Skip to main content

You have our back, and we have your back, Barack Obama.

You fight for us, and we fight for you and your agenda.

Yesterday, I told you about the Coalition which was formed, almost overnight, which on February 24th will take the fight for healthcare reform to Washington DC. MoveON, DFA, Progressive Congress, SEIU and HCAN, with more organizations joining.

If you haven't already registered to make your voice heard on February 24th, please do so.

PLEASE TELL US IF YOU WILL JOIN THE 1,000,000 VOICES FOR HEALTHCARE VIRTUAL MARCH ON WASHINGTON

Repeat after me, please: Wednesday, February 24th, a day Washington will never forget.

And introducing. . .

THE GET THE JOB DONE BRIGADE

This Brigade is all of us. We all owe it our children, grandchildren, and to President Obama to participate on 2/24. History will not be kind to us if we sit this one out.  

Not even one of us can sit and do nothing on 2/24. This means we put aside our differences and we fight together and collectively for Health Care Reform.

And as we approach what I believe will be an historic day, February 24th, 2010, I want to tell you why we need everybody, not just the dependable worker bees.

There are over 200,000 people registered to use Daily Kos and rumor has it, many days close to 1,000,0000 people come here for news and information.  I'm one of the relatively old people (in more ways than I care to think about) on Daily Kos. When I first came, round about 2004, people said to me, what's Daily Kos?  I told them back then, that what you read on Daily Kos, might get noticed by the traditional media oh, maybe two weeks later.  I said to all these hopelessly uninformed people, if you really want to know what's happening--before it happens, do yourself a favor, and add Daily Kos to you Favorite or Bookmark list.

Why is this story even more relevant and important today?  Here's why. It's up to all of you to send a Tsunami of outrage to Washington on Wednesday, February 24th. If you do your job, you'll be the wind beneath the sails of Barack Obama, the man we elected to make healthcare for all Americans a reality.

President Obama needs us to help him get the job done.

We all have our own vision of what we believe healthcare reform must look like.  But we share one common goal--it must get done. The day it gets done, is the day, we start the work of improving it.

I'm one of the people profoundly impacted by relentless and uncontrolled insurer price gouging.  The story about egregious price gouging by the Murder By Spreadsheet insurer Anthem against policy holders in California is not news to those of us who have been dealing with this organized larceny against working Americans for many long years.  Health care reform is deeply personal for me, and this is why I man the barricades of this crusade day-in and day-out.

If we do our work on 2/24, the media will wake up and take note. They will know, the GET THE JOB DONE BRIGADE are bigger, stronger, meaner, smarter and more organized than those damn Tbaggers.

1,000,000 VOICES FOR HEALTHCARE REFORM: A VIRTUAL MARCH ON WASHINGTON

THE GET THE JOB DONE BRIGADE will do this via calls, faxes, Tweets, Facebook, emails, telegrams, balloon drops and carrier pigeons. Whatever. It. Takes.

Here's some food for thought, BRIGADERS.

Your message is your own, whatever moves you, but there is one global message: DO YOUR DAMN  JOB, PASS HEALTHCARE REFORM

Topline Message: It's time for Washington to stop stalling and pass real health care reform.

Sub-Message: Washington is playing politics as usual. Instead of fixing our broken healthcare system,they look the other way as people are dying. Americans simply cannot wait for comprehensive health care reform - it's time for Democrats to stand up to Big Insurance and their conservative allies, and get reform done right. During the Virtual March for Real Health Care Reform, we'll send a million messages to Congress to make sure they know that voters want them to get to work and get health care done.

Additional Points for Consideration:

The only real hurdles to passing reform are issues of political will, not of procedure.

Democrats still have large majorities in both the House and the Senate. If they have the political will to do so, Democrats can have the Senate pass a "fix" bill through reconciliation that includes changes negotiated with the House.

Passing comprehensive healthcare reform is both good politics and good policy.

Polling of the people who voted for Obama in 2008 and for Republican Scott Brown in 2010 shows that 82% of them support a public option: they believe the failure in DC is that Democrats are not aggressive enough in fighting for them.

Our nation’s health care crisis is not an incremental problem and cannot be fixed with incremental solutions.

We cannot ban denials for pre-existing conditions without mandates; we cannot institute mandates without providing subsidies; and we cannot provide subsidies without raising revenue. All the most popular elements of true meaningful reform are intertwined.

The Public option is gaining momentum.

Support in the Senate for using reconciliation to pass a public option is growing by the day. Currently 18 Senators have signed a letter in support of using reconciliation to pass a public option. In addition, whip counts show that there are the votes needed to pass a public option. In the House, more than 118 members have signed a similar letter.

All we ask, is that you take an action.

And if you want to help us continue this fight:

Donate To FixItAndPassIt!

The funds donated to the Progressive Congress Action Fund, a 501(C)4 not for profit,  will be used  to advocate on behalf of the progressive agenda, to advance progressive
legislation, and may include payments to individuals engaged in fund raising.

And if you want more frequent updates, please join the February 24th Facebook group.

Follow Us On Facebook

Originally posted to nyceve on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 07:09 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (251+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JekyllnHyde, SarahLee, roonie, miasmo, mattman, LynChi, eeff, MD in MA, dkistner, devtob, frisco, floridawave, Creosote, RubDMC, timmyc, conchita, understandinglife, highacidity, Xapulin, carolina stargazer, Dont Just Stand There, cosmic debris, Ignacio Magaloni, Larry Bailey, itskevin, kitebro, splashy, Chrisfs, wader, pat bunny, brainwave, gmb, potatohead, wdrath, noveocanes, kalmoth, RebeccaG, lcrp, Pohjola, Oaktown Girl, zerelda, ybruti, skywalker, tomjones, Schwede, snowbird42, murrayewv, Gowrie Gal, Julie Gulden, rapala, radarlady, NoMoreLies, titotitotito, Flint, Luetta, Gary Norton, Pam from Calif, nailmaker, ladybug53, cspivey, Burned, skyounkin, blue jersey mom, bruised toes, deepsouthdoug, JanL, Jim P, begone, gwilson, Nightprowlkitty, myboo, ej25, Themistoclea, cookseytalbott, Dvalkure, mrobinson, anastasia p, kck, blueoasis, NBBooks, triv33, tecampbell, StrayCat, philipmerrill, 4Freedom, gooderservice, imabluemerkin, Wildthumb, Phthalo, Timothy J, means are the ends, Dreaming of Better Days, AmySmith, orrg1, dotsright, Haningchadus14, Femlaw, Cottagerose, california keefer, NovatoBon, moosely2006, karmsy, edsbrooklyn, Mary Mike, yowsta, Matt Z, Jimdotz, Anglo, Unbozo, aliasalias, artisan, GMFORD, eashep, crose, Moderation, OIL GUY, pioneer111, LWelsch, Predictor, roycej, gregsullmich, Louisiana Fiddle Gal, zerone, elwior, CDH in Brooklyn, Archangel, beach babe in fl, hwmnbn, happymisanthropy, SottoVoce, mofembot, Gemina13, glendaw271, o the umanity, Abra Crabcakeya, cheforacle, dan667, GoracleFan, Abe Frohman, allie123, priceman, Quilldriver, duoseraphim, In her own Voice, revelwoodie, Diogenes2008, statsone, ZhenRen, Sun dog, SciMathGuy, Pris from LA, in2mixin, cybrestrike, litoralis, juca, lilsky, RustyCannon, more liberal than you, velvet blasphemy, delillo2000, dRefractor, allep10, Shelley99, dalfireplug, Little Flower, fernan47, reesespcs, prndl, jfromga, rebel ga, Cleopatra, susan in sc, cassandraX, Just Bob, littlezen, awcomeon, poorwriter, veracityus, PurpleMyst, GeeBee, on board 47, alguien, Radical def, RJP9999, puffmeister, Calidad, Lady Libertine, ItsSimpleSimon, Benintn, Texnance, Betty Pinson, alethea, Otteray Scribe, Dahankster, cocinero, soaglow, jl4851, newusername, DB55, no way lack of brain, ribofunk, graflex erik, gobears2000, Colorado is the Shiznit, meralda, I love OCD, StateofEuphoria, DoubleT, implicate order, scarysota63, Situational Lefty, cyeko, gmats, SallyKat, princesspat, thethinveil, thomask, theone718, FistJab, BarackStarObama, tardis10, Grandma Susie, Dixie Liberal, diceyproposition, corvaire, poliwrangler, Andrew F Cockburn, Wom Bat, blackwaterdog, rscopes, zenox, KingofSpades, kev9100, StepLeftStepForward, moonpal, Regina in a Sears Kit House, ParkRanger, too young to give up, nandssmith, New Horizon, Lambunao, Canaryinthecoalmine, twinshappen, Patric Juillet, ridemybike, matrix, SaintC, cwsmoke, pistolSO, We Won, Eric Nelson
  •  Eve, are the Senate offices in D.C open today? (4+ / 0-)

    I'm thinking how to phrase my Public Option action diary today and I want to know if we could still flood the D.C and local offices of the Senators with calls.   I know we still need to tell the White House to step up on the Public Option.

    Founding Member of Peanut Butter PAC- A People-Powered PAC

    by pistolSO on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 07:16:31 AM PST

  •  it's good to have some hope again (7+ / 0-)

    This time, we have to make that hope actually create changes in our broken health care system. We have to push, prod, plead--not simply rest assured that "our" representatives will do what we want. They really need to know that our continued support is contingent upon their doing right by the American people, not the big donors.

    It's good to see indications that if we push, they will respond. I am thrilled that at least one of my senators (Specter, no less) actually signed the PO-reconciliation letter.  

    Thanks, Eve, to you and slink for working with Dean's group, SEIU, HCA and others to organize this.

    My own health issues (spinal arthritis and assorted creaking joints) prevent me from physically marching, but I sure am looking forward to making those calls on the 24th. Thank you and everyone involved for giving me an opportunity to participate in this "virtual march."

    :)

  •  NYCEVE... (12+ / 0-)

    count me in!  If there was any time to 'YELL LOUDER', THIS is the time!

    What Would Jesus Do? Obviously get Jack Bauer to torture someone!

    by Dahankster on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 08:33:26 AM PST

  •  Sorry (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gmb, bluicebank

    You lost me with your title inferring Obama is with the American people on hcr. Nor do we all want healthcare reform regardless of which plan it is.

    Don't let the awful be the enemy of the horrifically bad.

    by virtual0 on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 08:47:58 AM PST

  •  tipped and recced (5+ / 0-)

    Join Our FixItAndPassIt! Project I work with Progressive Congress Action Fund, a 501(c)4.

    by slinkerwink on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 08:51:46 AM PST

  •  I'll call for - P/O or nothing. nt (8+ / 0-)
    •  ronlib, that's good! (8+ / 0-)

      Demand a PO, but we want this to be as inclusive as possible with the global meesage to be:

      Do your damn job and pass healthcare

      There will be myriad sub messages, which is great.

      •  I'm not going to tell them to "do their damn job" (18+ / 0-)

        I'm going to ask them to fix the bill and pass it, using the reconciliation for fixes, and to include a public option because that's what people want, and that's what is going to give them the best chance of avoiding electoral disaster.

      •  how can you say (25+ / 0-)

        "PO or nothing" is a good message to send congress right now?  i thought the bottom line was HCR must pass?

        if this bill dies, so dies a $900 billion spending authorization for health care that will not get out of the senate again anytime soon.

        People are upset Obama hasn't solved all the problems yet. C'mon, he's only been in office one year...the man went to Harvard, not Hogwarts. - Wanda Sykes

        by Cedwyn on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 09:30:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The public option died months ago.. (20+ / 0-)

          If only 19 senators will vote yes, I see about zero chance of it passing. At this point it is nothing but a distraction that can only backfire. I think this sudden public option or nothing dogma is all about raising money and not about the uninsured.

          "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" - Dorothy Day

          by joedemocrat on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 09:33:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If this FDL group's "activism" (11+ / 0-)

            in any way impede's my loved ones from getting the insurance they need, I will donate as much as I  comfortably am able - to OFA.

          •  THERE IT IS!! Claim of self serving intent (5+ / 0-)
            that isn't substantiated, and non-productive.

            IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

            by potatohead on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 11:46:31 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  "Money goes to pay our salaries" (7+ / 0-)

              Seems pretty self-serving.

              Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

              by CatM on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:00:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  the exact quote is (8+ / 0-)

                The funds donated to the Progressive Congress Action Fund, a 501(C)4 not for profit, will be used to advocate on behalf of the progressive agenda, to advance progressive legislation, and may include payments to individuals engaged in fund raising.

                People are upset Obama hasn't solved all the problems yet. C'mon, he's only been in office one year...the man went to Harvard, not Hogwarts. - Wanda Sykes

                by Cedwyn on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:13:47 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  And that is a profit how? (8+ / 0-)

                  A lot of advocacy is being done, and being done for good reasons.

                  Getting some dollars for that isn't inappropriate at all.

                  We've all got to work, eat, live.  With a huge effort, the personal cost can be quite high, and or the advocacy might not happen with the potency it could, if money is a problem.

                  That's why the funds are being raised and used.

                  We do it because we value that advocacy effort, and relieving some personal life burdens, like eating, rent, etc... empowers that advocate to be most effective.

                  Nobody is getting new cars, bling, or toys out of this, and that's the implication of the comment.

