Democracy for New Mexico

Ortiz y Pino: Hillary Is a Symptom of America's Malaise

This is a guest blog by NM State Senator Jerry Ortiz y Pino, a Democrat who represents District 12 in Albuquerque. This article recently appeared in other publications including the Seoul Times, OpEdNews.com and Santa Fe Sun News:

Watching the Democratic Presidential candidates' televised debates has become painful for me. Oh, sure: watching the Republicans' version of the rainbow coalition (white, off-white, grey, bone, ivory, buff and cream) in action on television in (pardon the expression) "living color" is even more dreadful, but we know those guys are going to lose, so who cares how bad their act is?

The Democrats, on the other hand, are in all likelihood sifting through the options leading up to actually picking a winner—the next occupant of the Oval Office. If the point of these debates is to give us, the voters, any insight into what our next Chief Executive is going to be like, we are in big trouble. I say this knowing that the Press has already accorded Senator Hillary Clinton not only the Democratic nomination, but the ultimate prize, the White House, as well. This was done without a single vote having been cast and simply on the strength of one solitary measure: dollars raised. She must be ahead, the pundits reason, because she's lapped the field in the money-grubbing sweepstakes.

I know that all the commentators realize that technically some sort of voting has to take place before the coronation is allowed to happen, but to the skilled political observer's eye, this is just so much red tape and hokum. The matter has been decided. She was the first in the sprint to raise $10 million this year, which shot her to the forefront in the early analyses and which then generated an avalanche of additional money from those eager to be lined-up on the same side as the ultimate victor. Then that extra money was widely interpreted to mean she was enjoying soaring, even skyrocketing popularity, far more than her primary opponents…and that attracted yet more contributions. A classic snowball effect played out.

It should be no surprise that the polls show her well ahead of Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and the rest of the pack. She's riding a tsunami of cash, and she seems expertly shrewd in the art of spending it wisely. Her commercials (definitely carried on network television, not the dusty back shelves of cable rerun channels) are certain to be slick. Her mailings will be models of Madison Avenue wizardry. Her telephone push polls will, of course, be put together so subtly that no respondent will ever be aware they've been pushed or polled. If money can buy it, Hillary will have it in her arsenal and all the gadgetry of modern political "witch doctorism" will be immediately at her disposal.

You've got to hand it to her: Senator Clinton plays this version of the political game like the old pro she is, and she plays it to win, with nothing left to chance. So I admit to a certain admiration for this tough, smart, supremely polished woman. She might have made a terrific President at one time, but now when I see her in action in front of the cameras, I cringe. She has become the number one symptom (and not the solution) of all that ails American Democracy in these most cynical of times.

In her probable victory a year from now, we will have reflected back to us the dismal portrait of what we have devolved into: a culture that can't be bothered to decide the value of anything except by one solitary measure: the marketplace.

Equally on full display is the frightening picture of how corrosive the influence of money is on political processes. I can't blame Hillary for playing to win by these rules; she didn't write them, she just figured out how to make them pay. It can be argued that it was the Supreme Court that did the dirty deed when it ruled some years ago that any attempt by law makers to limit the influence of money in elections is an unconstitutional attempt at limiting free speech!

One corollary to this ruling has always seemed to me to be: he who has the most money has the most free speech, and the poor, by virtue of their lack of money, have practically no free speech. A second corollary is what Clinton appears to be demonstrating so precisely this primary season: when dollars are the equivalent of votes, who needs elections as long as we have bankers?

This, then, is the American political malaise. Our worship of money has logically produced an electoral process in which nothing will be said that might antagonize the sources of political cash: the wealthiest of the American Corporate lions. Senator Clinton's rhetoric becomes increasingly bland and forgettable as her campaign treasury deepens. In the end stages (now), she says nothing and promises only to avoid (her favorite word) "irresponsible" action. Wonderful. We will get four years of "responsible inaction" if she assumes the mantle.

This rapid ride to the bottom of insipid inoffensiveness was on pathetic display most recently when she forgot herself during an answer to a question on issuing drivers licenses for undocumented persons. She said something just a wee bit venturesome—then spent five minutes thrashing around trying to re-establish herself as sitting squarely on the fence on this (and every other) issue imaginable. "I can see all sides of this controversy," she seemed to me to be saying, "and you can be assured that as President I will do absolutely nothing about it…for fear that taking action might offend someone, especially someone who possibly might have supported my campaign financially. I just can't take that risk. Nor will I promise to end the Occupation of Iraq during my term, either."

