Oh, The Irony...

Casey,
You tell them!! I am getting really sick of this, they loved bloggers when bloggers exposed "Rather Gate" oppps my bad those were Right Wing Nut Case Bloggers they were the best thing since sliced bread, but now that Liberal, Independants and a host of others have started to push back against the lies and misstatements something must be done about us unGodly rabble rousers. But you said it best with your words and I thank you for that, I am so glad you are on our side!! April

Okay I am sorry but its almost 2:30 in the morning and this struck me as really funny.

Departing From Norm, President Gets Wiggly

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 10, 2005; Page A16

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/09/AR2005050901258.html

Okay, I am wondering if someone told Bush when he was running for office that the job of President isnt one big party. Reading this article made me think, maybe Bush's 9 oclock bedtime comes from stress because he isnt getting enough Russian Vodka and folk dancing.

The sad thing in this article is, it does not mention Bush never misses his bedtime even at times of national crisis and the fact he would do it for this is very sad. It also fails to mention that Bush is so married to his scheadule he couldn;t be bothered to address things like the Tsunami till almost 3 days after. Makes one wonder just what Bush thought the job of President would entail because rather he likes to think so or not... It is a Job, and us his employeers are not real happy!

Funny thing Casey---

On Mothers Day I was sitting with my own dear mommy and we got to talking about how things are going in general. After we got done with our own personal things, we moved the discussion into the wider world.

Mom says that when someone lies to you, a number of things are going on:

1. You are too stupid to catch the liar in the lie.

2. The liar is convinced that he is too smart to get caught.

3. The liar feels superior to whomever is being lied to.

4. The liar is spinning his story in order to cover his guilt or culpability in what ever happened.

5. The liar is worried that you won't care for them anymore if you knew the truth.

Mom says all of the lies and secrets and deceptions are of course based on money and power and how to keep it and get more, but if you think about it:

1. Only people who are willing themselves to be THIS stupid are buying the lies now.

2. The too smart for you people have overplayed their hands, got too cocky about their skills.

3. People get really tired of people who are so superior thinking they have the right to lie.

4. The lies are getting bigger to cover the lie before this one, and the one before that, and the one before that.........

5. Liars are generally looking to still be loved, they can't conceive that you would stop caring over a few untruths.

Mother says that when we wise up and stop talking about the liars, and start addressing it from the other direction we will make more headway. We need to stop telling people about the lies the liars are telling, about damn near everything, and start talking to people about the lack of respect the Bushco really has for people. Tell people that the majority party is laughing at their gullibility. Tell people that the Bushies find them unworthy of the truth.

A message from my beloved mother......

Lying is a form of abuse. Liars are abusers. They rip down your self esteem every time you sit by and do nothing to call them on it. They ridicule your integrity and your self respect by assuming you will not call them on their lies. They lie to build themselves up and to tear you down. They lie in order to keep being takers. They lie to puff up their importance, and to denigrate your intelligence. They lie because keeping you in the dark frees them to cheat their way into getting what they want. The message is simply this, if you would not do these things to others, why are you letting it be done to you?

May 10, 2005
Catholic Devotion, and Doubts
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

SÃO PAULO, Brazil

Here in Latin America, the great remaining heartland of Roman Catholicism, some Catholics have a blunt warning for Pope Benedict XVI: unless the Catholic Church changes course, it may come close to committing suicide.

Latin America sometimes feels a bit like Martin Luther's Wittenberg in 1517, on the eve of the Reformation. There is a growing gulf between many independent-minded churchgoers and grass-roots priests on the one hand, and the cardinals and the pope on the other.

"I resent them," said Alessandra Katiane da Silva, a 21-year-old who goes to Mass and was wearing a necklace with images of Jesus and the Virgin Mary. She said she could better judge her contraceptive needs than elderly cardinals, then added, "We have to take care of ourselves, because they're not looking out for us."

While the Latin American church has a conservative wing, many Catholics seem like Ms. da Silva - soured by some Vatican dogma but still identifying strongly with a local church and finding spiritual comfort there.

