Check this out:
Key Democrat Blanche Lincoln To Oppose Employee Free Choice Act, As Is
In what is, perhaps, the most devastating blow yet to the fate of the Employee Free Choice Act, Sen. Blanche Lincoln said on Monday that she will oppose the union-backed legislation.
The Arkansas Democrat, whose home state includes WalMart, one of the major business groups fighting EFCA, announced her decision during a meeting of the Little Rock Political Animals Club.
"I cannot support that bill," Lincoln said, according to Arkansas Business. "Cannot support that bill in its current form. Cannot support and will not support moving it forward in its current form."
Labor forces can ill-afford to lose any Democrats in this legislative battle, given the partisan lines of the EFCA vote in 2007. Already, Sen. Arlen Specter, the lone Senate Republican to vote for cloture on the Employee Free Choice Act back then, has indicated he will oppose cloture if the bill were to be brought up in this Congress.
Lincoln, long considered a crucial Democratic vote on EFCA, was the focus of intense political pressure. Union groups were courting her support while the business community had made her a primary target for defection. Indeed, WalMart hired her former chief of staff for the precise purpose of lobbying on EFCA. Lincoln is up for reelection in 2010.
UPDATE: AFL-CIO spokesperson Eddie Vale says he isn't distraught with the news.
For the next two weeks, thousands of people are participating in hundreds of events across the country in support of the Employee Free Choice Act," he writes. "We're confident that labor law reform is going to pass in 2009. The Employee Free Choice Act is built on 3 fundamental things and we're continuing to talk to Senators to build 60 votes for a bill that stays true to those principles:
o Workers need to have a real choice to form a union and bargain for a better life, free from intimidation
o We have to stop the endless delays; companies can't just stall to stop workers' choice
o There have to be real penalties for violating the law.
Vale also contested my characterization of Lincoln's remarks being a real hit for EFCA proponents saying: "This certainly isn't 'devastating' as you described it, it's political science 101.A bill is introduced and then Congress works through the process of committees, amendments, and debates and 99 out of 100 times the final bill is different from when it started."
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/06/key-democrat-blanche-linc_n_183613.html?view=print
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Watch Out for that Nut!!
Okay. I got the sniff on the start from MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show. Video is below.
Here's a study on ACORN. Well, the main page to the study. And here's UEPI's sort of introductory blog about the study. Peter Dreier and Christopher Martin of the Urban and Environmental Political Institute found that media outlets, starting with right-wing media but now including mainstream media, have misreported much of the controversy surrounding ACORN.
Here's the thing. ACORN helps out poor people, especially people in urban areas, especially poor black people. They fight for higher minimum wage and more labor rights. Stuff like that. They were among the first organizations to warn about predatory lending. And anytime little people are empowered, big people panic and try to squash them.
Don't get me wrong. I was disturbed by the videos just like everybody else, but those people have been fired or laid off. For all the Republican "outrage" over voter registration fraud, it was usually ACORN itself that flagged election boards to the problem.
And I can think of two companies off the top of my head who've defrauded the federal government out of billions and/or were corrupt from top to bottom: Halliburton and Blackwater/Xe. Is the House of Representatives about to vote to stop funding them?
I have other thoughts but not feeling topnotch right now. Holla!
Here's a study on ACORN. Well, the main page to the study. And here's UEPI's sort of introductory blog about the study. Peter Dreier and Christopher Martin of the Urban and Environmental Political Institute found that media outlets, starting with right-wing media but now including mainstream media, have misreported much of the controversy surrounding ACORN.
Here's the thing. ACORN helps out poor people, especially people in urban areas, especially poor black people. They fight for higher minimum wage and more labor rights. Stuff like that. They were among the first organizations to warn about predatory lending. And anytime little people are empowered, big people panic and try to squash them.
Don't get me wrong. I was disturbed by the videos just like everybody else, but those people have been fired or laid off. For all the Republican "outrage" over voter registration fraud, it was usually ACORN itself that flagged election boards to the problem.
And I can think of two companies off the top of my head who've defrauded the federal government out of billions and/or were corrupt from top to bottom: Halliburton and Blackwater/Xe. Is the House of Representatives about to vote to stop funding them?
I have other thoughts but not feeling topnotch right now. Holla!
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Breaking News on Healthcare!: Updated
I'll try to keep this updated. I just heard that the Mayo Clinic is now supporting the public option from a senator and congressman speaking on the Ed Show on MSNBC. As of now, I can only find that they support a co-op type public option. But that was yesterday, and whatever I just heard happened today. So, I'll be paying attention and I'll try to keep you informed.
By the way, thanks for reading my blog. I have so much to say. And you know the philosophical question: if a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? Well . . . does it matter? No one hears it! Right? So thanks for hearing me.
Update #1: As far as I can find, they just support a co-op version of a public option. I'm not sure that's that great.
By the way, thanks for reading my blog. I have so much to say. And you know the philosophical question: if a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? Well . . . does it matter? No one hears it! Right? So thanks for hearing me.
Update #1: As far as I can find, they just support a co-op version of a public option. I'm not sure that's that great.
Serious as a Heart Attack
This is among the reasons why white people don't necessarily have to actively hate black people in order for these sorts of disparities to take place. Or, at least, we see the way racism the effects the Black economy comes over to effect another area, like healthcare.
