|Progressive Calendar 03.26.08||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: David Shove (shove001tc.umn.edu)|
|Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 05:59:44 -0700 (PDT)|
P R O G R E S S I V E C A L E N D A R 03.26.08 1. Early ed/KFAI 3.26 11am 2. Women's rights 3.26 12noon StCloud MN 3. Water rights 3.26 12:15pm 4. Climate change 3.26 6:30pm 5. Kip Sullivan - Berglin-Huntley bill (2) 6. Joshua Frank - Cracks in the empire: a silver lining to the Bush years? 7. Ralph Nader - How public servants can help end the Iraq War 8. Jeff StClair - Hillary's berserker campaign - for 2012: blonde ambition --------1 of 8-------- From: Andy Driscoll <andy [at] driscollgroup.com> Subject: Early ed/KFAI 3.26 11am WEDS, MAR 26 KFAI - 11AM: CHILDCARE AND EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION: The Younger, the Better? Studies and discussions appear to lean heavily toward starting childrenıs education much earlier than ever before believed. TTTıs Andy Driscoll and returning guest co-host Craig Cox query the advocates and policymakers pushing for earlier intervention in child care and education to better prepare youngsters for their schooling. GUESTS: REP. NORA SLAWIK, Chair, Early Childhood Learning Finance Division of MN House Education Committee JULIE KORITZ, Early Childhood Specialist / Parent Educator and Training Consultant SAMEERAH BILAL, Executive Director, Early Childhood Resource & Training Ctr. TODD OTIS, President, Ready 4 K --------2 of 8-------- From: Erin Parrish <erin [at] mnwomen.org> Subject: Women's rights 3.26 12noon StCloud MN March 26: Women's Center St. Cloud State University. Women on Wednesday - Still Fighting for Our Rights 30 Years Later presents UWomen, Media & Culture with Dr. Beth Berila, Director Women's Studies Program, SCSU. Noon-1 PM. Atwood Theatre. --------3 of 8-------- To: 'Human Rights Events Update' <humanrts [at] umn.edu> Subject: Water rights 3.26 12:15pm The Human Right to Water -A Five-Part Human Rights Center Lecture Series (Cosponsors: Program in Human Rights and Health / School of Public Health) All lectures Wednesdays: 12:15-1:15 p.m., 30 Mondale Hall <http://www1.umn.edu/twincities/maps/MondaleH/index.html> (Law) 3/26 Water and the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples --------4 of 8-------- From: PRO826 [at] aol.com Subject: Climate change 3.26 6:30pm SOLUTIONS TO GLOBAL WARMING - HELP WANTED!! The West Metro Global Warming Action Group invites citizens interested in working on global warming solutions to attend a meeting on Wednesday, March 26th at 6:30 p.m. at the Westonka Community Library, 2079 Commerce Blvd. in Mound. One of the items on the agenda is to formulate a response to the draft report of the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group. Public comments on this report are due by April 18, 2008. (http://www.mnclimatechange.us/MCCAG.cfm) The global warming debate is over. It's time to act. Please come prepared to discuss your ideas for action at all levels of society. For further information, please call Tom Casey at (952) 472-1099. --------5 of 8-------- DFL health "reform" bill in the House is as bad as the Senate bill By Kip Sullivan March 24, 2008 In a March 10 article on the DFL leadership's health "reform" bills, I focused on SF 3099, the bill authored by Sen. Linda Berglin (Minneapolis). I criticized it for endorsing a complex version of managed care as the solution to the health care crisis. Advocates of this version of managed care refer to it as "level 3 payment reform." This "reform" would turn clinics and hospitals into the equivalent of insurance companies and thereby create a second layer of insurance companies under the current layer. Advocates of "level 3 reform" have yet to explain why we need two layers of insurance companies. I also criticized Sen. Berglin's bill for requiring all providers (clinics and hospitals) in Minnesota to send their medical records to a central agency so that it can prepare report cards on the providers. The net effect of these "reforms" will be: * no reduction, and possibly an increase, in health care spending, * a reduction in quality of care for some patients caused by provider reactions to report cards, and * the further destruction of patient privacy. When I wrote the first article, the House companion to Sen. Berglin's bill, HF 3391, authored by Rep. Tom Huntley (DFL-Duluth), was not as objectionable as Berglin's bill. HF 3391 contained all the obnoxious report card requirements that were in Berglin's bill, but at least it did not contain the "level 3 payment reforms." In the intervening two weeks, a provision containing the "level 3 reforms" has been added to HF 3391. HF 3391 is now as bad as Berglin's bill. Arguably, it is now worse because it also contains a provision requiring all Minnesotans to buy health insurance if the uninsured rate doesn't fall substantially in the near future. Berglin's bill doesn't contain this bailout for the health insurance industry. In this article I'll discuss HF 3391's report card provisions and the requirement that Minnesotans buy health insurance. I'll save for a future article a discussion of the "health care home" idea. The "health care home" is a warm and fuzzy concept