The result is that many local Catholic parishes have quietly seceded from the Vatican's control on sexual issues. The pope can thunder against birth control (other than a method based on timing a woman's cycles, derided by critics as "Vatican roulette"), but 70 percent of Brazilian women use artificial contraception. So the pope pontificates, and his flock here yawns.

"The Catholic Church's ban on condoms doesn't function here in Brazil," said José Roberto Prazeres, a psychologist at an AIDS center in São Paulo. "We partner with priests to give out condoms."

A prominent gynecologist, Albertina Duarte, said that she had never had a patient who was so Catholic that she objected to most forms of contraception. "Never," she said. "Never in my 35 years as a doctor."

Latin America is still the most dynamic part of the world for Roman Catholicism, accounting for 40 percent of the world's Catholics. But throughout Latin America, the number of evangelicals, especially Pentecostals, is surging, quadrupling in Brazil during John Paul II's papacy. Some Brazilians warn that at this rate Brazil could eventually become a predominantly Protestant country.

Some conservatives say the problem is that the church went touchy-feely and permissive after Vatican II, and they note that the evangelical sects gaining ground are more morally demanding, not less. But the more common view here is that the church has squandered its authority with positions that strike parishioners as backward, not uplifting, on divorce, birth control and the role of women.

Pope Benedict once fretted that on such issues the church "risks appearing like an anachronistic construct." In an essay written when he was a cardinal, he stuck with traditional values but acknowledged that many foresaw this bleak choice: "Either the church finds an understanding, a compromise with the values propounded by society which she wants to continue to serve, or she ... finds herself on the margin of society."

That's the tug of war being fought in places like Brazil, with grass-roots priests often trying to stay in tune with parishioners, while the Vatican tries to stay faithful to its values.

"There is the hierarchy of the church, and then there's the church that really functions at the local level," said the Rev. Valeriano Paitoni, a priest widely admired in São Paulo for running first-rate shelters for AIDS orphans. He was disciplined in 2000 for encouraging people to use condoms to protect against AIDS.

Most Brazilian Catholics, he said, want to see changes in the church's stance on birth control, homosexuality, marriage of priests and the role of women in the church. "If the church doesn't have the courage to take these issues up, and listen to science and the world, then there'll be a disaster," he said, adding that he is still optimistic that reforms will come.

In the 15th and 16th centuries, the Vatican responded to reformers like John Wycliffe and Martin Luther by circling the wagons. Luther had hoped to remain inside a reformed Catholic Church, but the pope excommunicated him, and the result was the Protestant Reformation.

I can't help feeling that today, Pope Benedict and the cardinals may be facing a similar choice. Unless the Vatican reconnects with ordinary people here in the Catholic heartland, the tens of millions who find spiritual meaning in their pews but have been turned off by many church positions, then the Vatican's obstinacy may yet kindle a Re-Reformation.

Tutt:

Nail meeting head there! You're Mom is brilliant, and I am going to send that post to my teen nieces and nephews.

Frankly, I have had it with organizations who need to clean up their own metaphoric backyards, telling me that A) I need to clean mine, and B)How to do it.

More and more, my response to stuff like this is getting to be MYOB. I bet that's your Mom's as well. I will also bet that she says it much, much nicer, too :)

Lying is a form of abuse. Liars are abusers. They rip down your self esteem every time you sit by and do nothing to call them on it. They ridicule your integrity and your self respect by assuming you will not call them on their lies. They lie to build themselves up and to tear you down. They lie in order to keep being takers. They lie to puff up their importance, and to denigrate your intelligence. They lie because keeping you in the dark frees them to cheat their way into getting what they want. The message is simply this, if you would not do these things to others, why are you letting it be done to you?

Posted by: tutterfly at May 10, 2005 02:50 AM

Right on Tutt, why did I know that was your post before I finished reading it.

Sorry this is a little long and not to sure if it has been posted

** Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches **
** http://dahrjamailiraq.com **

Dear readers,

I normally don't send out information regarding a particular cause, but
I feel this one in particular is critical. The following was written by
Fernando Suarez, who lost his son in Iraq. His appeal is followed by
some links you can click to take further action to support the cause.

