryan spoke about their comprehensive solution by describing the thinking process that went into the development of the plan.

“After much deliberation and thought, we have come to a consensus that Obamacare has failed our great country, and that our citizens deserve better.  The principles that guided the development of this plan were articulated very well by his speech on Tuesday night.  Those principles are to expand choice, increase access, lower costs, and at the same time, provide better health care," Ryan said.

“This new plan will allow our young people to remain on their parents plans, will not discriminate against preexisting conditions, will provide choices in the marketplace for health care insurance and doctors, will pay doctors and health care facilities fairly for the wonderful work they do taking care of our citizens, and will help state governments provide for their people by moving decision making power out of the hands of a federal bureaucracy.”

Ryan pledged that nobody currently covered by a plan that came from the Affordable Care Act would lose coverage, and that the 20 million people who still do not have coverage will get access to a doctor soon under the new plan.

“Families in our country are hurting, and we have to fix this dire problem with a solution that works for everyone.”

When asked for specifics, Speaker Ryan said “everywhere you now see Obamacare or the ACA, you will now be required to call our healthcare system by a new name.  You can call it Trumpcare if you like, but after consultations with our base, we have come up with a new name that pleases everyone.  Let the word go forth that the new standard of care on our nation is the American GAS Act.  This will solve all of our problems, I guarantee it.”

Democratic minority leader Nancy Pelosi responded to the Speaker's announcement by asking reporters to look carefully at the details of the legislation and inform the American people that as citizens it is our responsibility to be aware of what is happening on Capitol Hill.  “The exact details of how much tax money it will take to change all references in our laws and administrative procedures, not to mention mandating that all media outlets begin using the new name for our health care system, Trumpcare, is not known yet, and we look forward to those discussions.”

When asked what Pelosi thought of the change to the American GAS Act, she replied, “I will need to speak with Speaker Ryan about what he thinks it stands for, but I'm confident that it means what I think it means after the President's speech.  America gives a shit.  I suppose the base that he was referring to was the oil and gas industry, and they came up with the idea because that industry wanted more advertising.  But then you never know.”

“But please realize,” she concluded, “that this new Act by Congress does not actually repeal any of the aspects of the previous law.  Because all of those provisions are extremely popular with the American People, and even this President is smart enough to realize that removing health care access from people is a bad idea today.  So we'll see what happens but I am of course hopeful for our future.”

The most terrifying words...

In 1980, while running for US President, Ronald Reagan described the nine most terrifying words in the English language. "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." This was a libertarian battle cry, and it described a world where the free market reined supreme.

It also told the people of my country that we were on our own. That the government was not here to support them, that it didn't care whether we worked or starved, lived or died. That our incoming President of the United States did not care whether we worked or starved, lived or died. Being eleven years old in 1980 I remember watching this speech on television, but I don't remember my grandparent's reaction. Probably because they had left the room in disgust. Being of the Greatest Generation, they knew exactly how much of a lie that was.

In 2003, I heard nine words over the telephone that terrified me. "The results came back, and your cancer is confirmed." I have never been so scared in my life. I was actually at work, and so the first person that I was able to talk to was my supervisor and department director. They could see how scared I was. And they had my back. My employer based health insurance covered it. Without that insurance, my wife and I would likely have had to sell our condo. But not everyone has an employer with the resources and willingness to provide great health insurance to their employees. And so many of our people don't have employers at all, either self employed or not employed. What were they supposed to do if they ever got a phone call like that?

That's why I started getting politically active in 2003. That's why I worked my way up the ranks within the Democratic Party to Chair of my local party organization, and that's why when Bernie Sanders put out the call for Medicare for All in 2015, I dropped everything to help him. Longshot, yes. But my fight with cancer was a shot across the bow, and I wasn't going to take no for an answer.

At the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, I stood watching and listening on Thursday night hoping that the winner of the Democratic Primary would say the right thing. These are the words that she used: "If you believe that every man, woman, and child in America has the right to affordable health care, join us." I sat down, devastated. I said then and I say now that we need to do better than that.

This morning I was checking my phone, and someone I got to know during the campaign told me the four most terrifying words in English language. "I don't have insurance." This is a mother with kids, someone who cares about her community and wants to build her community. And she is worried about getting sick. This is not acceptable. This is not tolerable. This is why I fight, and will not stop fighting until we never, EVER, hear those words from anyone in our country again.

Knock Knock, version 2

Knock Knock

Hello? How can I help you?

Well, I understand that you are having a party, and one of the bands you have playing is one of my favorites! I was wondering if I could join the party.

Did you bring anything for the potluck?

Well, no, I'm between jobs right now so money is tight. But I can grab something if it's required.

Sigh, no, technically it's not required, but it's only common courtesy. You should know that, you're an adult.

Right, thanks. I'll see what I can get.

...

Knock Knock

Hello? Oh, it's you again.

Hi there, yes, I found something I could afford from the store down the street. It's not much but I hope it helps. Oh, I love that song that's playing.

Yeah, it's an old tune but sometimes we like to play it just for the nostalgia. The more modern music doesn't quite have the bite.

And there's nothing like the classics. Can I come in?

Sure, I guess. Just, please take your shoes off, and you'll need to sign this form to say that nothing you hear or see can leave the house.

