Dr. Frist, You Could Be Next...

DiAnne, Pamela, Marjorie and Andree were nice enough to provide links to pictures of Kerry's visits with foreign leaders (you know, the ones he was mocked about because he honestly indicated that they wanted an American President they could work with).

Anyway - thank you much. Kerry still makes my heart go pitty pat and I'm so wistfull about the hope and joy we would all be feeling right now, one week from a Kerry inauguration.

But...back to reality. I am still and forever more will be - a crushie for Kerry.

(There's one picture that absolutely cracks me up. It's number 28 - Kerry and Sharon - Mutt and Jeff.)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/france_kerry

This is so easy to believe on the face of it becasue of the callousness and bottom line of the industry and vindictiveness at being out-spoken. Possible that this was just normal liability of age, shirking their responsibilities, and their looking for loopholes, hoping no one would notice? That does happen every hour of every day.

Another crushie for kerry here, with a desktop quilt pattern of his two week trip on my computer. I'm usually more reality-based, but I pretend that he is our president working with vison and intelligence for world peace and prosperity. The dreaming helps.

Girls... Crushie's for Kerry Girls...

I opened my laptop the other night and forgot I had a desktop photo on it that I took the night before the NH Primary ... the whole family on my desktop!

Here's an easier link for the Kerry slideshow on Yahoo - http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?p=news&g=events/pl/021103kerry&e=1&tmpl=sl

It's so nice to have a Kerry slideshow once again!

Posted by: Marjorie G at January 14, 2005 11:01 PM

I share your vision, Marjorie...

Posted by: Marjorie G at January 14, 2005 11:01 PM

Never hurts to dream!

Never hurts to dream!

Posted by: April at January 14, 2005 11:21 PM

Amen April - you can say that again.

(Good to see you hear. Think of you a lot.)

Along with the dreamin'...

there's a cool new podcast up!

Social Security

http://www.democracycellproject.net/podcast

ENJOY--spread it around!

Lord Almighty - it should read - Good to see you here.

(I should call it a night!)

Thought you guys would be interested....
President George W. Bush won more than 11.5 million votes over his 2000 total, and Kerry, who had 48.3 percent of the vote compared with Bush's 50.8 percent, received about 8 million more votes than Democrat Al Gore won four years before. More than 78 million people eligible to vote didn't do so, the report said.

Bush's margin of victory of slightly more than 3 million votes, or 2.4 percentage points, was the closest for an incumbent president in U.S. history, according to McDonald.

This is cool....

STIPE GLAD TO CONTRIBUTE TO KERRY DOCUMENTARY

MICHAEL STIPE was proud to contribute a song to a documentary focusing on JOHN KERRY's life during the late 1960s and early 1970s, because he considers the defeated presidential candidate "a great leader".

The REM frontman was blown away by director GEORGE BUTLER's GOING UPRIVER: THE LONG WAR OF JOHN KERRY, and was honoured to lend further support to the defeated American election candidate.

Stipe says, "It shows Kerry for the man he became during the Vietnam era. My band were asked for, and proud to offer, a song to the score of this film.

"It's chilling to watch the genesis of a great leader - not giving up."

14/01/2005 17:43

http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/stipe%20glad%20to%20contribute%20to%20kerry%20documentary

Bush's margin of victory of slightly more than 3 million votes, or 2.4 percentage points, was the closest for an incumbent president in U.S. history, according to McDonald.

Posted by: florida dem at January 14, 2005 11:41 PM

Wouldn't it be great if our MSM actually told the truth about this? Mandate my ass.

Ladies, where were the links to the new Kerry pictures? With Vanessa and Shirac? Last thread or two back?

Great slide show..
Kerry goes and meets people and discusses their problems.
Bush goes and offers a fake turkey.
Kinda describes Bush perfectly?

Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at January 15, 2005 12:03 AM

Here you go...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/france_kerry

Truth,
I don't know about ladies, but here is the slideshow.

Here's an easier link for the Kerry slideshow on Yahoo - http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?p=news&g=events/pl/021103kerry&e=1&tmpl=sl

It's so nice to have a Kerry slideshow once again!

Posted by: Pamela at January 14, 2005 11:19 PM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?p=news&g=events/pl/021103kerry&i=index&e=7&tmpl=sl&ns=&l=1&m=&c

Truth, here is the updating thread for when there are Kerry sightings.

Night all...
everyone have a nice weekend...

lol another crushie for Kerry here...

and my desktop is also a picture of him ;-)

looking at him makes me feel SAFE.

I just got back from a party in which my friend's six year old son entertained us by scrunching up his face and doing his impression of bush saying "it's hard work." ...if only this kid could be president instead. He's smart. ...and he can READ.

Anyway, good night everyone!

My hubby is watching the side show with Barbara Walters,Bush and the stepford wife....grrrrr,this should be our night! Got a glimpse of the dog, Barney, and have you ever noticed how that dog won't ever come over to his side when he's called?? I think Barney's a rebelious dem!
Marjorie,I'm sharing that same vision as another "crushie"!! This will be another week to be just plain sad and sappy!! The vile I feel toward that"other" man is pathetic!

Posted by: Patti Ferschke at January 15, 2005 01:37 AM

Patti

Do you think that Bush's dog is really a yellow dog Dem?

Pam..lol..absolutley!!Thanks for the JK photo album. Let's hope JK makes the Sunday "news" circuit after the election. This whole thing makes me ill.

Nah...If the dog were a Dem, he would be peeing on Bush's leg..

That is the preferred treatment of Repubs...

Patti

I think we will see a lot more of JK in the weeks to come...

I just was reading tomorrows NY Times and read David Brooks column because it was one of those, women need to stay at home pieces... reading it, I pieced together some other things I had recently read and found an interesting correlation:

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=230

Wondering if David brooks is one those others that Williams mentioned?

I have friends here fromm Florida - former Republicans. We have just come from Kerryokie. They just closed a deal on property on Vancouver Island. They are getting dual citizenship.

John Kerry is our True President. Bush is an imposter & usurper.

there's a cool new podcast up!

Social Security

http://www.democracycellproject.net/podcast

ENJOY--spread it around!

Posted by: Karen at January 14, 2005 11:25 PM

This humble critic gives a big thumbs up on the podcast. My wife, not a politico in any way, even laughed at the very inventive presentation.

As far as insurance companies go. There is no way anybody can convince me that they exist to provide insurance. They exist to fatten their bottom line. One only has to look at the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois building in Chicago. A glass and metal monument to coporate greed sitting on Chicago's most expensive lake front property.

The fact that an insurance company would try to inhibit a person's right to free speech outrages me. When I first saw that article several days ago, I tried to e-mail the company, but the only listed contacts were the agents themselves. Maybe we should flood the agents?

What a surprise. The Army and the government made a scapegoat out of this Army reservist. He may indeed be guilty of the abuse he inflicted on the Abu Ghraib prisoners, but he surely did not do this without his superiors knowledge, supervision, or direct command. I'm an Army brat; from what I remember my father telling me, chain of command and obeying orders is what the Army is all about. So when do the "numerous officers who were aware of the goings-on" go on trial? And what about putting the higher-ups in the chain of command -- all the way to the Secretary of Defense -- on trial?

Guard Convicted In the First Trial From Abu Ghraib

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9343-2005Jan14.html
--snip--
The defense maintained that Graner, who was a corporal and has since been demoted, and the other low-ranking enlisted soldiers indicted in the case were scapegoats set up by the Army to deflect blame from senior offices in charge of the prison. No officer at Abu Ghraib, and no one higher in the chain of command, has faced criminal charges to date.

That discrepancy became the core defense argument at the court-martial. Defense attorney Guy Womack reiterated the point in closing arguments Friday. "The government is asking a corporal to take the hit for them," Womack said.

"The chain of command says, 'We didn't know anything about this stuff,' " he continued. "You know that is a lie."
--snip--
The angry global reaction embarrassed the White House. President Bush summoned Arab reporters to assure them that Abu Ghraib "is a stain on our country's honor." The president and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have said that the abuse was strictly the fault of a small group of "rogue" soldiers at the prison.
-snip--
Testimony at Graner's trial -- the first full court-martial to probe the prison scandal -- suggested that numerous officers were aware of the goings-on in cellblock One-Alpha. On Nov. 16, 2003, after most of the specific incidents for which Graner was tried, a superior officer informed Graner in writing that "You are doing a fine job. . . . You have received many accolades from the chain of command and particularly from Lt. Col. Jordan." Lt. Col. Steven Jordan was the chief intelligence officer at the prison, and during this week's court-martial the Army said he is under investigation in connection with the scandal.

In a court-martial, "obedience to orders" is a defense to a charge of misconduct, as long as the soldier reasonably believed the order to be lawful. But Graner's attempt to exploit that defense at trial was largely stifled by the judge, Army Col. James L. Pohl. Pohl refused to allow witnesses to discuss which officers were aware of events in cellblock One-Alpha, or what orders they had given. He said any testimony about what the officers knew or said would be inadmissible hearsay evidence.

In Womack's final argument to the jury Friday, the lawyer blasted the government for "hiding" the role of superior officers. "Not one witness from the chain of command came to this proceeding," he said. "Do you think the prosecutors just forgot to call those officers?"

