Who Says Teenagers Don't Care About Politics?

A big upside to running for public office at such a young age is the lack of "baggage" your opponent has to use against you.

This is OT but, as someone who has worked in telecom for over 20 years, this gives me great joy, even though it can't undo the massive harm they inflicted on their competition.

Ebbers guilty

Ex-WorldCom chairman guilty on all nine counts in massive accounting fraud.
March 15, 2005: 12:33 PM EST

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Bernard Ebbers, the former CEO of WorldCom, was found guilty Tuesday for his role in the mammoth accounting scandal that resulted in the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/15/news/newsmakers/ebbers/index.htm?cnn=yes

There’s a CITIZEN ROLL CALL at JohnKerry.com. Add your name now!

We have only 24 to 48 hours to try and save the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The Republicans are trying to sneak legislation through the Senate approving oil drilling and they are incredibly close to winning. We have to stop them.

I am joining with Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) in offering a critical amendment to stop this sneak attack on our environment. We will fight on the floor of the Senate, but we need you by our side.

MORE - http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=549

Ebber's guilty! What about Ken Lay and his boys which include Arnold,and Dick Cheney ?? Bush will give Kenny boy his pardon after the next four years so I don't expect much in a conviction with kenny.
Martha continues to wear her ankle bracelet and dont you all feel safer??

A few quick comments before I am off to make spaghetti.
I am doing the I told ya so dance about the Teenagers and young adults of this country they will be our salvation if there is any. These young people are not linked to the world only by the "Media" they literally use the world at their fingertips theory, meaning check it out in two short secs on the internet. I mean two short Secs to, have any of you ever seen how fast a computer literate young person can find info? I have and its amazing, they also have the ability to pick the garbage from the truth pretty quickly. Yes to our children I say you go :)

As to Hugh's this frankly terrifies me, remember all the hoopla when Clinton chose a gasp female as Sec. of State. Albright actually had the knowledge and skill to do the job and the republicans screamed the Middle East would find it hard to deal with a woman in authority, and that was Sec of State. Now we are gonna end up with a woman with zero experiance dealing with the Middle East as the cheif person dealing with Middle East- American Relations? We have actually fallen down the rabbit whole Alice. This administration grows more terrifing every day.
I love the new one by Greenspan to, of course its not the Fed Chaiemans fault for lying to us, he was misinformed and so was everyone else how was he to know that the Tax cuts would send us on a downward spiral. Please that is his job and for once I agree with what Hilary said some people knew that!
I wish I could happily stick my head in the sand for the next 4 years, but Angie would hate that so the fight continues. I am seriously trying to get my head and heart back into it, thanks guys for all your patiance with me.

Air Am news today reported that Greenspan is encouraging congress to pass the SS bill ASAP!! Got thugs anyone??

Here's another good reason for young people to get involved. You know these people won't be sending their own kids to fight their battles.....

Gallup: Americans Don't Like Syria, Iran, N. Korea, but Don't Want War

snip....
Still, about 4 in 10 Republicans would support "military action" against each of the countries.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000838438

School vouchers in Ariz. This is from blogforArizona.

VOUCHER SCHOOLS = AMERICAN MADDRASSAS
With the State's voucher bill soon landing on Napolitano's desk, Arizona's citizen should reflect deeply on what the bill actually allows. The proponents of vouchers claim that it provides more choices and more competition that will improve public schools. In theory that is true, but charter schools were supposed to do that, and we're still 48th in education nationally. In fact, charter school students tend to fare worse academically than their public school counter-parts. So why do we need vouchers if we already have charters and the fine idea of choice and competition has failed to produce meaningful results in over a decade of experimentation in AZ?

You will recall that the Bush Administration has been quietly rewriting employment discrimination law with the result that Federally funded faith-based organizations are now allowed to discriminate based on religious beliefs. This sets a clear precedent for allowing private religious schools accepting state funds in the form of vouchers to likewise discriminate in their employment practices. Given that private schools would not be required to open enrollment to all comers to receive state vouchers, the stage is set to create privately owned and operated, but state-funded schools at which toleration of relgious diversity is entirely absent. We will have created American Maddrassas at which religious indoctrination and a hatred for secular society is the main curriculum.

Allowing religious institutions to use taxpayer money for prosthelyzing youth is poor policy. Those most motivated to separate their children from secular society for their education are those most hostile to American institutions of public life. Fundamentalist Christians have already established Universities and a Law School to produce professionals who put their faith above all else. Now the indoctrination would start at Kindergarten; at what point would a child ever have a chance to absorb the values of American citizenship? Wouldn't they in fact be a citizen of the 'City of God' having gone exclusively to religious schools growing up?

Regardless of the danger of creating an America Taliban which is religiously alienated from the rest of American society, vouchers are a disservice to parents and students. Voucher schools have no need to meet curricula or performance targets, so there is no accountability for public money spent on them. Voucher schools have no need to meet NCLB or AIMS testing requirements, so they can't be evaluated by educators, the government, nor the prospective employers of their students.