that isn't going to do much good and might do harm by raising costs. I urge readers to contact their legislators immediately and urge them to delete from SF3099/HF3391 the sections dealing with "level 3 payment reform" and report cards, and to oppose these bills if these sections are not removed. Others have already acted. The state's leading single-payer organizations - the Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition and the Minnesota Universal Health Care Coalition - have sent similar messages to all legislators. Rural hospitals are also lobbying against the "level 3 reform" provisions. Members of the Minnesota Health Reform Caucus - legislators who support single-payer - are opposing the "level 3 reforms" and the report card requirements. I also encourage you to urge your representatives to oppose the requirement in HF 3391 requiring Minnesotans to buy health insurance. NO PATIENT LEFT BEHIND REPORT CARDS HF 3391 sets up a new commission, this one called the Health Care Transformation Commission, with extensive authority to collect data and make recommendations to the Legislature on how to implement statewide "payment reform" by January 1, 2010 that will, in theory, pay providers according to how well they perform on report cards. This commission must start meeting on or before July 1, 2008, and it must make recommendations on how to implement the new "pay for performance" scheme by January 15, 2009. The notion of subjecting all health care providers in Minnesota to report cards, and rewarding or punishing them based on how well they perform on these report cards, is a terrible idea. It will drive costs up, it will destroy patient privacy, and it will not improve quality on balance (quality might improve in some areas, but it will definitely deteriorate in others). It will drive costs up because enormous amounts of patient medical records will have to be transmitted by clinics and hospitals to the Transformation Commission and its successor agencies. Transmitting all these medical records will require that all hospitals and clinics convert their medical records from paper files to computer files. Currently only a minority of the state's hospitals and clinics have switched from paper to electronic medical records (EMRs). The cost of making the switch averages $30,000 or so per doctor in Year One, and $8,000 a year thereafter to maintain the EMR system. The high cost of creating and maintaining an EMR system, and the low return in terms of improved quality of care and greater efficiency, are the reasons why so many providers have not converted from paper records to EMRs. Costs will also be driven up by the cost of calculating report cards. To give you an idea of how high the cost will be, consider these facts about just one report card: the one prepared by the New York Department of Public Health on the approximately 150 heart surgeons in New York and the 36 hospitals where those surgeons practice. That one report card requires about one full-time employee at each of the hospitals, plus 5 full-time employees at the Department of Health, for a total of about 40 people. And for what purpose? Report card advocates claim report cards can be used either to embarrass the "bad" doctors into shaping up, or can be used by health insurance companies and government agencies for "pay for performance" schemes under which "bad" doctors get paid less and "good" doctors get paid more. But the scientific research on medical report cards does not support these claims. A 2005 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association stated, "Despite . extensive adoption of quality measurement and reporting, little research examines the effect of public reporting on the delivery of health care, and even less examines how report cards may improve care. . [T]he potential . negative consequences of public reporting are largely unexplored." Some research has already established the fact that report cards can harm sicker patients because doctors avoid them for fear they will drive their "grades" down. The New York heart surgery report card, for all its expense, is among those that have been shown to harm sicker patients. As I demonstrated in my March 10 article, medical report cards are a solution in search of a problem. The assumption that report cards are necessary because hordes of doctors are screwing up has never been documented, and almost certainly never will be documented. TREATING HEALTH INSURANCE LIKE AUTO INSURANCE Huntley's bill contains a provision that will almost certainly trigger a requirement that all Minnesotans who aren't eligible for a public health insurance program buy health insurance from a health insurance company. This requirement is generally called an "individual mandate." HF 3391 calls it a "contingent individual responsibility requirement." The bill calls it "contingent" because the mandate kicks in only if Minnesota's uninsured rate doesn't fall to certain levels. For example, if the uninsured rate hasn't fallen to 4 percent by 2011 and to 2 percent by 2013, the mandate kicks in. (The 2007 rate was 7.4 percent.) HF 3391 says the mandate will be accompanied by subsidies for people making less than four times the federal poverty level (about $85,000 