On my way back from vacation yesterday, I couldn't help but notice the strange company I was in as I flew in to Denver- black suits everywhere. Of course, business types of the nation are flocking to Denver to participate in the Democratic National Convention. The Party's location choice of Denver is significant, as it shows how the political world is finally recognizing the importance of the West as a breeding ground for change, an important influence in restructuring the historical blue-and-red blueprint of America's political landscape.
And while change is in the air in Denver, I can tell you with conviction that the stuffy, suit-and-tie business atmosphere is not. Denver's embrace of the DNC has been more than an enterprise on which to capitalize, it has been a celebration of the grassroots movement, so historically rooted in Denver, that will lead the call for a new direction for America. At the head of the movement is a coalition of progressive grassroots organizations dedicated to recognizing the power of youth activism.
Progressive Future, along with Rock the Vote, MoveOn.org Civic Action, Hip Hop Summit Action Network, United States Student Association, Campus Project Action, the Bus Project, Young Voter PAC, Energy Action Coalition, Hip Hop Caucus, and Qvisory, will be hosting a DNC dance party to celebrate youth activism. The party will take place the night of Wednesday, August 27th from 10 pm- 1am, at the hip Beta NightClub. There will be DJs, drinks, a video presentation and awards ceremony, and, most importantly, a crowd of young, motivated activists united in their efforts to move our country in a new direction.
We're expecting a good crowd, but we don't want anyone to be left out of the action, so we're also calling on our supporters to help us hand out tickets before the party. Can you join us? If you volunteer, you could get 5 tickets to give to your friends as well!
So, if you're feeling weary after a long day of speeches filled with political jargon, head over to the Beta Night Club – I guarantee you'll not only have a great time, you'll be inspired by the people that surround you and the movements they are leading. Dont forget to RSVP by August 26th- see you there!
Replies: 4
Many of us felt that we couldn’t possibly lose to Bush—he was just so obviously bad for our country. At that moment, many of us felt like this could be it. This could be the election when we beat the Right, ended the Bush nightmare, and put a (decently) progressive candidate in the White House. We were wrong.
As we’ve seen Obama’s lead in the polls vanish over the past few weeks (the latest Zogby poll shows McCain with a 1 point lead), it’s a fitting reminder: this year’s fight will be at least as hard as ’04. You can follow the latest polls compared with the same week in 2004 by clicking here.
Part of what got us in trouble in 2004 was complacency: progressives saw Bush’s steady stream of blunders, and many of us didn't think that America would make the same mistake twice. Because McCain is so much like Bush on the issues we all care most about, it’d be easy to fall into the same trap, to think the Democrats have this election wrapped up.
This time it’s our turn not to repeat our mistakes. The blessing in disguise? It’s not too late. We just need to get moving.
It’s time for everyone to get into the fight. Giving money is great. But I think grassroots action will be even more important this election. Obama's ads and speeches might remind people that Bush got us into this mess, show people that McCain can't get us out (not when he voted with Bush 95% of the time last year), and persuade people that Obama can provide the clean break that our country desperately needs. But personal persuasion works much, much better.
We need people to start e-mailing and texting our friends, knocking on doors, engaging our neighbors in discussion, getting our younger friends to register and turn out to vote, and delivering the truth -- face-to-face, person-to-person -- about the candidates and who can lead America in a new direction.
Barack Obama seems to get this. Look at where he came from. Look at how he's run his campaign. But as impressive as his grassroots operation has been, assuming that he's got the grassroots covered could be a big mistake. That's why we're running our own grassroots campaign to help elect Obama, with dozens of people going out in 11 battleground states to recruit volunteers and persuade undecided voters.
And, the same grassroots action that can put Obama into Oval Office can give him the support he needs (or stiffen his spine at times) in the face of the inevitable political, corporate and ideological opposition we can expect after next Jan. 20.
We have a base of volunteers spanning the nation, and we're organized to set you up with the volunteer opportunities and resources you need to do your part this political season. Sign up to make a difference this election; it's not in the bag, but it's not too late.