Our Governor should veto the bill, whatever Republicans might offer her in exchange. Vouchers are bad idea. They are wrong for Arizona and bad for secular society. Objectively, they create a tax-payer funded crèche for religious radicals who are hostile to civil society - although Tom DeLay's immortal words, "I don't believe there is a separation between church and state," amply demonstrates that one needn't be raised in a Madrassa to be a religious zealot.

Administration Rejects Ruling On PR Videos
GAO Called Tapes Illegal Propaganda

By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 15, 2005; Page A21

The Bush administration, rejecting an opinion from the Government Accountability Office, said last week that it is legal for federal agencies to feed TV stations prepackaged news stories that do not disclose the government's role in producing them.

That message, in memos sent Friday to federal agency heads and general counsels, contradicts a Feb. 17 memo from Comptroller General David M. Walker. Walker wrote that such stories -- designed to resemble independently reported broadcast news stories so that TV stations can run them without editing -- violate provisions in annual appropriations laws that ban covert propaganda.

Sounds like the Whitehouse is pushing for Matt Drudge and Foxx to be their official news organization.
Is their our American version of Pravada?

Pravda.

Posted by: Pamela at March 15, 2005 01:09 PM

~ I too was happy to receive my email from JKerry on ANWAR, signed it and sent it on to 6 others who are not on his email list, and they have promised to sign it and to each send it along to at least 6 others. 6x6= ..and so on, and so on...pass it forward!

~I have been watching some of the Senate speeches (via CSPAN) yesterday and today on discussion of the Budget, and have been most impressed with North Dakota's 2 Senators, Kent Conrad & Byron Dorgan! Both are very very good at taking apart the Republican & Bu$h/Greenspan spin, and explaining what is really happening, in down to earth, no nonsense, plain-speak language. I love Sen. Conrad's use of graphic charts to explain his points. Neither of them speak with the fire & passion of Sen. Kennedy or Byrd, but they sure are doing a fine job explaining Bu$h's con job on SS!
I'm sending both of them thank you letters, kudo's to North Dakota's Dorgan & Conrad!!

KEY TARGET SENATORS

Florida: Sen. Martinez - 202-224-3041
Georgia: Sen. Isakson: 202-224-3121
Hawaii: Sen. Akaka: 202-224-6361 & Sen. Inouye – 202-224-3934
Indiana: Sen. Lugar: 202-224-4814
Louisiana: Sen. Landrieu: 202-224-5824
Minnesota: Sen. Coleman: 202-224-5641
Missouri: Sen. Talent: 202-224-6154
Nebraska: Sen. Hagel: 202-224-4224
Nevada: Sen. Ensign: 202-224-6244
New Hampshire: Sen. Gregg (Chairman of Senate Budget Committee): 202-224-3324
New Hampshire: Sen. Sununu: 202-224-2841
Ohio: Sen. Voinovich: 202-224-3353
Tennessee: Sen. Alexander: 202-224-4944
Virginia: Sen. Warner: 202-224-2023

http://www.capitolconnect.com/audubon/summary.asp?subject=354

And in the meanwhile, Paul Krugman hit the nail on the head with his op-ed piece in this morning's New York Times:

"It isn't always bad politics to say things that aren't true and claim to support things you actually oppose: just look at who's running the country. But Democrats who engage in these tactics right now create big problems for a party that has been given a special chance -- maybe its last chance -- to remind the country of what Democrats stand for, and why."

To read the rest of the article and find out just who Krugman was excoriating and why, point your browsers here: http://tinyurl.com/6qvo4

if you're not part of the solution you're part of the precipitate,
Otter

The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson is currently having an interactive conversation about Condaleza Rice running for President in '08 in their chat room.
This was my question to him and his answer:

Houston, Tx.: Mr. Robinson what you seem to be suggesting is that the Bush Administration is playing quota politics. That is a very interesting observation. Does anyone believe for one minute that Rice or Gonzalez would have been appointed by the Bush Administration had they not been minorities?

Eugene Robinson: Objectively, I think you'd have to say that both Rice and Gonzalez are eminently qualified for the jobs they hold -- more qualified, for example, than Justice Thomas when he was appointed to the Supreme Court. I'd say that Rice and Gonzalez have benefited from affirmative action. Oops, that's not supposed to exist in this administration.

They certainly care where I live. Just twenty minutes south of where I live was the first teen mayor in the US. He was elected about six or so years ago when he was just 18. He appeared on Letterman. He served two terms and then graduated from college and went to Law School. Who knows what comes next for this talented young man.

I am not really into chat rooms, but I am starting to feel that posing stinging questions to the news media on their daily chat rooms like this one on the Washington Post may allow us the opportunity to put the other side on the defensive with a large audience.

This story came to me from a colleague. Battlebob suggested that I post it for laugh therapy:

A lobbyist, on his way home from work in Washington, D.C., came to a dead
halt in traffic and thought to himself, "Wow, this seems worse than usual."

He noticed a police officer walking between the lines of stopped cars, so
he rolled down his window and asked, "Officer, what's the hold-up?"