                  I don't think it's ok to imply that without some substantial supporting information, and doing so is non-productive, not adding value to this discussion as a whole.

                  It needs to cost a little to make that kind of implication, and that's what the tag was for.  The PO opinion expressed is ok, and I defend the commenter on expressing that opinion.  That's not the issue.

                  Implying that people are in on the PO for personal gain is BS, and that's all I'm going to say on it, because this too is not productive.

                  IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

                  by potatohead on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:19:33 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  But that's the problem isn't it? (9+ / 0-)

                    That is the whole problem with "sponsored" bloggers at Daily Kos. One can never really tell what's real and what's not. For example, before slinkerwink became a paid blogger, she emphatically stated she was against single-payer healthcare--something I strongly favor--and instead felt that a public option was the right way to go.

                    The first go-around when she was hired, she was hired by a very progressive group where most people supported single payer, and suddenly her diaries started talking about how it was too bad we couldn't get single payer but this was the next best thing--a direct contradiction.

                    Many of the headlines offered were misleading. Much of the information was false or twisted in such a way to advocate the employer's position du jour and was not fact-based or credible.

                    It probably isn't productive to rehash old discussions, but my point is that when people are paid to represent a certain position, you really cannot rely on the truthfulness or accuracy of what they are saying and you have no alternative but to question motivations. That is just the way the world works.

                    When someone isn't being paid but is volunteering their time and effort for a cause, you can be fairly certain that's what they believe in and that they're not feeding you a line of bull because if they said anything else, they might lose their job.

                    And I am not saying that this is what Eve or slinkerwink or doing now but only that from a general perspective, it creates an atmosphere of distrust and does seem self-serving.

                    For one thing, it is a very strange use of a charitable organization's resources to spend so much effort on a blog where fewer than 500 people typically recommend or respond to one of the posts. If I were an organization interested in healthcare reform, I would not be wanting my employees to devote a lot of time to what are somewhat small efforts and instead would try to work on a much grander scale. I would also not want my people responding snarkily or rudely to people, like when Eve suggested Deaniac wanted millions of people to just die because he didn't agree with her.

                    This is not what advocates do.

                    Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

                    by CatM on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:31:11 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I walk this world giving people the benefit (9+ / 0-)

                      of the doubt.

                      Mistakes happen.  Given how this has unfolded, and the very real conversation I've seen and had surrounding this issue makes a much stronger case for the intent being to get a good resolution to a tough issue.

                      The case for exploitation for personal gain here is WEAK, particularly given the bad arrangement stopped.

                      Where complex dynamics are in play, it's bad form to render that kind of judgement without backing it with more than some implications.

                      And you get that same consideration too.  You are here working with us now, and we are all wanting the same thing.  How do I know you are not playing it up for your own gain in stature here?

                      I don't, and so it's better to focus on the issues, build community, and get shit done, not diminish others without due cause.

                      IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

                      by potatohead on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:35:29 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  We don't want the same thing (6+ / 0-)

                        I want the house to pass the senate option. I am only in favor of reconciliation if there is no other alternative. But if I were going to encourage people to do any sort of push, it would be to push the House to pass the senate bill as is.

                        I think reconciliation is a bad way to go with this in the long run.

                        As to how do you know you are not playing it up for my own gain in stature here, I could not give a rat's ass about my "stature" at a blog on the Internet.

                        I post because I like to exchange ideas with people and learn from them and I find that a lot of people at Daily Kos do good work and provide good information and talk about things that matter to me.

                        I do not care one bit about being popular. I would think that would have been obvious to you by now. My popularity at Daily Kos in no way feeds how I measure my own success in life.

                        If it did, I'd write diaries every day on push-button issues and Tweet them. I don't.  

                        Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

                        by CatM on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:42:55 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Yeah, I get that. (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          slinkerwink, CatM, kirbybruno, scarysota63

                          And I respect it too.

                          I know we don't agree, but we do have some common ground, and are wanting to work together.  This is good.

                          I know you don't care about your stature either.  Personally, I respect you for that as well.  It's easier to write just and true from the heart when you are in that mode.

                          My only point was to highlight the dynamics of how this works, in a way you might relate to.  

                          IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

                          by potatohead on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:45:25 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I just wanted to show you (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            vcmvo2, indubitably

                            that this is exactly what I mean:

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            In response to someone who argues that the PO will not be in the bill and why she thinks this, the "advocate" says:

                            Hey jessica, this is now about the 50th (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:ctsteve, Mighty Ike
                            you've repeated this claim.

                            Prove it or be quiet.

                            You can follow me on Twitter

                            by nyceve on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:23:31 PM PST

                            [ Parent | Reply to This | Recommend

                            What kind of advocacy is that? How does that win people over to your side or convince them of the correctness of the course you are trying to steer?

                            I work with advocates ALL the time. I have never met an advocate who, while representing his or her organization and trying to solicit support, does not behave with the utmost respect to people, even when those people are sometimes unpleasant.

                            Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

                            by CatM on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:53:21 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  I am recommending you (5+ / 0-)

                        because I appreciate that you are disagreeing reasonably. I have no problem with the fact that we may not fully agree on an issue. That alone does not give me any reason to dislike you or think ill of you.

                        Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

                        by CatM on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:59:04 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh, and that's why we have disclosure. (6+ / 0-)

                      Here's the thing on that.

                      When we have people being paid, the question of motive is always there.

                      Best form is to disclose, so that people know to think about that and be critical.

                      They have disclosed in good form, and so we know some of their income is compensation for advocacy work.

                      Generally speaking, good disclosure helps to keep people honest, because the disclosure encourages critical evaluation.

                      When disclosure is NOT done, and they are getting paid, that's bad ju-ju, and almost always a problem.

                      To be extremely clear, I personally have not seen self-serving intent.  I've seen some gaffes, mistakes, and corrections made, and that's all good.

                      If somebody is going to imply otherwise, they need to back it at a level that rings to be critically true, or it's negative, not productive, and potentially costly to somebody just trying to do the issue justice.

                      And I got your note on Asperger's on an old comment.  Our conversation here now is as solid as any, and that's consideration I'm giving you, because you gave it to me when I didn't understand your motive in the past.

                      I only am asking the commenter to reconsider that kind of implication without solid support for it.

                      IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

                      by potatohead on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:43:42 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I agree (3+ / 0-)

                        that to make a direct accusation that this is the case, one should have some evidence. I think it's reasonable to speculate and question but one cannot say for sure.

                        You do not have to treat me differently because I have Asperger's. Just understand that sometimes I might misinterpret something you say or not understand something if it is written ambiguously or using metaphorical or sarcastic type speech.

                        But you are free to get just as annoyed or angry at me as you would at anyone who you feel is being unpleasant. I fully acknowledge that I am sometimes rude in my bluntness. Other times, I just come across that way.

                        I think it would be better if people were getting paid to advocate for an issue that they not use the site to raise money but just to do the advocacy and use their own tools (e-mail, their own Website, their own social network groups) to try to raise money from people.

                        Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

                        by CatM on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:57:08 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I am not treating you differently. (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          slinkerwink, CatM, conchita, elwior

                          What I am doing is giving you the consideration I would expect in like kind.

                          My point being that it's not very productive to hold meta from the past for so long.  People change, grow, make mistakes, and we can only move forward, not go back.

                          Your opinion on paid advocacy is noted.  We don't agree, but I hear you on that, and believe your concern is worthy.  Perhaps you can hear mine and understand that negative personal implications like that really need some solid backing, or they are simply not productive.

                          That's my only intent here.  We can raise the bar, disagree without being disagreeable.

                          IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

                          by potatohead on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 01:07:46 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I didn't think (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            indubitably

                            you were treating me differently. I am sorry if that is what it sounded like I meant.

                            I simply wanted you to know that I don't want you to feel like you have to treat me differently.

                            Sometimes people on here are arguing with me and when I explain I don't understand something because I have Asperger's, they start treating me differently as though having Asperger's justifies my being argumentative or rude.  

                            I was trying to reassure you that if you do take issue with things I say, I am not going to play the Asperger's card because you disagree with me.

                            I genearlly explain that I have Asperger's so that someone can understand why I might misunderstand something that is presented in a less than literal fashion and not repeatedly call me "obtuse," for example.

                            I am pretty sure that not all instances of my rudeness are because I have Asperger's. There are times when I am inadvertently rude, but there are definitely times when I mean to be rude.

                            I assure you there was nothing hidden in what I was saying to suggest you had any kind of intent.

                            Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

                            by CatM on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 01:44:03 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  :) (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            CatM, elwior

                            No worries.

                            Can't wait for next week.  I've got some holes in my appointment schedule, just for calling.  

                            IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

                            by potatohead on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 02:12:06 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I wish I had holes (0+ / 0-)

                            in my appointment schedule.

                            Any week. I barely have holes in my weekends.

                            Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

                            by CatM on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 02:24:25 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yeah. Work really comes at a premium (0+ / 0-)

                            right now.

                            Employers market for sure.  With me, I've got some time-shift that I can use.  This is a good cause, so I'm going for it.

                            IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

                            by potatohead on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 02:31:03 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  Too narrowly defined. (5+ / 0-)

                In this case your defintion of self serving is not appropriate.

                For example, Obama works for us and advocates for many of our causes and we pay his salary but we wouldn't call him self serving would we?

                If he were to help raise money by attending an event that had a purpose of fund raising for Democrats and the Democratic agenda, we wouldn't call him self serving would we?

                Move Your Money The truth is too big to fail. Justice is too big to fail. Peace is too big to fail.

                by Burned on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:21:28 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I have nothing to say to you (7+ / 0-)

                  after the way you ridiculed me for having Asperger's. So you can save yourself some time and not bother responding to anything I say on here. I am not interested in your abuse.

                  Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

                  by CatM on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:22:47 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  CatM (5+ / 0-)

                    If you're going to make a claim like that you need to
                    link to it and let people judge for themselves. I won't interfere with whatever slant you choose to put on it so long as you link to the whole conversation.

                    I'm certainly fine with not responding to anything you post here on out if that's your wish.

                    Move Your Money The truth is too big to fail. Justice is too big to fail. Peace is too big to fail.

                    by Burned on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:32:54 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  They can look at your past comments (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      yella dawg, indubitably, soothsayer99

                      and decide for themselves.

                      Since it happened just recently, I certainly haven't forgotten and you have yet to apologize.

                      Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

                      by CatM on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:43:56 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  They can look at yours, too (4+ / 0-)

                        http://www.dailykos.com/...

                        You were asked why you have such a strongly negative response to people who hold a certain set of beliefs:

                        Then what explains the intense interest and overwhelming negative response from a certain contingent here to this type of diary? Could it mean then that response is personality based and personal? Could it mean that all that negative energy expended is shallow and wasteful?

                        Just imagine that same amount of energy redirected in a constructive positive manner instead. Imagine it.
                        ~ Cosmic Debris

                        To which you replied:

                        I like Daily Kos
                        I hate how it's been hijacked.
                        ~ Catm

                        You are personally opposed to people who share the beliefs that I do, and describe our diaries and expositions of those beliefs as a 'hijack'. Its not about disagreeing with ideas, to you - as you say, its essentially personal.

                        I am personally opposed to the lack of realism being expressed in this diary and that movement.
                        ~ Catm

                        "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                        by efraker on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 04:24:11 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You don't even know what you're talking about (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          indubitably

                          Burned repeatedly called me "Obtuse" when I did not understand the unclear meaning of what he/she was writing. I explained that I was sorry I misunderstood what he/she wrote because I had Asperger's.

                          Instead of simply explaining what was meant, the person later took to calling me obtuse again and then insulted me by saying I was being deliberately obtuse.

                          As for your wholly nonsequitor remarks, I did not say I'm "personally opposed" to people. I said I was "personally opposed" to the philosophy of the movement, which I think includes a lack of realism.

                          I also did not give you a very lengthy reply because I didn't think it was worth debating with you, which is why I simply said I hate how Kos has been hijacked.

                          That does not mean it's "personal."

                          It means I hate how Kos has been hijacked by crappy diaries with misleading headlines and poor facts that push a certain nonrealistic viewpoint ad nauseum and use Twitter to accumulate recs quickly and thus get on the Rec list and dominate it.

                          I argue those positions and I argue against that behavior.

                          I am pretty sure that even when arguing with those people, I have never given HR for simple disagreements, for example, or called people names. I have never used the word "shill" for example. I might describe a position as stupid but I generally do not describe a person as stupid. I try hard not to, at any rate.

                          So I have no idea why you think this somehow demonstrates that Burned did not mock me for having Asperger's by repeatedly calling me obtuse and suggesting I was "deliberately" obtuse.

                          Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

                          by CatM on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 07:59:32 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  two wrongs don't make a right (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            slinkerwink, churchylafemme, elwior

                            So I have no idea why you think this somehow demonstrates that Burned did not mock me for having Asperger's by repeatedly calling me obtuse and suggesting I was "deliberately" obtuse.

                            I did not imply or state that the way you treat others negates their treatment of you. In short, my opinion is that people who treat others politely are more likely to be treated politely in kind.

                            As to whether or not this is 'personal' for you; I respect that you're saying its not, yet ultimately, every one will arrive at their own conclusion.

                            "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                            by efraker on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 09:07:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There is a difference (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            indubitably

                            between treating someone with kindness and outright mocking them for their disability after you have been made aware of that disability.