And then, of course, we're about to get a new Attorney General who condones this kind of abuse...

From Barbara Boxer's PAC
HOLD CONDOLEEZZA RICE ACCOUNTABLE!
http://ga4.org/campaign/ricehearings/step1.tcl

(I'm on roll this morning with this torture/abuse conviction story. Sorry.)

Here's an interesting article from Mother Jones about what our administration's -- and future Attorney General's -- position on torture is (which, of course, depends on what your definition of torture is). The article also includes some very good questions that our Secretary of Defense should answer, but never will...

--snip --
One of the chief figures in turning legal questions on torture into policy in the matter of the treatment of prisoners has been Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who oversaw the approval of harsh interrogation methods in 2002 and who became the personally responsible party for approving or disapproving the use of coercive interrogation and "category three" torture after the Spring of 2003. It seems only apt and fitting, then, that he, as well as Alberto Gonzales, be brought before Congress and asked questions about this policy and his role in it.

Read more... http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2005/01/01_505.html

Ok, more on topic. Here's an interesting editorial on tort reform that appeared in last Sunday's New York Times. I've posted in in its entirety. Sorry if it's a bit long.

Malpractice Mythology

"Tort reform," the Bush administration's answer to the problem of high medical malpractice costs, makes sense from only one aspect: the political. The genius of tort reform, which focuses on putting a cap on the awards from malpractice suits, is that it offends only one big-money lobbying group: trial lawyers, who are important financial supporters of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, it helps or holds harmless Republican special interests in the insurance, drug and health care industries. The only problem is that it hurts the hapless patients who suffer grievous harm at the hands of incompetent doctors.

We hold no brief for the current medical liability system, which does a poor job of compensating most victims of medical malpractice. An authoritative study of thousands of patients in New York State found that the vast majority who were harmed by medical errors or negligence never filed suit, whereas the vast majority of those who did file suit were not actually harmed by negligent doctors. Some studies suggest that, once a suit is filed, the courts do a reasonably good job of sorting out who deserves compensation, while other research has found that juries are swayed more by the severity of a plaintiff's injuries than by evidence of negligence. But in a medical system that is coming under increased fire for failing to deliver consistent quality in hospital care, it is clear that only a small number of people are being compensated for malpractice.

The problem with the president's approach, which would limit noneconomic damages to a paltry $250,000, is that it would punish many of those most deserving of compensation. If there is a problem with frivolous lawsuits, that is best addressed by raising the hurdles for filing a malpractice suit, perhaps by requiring an expert judgment on the merits of a case before it can proceed through the courts. But surely $250,000 hardly makes up for the physical and emotional damage done to people who have suffered total paralysis, permanent blindness or severe brain injury because of medical errors. Instead, Congress ought to consider requiring guidelines for judges and juries to help determine what compensation is reasonable in a given circumstance. Similar guidelines could help ensure that punitive damages are high enough to deter bad conduct; $250,000 would hardly amount to a wrist slap.

Politicians endorsing tort reform say a crisis of escalating malpractice insurance premiums is forcing doctors out of business. The extent to which this is an actual problem is murky. Insurance companies have substantially raised premiums for malpractice coverage for doctors in high-risk specialties like obstetrics and neurosurgery in some states, leading at least some doctors to curtail their services, retire or move. The White House laments that patients in some areas are thus forced to travel long distances to find, for example, obstetrical care. But when the Government Accountability Office visited five of the hardest hit states in 2003, it found only scattered problems and was unable to document wide-scale lack of access to medical care.

Most states that are burdened with high premiums have already set their own caps, generally at more reasonable levels than those proposed by the president. It would seem more useful to consider making it harder for insurance companies to gain rate increases. The best response, one that would benefit the public in general, would be to weed out the small number of negligent doctors responsible for generating most of the malpractice awards.

None of the tort reform proposals deal with the underlying need to identify harmed patients and provide them with fair, prompt compensation. Experts have suggested a number of approaches, including special health courts with judges trained to deal with malpractice issues, required mediation, mandatory reporting of errors by doctors and prompt offers of compensation. But there is a lot of uncertainty about what would work best.

Although the administration has been sponsoring some projects to reduce medical errors or speed the resolution of claims, these have faded behind the full-court political press to impose "tort reform." Instead of fixating on an idea that would do little to solve anything but the health care industry's desire for fewer big court awards, Congress should push for a wide range of demonstration projects aimed at solving the malpractice problem by actually cutting down on malpractice.

Well, as mythical crises go, this one within the medical community seems to be just about par for the Bush Administration's course.

As Jim VandeHei pointed out in a Washington Post editorial last week (which is reposted in full at http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010905K.shtml -- on a site you don't have to register for in order to read the content):

"President Bush had great success in his first term by defining crises that demanded decisive responses. Now, as he begins a second term, Bush is returning to the same tactic to accomplish three longtime conservative goals.

"Warning of the need for urgent action on his Social Security plan, Bush says the 'crisis is now' for a system even the most pessimistic observers say will take in more in taxes than it pays out in benefits well into the next decade.

"He calls the proliferation of medical liability lawsuits a 'crisis in America' that can be fixed only by limiting a patient's right to sue for large damages. And Bush has repeatedly accused Senate Democrats of creating a 'vacancy crisis' on the federal bench by refusing to confirm a small percentage of his judicial nominees.

"'This White House had made an art of creating crisis where a crisis does not exist,' said Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

"Bush used the word 'crisis' four times Thursday in a campaign-style speech in Collinsville, Ill., where he blamed lawsuits for depriving Americans, especially those in rural areas, of quality physicians to deliver babies and save lives. 'It is a societal issue that we must deal with,' he said. 'We don't want our little towns ... not having any health care.'

"Both sides agree there is major health care problem in some states and localities where doctors are fleeing because of skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance costs. But there is widespread disagreement about how pervasive the problem is and who is to blame.

"In 2002, the last year for which complete figures are available, malpractice costs amounted to less than 2 percent of health care costs, according to the Congressional Budget Office. 'A reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small,' according to the CBO study. Still, several areas are suffering from a shrinking number of doctors.

"Reid said the insurance companies, which set the rates for physicians, are to blame, not the trial lawyers.

"Finally, Bush accuses Democrats of creating a 'vacancy crisis' on the courts by opposing his nominees. Republicans claim Democrats have abused the Senate filibuster by blocking 10 of the president's 229 judicial nominees in his first term -- although confirmation of Bush nominees exceeds, in most cases, the first-term records of presidents going back to Ronald Reagan. 'Does that sound like a crisis? Only if you failed math really badly,' Reid said."

So, in other words, the mythical crisis in the medical community caused by a critically urgent need for malpractice tort reform is just that: mythical. It's just another chimera presented by the neo-cons to generate more FUD as public relations cover for their real goals.

From where I sit, it looks like the *real* crisis we have to deal with here is pretty clear: it's the critically urgent need to replace the dishonest lobbyists and backstage manipulators and self-serving political skanks who are currently running things with honest, principled men and women who are willing to stand up for what's right, not just lie down for what's wrong.

just my $.02,
Otter

Oh, and speaking of mythical crises, he segued smoothly...

"WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Saturday that Social Security 'is on the road to bankruptcy' and unable to pay promised benefits to future generations, raising the stakes in a major political battle with Democrats.

"Bush used his weekly radio address to try to build support for his plan to allow workers to divert part of their Social Security payroll taxes into private investment accounts. Democrats accuse him of exaggerating the problem to sell a plan that would scale back Social Security.

"'If we do not act now, government will eventually be left with two choices: dramatically reduce benefits or impose a massive economically ruinous tax increase,' the president said. 'Leaving our children with such a mess would be a generational betrayal.'

"Democrats say the model most often described would cost more than $2 trillion over the first decade alone and hasten the program's fiscal problems. The White House is considering letting workers divert up to two-thirds of the 6.2 percent paid in payroll taxes into investment accounts, up to perhaps $1,000 to $1,300 a year, administration officials have said.

"Bush said a child born now could expect less than a 2 percent return after inflation on the money they pay into Social Security. 'A conservative mix of bonds and stocks would over time produce a larger return,' he said.

"Democrats disagreed.

"'Rather than averting the so-called 'crisis' it decries, the administration's plan will create a crisis where currently only a challenge exists,' said Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina, top Democrat on the House Budget Committee.

"Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., added: 'The kind of plan the president supports only achieves solvency for Social Security through massive cuts in guaranteed benefits. Private accounts actually weaken the solvency of the program.'"

(The full AP article is available here, among numerous other sources: http://tinyurl.com/4jpaf )

I gotcher 'crisis' right here,
Otter

This coronation is turning into a bona fide exercise in martial law! Red alert, red alert.

Prepping for Bush's prom

Cops, dogs, choppers sniff for germs, bullets, weird signals

Next Thursday's inauguration promises to be an
extravaganza, with rich Bushies nibbling on
rattlesnake nachos and slurping down Tito's vodka. The government will put 4,600 officers along Pennsylvania Avenue to guard the parade. There will be the usual retinue of sharpshooters atop buildings lining the route, dozens of plainclothes cops in the crowds, and Secret Service agents in buildings along the avenue.
Twenty bomb-sniffing dogs will be on hand. The feds will jam cell phones to render harmless any attempted signals aimed at setting off bombs. The military will deploy germ and biological warfare units around the city, along with units specializing in rescuing people from bomb-blasted buildings.