The officer replied, "The President is depressed, so he stopped his
motorcade and is threatening to douse himself with gasoline and set himself on fire. He says no one believes his stories about why we went to war in Iraq, or the connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda, or that his tax cuts will help
anyone except his wealthy friends. So we're taking up a collection for him."

The lobbyist asks, "How much have you got so far?"

The officer replies, "About 14 gallons, but a lot of folks are still
siphoning."

This from working families...Time to put a foot on Charles Schwab's throat.

Dear Working Families e-Activist:

We're on a roll. Thanks to activists like you, Wall Street investment groups are ducking for cover and disavowing Social Security privatization.

Now it's time for the giant Charles Schwab firm to come clean and put working people's interests ahead of potential private account profits, too.

Yesterday the Financial Services Forum, made up of CEOs of big finance companies, dropped out of Compass, the group leading financial industry support for President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security. Last week, as working family activists prepared to demonstrate outside its Kansas office, the investment firm of Waddell & Reed announced it left the pro-privatization Alliance for Worker Retirement Security. "The firm has a history of listening to its clients and being sympathetic and supportive of their issues. Please accept our withdrawal as such proof," John Sundeen Jr., the company's executive vice president, wrote to the AFL-CIO.

But Charles Schwab has refused to budge. Please take a minute now to tell Charles Schwab to end its support of Social Security privatization. Click here:

http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/pdq8FS51QPrB/

Investment firms have gotten the message that working people--including their clients--would be hurt by Social Security privatization because it would slash guaranteed benefits, explode the deficit, open Social Security up to corruption and make our retirement security problems worse. The Edward Jones investment firm pulled out of the Alliance for Worker Retirement Security previously, following protests and e-mails from activists like you.

But Charles Schwab is holding firm. Although privatization would slash clients' guaranteed benefits, Wall Street firms like Schwab "could reap billions of dollars in management fees and commissions over the long term" if Social Security is privatized, according to the Jan. 18 Los Angeles Times. That's a clear conflict of interest.

Tell Charles Schwab: If your competitors can do it, so can you.
Don't support Social Security privatization. Resign from the front groups pushing privatization. Click here:

http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/pdq8FS51QPrB/

Thank you for working for working families.

In solidarity,

Working Families e-Activist Network
March 15, 2005

I tried the above efamilies link and the
Schwab slamfest is not ready to go yet..
Will try tomorrow...

This was in my in box.
-------------------------------------------
Top o’ the morning all,
Here is another idea for an important event, from a great Alternet article.

Our movement has great need to be able to speak to the issue of abortion in more than simple sound bites, and to wrestle between and within ourselves with the deeper stories we all have that make this conversation so difficult. The documentary can be rented for $90.00 from its distributor, Jennifer Baumgardner.

I am in correspondence with Jennifer, who says she has no mass distribution system yet, which is why the high fee, so your members would need to help come up with the fee. Actually, I think we can and should do more than that to support this independent kind of important effort. Perhaps a number of groups could go together on this and host events within a specific time block. Better yet, the event can be a fundraiser for the coming fight to maintain our reproductive freedoms.

In peace, gerry
Rev. Gerry Straatemeier, MSW
Co-chair, Gandhi/King Season for Nonviolence, S. AZ
http://www.agnt.org/snv02.htm
-----------------------------------------------

The Real Choices Women Make

http://www.alternet.org/rights/21494/
By Karen Rosenberg, AlterNet. Posted March 15, 2005.

[snip]
The power of this film and of the women who shared their stories in person comes from their ability to show that the act of terminating a pregnancy means precious little outside of the context of family, partners, friends, faith communities-that is to say, life itself. It provides a powerful counterargument to Hillary Clinton's contention that abortion is a "sad, even tragic, choice," by highlighting women who frame their choices as responsible and life affirming. The 44-year-old married mother of two in the movie who ended her pregnancy in order to enhance her ability to be a mother and partner is a perfect example of someone who can't be pigeonholed by the current abortion debate.

This is from Sen. Harry Reid..I like the letter and the tone about budgets being moral statements.
good job Harry..

Subject: Choices

Dear Friend,

Last week, I asked you to sign our Social Security pledge ­ almost 55,000 of you joined Senate Democrats in signing that pledge. Now a pressing issue has come to the floor of the United States Senate, and I need your help getting the word out.

This week Senate Republicans are bringing George Bush¹s budget to the floor.

This bill is nothing short of immoral and we need to fight it. I ask all of you on this list to write a letter to the editor of your local paper and get the facts out in your community.

Republican¹s have a White House PR machine with a budget of more than $3 million ­ Senate Democrats have you. I have provided some talking points below to help you get started.

Once you¹ve sent your letter to the editor, let us know about it by visiting:

http://democrats.senate.gov/submit.html

Our budget comes down to moral choices -- the Bush budget chooses tax giveaways for corporations over college loans for kids. It chooses loopholes that let big businesses get away with avoiding taxes over aid to family farmers and rural communities; the companies that dodge their responsibilities by setting up fake headquarters in Bermuda over the partnership that is helping small businesses create manufacturing jobs here at home.