annually for a family of four). People making that much money will get subsidies that will keep their total premiums and out-of-pocket costs under 8 percent of their gross income. People under three times the poverty level will get premiums keeping their premiums and out-of-pocket costs under 6 percent of income. HF 3391 has some provisions in it that will expand enrollment in Minnesota's public health insurance programs. But these enrollments will be too small by themselves to lower the uninsured rate below the target levels that trigger the individual mandate. Advocates of HF 3391 claim the bill will lead to lower health care costs, and this in turn will lower insurance premiums, which will in turn lower the uninsured rate. The only way HF 3391 is going to lower health care costs is if the "level 3 payment reforms" take effect and those "reforms" induce rationing of health care. If the "level 3" language is deleted from HF 3391, or if it passes and it does not lead to rationing, then it is virtually certain the individual mandate will kick in, probably in 2011. Requiring Minnesota premium payers to fork over thousands of dollars to the bloated health insurance industry is bad policy. This is true regardless of whether premium payers are receiving subsidies from taxpayers. The insurance industry is part of the problem, not part of the solution. To feed this industry with mandated premium payments and tax dollars merely strengthens the industry at a time when we should be allowing market forces to continue weakening it. Feeding this industry means we delay the day we get to a single-payer system. Delaying single-payer means delaying universal coverage. --------6 of 8-------- Cracks in the Empire A Silver Lining to the Bush Years? By JOSHUA FRANK March 24, 2008 CounterPunch The left far too often dwells on gloom and doom. We postulate about the failures of past movements, the crashing of the economy, the bloodshed in the Middle East, and the wholesale destruction of the environment. Not to say all this is not occurring. It most certainly is. The antiwar movement is on life-support; even the radical reincarnation of the Vietnam era's Winter Soldier hearings weren't enough to awaken the corporate press from its slumber. The economy is caught in a downward spiral. Hundreds of thousands have perished as a result of the US wars in the Middle East. Thousands of species on Earth face extinction as our polar ice caps melt and the climate warms beyond repair. These are dire times indeed. Even so I tend to cling to Ed Abbey's admonition to be a part-time warrior, saving enough hours in the day to enjoy the offerings of this little blue planet while we still can. As my friend Jeffrey St. Clair puts it, "Be as radical as reality. Fight fiercely for what you feel passionate about, no matter how long the odds seem. But don't fret so much about the meta-crises, such as global warming or ozone depletion. It'll only weigh you down and drive you toward nihilistic despair." Desperation is no way to invigorate the soul, whether it's your own or that of a movement. In fact while the last seven-and-a-half-years of George W. Bush may have seemed like an eternity of sorrow and misery, there may be a silver-lining to all that's transpired. No other president in modern history has done more to expose the dark side of US imperialism than Bush. The international community is not behind the Iraq war and doesn't trust our half-baked intelligence toward Iran, making it even more difficult for us to get away with bombing the country in the future. US power, while not fully-deflated, is fast leaking hot air. War is pretty unpopular across the US too. John McCain is the only candidate willing to call for an outright extension of the occupation of Iraq. And while Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton may covertly plan to lengthen our presence there, they dare not utter such nonsense out loud. Both are doing their best to position themselves as the antiwar candidate, hiding their military tactics away in the fine print of their policy briefs. Old alliances are becoming obsolete. NATO has weakened and the US go-it-alone strategy has damaged the trend of US isolation in foreign hostilities. The US is unequivocally deemed a global menace. We have become, against Washington's better wishes, a more humble nation. It's a sure sign US dominance is on the skids. So too is our economic prowess, as witnessed by the subprime mortgage collapse and decline of the dollar. The US banking system is in flux due in large part to the dismantling of Glass-Steagall under the reign of Bill Clinton's economic henchman, Robert Rubin. Sure Bush's Fed has overstepped its boundaries and attempted to "bailout" the credit sector, but hasn't this whole debacle also exposed the fallacies of neoliberal ethos? These events sure seem to me to be something the left ought to be encouraged by. It wasn't even ten years ago that we took to the streets of Seattle to rally in opposition to the WTO and Clinton's free-trade pathology. Now even his wife is attempting to distance herself from the failures of NAFTA. Not that she's sincere, but at least the language is beginning to change. Many are also yapping away about the fate of the