To all media outlets
To all who love peace and justice
To the citizens of the United States
To the entire world

Pablo Paredes and Kevin Benderman will be subjected to a court martial
for having opposed Bush's criminal war in Iraq. Both applied for
conscientious objector status and were denied. Both are accused of
disobeying orders among other charges. In San Diego and at Fort Stewart,
Georgia, both will be tried in proceedings that without a doubt will
mirror the absurd theater in which Camilo Mejia was pronounced guilty by
a military tribunal that sentenced him to a year in prison.

Beginning tomorrow, May 11, we will see similar trials in which justice
will be conspicuously absent, in which the power of the state will
impose its will over international law, and in which young men will be
sentenced and shipped to military prisons.

But all of this can be avoided if the international peace community
comes to the defense of these two brave human beings and brave soliders.
Why brave soldiers? Because they understand their duty as members of the
military to defend the Constitution of the United States, to defend
democracy and freedom, and they understand that the war in Iraq has
nothing to do with these hallowed values. Why courageous human beings?
Because by refusing to take part in war crimes they risk their personal
safety and their careers. These war crimes have been perpetrated in Irak
by a president who has brought only economic hardship to families in the
United States and death and destruction to the people of Iraq.

These young men are the spokesmen for thousands of soldiers who have
deserted and we must give them our total support. I invite you to
participate in a day of international resistence, to sign petitions of
solidarity, and to demonstrate against these courts martial, against the
illegal occupation of Iraq, and for the immediate return of our troops.
More than 1600 U.S. soldiers have died already and more than 100,000
innocent Iraqis have perished including thousands of children. Thousands
of children are now orphans in both nations.

Now is the time to overcome our fear and to protest and demand an end to
Bush's historic crimes.

>> *COME* to National City (south of San Diego)* THIS* Tuesday! Join the
>> struggle of* PABLO PAREDES*, a US sailor who refused to be a cog in
>> the war machine.
>
>> *FERNANDO SUAREZ DEL SOLAR*,* father of one of the first U.S.
>> servicemen killed in Iraq : "Thank you, my son. Thank you for your
>> courageous stand, for your brave act of love and respect for human
>> life, and above all thank you for being an example of strength and
>> patriotism for the young people of your generation….The true soldier
>> defends the Constitution, life, liberty, and democracy, and does not
>> exterminate a foreign land for economic gain."*
>>
>> _*NOAM CHOMSKY*_*:** "The actions that Pablo Paredes is taking are
>> honorable and impressive, and merit the support of people who are
>> committed to peace, justice, and the rule of law -- not force -- in
>> world affairs. It is no exaggeration to say that the possibilities
>> for decent human survival depend on that commitment. I hope that
>> others will be inspired by Pablo's courageous actions, and will not
>> only lend him their support, but will find their own ways to work for
>> the same ends."*
>
>> *HOWARD ZINN: ** "Your refusal to participate in a war which is
>> contrary to international law and which violates basic standards of
>> moral behaviour is to be commended and admired. Your act is in
>> keeping with a long tradition in our country -- from the Boston Tea
>> Party, to the refusal to accept the Fugitive Slave Acts, to the civil
>> disobedience of Martin Luther king -- of following your conscience
>> rather than blindly obeying orders. Democracy requires citizens who
>> will think for themselves and insist that the government uphold the
>> principles it is supposed to stand for."*
>
>> *RON KOVIC**, author:_ Born on the 4th of July_*: * "I want to send
>> my support and admiration to Pablo Paredes for his courageous
>> opposition to the war in Iraq...he is an inspiration to all of us! I
>> want to encourage everyone to stand with Pablo and other brave war
>> resisters who are finding the courage withinside themselves to begin
>> saying what really needs to be said!...what they are now doing, at
>> great personal risk, is an extremely courageous act of citizenship
>> that every American should be proud of!"*

>> _*On-going Events in National City/San Diego Tuesday-Friday THIS WEEK!*_
>
>> _/*Camilo Mejia*/_*, Fernando Suarez del Solar,_/ Naomi Klein/_,
>> Blase Bonpane,_/ Aidan Delgado/_, Marjorie Cohn and_/ Cindy Sheehan/_
>> are among those who will come to San Diego in support of_/ War
>> Resister Pablo Paredes/_.*