A campaign run the way this one is being run seems exquisitely crafted to produce record low voter turn-outs. The message is clear. Our leading candidates feel passion about nothing but the size of their campaign's bank deposits. They intend to do nothing to change the status quo. When Democrats and Republicans are indistinguishable, will voting make the slightest difference? There isn't a whole lot of Democracy left in this country, just a powdery covering with a lot of bare spots. Watching our leading Democratic Presidential contender brush away even those remnants isn't a pretty sight.

Editor's Note: This is a guest blog by NM State Senator Jerry Ortiz y Pino. Click to read a previous guest blog by the Senator. Guest blogs provide readers with an opportunity to express their views on relevant issues and may or many not reflect our views. If you'd like to submit a piece for consideration as a guest blog, contact me by clicking on the Email Me link on the upper left-hand corner of the page.

A New Era of Progressivism?

Progressivism is a term that refers to a broad school of international social and political philosophies. The term progressive was first widely used in late 19th century America, in reference to a general branch of political thought which arose as a response to the vast changes brought by industrialization, and as an alternative both to the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more or less radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them.

Progressivism historically advocates the advancement of workers' rights and social justice. The progressives were early proponents of anti-trust laws and the regulation of large corporations and monopolies, as well as government-funded environmentalism and the creation of National Parks and Wildlife Refuges. -- Wikipedia

From U-S-History.com:

... Progressivism was rooted in the belief ... [that humans were] capable of improving the lot of all within society. As such, it was a rejection of Social Darwinism, the position taken by many of the rich and powerful figures of the day.... Specific goals included:

The desire to remove corruption and undue influence from government through the taming of bosses and political machines;

the effort to include more people more directly in the political process;

the conviction that government must play a role to solve social problems and establish fairness in economic matters.

The successes were many, beginning with the Interstate Commerce Act (1887) and the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890). Progressives never spoke with one mind and differed sharply over the most effective means to deal with the ills generated by the trusts; some favored an activist approach to trust-busting, others preferred a regulatory approach. A vocal minority supported socialism with government ownership of the means of production. Other Progressive reforms followed in the form of a conservation movement, railroad legislation, and food and drug laws.

From :

Sound Familiar?
Progressive Movement: Concerns over abuses by business and the "robber barons" who exploited labor and the lack of government regulation of the marketplace ... was a prevailing theme of those seeking reform. The sharp rise in economic activity spurred by industrialization and cheap labor contributed to concentrations of economic power among large national corporations and the formation of huge "trusts" as companies sought to eliminate their prime competitors. Between 1897 and 1904, 4,227 firms merged to form 257 corporations, with the largest merger consolidating nine steel companies to create the U.S. Steel Corp. controlled by Andrew Carnegie. By 1904, 318 companies controlled about 40 percent of the nation's manufacturing output. A single firm produced over half the output in 78 industries.

An Early Version of the"Blogosphere"?
Progressive, "muckraking" journalists also played key parts in highlighting specific economic and social ills that led to government action. Jacob Riis exposed the poor living conditions of the tenement slums in How the Other Half Lives (1890), which led to significant legislation establishing minimum safety and housing standards in tenements. In The Shame of the Cities (1904), Lincoln Steffens exposed the rampant political corruption in the party machines of Chicago and New York, arguing that the political machines served the interests of businessmen who sought government contracts, franchises, charters, and special privileges. The Jungle, published by Upton Sinclair in 1906, traced an immigrant family's exploitation and the unsanitary practices prevalent in Chicago's meat packing industry. The outrage provoked by the novel contributed to the enactment of the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act in 1906, the first legislation of its kind to set minimum standards for food and drug production.
*********

Progressive (and sometimes populist) changes continued on and off through President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, which in large part was designed to head off even more intense and dramatic changes springing from the Labor Movement and Communist revolutions. Some strains of the movement continued into the 1970s with the civil rights, women's and GLTB movements, as well as innovative programs like the GI Bill, Peace Corps and Medicare. Then Richard Nixon's infamous "Southern Strategy" of using opposition to the new civil rights legislation to turn the Southern bloc of states into a Republican stronghold.