                            Her use of the word "obtuse" related directly to my inability to figure out what she was trying to say because the literal interpretation of her words did not mean what she thought it did.

                            Then, she suggested I leave the site because I didn't understand her.

                            The fact that you can defend that is appalling.

                            I've seen slinkerwink have a fit because someone suggested she call her legislators, which she claimed was a deliberate insult because of her hearing impairment.

                            Of course, slinkerwink has talked about calling people herself before, as many hearing impaired people do use phone systems, so I am sure the poster was not making fun of slinkerwink's hearing impairment but rather just assuming she makes calls.

                            While my disability is not as obvious on the outside, I think that when you tell someone you are sorry you misunderstood them and explain that you have a disability that causes you to interpret things literally, the correct response is not to say the equivalent of bullshit and then continue to call them obtuse and say they are being deliberately obtuse.

                            I have children with Asperger's, and I certainly hope nobody treats my children that way.

                            The fact that slinkerwink, of all people, who frequently points out that she has a disability, would uprate your comment defending attacking someone for a disability as somehow excusable, is really shocking.

                            So if I had dyslexia, would it then be okay to make fun of me for typos as long as the person making fun of me didn't think I was a pleasant person?

                            Because I have to tell you, I don't find slinkerwink to be a pleasant person. I, and several other people, do not think she is very nice to people who disagree with her and she certainly takes potshots at people.

                            And I would never ever make some sort of criticism about her related directly to her hearing impairment. And I think if I did, you would not be here defending me.

                            It is one thing to take apart people's arguments. It is quite another to insult them for manifesting the disabling aspects of their condition.

                            Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

                            by CatM on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 07:00:39 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  why aren't you taking me literally? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            slinkerwink

                            two wrongs don't make a right
                            ~ me

                            There is a difference between treating someone with kindness and outright mocking them for their disability after you have been made aware of that disability.
                            ~ CatM

                            And before you claim that isn't what you were saying, then to what does "two wrongs don't make a right" mean?
                            ~ CatM

                            Two wrongs don't make a right means just that, literally.

                            1# two wrongs - two things that are wrong
                            2# don't make a - negation the consequent
                            3# right - thing that is right

                            Literally, doing things that are wrong cannot result in things that are right.

                            It is contrary to the literal meaning of what I said, to read 'two wrongs don't make a right' and conclude that I am claiming there is not "a difference between treating someone with kindness and outright mocking them for their disability after you have been made aware of that disability."

                            "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                            by efraker on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 08:48:07 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  A question (0+ / 0-)

                            Were slinkerwink or nyceve or TomP or potatohead or Burned disclosing they have Asperger's, would you dare post this? Or would you HR this comment if, for example, CatM posted it?

                            Damn you and your faint praise!

                            by indubitably on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 09:32:09 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, I don't HR (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't, haven't, and wouldn't HR, ever. I believe wholeheartedly in the abstract principle of free speech (not the amendment, which doesn't apply here), especially for speech I disagree with. Further, I think that if a community member's views are objectionable, they should be heard by more members of a community, not less. HR'ing an objectionable comment away saves the comment from scrutiny.

                            A question back, if you don't mind; I feel like you're attempting to imply something. Is it that you believe that asking for my statement 'two wrongs don't make a right' to be interpreted literally is HRable, or is it that you think I am a knee-jerk partisan for the people you listed, who would HR for them at the drop of a hat?

                            "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                            by efraker on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 09:38:55 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This one I understand (0+ / 0-)

                            Reading this literally, indubitably is asking you if one of your friends disclosed that they have a disorder such as Asperger's and I made a comment like yours to them, would you think that response was appropriate or would you think I was being offensive?

                            Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

                            by CatM on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 01:38:39 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I would ask for clarification (0+ / 0-)

                            I would ask to confirm what was meant, in case it was unclear. I try not to make assumptions, because I believe stridently that we must always engage in good faith.

                            Good faith means giving people the benefit of the doubt. A presumption that those one is engaging with are neither idiots or scoundrels, but fallible human beings, like oneself. Further, I think that good faith is essential to the maintenance of any society, big or small.

                            "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                            by efraker on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 02:58:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sure (0+ / 0-)

                            And your good faith is why even when I tell you it was not personal, you follow me to other threads unrelated and try to badger me about the issue and insist on pressing your viewpoint.

                            Really got to admire that "good faith" stuff.

                            Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

                            by CatM on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 05:16:01 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  your chronology is backwards (0+ / 0-)

                            When I asked you if it was personal, you said "Yes, I take it personally...".

                            Now, when I cited it again, you say its not.

                            Your chronology is backwards; luckily, everyone can see that.

                            "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                            by efraker on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 01:16:00 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Luckily they can see that you are wrong (0+ / 0-)

                            I did not say "Yes, I take it personally..."

                            I never said that. I said:

                            "I am personally opposed to the lack of realism being expressed in this diary and that movement."

                            Obviously "I" and "personally" are redundant, since if I'm the one opposed to it, then I am obviously "personally" opposed, but we don't all write as concisely as possible on a blog.

                            They are not the same phrase. "I take it personally" means I take something to heart; it's something that bothers me on a personal level. It conveys someone saying they are having an emotion about something.

                            "I am personally opposed" means that I, myself, am opposed for my own reasons--which, in this case, are not emotional.

                            So yes, luckily everyone can see that you misrepresented what was said entirely.

                            Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

                            by CatM on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 03:00:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  so your 'yes' meant 'no'? (0+ / 0-)

                            I said:

                            ah, so its personal (nt) (4+ / 0-)

                            You replied:

                            Yes (1+ / 0-)
                            I am personally opposed to the lack of realism being expressed in this diary and that movement.

                            Your 'yes' to my statement actually meant 'no', then?

                            "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                            by efraker on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 03:28:14 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My yes referred (0+ / 0-)

                            to the pun I was making on "personally."

                            I was using the word "personally" and then I used it in a sentence in a meaning wholly different from the question you were asking. So, in that regard, it was "personal."

                            It is called word play.

                            Try it. It's very fun.

                            Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

                            by CatM on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 05:40:37 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I did take you literally (0+ / 0-)

                            And my argument stands. There should be no relationship between how someone acts and someone treating them badly for a disability.

                            If you were sincere, then why are you only jumping in on one of these "wrongs"?

                            I don't see your post to Burned telling her how terrible and "wrong" what she did was.

                            So I think your actions, in this case, speak louder than your words.

                            Not to mention, you didn't bother to say what those two wrongs were, and I had no idea what you meant at the time by that phrase so I ignored it.

                            This is what I mean by reading things very literally. Unless you tell me what those two wrongs are, I cannot just infer from what you've written what you imagine them to be.

                            So you may think you were being literal, but you also required inference. I had to know what was in your mind to know what you meant by "two wrongs."

                            Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

                            by CatM on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 01:35:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  nothing 'requires' inference (0+ / 0-)

                            I wasn't criticizing anyone's comments. My first post in this thread is available for anyone to see what I said. I responded to your comment to Burned that "They can look at your past comments and decide for themselves" with a link to a comment of yours that I found informative.

                            In case that's unclear, I'll say it again: I wasn't jumping in on either of these 'wrongs', I was stating that CatM's statements are a matter of record as well as Burned's.

                            If you want my opinion, I don't think either of you should be proud of everything you've said - nor most of us lately, sadly.

                            There should be no relationship between how someone acts and someone treating them badly for a disability.

                            I agree, and have never and would never disagree.

                            In fact, I wish we could simplify that statement to: 'We shouldn't treat each other badly'.

                            "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                            by efraker on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 02:54:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  to be clear (0+ / 0-)

                            If you want my opinion, I don't think either of you should be proud of everything you've said - nor most of us lately, sadly.

                            To be clear, I include myself in this, as well.

                            "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                            by efraker on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 03:36:42 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Actually it does require inference (0+ / 0-)

                            You said "two wrongs don't make a right," and you did not spell out what those two wrongs were in that statement or that comment.

                            Would you like to do what Burned did now and claim I am being "deliberately obtuse"? Or maybe suggest that I'm too disabled to participate at Daily Kos and should leave?

                            Look, for you to jump in and come after me and ignore what Burn said about my Asperger's is like a bully picking on a kid and instead of confronting the bully, you join in and go after the person being picked on at the time and say, "Well you know, you sort of had it coming to you based on how you act sometimes."

                            Your later denials that it was at all deserved are fully contradicted by your intense need to come and point that out.

                            They should have nothing to do with one another, and you are the one that linked them.

                            Your "two wrongs don't make a right" was just a nice way to back out of your faux pas.

                            Then, you insinuate in your subsequent posts that I'm not "being true" to my Asperger nature because I didn't read you literally. I explain that your statement required inference. You disagree.

                            Okay, well maybe next time my kids need help with homework because something requires inference, you can come over and explain to them how they're wrong and the ambiguous statement really does contain all the information they need to answer the question.

                            I'm sorry but "two wrongs don't make a right" requires me to figure out what you consider the two wrongs in this case, which you later did. That's called inference.

                            You have no idea what Asperger's is like, do you? If I tell one of my son's that something is behind them on the counter, if it is not immediately behind them--like behind their back--they cannot find it.

                            If you are reading a book that has about 3 girls in it, and at the end of a chapter that has only one girl in it, you say, "Why did the girl smile?" you get "Which girl?" And if the story doesn't say "Girl X smiled because..." you can forget about getting an answer.

                            If you ask them to tell you what a book was about, you will get an almost word for word recitation of the book because they are not capable of distilling a story down to its essence--its finer points. Fortunately, because I have unusual reading skills (that's my "Aspie" skill), I have less trouble doing this. In general, however, people with Asperger's have trouble figuring out what are the important details and what can be left out.

                            You know, you just should have left it alone. If you wanted to come after me and make sure all of Kos knew that I was a rude person but you truly did not think what Burned did was appropriate, then you should have brought it up again somewhere else. Maybe you should have meta diaried it.

                            Or maybe, you should have sent an e-mail to me privately if you were truly concerned about me as opposed to just poking a stick at me while everyone is watching so you can get some nice rec's from your good pal slinkerwink who loves to rec pretty much anything that takes a jab at me--because she's just Sooooooooooooooooo nice.

                            I almost always try to focus on the content of what someone is saying. I don't always succeed, but I try. Or sometimes I do talk about their motivation for providing the content.

                            I really don't understand all you people who just jump into threads and instead of going after the content, decide to make them wholly about the person.

                            It's perfectly fair to take issue with my thoughts about slinkerwink's posts and to ask me to justify those comments. But to bring up my personality like that's somehow relevant to what Burned said...pretty NT of you.

                            By the way, arguing with an Aspie about nonfactual things is a waste of time. I'm not going to come to see your point about something that deals with emotion. I cannot. Especially when I don't even know who you are. I can't even see someone's point about emotional things when I work with them every day.

                            So, in the future, you would be much better off arguing with me about factual things.

                            Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

                            by CatM on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 05:30:56 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  another very illuminating CatM quote (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Nightprowlkitty

                            Look, for you to jump in and come after me and ignore what Burn said about my Asperger's is like a bully picking on a kid and instead of confronting the bully, you join in and go after the person being picked on at the time and say, "Well you know, you sort of had it coming to you based on how you act sometimes."

                            That you see yourself as an innocent person being bullied is revealing. At best, its two kids shoving each other.

                            "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                            by efraker on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 01:26:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wow (0+ / 0-)

                            You see?

                            You just proved that you lied about the whole "two wrongs don't make a right" argument.

                            No, it is not two kids shoving each other.

                            Did you even read the exchange?

                            I said something NOT to Burned that apparently she did not like. I misunderstood her reply; it wasn't very clear to me. She commented that I misunderstood. I replied, politely, that I had Asperger's and took things literally sometimes, and I apologized.

                            Then she proceeded to go off on me repeatedly for being obtuse.

                            Yes, that is bullying someone for having a disability.

                            Just wow. I can't even believe you would somehow equate that to me poking a stick at someone and them poking it back.

                            You see, one is me writing not about Burned but about an issue and my thoughts about an issue. Apparently, I used a phrase to describe people who parrot FDL positions that Burned did not like, though I was not talking about Burned in my comment. I think it was "minions."

                            Minions means a subordinate person to someone in power--kind of like in casual speech I might describe myself as a "minion" of my employer.

                            At any rate, then she attacked me personally AFTER I said I had Asperger's.

                            So no, it's not two kids shoving each other. It's like one kid discussing something with a friend when  another kid butts in and mocks the kid speaking, who perhaps has a stutter. The kid with the stutter (that is a metaphor for me with Asperger's) says, "I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean and I apologize for not speaking more clearly but I have a stutter."

                            And then the mean kid with the stick (Burned) laughs and says, "Your speech is ridiculous. Can't you speak any better than that?" To which the other kid says no and then the mean kid makes fun of them again and says, "You're just faking it. And if you're not faking it and that's really how you talk, then maybe you just shouldn't speak anymore."

                            But I guess that's ok to you. That's just two kids having a shoving match.

                            I guess you just feel the need to defend your pal at all costs and have no interest in recognizing that there is a difference. I can assure you that if you were the one being mocked for having a disability, you WOULD know the difference.

                            Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

                            by CatM on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 02:46:27 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  citation necessary (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Burned, Nightprowlkitty

                            I said something NOT to Burned that apparently she did not like. I misunderstood her reply; it wasn't very clear to me. She commented that I misunderstood. I replied, politely, that I had Asperger's and took things literally sometimes, and I apologized.

