Derrick's Progressive News
Have you heard? The Republicans want to take America back...
Democrates want to continue to take America forward— timid, corporate-approved step by timid step!
Where is the bold, principled leadership?
Contents
Public Citizen's Money and Democracy Update
Critics Still Wrong on What’s Driving Deficits in Coming Years
Why Don't Conservatives Fact Check MSNBC?
Obama’s Health Care Bill Is Enough to Make You Sick
Rate of Arctic Sea Ice Melt Heats Up
PBS, George Shultz and Funny Funding: Do PBS's conflict of interest rules apply?
Derrick: I attended the WashCoDems Summerfest picnic Saturday. All the local Democratic candidates gave impressive speeches. David Wu gave an impassioned speech. I hope he takes his rhetoric back to Washington DC and applies that energy.
Public Citizen's Money and Democracy Update
An e-newsletter about the movement to curb corporate influence in politics and restore our democracy
Issue #20 • July 9, 2010
We hope you enjoy this issue of Public Citizen's e-newsletter about the intersection of money and politics. This is part of the campaign we developed following the disastrous Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts supporting or attacking political candidates. We'll update you regularly with select news stories and blog posts, legislative developments and ways to get involved.
Stunning Statistics of the Week:
- Amount the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have raised this election cycle from $1,000-plus donors: $49.5 million
- Amount the same Democratic committees raised at this point during the last election cycle: $81.3 million
- Percent of that decline that can be attributed to donors in New York, the country's financial capital, keeping their wallets shut: 50 percent
Poll shows voters would back candidates who want to overturn Citizens United decision
Americans across the political spectrum are intensely concerned about corporate influence in our democracy and disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the court said corporations could spend unlimited amounts to influence elections. The numbers are revealing: 95 percent of those polled said that corporations spend money on politics mainly to buy influence, 85 percent said that corporations have too much influence over the political system, 93 percent said average citizens have too little and more than three-quarters said that they support a constitutional amendment limiting the amount that corporations can spend in elections. A similar majority would support a candidate who backs such an amendment.
New calculation shows more than $200 million going to Republican candidates
Top Democrats are worried about a chart making the rounds showing that more than $200 million likely will be poured into upcoming races to help Republicans. Calculations are based on how much Republican groups (U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc.) have pledged to spend and how much they spent in 2008. The numbers are being used to prompt Democratic funders to give more.
Rove to Fox News: American Crossroads collects donors' excess cash
Fox News recently asked Republican strategist Karl Rove whether his American Crossroads organization, which is designed to collect cash to use to influence elections, is siphoning money from national party coffers. No, Rove answered. "American Crossroads is collecting money in excess of the individual contribution limits the [Republican National Committee] has allowed to give." He maintains that people who give to his new organization have already given as much as legally permitted to the party committee as well as the Republican congressional committees.
Groups launch multimillion-dollar effort to promote public financing of elections
Public Campaign and Common Cause have launched a multimillion-dollar campaign to persuade members of Congress to back public financing of elections. Under the public financing system, candidates who forgo big corporate donations and instead rely on smaller donations from citizens get a limited amount of money from the public treasury to run their campaigns. Right now, the public financing bill has 157 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives and just 21 co-sponsors in the Senate. As part of the campaign, the groups will spend $8 million to $15 million this year. The campaign includes the purchase of television ads in Seattle, Denver, Tallahassee and Washington, D.C.
Visit www.DontGetRolled.org to learn more!
Critics Still Wrong on What’s Driving Deficits in Coming Years
Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers
By Kathy Ruffing and James R. Horney | Link
Derrick: Bush’s tax cuts and the wars are 2/3 of the debt and are completely avoidable.
Some critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush’s policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade — that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are to blame. Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies (for more on that paper, see p. 4). Nevertheless, the fact remains: Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years (see Figure 1).
The deficit for fiscal year 2009 was $1.4 trillion and, at nearly 10 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), was the largest deficit relative to the size of the economy since the end of World War II. If current policies are continued without changes, deficits will likely approach those figures in 2010 and remain near $1 trillion a year for the next decade.
The events and policies that have pushed deficits to these high levels in the near term, however, were largely outside the new Administration’s control. If not for the tax cuts enacted during the presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were initiated during that period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term.
While President Obama inherited a dismal fiscal legacy, that does not diminish his responsibility to propose policies to address our fiscal imbalance and put the weight of his office behind them. Although policymakers should not tighten fiscal policy in the near term while the economy remains fragile, they and the nation at large must come to grips with the nation’s long-term deficit problem. But we should not mistake the causes of our predicament.