Eventually, this led to "conservative" victories, with Ronald Reagan as President and a Congress led by the likes of Rep. Newt Gingich dedicated to turning back the clock on many of the reforms of the progressive and New Deal eras and returning to an unregulated market and corporate hegemony. This still wasn't good enough for Bush II and cronies -- who have worked for 7 years to literally bankrupt, cripple and dismantle the government and regulatory agencies.

The reliance on government to create a level playing field in a variety of areas was replaced by the view that government was the problem, not the solution. The negative results are apparent in virtually every aspect of American life, as well as on a planetary basis. The ravages of "free" trade, severe deregulation, privatization, militarization, anti-unionization and multinational corporatism are everywhere. The Robber Barons are back -- as truly global actors this time.

Unfortunately, too many of today's Dems are aligned with the DLC wing of the Party, or self-identify as so-called "centrists," "moderates" or "pro-business" Democrats. These politicos are dedicated to using "triangulation" to support global corporatist power and fight against "core" or "progressive" Democrats. The new progressives want to institute reforms similar to those implemented in earlier progressive eras to reinstate a level playing field where ordinary working people can prosper and community and environmental needs -- not just the corporate bottom line -- are a primary part of the value system.

From The 50 Year Strategy: A New Progressive Era (No, Really!), By Simon Rosenberg And Peter Leyden, Mother Jones magazine, November/December 2007:

A New Progressive Era?
A conservative president who is deeply unpopular with Americans. A country facing profound economic and security challenges. New technologies upending old media. A cohort of new immigrants and a bulging generation of young people ready to transform the political calculus.

2008? No, 1932, the tail end of the Hoover administration. And you know how that one turned out. FDR and his fellow progressives took on the challenges of their day and built the domestic programs and international institutions that ushered in an era of unrivaled prosperity and stability. They used a new medium—radio—to reach citizens, and fashioned a new majority coalition from the emergent demographic realities of their time.

Today's progressives face a political opportunity as great as any seen since. The election of 2006 may well have marked the end of the conservative ascendancy that began with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. George W. Bush now has the potential to do what Herbert Hoover did in the 1920s—tarnish his party's brand for a generation or more.

As in FDR's day, a new media is emerging, one that will ultimately replace the broadcast model of the 20th century. A new American populace is emerging, led by the arrival of the millennial generation and a new wave of immigrants, particularly Hispanics. And once again, the nation faces massive challenges—from climate change to health care in the era of biotech and preparing young people for a global economy. On the eve of the 2008 election, it's worth raising our sights beyond what it would take for a Democrat to win the presidency, and begin thinking about what it would take to bring about deeper, more lasting changes. The stars have aligned to give progressives a chance to permanently shift the conversation about the nation's values. The question before us now is, Do today's progressives have what it takes to do what FDR and his allies accomplished 75 years ago—seize the new politics, take on the big challenges, and usher in a new era?

Rise of the Internet and Participatory Politics
... This new paradigm represents a profound threat to the politics of privilege. Funding expensive broadcast campaigns forces political leaders to raise enormous sums of money, giving large corporations and wealthy individuals disproportionate influence. Republicans and Democrats have both played this game, but the Republicans consistently won; now, using Internet fundraising, Democratic Party committees consistently out-raise Republicans. The two leading Democratic presidential candidates raised $60 million in the second quarter of 2007—60 percent more than the $38 million for the two leading Republicans. By July, Barack Obama already had 258,000 donors to his campaign, more than any presidential campaign ever had at that point. Embracing this model has allowed the progressive movement and the Democratic Party to become much more authentic champions of the middle class, dependent as they now are on the financial support of average people.

Anne Kass on Peeling the Paint: Justice for All

This is a guest blog by political activist and retired Second Judicial District Judge Anne Kass of Albuquerque:

I had the opportunity to attend the swearing-in ceremony for Charles W. Daniels to the New Mexico Supreme Court Friday. It was a moving and inspiring ceremony. 

Justice Daniels told of being a share-cropper's son in Arkansas where, as a small child, he played with a black child names James. When it became time to start school, James went to the dilapidated schoolhouse down the road, while young Charlie Daniels was bussed miles away to a white-school. He was taught the Pledge of Allegiance and began to recognize the disconnection between the words “with liberty and justice for all” and the reality of his experience. He talked about his dedication to making the promise of “justice for all” a reality. His talk was truly moving. 