environment. Even McCain believes humans are impacting the global climate. While much of this is unadulterated green-washing, the tide is shifting. People are beginning to care about the planet they will are leaving their children and grand kids. Awareness is growing despite the campaign against it. The hike in gas prices, while hurting some financially in the interim, may in the long-run force us to rethink public transportation and our over-consumption of fossil fuels. The reaches of Empire are being destroyed quicker than you may realize, yet the left is still stuck neck-deep in its dark, humorless, perpetual cynicism. But why not look at the bright side of the mess we're in instead? Your outlook depends solely on your vantage point. No doubt the fight for social and environmental justice must continue. The bottom line is that we can either be dejected by the negative or inspired by the positive. Ultimately, it's up to you. Joshua Frank is co-editor of Dissident Voice and author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush (Common Courage Press, 2005), and along with Jeffrey St. Clair, the editor of the forthcoming Red State Rebels, to be published by AK Press in June 2008. --------7 of 8-------- Intensifying the Public Sentiments How Public Servants Can Help End the Iraq War By RALPH NADER CounterPunch March 24, 2008 The tragic marker of the 4000th U.S. Soldier to fall in Iraq is now before the American people - with no end in sight. During the vigils, marches and Winter Soldiers' heartfelt testimonies on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the invasion-occupation of Iraq, there was a common expression of public frustration over the rabid intransigence of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to end their cruel and costly war crimes. Frustration comes not only from a dictatorial regime in Washington regarding the war in Iraq, but also from a sense of powerlessness and lack of access to the corridors of power, especially those of the Congress and the White House. It is difficult for those who opposed the war's drumbeats in 2002 and early 2003 to forget that thirteen organizations that opposed the war each requested a meeting with President Bush. These groups represented many millions of Americans. They were church, labor, business, students', women's and even former intelligence officials' and veterans' organizations. President Bush did not even have the courtesy of responding to any of these patriotic Americans - even to say no. Among these pleaders were citizens recently back from visiting Iraq and men and women who had fought in hostile conflicts as members of the armed forces. There is a group of distinguished Americans who have spoken, written, testified, and acted against the invasion of Iraq or who have opposed the war-occupation, now in its sixth year - longer than World War II. These Americans, numbering in the hundreds, have one common characteristic: they are retired after serving in the federal government under both Republican and Democratic administrations, including the present one, as military, diplomatic and national security-intelligence officials. They include four-star generals, admirals, ambassadors, cabinet secretaries, top national security advisors and a former president. Never in our nation's history have so many such professionals at so many levels opposed a war involving the United States. For that matter, never before was there so much muzzled opposition to a war inside the Department of Defense - up to the four-star general level. Their opposition was based on strategic, tactical and logistical considerations that subsequently found their way into the media, but to no avail. The two pro-Vietnam War draft-dodgers in the White House prevailed. I call on these stand-up Americans, who are already on the public record with incisive, analytical opposition, to come together into a powerful force for ending the Iraq war-occupation, both military and corporate. They can focus on Congress and the White House - with their immense credibility - and intensify the focus of public opinion (what Abraham Lincoln called "public sentiments"). Already, more than two-thirds of the American people oppose continuation of the war as mistaken, costly and not worth the price in casualties and dollars. These experienced, free-to-speak Americans can press members of Congress to directly face their responsibilities to the American people to end this destruction of a country and its populace, which never threatened the United States, to end the consequential perils to our country and bring our soldiers home without further casualties. These outspoken retired public servants can get their calls returned. They are widely respected for their service to their country in past years. They have or could have more than usual access to reporters, editors and producers. They do get published and interviewed. Some have direct field experience in Iraq or in various federal agencies since March 2003. Various groups such as Veterans For Peace or Iraq Veterans Against the War no doubt will vigorously support such high level initiatives, as will many other local and national organizations that have so faithfully waged peace all these years. I have spoken