Read the rest of this 10-page report here. There is a wonderful graph…
Why Don't Conservatives Fact Check MSNBC?
July 08, 2010 9:36 am ET by Eric Boehlert | Link
Last night, Bill O'Reilly claimed that "people lie on MSNBC every day." O'Reilly made the claim as a fact and wondered why anyone would believe what they see and hear on the oh-so-liberal MSNBC. (Not to mention what they read at Media Matters.)
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007080014
O'Reilly's comment raises a point that has been puzzling me for years, as far-right media critics set their sights on MSNBC for being an alleged liberal bastion of misinformation. (Y'know, that liberal bastion that just banned Markos for making Joe Scarborough upset.)
Here's the riddle: Why don't conservative fact check MSNBC every day and catalog all the supposed lies that the news channel peddles? Listening to partisans such as O'Reilly, the liberal misinformation is practically jumping off the screen at MSNBC, and especially during primetime when the news channels hosts left-leaning anchors. So why don't conservatives detail all the lies and regularly post their findings online?
I mean, that's what we do at Media Matters all day long in terms of the Fox News misinformation. We routinely publish at least a dozen items a day, sometimes twice that, plainly detailing how the right-wing channel distorts the news and spreads propaganda. So why doesn't O'Reilly fact check Rachel Maddow's show every night and detail the lies she tells? Or why doesn't the Weekly Standard, for instance, pitch in and fact check Countdown and call out all the falsehoods host Keith Olbermann and his guests concoct at 8 p.m.?
Why doesn't the right-wing fact check MSNBC? Not just whine about MSNBC, but show conclusively how the cable channel makes up liberal lies.
I'm pretty sure the answer is that nobody on the far-right fact checks the liberal "lies" at MSNBC, and especially during primetime, because MSNBC doesn't routinely broadcast them. Unlike Fox News, MSNBC's programming is not built around fitting as much provably inaccurate information into hour-long broadcasts as is humanly possible. In others words, MSNBC is not in the propaganda business the way Fox News is.
But if O'Reilly thinks I'm wrong, than he ought to fact check MSNBC, starting tonight.
Obama’s Health Care Bill Is Enough to Make You Sick
A close reading of the new health care legislation, which will conveniently take effect in 2014 after the next presidential election, is deeply depressing. The legislation not only mocks the lofty promises made by President Barack Obama, exposing most as lies, but sadly reconfirms that our nation is hostage to unchecked corporate greed and abuse. The simple truth, that single-payer nonprofit health care for all Americans would dramatically reduce costs and save lives, that the for-profit health care system is the problem and must be destroyed, is censored out of the public debate by a media that relies on these corporations as major advertisers and sponsors, as well as a morally bankrupt Democratic Party that is as bought off by corporations as the Republicans.
The 2,000-page piece of legislation, according to figures compiled by Physicians for a National Health Plan (PNHP), will leave at least 23 million people without insurance, a figure that translates into an estimated 23,000 unnecessary deaths a year among people who cannot afford care. It will permit prices to climb so that many of us will soon be paying close to 10 percent of our annual income to buy commercial health insurance, although this coverage will only pay for about 70 percent of our medical expenses. Those who become seriously ill, lose their incomes and cannot pay skyrocketing premiums will be denied coverage. And at least $447 billion in taxpayer subsidies will now be handed to insurance firms. We will be forced by law to buy their defective products. There is no check in the new legislation to halt rising health care costs. The elderly can be charged three times the rates provided to the young. Companies with predominantly female work forces can be charged higher gender-based rates. The dizzying array of technical loopholes in the bill-written in by armies of insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists-means that these companies, which profit off human sickness, suffering and death, can continue their grim game of trading away human life for money.
"They named this legislation the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and as the tradition of this nation goes, any words they put into the name of a piece of legislation means the opposite," said single-payer activist Dr. Margaret Flowers when I heard her and Helen Redmond dissect the legislation in Chicago at the Socialism 2010 Conference last month. "It neither protects patients nor leads to affordable care."
"This legislation moves us further in the direction of the commodification of health care," Flowers went on. "It requires people to purchase health insurance. It takes public dollars to subsidize the purchase of that private insurance. It not only forces people to purchase this private product, but uses public dollars and gives them directly to these corporations. In return, there are no caps on premiums. Insurance companies can continue to raise premiums. We estimate that because they are required to cover people with pre-existing conditions, although we will see if this happens, they will argue that they will have to raise premiums."