                            I understand that this is the way you, as a person directly involved is reporting what happened. I wonder why you don't provide a link though - nor did you provide a link when Burned asked you too. It makes one wonder - do you not want people to read what was actually written?

                            At any rate, then she attacked me personally AFTER I said I had Asperger's.

                            Do you think that individuals who have Asperger's should be out-of-bounds for personal criticism? This seems bizarre considering you frequently engage in personal criticism of people you don't know at all, who may in fact have Asperger's.

                            "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                            by efraker on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 03:39:16 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The thread of which CatM speaks repeatedly. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Nightprowlkitty

                            It starts here with CatM discussing Jane Hamsher and her "minions."

                            I asked a question here:
                            Question

                            And it goes on from there.

                            I promised I wouldn't interfere with CatM's slant on it if the whole thread was posted. But it wasn't.
                            So I'm claiming not guilty. :) The sequence of events is important as is the original derailment where CatM mistakes her reply field for someone else's.

                            You can decide for yourself if you're at all interested. I wouldn't be. It's a long heavily worded string of nonsense ending in a gang up on my abilities as a special ed teacher.

                            Move Your Money The truth is too big to fail. Justice is too big to fail. Peace is too big to fail.

                            by Burned on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 04:24:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh god (0+ / 0-)

                            You are a special ed teacher?

                            I feel so very sorry for those children. That is seriously a very sad thing to hear.

                            Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

                            by CatM on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 05:43:03 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Dumb (0+ / 0-)

                            This is just a dumb argument.

                            My 18-year-old has better reasoning skills than you appear to possess. Of course, he's very intelligent and I'm not convinced that you are.

                            This is like arguing with someone who thinks the Twilight Series is brilliant writing.

                            I did not feel like providing a link. Why should I? Go look yourself if you want to find it. I wasn't talking to you to begin with. You jumped in on a conversation that had nothing to do with you.

                            And no, I don't think individuals with Asperger's should be "out of bounds" for personal criticism.

                            I do, however, think that there is a difference between criticizing someone for the logic of the point they are making as opposed to criticizing them for misinterpreting your poorly written words.

                            Considering how many people recced the reply I made to Burned when I misunderstood her poorly written whine, it's pretty apparent that I'm not the only one who misread it.

                            Are you 12? I'm really starting to wonder. You do not seem to possess a very adult sense of reason. I think your logic needs some seasoning or something. Maybe you need to read more. I'm not sure what it is, but it just smacks of someone who doesn't have a very deep understanding of words.

                            Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

                            by CatM on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 05:49:04 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  PS I don't want your opinion, frankly. *nt* (0+ / 0-)

                            Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

                            by CatM on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 05:31:16 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's obvious (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Nightprowlkitty

                            Its obvious that you're not interested in the opinions of those who disagree with you. Its evident in your unrestrained hostility.

                            "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                            by efraker on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 01:27:32 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's not unrestrained hostility (0+ / 0-)

                            It's just a low tolerance for what I see as your ignorance and the fact that I don't know you and from what I can tell of how you are on Daily Kos, if I did know you, I don't think I would like you or find you all that interesting.

                            I find you rather simplistic in your ability to understand things, to be honest. Your assessment of this situation does not match the reality of the situation.

                            And that's another thing people with Asperger's are always accused of--being hostile.

                            If I were exhibiting unrestrained hostility, I'd be saying things like "FU" and "You are an idiot."

                            The fact that I'm not makes it pretty clear that if I have hostility, I'm doing a good job of restraining it.

                            I have heard your opinion. I've tried to explain to you that you are grossly misrepresenting the situation and misunderstanding it, and clearly you are the one not interested in anything other than your perspective. Maybe you have Asperger's, too?

                            I can assure you that my unrestrained hostility is much more exciting than "I don't want your opinion, frankly."

                            Why do you think I should care about your opinion? Because you are a human being that lives on the planet? Are you my friend? My coworker? A relative? Are we dating?

                            I'm pretty sure the answer to all of those is no. So I have no reason to care about your opinion. I enjoy debating and I, like most Aspies, have an innate distaste for unfairness like that which you exhibited, so if you wanted to draw me into a conversation, certainly being unfair is one way to do it.

                            But now I've decided you're just not capable, apparently, of high-level thinking and instead process information at a very simplistic, illogical plane. And that is boring.

                            Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

                            by CatM on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 02:55:08 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  plenty of your hostility across this website (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Nightprowlkitty

                            No - the way you're upbraiding me is benign relative to the way you behave to the others who share my political opinions. Relatively speaking, you're being downright neighborly at the moment.

                            "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                            by efraker on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 03:33:47 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  La la la la la la la la la (0+ / 0-)

                            Let's see how many ways Efraker can try to convince everyone that I am a mean nasty person.

                            Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

                            by CatM on Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 05:41:55 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And before you claim (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            indubitably

                            that isn't what you were saying, then to what does "two wrongs don't make a right" mean?

                            By the way, I am just really insulted at your whole defense of this, and I am taking that personally.

                            "People [with disabilities] who treat others politely are more likely to be treated in kind. People [with disabilities] who do not treat others politely are more likely to get made fun of for their disabilities."

                            Okay, thank you for explaining that. I think it says a lot more about the person making fun of the person with the impairment than the impaired person.

                            I really do not care what you think is personal for me and what you do not think is personal. To be honest, I do not even care about you as a person. You're just some name on the Internet of someone who apparently thinks it's quite all right to make fun of people for having Asperger's syndrome and would rather spend your time taking issue with me and trying to make me justify myself with you than taking issue with someone who thinks it's okay to go around making fun of people who have a condition that, among MANY OTHER THINGS, makes it difficult to interpret less than clear language.

                            Would you like to know what else it makes it hard to do?

                            some of the more common characteristics include:

                            Average or above average intelligence

                            Inability to think in abstract ways

                            Difficulties in empathising with others

                            Problems with understanding another person's point of view

                            Hampered conversational ability

                            Problems with controlling feelings such as anger,
                            depression and anxiety

                            Adherence to routines and schedules, and stress if expected routine is disrupted

                            Inability to manage appropriate social conduct

                            Specialised fields of interest or hobbies.

                            A person with Asperger syndrome may have trouble understanding the emotions of other people, and the subtle messages that are sent by facial expression, eye contact and body language are often missed. Because of this, a person with Asperger syndrome might be seen as egotistical, selfish or uncaring. These are unfair labels, because the affected person is neurologically unable to understand other people's emotional states. They are usually shocked, upset and remorseful when told their actions were hurtful or inappropriate.

                            Here is a link for you:

                            http://www.medscape.com/...

                            Like many people with Asperger's, I also have ADHD. Fortunately, there is medication for that, which helps.

                            The thing I find about neurotypical people such as yourself is that you have a tendency to read way too much into what other people say.

                            When I take things personally, I have no problem saying I take things personally. I rarely feel the need to to "beat around the bush" or speak in any manner other than direct.

                            All these things about what I "really mean" (that you think is somehow different from what I say I mean) are a result of the way you look at things not me. Neurotypical people imbue their words with all sorts of layers and hidden meaning. People with Asperger's rarely do.

                            It's why I am lousy at writing fiction.

                            Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

                            by CatM on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 07:25:36 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  CatM, there is a difference between self-serving (8+ / 0-)

                and compensation for services.

                Self-serving is raising funds and getting a new car, or something like that where the person actually gains net personal wealth or stature.

                In this case, the funds are enabling and empowering the advocate to be most effective, not profit.

                This stuff takes time and has a personal cost.  Those costs are food, rent, basic life things.  If we value an advocate enough to want to fund them, that's compensation because they can do more and the most effective advocacy.

                That's not self-serving, just compensation for doing work of value.

                Think of it this way.  Right now, I work 50 hours a week, and find some time to do HCR calls, advocacy here, advocacy in other places, and by talking to people.

                How much more could I do if I could cut back work to 20 hours a week?  Lots, as could any of us!  

                That's the point of the fund raising.  Slink and Eve are good advocates, who have talent, and their work is valuable enough to be worth empowering them to do it to their maximum potential.

                By comparison, I am not worth that, and do not fund raise, and wouldn't be compensated in this fashion.  

                I hope you understand the dynamic there, because it is the line where just blogging for dollars is a bad thing, and empowerment / enablement for somebody to do more of the right things, the best they can, more of the time, because their efforts matter, and have shown an impact.

                Nobody has demonstrated a lack of character on the part of these two, and given the work they are doing, I'll go to the mat saying I know those dollars are enabling dollars only, not profit and self-serving.

                Finally, if this claim is to be made, I welcome it because we should know if that's happening, because that's exploitation that's not ok, but whoever makes it needs to support the shit out of it, or they are just demeaning good people for no solid reason, thus my "sunlight" tag.

                I have no personal beef with the commenter, and on this very diary, noted that, and in the comments affirmed their right to their opinion on PO viability.

                Totally support them in that expression, and am asking they support their fellow Kossacks in like kind.

                IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

                by potatohead on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:28:14 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  We'll have to agree to disagree (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  indubitably, soothsayer99, erush1345

                  on their value as advocates with talent. Sorry.

                  They have managed to alienate a huge chunk of people to whom they've been paid to advocate. That is not good advocacy.

                  Slinkerwink (not so much Eve) writes diaries that are often inaccurate or have misleading headlines and very little content. I am not impressed with that talent.

                  Both spent part of their time as paid advocates sniping at people who disagreed with them, engaging in attacks, and basically becoming immersed in the pettiness that sometimes permeates the debate.

                  That's one thing for people to do it who are not getting paid but quite another for the paid advocates to do it.

                  The point of advocacy is to win people over to your cause, not to alienate them.

                  I also found it disingenuous that both times when they were paid advocates or in the process of becoming paid advocates they did not disclose that until either forced to or until after they had already begun doing the work--including gathering signatures for a petition without any sort of disclosure.

                  So, I'm not very trusting about it or the motivation. That doesn't mean I'm right by any means. It could be completely on the up and up and maybe slinkerwink really does believe alot of the false or misleading things she says. If that is the case, then I refer you to my first sentence.

                  Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

                  by CatM on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:36:22 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  'False' implies an objective truth (4+ / 0-)

                    You say that Slinkerwink makes a lot of 'false' claims.

                    I know she makes a lot of claims you disagree with.

                    Can you cite an example of a falsehood she has claimed?

                    "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                    by efraker on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 04:26:13 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  There's the one she later owned up to (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      indubitably

                      after being called out on it about what Deoliver said in her diary.

                      So that's one example.

                      Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

                      by CatM on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 08:00:17 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  that's pretty vague (nt) (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        TheMomCat

                        "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                        by efraker on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 08:55:48 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  If they had a better "search system" (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          indubitably

                          here, I'd go look for it but they don't, and I don't feel like it.

                          I don't feel like getting into some long debate with you about slinkerwink's poor use of facts and misleading headlines.

                          I recall very well when she had to apologize for posting something completely untrue about deoliver's diary. I am sorry you do not remember.

                          It was in December, I believe. So why don't you try to find it? I'm sure it's still there.

                          But since I remember and you're the one who wants to know, you can go do the tedious work of finding it. I'm not interested.

                          You're not asking because you are truly concerned and want me to show you so that you'll know the truth. You want me to point it out so you can try to find ways to pick apart each example I find.

                          I'm really not interested in playing your stupid game.

                          wave slinkerwink

                          It is very odd how you continue to follow threads all not that are not even between you and another person to see if there's something you can rec. Given how quickly after the post you get those recs out, either efraker is giving you direct links or you're just refreshing every few minutes to see if  something new has shown up.

                          I can't imagine doing that. Seems like it would be very boring.

                          Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

                          by CatM on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 09:09:34 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I wouldn't search for WMDs in Iraq... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            slinkerwink, churchylafemme, elwior

                            I'm disinclined to search for something I doubt exists. I have seen Slinkerwink make mistakes, both grammatical and factual - she is human. I have also seen people take her metaphors literally; like when she said 'there are NO votes for the Senate bill in the House', and some either failed to comprehend the nuance of the statement, or pretended not to, in an attempt to make a rhetorical point.

                            You asked if "slinkerwink really does believe alot of the false or misleading things she says.", a question with an implicit premise - that she says 'a lot of false or misleading things'. I doubt that premise, but, whether I doubt it or not is irrelevant, because facts are facts.

                            That said, I by no means am trying to compel you to do anything you don't want to do, and I do appreciate that you have remained civil.

                            "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                            by efraker on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 09:54:14 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

            •  can't prove anyone's intention (8+ / 0-)

              But the PO died months ago. That plus 19 senators plus my not trusting certain groups is a big reason I believe this to be all about raising money, and not about helping pass health care.

              The reconcilation fix being talked about has to do with scaling back the excise tax, eliminating the cornhusker kickback, and increased subsidies.

              I'm open to changing my mind, should you be able to show that I'm mistaken. If I'm wrong, it wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last time :)

              I've also repeatedly said what my position is on the health care bill - to pass it. I want whatever makes that easiest. If that means no excise tax or leaving the excise tax unchanged, I'm for that and so on.  

              "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" - Dorothy Day

              by joedemocrat on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:03:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't have a problem with you claiming (5+ / 0-)

                the PO is dead.  You've every right to that.

                Coupling that with the idea that people are just exploiting it needs far more substantial supporting information to be productive here, that's all.

                IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

                by potatohead on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:14:14 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The problem is (5+ / 0-)

                  nobody can prove or disprove that. We could go on for a very long time about it. As you say, it isnt going to solve anything or help anything to do.

                  I've said the reasons I believe that, and have said I'm open to changing my mind. I don't like thinking that. I used to love Eve's diaries. In 2005, 2006, 2007 she was by far my favorite diarist here. She made the health care issue real - her health care horror stories couldn't help but touch people and that would have to include Republicans. Yes, I do believe some Republicans could have read Eve's diaries and been moved. But then came the public option or no deal, this or no deal, and wanting to kill the bill and changing their minds all the time and I began to feel they were hurting not helping health care. Health care has been by far the most important issue to me for 20 years now. I'm a very realistic person. We got to start somewhere. The civil rights act was a start. Medicare was a start. Labor laws were a start.  We'd all like Medicare For All. We would. But that's not possible now. I guess it was easy to be united against the Republicans but harder when we are in the majority and we won't always agree on everything.

                  Anyway I just came to feel there was another agenda besides health care. I just did. And I'm open to changing my mind. That will take some tme but I'm open.

                  "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" - Dorothy Day

                  by joedemocrat on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:28:05 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And that's why the implication is BS. (5+ / 0-)

                    If you believe her intentions are less than just and true, either do the work to support it solid, or simply express your counter opinions, like you have on the PO, and let the events unfold, and we all will know the score when it's said and done.

                    The personal implication that the intent here is somehow self-serving, nefarious, or mis-guided isn't supportable, given this context, and your commentary to date.

                    As such, it's non-productive, and a failure to grant the same consideration you are being given.

                    Come on man, we just don't need that shit, and I'll back you on it, same as I would anyone.  That's my purpose here.  It's not about your opinion, or anything else.

                    IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

                    by potatohead on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:31:52 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I understand it does not help (6+ / 0-)

                      pass health care to make such comments. Therefore, I will not make such a comment unless productive such as having a dialogue with someone to help  realize perhaps I was wrong.

                      I hope I can stick to this and won't start again if I get really annoyed. I guess there are a lot of emotions associated with health care reform since its so important to so many of us. As stated, we had an easy time being nice and united when we're the minority but now its harder. But we got to learn

                      "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" - Dorothy Day

                      by joedemocrat on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:36:05 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Bingo. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            indubitably, erush1345

            I've said this before about Hamsher: It's about attention and money, not the uninsured.

            Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

            by Drew J Jones on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 06:58:24 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  If I remember correctly there were 36 or 38 (8+ / 0-)

          signatories during Clinton's fight for HCR.

          And it all went kabooey.

          I have little faith in letter signing. It looks nice and gives the witless MSM something simple to talk about, but it hardly measures up to what has already been accomplished.

          I want action and we have that with the Senate Bill. It was passed by the Senate and needs to be passed by the House.

          It's the crucial step we need to take to get us to a form of Universal Coverage.

          I refuse to live through another failed HCR attempt and will do everything in my power to prevent that from happening again.

          We must accept finite disappointment but never lose infinite hope. - Dr. Martin Luther King

          by Onomastic on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:11:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well, I want the PO big. (6+ / 0-)

          Every one of my calls is FIX and PASS, along with specific things, PO, no Excise tax, etc...

          Unless the Republicans sign on, the bill needs to be fixed to actually pass, and so then it makes perfect sense to advocate for the fixes needed, in support of the House Progressives.

          There are a lot of people saying pass it.  How the dynamics play out, depends on Republicans.  If they are involved, pass it will carry more weight, and no PO.  That's my belief.

          If they are not involved, then it's a FIX and PASS scenario, because of the House Progressive bloc.  

          Both messages make sense, given we don't know what will occur with the Republicans.

          I'm pretty sure they will continue to bag on the process, which looks good for PO, largely because of the Pledge signed in the House.

          In any case, I do not believe no bill will pass, meaning fix it advocacy just reinforces those things getting done.

          From my view, involving Republicans is an excuse NOT to get a PO, and I don't see them as an ally in any form.  They are just the out the Senate needs to avoid being checked by the House.

          IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

          by potatohead on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:35:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  good--fix and pass is the only way to (5+ / 0-)

            get this done, otherwise the bill will never receive a vote on the floor if left unfixed.

            Join Our FixItAndPassIt! Project I work with Progressive Congress Action Fund, a 501(c)4.

            by slinkerwink on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:46:13 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  The only possible Republican votes (6+ / 0-)

            were Olympia Snowe in the Senate, and Joseph Cao in the House.

            I am for whatever makes this easiest to pass. If that means keeping or eliminating the excise tax, I'm for it. At this point, I'm in the lets get it done crowd period. I know we have seen things bit different potatohead, but I just want to say that my goal was always to do whatever necessary to pass it because I knew it was hanging on a thread and I knew we'd not get another chance like this for a very long time.

            I know that we didn't agree on the excise tax, but my point wasn't that I like it better than a health care surtax on the rich or taxing corporations who offshore the jobs or a junk food tax. The bill was done, and I wanted it passed and I felt those who had no health care were more important than people with gold plated plans.

            "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" - Dorothy Day

            by joedemocrat on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:46:24 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Why do you like it better than a tax on (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              conchita, ej25, joedemocrat, elwior, pistolSO

              corporations and the wealthy?

              They are the clowns that are profiting by selling our future!

              Not only should they see a tax, but a substantial one, so that we have the safety net needed to build the nation to overall productivity again.  If they had not sold our means of production for a profit, fucking us over, it's highly likely this matter wouldn't be the issue that it is!

              The excise tax will just push more cost and risk onto the middle class, who already got fucked over because the jobs were sold and traded for profit.

              No worries on the differences.  I deal hard on these things.  I do take advocacy seriously, and will generally go to the mat on something.  The reason is I need to vet things, and through that vetting, refine good, solid positions.  Our differences help in that, and so there is very little ego involved.

              If we are good humans about it, and both go to the mat on it, we literally are better for it.  No joke.

              And so my question above is sincere.

              IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

              by potatohead on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 11:13:05 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  you misread my comment (5+ / 0-)

                I said its NOT that I like it better than a tax on the wealthy or corporations. Reread my post

                but my point wasn't that I like it better than a health care surtax on the rich or taxing corporations  

                I said I want whatever makes this better easiest to pass. I will be supporting this bill if they make no changes, and with any changes such as an early and sliding scale Medicare buy in (something I feel would help people). The reason I didn't want excise tax changed is because the bill was done. I had no problem if changing it makes it easier to pass, but I was not sure of that and knew health care hung on a thread.

                In regard to taxes, there is A LOT we neglected the last 30 years. Not only health care, but jobs, job training, welfare programs, transportation, crime, clean energy, and the list goes on. We are going to need a lot of new taxes to fund all this. The Dems became too afraid to fund things due to the middle class tax revolt of the 1970s and we've seen the consequences. The problem is the Republicans knew if living standards dropped, it would only fuel the anti-tax feeling because people could easily get frightened they would have to pay more. And if the Republicans could tear down the belief government could do much good, people wouldn't believe new taxes would help solve any problems.

                America leads the world in two things - military power and prison population. Isn't it time we led in something positive?  

                "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" - Dorothy Day

                by joedemocrat on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 11:24:54 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  I'm fired up, signed up, all right, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, Limelite, ridemybike

    uptight, and outasight!

    (The last two adjectives courtesy Stevie Wonder.)

  •  My calendar only has one entry on 2/24 (8+ / 0-)

    Get on the phone.

    You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake. Jeannette Rankin

    by RustyCannon on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 09:19:51 AM PST

  •  Much improved rhetoric (19+ / 0-)

    Better to rally Obama supporters for hcr than to try to rally people against Obama in hopes of pushing hcr.  We can all have a thousand different emotional reactions to what we think he's doing or not doing but at the end of the day, the tone you're taking here is likely to be the most effective in moving the greatest number of people in a positive direction on this.

    People mad at Obama and even bitter may be right about a lot of things but if one is interested in actually getting things done right now, I think you're really nailing it in your past couple of diaries.  

    I'll be making noise from my little corner of the Midwest on Wednesday.  Thanks Eve.  

    I only go to Huffpo for the uh, er, articles.

    by Sun dog on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 09:20:11 AM PST

  •  Change from the ground up. (10+ / 0-)

    Let's stop blaming Obama and grab a mop.

    Nothing can stop us if we stay united.

    "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses." - CS Lewis, Weight of Glory

    by Benintn on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 09:21:13 AM PST

  •  Took ALL THIS, for these Democrats in DC (18+ / 0-)

    to realize that having a PUBLIC OPTION is a winner all around.  Without it, we will be KILLED at the polls.

  •  You guys.... (12+ / 0-)

    You haven't given up and I salute you for that. I gotta admit, I had.
    I've rec'd your diary. More important, I'm sending some money (and lots of love) your way.
    Go get 'em. I may not be in the forefront, but I've got your back.

  •  how about a real march!! (5+ / 0-)

    we need some bodies in Washington..........some real visuals.  nobody reports on virtual marches.  that's why the TBs got so much exposure. but i will do my part to join the virtual march. wake up everybody...we can't go backwards.  let's make our voices be heard!!!!

  •  Well, I'm heartened (8+ / 0-)

    that the big unions are so heavily involved. If other union-sponsored rallies I've seen are anything, THEY know how to put on a "do."

  •  Obama doesn't stand for health care reform. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, nyceve, gmb, SadieB, 0wn

    so I'm not sure I want to be standing with him at the moment.

    Has Obama said he will take nothing less than 50 vote reconciliation health care bill passage with a strong public option?

    No.

    In fact, he said he's OK with whatever old thing the Senate might pass and if they didn't pass anything that's OK with him because he's just the president and does photo ops and stuff not like propose policy that he campaigned on during the election...that is sooooo 08's.

    Will Obama come out and support health care reform and work to pass it after the "summit"?

    Stay tuned.

    As for sending money to anyone. At this point, if the reps don't get it, sticking another $10 in their g-string is not going to get their attention.

  •  TrueMajority.org email (8+ / 0-)

    On February 17 a group of health insurance victims from Pennsylvania set out to march 135 snow covered miles from Philadelphia to Washington, D.C. They're walking in honor of Melanie Shouse, the TrueMajority member and health care activist who recently passed away from breast cancer while still fighting her insurance company for coverage.1

    "Melanie's March," as they are calling it, is scheduled to arrive in D.C. on February 24, just before President Obama's bipartisan health care summit. It's the perfect timing to tell Congress that they've had plenty of opportunity to discuss and debate health care. But Americans like Melanie are literally dying while we wait for them to vote.

    And while we can't all fly to D.C. for the event, we want everyone to be part of the day. Which is why we've teamed up with big partners from across the country to also offer a 'virtual march' that aims to deliver 1 MILLION messages to Congress just as Melanie's March arrives.

     snip

    "Centrist" refers to a politician who takes money from corporations, and then votes for those companies to become richer.

    by gooderservice on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 09:47:24 AM PST

  •  I'm in, with thanks to you, Eve (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, thethinveil

    for everything you're doing.  Your commitment and perseverance are amazing.

    "L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." - Le Petit Prince

    by littlezen on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 09:49:44 AM PST

  •  Fight for single payer. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, ej25

    Because the public option is a fraud.

    pnhp.org has the goods on this piece of shit.

    Gary Wills on Obama's Afghan occupation: "What really matters are the lives of the young men and women he is sending off to senseless deaths."

    by formernadervoter on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:02:13 AM PST

    •  yes, former . . . (7+ / 0-)

      I am s complete supporter of single payer, I fought alongside the heroes at the California Nurses, we can only get to single payer, by starting somewhere.

      What we have is far, fare from ideal, but it's a start, and now I'm fighting to bring back the PO. You're right it ain't perfect, but it's a start.

    •  A chink in the opposition's armor may metastasize (0+ / 0-)

      Agreed but putting a chink in the opposition's armor may metastasize. We need to be able to beat out the industry's power in DC. Every concession that can be pried from the insurance industry's bottom line will mean more than its reform value.

      Also, no HCR, as limited by the various legislation on the table, is worse than the status quo.

      Finally, with or without legislation in 2010, no serious effort will be made for a very long time.

       

      HR 676 - Health care reform we can believe in - national single-payer NOW.

      by kck on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 03:19:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  hi eve! (5+ / 0-)

    thanks for this.

    I'm registered and ready to go.

    btw- change the number of senators signing on to the Bennet letter to 19!

    made it my personal mission to see Specter's signature, and yesterday he delivered.

    (I can only fantasize that my 20 calls, and very strong letter might have pushed him to do it...regardless, it's awesome to see efforts pay off)

    "Toleration is the greatest gift of the mind; it requires the same effort of the brain that it takes to balance oneself on a bicycle." -Helen Keller

    by ridemybike on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:08:01 AM PST

  •  Polling (13+ / 0-)

    Polling of the people who voted for Obama in 2008 and for Republican Scott Brown in 2010 shows that 82% of them support a public option: they believe the failure in DC is that Democrats are not aggressive enough in fighting for them.

    And at that same time, only 33% of the people in this country supported the piece of shit Senate HCR bill.

    That's why I am not going to pressure the House, who have stood firm and demanded a better bill, to "pass the damn bill" or anything of the kind.