Sensors have been placed around the city. "If we had a release of sarin gas on the Mall, not only will the sensors on the Mall pick it up, we will know the height and density, its direction, and how far it has spread," one federal official told The Washington Post. "We did not have this in place before 9-11."

Overhead, air combat patrols will race across the sky. Planes that wander off course and into restricted airspace will be intercepted by fighter jets. Small aircraft are to be banned within 50 miles of the Washington Monument. There are surveillance cameras throughout the city, and choppers will be overhead all day, taking pictures and relaying images back to a
headquarters in Virginia.

(no link - sent from Bend, OR)

Count the puppet regimes - Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine etc. Then there are the Bush-friendly royals & dictators - Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc.

46 Palestinian Election Officials Resign (to protest pressure by Abbas)

RAMALLAH, West Bank - Forty-six members of the
Palestinian election commission, including top
managers, resigned Saturday, saying they were
pressured by Mahmoud Abbas' campaign and intelligence officials to abruptly change voting procedures during the Jan. 9 presidential poll.

Two senior members of the commission, Ammar Dwaik and Baha al-Bakri, resigned early Saturday, and officials later announced the resignations of 44 more members.

The resignations raised questions about Sunday's vote giving Abbas an overwhelming victory, though the officials who quit said the alleged irregularities did not fundamentally affect the final vote tally.

Abbas was sworn in as Palestinian Authority (news -
web sites) president Saturday.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/2...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1391042,00.html

Babylon wrecked by war

US-led forces leave a trail of destruction and contamination in architectural site of world importance

Rory McCarthy in Baghdad, and Maev Kennedy
Saturday January 15, 2005
The Guardian

Troops from the US-led force in Iraq have caused widespread damage and severe contamination to the remains of the ancient city of Babylon,
according to a damning report released today by the British Museum.

John Curtis, keeper of the museum's Ancient Near East department and an authority on Iraq's many archaeological sites, found "substantial damage" on an investigative visit to Babylon last month.

The ancient city has been used by US and Polish forces as a military depot for the past two years, despite objections from archaeologists.

"This is tantamount to establishing a military camp around the Great Pyramid in Egypt or around Stonehenge in Britain," says the report, which has been seen by the Guardian.

(read more by clicking on link)

(Oh, and by the way... Dick Meyer, the editorial director of CBSNews.com, put forth his own wry observations on the Bush administration's ongoing "crises crisis" in his latest 'Against The Grain' editorial, which you can read for yourself at http://tinyurl.com/6facu ...)

arbusto es falso y arrogante,
Otter

Posted by: Otter at January 15, 2005 11:25 AM

Ah, another "crisis" ... just like that WMD crisis. Reminds me of a great vanity plate I saw in town recently: WMD NOT1

How can we expect our military to have any sense of history when they serve a president too stupid to even remember and learn lessons from a war that he tried desparately to avoid in the early 70's.

If Bush can't remember the lessons of Vietnam, surely some corporal in Babylon can't be expected to know that that city has any particular historical significance.

It's all ignorance and destruction with this administration, and it's completely destroyed 230 years of good will this nation has worked so hard to achieve around the globe.

Americans don't care about other cultures, and with a billion more Chinese than there are Americans, one day this arrogance is going to bite us in the butt.
I hate to say it, but some of us are going to deserve it when it happens.

Here are some solutions to the social security "crises" that no one is talking about. The Social Security trust fund has been lending money since its inception to the federal government. These assets are held in the form of government securities, the same securities that it issues to the bond markets when it finances its 500 billion dollar deficits. The owners of the securities held by the SS admin are the citizens who have paid SS taxes.

1) Make it a law that in case of the US government's default on its debt, the securities held by the SS system must be paid off first. Any move to retire debt must retire debt to SS before retiring debt to Bush's friends on Wall Street.

2) Issue to each citizen with an account in the SS system a government bond that obligates the government to payoff the bond at maturity when the bond holder reaches retirement in the form of an annuity. These securities are issued to the taxpayer annually at tax time when W2's are issued. Although this is just shuffling paper debt that reflects what the SS admin has in its computer accounts, it gives each SS investor a statement of the government's obligation to repay its debt. The young, whom Bush is shamelessly scamming, will in their own hands have proof that the only way for the SS system to go bankrupt is for the Federal government to go bankrupt.

(Until Bush came along, I used to think the latter an impossibility.)

All hail the military when they're actually protecting us and not being forced to go to Iraq to protect the oil fields BushCo & cronies want to control.... I was wondering when the "ugly American" factor was going to come out regarding ancient artifacts and archaeologicsl ruins in Iraq..... Well, it has.... I've been wondering for months since I found out about the depleted uranium that's harming both our military personnel and the innocent Iraqis how it would affect future archaeological digs at sites and the people who work at archaeological digs there. We studied these ancient artifacts in Art History.... I could just weep in frustration......

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20050115/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_babylon