Just look at this budget¹s effect on our homeland security. It targets firefighter assistance and cuts those grants by 31 percent ­ below the amount from last year. And when it comes to the COPS program ­ so important in protecting America from terrorism­ the budget has good news and bad news. The good news is that they are not trying to eliminate the COPS program. The bad news is that they are cutting it by 96 percent. Kind of makes you wonder why they decided to leave that four percent there. Maybe we¹re supposed to be grateful.

We need a budget that prepares our nation for the economy of the future. But President Bush¹s budget saddles our economy and the next generation with an even greater burden of debt .These Republican policies that have added trillions to the debt ­ in effect, a ³birth tax² of $36,000 on every child that is born.

The Bush budget doesn't count the future costs of the war in Iraq. It doesn't count the nearly $5 trillion his Social Security plan costs. And it doesn't count the full cost of his tax cuts. When this Bush budget gets placed in the Library of Congress, it ought to get filed under fiction.

These choices aren¹t based on the kinds of values you and I believe in. America has a moral compass -- Washington Republicans are just reading it upside down.

Working for a budget that lives by America¹s morals instead of mocking them, won¹t be easy. The Washington Republicans will fight us every step of the way. I need your help. Use the talking points below and write a letter to the editor of your local paper letting your community know how George Bush¹s Budget doesn¹t live by your values.

Once you write your letter let me know about it:

http://democrats.senate.gov/submit.html

Thank you,

Harry Reid

KEY POINT: Unfortunately, the Senate GOP Budget Resolution closely tracks President Bush¹s budget proposal. Like the President¹s budget, it increases deficits and debt, leaves out large costs, includes more deficit-financed tax cuts, and focuses on the wrong priorities for the American people.

Makes Deficits Worse, Not Better. Deficits would not be cut in half under this resolution. When omitted costs are factored in, such as AMT reform, realistic ongoing war costs, and the Social Security surplus being spent on tax cuts and other things, we see that operating deficits will remain above $500 billion and reach $569 billion in 2010. The resolution would worsen our nation¹s fiscal outlook at the worst possible time, right before the baby boom generation retires.

Leaves Out Large Costs, Hiding Real Budget Outlook. Like the President¹s budget, the Senate GOP Budget Resolution leaves out large costs ­ making the deficit numbers look better than the reality. Both plans leave out the cost of AMT reform ­ the old millionaires tax that is increasingly becoming a middle-class tax trap. And both plans fail to provide a realistic longer-term level of funding for military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the ongoing war on terrorism. The President has requested another $82 billion in supplemental funds for 2005, but included nothing in his budget for 2006 and beyond. The Senate GOP Budget Resolution appropriately included a $50 billion reserve fund for these operations for 2006, but far more is likely to be needed. CBO estimates that ongoing military operations could cost $383 billion over the 2006 to 2015 period.

Deficits Primarily Caused by Drop in Revenues. It is important to remember that the deficits have primarily been caused by the drop in revenues, not by increased spending. Last year, revenues as a percent of GDP fell to the lowest level since 1959. Spending as a share of the economy is still down from the levels it reached in the 1980's.

Calls for More Deficit-Financed Tax Cuts. Despite record deficits, the Senate GOP Budget Resolution provides reconciliation protection for another $70 billion in deficit-financed tax cuts over five years. Specifically, the resolution calls for extending the tax cuts on dividends and capital gains.
These tax cuts would provide millionaires with an average annual tax break of $35,000.

Debt Would Continue to Soar Under Resolution. The deficits are leading to an explosion in our nation¹s debt. When President Bush took office, it was projected that virtually all publicly held debt would be paid off by 2008.
If we adopt the policies in the Senate GOP Budget Resolution, plus reform AMT and fund ongoing war costs, publicly held debt will climb to $5.9 trillion by 2008.

Focuses on the Wrong Priorities. Like the President¹s budget, the resolution would provide more deficit-financed tax cuts, while at the same time calling for damaging cuts in key priorities of the American people.
For example, the resolution would cut $4.8 billion from more than 48 education programs. To put that in perspective, the cost of the President¹s tax cuts for those making more than $1 million in 2006 is $32 billion.

We can do better. We need to a budget plan that puts us back on a path of fiscal responsibility, stops the raid on the Social Security trust fund, and focuses on the right priorities for the American people.

BB,

I just did the Schwab letter via efamilies. It worked fine for me.

Here is a chance to send a message to Congress demanding an exit strategy.

http://www.truemajorityaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=jvLUJdP8H&b=131899
then select
truemajority.org

---------------------------------------------
I signed this with trepidation. I think using time or the number of troops withdrawing is not the proper measurement. I think both of these measures tend to lead toward more violence as it is a chance to cause another US failure. I said this on the old Kerry blog. The measure should be more substantial objects. Suppose we leave when all schools are rebuilt, power plants, water filtration and hospitals are operational. The progress could be measured and inspected by those outside either government. This would force some degree of accountability to the process. Money could be allocated as milestones are meant. I think the local people may not be so eager to kill us when our goal is to see their country rebuilt. The exit is strictly based on performance; the Iraqis and ours.