Yeah . . . just read the article. It doesn't seem that personal racism effected the treatment black cardiac arrest patients received. So to that extent, white people don't necessarily have to consciously hate black people for these things to happen! I can't stress that enough. White Americans, just because you "aren't racist" doesn't mean these things don't happen. And it certainly doesn't mean we should let them happen.
Now. According to the article, the issue was the facilities and staff experience, which makes me think that these facilities aren't well financed. Right? And that brings to mind the fact that in addition to our disproportionate rate of poverty, which is due to past and present racism; we face employment and income discrimination. This is a factoid that may take a while for me to find the study where I read it. I read it a while back. But anyway, due to racism, the Black economy is missing billions of dollars. You think that would help these facilities and improve the healthcare black folks receive?
Here's the article:
A startling recent study has concluded that for black patients in the USA their chances of surviving a cardiac arrest in hospital are less than other ethnic groups.
But the study concludes that may have little to do with the patients themselves, but rather the facilities where they are treated at the time of their cardiac incident.
The study was conducted by researchers from St. Luke’s and the University of Michigan Health System, as well as cardiologists and researchers from Duke University, The University of Washington Medical School in St Louis and Yale University and studied the care, both before and after a cardiac arrest of 10,011 patients in hospitals all over the United States. All of the patients underwent defibrillation intended to restart heart activity stopped after a cardiac arrest.
About half of the black patients that the study researched were successfully resuscitated, compared to a 67% rate in white patients. And although the black patients were actually normally sicker than other groups upon hospital admission they were less likely to be admitted to a unit where their condition was actively monitored. Even in those who were successfully initially resuscitated the eventual chances of the black patients surviving to a successful discharge and recovery were also disproportionately lower than other ethnic groups.
The problem stems from the level of care that is provided by the facilities where these black patients receive their care says Brahmajee K. Nallamothu, M.D., MPH, a senior author on the paper and cardiologist at the U-M Cardiovascular Center. He says that he and his team have produced research that suggests” that there are important facility-level characteristics at the hospitals where black patients are most commonly treated.”
These include he says less experienced emergency room and intensive care unit staff and less use of more advanced cardiac care techniques such as cardiac catheterization or hypothermia.
All of the authors agree that the results of their work should indicate that the focus of reducing the incidence of cardiac related death amongst black patients needs to shift from the patients themselves to the facilities where they commonly seek treatment.
The study concludes by stating that strategies need to be implemented to improve the level of care in the hospitals who see the most black patients, rather than focusing primarily on any genetic or lifestyle difference that may cause the disparity in fatality rates.
The study was published in the September 16th edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Yeah . . . just read the article. It doesn't seem that personal racism effected the treatment black cardiac arrest patients received. So to that extent, white people don't necessarily have to consciously hate black people for these things to happen! I can't stress that enough. White Americans, just because you "aren't racist" doesn't mean these things don't happen. And it certainly doesn't mean we should let them happen.
Now. According to the article, the issue was the facilities and staff experience, which makes me think that these facilities aren't well financed. Right? And that brings to mind the fact that in addition to our disproportionate rate of poverty, which is due to past and present racism; we face employment and income discrimination. This is a factoid that may take a while for me to find the study where I read it. I read it a while back. But anyway, due to racism, the Black economy is missing billions of dollars. You think that would help these facilities and improve the healthcare black folks receive?
Here's the article:
Black Patients Receive Substandard Cardiac Care, Resulting in Higher Death Risk
A startling recent study has concluded that for black patients in the USA their chances of surviving a cardiac arrest in hospital are less than other ethnic groups.
But the study concludes that may have little to do with the patients themselves, but rather the facilities where they are treated at the time of their cardiac incident.
The study was conducted by researchers from St. Luke’s and the University of Michigan Health System, as well as cardiologists and researchers from Duke University, The University of Washington Medical School in St Louis and Yale University and studied the care, both before and after a cardiac arrest of 10,011 patients in hospitals all over the United States. All of the patients underwent defibrillation intended to restart heart activity stopped after a cardiac arrest.
About half of the black patients that the study researched were successfully resuscitated, compared to a 67% rate in white patients. And although the black patients were actually normally sicker than other groups upon hospital admission they were less likely to be admitted to a unit where their condition was actively monitored. Even in those who were successfully initially resuscitated the eventual chances of the black patients surviving to a successful discharge and recovery were also disproportionately lower than other ethnic groups.
The problem stems from the level of care that is provided by the facilities where these black patients receive their care says Brahmajee K. Nallamothu, M.D., MPH, a senior author on the paper and cardiologist at the U-M Cardiovascular Center. He says that he and his team have produced research that suggests” that there are important facility-level characteristics at the hospitals where black patients are most commonly treated.”
These include he says less experienced emergency room and intensive care unit staff and less use of more advanced cardiac care techniques such as cardiac catheterization or hypothermia.
All of the authors agree that the results of their work should indicate that the focus of reducing the incidence of cardiac related death amongst black patients needs to shift from the patients themselves to the facilities where they commonly seek treatment.
The study concludes by stating that strategies need to be implemented to improve the level of care in the hospitals who see the most black patients, rather than focusing primarily on any genetic or lifestyle difference that may cause the disparity in fatality rates.
The study was published in the September 16th edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Okay, I Need Some Help Here, Updated
Er, duh, State! Here's the video, from the FRC site.
Here's the thing. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council was on the Ed Show on MSNBC the other week talking about healthcare. He said the reason for FRC's opposition to the public option, and especially single-payer, is that though it's true that Christ did teach to heal the sick and help the poor, that was a mandate to Christian individuals. Or, he said something to that effect. I'm gonna have to find the transcript for you, ain't I? Well . . . later.