The Guardian story above is on Yahoo, too.
~~~~~~~~~~~

Regarding Barney not going to shrubbie.... It's been my experience that dogs and cats know evil people when they encounter them. Doesn't surprise me at all that Barney doesn't want to go to him... Even the family dog knows he's evil....

Crushie for Kerry weighing in... @;-)

Linda,when PBS ran that program Bush vs Kerry from old Yale days,Bush thought the VN war was a good idea and never got caught up in the conversation or the protests. It's still the same "impressionism",war is peace to Bush. His comments to Walter's last night indicated the same,even after she asked him;"was this a good thing to do in the light of no wmd's found,and so many now dead"??
He's still the same person even after all the deaths on his hands,say one thing,do another president;or worse, when asked about a "program" won't say what it really is and then changes the language...HYPOCRISY!!
I just bought the book:HOW TO SURVIVE FOUR MORE YEARS.Figure we'd better arm ourselves with all the help we can get.

Hey KJ,is it too cold where you are today?? Just think, we'd be on our way to DC in a day or two....god am I pissed or what!!

And, I just want to agree... I think Barney is a yellow dog Dem... our man on the inside. ;-) And he knows a p*ssant pollyw*nker poser when he sees one.

Patti, I know, I know. I'm covering myself with blankets and blankets of denial that we're not meeting up again....

&*($%#@ !!!!!

I can't even remember what I was I saw, oh yeah, it was The Daily Show's coverage of BushieBoy at the "town meeting" of stepford voters... and his comment to the man about the "inherant" life expectancy of Africian American men... and how they're being cheated out of their Social Security benefits because they die young.

OMG, my husband and I laughed so hard, so hard and so long I was in tears.

Other than that, I've stayed away from the "news" since November 2, Patti. Otherwise, I'da had 17 stokes.

You know, I was raised in a very strict household. Very Catholic, very strict. I was taught not to laugh at anyone. Not to cross my eyes because if I did they'd stay stuck, etc. etc. all that stuff. And I bought it and to this day, try to remember that "for the grace of Tao go I" when I see actions by others that I'd love to lampoon.

But, The Daily Show. What WOULD we do without that show?!!!

I'm covering myself with blankets and blankets of denial that we're not meeting up again....

&*($%#@ !!!!!

Posted by: kj at January 15, 2005 12:24 PM

Is anyone continuing the Kerry Meetups? It seems that meetup.com is still scheduling them and sending out invitations. I am curious if anyone is responding.

Since SS is our next great battle. How about we get some solid fact-based talking points together debunking the over exaggerated demise of SS and float them? I know some solid Dems who have been saying for years SS is doomed. If they believe this, well you know it won't be too hard to convince those on the other side of the pol spectrum either. We need to have a set of 10 easy factual talking points educating the masses and giving them reasons why SS isn't doomed and what can be done to keep the program solvent that we can share via phone, email, face-to face with our friends, families, and whoever else will listen.

In these talking points we should remind folks that when a Democrat, Bill Clinton, was in office we had a great surplus that eased the fear that SS was falling back then. It was only when Shrub stole his way into office and tanked the economy, thereby placing us in a huge deficit, that the future of SS has become vulnerable again. If we vote in leaders who actually have a clue, we wouldn't be in this position. Also, we need to keep pounding home that conservatives have been trying to crush SS for years, just out of shear spite. We should cite from conservative literature and Web sites that this has been part of their agenda for decades and NOT because they are suddenly concerned about America's fiscal health. Puhleeze, if that was so true they would have voted The Chimperor out. Lastly, we need to let them know that the only folks who will benefit from this privitization scheme (and we should refer to it as such becasue it's a negative word) are bankers and others in the financial services industry - that is quickly on it's way to one Repub-controlled national superbank if you ask me. In fact, I saw a presentation given by a gentleman on C-Span last nite who said that if we did absolutely nothing about the supposed future SS problem, years from now, those receiving SS would still be better off than those on the privitization plan.

Guys, we need to do our part as a grassroots group to hit the ground running on this. We need to spread these talking points to other Dem/liberal sites. So they spread them, and so on and so on. And when they try to debunk them with lies, we have to quickly respond back with truth.

What do you think?

“The ancient city has been used by US and Polish forces as a military depot for the past two years”. Used as a military depot? USED AS A MILITARY DEPOT???? I want to SCREAM! Are these people completely crazy? In the whole wide Iraq they could not find one other place for a military depot except Babylon? This is INSANE! I remember listening to a historian on NPR shortly after the invasion talking about the looting taking place at the archeological (national?) museum in Baghdad. At some point his voice cracked and you could actually hear the tears in his voice. I had tears in my eyes too, and I cannot put into words the sense of loss and outrage that I felt. It reminded me of my reaction when I first read of how the Acropolis suffered major damage in the 19th century when it was under attach by the Turks and the munitions the British were depositing there exploded. I was in my teens when I read that, and felt like a sense of personal loss that something so wonderful had managed to survive for 20+ centuries almost intact, only to be almost destroyed “just before I was born”, and this rob me of the chance to see it in its glory. USED AS A MILITARY DEPOT??? These people should be tried for crimes against humanity! Where is the major difference between this and what the Taliban did when they blew up those gigantic Buddha statues in the summer of 2001, if I remember correctly. Oh yes, there actually IS a difference, seen from their point of view, abhorrent as I may find it, what the Taliban did was justified, they did find these statues offensive. In my book this is less outrageous than destruction caused through indifference.

Sorry for all the screaming, I obviously care a lot about old things made by people long dead. I found it almost physically painful to go through the article that DiAnne posted. And thanks for the opportunity to vent, lowered my blood pressure a bit :-).

Florida_Dem:

I am a big fan of coordinated talking points. It might also be useful to see some graphic representations as well on Social Security backed up by tables of numbers. So count me in as a moral supporter of the concept.

Chuck in Baku

Bob in Co Our meetup/cell is continuing on that schedule, just in case. A couple of stragglers have signed up. I don't object to keeping the name out there, rather than changing to yet another progressive-named something. Also at the end of the month, when other groups are earlier.

Gotta go, but hugs, tears, and laments with my Longwood buddies, at not joining up with you this week.

Hello. My name is Otter, and I'm a hypocrite.

Eh? How's that, you say? Well, it's like this: my local small-city fishwrapper includes a weekly feature on Fridays called 'Good Morning', in which various newspaper staffers are invited to tell personal stories (unquote).

Most often these short pieces turn out to be remembrances, digressions, individualized observations on the local scene, and so on. Often cute, occasionally memorable, but hardly momentous stuff.

But a couple of weeks before the election, one of the staffers who normally writes fishin' and huntin' kinda pieces for local consumption used his turn at the 'Good Morning' soapbox for a full-bore pro-Bush, anti-Kerry ideologic screed.

Well, this made yr hmbl otr crspndnt get his boxers in a bunch, and I fired off a testy letter to the editor pointing out that editorials belong on the editorial pages and that it's a misuse of stated purpose to let a staffer to use a designated 'personal stories' space for political speeches and so on and so forth and yadda yadda yadda.

Hmm, you say, what's so hypocritical about that? Well, nothing, really; but what *is* hypocritical is that yesterday I turned to the weekly 'Good Morning' space on page two and found, you guessed it, another stafer using that rotating soapbox to express his political views rather than tell his personal stories.

But this time I did not get my knickers in a twist, nor did I write a testy letter to the editor about it. The difference? This time the writer expressed political views that I agree with, rather than political rants that I resent.

So that means I'm a hypocrite, I suppose. Because instead of railing again about how yesterday's piece doesn't belong in the 'Good Morning' space, which according to my intellectual beliefs it still doesn't, I am reposting the piece here on the blog instead. Why? Because I think that it presents political views we can all agree with (and does a darn good job of doing so, too.)

The source? http://www.goerie.com , which is the website of the Erie Times-News. I'm not posting this piece as a link because it's a registration-only site, and even so, free content disappears after 7 days unless you're a paid subscriber to the online edition. Anyway, here it is:

---

1,511 Die In Iraq, But Who's Counting?
by Robb Frederick

Last week the Pentagon added three names to the official list of U.S. casualties in Iraq. That's the good news.

The bad is that it didn't matter. After the fireworks of the first nights, when we shocked and awed with 3,500-pound Tomahawks, this war got boring. We put yellow magnets on our cars and moved on.

It's a slog now, too hard to follow without trading cards that rank the bad guys. Another day, another convoy attacked, another American dead in the desert, and we're all worrying the same thing:

Why did Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt split?

The war is white noise now — a minute on the nightly news and a few paragraphs on page 3. All the lieutenants look the same.

Even the Army has lost track. Staff Sgt. Robert McGee, a Virginia father of two, was dead for six months before the Army's public-affairs office found time to type a two-line acknowledgement of his life.

McGee, who died June 30 in the Philippines, where he was teaching light-infantry tactics as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, had the bad luck not only to die, but to do so outside the active battle lines. Like Sgt. Foster Pinkston, who died Sept. 16 at Eisenhower Medical Center, and like Sgt. 1st Class Otie McVey, who died Nov. 7 after being evacuated from Iraq, he gave his life for a country that was too busy to notice.

A records review last week finally added him to the war casualty list. Pinkston and McVey bumped the number to 1,511 dead.

It's bad enough that we ignore that number, that we put our war dead on pedestals only when they have played in the NFL. But when a soldier's death becomes so routine that even the military shrugs off the loss, seeing a casualty as just more work, and work that can wait, we have lost far more than the record of one man's sacrifice.

The risks our sons and brothers and mothers face in Iraq and Afghanistan do not vanish when we change the channel. The challenge now is to learn something from each loss, to appreciate that true cost, and to not forget this fight before it has even finished.

---

always remember paul wellstone,
Otter

From my Republican Uncle & the comment is his -

This should play well with the Ollie North crowd........

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/15/politics/15laura.html?th

Laura Bush Defends Lavish Coronoation

Bob, as for me, I've never been a part of the Kerry Meet-ups, there just wasn't one where I live.