Here's a little reminder:
A group called the National Federation for Independent Business used these ads to oppose the Clinton healthcare plan. Now, they're working together with Families USA to tell the candidates to get serious about solving our health care problems. Check out the new ad here:
Harry and Louise have changed some since 1994, and clearly so has our political landscape when it comes to health care. Ads once paid for by health insurance companies are being re-created by the very same groups that used them to oppose health care reform to come to the table with unlikely allies to solve our problems.
This is the kind of change we need to see in America this fall and beyond. We're asking our leaders to invest in health care for everyone as well. Join us by clicking here.
Cross posted from our friends at Think Progress:
Acid reflux, a benign condition which afflicts about 50 percent of infants, can exempt otherwise healthy babies from coverage in the individual insurance market place, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette reports.
Consider the story of Cecilia Kownacki, a 7-month old baby (pictured on the right), who was denied coverage by a Pittsburgh insurer because she was unable to digest milk and often spit up:
Cecilia Kownacki found out the hard way. The denial letter from Highmark arrived last month: “Dear Ms. Kownacki: [We] are sorry to inform you that your application does not meet our underwriting criteria for approval,” the letter said…Her parents, Frank and Susan Kownacki, were considerably more distraught. Their baby daughter was uninsured, starting Friday.
“When we got the rejection letter,” said Mrs. Kownacki, of the North Side, “I was in tears.”
[…] whether you’re 70 years old or 7 months young, when you move away from one plan and try to enroll in an individual plan, you can be subject to health screenings if you want to enjoy a low-premium policy.
Unfortunately, Cecilia is not the exception; nearly 90 percent of people seeking coverage in the individual market “never end up buying a plan, finding it either very difficult or impossible to find one that met their needs or is affordable.” From a recent Commonwealth study:
In “most states, individuals with preexisting conditions are denied coverage, have conditions excluded, or face much higher and often unaffordable premiums.” Insurance companies will disqualify patients from coverage for undergoing caesarean sections, or “for just taking certain medicines because of the possibility of future costs, including common drugs as Lipitor, Zocor, Nexium, and Advairpre.”
As Julia Eisman of Stand Up For Health Care notes, “when the insurance company practice of cherry-picking the healthiest among us is so picky not even baby Celia can get coverage, there’s something wrong with this picture.”
There is something wrong with this picture. Tell our leaders that we want health care for all -- baby Cecilia, our veterans, and the millions of uninsured Americans. Tell them to invest in us by investing in our health care system.
I expect that people find it hard to deal with emotionally sensitive issues. I may even expect that many people would want to shield themselves from it.
But I won't tolerate elected and appointed officials who run and hide when they not only have the power to do something about it, they have the explicit responsibility of doing something about it.
And when that issue concerns protecting women in the military from sexual assault, it should be absolutely unacceptable for the Defense Department's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO), to shirk their responsibilities of doing all they can to address what is a very serious issue, which includes participating in a congressional hearing on why so many alarming reports have been surfacing about the sexual assault rate in the military.
To bring you up to speed, various reports have indicated:
- Across various eras of military activity, 1 in 3 military women have reported being victims of sexual assault
- Of the women veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who have walked into a VA facility, 15 percent have screened positive for military sexual trauma
- Of the women who indicated having experienced sexual assault in a GAO study, around 50% indicated they did not report the incident because they didn't think anything would be done about it.
Dr.
Kaye Whitley is the Pentagon's Director of the Sexual Assault
Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO), which is quoted on their
website as being the “single point of accountability for the
Defense Department's sexual assault policy.” However, when Congress
became concerned that, despite SAPRO's activities, reports of sexual
assault in the military were trickling back at an alarming rate, they
mandated that the DOD develop an independent task force to
investigate the issue.
Unfortunately, the DOD has neither
named nor called to order this task force in
the four years since the congressional mandate to do so. And
last month, when the House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform issued a subpoena for Dr. Whitley to participate in a hearing
on sexual assault in the military, the Pentagon blocked Whitley from
appearing.
The Pentagon gave the excuse that Whitley was not the
appropriate person to testify on this issue. The Director of the
single
point of accountability for the DOD's sexual assault policies?
Please. Luckily, the Pentagon's weak excuse for its actions didn't
just trigger red flags for me: Rep. Henry Waxman recognized the DOD's
evasive tactics -- and sent a formal letter to Defense Secretary
Robert Gates, threatening to hold him in contempt of Congress.