> *Voices of Resistance
> **Tuesday, May 10 2005
> 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM
>
> Aswan Hall
> 401 Mile of Cars Way
> National City, CA
>
> *Pablo Paredes, Camilo Mejia and Aidan Delgado, three outspoken war
> resisters, will share their personal expereinces and motivations in
> seeking Conscientious Objector status and renouncing the war. Join us
> on this_ "National Day of Action for GI Resisters"_ in a show of
> overwhelming support on the day before the US military brings sailor
> Pablo Paredes (San Diego, CA) and soldier Kevin Benderman (Ft.
> Stewart, GA)before military court martial tribunals for their
> opposition to the Iraq War.
>
> Directions to Aswan Hall: 401 Mile-of-Cars Way (aka 24th St.),
> National City (free parking)
> Take I-5 to Mile-of-Cars Way.
> Exit EAST.
> LEFT at 1st intersection (Hoover Ave.)

> LEFT into the first driveway.

>> *For Additional Events and other info: * *www.DefendPablo.org*
>> * or San Diego Military Counseling
>> Project 619-692-3686*

from the ever-growing blog-osphere, this is by former Sen. Gary Hart, via the brand new HuffingtonPost:

IRAQ: Exit or Empire?

by Gary Hart

Whether the U.S. does or does not intend to establish a permanent military presence in Iraq is a factual question.

The Bush administration has repeatedly stated that it intends to withdraw American military forces as the new Iraqi government develops the means, with our help, to defend itself and provide its own security. To my knowledge, the Administration has not positively stated, nor has it been definitively asked by the press or Congress, whether it intends to withdraw ALL troops.

There is one way to find out. Are we, or are we not, building permanent military bases in Iraq? Yes or no? If we are withdrawing ALL troops, we do not need permanent bases. If we are building military bases, we do not intend to withdraw all our troops. Simple as that.

Though the press has been unaccountably lax in pursuing this question, the best evidence, mostly from non-"mainstream" sources, is that we are building somewhere between 12 and 14 permanent military bases. Permanent in this context means concrete and steel not tents and trench latrines.

If the goal of the Project for a New American Century, as it thereafter became the Bush administration, was to overthrow Saddam Hussein, install a friendly government in Baghdad, set up a permanent political and military presence in Iraq, and dominate the behavior of the region (including securing oil supplies), then you build permanent bases for some kind of permanent American military presence. If the goal was to spread democracy and freedom, then you don’t.

So, are we? Or are we not?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/2005/05/exit-or-empire.html

On to Victory
Thanks for posting Gary Hart!

Casey
Looks like the MSM is getting nervous - keep it up bloggers. Show up at places like Davos!
Right on! Citizen witnesses.

Re Bush & Putin
I agree with Andree - W might as well stay over there - he fits in. He has all the qualifications. Birds of a feather & so on.

Another example of the "Moral Majority"

I know both parties have had their scandles but this on makes me sick. See those who are homophobes are often hiding their own even worse sins. Maybe the Neocons need to start cleaning out their own dirty laundry before they start worrying about other peoples.

Spokane mayor computers seized amid sex probe

Monday, May 9, 2005 Posted: 6:10 PM EDT (2210 GMT)

SPOKANE, Washington (AP) -- City officials have seized Mayor Jim West's City Hall computers for an investigation into whether he improperly used them to visit gay online chat rooms.

West, a longtime Republican foe of gay rights, has acknowledged offering autographed sports memorabilia and a possible City Hall internship to someone he thought was an 18-year-old man in a gay online chat room.

The man was actually a computer expert hired by The Spokesman-Review as part of a journalism sting operation.

City officials on Monday were organizing an independent investigation into West's possible misuse of city computers, City Attorney Mike Connelly said.

On Thursday, The Spokesman-Review reported on West's online activities, along with allegations that West molested boys while he was a sheriff's deputy and Boy Scout leader in the late 1970s and early 1980s. West denied the molestation claims but acknowledged that he had visited a gay chat room and had relations with men.

West was in meetings Monday morning and did not immediately return a call for comment from The Associated Press.