    I think it's really important that we don't rally all these people to call and just say "do your damn job" which could be used to pressure the House to pass the Senate bill and somehow undermine the efforts to make improvements.  They need to pass a better bill.  To do otherwise is political suicide.

    This message is getting really convoluted.  What is Congress going to hear when they get these 1 million calls?  Are they going to hear "pass the damn bill" or are they going to hear "fix it and pass it"?

    I'm not going to pressure the House to commit political suicide.  The fixes are important.  Really important.  I hope that part of the message doesn't get buried.

  •  Oh, I wish I could go. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, yella dawg

    I want so much to be there.  
    I do hope the media reports on it the way they do the teabaggers

  •  Obama has our back? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, sidnora, Lady Libertine

    That wasn't how I perceived DOJ's decision regarding the torture memos.

    There are many good reasons to continue fighting for healthcare reform (and I'm very glad that you are leading the way, nyceve).  Unfortunately, the President does not have our back, but is relying on us to break ground.

  •  I support this effort but a virtual march falls (4+ / 0-)

    way to short. The teabaggers get coverage because they march for real. We need to get people out on the streets to make any sort of an impact.

    "The truth shall set you free, but first it'll piss you off." -Gloria Steinem

    by Cleopatra on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:31:43 AM PST

  •  Everyone keeps asking me why I've been circling (9+ / 0-)

    the 24th on every calendar around.  It was a great conversation starter at a few pubs, and have actually managed to recruit many of the curiosity seekers for the cause.

    " It's shocking what Republicans will do to avoid being the 2012 presidential nominee."

    by jwinIL14 on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:35:56 AM PST

  •  Dem senators: (6+ / 0-)

    pass a Public Option or get slaughtered in November. Majority Rule NOW!!!!!!!!

    You're watching Fox News. OH MY GOD--LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU

    by rexymeteorite on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 10:44:36 AM PST

  •  I'll do my part but its a silly idea (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sneakers563, peregrinus

    1,000,000 strong means nothing in the "virtual world". At best the flood of messages will simply be ignored at worst it will be described as some kind of progressive DOS attack against the government. Somewhere in between it will be discussed as a novelty not to be repeated.

    Until we put 1,000,000 boots on the grounds nothing will happen. The only way we are going to get national health care is going to require a two million man march on Washington.

    If you think this will have any real influence you are deceiving yourself. That being said until the real time comes. Bashing your self against a stone wall is the best option we have. So keep fighting!

    Hopefully some progressive organization will some day realize that our "namby pamby" ways of "voicing our opinions" dose not work. A real hard show of force is ALWAYS required.

  •  Can someone tell me when Obama's planned speech (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, ej25, 4Freedom

    is scheduled for?

    The one he is going to give where he calls on Congress to pass real HCR with the following aspects:

    1.  A strong nationwide public option for every American
    1.  Repeal of antitrust exemption for Insurance Companies
    1.  Prohibition of using pre-existing conditions to deny coverage and/or deny claims

    Heck, he doesn't even have to say all that as long as he actually calls for a public option open to all.

    I mean, he gave Congress over a year to pass meaningful HCR and they have failed to do so.  Would it be asking too much to have him give a speech calling for the Public Option and stating unequivocally he feels a PO is the right thing to do?

    I saw the WH's last statement regarding reconciliation / PO... something to the effect of "Well, if the Senate does that then yes we can support it."  Kind of like Reid (who could invoke reconciliation) saying "Well, if the members want reconciliation then we can go that route".  Members?  Which members?  What if someone threatens a filibuster?  Will reconciliation be off the table then?

    Tepid.  Pass the buck.  It's almost as if none in our Dem leadership really want a PO.  Almost as if this is just a ploy to shake the Wall Street Money Tree, and they grasp at every possible excuse not to pass a PO whilst teasing Wall Street and progressives alike.

    Kabuki.

    It's 2010, time for a new slogan: Excuses We Can Believe In. I'd rather have better Democrats than more Democrats.

    by Johnathan Ivan on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 11:20:59 AM PST

  •  We need to be the SPINE in the Dems. (6+ / 0-)
    What we need to do is keep the pressure on. Let Obama have his "B-word" HCR Summit. The GOP is gonna have Jack$#!+ to offer and then we the Base oops 80% of The People make the big push.

    Keith Olbermann was right, its all there for the pickins.
    DEMS Grab the low hanging fruit of the Public Option and turn the tide for November.

    They are taking the wrong lesson from MA. We want a responsive Congress, not one that won't even listen to (or campaign amongst)the Public. We want Leadership.

    Leaders take risks Dammit!

    Just to clear the decks. I own no monkeys.

    by Misterpuff on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 11:21:59 AM PST

  •  See which Dem Senators (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, conchita, elwior

    have not yet committed to HCR passing and PO

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

  •  Hell yea. Recommended for (4+ / 0-)

    Unity and for going where no other president went before. Enough with the pettiness. Let's get it done already.

    "Keep your friends close, but visit the Republican Caucus every few months". - Barack Obama

    by blackwaterdog on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 11:25:10 AM PST

  •  Come on, Eve (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve

    You can't even properly sound as if you believe in what you're advocating.

    we should be glad we have him and not Mcpalin.?

    Really?

    Is that what you're left with these days?

    "At least we haven't bombed Iran yet"?

    How many times has someone said something silly like that to you?

    How many times have you responded along the lines of "Yes, we're so lucky to have Rahm in charge instead of Pol Pot. Good times."

    call the DCCC and the DSCC and tell them not another nickle until we get real reform

    ...and that we "stand with Obama" and the Senate bill?

    ...as Obama goes into the "bipartisan summit" to negotiate away the House's national exchange?

    I'm shocked at how you've become this incoherent.

    I said on another blog:

    The Senate bill is already the result of months of compromise with Republicans!
    .
    So: If they're not bringing the public option that Presidents Snowe and Lieberman hated, and they're leaving in the middle-class benefits tax hike that Presidents Shelby and Nelson loved, then they're prepared to negotiate away...
    .
    ...the House's National Exchange?
    .
    Our Democratic leadership sure are geniuses at negotiating on our behalf, aren't they?
    .
    Maybe the Republicans will just present the Democrats with some glass beads, and Obama will hand over Manhattan Island and "Tort Reform" at that bipartisan "summit" next week.

    Do you really expect people (like me) who have been taking you seriously for years to buy this new line?

    Is this what utter betrayal does to some people?

    You've got to get it together, Eve, and I say this as a long-time fan of yours.

    •  THERE IT IS!!! Claim of poorly characterized (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pattym922

      intent.

      So, what are you doing to improve the state of health care, or do you really just want to get some gratification today?

      Please, do tell.

      IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

      by potatohead on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 11:51:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Please explain. (0+ / 0-)

        I can't quite make out what you're saying.

        •  The comment implies that there is no realistic (0+ / 0-)

          chance of a PO happening.  That's just opinion, nothing wrong with that.  I don't agree, for what it's worth, but support people expressing their opinions.

          I'll go to the mat on that actually.

          I put the "daylight" on this post because that opinion is the support for the idea that PO advocates are just trying to raise dollars for their own self-serving ends, by exploiting the desire for the PO for dollars.

          That's bull-shit, not supported by the commentary, negative, and non-productive, given the focus of this diary.

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          The idea behind my comment is to discourage this kind of non-productive and negative commentary by simply highlighting it, so that it stands out for community consideration, and the idea that consideration will serve to promote healthy inhibition on this kind of commentary.

          If the contributor has an actual case of merit, I welcome and want to read that, because that's healthy.  Informing people of negative things is good, or we risk running around in our own bubble.  Critique is a necessary thing, because of that.

          Negative implications, that are unsubstantiated, are just non-productive, and generally are done for self-serving reasons.  There is no reason why any of us should tolerate that gratification at our own expense.

          This isn't an HR thing.  It's not even something to be angry about.  It's just something to be discouraged so that Dkos is a great place to grow, do advocacy, get informed, and strengthen our politics.  Commentary of this kind does none of us any good.

          Put simply, this is unsupportable and in bad form.

          I use the generic language because it is my intent to promote solid discussion, without adding to the personal angst this kind of shit brings with it.

          IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

          by potatohead on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:11:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Still not comprending (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            potatohead

            I put the "daylight" on this post because that opinion is the support for the idea that PO advocates are just trying to raise dollars for their own self-serving ends, by exploiting the desire for the PO for dollars.

            Where exactly do you find that idea within my remarks to Eve, if that's the "this post" to which you are referring?

            •  That's referring to the other thread and is a (0+ / 0-)

              mistake.

              Disregard it.  I had that confused with the other comment PO related.

              So, I'll do it right this time.  You made a claim of betrayal, which is not substantiated.

              That's what I tagged as bad form.

              Your claim is supported by:

              the implication that being for single payer

              , is mutually exclusive to

              the efforts to get this bill passed

              , when

              the reality is we don't know that to be true.

              By way of example, I think if we get the best elements of both bills on the table, that it's just a start, and frankly, kind of a poor one, given where single payer would take us.  I hate it.

              However, this is as good as it gets right now, and so the effort is to get as good as we can get, then turn right around and build the momentum to get some more, until we have something great, like single payer.

              Given that being defensible, and it is mind you, the claim of betrayal isn't very defensible, and as such, isn't productive, and is diminutive, without cause.

              I personally don't think that's ok, and put a little sunlight on it, for that reason and that reason only.

              IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

              by potatohead on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 01:01:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Just for you: 1st Salad Days of the Public Option (0+ / 0-)

                Here's blog post of mine reprinted here for your enjoyment:

                The First Salad Days of The Public Option

                Commenters:

                Ahh, yes...the good old days way back when liberals could possibly dream about maybe enthusiastically supporting the Democrats' glorious struggle with the Republicans over health care reform (link to CNN story from October, 2009):

                Reid backs health care public option

                October 26, 2009 8:21 p.m. EDT

                Washington (CNN) -- The contentious debate over health care took a new twist Monday as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced his decision to craft legislation including a public insurance option allowing states to opt out.

                Reid's decision is a major victory for the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

                Reid, a Nevada Democrat, has been melding legislation from the more conservative Senate Finance Committee and the more liberal Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. The Health Committee included a form of the public option in its bill; the Finance Committee did not.

                House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has insisted that the House of Representatives will pass a health care reform bill including a public option.

                President Obama is "pleased that the Senate has decided to include a public option for health coverage," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a written statement.

                "He supports the public option because it has the potential to play an essential role in holding insurance companies accountable through choice and competition," Gibbs said.

                Several top Democrats have expressed concern that the traditionally conservative Senate would not pass a bill with a public option.

                Wow!

                Remember all of that wonderful, hope-tastic stuff they were saying back when it seemed pretty clear that everybody was confused by the disaster they had just witnessed, and had been walking around already for two weeks muttering "That jackass Baucus did all of that to get this piece of crap out of Finance...?"

                That was as far back as when the President's Press Secretary actually said the public option was to "play an essential role" in a reformed health care system.

                I remember those days well.

                That was before the "concerns" of "Several top Democrats" who weren't Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, nor Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, nor popular President of the United States Barack Obama, that the "the traditionally conservative Senate would not pass a bill with a public option" turned out to be quite remarkably prophetic.

                Well, that episode sure kept liberal Democrats on the edge of our seats, as if we might still be invested in whatever would finally be constructed out of the bill that had seeped forth from Max Baucus' Finance Committee's "Gang of Six."

                Remember that cross-section of American political genius? Exactly three Democrats and three Republicans out of a majority Democratic committee --as if the Democrats had never been elected to a majority-- provided the perfect atmosphere for getting good policy accomplished in a timely manner: (NYTimes: "Health Policy Is Carved Out at Table for 6" Published: July 27, 2009:):


                Mr. Obama, in his news conference last week, praised the three Republicans in the Senate group — Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa and Ms. Snowe. Mr. Grassley, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee, and Mr. Baucus share a history of deal-making, and group members said they share a sense of trust despite the partisan acrimony that pervades the Capitol.

                Mr. Enzi, who sits on both the Finance Committee and the health committee, has a long record on health issues but found Democrats on the health panel unwilling to compromise.

                After the group insisted it needed more time, the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, conceded that a floor vote would have to wait until after the summer recess. "If this is the only bill with bipartisan support," Ms. Snowe said, "that will really resonate. It could be the linchpin for broad bipartisan agreement."

                Strangely enough, it seems that neither the optimism-resonating Snowe, nor the patiently conceding Reid, nor the socialist Presid--sorry, I mean Republican-praising President could have predicted that Mr. Enzi's tolerance for such a lack of compromise would eventually run out four months later in the middle of October, when he finally voted against his own Gang of Six's bill .

                A strange, new, disillusioned disappointment followed, when it became clear to everyone that the President was, in fact, playing eleven-dimensional political chess that no mere mortal could begin to grasp, the only problem being that he had been playing against a Jedi of an opponent whose formidable aggression, infinite wile and Napoleonic tactical skill had been legendary for decades: Iowa's Chuck Grassley. Liberal Democrats, especially those who had vocally rejected the "polarized politics of the past" during the Democratic primaries, were taken aback by this weird, not-hope, not-change sensation they were unaccustomed to experiencing from their President.

                Two weeks of this miasma of liberal confusion crept by ("Did the President win? Did the Democrats get anything done? Is the bill as bad as everyone says it is? Isn't everything we begged for gone, and much we know is wrong put in?") before the next significant event happened: On October 26, 2009, our patiently conceding Majority Leader Harry Reid stepped up to declare his intention to support an opt-out, maybe just barely adequate public option available to less than 3% of the American people.