During his remarks Justice Daniels addressed the issue of equal rights for women. He mentioned that Fred Hart, who was Dean of the New Mexico School of Law when Justice Daniels was a student and professor there, opened the doors of the law school to women and minorities. (I made the same observations when I was a student at the UNM School of Law.) 

Justice Daniels said, after some years, when almost half the law school classes were comprised of women, "... the good 'ole boys discovered that the paint didn't peel off the walls when women appeared in the courtroom as lawyers or judges." While he continued his remarks, I found myself thinking -- That's right, the paint didn't peel off the walls, and THAT'S the problem. The paint should have peeled off the walls.

The paint of property law that allows for the private ownership of everything needs to be peeled off the walls of the halls of justice, starting with laws that allow for the private ownership of everything, including other human beings. Today, one manifestation of this notion is in the form of incarceration and deportation of undocumented workers only trying to survive while their exploitative employer-owners go unpunished.   

Property law also allows for private ownership of DNA genetic codes and private ownership of cures and treatments for terrible diseases. In many of these cases, the underlying research has been paid with public dollars. There are many layers of property-law-paint that need to be peeled off the walls.

The same holds true for many layers of criminal-law-paint which dictates grotesquely disproportionate imprisonment of people of color for drug offenses and which makes the penalties for shoplifting severe while providing no penalties at all for the looting of the national treasury by corporations such as Halliburton. 

Justice Daniels was correct. The “good ol’ boys” have learned they have nothing to fear from either women or minorities entering the law. They have simply co-opted them. Women and people of color have been allowed and even encouraged to join the ranks of lawyers and judges but only on the condition that they walk, talk, and look just like the “good ol’ boys” who wrote the rules and laws in the first place.   

Women and people of color have not changed the system. They have accommodated themselves to a very rigid system. They are the ones who have changed, become assimilated. And that's why, although a relatively small number of women and people of color have risen to positions of much prestige and power in the law, the status and circumstances of women and people of color, in general, remain virtually unchanged. 

If Justice Daniels has any hope at all to make good on his promise to make the national promise of “justice for all” a reality, the first thing he needs to do is peel paint -- lots of paint -- off the walls of the halls of justice. I enthusiastically support his intentions.

This is a guest blog by Anne Kass, who posts periodically on DFNM. Guest blogs provide our reader with an opportunity to express their opinions and may or may not represent our views. If you'd like to submit a piece for consideration as a guest blog, contact me by clicking on the Email Me link on the upper left-hand side of the page.

Glenn Greenwald Talks Telecom Immunity

Video from Firedoglake. Go sign the letter to Harry Reid.NY Times Op-Ed by Studs Terkel: The Wiretap This Time.

Ortiz y Pino Guest Blog on Blackwater: The Visigoths

This is a guest blog by NM State Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino (right), a Democrat who represents Senate District 12 in Albuquerque. This piece was originally published in Santa Fe Sun News:

When the full accounting of the worst excesses of the Bush (Junior version) administration is at last tallied by historians, I will not be surprised to find heading the pathetic inventory the inglorious adventures of that uniquely American institution, the Blackwater Company. In a way that is exquisitely appropriate, Blackwater may well become recognized as the perfect example of the Bush-Cheney administration in microcosm, W's ideal and exemplary "MINI-ME"; a band of clumsy mercenaries wreaking havoc everywhere they tread (even while making quite a bundle of money in the process).

They are our Visigoths, the armored warriors who've swept in mindlessly and knocked down the last props holding up the American Empire, the very Empire our hapless President was apparently attempting to deputize them to protect. If it were a soccer match, Blackwater would have just managed to score an "own goal"... one for the other side. Recognize, too, that Blackwater is not an aberration, an unfortunate mistake, one noteworthy precisely because it is so different from all else that is going on. Oh no! These guys are no glitch; they are actually the vision! They are what Cheney and Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and the rest of that "New American Generation" crew had in mind when they talked about market forces and the "opportunity for regime change" and when they driveled-on about spreading American entrepreneurial capitalism across the globe. They saw the future and the future was ... Blackwater: another in the endless stream of governmental functions to be privatized; the endless chain of thefts from the public treasury for private gain; you know, the hallmark of all that Bush stands for! It's been so simple, really, to reverse the pumps.