Thanks OC...
IThe link was not working when I tried it earlier. The link worked for me now also.

sorry...milestones are meant S/B met...

This from JK..

http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rollcall_thankyou.html
[snip]
We need to launch emergency online advertising campaigns in the home states of those seven critical senators: Senator Coleman (MN), Senator Smith (OR), Senator Specter (PA), Senator Martinez (FL), Senator Lugar (IN), and Senators Gregg and Sununu (NH).

Another discussion about should we stay or should we go.

http://www.comw.org/pda/0503bm33.html
[snip]
The Bush administration's response to the withdrawal debate has been to offer curt summaries of its strategy or just plain bluster - like Secretary Rumsfeld's November 2003 formulation: "Our exit strategy in Iraq is success. It's that simple."32 This is a nice rhetorical flourish, but it begs the question. "Success" does not constitute a strategy of any kind; Instead, it is what results when a wise strategy is competently applied in pursuit of realistic goals.

~and speaking of "exit" strategy...

Italy to Start Pulling Troops from Iraq in Sept.

World - Reuters
By Francesca Piscioneri

ROME (Reuters) - Italy will start to withdraw its soldiers from Iraq this September, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said on Tuesday, adding to the list of U.S. allies looking to cut their troop levels.
http://tinyurl.com/5hwod

Another one of my battles in Phoenix

In Phoenix, we have a problem brewing that exists because of accelerating housing prices. Downtown Phoenix is undergoing its own renewal. Older buildings are being sold, torn down and are being replaced by high-rise, expensive condos often selling for several hundred thousands of dollars. Great if you are a land owner or seller. But suppose you were a renter and now you are displaced. Chances are you are homeless as affordable housing and homeless services are almost non-existent.
Wallis mentioned this in his discussion about estate taxes. The estate tax was originally instituted as a payment for all the help received from the community while the fortune was made. It was a payback for community support.
This is similar to the real-estate environment in Phoenix. Congratulations to those who are making a financial killing on their real-estate deals. Timing is everything and in Phoenix, the timing to make money in real-estate couldn’t be better. IMO, proceeds should be awarded to the city to provide affordable housing. Some responsibility is owed the community for having something to do with creating the environment that allowed this wealth to be created. I think affordable housing is a part of the infrastructure. The city will suffer and such great wealth will not be made if the infrastructure suffers.
I have mentioned this idea to several business and community leaders and the result is the usual screw you, I got mine answer. The need for a solution is acknowledged, but having to actually pay for it is a problem. I try to frame it as a civic responsibility and quality of life issue, not as a tax-and-spend transfer of wealth issue.

LIVE
right now on CSPAN 2
Senate Debate has started on Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

~Green$pan, Bu$h & Delay:
courtesy of David Horsey / the Seattle Post Intelligencer

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbyperson.asp?person=Bush%20George%20W%2E&id=1168

I am so proud to see my email & this blog after coming home from a long day at work & relative news blackout (except for radio on the drive home). What a great bunch of internet activists!
Multiplied by thousands, & I'll bet those in the House & Senate are starting to realize that we have their back - they'd better represent us!!

Kerry stumps for health care

By TOM BAXTER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 03/15/05

The problems facing the nation's health care system far outstrip those of Social Security, Sen. John Kerry told an Atlanta audience Monday in the first of a series of forums across the nation designed to promote his plan to guarantee medical coverage to the nation's children.

"We've got a problem with Social Security, sure, but it's a long-term and not even a short-term problem," Kerry (D-Mass.) told more than 100 medical professionals, lawmakers, activists and others at the Academy of Medicine on West Peachtree Street. "The crisis is in Medicare and Medicaid and the lack of affordable health care for all Americans."

The 2004 Democratic presidential nominee is trying to build public support for his "KidsFirst Act," in which the federal government would assume all responsibility for enrolling and insuring all children under 21 whose family incomes are under the poverty level. Currently, the states pay half of this cost, and with tight budgets and a patchwork of regulations, many children fall through the cracks.

In exchange for increased federal aid, the states would assume coverage under the State Children's Health Insurance Program and Medicaid for children of families up to three times the poverty level ($47,010 annual income for a family of three).

The deal would result in more than $10 billion in savings to the states every year, and the additional costs to the federal government could be paid for by not proceeding with the Bush administration's proposed additional tax cuts for Americans making more than $300,000 a year, Kerry said.

The prevention of medical problems detected early in life also could result in major savings to the health care system, he said.

The proposal presents a "moral choice," Kerry said: "Health care for all kids vs. tax cuts for those who make more than $300,000 a year."

The town-hall-style program had some of the trappings of a campaign stop, although Kerry said he is trying to enlist bipartisan support. KidsFirst has been endorsed by several public health groups, including the March of Dimes and the National Association of Children's Hospitals, as well as some labor organizations.

"I think this is definitely a bipartisan effort. This is an American problem. We're talking about our children," said program moderator Dr. Sandra Fryhofer, a Piedmont Hospital internist who is a past president of the American College of Physicians.