Florida Dem, I agree with you. We need a set a talking points on the SS issue. My suggestion is go to the forum and post the topic. The forum is an action-based place while the blog is our water cooler, so hopefully if you go there with your idea and keep linking to it here, the idea won't get lost and will have participants. :-)

Irina, yes. I hear your screaming and second it.

Just went to the DNC site and all they had was this...
The George W. Bush plan to dismantle Social Security has begun.

The administration floated a proposal to cut benefits to future retirees by changing the way those benefits are calculated. And these cuts are guaranteed -- whether you opt in to the Bush plan or not.

Here's what the Bush plan will mean for your retirement:

If you retire in 2022, Bush will cut your benefits by almost 10 percent.
If you retire in 2042, Bush will cut your benefits by more than 25 percent.
In 2075, our children and grandchildren will face a staggering cut of 46 percent to their benefits.
And this is just the first step of the Republican Party's plan to dismantle the entire Social Security system that has kept generations of America's seniors out of poverty. Soon Bush will launch a $40 million TV ad blitz to convince Americans that our grandkids will be left out in the cold if Social Security is not privatized.
___
This is great, but we also need short, snappy talking points, no more than 10, on why the system isn't in dire straits and include what the Shrub program really means. Plus we need to promote the theme that Shrub and the Repubs hate old people. Oddly enough, this is the perception ShrubCo and their minions seem to fear most. If we don't capitalize on this we as Dems are beyond stupid. As we have learned basic themes and perceptions work best with the ADD-ridden American public.

Shrub's War on Seniors like his War in Iraq is bogus and we need to keep pounding this theme home. The initial podcast gave us a great start in doing this. (I would've said War on Terror but Americans actually think that's the one thing he's doing right and now isn't the time to re-fight that battle).

Just some thoughts.

Bob, as for me, I've never been a part of the Kerry Meet-ups, there just wasn't one where I live.

Florida Dem, I agree with you. We need a set a talking points on the SS issue. My suggestion is go to the forum and post the topic. The forum is an action-based place while the blog is our water cooler, so hopefully if you go there with your idea and keep linking to it here, the idea won't get lost and will have participants. :-)

Irina, yes. I hear your screaming and second it.

Sorry for the double post.

kj-
oh, i did not realize that. Will do. But thanks for the support, everyone.

Let me clarify. The group will want to change its name, for their better sense of moving on. But the meetup org leaving it out there is a good thing.

KJ How are you? Will definitely miss you this Thursday.

florida dem, i hope i didn't sound like i was telling you what to do. :-)

but the forum is still very new, and a lot of people aren't aware of it yet. i love the blog, but hate to see good ideas scroll out-of-site. hopefully, the forum will provide the bloggers with a place to flesh out their ideas and calls to action!!!

i miss you all. don't have much time to participate these days, but am so very, very grateful we're all still together!!!

Marjorie, still in very deep denial. I'm not sure how healthy that is going on this long... but it's working for me! LOL

florida dem, if you do post to the forum re: talking points for SS, PLEASE link to it here on the blog so others can jump over there with their ideas too... that way, a set of talking points re: SS can be kept together.

remember, forum is for action-based ideas everyone, not for long involved discussion/banter. banter is here... the blog is the free flowing stream.

:-)

I keep telling people what to do... someone shut me up! LOL

Every so often I hear of a forum topic. Do we have ongoing discussions there I'm missing seeing? Rather rather than wait for the DNC, or whomever, I think we should more vigorously discuss the framing of a couple of things, as well as investigate the best initiatives for media and election reform. Seriously. Although there were very fine discussions on the abortion issue, etc from all sides, I like how differently many issues play around the country as represented and honed here.

I'm not in denial. I have my desktop poicyorial of Kerry as president, and I'm okay. I have to push a group forward, but I'm lying though my teeth and gut.

That's 'pictorial.' And one sentence should have been and no qualifier. I can't write and think today, so I'm going back to work where that's allowable.

kj-
Sheesh you're bossy! :) I registered to post on the forum and here's the entry link:
http://www.democracycellproject.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=130&st=0&p=264&#entry264

Our talking points should really be coordinated with the DNC. Everyone should be on the same page driving home the same message wheter it be our legislators or just us regular folks. That will be the key to us winning this one.

Marjorie,

We're hopefully going to have a *very* active on-going DCP framing group via the Book Club! :-)

George Lakoff's "Don't think of an elephant" is our first book chat choice. The plan is read a book a month from then on, and filter and frame each issue that comes up.

Check out the book club section on the forum. We're still just getting started, but I have high hopes for the future of the benignly named "Book Club." Maybe we should call it, "Book Club for Revolutionaries." :-)

Marjorie, writing, thinking and spelling correctly only applies on weekdays. ;-) LOL

Again, I'm not in any way trying to steer people away from the blog. This is our common meeting place and I love it. I'm just trying to point out the new forum as a place for action-based ideas and follow through.

Florida Dem, bossiness is a strength. HAHAHA!

Happy Saturday, everyone. I want to pass along the latest on Armstrong Williams for those who hadn't heard...

FCC will investigate Williams payment

WASHINGTON (AP) - The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission ordered an investigation yesterday into whether conservative commentator Armstrong Williams broke the law by failing to disclose he was paid by the Bush administration to plug the president’s education agenda.
-----------------
In their request to the GAO, Dorgan and Wyden also asked for a government-wide review of any payments to journalists, commentators or talk show hosts to promote the administration’s policies
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2005/Jan/20050115News006.asp

Florida Dem, yes, exactly. We need consistancy and repetition, repetition, repetition.... and if the DNC won't give it to us, by crickity, the DCP will do it ourselves. ;-)

Mark! Due to some re-arranging in the book club, one of your posts was removed. I have the post if you'd like to re-post it, and please accept my apologies!

Thanks kj!

Well I'm off to do Saturday stuff! Have a great day everyone!

Marjorie:

http://www.democracycellproject.net/forum/

No worries, KJ. I often repeat myself anyway I often repeat myself :)

DemocracyforTexas just did a poll for DNC Chair and I voted for Simon Rosenber first and Wellington Web second. Others have any feelings about that or have state parties polling them about DNC Chair?
I personally prefer Wellington Web but don't think he stands a prayer.

Simon Rosenberg

I've read some great things about Rosenberg.

Just another idea to throw out for framing that doesn't seem to get much air-time and that is sort of on topic: these Bush guys love to talk about "Tort reform" and they seem to have hit on medical malpractice as the easiest sell to wedge this issue in. I work with large international corporations, and I can say from personal experience that the idea of punitive damages from health, safety and environmental lawsuits has created an international corporate culture that really does attempt to mitigate risks in these areas. By "capping" damages, in effect, we are capping the responsibility of corporations to what they now refer to us "shareholders" (i.e., the wider community in which they exist) in these areas. This will map into their insurance policies and then map into corporate policies such that mitigating health, safety and environmental risks will no longer be the important internal issue it is today. And let's not forget that what they want to cap is the jusrisdiction of juries and courts to determine punishments and to weigh appeals to such determination. Fundamentally undemocratic of them.

Chuck in Baku

By the way, and further to my above, I think framing has always got to be looked as a postive thing -- that is, framing is for something, not against something. In the sense of my above post, I suggested framing against so-called "tort reform." A positive way of expressing that would be standing up for the integrity of our age-old traditions of trial by jury and an independent judiciary.

Chuck in Baku

Chuck, re tort reform framing... how about "family protection limits" or "consumer risk laws"

How about Tort Reform equals Insurance Company Protection Scheme or Racket?

Mark/Cyrano:

Thanks, I never looked at it that way (i.e., from a consumer point of view) but rather from the perspective of someone that formulates procedures that stem from corporate policies that stem from the legal and risk environment that the corporation exists in (and in that environment, obviously, the potential magnitude of a court settlement plays a huge role). So I always think of it as a "responsibiltiy" issue from the corporate side (as in, with vast opportunities come vast responsibilities). One thing I do think that Rove has done that is quite brilliant is to frame this issue as an innocuous sounding "tort reform," with the suggestion that it is simply a minor bureaucratic adjustment meant to forestall "ambulance chasing lawyers," when in fact it is a powerful ploy to remove responsibility from private interests for the consequnces of their actions.

By the way, I think that most corporate boards would theoretically support "tort reform," if only because it simplifies their obligations, BUT are willing to live with the current environment as long as it is kept relatively simple, enforceable, and equally applicable to all players.

Chuck in Baku

For this I will consider watching television for the lst time since JK's concession.

SENATOR KENNEDY TO APPEAR ON FACE THE NATION SUNDAY, JANUARY 16

Following his Wednesday speech outlining the goals of the Democratic Party, and restating his commitment to needs of Americans everywhere, Senator Kennedy will be appearing on Face the Nation on CBS Sunday.  (You can download a pdf of the Senator's Speech here).

During his appearance, Senator Kennedy will discuss the upcoming elections in Iraq, and the many issues facing this Congress from education funding to Social Security, foreign affairs, and many others.
 
http://www.democraticmajority.com

Also, for anyone near Seattle, Congressman Jim McDermott will have a public meeting on Jan. 30 & talk about social security, elections, taxes.
For those not familiar with him, he appeared several times in Fahrenheit 9/11 & is a very humanitarian psychiatrist and someone I respect & consider a role model.

Cyrano/Mark:

I got it! Tort reform allows corporations to evade their responsibilities, thereby taking the risk off the insurance company and putting it on the simple citizen (consumer).

Chuck in Baku

Chuck in Baku

Tort Reform or Tax Relief frame those issues in such a way as to suggest to the perceiver that torts or taxes are a negative.

Now that I think of it, Consumer Protection was a nice term because it implied that consumers should be protected (duh). That concept has gone out the window with the Bush administration.

Democrats have even called taxes Revenue Enhancement & to me, that was a transparent euphemism. There needs to be a good way to convey that services cost money & that services for the general public & general good are worth paying for. Maximum two words.