He also disputed a story in Sunday's Spokesman-Review that quoted a city councilwoman as saying West told her that he had masturbated in his office. West said he was at home, not in his office, when the simulated online sex occurred, the newspaper reported.

The Spokesman-Review called for West's resignation, saying in an editorial Sunday that he can no longer govern effectively. The Seattle Times also called for West to step down.

Spokane County Auditor Vicky Dalton said she has received requests for recall information, but no one had filed petitions necessary to start the process.

A national gay advocacy organization called on West to step down.

"This man -- whether he's straight, bisexual, or gay -- deserves nothing but scorn," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in Washington, D.C. "He needs to resign immediately."

Casey,

Your points are well taken. However there are some things we (bloggers as a whole-not just this site) can gain from his comments. First, I want you to understand that I think Adam Cohen is a jerk and is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Second, you know that I have spoken out many times against the Bu$hco propaganda machine. Third, you are right, a hypocrite has to have their commentary reflected back at them.

However, I visited some other blogs yesterday and was struck by the fabricated quotes, lies, swearing, and anger. Not only that, there were the inevitable deceptions. This is happening not only on the fundies sites, but also the "progressive" sites as well. As I posted yesterday, one of the most well known bloggers posted a "diary" with a fabricated quote that he implied was in a national story. I could not find that quote anywhere in the body of the article from which he implied that the quote came. In addition he referred to Senator John Kerry as an "ass". That certainly was his prerogative to use that word, but the ethics and worthiness of it are questionable.

I personally am comfortable with the ethics of this site as people regularly reference their materials and generally show respect for one another's views and comments. However, I recall, there was a posting about six months ago-not on this site-that suggested a bloggers code of ethics. It was reasonable

Speaking of "Oh, the irony"...

Jenna Bush was spotted Saturday night at Cafe Saint-Ex in the Logan Circle area of Washington, DC.. “She was chain-smoking and dressed all in white,” says the source.

(From msnbc.com)

State Department refuses document request

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The State Department won't turn over more internal documents requested by Senate Democrats investigating John R. Bolton's fitness to be U.N. ambassador, a spokesman said Monday.

"I don't think we're stiffing anybody here," State Department spokesman Tom Casey said. "We feel we've given all of the information that's required under those circumstances."

Separately, a top intelligence officer prepared to brief several lawmakers about the embattled nominee's requests for the names of U.S. officials whose communications were picked up by the secret National Security Agency. Both Democrats and Republicans have sought details about Bolton's pursuit of the NSA information.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to vote Thursday on Bolton's nomination. The committee's senior Democrat, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, complained over the weekend that the State Department had failed to provide documents related to Bolton's current job as the department's arms control chief. Democrats say they need the information before the vote, and Biden has hinted that he could force a delay.

The State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development have turned over about 500 pages of documents to the committee, including e-mails, memos, telegrams and drafts of speeches, according to figures from the State Department's congressional affairs office. Various intelligence agencies have provided about 125 pages of documents.

Congressional aides said the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the panel's top Democrat are expected to be briefed Tuesday. Deputy National Intelligence Director Gen. Michael Hayden will probably be among those explaining the NSA intercepts. Hayden is a former head of the NSA. It is not clear whether the separate Foreign Relations Committee would also hear details of Bolton's requests.

Democrats want to know if Bolton was spying on other government officials he suspected of disagreeing with or undermining his views on sensitive topics such as Cuban and Syrian weapons capabilities.

At his confirmation hearing last month, Bolton acknowledged asking for a few names of U.S. officials whose communications -- presumably telephone and e-mail -- were recorded during NSA surveillance operations. It later emerged that Bolton made 10 such requests.

In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Saturday, Biden said the department had turned over material that answered questions posed by the committee's Republican chairman but not by Democrats.

All eight Democrats on the committee have indicated they plan to vote against Bolton, citing his past hostility to the United Nations or his conduct in his current job. Democrats are looking for evidence that Bolton twisted government intelligence to suit his conservative views or mistreated lower-level analysts who tried to raise red flags.

In an interview Monday, Rice dismissed allegations that Bolton tried to pressure intelligence analysts to change their assessments.