My,
how people suddenly come around when it's their own reputation on the
line: Gates has agreed to let Whitley testify at the hearing. I, for
one, will be waiting in anticipation to hear what she has to say
about SAPRO's efforts to address the disturbing reports of violence
against women in the military.
The good news is that Whitley is testifying. We may finally
get some answers. But the bad news is that we still don't have any
indication as to when, if at all, the DOD will call the task force to
order. We still need to put the pressure on Whitley to follow through
on those orders. Help join the fight by signing our petition to Kaye
Whitley, director of SAPRO.
HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt is awfully proud of the controversy from the recent draft regulation on what he calls “Physician Conscience:”
“I’m delighted to announce that with the help of Planned Parenthood, my blog -- for the first time -- received more visits than my teenage son’s MySpace page.”
Congratulations, Mr. Leavitt! But what about our fear that your new regulation will redefine contraception as abortion -- and reduce access, especially among low-income women, to birth control?
On that topic this is all Mr. Leavitt had to say:
“This regulation would not be aimed at changing or redefining any of that.”
However, he never actually addressed the definition, only quickly landing on the claim that redefining abortion was never the intention of regulation, then moving on to the typical talking points the he knew would get him a standing ovation from his right-wing constituents. “Intentions” of the rule aside, where were the actual details of the definitions addressed?
Well, if he's not going to discuss it, I will. A section of the regulation proposal defines abortion as “any of the various procedures...that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and birth – whether before of after implantation.” The crux of our fears lies in the fact that many types of birth control prevent pregnancy by blocking the implantation of a fertilized egg. The Bush administration is not only attempting to define a pre-implanted, fertilized egg as a 'human being,' it's also attempting to restrict womens' access to birth control.
What about low-income women who don't have the luxury of going to any physician of their choosing? They need their doctor to prescribe birth control. If their doctors a.) believe in this bogus definition of birth control as an abortion and b.) refuse to provide those services, then these women are out of luck. Don't low-income women face enough barriers as it is? For their sake, and the sake of women everywhere, we need to send a message to Leavitt that this definition is not only scientifically inaccurate, it's irresponsible social policy, and must be dropped from the regulation.
While failing to address just how the proposal wouldn't redefine abortion in his blog posting, entitled “Physician Conscience Blog 2,” the only thing it did succeed in was making it quite clear which side of the ideological divide he resides on:
“Is the fear here that so many doctors will refuse that it will somehow make it difficult for a woman to get an abortion? That hasn’t happened, but what if it did? Wouldn’t that be an important and legitimate social statement?”
Why, no, Mr. Leavitt. It wouldn't be. And, by the way, it's not your job to decide.
I'm actually more concerned after reading Leavitt's blog, because not only does he not address the actual definition in the proposal, he just skips past it onto the typical anti-choice talking points, leading me to suspect that redefining abortion is exactly part of the intention for this regulation. So, Leavitt, if you really want to be taken seriously about why we should all heave a collective sigh of relief, stop talking about your morally superior intentions to protect “physician conscience.” Start talking about the definitions that this ridiculous and unnecessary rule imposes on various forms of contraceptives. Start talking about how, exactly, this rule doesn't restrict a woman's access to birth control.
What's that? You won't? Then I demand you drop this regulation altogether. Why should we wait for you sneak in your backdoor attempt to restrict access to birth control into some poorly disguised regulation on “physician conscience”? To take this man's word that our fears aren't valid would be foolish: we must demand for this regulation to be dropped.
Join me in letting Secretary Mike know that we aren't not fooled by his blog post by signing Progressive Future's petition to HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt, demanding that he drop the much-maligned regulation.
Martin tried to vote in the last election, but the nurses couldn't answer his questions about how to register and where his polling place was. And thanks to James Peake and his department's policies, nonpartisan organizations aren't allowed to provide veterans like Martin with that information.
We've told you about all the ways that our leaders are failing our veterans and troops-- lack of health care, inadequate mental health support, bickering over educational benefits, sexual assault allegations and electrocutions. Now this.
