The Kathmandu Blues

Nepal king releases political prisoners

Two leading dissidents were freed from a Nepalese prison as King Gyanendra readies for negotiations with opponents.

But protests continue elsewhere in the country Wednesday as police brutally break up peaceful rallies against the monarchy.

Gyanendra took control of the democratically elected government last year, accusing it of not doing enough to quell the Maoist insurgency.

The Times of London reports at least two people were shot dead in Chandragadi and dozens were wounded by police.

Madhav Kumar Nepal of the Communist Party of Nepal and Ram Chandra Poudel of the Nepali Congress were released after three months in prison.

An envoy from India arrived in Nepal to meet with opposition forces before meting with Gyanendra in an attempt to break the stand off.

Nepal's government Wednesday imposed a daylong curfew in a western city and gave security forces shoot-at-sight orders for any violation.

The state-run radio announced that the curfew would be imposed in Pokhara, about 125 miles west of Kathmandu, on the 14th day of nationwide protests against the king.

Violators of the curfew would be shot, the Press Trust of India reports.

Sigh. For the past 10 years or so Nepal has been suffering a civil war between the monarchy based in Kathmandu and the Maoist rebellion taking place practically everywhere else. After the old king and most of his immediate family was murdered by the Crown Prince, ol' Gyanendra took over. He's proven himself both ruthless at quelling democracy and utterly incapable to stopping the rebels, who now control at least half the country.

What His Highness fails to understand, it seems, is that people will only fight for your government if they feel they have a stake in it. The old 'divine right' bit doesn't play as well as it used to, especially when the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has shown a willingness to participate in parliamentary elections in the past, while continuing to so in the parts of Nepal under their control.

Now, is the CPN(M) going to keep up this veneer of civility if they actually gain power? I'm skeptical of their support for democracy, especially in light of their campaign of kidnapping and extortion, as well as some of their statements in which they propose banning 'immoral' Indian films from being shown in Nepal. But, most Nepalese don't go to the movies anyway, and at the moment the rebels they seem to be making their case better.

To Your Health

BOSTON Apr 4, 2006 (AP)— Lawmakers overwhelmingly approved a bill Tuesday that would make Massachusetts the first state to require that all its citizens have some form of health insurance.

The plan approved just 24 hours after the final details were released would use a combination of financial incentives and penalties to dramatically expand access to health care over the next three years and extend coverage to the state's estimated 500,000 uninsured.

If all goes as planned, poor people will be offered free or heavily subsidized coverage; those who can afford insurance but refuse to get it will face increasing tax penalties until they obtain coverage; and those already insured will see a modest drop in their premiums.

The measure does not call for new taxes but would require businesses that do not offer insurance to pay a $295 annual fee per employee.

More

I'm all for extending health care to people who don't have it. But forcing people to buy health insurance? Does that make any sense?

I don't like it. It's predicated on the assumption that if only those stupid lower-class people were forced to prioritize and spend money on things that matter instead of frittering away their extra $200 a week on cans of beans or country music CDs or whatever it is poor people buy.

The fact is, lower-income people don't buy health insurance because they like the thrill of living without a net or because they foolishly think they won't get sick. Rather, they simply can't afford rent, food, transportation, AND health care. Rather, the needs of shelter, food, and getting to work are far more pressing than the possibility of injury. This added to the fact that most of the cheaper health-coverage plans only provide for 'catastrophic' health problems while people who work in manual or service jobs are more susceptible to chronic condictions which require constant treatments which add up; pill-by-pill costing $20 a day instead of a one-time $10,000 operation. Not to mention the fact that some of those most in need of free health care don't even have to money to get to the hospital or doctor's office in the first place.

Temporary half-measures are appealing, but ultimately they just confuse the hell out of people.

For the Absolute Last Time, Bush Lied

No, not necessarily about Iraq having WMDs (though I still think that what he did constitutes dishonesty at the very least) but about whether Iraq having WMDs had any bearing on whether or not we would invade:

Via the old NYT:

LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

So! All that pre-war guff about war being our last resort and the necessity if attacking Iraq because it was a clear and present danger was solely a charade for the cameras, just like the hippy who always wears sandals into the coffee shop said. Great. Bush used to say that he prayed for peace; did he have his ifngers crossed or what?