                Fired up! Ready to go!

                Oh the superb minutes that followed! Oh the hundreds of seconds of joy! We were so cheered, so ready to keep on fighting for Democrats, so back in the Change saddle, right up until we heard the bad news from President Snowe:

                Reid said he hoped to eventually win over Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, the lone Republican to back the Finance Committee bill. Snowe has indicated her preference for a "trigger" provision that would mandate creation of a public health insurance option in the future if specific thresholds for expanded coverage and other changes were not met.

                Snowe issued a statement Monday, saying she was "deeply disappointed" with Reid's decision on the public option. She argued that a decision in favor of a trigger "could have been the road toward achieving a broader bipartisan consensus in the Senate."

                "It's unfortunate the Senate majority leader decided to take a different path, because he did say it was a pretty good doggone idea with respect to the trigger in September, so I don't what has happened to change his mind," she said later.

                "It's regrettable, because I certainly have worked in good faith all of these months on a bipartisan basis and, as you know, have been standing alone at this point as a Republican to do so because I believe in good public policy," Snowe added.

                Yes, that was indeed the turning point, as subsequent events have borne out. Olympia Snowe had just about taken a megaphone and shouted out to the nation what would need to happen for health care reform to pass, given such ruthless partisanship as Harry Reid showed by feebly pacifying shocked, betrayed liberals. The "Triggered" public option --a "Break Only in Case of Emergency " public option-- could be the only public option available for negotiating away later at some future "bipartisan summit."

                And so we're here, back again at the place where Rahm and Baucus planted the non-majority flag of the Gang of Six, and made the outcomes of two national votes disappear for only a little while (six months) so that Mr. Enzi could be better pleased by his position, despite the chronic unwillingness of Democrats to compromise. We're back at another "bipartisan summit," in which the majority attempts to mollify the minority by pretending that it has already lost upcoming elections, as Democrats have been so comfortable doing in the past, when there was more bipartisanship.

                And we are allowed by our leaders to possibly dream once again about maybe enthusiastically supporting the Democrats' glorious..."Trigger" option?

                Good times, good times they were, and are still, apparently.

                Thanks for reading this far, commenters, I really appreciate it.

    •  Oh my StuartZ, where do I begin (13+ / 0-)

      Yes, I agree with all your write.

      You know, if you've been reading what I write that I am a proud support of single payer.

      That's me nyceve, with the nurses outside the Moscone Center fighting against AHIP.

      I am not happy at all with what's happening, but I've been to too many Free Clincs and if we can get the Senate bill fixed through reconciliation, it will be a start.

      I repeat, a start.

      But please at least, understand that I am fighting just to save some lives, not because I believe this is the right legislation. It isn't. Single payer is the only solution.

      Look at 2:21 on the video, that's me--nyceve.

      •  great video! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nyceve, potatohead, churchylafemme

        Join Our FixItAndPassIt! Project I work with Progressive Congress Action Fund, a 501(c)4.

        by slinkerwink on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:04:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Then you know as well as I do... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nyceve, ActivistGuy

        I am fighting just to save some lives

        ...that this is the hammer the centrists are holding over liberals' heads to manipulate us into supporting the indefensible.

        We can't be held hostage to the tiny minority of unfortunate folks for whom the Senate bill cynically holds out help, Eve, or we'll in this boat forever.

        If you let yourself be confined to the question of how many lives are worth the price of meeting industry demands, then as the effects of this legislation come to pass, more and more folks will begin to slide into that role of health care hostage, you must see that.

        If you make this about liberals having to suck it up and be unselfish, then you're letting the centrists use you to pit one set of middle-class folks (invested in their employers' private insurance, no government subsidies) against another (individual market, subsidies).  Eventually (maybe soon), the subsidies will be too unpopular to maintain under economic strain.  Eventually, welfare-to-work-style individual market health care subsidy cuts will be the winning campaign slogan of the next Evan Bayh New Democrat to be thrust into national politics by the Beltway machine.

        You're advocating one set of people's short term interests --as heartbreaking as our neighbors' suffering is-- against everyone (except industry's) else's short, middle and long term interests, Eve.  This is the Catch-22 box that New Democrats have worked and strategized to keep liberals in, so they never have to face a decent policy alternative, and so AHIP's (and the AMA, and the hospitals', and PhRMA's) interests are ultimately served and preserved.  You must --no, I know you do-- know this.

        I'm not saying these things to make you feel bad, or to argue with you, Eve.

        Does Avedon Carol know that you've gone down this road?

        •  Gone down what road, Stuart? (0+ / 0-)

          I think Avedon Carol likes me, we did a real nifty Second Life together.

          •  You know...the "Benevolent Democrats" road? (0+ / 0-)

            The "fighting just to save some lives" road that gets us "welfare queen" politics, the "Benevolent Democrats" road that Corrente talked about last year:

            Before the primary it had been so long since Democrats held power I never noticed how much Democratic philosophy and policy advocacy had changed.  

            But during the primary I started to note what I would call a split in the Party between those who sought economic justice for the middle class, and those who sought social benevolence for the poor.  I'm always on the side of helping the poor, but in policy terms, I've always thought what helps the poor most is to empower the middle class.  Policies that target only the poor through subsidies and welfare programs, and sort of ignore the plight of the middle class over the last several decades, don't leave those on the bottom with anywhere to move up to.  

            Further, often the needs of the poor can only be met through vigorous funding of public programs, not simple charity. And, at this time of economic lopsidedness, often policies need a broader scope than limiting social programs to the least among us.  When social programs include the majority of working people they are extremely empowering and hold great staying power.  

            Medicare and Social Security are two examples.  Both programs are taxpayer supported by the broad populous.  Neither is a welfare program.  Social Security, particularly, is a program where what you put in is basically what you get back. It puts everybody on the same playing field and no one who pays into those programs thinks they are recipients of the gift of health care or the gift of retirement security.

            You know, Eve...the road that gets us policies that the middle-class resist, because they believe that such programs' success comes at their expense.  The "cost-shifting" argument that takes root in group-insurance employees who are told their share of premiums are going up because of those freeloaders on subsidies in the exchange they can't buy into.

            Avedon Carol knows that the Senate bill is the final death of real health care reform --the health care reform that puts the insured and uninsured in the same sinking boat to bail out together, until folks figure out that the best way to keep the boat afloat is to toss the profiteers overboard.

            I know that you did a VS with her, Eve, because I listen to Jay's show all of the time, and I can't wait to hear the nifty show you two did together.

            Just because I can't understand what you're up to right now doesn't mean that I don't support you.  I wish I could follow your example, though, but I can't.  I will advocate as strongly as I can against us liberals' being held hostage to the uninsured, so that the DLC centrists can cement the private sector, state-by-state monopolies into place --so that the campaign coffers of Arkansas or Louisiana or Nebraska DLC'ers can stay filled, and they can be elected again and again to ruin the future of the American people.

            Take care of yourself, Eve, thanks so much for responding so nicely.

  •  How about a real march? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, pattym922, Cedwyn

    You think a "virtual" march will get anywhere the same media attention?  Don't think so.

    "Trust me, after taxes, a million dollars is not a lot of money." Michael Steele.

    by Paleo on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:00:14 PM PST

  •  The Driving Force Is You : Surge (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, elwior

    one HCR email said we are driving the momentum for HCR - re-write that and the message I'd like to emphasize is - THE DRIVING FOR IS YOU: SURGE FEB 24

    No one made a deal with corporate lobbyists faster than Evan Bayh did. He wasn't sick of the problems of DC, he was the problem of DC. - Cenk Uygur

    by anyname on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:03:59 PM PST

  •  I admire your hard work Eve. Yet I cannot stand (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, bluicebank

    with an HCR bill that is not single payer.

    Try as I may, I do not get the objection to Medicare for all -- with us funding our way thru payroll deductions and tax credits for those who are not employed -- except for the fact that it's profit at stake for insurance cos. and pharma.

    We need to get real about this. Half measures are less than half. Zero is closer to the truth.

    We must do something that matters for God's sake. Give the conservatives an inch and they'll drive several gazilliion tractor trailors thru it.

    Citizens United and that lying liar John Roberts, anyone? MFSOB.

    Virtual is virtual: an idea that exists in the mind. Health care is not a mind-set.

    A good writer is another government.

    by newlymintedjerseygirl on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 12:44:28 PM PST

    •  If Canadians had taken your view, today (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn, fisheye

      they would be in the same boat we're in.  Lousy, expensive, for-profit health care.  But way back in the 60s, someone decided to take the first step.  Just one step.

      We need a precedent that says we the people, not just profit-driven corporations, have rights when it comes to health care.  We need a place to start.  

      It's the Purists who are holding back progress for the American people, not just in health care, but in workers rights and a host of other areas.  We're 50 years behind on every front.  It's time to try an incremental approach.  All or nothing has not worked.  

      See everything, overlook a great deal, improve a little. John XXIII

      by keeplaughing on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 03:08:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  single payer sometimes done abruptly (5+ / 0-)

        Single payer has in the past happened abruptly in several nations.

        In 1995, 40% of Taiwan's citizens had no health care. So, they created a single payer system. By the end of the year, everyone had access to health care.

        On 12/12/73, Australia's parliament killed their Medicare-for-all bill. Then they killed it again on 4/2/74, then again on 7/18/74. It passed on 8/7/74 (after less time than we've been working on the Senate HCR bill), and granted universal health care, paid for with a progressive, graduated income tax. In Australia's case, 'kill the bill' was a painful and contentious process - but it rapidly led to an effective single payer system.

        On 10/5/88, Brazil had a constitutional convention to make sure that the antidemocratic forces that had held the country in military junta for 21 years couldn't come back. One of the things they wrote in their new constitution was that health care was a "right of all and an obligation of the State". It took less than two years to implement this constitutional mandate - all Brazilians had access to government health care by early 1990. This is in a country that was in the grips of poverty, and had just come out of a dictatorship.

        "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

        by efraker on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 04:31:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  None of those countries had in place a (0+ / 0-)

          corporate, for-profit system like we have.  Canada did - in fact, they were held hostage by some of the same insurance companies that still hold us hostage today here in the US.  

          The Australian bills that were killed actually included single payer (thus the name "medicare for all.")  They were not held up by progressives, but by conservatives.  And previously, there were already pricing and ethical limits on the insurance companies, not unlike what is in place in The Netherlands today.  That is the first step this bill will represent.

          Further, Australia had the votes for single payer, because of a very strong labor movement in the 70s; we do not - these are different times and we've no where near the votes for single payer.  We have a much weakened labor movement today.  And half this country is brainwashed by decades of insurance company propaganda.  That was also not the case in Australia.

          Canada is the best comparison to us, and that is why I used it.  Americans have been sitting around on their hands for decades, whining about not having everything.  In the interim, we got nothing.  

          See everything, overlook a great deal, improve a little. John XXIII

          by keeplaughing on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 07:15:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I certainly appreciate your viewpoint (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        churchylafemme, efraker

        However, I respectfully disagree. Incrementalism doesn't cut it when Corporate Despotism reigns supreme.

        Please tell me in the last 30 years where we have tried all or nothing. On anything.

        Except to give away billions to pharma. Tax cuts to the uber wealthy while we "negotiated" a paltry rise in minimum wage which is half of what is a living wage in our country.

        We gave away bargaining power for reduced med costs for what exactly? 50 billion to pharma. Plus a 14 percent increase in Medicare Advantage.

        Don't even get me started on the bank bailouts, where Goldman Sachs et al get away with picking our pockets daily without any hope of regulatory reform with any teeth.

        As Maya Angelou says, we die a slow death by single snips. With the Citizens United SC ruling America cannot come close to being Canada four decades ago.

        As for workers' rights, we have none. Fire on demand is de rigueur in today's workplace.

        A good writer is another government.

        by newlymintedjerseygirl on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 05:08:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  You might want to get their promise (0+ / 0-)

    first, because they notoriously renege on them. Whereas, we have been consistent in our support, whether we thought we had a chance or not, and sometimes against our better judgment...only to be left wanting.

    That's all I'll say for now because I have no choice but to push for HCR, and see what they actually accomplish.

    Language is wine upon the lips. -Virginia Woolf

    by valadon on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 01:09:07 PM PST

  •  Eve (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve

    I sent you an email a week or so ago - did you get it?

    I am heartened by this push.  The fact that there are people marching in this weather from Philadelphia to DC is remarkable, and that this massive phone/fax/emailathon is going to support their arrival and the president's bipartisan summit makes me wonder what has stopped us thus far.  (Although getting bills passed in both houses is no small achievement, whatever they look like).

    When shit happens, you get fertilized.

    by ramara on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 01:10:25 PM PST

  •  FYI (0+ / 0-)

    The link doesn't work for those of us with 20th-century dial-up connections.

    I started loading the page, walked away for 2 hours, and when I came back, it was still trying to load and there were several errors trying to load the page.

    So I never got to sign yours, but did sign up with MoveOn. I hope that counts.