We ask our veterans to risk making the ultimate sacrifice for our democracy. The least we can do is make it easier for them -- especially those who are recuperating from injuries or without a home of their own -- to exercise their democratic rights. Tell James Peake to allow veterans to register to vote at federal veterans facilities.
It's hard to imagine a more important news story yesterday than the war breaking out between Russia and Georgia.
Well, not if Fox has anything to say about it. No matter how hard guest Bonnie Erbe of PBS wants to steer the discussion to the events in Georgia, Fox news host Gregg Jarrett just can't get his mind off that John Edwards:
ERBE: The American public have told pollsters, this political season they want substance. Both these candidates have expressed support for allowing Georgia into NATO. … We could have been on the verge of nuclear war. Those are the kinds of the things that the American public wants to see discussed.JARRETT: Right. You know, but getting back to Edwards, during the Monica Lewinsky affair, Edwards absolutely ripped into Bill Clinton.
Maybe Jarrett is from Mars and Erbe is from Venus, but it's clear to me this guy just has one thing on his mind and it's preventing him from actually hearing what another human being has to say. Insert your own Freudian analysis here.
JARRETT: [The Enquirer] was right about the affair, the pregnancy, the recent late-at-night, Beverley hills liaison, what appears to be 'hush money' that was paid to her, and until he takes a paternity test, he might still be lying, right?
Tell Gregg Jarrett to get his mind out of the gutter. Click here to tell Fox to deliver more substance, less scandal.
I'm going to be upfront before I begin this: this is going to be hard for me to write. As a young woman who went through all the typical traumas and dramas of growing up in America, I, like many women, have seen and experienced violence against women. I'll be the first one to admit that the topic of rape is an emotionally charged one, a subject that lends itself to flying off the handle, irate reactions and, sometimes, even tears. Let me also preface this with the admission that I am not exempt from this.
But I still was not prepared for the backlash of misogynistic comments on my blog from Wednesday, entitled “1 in 3 Military Women Raped, and Apparently the Pentagon Doesn't Think It's A Problem.” The purpose of my blog was to call attention to both the alarming rate of reported sexual assault among women in the military, and, more importantly, the fact that the Pentagon was tasked with the assignment to name a task force on the issue of rape in the military, and after 4 years, has yet to do so. It was in no way, shape or form, intended to blame the troops for this alarming problem, or to accuse male soldiers of being rapists.
Most of the comments were positive, expressing the normal reaction of alarm to the high rate of reported rape, as well as outrage at the Pentagon's inaction. But then there were some anomalies:
“I served two tours in the US army and can safely say that this is utter and complete BS.”
“They're armed. And more independent-minded. And trained. And confident.
I wouldn't expect that rates would be higher than in the general
population for these reasons.”
“1 out of 3 is pure propaganda. Pls don't swallow.”
“This can mean anything from a giving someone a hug and the woman not liking you to rape. God help the ugly guys, I am sure their sexual assault charges are much higher then they should be.”
“Of course, [her] pathetic methodology does even take into account false claims and has uses a loose definition of 'date rape' I am sure.”
Shame on me for assuming that the atrocity of rape is universally understood, and that to publicly infer that we all should be suspicious of women who allege rape would be considered taboo in this day in age. I understand that the statistic of 1 in 3 women reporting having been sexually assaulted while in the military is daunting and unbelievable to some. It's shocking, it's outrageous, but it is in no way made up.
It is precisely the kind of attitude that would assume that it's a common practice for women to falsely allege rape, or the attitude that any statistic that seems outrageous either must be false or can be rationalized away, that has allowed the Pentagon to stay inactive on this issue. And, although the comments have me sidetracked, the fact that in the 4 years since Congress mandated a task force on rape in the military, the Pentagon has yet to do it, that's the real outrage here.
The rates are alarming and the Pentagon has yet to act. They've ignored a congressional mandate. This issue deserves some investigation. We have enough factors endangering our troops as it is, and they don't need another one that could potentially be prevented or treated with better sensitivity, if the Pentagon would have the will to do so. That's why it's important that we get support for this petition, urging the Pentagon's point person on sexual assault in the military to do what was mandated: name the task force and call it to order.
If we can't laugh about it, it would be too depressing. So let's have a laugh.