It used to be Washington's task to bring money into the Government. No more. By the time they finally stagger away from their time at the trough, Dubya and his guys will have pretty well emptied out the Federal Government's cash reservoirs and filled their own and their buddies' up to the brim. What with Halliburton sopping up billions through creative bookkeeping of its non-activity in Iraq and dozens of corporations evading all tax liability by the simple expedient of listing their headquarters address off-shore in some businessman's tropic paradise; with Defense contractors, oil companies, major pharmaceuticals and money lenders all gorged just about to capacity from sucking up Federal largesse, it now turns out that (surprise!) there isn't much left in the accounts to actually run governmental services with. So there are plenty of villains to point at these days, no end to the larcenies being committed at public expense. Yet even among the ranks of all the many rogues with the foresight to cozy up to Republican elected officials and the willingness to exchange ethics for no-bid contracts, Blackwater stands out.

They all stink, of course; they all invite outrage, and they all should be made to pay the money back. But there is a clinging to this particular Virginia-based enterprise, this armed-muscle-for-hire company, an especially repugnant aroma that does set it apart even among the other opportunists and jackals that avidly fatten themselves at the expense of the miserable. You see, these guys are not just hired guns, mercenaries willing to serve whoever signs their pay vouchers. They fancy themselves as being our privatized Armed Forces: the ultimate in out-sourcing of essential governmental functions. And unfortunately, the President seems to agree with them.

Thus, when thugs in the employ of Blackwater commit murder, assault, mayhem and similarly impolite other forms of behavior during their stay in Iraq, as described so numbingly by Reporter Jeremy Scahill in his just-published book on the company called, simply, Blackwater, it is not the corporate investors in the company who will feel the heat of Iraqi outrage, it is the American people who will be blamed.

This is what the Romans learned the hard way over sixteen hundred years ago.

Those darned mercenaries are more trouble than they are worth. Not only can they prove difficult to control, but you have to bear the weight of all the errors they make. They are not independent of those who hire them. The illusion is that it is easier to pay big bucks for contractors to do the dirty work than to recruit, train and supervise your own troops. That is the illusion to which the current occupant of the White House has fallen prey. That is why we now have more private contract manpower in Iraq than we have troops (200,000 versus 170,000), even if we don't keep close tabs on their deaths -- must be a clause in their employment contract or something, a kind of "you don't have to mark my passing" authorization. But it is starting to look like even the Iraqi government (whose puppet strings we routinely jerk just to remind them who's boss) has finally tired of the arrogance and blood-letting of the contractors. The general populace did so long ago, of course. But then the general populace tired of all of us long ago, so it's no use asking them.

The government, though, now wants Blackwater gone; removed; their contract ended. They will soon be forced out of Iraq, I assume. But that will end neither the Bush entanglement with mercenaries in Iraq nor the profitability of Blackwater. Some other company of soldiers of fortune will fill their shoes, with little or no change in how badly we are served by using unaccountable and uncontrollable troops like that. Blackwater itself will scoop up some other juicy contract for work somewhere else in the world: Afghanistan, Mississippi (yes, they were there during Katrina), Darfur -- wherever there's a buck to be made and a code of ethics to be ignored. Blackwater is the Bush doctrine: private gain squeezed from public coffers. Now it is up to us, the American people, to decide if we are going to tolerate what it represents. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and Blackwater are three very smelly pieces of inheritance to pass on to our children.

They don't deserve it. We must turn away the Visigoths.

This is a guest blog by Democratic NM State Senator Gerald Ortiz y Pino. Guest blogs provide readers with an opportunity to express their views on relevant issues and may or many not reflect our views. If you'd like to submit a piece for consideration as a guest blog, contact me by clicking on the Email Me link on the upper left-hand corner of the page.

Tell Reid: No Amnesty for Lawbreaking Telecoms

Although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been asked by Sen. Chris Dodd to put a "hold" on the legislation that would grant lawbreaking telecoms retroactive immunity for their actions in the warrantless surveillance scandal, so far he's refused to do so. Now a number of national groups and bloggers (see below) have drafted a letter to Reid urging him to do what's right. Click to add your name to the letter, which will be delivered to Reid, as well as the Senate Democratic leadership and Senate Judiciary Committee members.

See our previous post for info on additional action you can take to try and stop telecom immunity.