The legislation included a few tiny improvements that have been used as bait to sell it to the public. The bill promises, for example, to expand community health centers and increase access to primary-care doctors. It allows children to stay on their parent's plan until they turn 26. It will include those with pre-existing conditions in insurance plans, although Flowers warns that many technicalities and loopholes make it easy for insurance companies to drop patients. Most of the more than 30 million people currently without insurance, and the 45,000 who die each year because they lack medical care, essentially remain left out in the cold, and things will not get better for the rest of us.
"We are still a nation full of health care hostages," Redmond said. "We live in fear of losing our health care. Millions of people have lost their health care. We fear bankruptcy. The inability to pay medical bills is the No. 1 cause of bankruptcy. We fear not being able to afford medications. Millions of people skip medications. They skip these medications to the detriment of their health. We are not free. And we won't be free until health care is a human right, until health care is not tied to a job, because we still have an employment-based system, and until health care has nothing to do with immigration status. We don't care if you are documented or undocumented. It should not matter what your health care status is, if you have a disease or you don't. It should not matter how much money you have or don't, because many of our programs are based on income eligibility rules. Until we abolish the private, for-profit health insurance industry in this county we are not free. Until we take the profit motive out of health care we cannot live in the way we want to live. This legislation doesn't do any of that. It doesn't change those basic facts of our health care system."
Redmond held up a syringe. "I take a medication that costs $1,700 every single month," she said. "I inject this medication. It costs $425 a week for 50 milligrams of medication. I would do almost anything to get this medication because without it I don't have much of a life. The pharmaceutical industry knows this. They price these drugs accordingly to the level of desperation that people feel. Billy Tauzin, the former CEO of [the trade organization of] Big Pharma, negotiated a secret deal with President Obama to extend the patents of biologics, this new revolutionary class of drugs, for 12 years. And Obama also promised in this deal that he would not negotiate drug prices for Medicare."
Obama's numerous betrayals-from his failure to implement serious environmental reform at Copenhagen, to his expansion of the current wars, to his refusal to create jobs for our desperate class of unemployed and underemployed, to his gutting of public education, to his callous disregard for the rights of workers and funneling of trillions in taxpayer money to banks-is a shameful list. Passing universal, single-payer nonprofit health care for all Americans might have delivered to Obama, who may well be a one-term president, at least one worthwhile achievement. Single-payer nonprofit health care has widespread popular support, with nearly two-thirds of the public behind it. It is backed by 59 percent of doctors. And it would have helped roll back, at least a bit, the corporate assault on the citizenry.
Medical bills lead to 62 percent of personal bankruptcies, and nearly 80 percent of these people had insurance. The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, $8,160 per capita. Private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume 31 percent of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment through a single nonprofit payer would save more than $400 billion per year-enough, PNHP estimates, to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.
Candidate Obama promised to protect women's rights under Roe. v. Wade, something this legislation does not do. He told voters he would create a public option and then refused to consider it. The health care reform bill, to quote a statement released by PNHP, has instead "saddled Americans with an expensive package of onerous individual mandates, new taxes on workers' health plans, countless sweetheart deals with the insurers and Big Pharma, and a perpetuation of the fragmented, dysfunctional, and unsustainable system that is taking such a heavy toll on our health and economy today."
"Obama said he was going to have everybody at the table," Redmond said, "but that was a lie. Our voice was not allowed to be there. There was a blackout on our movement. We did not get media attention. We did actions all over the country but we could not get coverage. We had the ‘Mad as Hell Doctors' go across the country in a caravan, and they had rallies and meetings. If that had been a bunch of AMA Republican doctors, Cooper Anderson would have been on the caravan reporting live. NPR would have done a series. Instead, they did not get much coverage. And neither did the sit-ins and arrests at insurance companies, although we have never seen that level of activity. They turned us into a fringe movement, although poll after poll shows that the majority of people want some kind of single-payer system."
Our for-profit health system is driven by insurance companies whose goal is to avoid covering the elderly and the sick. These groups, most in need of medical care, diminish profits. Medicare, paid for by the government, removes responsibility for many of the old. Medicaid, also paid for by the government, removes the poor people, who have a greater tendency to have chronic health problems. Hefty premiums, which those who are seriously ill and lose their jobs often cannot pay, remove the very sick. If you are healthy and employed, which means you are less likely to need expensive or complex treatment, the insurance companies swoop down like birds of prey. These corporations need to control our perceptions of health care. Patients must be viewed as consumers. Doctors, identified as "health care providers," must be seen as salespeople.