Then there is the matter of Bush's Orwellian framing. Clean Air - who can argue with that - expect they don't deliver it. No Child Left Behind - but they are.

Then they use Oxymorons - spreading freedom (freedom arises - you don't spread it), fighting terrorism (or drugs or any ideal - you can't pin them down or localize them), compassionate conservative (they aren't).

One reason I don't like to watch tv news or read "spin" on news facts (but read straight off the wires) is so as to be less influenced. I feel that THEY SET THE TERMS. During the election I noticed that Bush campaign would say something, Kerry campaign would have to respond. If they did not respond, people would say they were waiting too long.

Then the Bush campaign would ignore what Kerry campaign said UNLESS they found something they could leap on & distort. Examples: "foreign leaders" "the 87 billion"

Then anything having to do with cooperation with other countries was attacked using the "strict but paranoid father" model.

Chuck in Baku for Mark/Cyrano (2nd try):

Tort reform reduces the responsiblility of corporations to the community, and takes the finaincial risk off the insurance companies and puts it on the average citizen. At the same time, it rejects our age-old traditions of trial by jury and an independent judiciary.

Chuck in Baku

I think it's also good for Washington's economy, for people to come in from around the country, for the hotels to be full, and the restaurants to be full, and the caterers to be busy. I think that's important."

Laura Bush Defends Lavish Coronoation

Posted by: DiAnne at January 15, 2005 12:56 PM

I hope to God every business in D.C quadruples their charges on the Bushco swine. I would love to hear her complain about that after she made that ridiculous comment.

You know I love your bossiness, KJ.

At 1:26, Request of overall investigation of payment to media to push policy, or propaganda payola by another name. With that, and selling of crisis policy a term used by so much print media and Dems, is there a growing consensus, planned coordination, or am I just missing that everything is still the same because I don't watch TV. Sands shifting?

My favorite Kerry slogan was & is

"Respected in the World"

It implied that is is good to be respected & that we aren't under this administration.

It was also something true, whereas most of the opposition position was distortion, fabrication or outright lie.

Lakoff said Democrats relied on facts, figuring people would use logic. I think that's fine but what needs to be added is an angle that suggests immediately the values - people pick up on that using other than logic. The terminology has to suggest whether something is desireable or not.

I think the Democrats did well with any message having to do with "change" because it is blatantly obvious to both Democrats & Republicans & unaffiliated (such as Independents, Progressives or apathetics) that it's needed.

The Republicans had an advantage because of 9/11 & the trumped-up war, because that made more people cautious or fearful about changing. I would compare it to an abuse victim who is afraid to get out of an abusive relationship or even someone who badly needs to go on a diet but can't get started.

I think "change" needs to keep being included in the message because enough Americans feel the country is "going in the wrong direction" and this should only intensify as the current administration moves too radically further down that road. They are making "change" that is the opposite of what we need & I don't think that's what people had in mind.

The interesting thing about the malpractice insurance problem that doctors face is that the rise in their rates apparently bears little correlation to awards in actual malpractice suits. Hence, the real culprit in the rise in rates is the insurance company, not the claimaints or the trial laywers. This point has been made over and over again by patients rights advocates, but it seems to not have registered with the American people. Hence, this is another area where a better reframing effort is desparately needed.

Maybe we should describe Tort Reform as "Maiming Rights".

Chuck in Baku for DiAnne:

I hear what you are saying, and, in more than two-words, this is what it boils down to for me. I'd rather live in a community with a tax rate that suports good community services, and with juries that erred on the side of the common person (and with the higher prices that would entail) and with environmental protections and decent labor standards (again with the highter prices that would entail) than live in a gilded/gated ex-urb cage consuming masses of things. I think a lot of American voters agree with me and I think a lot of them grew up in just those sorts of communities.

I guess the trick today (outside of the very important organizational issues you and others have spoken to on recent threads) is how to begin to re-connect with those traditional American values (updated for open-minded inclusiveness, as behooves a great nation) in purple-land, and then red-land.

Chuck in Baku

The Queen, on the Coronation:

She added: "I think there's a symbolic aspect of the inauguration that - and because of that, the symbol of the inauguration, you never want to - for any reason - cancel it or not have it."

As for the parties themselves, Mrs. Bush said she was "all ready."

"Not all the new clothes are in the house," she said, "but they've all had their last fitting."

Chuck in Baku

I think if we can get the right language out FIRST and define the terms - get both the logical & intuitive parts of peoples' brains to respond

Then we can set the terms, not the Republicans.

It reminds me a bit too much of a propaganda technique, but that exactly why it works.

I wish there was an acceptable political way to say "That's bullshit."

Bush brought alot of ABB sentiment onto himself worldwide & nationally but I think the "anti" also had some implied messages of values - such as that it's GOOD to be smart (not a "moron" or "chimp").

Whenever the Republicans talk about "out of touch" or "elitist" or "aloof" they are projecting themselves onto the more "folksy" and "regular" Democrats. The Coronation is a perfect example of their distorted, selfish, hypercapitalist, spiritually impoverished values.
& they have the trashiest rich ever! (Is Paris Hilton Republican?)

Chuck in Baku

You are lucky to be in Baku because I think you have less American cultural influence there & can think originally because of the relative freedom from context. You have your background as an American but also some distance & perspective & I think that is very valuable.

I appreciate Andree for that too because she understands American culture vastly more than some Europeans because of business & travel yet has a complete other context to draw on plus the view from outside the country with different media.

I think a certain amount of detachment and objectivity are useful in examining this diseased organ we are trying to heal. First step is diagnosis & we don't want to just treat the symptoms or it will just reappear & maybe in a more malignant & metastasized form.

Chuck and DiAnne, you are both thinking very cogently and completely today. You're good and on fire!

How are we going to get on the offensive with the media not doing our bidding, if the admin doesn't want to respond without an advantage, and therefore signals their wholly owned subsidiaries not to respond either?

Beyond ourselves and drip, drip learned empowerment.

The British Evasion
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: January 14, 2005

We must end Social Security as we know it, the Bush administration says, to meet the fiscal burden of paying benefits to the baby boomers. But the most likely privatization scheme would actually increase the budget deficit until 2050. By then the youngest surviving baby boomer will be 86 years old.

SNIP

Never mind; their promises aren't credible. Even if the initial legislation tightly regulated investments by private accounts, it would immediately be followed by intense lobbying to loosen the rules. This lobbying would come both from the usual ideologues and from financial companies eager for fees. In fact, the lobbying has already started: the financial services industry has contributed lavishly to next week's inaugural celebrations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/14/opinion/14krugman.html?incamp=article_popular_1

Excellent op-ed piece about Britains attempts at privatization of their social security program.

a bit more - I think it is good to know "what THEY are saying" and "what people think" but to be very very clear that is the purpose &
with great care not to be pulled in or undulyinfluenced.

Lakoff's theory also suggests the "framing" is not at an overtly consciouslevel so I think it is hard to study without being influenced by it.

The lst step is toconsider that his theory might have merit &keep it in mind.

Chuck in Baku (ex-PDX) for DiAnne:

This reminds me of one of my first posts on the Kerry blog about how when I grew up in SE Portland in the 'seventies there really wasn't an East-West Urban-Rural divide in Oregon in a political sense. We have to figure out how to reconnect that. Some of the greatest progressives came out of the Dakotas and Montana (McGOvern, Mansfield) and even Idaho (Church). What happened? How do we get it back? I still think a lot has to do with environmental policy with respect to extractive industries -- somehow we have to find a way to address the real economic distress in the rural NW without sacrificing the prinicple of environmentally sustainable development and without sacrificing the commitment to diversity and invividual liberties you see in the "blue" urban islands.

Chuck in Baku

Bush's attack on Social Security reminds me of what one columnist said about the U.S. assault on Fallujah -- that, apparently, we had to destroy the city in order to save it.

Chuck in Baku
You are invited to join our cell & I am working on more information about it. It is about WA & I need to find out what is going on in OR re. statewide unity & reform. That is exactly where I am headed. I had an epiphany about it that will make me more infrastructure-oriented & less message-oriented for awhile & I'll share it.

DiAnne:

Thanks for the invite! My only problem is that I'm in Baku, between jobs, and although I am trying to find something stateside (plenty of opportunities in beautiful downtown Kazakh steppe, Siberian swamp or Angola), that probably means the Bay Area or Houston. Maybe once we've re-settled I can find my way back to the NW.

Chuck in Baku

Chuck in Baku for Marjorie G:

You posted:

"How are we going to get on the offensive with the media not doing our bidding...."

That's a really good point. It's sort of a cart/horse thing, and in fact I really don't understand what "media reform" would look like (other than a Sherman-Clayton Anti-Trust thing). I am not in a geographic position to follow up on this, but it seems to me that by organizing people -- neighbors and fellow citizens -- around some common-sense principles, we can start to drive the story, and the ballots, eventually. That may not work, but I don't see any other viable option.

Chuck in Baku

Bookmark this site. It tells you who's blue and who's red--but also includes the amount contributed to the coronation.

http://www.cobb24.com/?template=directory&a=do&p=R2VuZXJhbCtHcm9jZXJpZXM=&cl=&k=

Chuck in Baku for Marjorie G again:

Plus, another thing maybe is "deliverables." This goes back to the old Chicago ward sort of organizing that my Catholic Grandmother did in the 'thirties: can our organizations deliver tangible benefits to specific neighborhoods or specific communities in need? To coin a phrase, where's the beef? If we can deliver the beef, it will be a story.

Chuck in Baku

Well, good night all from here in Baku (GMT+4, NYC+9, PDX+12)! Keep the faith and keep the fight!

Chuck in Baku

This week the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory sentencing laws were unconstitutional as they failed to give the judge or jury the discretion to consider circumstances that would demand a lesser or greater punishment.