National groups that signed onto the letter include:

American Civil Liberties Union
ColorOfChange.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Moveon.org Political Action
Working Assets Wireless

National bloggers who signed it include:

Glenn Greenwald, Salon
Jane Hamsher, Firedoglake
Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, Dailykos
Christy Hardin Smith, Firedoglake
Matt Stoller, OpenLeft
Digby, Hullabaloo
Taylor Marsh, TaylorMarsh.com
Duncan Black, Atrios
John Aravosis, Americablog
Chris Bowers, OpenLeft
John Amato, Crooks and Liars
Howie Klein, DownWithTyranny

(Updated) Call Today to Stop Telecom Amnesty in the Senate Judiciary Committee

UPDATE 10.25.07: Three more Senators on the SJC have pledged to vote against telecom amnesty: Joe Biden (D-DE), Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Ben Cardin (D-MD). Let's keep the pressure on the others. Yesterday, presidential candidate Bill Richardson issued a statement urging the Senate to reject telecom immunity.
**************
Senator Chris Dodd has been leading the fight in the Senate against amnesty for lawbreaking on the part of the telecoms who allowed Bush to conduct warrantless surveillence using their facilities. He has pledged to request a hold on the bill to stop it from getting a vote on the Senate floor or to filibuster the legislation, if necessary, to stop it.  In the meantime, he suggests we try to stop telecom amnesty in the Senate Judiciary Committee. So far, only Sen. Russ Feingold has said he will vote no. Click on the image above and it will take you to a page that provides the info you need to call the other members of the committee.  Pass it on.

Dodd, Feingold, Leahy: Dem Senators With Backbone on FISA

Sen. Chris Dodd will stop the flawed FISA legislation by a "hold" or by filibuster. >Click to support him.

Glenn Greenwald explains how too many Dem Senators, including Sen. Harry Reid, are apparently willing to grant retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that colluded with the Bush administration in illegal surveillance activities, and approve FISA legislation that gives away the store on civil liberties.

Meanwhile Firedoglake reports how much money Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who heads the Senate intelligence committee, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid get from the telecoms, and reveals Reid's telecom stock ownership. Connect the dots.

Today, Sen. Russ Feingold released a statement about the FISA legislation that included this pledge:

If the bill that ultimately reaches the Senate floor includes immunity and does not adequately protect the privacy of Americans, I will fight it vigorously with every tool at my disposal.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, also finds the deal on the FISA bill made by Sen. Rockefeller and others on the Senate Intelligence Committee unacceptable, as reported in The Hill.

All this points to an intense fight about the bill in both Houses of Congress, with those still afraid to confront Bush on illegal surveillance and civil liberties pitted against those who still have a conscience in some form. Stay tuned.

Sunday Bird Blogging: Sunny the Couch Clown

/center>

Sunny the sun conure loves to play games on the couch. He likes to hang out there with us, mess around with his toys and eat cashews. I'm not kidding, cashews (and almonds and peanuts in the shell) are among his most prized treats. Here he is playing one of his favorite games -- hustling through the pillow tunnel with his toy balls and/or lying on his back while jerking the balls around with his feet. He really digs it when he can throw one onto the floor and make a big noise.

Ignore me droning on at the beginning of the video. I'm reading Naomi Klein's powerful and revealing new book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, and I can't help passing on my discoveries as I go. You can also hear our parakeets singing. They do that a lot, as is their destiny.

Sorry about the grainy quality of the video. Our digital camera has started acting strangely and we don't know why. We don't know if that's connected with our sudden problem with uploading videos to You Tube. They upload to 100% and then You Tube tells us the upload failed with no explanation. I love computer glitches, don't you?

September 30, 2007 at 10:58 AM in Bird Blogging, Books, Corporatism | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, September 17, 2007

Get the Facts on Medicare Privatization

From Americans United for Change:
Please join Medicare experts and seniors advocates at an informative meeting to discuss ending the privatization of Medicare. Get the facts as a major battle looms in Washington, DC that could effect Medicare coverage:

Thursday September 20th, 1:00 to 2:00
Highland Senior Center, Room 7
131 Monroe NE
Free and Open to the Public
Click for flyer

For more information or to RSVP to reserve a seat call Josh Geise at 505-603-1067.

September 17, 2007 at 05:52 PM in Corporatism, Events, Healthcare | Permalink | Comments (0)

« Previous | Next »