So anyway, I wanted to be sure I correctly understood some of the basics so I checked out FRC Action's website. Here's their list of what they support:
Of course, as I recall, God said to treat immigrants fairly.
But anyway. I just wanna make sure I basically understand the Christian right's political position. They think the government should determine who can marry whom. They think the government should determine the choices a woman makes with her body or a terminally ill person who pain makes with their lives. They don't want federal funding supporting abortion or euthanasia. They want the government to mandate prayer in schools. Then of course there's "intelligent design" and the fact that they want to stress their myth that the writers of the Constitution meant for this to be a "Christian" nation.
Did I miss anything?
All that action by the government; but when it comes to healthcare, Jesus only gave an individual mandate.
Huh?
Here's the thing. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council was on the Ed Show on MSNBC the other week talking about healthcare. He said the reason for FRC's opposition to the public option, and especially single-payer, is that though it's true that Christ did teach to heal the sick and help the poor, that was a mandate to Christian individuals. Or, he said something to that effect. I'm gonna have to find the transcript for you, ain't I? Well . . . later.
So anyway, I wanted to be sure I correctly understood some of the basics so I checked out FRC Action's website. Here's their list of what they support:
1.Constitutional and legal protections for life in all stages from conception to natural death.Yeah. So basically they're against gay marriage, abortion, and "assisted suicide." I'm pretty sure they promote (silent) prayer in school. Apparently they're against the estate tax (I need to say here that contrary to the title of their article that I didn't read, seeing as how the estate tax currently only applies to, like, the richest .5% of citizens who don't need it and don't usually reinvest it, it won't create jobs); they don't see the racism surrounding the healthcare debate; they're more concerned about the un/fortunate Americans who have healthcare and are at no risk of losing it than they are of those who don't have squat. Oh yeah, and God forbid an undocumented worker need medical treatment!
2.Preference in public policies for heterosexual marriage and the traditional family.
3.A strong national defense and foreign policy rooted in national interests and ideals.
4.Tax and fiscal policies that strengthen rather than weaken America's families.
5.Restoration of the constitutional balance in relations between church and state.
6.Judicial restraint and respect for the original intent of the framers of the Constitution.
7.A renewal of ethical monotheism and traditional Judeo-Christian standards of morality-the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God"-to which the founding fathers appealed in the Declaration of Independence.
Of course, as I recall, God said to treat immigrants fairly.
But anyway. I just wanna make sure I basically understand the Christian right's political position. They think the government should determine who can marry whom. They think the government should determine the choices a woman makes with her body or a terminally ill person who pain makes with their lives. They don't want federal funding supporting abortion or euthanasia. They want the government to mandate prayer in schools. Then of course there's "intelligent design" and the fact that they want to stress their myth that the writers of the Constitution meant for this to be a "Christian" nation.
Did I miss anything?
All that action by the government; but when it comes to healthcare, Jesus only gave an individual mandate.
Huh?
Sunday, September 20, 2009
It's Not Racist, But . . .
If you know me, then you know I do think race is playing a part in the persecution of ACORN. How many dangerous contractors do we still have in Iraq? And to the extent that senate Dems are just appeasing Republicans, I coulda sworn that appeasement was pointless. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I don't subscribe to that notion the way BushCo used it. But. I do know people who make a big to-do out of "appeasement" should never be "appeased." ~ No1KState
The ACORN Vote: End The Appeasement
By Isaiah J. Poole
September 15, 2009 - 1:55pm ET
Last night, on a 83-7 vote, the Senate voted to bar ACORN from receiving any funds in the fiscal 2010 Transportation and HUD appropriations bills. If the House follows suit, that would effectively end several housing assistance and advocacy programs that ACORN has successfully done for several years.
The vote is the latest fallout from Glenn Beck’s jihad against all signs of progressivism in the Obama White House. First it was Van Jones, fired from his green jobs advisory post after right-wing websites branded him a Communist radical. Now it’s ACORN. Who’s next?
The worst part is that a majority of Senate Democrats went along with the vote against ACORN. Freshman Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., sponsored the amendment cutting the funding, and used to back up his argument a deluge of right-wing propaganda — from the entrapment of ACORN employees by a conservative video hit squad to an 88-page screed ginned up in July by Rep. Darrell Issa and House Republicans entitled “Is ACORN Intentionally Structured As A Criminal Enterprise?”
Not one Democrat had the guts to speak up on the Senate floor against this right-wing attack.
Digby on Saturday shared a reader observation that helps put this in context: Recall that Xe, formerly known as Blackwater, has had a contract with the State Department extended this month despite the fact that five Blackwater guards were charged with 35 counts of manslaughter. Blackwater almost singlehandedly undercut Iraqi support for the American presence in Iraq, but Congress took no action to bar it from further contracts.
There is one word for the Democratic votes to de-fund ACORN: appeasement. The conservative machine to which Glenn Beck is beholden gins up a controversy based on either facts blown out of proportion or total falsehoods. And when faced with the opportunity to stand up for truth, fairness, due process and the mandate the voters gave Congress and the White House to stand up for progressive policies, too many Democrats either run silent or run scared.