I don't understand, I thought you wanted more people. This is a really nice house, btw.

Yeah, it's been in the family for a long time. Needs some work, but we never seem to have enough help to get that work done.

I have a whole bunch of friends that I could call.

The house is pretty full already.

But I don't see very many people, where is everyone?

Oh, everyone is in their group space. Each room of the house is for different kinds of music. People usually just go into one of the rooms and stay there unless they need to go to the kitchen or dining room.

That's no fun, why not play different music in a central place so people can get to know each other while they enjoy different kinds of music?

Oh, you know, tradition. It's how we've always done it, and nobody really wants to change.

I know my friends love all kinds of music, they'd love to go from room to room getting to know people and ...

Yeah, that's kind of discouraged. It's distracting. And people here are used to their favorite music.

Oh, come on, it will be fun! Lots of people moving from room to room, talking, singing, dancing. I remember hearing stories about this house in previous times being like that, my Dad said it was a whole lot of fun to be here!

Where did you put your shoes again?

Why, do you want me to leave?

Well, no, but I wouldn't want you to lose anything...

Knock Knock, version 1

"Knock knock"

Hi, welcome! Are you here for the party?

Yeah, I heard about the party from a friend. What's going on?

Well, we want to get people together to talk about how to solve this problem.

What problem? Is it my problem? Do I have a stake in this?

Of course, come on in, let's talk about it. Did you bring anything for the potluck?

Oh, now you're telling me that I had to bring something for the potluck to be allowed in?

No, I just asked if you had brought anything. It's not required, it's just something we do so we can share the load because everyone gets hungry while they talk.

Oh, ok. So am I allowed in?

Of course! Come on in. What is your top issue?

Oh, well, I don't think my issue is your top issue is your top issue, so I don't think I should come in yet. I want to stand out here for a while and listen. Can you set up some microphones and speakers for everyone outside so we can all hear and participate without coming in the house?

"Baby, it's cold outside." Come on in.

You know that's a rape song, right? I don't think I can come in because now I'm afraid for my safety in your house.

Look, it is cold outside, it is raining, in fact there's a big storm coming and I would like to invite you to come inside so you can be sheltered from the storm and so we can talk and work on these problems together.

You don't look like me.

Why does that matter?

Well, because you don't look like me I don't think we can communicate because I don't think your experiences match mine.

You're probably right, but that just means we can tell each other stories and get to know each other better.

But I don't think my stories will be respected because my shoes are wet and that looks like new carpet.

We can wash the carpet. It's more important for you to come in from the rain. Please come inside.

I can't, you're standing in the doorway.

Ok, I'm now giving you whatever room you need to come inside.

But I don't know that I'm actually welcome.

Would you just come inside already?!

Now you're being aggressive, and I don't like that. I don't think I'm actually welcome. And I can still see you, and you don't look like me.

Do you want to join this conversation so we can work on solving these problems?

I see a green field next door. Maybe I can set up a tent and listen to the speakers that you are going to set up and talk into the microphone that you are going to set up for me.

We have plenty of room inside the house, and everyone is welcome.

I don't believe you. I haven't been invited before. At least I don't think that invitation was for me, you spelled my name wrong.

... Look, I have people who are waiting for me to rejoin the conversation. I'll just leave the door open and you can come in if you want to. I'll be in the other room.

I can still hear you. I think you're talking about me now. I don't like that.

Washington State Progressive Caucus, it's time for me to return.

Announcement:

It is my intention to run for Chair of the Washington State Progressive Caucus at the January reorganization meeting.  If you have seen my posts and plans for the state party, the community inclusion effort includes introducing an amendment to the State Party Bylaws that formally codifies the existence of the Constituency Caucuses, and identifies in language the reason they exist, which is building bridges to all of our communities around the state and organizing local caucus structures in the Congressional Districts, Counties and Legislative Districts over the next few years as part of an overall Community Inclusion strategy.  It's long past time to do this, and I'd like to build on the efforts that the current Board has already started that I heard about at the September WSDCC meeting.

For anyone who does not know me, I was born in Seattle, raised in Kent, spent 6 years in the US Navy, owned a small business in Everett in the 1990's, work for Nordstrom now, and I've been involved in the Democratic Party since 2003.  I've been on the Executive Board of the 46th LD since 2005 as an At Large member, KCDCC Rep and Chair.  I was one of the primary organizers for Bernie Sanders in 2015-2016, including being a National Delegate to the 2016 National Democratic Convention.  I am currently on the Washington State Democratic Central Committee from King County, elected this past Sunday.

I am one of the founders of this Progressive Caucus in Washington State, and was Chair in 2007-2008 until I stepped back to focus on being Chair of the 46th, 1st Vice Chair of King County and Chair of the Washington State Democratic Chairs Organization in 2011.  I stepped back in 2012, but returned to help Bernie get 74% in our state and 46% nationally.  I am currently involved in national organizing efforts to encourage and train progressive activists on how to be effective agents of change in their local and state party organizations so that we can promote our values and push our policy objectives into law.

My top issues are Single Payer Health Care, Climate Change Action and Economic Opportunity for All.  I have been writing, blogging, organizing and planning for 12 years.  I have a degree in Business Systems Analysis, and I want to put those skills to work building the strongest Democratic Party that this state and this country has ever known.  I ask for your vote.