By the same logic, would not caps on pain and suffering be unconstitutional? The cap takes away from the jury and the judge the discretion to award a larger payment when the defendant is particularly negligent or when the victim suffers egregiously?

"WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Saturday that Social Security 'is on the road to bankruptcy' and unable to pay promised benefits to future generations, raising the stakes in a major political battle with Democrats."

(snip)

"Bush said a child born now could expect less than a 2 percent return after inflation on the money they pay into Social Security. 'A conservative mix of bonds and stocks would over time produce a larger return,' he said."

Posted by: Otter at January 15, 2005 11:25 AM

Otter -

Not only are he and his administration fabricating a crisis over Social Security - but they are trying the old "divide and conquer" routine. He is most definitely trying to appeal to 20 year olds by telling them that those selfish seniors and babyboomers are going to suck them dry and leave them bankrupt. He's also trying to convince minorities that they are treated unfairly by the existing system (since - as he so crudely put it - black men tend to die younger than whites). So, of course, the only solution is to dismantle the system - not address the reasons why black men have a shorter life span.

And, sadly, it seems to be working - somewhat. I had my oil changed the other day and Fox News was on the TV (why is Fox News on in places like my local Dunkin Donuts and Express Lube?) Anyway, there was a clip of Cheney making the rounds, lying through his teeth about "the crisis." The young woman of color at the register said "It's about time - we should have had private accounts a long time ago - it's our money." I was going to say something - but I thought, where do I even start.

Bush is such a poor excuse for a human being and leader of the free world. He could care less about the damage he does to the fabric of this country and the people in it - as long as he gets the policies he wants - conquer the world for oil and overturn the New Deal.

One word comes to mind...despicable.

Goodnight Chuck in Baku!

Another great blog topic from Casey! I'm blown away by this egregious example--what next, we won't get a mortgage loan approved because of our politics?

The issue of our freedom of speech is critical now. I just read two web pages about freedom of speech today:

1) Good news in that the Inspect or General generally found FOR the whistleblower Sibel Edmonds--remember her, the one who spoke out about the FBI ignoring and hiding the fact that they didn't address her concerns about translated intercepts? Here's a link to the entire report: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/sedmonds.html

And here's a link to a news story on it:
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/sedmonds.html

2) I love Matthew Yglesias' term "The Putinization of America" in reference to what is happening more and more--our tax dollars are going into propaganda and other activities to persue the political agenda of the elite at the top. His essay focuses on the selling of Bush's plan to phase out Social Security by the Social Security Administration, but it applies to the Dept. of Education and who knows what else, besides. I think we should keep pushing the Putinization meme, because that seems to be exactly where we're heading in this country.

Here's a link to his essay on "Bush's Putinization of America" (thanks to the Daou Report for pointing this out):

http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2005/01/putinization_wa.html

OMG, my husband and I laughed so hard, so hard and so long I was in tears.

Other than that, I've stayed away from the "news" since November 2, Patti. Otherwise, I'da had 17 stokes.

Posted by: kj at January 15, 2005 12:28 PM

KJ - I saw that one too, I was in hysterics. It was so good he showed it at the end of the show too. I went to The Daily Show site to see if they had the clip and I see that they meant to "Social Distortion" - unfortunately they have the wrong clip. Hopefully they will change it soon.

What they do have, which is equally hysterical, is the clip from the Scott McClellan press conference/WMD segment - where Stewart makes fun of the "9/11 changed the equation" mantra. Here's the link - click on the 9/11 + X = ShutUp icon...
http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/

Resolute and kj:

I only get to see The Daily Show on the internet, and the last 5 or so video clips from this past week were funny and right on!

Resolute:

Check above link. Dunkin Donuts is a solid red supporter.

Check above link. Dunkin Donuts is a solid red supporter.

Posted by: sparrow at January 15, 2005 09:03 PM

Not surprised.

What concerns me is that the kids who work at these places hear the propaganda on Fox day in and day out. Aside from it being crap, I'm sure that the endless distorted droning works on a subliminal level, as well. Just like piping Rush Limbaugh over Armed Services Radio.

Doesn't it remind you of "1984"? - TVs on all the time, broadcasting news of the world according to Big Brother. This is really terrifying. It is an insidious influence and the impact on people who don't get their news any other way is immeasurable.

Hey Beth - Great to "see" you - it's been a while.

Sparrow - I love reading your posts. You continue to be a fount of great information.

Inspector General releases review of whistleblower case
iendly page

The Department of Justice Office of Inspector General today released an unclassified summary of its review of allegations made by FBI contract linguist and whistleblower Sibel Edmonds. With some qualification, the review found merit to her charges.

While some of her complaints about misconduct in the FBI Translation Unit could not be substantiated, the IG report said, "we believe that many of her allegations were supported, that the FBI did not take them seriously enough, and that her allegations were, in fact, the most significant factor in the FBI's decision to terminate her services."

See "A Review of the FBI's Actions in Connection With Allegations Raised By Contract Linguist Sibel Edmonds," Unclassified Summary, January 2005:

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/sedmonds.html

The Justice Department blocked a lawsuit brought by Ms. Edmonds by invoking the "state secrets" privilege (SN, 05/18/04). In a pending appeal supported by the ACLU and other groups, Ms. Edmonds is challenging that use of the privilege.

See her web site.

Exactly, Resolute, that's the power and insidiousness of their propaganda. I always liken the messaging to the Big Brother sci-fi shows of the 60's. The red-eye in airports, automotons, androids, pod people, and body snatchers. That is the sedating done to so many, in lieu of real educaction and critical thinking. Now Fox is extending their entertainment reach and more values coercion.

This is so not how I've lived my life, seeing boogie men and distrusting the reach of government.

Ira -
On DK there is an unofficial poll of 42% of those who will vote for DNC chair and Howard Dean is definitely leading the race. Rosenberg is way behind. It's not a lockup for Dean yet but it looks like it will be. I thought all along that Dean wouldn't officially announce his candidacy unless he felt he had a lock on it. And with this poll appearing just a few days after Dean officially announced his entrance into the race, I'm pretty sure he knows he has this thing on lock. That said, if Dean does indeed get the nod, I hope Deaniacs will not see this as Dean being the defacto president of the Democratic party. I feel that anyone who becomes chairman should only make media appearances occassionally as needed. He should not become the face of the party as some of the Deaniacs want him too. Dean doesn't inspire and fire up the masses, including the base, as much as they think. He may do it for some but not for all of us. I know plenty of Dems who were good and angry well before Dean stepped on the scene and didn't really need him to fire them up. IMO, for the most part, Dean, or whoever gets the chair position, should act as a traditional chairman and remain a mostly behind the scenes player who is busy in the background strategizing. Sure there will be media interest in Dean because of his meterotic rise, crash and burn and the infamous scream, and that's fine but all-Howard-all-the-time on tv as the face of the Dems is a mistake and will leave us very vulnerable strategically because assuredly the Repubs will attack and go after him. If they dedicate resources and time going after our one voice, which we all know they specialize in character assassination, and he is successfully taken down we won't have anyone else and will be scrambling for back up when we should be conducting party business.
I also hope that those that entered the race for chairmanship get some sort of role and remain involved. Talent like Rosenberg and Fowler, et al, should not be wasted. Also, I hope we can get more minorities blacks, asians, and latinos front and center. We need to keep our hold on the minority vote because it will take us several election cycles to win back white voters, especially white males.

Is DK Daily Kos? Is the 42% representing DK fan base, or within Dem powerful?

I always thought Howard was more hype, and polarizing to others, but motivating to some of us. He really wouldn't know how to be behind the scenes, so he would need strategy-minded back-up who does the work. Does anyone really think Howard is our best public face?

Posted by DiAnne at January 15, 2005 03:07 PM

The coronation is a party of the rich celebrating the rich. The inauguration is a symbol, not the greed flaunting itself at the "celebration".

Have these piggish people no concept of the needs and struggles of America's populace? Have they never seen poverty up close and personal?

"Let them eat cake"? The emperor HAS NO clothes!
(Nor the "Queen" either!)

No designer clothes can hide the fact that they will be naked inauguration day to 56 million plus Americans, as the rest of the world looks on.

I was almost convinced George the Lesser was an unknowing pawn, but,.....nobody can be THAT stupid! Except, maybe, the Queen.

Hey Marjorie!
The 42 percent would be the Dem powerful who have the vote. Are you kidding. If it was a Daily Kos (DK) poll he'd be up 99.9 percent.

FD

Is this practical thinking, mad we didn't get the presidency and say-show you-we'll get our first choice, feeling desperate and grasping for hype. I know I don't buy his charms, authenticity, or even strategic skill, and may harbor bad feelings, still, with the primary junk over the war machinations, but what is it?

I think an unknown would be a good thing now, and definitely not someone perceived negatively by many. Hope his faithful don't see this as affirmation of invincibility, but probably will...

osted by: Marjorie G at January 15, 2005 10:45 PM

If your talking about Bush and company, they see it as they were right all along Bush sees his slim win as a Mandate. So hold onto your hats cause we are in for a fun ride.

He is back on the Lies and Misstatements and overstating things to get his way path again. We are in for a very bad time.

Look at it on the bright side after Bush we can not go anyway but up. He is taking us as low as we can possibly go.

Hi April hunny,

It is always so good to see you here. Your
sweet spirit leaves a fragrance when you are here.

April, really good to have you back. My condolences. We haven't spoken yet.

Shows how we interpret. The above was about FD's discussion of Howard Dean's lock on the DNC chair, and my effort to understand why. I'm not a fan, and wonder if Dems are voting in a panic.

Bush is running around with mandate talk, and justifying Iraq policy with the vote. Really amazing. He forgets scaring people that last week isn't the same thing, but this Rove. Just say it and it becomes true. I'm sure he knows the dirty tricks, so this is true hardball. Despite good print stories about non-existent SS crisis, he is still pushing. He may be getting TV support, but I don't watch.