The forum in Atlanta was the first of a series on KidsFirst that Kerry said he will conduct across the country in coming months. He said he also plans to write a book about what American families have at stake in issues such as health care and the environment.

At a meeting later with editors of the Journal-Constitution, Kerry said he wants to have a town meeting in South Georgia so that people "can come to me and pepper me with questions, so we can have a real discussion."

Making his first trip to Georgia since the primary elections last March, Kerry said he plans to sit down later in the week with his former rival and now the Democratic national chairman, Howard Dean, to discuss the future of the party.

Kerry Protests Prepackaged News

Raw Story reports that the following letter, drafted by Senator John Kerry (D-MA), will go out this afternoon to Federal Communications Chairman Michael Powell, demanding an inquiry into the role of government agencies in ‘prepackaged’ news provided to news networks:

March 15, 2005

The Honorable Michael Powell Chairman Federal Communications Commission Room 8-B201 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554

Dear Chairman Powell:

I am disturbed by recent press reports, including a New York Times article published on March 13, 2005, stating that prepackaged news reports produced by the federal government are being broadcast on local television stations across the country without an acknowledgment of the government’s role in their production.

It appears that federal agencies, in an increasingly common practice, are producing and distributing hundreds of television news segments, many of which are subsequently broadcast on local television stations throughout the country. Very often, these segments are being broadcast without properly revealing that they were written and produced by the federal government.

Broadcast industry standards already discourage the broadcast of prepackaged news segments. The Government Accounting Office (GAO) has sought to forbid federal agencies from creating prepackaged news reports “that conceal or do not clearly identify for the television viewing audience that the agency was the source of those materials.” Each year since 1951, Congress has enacted a government-wide prohibition on the use of appropriated funds for the purposes of “publicity or propaganda.” Yet this practice continues to flourish, and to make matters worse, the source of the information is not shared with the public.

I strongly believe that the federal government should not be permitted to manipulate public opinion by providing news organizations with so-called “news reports” that have been created by public relations experts, which are then broadcast without proper disclosure. Every American is entitled to know the source of prepackaged information that is broadcast on TV and characterized as “news.” Taxpayers have a right to know if their tax dollars have been used to produce the news they’re watching. This is especially disconcerting in light of recent disclosures that federal agencies have compensated professional journalists for presenting and supporting Bush Administration policies

I ask that you undertake an immediate, full and thorough investigation into this issue. I also ask that you determine if there has been a violation of the applicable statute or agency rules that govern a broadcaster’s obligation to disclose the source of materials that it broadcasts. In addition, please identify whether there are loopholes in your existing statutory authority that prevent you from effectively dealing with this issue and whether there are appropriate enforcement mechanisms in place to stop non-disclosure of news clips produced by the federal government.

Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=178

On CSPAN 2 tonight,
Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-WA introduced her amendment on preserving the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Several senators joined the debate discussion, more discussion will take place on this amendment and others tomorrow morning, with voting to take place around 1 PM EST.
Sen. John Kerry did not speak on the Senate floor tonight, hopefully he will speak tomorrow morning, along with Sen. Cantwell and others on the Cantwell-Kerry Amendment.
Also tonight, Sen. Patty Murray D-WA, co-introduced an amendment to the Budget bill on behalf of fully funding the care of our veterans.
Tomorrow should be an interesting day on the Senate floor, as several important amendments will be discussed and brought to a vote.
As always, I am a much better informed voter and citizen, thanks in part to CSPAN!

Posted by: on.to.victory4Dems at March 15, 2005 02:08 PM

O.T.V.4.Dems,

Thank you for that! I, too, did the same!

They were due a hearty thank you as it was!

Great site, gets better every time I visit.

Thank goodness there are so many Democrats, from the grass roots up to the treetops, who are pumped and working hard NOW. Now is the time we must work. Pick up that broken sword and fight!

I hope everyone is calling their senators tomorrow regarding the supreme court issue, and urging everyone else they know to do the same. Centuries old Senate rules require federal judges to win broad support--this leads to fair, non-partisan courts. But Republicans are preparing to use a parliamentary trick called the "nuclear option" to force through every one of Bush's right-wing nominees.

This is extremely important, and tomorrow is an important day, an opportunity to show our strength and our solidarity on this issue.

Please take a moment to call your senators regarding your disapproval of the "nuclear option".

For more information on this supreme court initiative, please go to
http://www.moveonpac.org/team/0316/info.html

For senate phone numbers, go here:
http://www.senate.gov.

Thanks Amy - you reminded me to work on that project - I went to a neighborhood MoveOn PAC
meeting & this is the project!! Tomorrow's the day!!

Glad Robert Byrd is involved & he has had some good comments to say re the "nuclear option" and the Constitution on the Senate floor.

Posted by: on.to.victory4Dems at March 15, 2005 10:30 PM

On.to.vic,

Thanks for the update. There is nothing on Patty Murray's website yet on her budget amendment, but she has been a staunch advocate for veterans. She's the daughter of a disabled WW II vet and the first woman to serve on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. She also volunteered at the Seattle VA Hospital during the Vietnam War.