"I see nothing that suggests that John was anything but an interested consumer of intelligence and asked difficult questions," Rice said in the CNN interview. "I don't think there's anything wrong with someone, a policy-maker, asking difficult questions of the intelligence community."

Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Indiana, has predicted Bolton will win committee support by a 10-8 party-line vote and said there is no reason to postpone the vote a second time. Lugar put it off last month after a moderate Republican, Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, said the committee should investigate Bolton further.

Besides his testimony last month, Bolton has had 23 private meetings with senators and answered 157 written questions, according to the congressional affairs office figures. Democrats have complained that some of the answers were incomplete or brusque, and some were merely a yes or no without elaboration.

The Foreign Relations Committee interviewed 31 people, including 13 current State Department employees.

A transcript of an interview last week with Robert Hutchings, former chairman of the National Intelligence Council, was released Monday. Hutchings described a testy debate between Bolton and intelligence analysts over Syrian weapons programs.

"I wouldn't say he was making up facts. Let's say that he took isolated facts and made much more of them to build a case than I thought the intelligence warranted," Hutchings said. "It was a sort of cherry-picking of little factoids and little isolated bits that were drawn out to present the starkest-possible case."

On Monday, 43 former U.S. ambassadors added their names to a letter signed earlier by 59 ex-ambassadors opposing the nomination. Most served in Republican administrations.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/10/un.ambassador.ap/index.html

This is from democrats@azdem.org

Governor Napolitano Wins Budget Battle
GOP, It's Time to Get Your Story Straight!

Once again Governor Napolitano has shown why her strong leadership, pragmatic approach to government, and ability to build consensus has made her an overwhelmingly popular Governor. Despite ideological opposition from the extremist Republican Legislature, Governor Napolitano has successfully secured a budget that expands voluntary all day kindergarten, funds the creation of a new medical school in downtown Phoenix, protects Arizona's children, and provides childcare assistance so those wanting to work for a paycheck aren't forced onto welfare.

While Governor Napolitano signs the budget this week, remember that the GOP leadership fought tooth and nail with her to block investment in programs that move Arizona forward. As GOP leadership tries to claim a Republican budget victory, don't forget that they're taking credit for the very initiatives they failed to fund in their original anti-family, anti-children, fiscally irresponsible budget. This is a deliberate Republican effort to mislead the people of Arizona, don't let them get away with it!

Security at State Prisons
What They're Taking Credit For Now:
Providing pay increase for correctional officers.
What They Originally Voted for:
A budget that refused to fund Governor Napolitano's recommended 7.5% pay increases for all correctional officers to address the danger of high turnover rates which leads to inexperienced officers and an increased risk to the public.

Foster Care

What They're Taking Credit For Now:
Providing additional $12.5 million to increase foster care payments.

What They Originally Voted for:
A budget that slashed children's services funding by $3.8 million, placing hundreds of children at risk for abuse and neglect.

Adoption Funding
What They're Taking Credit For Now:
Providing additional $9.3 million for adoption services.
What They Originally Voted for:
A budget that refused to provide any additional funding for monthly payments to families who adopt or become permanent guardians of children from the CPS system with special needs.

Child Care Subsidies
What They're Taking Credit For Now:
Providing $11.2 million for child care subsidies.
What They Originally Voted for:
A budget that denied childcare assistance to more than 14,500 children, preventing thousands of families from making work a lifestyle.

Child Protective Services

What They're Taking Credit For Now:

Providing additional $9 million for Child Protective Services to enable the division to hire 137.5 new case managers.

What They Originally Voted for:
A budget that slashed 184 case managers who would investigate reports of child abuse and neglect and cut vital services that protect children.

I agree, oncall, that there are a lot of irresponsible comments on the web--from bloggers and from commenters.

As we evolve the new media, we will learn more and more about how to refine the messages so they reach their intended targets in the way we hope they will. I was on the site you mention and there were indeed, a number of childish, unconsidered messages there. There were also calls for greater thoughtfulness and critical thinking/analysis. And there were many who pointed out the originator's bias and misinformation.

We so often, as humans, become those we criticize most strongly. I have seen this happen on the right and the left, in academe and on the street.