We should know from the health care debate that appeasement is as failed a strategy today as it was in 1938 when Neville Chamberlain tried it against Nazi Germany. The more Democrats give in—whether it's deep-sixing the public option in response to fear-mongering about "government-run health care" or cutting funds to badly needed services for low-income people because of a few bad actors in a grassroots organization—the more empowered and hungry the unprincipled power-grabbers in the conservative movement will become. It is a losing strategy for Democrats and a dangerous path for America.
Congress, stop the appeasement. Get a spine. Draw a line. Now
The ACORN Vote: End The Appeasement
By Isaiah J. Poole
September 15, 2009 - 1:55pm ET
Last night, on a 83-7 vote, the Senate voted to bar ACORN from receiving any funds in the fiscal 2010 Transportation and HUD appropriations bills. If the House follows suit, that would effectively end several housing assistance and advocacy programs that ACORN has successfully done for several years.
The vote is the latest fallout from Glenn Beck’s jihad against all signs of progressivism in the Obama White House. First it was Van Jones, fired from his green jobs advisory post after right-wing websites branded him a Communist radical. Now it’s ACORN. Who’s next?
The worst part is that a majority of Senate Democrats went along with the vote against ACORN. Freshman Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., sponsored the amendment cutting the funding, and used to back up his argument a deluge of right-wing propaganda — from the entrapment of ACORN employees by a conservative video hit squad to an 88-page screed ginned up in July by Rep. Darrell Issa and House Republicans entitled “Is ACORN Intentionally Structured As A Criminal Enterprise?”
Not one Democrat had the guts to speak up on the Senate floor against this right-wing attack.
Digby on Saturday shared a reader observation that helps put this in context: Recall that Xe, formerly known as Blackwater, has had a contract with the State Department extended this month despite the fact that five Blackwater guards were charged with 35 counts of manslaughter. Blackwater almost singlehandedly undercut Iraqi support for the American presence in Iraq, but Congress took no action to bar it from further contracts.
There is one word for the Democratic votes to de-fund ACORN: appeasement. The conservative machine to which Glenn Beck is beholden gins up a controversy based on either facts blown out of proportion or total falsehoods. And when faced with the opportunity to stand up for truth, fairness, due process and the mandate the voters gave Congress and the White House to stand up for progressive policies, too many Democrats either run silent or run scared.
We should know from the health care debate that appeasement is as failed a strategy today as it was in 1938 when Neville Chamberlain tried it against Nazi Germany. The more Democrats give in—whether it's deep-sixing the public option in response to fear-mongering about "government-run health care" or cutting funds to badly needed services for low-income people because of a few bad actors in a grassroots organization—the more empowered and hungry the unprincipled power-grabbers in the conservative movement will become. It is a losing strategy for Democrats and a dangerous path for America.
Congress, stop the appeasement. Get a spine. Draw a line. Now
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Foot Faulting
Serena Williams was wrong, but I do think too much has been made of it. The idea of a double standard between how she was received and how Roger Ferrer and even John McEnroe were received has crossed my mind; and, the more I think about it, the more I agree with this article titled "Double Standard for Serena Williams" by Dave Zirin. I didn't actually see the outburst; she was losing so I watched football. Maybe I need to check out youtube. But what I've seen of it wasn't all that "frightening." I'm not sure why the line judge feared for her life, or something like that she said. Maybe Serena's blackness scared her?
Soon from me, a post about the House passing the resolution admonishing Rep. Joe Wilson (SC-R).
Soon from me, a post about the House passing the resolution admonishing Rep. Joe Wilson (SC-R).
Monday, September 14, 2009
Keep It Up Folks!
Dear friends,
As you may know, right-wing talk show hosts have been bringing race-based fear mongering into the mainstream, but FOX's Glenn Beck has taken it to another level.
I signed ColorOfChange.org's petition to stop Glenn Beck's lies and distortions, and so far, 62 major companies have stopped their ads from running on his show. These companies have decided they don't want to be associated with Beck's race-baiting.
But Beck is only stepping up his fear-mongering, so we can't stop now. We have to make sure advertisers keep leaving, and stay away from his show.
Will you take a stand and be counted, and invite your friends and family to do the same? It takes just a moment:
http://www.colorofchange.org/beck/hold/?id=1756-227036
This summer, Beck said:
FOX has a horrible track record on pushing racist propaganda, but Glenn Beck appears to be taking the network to an even lower standard. He's trying to divide and distract America when we should be coming together and talking about issues that really matter--like health care and the economy.
The good news is that we have the power to stop this. Over 200,000 people have joined this campaign, and 62 advertisers have already stopped their ads from being run during Beck's show. Please help keep the momentum building.
http://www.colorofchange.org/beck/hold/?id=1756-227036
Thanks.
Here are some links to more info:
"Beck: Obama has 'exposed himself as a guy' with 'a deep seated hatred for white people'"
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907280008
"Glenn Beck: Obama agenda driven by 'reparations' and desire to 'settle old racial scores'"
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907230040
As you may know, right-wing talk show hosts have been bringing race-based fear mongering into the mainstream, but FOX's Glenn Beck has taken it to another level.
I signed ColorOfChange.org's petition to stop Glenn Beck's lies and distortions, and so far, 62 major companies have stopped their ads from running on his show. These companies have decided they don't want to be associated with Beck's race-baiting.
But Beck is only stepping up his fear-mongering, so we can't stop now. We have to make sure advertisers keep leaving, and stay away from his show.