Of course, we all know that mandatory full funding of veterans' health care was part of Sen. Kerry's Plan for America. Funny how the real vets support America's contract with veterans, while the chickenhawks and AWOL's give only lip service to veterans while they try to tax vets and cut their health care before the troops even return from the combat zones where they're laying their lives -- and their limbs -- on the line.

This post dovetails nicely into Bob Evans post

The New Face of Protest?
By Karen Houppert
The Nation

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/031505A.shtml
[snip]
It is an alliance rich with promise. Part of the challenge for this peace movement is persuading Americans that attacking the war is not the same thing as attacking the troops. The Vietnam-era mythology of antiwar activists spitting on soldiers is still alive and well in the American psyche (no matter how many times its veracity has been called into question). Putting veterans on the front lines of the peace movement subverts this image. At the same time, this tactic has drawbacks - among them is that it risks reinforcing the notion that civilian opposition to war is somehow less legitimate.

"I am doing the I told ya so dance about the Teenagers and young adults of this country they will be our salvation if there is any. These young people are not linked to the world only by the "Media" they literally use the world at their fingertips theory, meaning check it out in two short secs on the internet. I mean two short Secs to, have any of you ever seen how fast a computer literate young person can find info? I have and its amazing, they also have the ability to pick the garbage from the truth pretty quickly. Yes to our children I say you go :)"

Posted by April upthread.

And to that I say Amen!
I know how frustrated young progressives are with the Dems in their local areas - I see it at both our county and Ld levels. The meetings are attended by us old over 40 folks. The "right on top of it" action is too fast for many, they don't like it. They resist. Meanwhile, one young person representing "Young Democrats" who meet separately comes to the meetings and tells us all the initiatives they're involved in.

We have to fix this. We need them LEADING us, not leaving us behind.

Amy and April,
The dismissal of young people is not only part of politics. It is the same for church and philanthropic organizations in general.
There is a pattern with young people who go to church until they leave home. There is often a gap of many years until they have kids and return. Often that gap is caused because there is no room for them at church leadership councils. They are dominated by older, wealthier folks who know best. When kids are asked to participate, it is often as free labor. Also, most councils are by definition top-down where input at the bottom is discouraged or ignored.
During my teens, I represented our church youth group on the church council. This taught me how to work with adults and to be an advocate for youth programs. Our church council refuses to have a teen on the board and can’t understand why the youth membership is declining. Youth input is needed when the weeds need pulling.
I belong to Lions’ International and it is dominated by senior people. They do not give up their power until they die. The management structure is from the ‘50s where decisions are made by a few with limited discussion. The push is always on for younger people but the management style and the need for two family incomes is crippling membership. I have been trying to change this for twenty years but as long as the top-down old-time military-type management style exists, organizations will die off.

If we want the young to participate, give them a seat at the decision making table.

John Kerry, Standing Up for America's Future
16 March 2005

In the past few weeks, we’ve seen a lot from John Kerry as he continues to stand up and fight for America’s Future. One of things that I have always admired about Senator Kerry is his strong commitment to the environment. From Kids First, to the ANWR fight, to pre-packaged news, and Small Business, John Kerry is not backing down.

Here are a few quips from another press release on the Arctic Refuge battle and some other Kerry news for the night…

"The fight over ANWR is more than a battle over the wildlife refuge, it's a battle over two very different visions of our energy future. The President has a plan to sell off our public lands to the special interests that will make us no less dependent on foreign oil and will not lower prices for consumers at the pump. We have a vision that will put America's energy future in the hands of Americans - by inventing our way to real energy independence, we will have energy sources that create jobs and lower prices - energy sources that no terrorist can hijack, no cartel can embargo, and that no American soldier will ever have to risk his life to defend.”

MORE - http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=556

Posted by: battlebob at March 15, 2005 11:52 PM

BB,

The Houppert article is an interesting read -- thanks for bringing it here. I have a couple of reactions to it.

First, I disagree with the notion that the participation of veterans in the peace movement "risks reinforcing the notion that civilian opposition to war is somehow less legitimate." That's a false corollary. The presence of vets only reinforces legitimacy; there is no subtraction. The participation of Vietnam Veterans Against the War in the peace meovement of the '60's and '70's only strengthened the movement. As the article notes, the participation of veterans counters the notion that antiwar protesters "do not support the troops." As VVAW member Joe Bangert said years ago to a R-winger who asked, "Why don't you support the troops?", "Ma'am, we ARE the troops!"

When I participate in local peace vigils (often with Pamela aka kerrygoddess), I purposely wear my Vietnam jungle shirt, with all my insignias and ribbons, to be visible as a veteran, and to show that our demonstration is not "against" the troops.

(One amusing aside: The first time I showed up in civvies, without my jungle shirt, Pamela's teenage daughter asked me, "How come you're not wearing your 'Bob suit'?)

My second reaction is to the statement: "The Vietnam-era mythology of antiwar activists spitting on soldiers is still alive and well in the American psyche (no matter how many times its veracity has been called into question)."