What we try to do here at the DCP is to encourage responsible journalistic standards. That does not mean we do not have the occasional rant; but we also have created a place for responsible ranting. http://www.democracycellproject.net/forum/index.php?showforum=87

We prefer encouraging responsible behavior rather than legislation, discussion over policing. But sometimes you have call a lie a lie, and a distortion a distortion.

Conservatives Gouge Poor on Medicaid

May 10, 2005

As President Bush toured the country trying to hoodwink Americans into dismantling their own Social Security system, right-wing leaders in Congress took the lead in passing the president's other priority-a $10 billion cut to Medicaid, the nation's premiere health program for low-income Americans. State legislatures and governors have now outlined the grisly details of these cuts proposing significant out-of-pocket health expenses for the poor coupled with new limitations and restrictions on health services. Why are conservatives picking on the most vulnerable Americans?

Somebody has to pay for conservatives' gross fiscal mismanagement and massive handouts to wealthy. Right-wing leaders have cleared the way for $106 billion in new tax cuts for those at the top, massive tax breaks for oil and gas interests, and a gaping giveaway for corporations to bring off-shore profits back into the states virtually tax free. Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR) summed up these priorities quite appropriately: "[T]o balance the federal budget off the backs of the poorest people in the country is simply unacceptable. You don't pull feeding tubes from people. You don't pull the wheelchair out from under the child with muscular dystrophy."

Conservatives count on the poor not voting, hoping no one will notice if they take away basic health care from a couple hundred thousand low-income Americans. Needing someway to cover their tracks on these misplaced priorities, our nation's conservative leaders decided to target the poor-the group with the least amount of political power and lobbying clout. Now, facing mounting budget pressures, states are reacting in harsh ways: Tennessee is planning to drop more than 300,000 people from its Medicaid rolls, while Missouri is cutting off 90,000. New Hampshire yesterday became the first state in the nation to make the poorest of the poor pay for their coverage. Expect more states to follow suit in the near future.

Progressives want to improve Medicaid the right way by lowering drug prices, expanding small business health insurance pools, and containing costs without hurting beneficiaries. Plenty of options exist to improve Medicaid's performance without cost shifting to states or reducing coverage for people in need. A report by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured reveals that all fifty states and the District of Columbia enacted some form of cost-containment measures in response to the rising cost of Medicaid in the past two years. Other progressive solutions include basic drug reimportation programs, multi-state prescription purchasing pools, and small business health insurance pools.
Read more about progressive solutions to Medicaid in American Progress' issue brief, "Improving Medicaid's Performance".

Daily Talking Points is a product of the American Progress Action Fund

Oncall, Casey, and all:

I also spent some time yesterday cruising the blogosphere...

Really quite depressing, frankly. I read lots of angry, childish posts littered with inaccuracies, falsehoods, ranting and threats. I found myself marveling that many of these people were able to convince themselves that it is Democratic candidates that are somehow lacking... in fact, it clarified for me personally that it is the level of idiocy in the rank and file that is hampering efforts to combat the radical Neocon agenda. Many of these people are not interesting in creating a positive message, or a cohesive front against the Neocons. They just don't get it.

It made me angry, and made me very glad that the DCP website garners a much higher level of discourse, and a much more factual approach, even though a great deal of personal opinion is expressed here.

We can't control the content of other blogs. All we can do is try to post rational, thoughtful material on other websites in addition to the DCP.

KerryOn:)

New thread!!

Reading comments on bloggers.

I can hang around the blogosphere a little, then go to a newspaper. What will have happened it that after reading the blogs, I've read every story that is in the newspaper and the bloggers and commenters have dissected and discussed the articles for content, style, truthfulness and relevance. It's great!!

I don't think it has alot to do with ethics but with opinion and insight. What are bloggers & commenters but citizen watchdogs on the media.

Now if a blogger tries to break a story or spreads information that is sketchy or untrue, that isn't good, but the beauty is that someone is going to call them on it & it'll be right there.

So I don't know what the NYT is saying. Are bloggers journalists? As much as any OpEd people - but they're "alternative" media. When they do stories? I suppose it depends how well they do their homework or how accurate they are. But again, they are open to peer review.

Posted by: not my president at May 10, 2005 10:37 PM

Well said!!