Will you take a stand and be counted, and invite your friends and family to do the same? It takes just a moment:
http://www.colorofchange.org/beck/hold/?id=1756-227036
This summer, Beck said:
This president has exposed himself as a guy over and over and over again who has a deep-seated hatred for white people... this guy is, I believe, a racist.That statement fits into a pattern of rhetoric from Beck designed to stoke racial paranoia and fear. He has claimed that President Obama has a "reparation appetite" and a desire to use his policies to settle old racial scores. Beck's overall plan is to create an atmosphere in which the White House can accomplish nothing, and he's carrying it out by preying on race-based fears and mobilizing hate. Beck relies on dishonesty, distortion and exaggeration, and he is embarking on character assassinations of Obama administration officials with whom he disagrees.
FOX has a horrible track record on pushing racist propaganda, but Glenn Beck appears to be taking the network to an even lower standard. He's trying to divide and distract America when we should be coming together and talking about issues that really matter--like health care and the economy.
The good news is that we have the power to stop this. Over 200,000 people have joined this campaign, and 62 advertisers have already stopped their ads from being run during Beck's show. Please help keep the momentum building.
http://www.colorofchange.org/beck/hold/?id=1756-227036
Thanks.
Here are some links to more info:
"Beck: Obama has 'exposed himself as a guy' with 'a deep seated hatred for white people'"
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907280008
"Glenn Beck: Obama agenda driven by 'reparations' and desire to 'settle old racial scores'"
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907230040
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Not-Shop List
Yeah, there's a lot going on, including the ignorance of the 9/12ers. But I decline to give them much more attention than calling them ignorant requires. But here's some ignorance you need to be aware of in California, people saying that would try a pro-white party.
By the by, Kurt Warner is ruining my fantasy score! Urgh!
What I really want to share with you is some info about products being sold in the US that are made with slave labor. The Department of Labor just released a list, and change.org blogged about it.
By the by, Kurt Warner is ruining my fantasy score! Urgh!
What I really want to share with you is some info about products being sold in the US that are made with slave labor. The Department of Labor just released a list, and change.org blogged about it.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
I Love This President
Update: Click here to send a message to your Congresspeople.
Here's my favorite part of his speech:
Here's a link to the late Senator Ted Kennedy's letter. Wow. It's really touching.
Here's my favorite part of his speech:
It's -- it's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn't be exaggerated by the left or the right or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and shouldn't be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles.Here's my favorite part of the Obama plan (pdf):
To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it.
The public option -- the public option is only a means to that end, and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.
And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.
For example -- for example, some have suggested that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others have proposed a co-op or another nonprofit entity to administer the plan.
These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that, if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice.
Immediately offers new, low-cost coverage through a national "high risk"And for the Joe Wilsons of the world who want "their" country back, let me say this: It's my country, too.
pool to protect people with preexisting conditions from financial ruin until the new Exchange is created. For those Americans who cannot get insurance coverage today because of a pre-existing condition, the President’s plan will immediately make available coverage without a mark-up due to their health condition. This policy will offer protection against financial ruin until a wider array of choices become available in the new exchange in 2013 (pdf).
Here's a link to the late Senator Ted Kennedy's letter. Wow. It's really touching.
More on Van Jones
via, colorofchange.org:
Saturday night, Van Jones resigned from his job as the White House special adviser on Green Jobs.1 Van's resignation came after a vicious smear campaign by Fox television host Glenn Beck, and it is the latest evidence of why our campaign against Beck is so important.
Van is a passionate thinker and leader and we are grateful to him for co-founding ColorOfChange. But this campaign is not about Van. It's about stopping Glenn Beck, who has promised to take his witch-hunt to others in the administration. Beck's overall plan is to create an atmosphere in which the White House can accomplish nothing, and he's carrying it out by preying on race-based fears and mobilizing hate.
The good news is that our campaign is working. More than 175,000 of you have stood up, and advertisers have followed suit. As of today, 62 companies have stopped their ads from running on Beck's show. Every national company with a name you'd recognize is gone. What's left are mostly far-right groups and direct marketing companies selling things like gold coins and discounted exercise equipment.
The reality of Beck's attacks on Van
After we launched this campaign, some bloggers and reporters tried to discredit the effort by claiming that the White House or Van was somehow involved, or that we launched the campaign to protect Van. It's an absurd accusation. Van hasn't worked with ColorOfChange in years, and when we decided to launch the campaign we didn't even know that Beck had attacked him. The reality is that we began our campaign for the same reason 175,000 of you have now joined it: Glenn Beck called the president of the United States a "racist" who "has a deep seated hatred for White people," which is part of a pattern of Beck using lies and distortions to race-bait and fear-monger.2
As Beck started losing advertisers in response to our campaign, he went into full-scale attack mode on Van--exaggerating or distorting his record on 23 shows and devoting an entire segment to discrediting him. Beck presented his attacks on Van as honest journalistic inquiry, while dishonestly failing to mention that Van co-founded the group leading a successful advertiser boycott against him.
But Beck's real goals were clear: Take down Van. Undermine the White House. Set the stage for his followers to say our campaign was about protecting Van. And of course, create a distraction from our campaign and the real reasons major companies are ditching Beck's show.
The problem with Beck
Glenn Beck's show is described as news analysis and commentary, and he claims to be bringing his viewers "the facts"; but his attacks on the President's character, agenda and advisers are anything but news. They are political character assassination of the worst form, relying on dishonesty, distortion, exaggeration, and fear. And Beck has promised to launch more attacks on new targets.3 Our country is facing numerous challenges, including a struggling economy, a climate and energy crisis, and a broken health care system. The media should be promoting thoughtful, rational dialogue about how to solve these problems, not launching dishonest political attacks to distract and divide us.