    We are all in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars. --Oscar Wilde

    by zerelda on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 01:27:22 PM PST

  •  What I sent my senators -- Cornyn & Hutchison (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, 4Freedom, elwior

    Like Lazarus  risen from the dead, or like a zombie if you prefer, the Public Option is back 'on the table' with a simple letter gathering signatures in the Senate.  As far as I can tell, this is without any of the usual suspects in Washington pushing it.  It didn't seem to be the idea of the White House, Senate leadership, House leadership, or any lobbying group.  It certainly wasn't Republicans pushing the idea.  The only support the Public Option still had seemed to be the general public.  Gosh, imagine that: an idea gathering steam in Congress simply because a lot of people like it.  How bizarre -- it almost sounds like democracy.

    I am writing to suggest that we're witnessing a sea change -- a fundamental change in the way people look at something.  These don't happen often, but when they do the pundits and experts can be the last ones to see change coming.  Those who realize what's going on say things like, "There are few things more powerful than an idea whose time has come."  Those who refuse to recognize the change end up being considered silly footnotes in history.  

    I would suggest that such a time has come regarding the Public Option in health care.  I urge you to do all you can to see that when change comes, it gets done right.  The other choice would make you look like the legendary king trying to command the tide to turn around.

    At the risk of sounding presumptuous, I'll even urge you to sign the letter your colleague Senator Bennet of Colorado has written to the Majority Leader.  Remember, insurance companies are already asking for premium increases of up to 40% over last year's rates.  If you stand against any kind of Public Option, you may end up being held responsible for those rate hikes and having to defend them.

    We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

    by david78209 on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 01:46:25 PM PST

  •  Signed up and donated $10 (5+ / 0-)

    If we get a million sigs and a million $10 donations, it would be $10 million dollars.  That should send a message.

    Our President is teh awesome!

    by GMFORD on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 01:57:47 PM PST

  •  Help Pass What? (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, churchylafemme, ej25, jvackert, efraker

    Perhaps I am mistaken, but this seems to be a rally to pass any bill called "health care reform." Even if that bill, like the Senate's, actually worsens an already broken system.

    I'm one of those people who are healthy and quit paying for health insurance because I can't afford it.

    Now if you are asking me to rally behind a bill that may force me into bankruptcy (via fines or insurance premiums), you'll understand why I will NOT act against my own interests.

    Now I see that your diary mentions the public option. But it also says "We stand by Obama."

    I only stand by a politician when he or she is acting in my and the nation's bests interests, not corporate "citizens" like Big Pharma. Which Obama appears to be doing.

    That's what makes me an independent, progressing liberal. Count me out of the rah-rah, bish-boom bah rally to support whatever comes out of Congress.

  •  I sent my letters.... (4+ / 0-)

    ...and will place my calls on the 24th and 25th.  I hope many, many more than 1,000,000 join this Virtual March.  

    Hope we can get this done!

    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

    by CyberDem on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 02:21:41 PM PST

  •  You've been awesome. Just awesome. Thanks for (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, churchylafemme

    all you've done.  I'm collecting neighbors and friends to sign on, too.  

    See everything, overlook a great deal, improve a little. John XXIII

    by keeplaughing on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 03:00:56 PM PST

  •  Okay done! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, elwior

    signed up and donated as well....

    "Let's do this"!

  •  Hi , Nice Eve. As Promised , will be on the phone (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, elwior

    on The Day. Howdy ,slink. Damn , but this site continues to get suckier...

  •  Great, positive diary. This is how we're going (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nyceve, elwior

    to move forward.  

    Eyes on the Prize People

    by jstipich on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 04:29:39 PM PST

  •  what is a virtual march ? (0+ / 0-)

    and i guess, why cant there be a "normal" march ?

  •  Where does Obama stand so I know where I am (0+ / 0-)

    supposed to be standing?  I will not pledge to stand with someone who doesn't tell me what they are standing for.  However, I will make plenty of calls about the public options, Obama or, more likely, no Obama.

  •  Obama does NOT have our back (0+ / 0-)

    that is just fucking ridiculous. this guy has abandoned the public option even tho 60% of the public wants it, and 60% does not want the current plan.

    he's a real moderate, he does not want to fix the problems, just sooth it enough to stop real change & reform. how fucking blind can we be?

    secession = treason. Haters are Traitors!

    by catchaz on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 05:27:42 PM PST

  •  I will NOT until I see what he proposes (0+ / 0-)

    I do not understand why anyone would blindly sign on to support whatever he proposes before he proposes.

  •  I'm signed up--thnx NYCEve! n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior

    Find your own voice--the personal is political.

    by In her own Voice on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 05:41:52 PM PST

  •  I already signed up. Thank you and (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink

    keep it up. Forget the comments from the peanut gallery. Plenty of us are willing to jump right in with you.
    Rock on nyceve!

    "Democracy is like chicken soup. You have to stir it up often or a scummy oily film forms at the top."

    by StratCat on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 07:07:02 PM PST

  •  Count me in. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior
  •  Newsweek polling::: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blackwaterdog

    see question #6! [warning: pdf loads]

    They only call it class war when we fight back! ht: buhdydharma

    by ezdidit on Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 08:04:47 PM PST

  •  Pls also contact Racial Diviersty pressure groups (0+ / 0-)

    I am joining right away. Please, Please, Please, do not forget to alert and invite  pressure groups that focus on Minority issues. I am positive that activists groups in the African American community, the Hispanic community and other groups would want to join this acvity if they are alerted.

    Please contact groups like the Black Leadership Forum, the NAACP, Urban League, Rainbow Push Coalition, National Action Network etc

    It would also be heplful if we could contact the broadcasters in thse community such Urban Radio Network, Tom JOyner Morning Show etc  

  •  I stand for HCR! (0+ / 0-)

    Thank You nyceve!
    I have been following your post on health care for a long time. For a long time.
    As for reform, I think the original House bill is what needs to be passed in total by reconciliation.
    Having listen to the interview with Terry Graedon of the Diane Rhem Show.
    I believe we can have most of what you/we me want.
    I hate the line "It will help 'all of us'", do you really believe that?? How does this help the 15,000,000 Americans and their children left to find health care.
    30,000,000 covered vs. 15,000.000 left uncovered?

    FUCK THAT!!
    FUCK THAT!!
    FUCK THAT!!

    As the first Republican President said, "There but for the grace of God go I". Check Carl Sandberg's biography.

    As for the title, I stand with you, I stand with HCR, but I do not stand with skippy! I will never vote for a Rep Pres, but anyone who runs against skippy has my vote and money, if I have any, in the primary.
    I voted for change.
    I did not vote for skippy!!!

    georeouspurple

  •  Eve, One Question - - (0+ / 0-)

    If the Health Care Summit  is handled properly  and the American Public becomes educated to the fact that there is an option available for health care reform which is currently not even under serious consideration and that that option will

    1)Cut the Federal deficit significantly
    2)Extend coverage to everyone including the very poorest and sickest among us
    3)Get the costs of healthcare off the books of American business making them more competitive in world markets and thus reducing unemployment in the US
    4)Save possibly 300,000 American lives every year, and
    5)Cost less overall than the current system costs-

    Then aren’t the American People  going to be totally ripped to find out that nobody  ever told them about this option before?

  •  1,000,0000 people come here for news and informat (0+ / 0-)

    ion.

    "1,000,0000"?!!!

    So do we have a comma misplaced here for 10,000,000 - or are we [most likely] talking about 1,000,000?

    ;)

    With all due respect, Mr. President... GLOVES. OFF. NOW. - Sarah PalMin for haph-turm prezdent '12 - '14 1/2ish!

    by VT ConQuest on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 03:25:27 AM PST

Meteor Blades, grytpype, Louise, JekyllnHyde, davej, Angie in WA State, Frank, coral, lowkell, murphy, SarahLee, teacherken, slinkerwink, NYCee, roonie, miasmo, mattman, emal, janinsanfran, tommurphy, LynChi, donna in evanston, eeff, suswa, dkistner, Pompatus, devtob, HarlemUSA, frisco, Creosote, Doctor Who, Ruth in OR, RubDMC, timmyc, TheMomCat, Slacker Gal, conchita, understandinglife, pattym922, Xapulin, cosmic debris, gayntom, pattisigh, someRaven, Ignacio Magaloni, Larry Bailey, itskevin, kitebro, Iberian, TheCrank, Chrisfs, OutOfManyOne, wader, mullsinco, shirah, danthrax, Dallasdoc, Winnie, pat bunny, 2laneIA, brainwave, gmb, alivingston, Smartyjones, jaywillie, potatohead, wdrath, BMarshall, noveocanes, never forget 2000, kalmoth, RebeccaG, lecsmith, lcrp, Pirate Smile, Pohjola, Oaktown Girl, econlibVA, zerelda, Kitsap River, skywalker, Vicky, tomjones, d to the f, lyvwyr101, Schwede, murrayewv, Limelite, Gowrie Gal, Julie Gulden, madaprn, chumley, bloomer 101, radarlady, NoMoreLies, v2aggie2, OpherGopher, offred, KnotIookin, Flint, Luetta, RequestedUsername, Brooke In Seattle, YucatanMan, Laurence Lewis, Gary Norton, kldave, GUGA, LNK, Frank Palmer, nailmaker, washingtonsmith, ladybug53, cspivey, Burned, Sandino, bruised toes, deepsouthdoug, Alan Arizona, Jim P, begone, sheisjazz, gwilson, Nightprowlkitty, myboo, keeplaughing, ej25, BlueInARedState, Themistoclea, cookseytalbott, Dvalkure, compbear, rhetoricus, dewey of the desert, kck, mooomb, blueoasis, NBBooks, triv33, TalkieToaster, tecampbell, StrayCat, philipmerrill, 4Freedom, gooderservice, imabluemerkin, bleeding heart, doinaheckuvanutjob, Phthalo, onionjim, Nancy Hartley, Timothy J, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, means are the ends, AmySmith, leighkidd, Joelarama, orrg1, rufusthedog, J Royce, nathguy, Mithridates, Haningchadus14, Loudoun County Dem, Femlaw, Cottagerose, california keefer, DocbytheBay, NovatoBon, BruceMcF, lachsis, edsbrooklyn, dotcommodity, Mary Mike, yowsta, noofsh, Thunder Dreamer, Jimdotz, ezdidit, dclawyer06, Anglo, Unbozo, ronlib, malharden, kingyouth, artisan, GMFORD, eashep, rontripp, jnhobbs, millwood, Moderation, OIL GUY, pioneer111, LWelsch, JML9999, nathan andover, sable, Predictor, roycej, vivaldi, jwinIL14, Dem in the heart of Texas, mconvente, Louisiana Fiddle Gal, ScottyUrb, zerone, elwior, Satyanand, honey, CDH in Brooklyn, ajr111240, Akonitum, Archangel, VL Baker, monkeybrainpolitics, Deep Harm, hwmnbn, smartdemmg, icebergslim, pademocrat, MsWings, mofembot, Gemina13, glendaw271, Abra Crabcakeya, Parthenia, dan667, GoracleFan, aigeanta, Abe Frohman, wyldraven, BYw, allie123, priceman, Quilldriver, In her own Voice, Mike Taylor, revelwoodie, watercarrier4diogenes, princess k, statsone, ZhenRen, maggiejean, Sun dog, SciMathGuy, Pris from LA, cybrestrike, MTmarilyn, litoralis, ChrisG7, juca, ussr, Dopeman, lilsky, Michael James, RustyCannon, more liberal than you, velvet blasphemy, JesseCW, EquationDoc, DefendOurConstitution, delillo2000, followyourbliss, VT ConQuest, heart4idaho, lastman, Corneliusmingus, hyper, allep10, Shelley99, Joeytj, dalfireplug, Ibis Exilis, Plubius, Kiku, stevenwag, reesespcs, jfromga, MizKit, Livvy5, ludlow, jpmassar, citisven, Cleopatra, susan in sc, Words In Action, cassandraX, Just Bob, marypickford, Culebrito Blanco, ladygreenslippers, dalys, smileycreek, pinback, BrighidG, littlezen, spunout, Tx LIberal, veracityus, Vacationland, jstipich, PurpleMyst, GeeBee, DeminWisconsin, Rustbelt Dem, broadwayliberty, CS11, Ladyna, citizen31, tubacat, alguien, Radical def, trixied13, ATFILLINOIS, RJP9999, puffmeister, Calidad, LouP, DeniDemo, Lady Libertine, ItsSimpleSimon, DiegoUK, NYWheeler, sharonsz, felkakarp, Funkygal, Weaselina, Texnance, Betty Pinson, alethea, Misterpuff, Loose Fur, cocinero, moke, soaglow, JanG, Jake Goad, not2plato, newusername, no way lack of brain, BrowniesAreGood, gobears2000, Colorado is the Shiznit, the mom in the middle, I love OCD, Valerie8435, StateofEuphoria, Airmid, DoubleT, mateohussein, implicate order, jardin32, wildlife advocate, anyname, wandaj, Situational Lefty, Liberal OC Woman, QnATL, CoExistNow, princesspat, thethinveil, Engaged, Cinnamon Rollover, thomask, theone718, FistJab, Pash, floridablue, tardis10, LSmith, lizard people, Dixie Liberal, whoknu, antooo, corvaire, pensivelady, cassandra123, poliwrangler, Andrew F Cockburn, hands in clay USA, Wom Bat, blackwaterdog, kareylou, rscopes, zenox, KingofSpades, Regina in a Sears Kit House, ParkRanger, too young to give up, New Horizon, Lambunao, O112358, Patric Juillet, ridemybike, KiB, cwsmoke, pistolSO, We Won, efraker, delmardougster

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site