That statement left me shaking. I've seen that kind of thing before, and it had the same effect. In the course of some work I did for a few years, I had occasion to have some intense discussions with thousands of Vietnam vets, including some who were spat upon. For many more, the abuse was verbal.

The attempts to "debunk" that as a "myth" began with a Bob Greene column in a Chicago newspaper. If a vet didn't have "corroboration" for the abuse, it was considered "not credible" and discounted.

In my own experience, I was abused verbally on about five occasions -- the first on my first pass from an army hospital in San Francisco after I was seriously wounded in Vietnam. I spent a year and a half in the hospital, and my first pass was probably after two months, when my wounds had healed enough to go out.

I got on a bus in 'Frisco, wearing the only clothing I had -- my uniform -- and a woman began yelling and screaming at me, calling me "baby-killer" and other names. That epithet --"baby killer" -- is one with which a lot of Viet vets are familiar. I also know vets of that era who served stateside and never went to Vietnam, who were mistreated just bcause they were in uniform.

On another occasion, I was abused and humiliated by a prof at (ironically) conservative USC, in a basic 101 course in either poli sci or international relations. There were 400 students in the auditorium, but because I can't name one, an incident witnessed by 400 people would be discounted as uncorroborated and "not credible" by those who would revise our history.

I can understand now how those things happened. After suppressing Vietnam for 16 years, it all came flooding back. And one of the first things I realized was that I forgave that woman on that bus in San Francisco. I understand the passions and frustrations of the times, and excessive zeal.

And I find a very special and unique irony in the attempts to convert the abuse of Vietnam veterans into a "myth". I can understand the discomfort with how some elements of the antiwar movement then treated Vietnam vets. Yet their denial that that occurred is no different than the swiftsmear vets denying that atrocities occurred in Vietnam.

In Vietnam, most of us never participated in or even witnessed atrocities. In fact, for every combat troop in Vietnam, there were 10 or 11 troops who were in support jobs. To tar all of us as "baby killers" would be like tarring everyone in the antiwar movement as "spitting on the troops." In both cases, we should with intellectual honesty acknowledge that both things occurred, without extending it to an unjustifiable generalization.

whats going on.....a few weeks ago there was a poll that supposidly showed Hillary as a viable candidate for President. Now Krisof-of al folks- is pushing her as someone who "gets it"....

me thinks there is rove behind this somewhere....

mbk,

There will be no end to the juxtapositioning and reframing of ALL the potential Dem. candidates for 2008. And, as we have seen so often, there will be no way to tell just who is doing the repositioning and reframing. The entire media/PR game has become ever so much more Baroque.

And Hillary is scrapping with the best of them. We are going to see her negotiate, compromise, fight back, and stand her ground--her job right now is to keep Rove et al off balance. I hope she gets them tap dancing all around her.

That does not mean she is the best candidate on the Dem. side, but she IS one of the smartest.

She's had eight-twelve years of up-close observation of their "ways". They won't be surprising her much.

As for the rest of the pack, well, JK and JE just got some education as well. There is no greater lesson than defeat. Both appear to have learned well.

With any luck here, all of the Dems will get much smarter and more honed and focused on surprising their opposition. Off-balance. That's where they want them.

Karen,

I'm still looking at '06. Not really concerned about all the posturing for '08.

Not that I don't love Hil, or JE, but I don't see it happening. When it comes down to it, I'm still a partisan for Kerry. If he -- and his family -- should decide to put themselves through that grinder again, I'll be there with them. I guess there's just no substitute for quality . . .

Hey, why don't we just tell the terrorists exactly where we are unprepared??? This article, released today, is what happens when a wreckless, fear-mongering administration meets piss-poor journalism (and more fear-mongering).

U.S. report outlines terrorist scenarios
Document seeks to boost state, local preparedness

The Associated Press
Updated: 12:55 a.m. ET March 16, 2005

WASHINGTON - An upcoming Homeland Security Department report outlines a dozen frightening if hypothetical scenarios such as a terrorist nuclear attack or spreading plague in airport bathrooms to spur state and local preparedness against security risks.

Read more of the playbook, I mean, article, here...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7203509/

Hey, Marc,

Too bad they're so un-creative. Now if we were terrorists instead of Patriots, well . . . nevermind.

Hi boys,

About that topic this is what I heard on my news.
Al Zarquawhi stated that he was considering attacking America BUT by hitting at most simple targets : cinemas, metro and train stations, stadiums...
Nothing about using nuclear or gazes devices...
is your administration trying to play the big fear game again to divert public attention from the main (so called) reforms.

Posted by: Andrée - France at March 16, 2005 08:56 AM

Andrée,

Hello, my friend. You are very perceptive, as always.

Posted by: Bob Evans at March 16, 2005 04:25 AM

Bob,
I hesitated posting the article because I didn't want to offend anybody. As we discussed earlier, you were verbally abused several time after serving honorable and heroically. I was even cursed and I was a drunk.

What this article shows is the rewrite of history going on about the conduct of our troops, the suffering they went through then and now, and the crap the new vets are going through. The sad part is both sides are lining up to exploit them!