Our team is working hard to use all the tools at our disposal to take away Beck's platform. In the coming weeks there will be more for you to do. But for now, we ask you to do something simple. If you haven't done so already, please email your friends and family, and ask them to sign on to our campaign against Glenn Beck. There's a message you can send them at the link below:
http://colorofchange.org/beck/passalong.html?id=1756-227036
Thanks and Peace,
-- James, Gabriel, William, Dani and the rest of the ColorOfChange.org team
September 9th, 2009
Help support our work. ColorOfChange.org is powered by YOU -- your energy and dollars. We take no money from lobbyists or large corporations that don't share our values, and our tiny staff ensures your contributions go a long way. You can contribute here:
https://secure.colorofchange.org/contribute/?id=1756-227036
References
1. "White House Official Resigns After G.O.P. Criticism," New York Times, 9-06-09
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/us/politics/07vanjones.html
2. "Beck caps off week of race-baiting by calling Obama a 'racist'," Media Matters, 7-30-09
http://mediamatters.org/research/200907300019
3. @glennbeck on Twitter, 9-03-09
http://twitter.com/glennbeck/status/3749169499 (You'll have to copy/paste that on your own.)
Saturday night, Van Jones resigned from his job as the White House special adviser on Green Jobs.1 Van's resignation came after a vicious smear campaign by Fox television host Glenn Beck, and it is the latest evidence of why our campaign against Beck is so important.
Van is a passionate thinker and leader and we are grateful to him for co-founding ColorOfChange. But this campaign is not about Van. It's about stopping Glenn Beck, who has promised to take his witch-hunt to others in the administration. Beck's overall plan is to create an atmosphere in which the White House can accomplish nothing, and he's carrying it out by preying on race-based fears and mobilizing hate.
The good news is that our campaign is working. More than 175,000 of you have stood up, and advertisers have followed suit. As of today, 62 companies have stopped their ads from running on Beck's show. Every national company with a name you'd recognize is gone. What's left are mostly far-right groups and direct marketing companies selling things like gold coins and discounted exercise equipment.
The reality of Beck's attacks on Van
After we launched this campaign, some bloggers and reporters tried to discredit the effort by claiming that the White House or Van was somehow involved, or that we launched the campaign to protect Van. It's an absurd accusation. Van hasn't worked with ColorOfChange in years, and when we decided to launch the campaign we didn't even know that Beck had attacked him. The reality is that we began our campaign for the same reason 175,000 of you have now joined it: Glenn Beck called the president of the United States a "racist" who "has a deep seated hatred for White people," which is part of a pattern of Beck using lies and distortions to race-bait and fear-monger.2
As Beck started losing advertisers in response to our campaign, he went into full-scale attack mode on Van--exaggerating or distorting his record on 23 shows and devoting an entire segment to discrediting him. Beck presented his attacks on Van as honest journalistic inquiry, while dishonestly failing to mention that Van co-founded the group leading a successful advertiser boycott against him.
But Beck's real goals were clear: Take down Van. Undermine the White House. Set the stage for his followers to say our campaign was about protecting Van. And of course, create a distraction from our campaign and the real reasons major companies are ditching Beck's show.
The problem with Beck
Glenn Beck's show is described as news analysis and commentary, and he claims to be bringing his viewers "the facts"; but his attacks on the President's character, agenda and advisers are anything but news. They are political character assassination of the worst form, relying on dishonesty, distortion, exaggeration, and fear. And Beck has promised to launch more attacks on new targets.3 Our country is facing numerous challenges, including a struggling economy, a climate and energy crisis, and a broken health care system. The media should be promoting thoughtful, rational dialogue about how to solve these problems, not launching dishonest political attacks to distract and divide us.
Our team is working hard to use all the tools at our disposal to take away Beck's platform. In the coming weeks there will be more for you to do. But for now, we ask you to do something simple. If you haven't done so already, please email your friends and family, and ask them to sign on to our campaign against Glenn Beck. There's a message you can send them at the link below:
http://colorofchange.org/beck/passalong.html?id=1756-227036
Thanks and Peace,
-- James, Gabriel, William, Dani and the rest of the ColorOfChange.org team
September 9th, 2009
Help support our work. ColorOfChange.org is powered by YOU -- your energy and dollars. We take no money from lobbyists or large corporations that don't share our values, and our tiny staff ensures your contributions go a long way. You can contribute here:
https://secure.colorofchange.org/contribute/?id=1756-227036
References
1. "White House Official Resigns After G.O.P. Criticism," New York Times, 9-06-09
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/us/politics/07vanjones.html
2. "Beck caps off week of race-baiting by calling Obama a 'racist'," Media Matters, 7-30-09
http://mediamatters.org/research/200907300019
3. @glennbeck on Twitter, 9-03-09
http://twitter.com/glennbeck/status/3749169499 (You'll have to copy/paste that on your own.)
This Is a Big Loss
Apparently, fringers on the right are celebrating the resignation of Van Jones as "czar" of green jobs. Now, I can't vouch for the article and refuse to cruise through conservative sites, so you'll either have to take my word for it or google yourself.