to some of these retired professionals in the past few months. They were enthusiastic about the prospect of working together on an action agenda. They expressed the hope that their busy peers were not too occupied to consider devoting the time needed to band together for this fundamental patriotic initiative. Most Americans, I believe, will be grateful for their latest service to their country and the cause of world peace. These leaders need to envision the greatly expanded impact they will have if only they band together, organize and present a unified drive forward. Ralph Nader is the author of The Seventeen Traditions --------8 of 8-------- Hillary's Berserker Campaign ... for 2012 Blonde Ambition By JEFFREY ST. CLAIR March 24, 2008 CounterPunch Hillary Clinton can not win the Democratic nomination for president. The numbers tell the story. Even with robust victories in Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky, Hillary will trail Obama in popular votes and pledged delegates as they enter the convention hall in Denver. Any other candidate would have been shamed into dropping out long ago. But these are the Clintons and they have no shame. So why does Hillary persist? Because she hasn't abandoned her aspiration for the White House. Not in 2008, but for 2012. Here's the perverse logic at work. If Obama defeats McCain in November, it will take an act of treachery beyond anything even the Clintons have ever conjured from their grimoire of political demonology for Hillary to challenge him in 2012. She will be 69 in 2016, almost ready to move into one of the Beverly Nursing Homes, owned by a company she once represented as a corporate lawyer, aggressively protecting the bottom line against such extravagances as healthy meals, clean sheets and proper medical care for the elderly. Hillary Clinton is the prisoner of an unimpeachable mathematics. So she makes the most of a remorseless situation by doing what the Clintons do best: commit political fratricide. Quite literally, in this case, by knocking off a brother. In order to realize her vaulting ambition, Hillary must mortally wound Obama as candidate in the fall race against John McCain so that she can run against McCain in 2012. McCain is at best a one term president. The signs of this are as clear as the scar jagging down his face. McCain, whose resemblance to Lon Chaney becomes eerier by the day, is already an old man, older than Reagan when he was first elected. He is plagued by a cancer he refuses to speak about, a war he refuses to end and an economy that is collapsing beyond the point of recovery. Add to this prospectus, the fact that McCain is prone to the most self-destructive impulses of any American politician since Aaron Burr. His political fate will be sealed before he even swears his oath. Thus Hillary's berserker strategy against Obama. (For more on "berserkerism" see the SF novels of Fred Saberhagen.) Down in Mark Penn's dark computer lab, the data culled from pulse polls and focus groups probing the hidden prejudices in the psyche of white America are being packed like shrapnel into political landmines set for Obama: he's unpatriotic, he's un-Christian, he's a Palestinian symp and, yes, he's black. That's three strikes and one head shot. Exploitation of racial panic is second nature to the power couple Ishmael Reed calls Ma and Pa Clinton. Bill Clinton launched his 1992 campaign by personally overseeing the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a brain-damaged young black man. He wagged his finger at the rapper Sister Souljah, denouncing her music and political opinions as a danger to young minds. The Clintons pilloried their one-time friend Lani Guinier, for her legal writings on the status of blacks and women and booted Dr. Jocelyn Elders from her position as Surgeon General for her refreshingly candid statements about the utility of condoms and masturbation for sexually active youths. And that's how they treated people they knew. At a structural level, the Clintons' economic and social agenda, incubated at the conservative Democratic Leadership Council, struck directly at poorest precincts of America, targeting blacks and Hispanics with a fervor not seen since Pat Buchanan and Kevin Phillips crafted the infamous Southern Strategy for Richard Nixon. Hence, the dismantling of welfare, harsh federal crime bills, the refusal to intervene against racial profiling or redress the grievous injustices caused by the racially-motivated sentences handed out for crack cocaine. The fallout from Ms. Clinton's racially-tinged blitz against Obama will spread far and wide across her party like the toxic particles from a nuclear blast. They've done it all before. The Clintons' reckless first two years in the White House, from the heavy-handed Travel Office fiasco to the fires of Waco and HRC's sophomoric bungling of the health care reform, spurred the GOP takeover of congress in 1994, which they used to their political profit. Then in 1996, Clinton refused to allocate DNC money to tight senate and congressional races, a miserly tactic that allowed the faltering Republicans to retain control of both houses of Congress. It was a cynical decision that many high-ranking Democrats believe constituted a