Definitely a bumpy ride. Be well, April.

Dean is well ahead in the polling for DNC chairman- and I think he'll make an excellent one if he gets the job. As far as being a "face of the party," most non-political junkies in America wouldn't know who Terry McAuliffe is (or Ed Gillespie, for that matter). Yes, they may know who Howard Dean is, but as for the Republicans bringing him down somehow by personally attacking him for anything in his past- they'd have done that during the last election if they could have. Dean brought himself down with the scream, but his past is fairly clean. I'll guarantee you, we'd know it by now if it wasn't. I think he's been vetted as well as any candidate we could have, and he's passed the test. He may be a bit more vocal than many on here would like, but I also think a lot of the disagreement over him becoming chairman goes back to the primary contest, and that's something we all need to get over, desparately, and quickly.
Dean's views are in line with traditional Democratic values, and he's not going to let us down on that front. I think he's going to make a great chair, and I'm very excited about it.
Once he is party chairman, if the polls are right, we all need to get behind him and suppport him. I think he'll be able to reach out to a lot of states that might surprise even us. I know his straightforwardness and candor even had a lot of people in my town liking him, and that's a pretty amazing thing down here in the Bible Belt. And the best thing about Dean as a chairman is it's gonna really piss Georgy off- and that's actually reason enough for me.

osted by: Truth Shall Prevail at January 15, 2005 11:18 PM

Thank hun, my spirit feels more battered than sweet though.

I did not know about the Tsunami till 2 days after the fact, that woke me up to the fact that I still have children that have to live in the world and I at least better pay some attention. I am not totally up to speed... but I am trying to stay informed. I love you all and have missed you though and again I thank you for the kindness you have all showed my family.

Posted by: Linda Enterkin at January 15, 2005 11:26 PM

Sorry to all the Deaniacs for this next statement no offense meant.

Dean would not have been a great President he however he would have been better than Bush.

He would be Ideal for DNC though he has the energy and vision this party needs right now. Lindas right about most people not knowing who McCaulif or Gulespie(sp) are but Dean would bring more visabilty and maybe its time for that. Maybe its what we need to energize people once again. Just My Opinion.

Bush is running around with mandate talk, and justifying Iraq policy with the vote.

Posted by: Marjorie G at January 15, 2005 11:21 PM

Bush's mandate is well within the margin of error of the electoral system we have.

I think an unknown would be a good thing now, and definitely not someone perceived negatively by many. Hope his faithful don't see this as affirmation of invincibility, but probably will...

Posted by: Marjorie G at January 15, 2005 10:45 PM

I agree 100% Marjorie - I think a relative unknown who knows how to strategize and does not polarize the party, would be a much more effective choice.

Will Dean as head of the DNC help bring the various factions of the party together?

Posted by: resolute at January 15, 2005 11:38 PM

I dont know if he would bring fractions of the party back together. But McAuliffe couldnt even get the base on the same page, and keep the infighting down. So I say give Dean a chance.

re Dean DNC

I'll give anyone a chance, and he does have energy. I just see him as hype, as front man for Trippi, and we need sound strategy, workman-like building of candidates from someone who knows how-not just say that we need them.

Remember we didn't hear this stuff from his campaign's beginning. So what does he bring, but saying it's true, makes it true. We're missing a good opportunity with Simon.

BB There is a win and a mandate to be extreme. There isn't that...Is a mandate a certain percentage?

Dean's ideas are dogmatically Democratic. If he can't being the factions of this party together, it won't be Dean's fault.
It will be the fault of members of our own party, quite frankly, even some of us on here, who just CANNOT get over the primary fights of last year. There was always a jealousy of Dean, his media coverage, his fund raising abilities, and his hordes of young followers. I really disliked Dean myself until I realized that it wasn't going to be Dean, but John Kerry who took the nomination away from my guy, Wes Clark. Somehow (primarily because of Teresa, and because of finding acceptance from Kerry followers on his blog) I never resented Kerry the same way I did Dean- maybe because I always felt the news media WANTED Dean for the nomination and was pushing for him so hard. But I got over my anger when Kerry won the nomination, and I started to listen to some of Dean's speeches and realize he really is a very rational, intelligent man, and he absolutely IS Charismatic. He's gonna be a great leader of this party, and if the factions won't follow after him, it's going to be THEM that hold the party back, not Howard Dean.
He's not trying to divide the Democratic party- he never has. Any failure of this party to unite is the fault of the Democratic activists involved, and a lot of petty bickering that they just can't seem to get over.
Yes, he can unite us, if we just let him. And if we don't let him, he's not to blame for our future failures. We are.

BB If a true mandate, then I wish more proof of fraud had been proven, or what we know have been made public. No bragging rights.

Linda, yes, Dean has charisma to many, is rational, as the moderate VT he was. People who knew him from organizations as a doctor weren't thrilled with his personality, but we all grow.

None of what you say addresses his understanding of grassroots strategy, like, let's say, Simon. I can adjust to personality, but less qualified as we need is a problem.

Yes, he can unite us, if we just let him. And if we don't let him, he's not to blame for our future failures. We are.

Posted by: Linda Enterkin at January 15, 2005 11:55 PM

Linda,

Can you accept the fact that people may not agree with you, without insulting them? Clearly people on the blog feel differently than you about Dean. We're entitled to those feelings. And for you to make a statement like - if Dean can't bring the factions together it's not his fault - it's your fault - is a bit over the top.

There are many different points of view expressed here, and those views are listened to and discussed without pointing fingers, blaming or passing judgement. In other words, most here recognize that different people can have different points of view about issues like Dean for DNC chair.

If you don't feel the same way - fine, good for you. But don't tell me I'm not a good Democrate because I have my doubts and concerns or I don't agree with you.

New Thread

Re: DNC Chair
I think some clarification is needed. I do not dislike Dean. In fact I didn't dislike any of the Dem candidates. I myself am not impassioned one way or the other about who gets the chair. I'd prefer someone not well known because of intra-party issues and it'd be a good way to have a fresh start. Frankly it seems to me like there are a couple of good candidates in the mix,imo.

I don't necessarily see Dean as energizing to the party, to his already established fan base maybe, but not to the party as a whole. I know lots of loyal liberal til I die Dems that aren't crazy about him and it's not because he's supposedly loud and outspoken. I'm not sure who these supposed Dems were who weren't energized and didn't have a voice before he came along, but I guess the Dems I know weren't in that group. Don't get me wrong, I know some that do like him, but they know he's not the end all be all.

Also, I peruse alot of Dem blogs and forums, and the only people I see still fighting the primary battle are Deaniacs. Dems, Kerry supporters included, are cool on Dean moreseo because his online supporters can very cruel and maniacal (they aren't called Deaniacs for nothing). The guy himself is not as polarizing as his fan base. Their the problem. They act as though they are the only Dems in the party. Yeah, Dean didn't help when he stood up and said he represents the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, but really I think you'll find most folks are okay with Dean it's some of his online supporters where the real issue lies.

Also, I think whoever gets Dem chair should be doing behind the scenes strategizing not be our media guy as many Deaniacs are hoping. If he's out doing that I know we're doomed because he's not doing the job of the chairman. The GOP's chair will not see daylight until maybe midterms. He won't come out his lair full swing until the next presidential election. If we're, on the other hand out parading Dean around on the Sunday shows, we're screwed. And it doesn't matter if Dean has been thoroughly vetted. The GOP smear machine specializes in making up lies and mountains out of molehills. And the media specializes in believing them. Need proof? They've already taken a swipe at him by running with the story that the Dean campaign paid bloggers to promote him online during the primaries. Of course this was released in response to the Armstrong Williams deal which is heading for hearings. But lots of Dems are seeing this as the Repub machine playing hardball by saying, you can push this if you want but if Dean is your chair when this hearing goes down you lose alot of moral high ground on the issue. Now of course I'm a streetfighter and could care less and say bring it on, but it's just a small example of what they can do to even a vetted figure. I'm sure this was just a warning shot. Plus if he's chairman, I'm sure they will find something to scrutinize in his day-to-day work. As long as he's a public figure working in a political position, he's vulnerable and we know the other side doesn't play fair, and it doesn't take much to plant the seeds of doubt.

In the end, I do think alot of the "Dean for chair" fervor by Deaniacs is to make up for the primaries plain and simple. And also to make him the defacto Dem president. Many seem to have a huge misunderstanding as to what the Dem party chair does. I for one would not leave the party or withhold my support if Dean becomes chair as I have seen alot of Deaniacs post if he doesn't get it. I will support him and the party, I just want him to do the job of chairman, which is primarily fundraising and strategy, and not media darling.

florida dem -

You eloquently stated the issues and the concerns. I'm sure Dean's a nice guy. And before he linked up with Trippi - he was a nice moderate to conservative governor of a small state.

And you are also so right about the difficulties in dealing with Deaniacs. It makes me see red to be blamed for tearing apart the party because I am less than enthusiastic about Dean's candidacy - or don't relish dealing with his supporters, once again.

In fact, I talked myself blue over the summer trying to pursuade some local Deaniacs to be nice and supportive to the Kerry cause - but they weren't even planning on voting for him. All I heard from them was the mantra - backbone, backbone, blah, blah, blah - Dean would be winning right now if he was the nominee.

So, yes, I have some real misgivings.

Again, thanks for articulating so well.

I read that Trippi backs Rosenberg.

An "unofficial poll on Daily Kos" is about as unrepresentative of the Democratic party of the United States including those not constantly on-line as anything I can imagine.

I'll bet if I went door-to-door & asked people or called randomly from Dem lists that only a small percentage could name anyone running for DNC head.

I think the DNC head needs to be someone who can make the party be run more uniformly and in a more organized fashion nationwide. Without that, no "platform" - backbone or not - and no "face" with it will compete with the RNC.

We don't need a Democratic Rove for "message" til we get a Democratic Mehlman for "medium."