Here's where I first came across Van Jones. Van Jones is someone who combines economic justice, eco-activism, and racial equality; basically, he promotes green jobs for inner-city residents. The right based their attacks on him, cause basically they attack everything Pres. Obama does, on his early association with communism and his signing some 9/11 "truthers" petition. Now, when it comes to 9/11 . . . I don't want to believe that BushCo would have allowed thousands of Americans to die as a pretext for war. I don't put it past them; and it's certainly clear that if they didn't know, they should've; so, I don't think his signing the petition is something extraordinarily radical. But you know the right. These are people who block nominations because they have questions the agency the nominee will direct hasn't "adequately" answered. That's what David Vitter did to Craig Fugate. Vitter had questions FEMA hadn't adequately answered so he blocked the nomination. Yes, FEMA would be in a better position to answer Vitter's questions if there were a director; so you get my point.
But anyway, Jones' idea was to protect the environment by going green - windmills, solar panels, retro-fitting buildings to make them greener, etc. Doing that involves lots of stuff I'm not adequately informed about to explain to you. Suffice it to say that moving to a green economy would create a lot of jobs that would be difficult to out-source. So there's that.
What's really exciting to me about Jones' idea is that he wants to base the factories and plants in the inner-city!! Wow! Amazing! It's very rare that you find someone who has a vision for killing three birds with one stone. I gotta admit, even I'm not that bright, and we all know I'm incredibly bright!
The third bird? Well. Let's say racism was completely eradicated, but the basics of our social-economy remained the same: there would still be a drag on the black community. This is because of our disproportionate rate of concentrated poverty. Now, I should probably go through everything that's happened that's lead to the situation, but I don't feel up to it. Just . . . understand that the black unemployment rate was around 10% before the bottom fell out of the economy. Some of that is because there're no jobs in the inner-city. So you get concentrated poverty and from concentrated poverty you get high crime rates and high rates of high school drop-outs, etc and so on. Putting jobs in the inner-city would improve the economic outlook of the black community and diffuse a great deal of our social ills.
Don't misunderstand, he's anti-racist, too. But in the absence of more white people catching a clue, his idea would do just, :sigh:, do so much to improve the lives of soooo many people. And I hate that the right won on this. Glen Beck sucks even more than I originally thought, and what I originally thought, er, lets just say it involves a backhanded insult to teenage girls.
Holla dolla! Get at me!
Here's where I first came across Van Jones. Van Jones is someone who combines economic justice, eco-activism, and racial equality; basically, he promotes green jobs for inner-city residents. The right based their attacks on him, cause basically they attack everything Pres. Obama does, on his early association with communism and his signing some 9/11 "truthers" petition. Now, when it comes to 9/11 . . . I don't want to believe that BushCo would have allowed thousands of Americans to die as a pretext for war. I don't put it past them; and it's certainly clear that if they didn't know, they should've; so, I don't think his signing the petition is something extraordinarily radical. But you know the right. These are people who block nominations because they have questions the agency the nominee will direct hasn't "adequately" answered. That's what David Vitter did to Craig Fugate. Vitter had questions FEMA hadn't adequately answered so he blocked the nomination. Yes, FEMA would be in a better position to answer Vitter's questions if there were a director; so you get my point.
But anyway, Jones' idea was to protect the environment by going green - windmills, solar panels, retro-fitting buildings to make them greener, etc. Doing that involves lots of stuff I'm not adequately informed about to explain to you. Suffice it to say that moving to a green economy would create a lot of jobs that would be difficult to out-source. So there's that.
What's really exciting to me about Jones' idea is that he wants to base the factories and plants in the inner-city!! Wow! Amazing! It's very rare that you find someone who has a vision for killing three birds with one stone. I gotta admit, even I'm not that bright, and we all know I'm incredibly bright!
The third bird? Well. Let's say racism was completely eradicated, but the basics of our social-economy remained the same: there would still be a drag on the black community. This is because of our disproportionate rate of concentrated poverty. Now, I should probably go through everything that's happened that's lead to the situation, but I don't feel up to it. Just . . . understand that the black unemployment rate was around 10% before the bottom fell out of the economy. Some of that is because there're no jobs in the inner-city. So you get concentrated poverty and from concentrated poverty you get high crime rates and high rates of high school drop-outs, etc and so on. Putting jobs in the inner-city would improve the economic outlook of the black community and diffuse a great deal of our social ills.
Don't misunderstand, he's anti-racist, too. But in the absence of more white people catching a clue, his idea would do just, :sigh:, do so much to improve the lives of soooo many people. And I hate that the right won on this. Glen Beck sucks even more than I originally thought, and what I originally thought, er, lets just say it involves a backhanded insult to teenage girls.
Holla dolla! Get at me!
Monday, September 7, 2009
Color-seeing
I've been away a while, yes. Being sick sucks. I hadn't actually planned to blog until tomorrow at least, cause today has not been a sunshine day. But I came to this article titled Even Babies Discriminate via Tim Wise (But it's not by Tim Wise) and had to comment.
There's a lot in the piece that's intuitive; like, this idea that not talking to kids about race is the way to raise "colorblind" children. Sorry, white Americans, I didn't realize you guys were doing that. How crazy is that?! I could've told you it wasn't gonna work. I know the present logic is that by not calling attention to race, we diffuse its significance. But that's just like this notion that sex-ed should be abstinence-only, and we see how that's been working out: it hasn't.