deliberate sabotage of the party's prospects, designed to secure a monopoly-like control of the party apparatus for the Clintons, turning the DNC into their own private PAC. That's the logic of triangulation. The daisy-cutter tactics of Hillary's current campaign might be called pre-emptive triangulation. The Clintons enrich themselves politically by looting the ruins of their own party. Look how swiftly her campaign knee-capped her friend Bill Richardson. After working sedulously for Richardson's endorsement only to lose out to Obama, Mark Penn dismissed the governor as "irrelevant." On Good Friday, Clinton intimate James Carville denounced Richardson as "a Judas." Clinton believes she must destroy the party in order to save it - for herself. But her campaign geared at women and white working class voters relies on a perversion of the past. The recent past at that, as if they believe that the American electorate is blinking out from a kind of political Alzheimer's, where the short-term goes first. Perhaps that's why Penn and his pack of geeks geared their themes to appeal to geezers and grandparents. Clintontime is recast as a glittering epoch of peace and prosperity. Yet this was a decade when Iraq was bombed every three days and a half-million people died under the cruel sanctions regime, when cruise missiles were launched on Sudan and Afghanistan to divert popular attention from blow-jobs and thong-snapping interns, when an illegal air war was orchestrated against Serbia, racking up thousands of civilian casualties and the ongoing bloodbath against peasants in South America known as Plan Colombia, the drug war that keeps on killing. The Clinton 90s was a time when the economic chasm in America between the rich and everyone else deepened and widened profoundly, under the command of Alan Greenspan and Wall Street maestro Robert Rubin, and the social safety nets protecting the most vulnerable among us where shorn in the name of political pragmatism. The Clintons evoke a nostalgia for a time that never was. If you require objective confirmation of the economic enervation unleashed by the Clinton program consult Contours of Descent, economist Robert Pollin's brilliant dissection of that dismal era. This coarse reality is transparent to those who lived through it and still suffer the aftershocks of the Clintons' neoliberal program. That's one reason why almost the only blacks to back HRC are encrusted members of Congressional Black Caucus and corporate shills like Andrew Young, who whitewashed Nike's crimes against workers in its Asian sweat-factories. Both camps are old hands at palming political gratuities and walking around money. Meanwhile, Obama plays the role of willing victim like he spent years studying Italian frescos on the torments of St. Sebastian. He exudes a sense of entitlement nearly as all-engrossing as the Clintons and compounds this with a martydom complex that dramatizes the wounding of each slingshot and arrow lobbed his way. Although it's not strictly attuned to her peculiar pathology, Hillary could almost call it quits right now, even before she claims Pennsylvania as a scalp. She has fatally toxified Obama and almost certainly secured the White House for her good friend John McCain. Hillary is following the Reagan model. In 1976, Ronald Reagan bled Gerald Ford through the long winter and spring months, before bludgeoning him the late primary in Pennsylvania. As told in Adam Clymer's new book, Drawing the Line at the Big Ditch: the Panama Canal Treaties and the Rise of the Right, Reagan finally found a theme to his weird internecine challenge in the Panama Canal Treaty. Reagan fell short in the end, but he had hobbled Ford, who stumbled and fell against Carter in the fall election. Carter inherited a stagnant economy, soaring oil prices and a simmering crisis in the Middle East. Reagan easily unseated Carter in the 1980 election. The Clintons are shrewd enough to detect the striking historical parallels here and craven enough to exploit them for their own long-term advantage. The Clinton war room may still throb to the beats of Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow." But late at night, when Mandy Grunwald has slipped on her flannels and Mark Penn has powered-down his Cray super-computer, Hillary and Bill will surely toast their strange time-delayed victory to the chords of McCartney's "Live and Let Die." Jeffrey St. Clair is the author of Been Brown So Long It Looked Like Green to Me: the Politics of Nature and Grand Theft Pentagon. His newest book, Born Under a Bad Sky, will be published this spring. He can be reached at: sitka [at] comcast.net. [Hillary and Bill exemplify capitalism - greed, selfishness, disregard of others, genocide, anti-democracy, empire. *Anything* to win, even if the heavens should fall. -ed] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - David Shove shove001 [at] tc.umn.edu rhymes with clove Progressive Calendar over 2225 subscribers as of 12.19.02 please send all messages in plain text no attachments To GO DIRECTLY to an item, eg --------8 of x-------- do a find on --8 impeach bush & cheney impeach bush & cheney impeach bush & cheney impeach bush & cheney
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.