Look. Your children aren't blind, even if you have sons who are colorblind. They see the difference in skin color and since you're not saying anything, they're attaching their own meaning to it's significance; and that meaning goes something like this: if you're white, you're alright. Or, to make it sound less hostile: "if you have skin like me, you're okay." Well, that's if you're white. As for black kids, we should all be aware of the babydoll test, so hopefully I don't have to spell that out for you.
Which also brings up the idiocy of not explicitly talking about race with your children from a young age - the media. Or just society in general. Do you leave your children to learn about sex from the media/society? And if so, how many grandkids do you have? Do you not tell your little girls that girls/women can be anything they want to be? You don't get all "everybody's equal" vague then, do you?
So since we now know that not talking to toddlers about skin color is a bad idea, let's disabuse ourselves of this fantasy of a "colorblind" society. And listen, if you don't wanna reinforce, nonsense, then don't say something like, "Not all [fill in the blank] people are [fill in the blank]."
Let's go back to sex-ed for kids, right? And by that I do intend "age appropriate" sex-ed. But when kids ask where babies come from, "the mommy's stomach," is usually sufficient, right? You don't go into the details about ejaculation and menstrual cycles. And when your child asks about the difference between boys and girls, hopefully you don't feed them emptiness like, "Girls are made of sugar and spice." Hopefully you just say girls have vaginae and boys have penises. And depending on your child, you may not have to say that much. Though, it sure would've helped me! I can't remember how, but I somehow got the idea that the difference between boys and girls was that boys could be standing up. Can you guess how a childhood me felt about that? "How convenient!" I can't remember how old I was when I gave up on the idea that I, too, should at least have the option of peeing standing up; I continue to await the invention of the female urinal!
So when talking to your kids about race, stick to skin-color. You don't have to recount slavery; though, for older kids, dealing with history truthfully is a good thing. Just say something like, "America has people from all over world. Our ancestors are from [fill in the blank], that's why our skin looks like this. My/your friend's ancestors are from [fill in the blank], that's why his/her skin looks like that." And for all you multi/bi-racial Americans: "I/you have ancestors from [here] and [here], that's why you have that color!"
You know what else this article discusses? It talks about the fact that black parents, or any parent of a child of color, preparing their child from discrimination is a good thing. That's why you can find just about any Black church pastor mentioning racism on any given Sunday. Now, don't get me wrong, you can overdo it and get negative results. But here's the thing far too many white people don't know or don't want to admit: black folks don't spend our all the time talking about "white devils."
So anyway, it's a great article. I haven't given away much at all, I promise you.
There's a lot in the piece that's intuitive; like, this idea that not talking to kids about race is the way to raise "colorblind" children. Sorry, white Americans, I didn't realize you guys were doing that. How crazy is that?! I could've told you it wasn't gonna work. I know the present logic is that by not calling attention to race, we diffuse its significance. But that's just like this notion that sex-ed should be abstinence-only, and we see how that's been working out: it hasn't.
Look. Your children aren't blind, even if you have sons who are colorblind. They see the difference in skin color and since you're not saying anything, they're attaching their own meaning to it's significance; and that meaning goes something like this: if you're white, you're alright. Or, to make it sound less hostile: "if you have skin like me, you're okay." Well, that's if you're white. As for black kids, we should all be aware of the babydoll test, so hopefully I don't have to spell that out for you.
Which also brings up the idiocy of not explicitly talking about race with your children from a young age - the media. Or just society in general. Do you leave your children to learn about sex from the media/society? And if so, how many grandkids do you have? Do you not tell your little girls that girls/women can be anything they want to be? You don't get all "everybody's equal" vague then, do you?
So since we now know that not talking to toddlers about skin color is a bad idea, let's disabuse ourselves of this fantasy of a "colorblind" society. And listen, if you don't wanna reinforce, nonsense, then don't say something like, "Not all [fill in the blank] people are [fill in the blank]."
Let's go back to sex-ed for kids, right? And by that I do intend "age appropriate" sex-ed. But when kids ask where babies come from, "the mommy's stomach," is usually sufficient, right? You don't go into the details about ejaculation and menstrual cycles. And when your child asks about the difference between boys and girls, hopefully you don't feed them emptiness like, "Girls are made of sugar and spice." Hopefully you just say girls have vaginae and boys have penises. And depending on your child, you may not have to say that much. Though, it sure would've helped me! I can't remember how, but I somehow got the idea that the difference between boys and girls was that boys could be standing up. Can you guess how a childhood me felt about that? "How convenient!" I can't remember how old I was when I gave up on the idea that I, too, should at least have the option of peeing standing up; I continue to await the invention of the female urinal!
So when talking to your kids about race, stick to skin-color. You don't have to recount slavery; though, for older kids, dealing with history truthfully is a good thing. Just say something like, "America has people from all over world. Our ancestors are from [fill in the blank], that's why our skin looks like this. My/your friend's ancestors are from [fill in the blank], that's why his/her skin looks like that." And for all you multi/bi-racial Americans: "I/you have ancestors from [here] and [here], that's why you have that color!"
You know what else this article discusses? It talks about the fact that black parents, or any parent of a child of color, preparing their child from discrimination is a good thing. That's why you can find just about any Black church pastor mentioning racism on any given Sunday. Now, don't get me wrong, you can overdo it and get negative results. But here's the thing far too many white people don't know or don't want to admit: black folks don't spend our all the time talking about "white devils."
So anyway, it's a great article. I haven't given away much at all, I promise you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Share This Article
But Don't Jack My Genuis
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.