Insurance companies, which will soon be able to use billions in taxpayer dollars to bolster their lobbying efforts and campaign contributions, know that single-payer nonprofit insurance means their extinction. And they will employ considerable resources to make sure single-payer nonprofit coverage is denied to the public. They correctly see this as a battle for their lives. And if human beings have to die so they can survive, they are willing to make us pay this price.
The for-profit health care industry, along with the Democratic Party, consciously set out to confuse the public debate. It created Health Care for America NOW! in 2008 and provided it with tens of millions of dollars to supposedly build a public campaign for a public option. But the organization had no intention of permitting a public option. The organization was, as Dr. Flowers said, "a very clever way to distract members of the single-payer movement and co-op some of them. They told them that the public option would become single payer, that it was a back door to single payer, although there was no evidence that was true."
Physicians for a National Health Plan attempted to fight back. It worked with a number of organizations under a coalition called the Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Health Care. The group, which included the National Nurse's Union and Health Care Now, sought meetings with members of Congress. Flowers and other advocates asked Congress members to include them in committee debates about the health care bill. But when the first debate on the health care reform took place in the Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Sen. Max Baucus, a politician who gets over 80 percent of his campaign contributions from outside his home state of Montana, they were locked out. Baucus invited 41 people to testify. None backed single payer.
The Leadership Conference, which represents more than 20 million people, again requested that one of their members testify. Baucus again refused. When the second committee meeting took place, Flowers and seven other activists stood one by one in the room and asked why the voices of the patients and the health care providers were not being heard. The eight were arrested and removed from the committee hearing.
Single-payer advocates were eventually heard on a few of the House and Senate committees. But the hearings were a charade, part of Washington's cynical political theater. It was the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists who were in charge. They dominated the public debate. They wrote the legislation. They determined who received lavish campaign contributions and who did not. And they won.
"We are talking about life and death, about the difference between living your life and dying," Redmond said. "And once again it came down to the Democratic Party trumping the needs of the people."
© 2010 TruthDig.com
Chris Hedges writes a regular column for Truthdig.com. Hedges graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times. He is the author of many books, including: War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning, What Every Person Should Know About War, and American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. His most recent book is Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle.
Rate of Arctic Sea Ice Melt Heats Up
by Randy Boswell | Published on Monday, July 12, 2010 by Canwest News Service | Link
Arctic Ocean sea ice melted faster last month than it has in any previous June since satellite measurements began 30 years ago, continuing a pattern that could see a new record retreat by summer's end, according to North America's main ice-monitoring research centre.
The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Centre, the Colorado-based institute that tracks the annual cycle of winter ice buildup and summer thaw, says in its latest report that June's rapid melt — which followed a similar record-setting retreat in May — means the polar ice cover remained on pace to shrink more than it did in 2007, when an unprecedented loss of ice first prompted scientists to raise alarms about the Arctic as a harbinger of global climate change.
"Arctic air temperatures were higher than normal, and Arctic sea ice continued to decline at a fast pace" last month, the centre said in its July 6 report, adding that June also "saw the return of the Arctic dipole anomaly, an atmospheric pressure pattern that contributed to the record sea ice loss in 2007."
The sharp overall decrease in Arctic ice was driven partly by an extensive melt in Hudson Bay, which normally retains significant amounts of ice into July but is virtually clear this year, the NSIDC stated.
At the same time, the "Nares Strait ice arch" between Ellesmere Island and Greenland, which normally blocks the southward flow of thicker ice from the central Arctic Ocean, disappeared in May — similar to what happened in 2007 — and could allow an above-average discharge of older ice into warmer waters, the centre noted.
"Weather conditions, atmospheric patterns, and cloud cover over the next month will play a major role in determining whether the 2010 sea ice decline tracks at a level similar to 2007," the report stated. "It would not be surprising to see the rate of ice loss slow in coming weeks as the melt process starts to encounter thicker, second and third year ice in the central Arctic Ocean. Loss of ice has already slowed in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas due to the tongue of thicker, older ice in the region."
Last week, for the first time since early May, the trend line for 2010's rapid ice melt leveled out just enough to intersect with the 2007 trend line on NSIDC's daily satellite graphing of total Arctic ice extent.
The U.S. centre was instrumental in alerting the world in 2007 to that year's unprecedented summer melt of Arctic sea ice, from 14 million square kilometres at the end of the winter to about 4.3 million square kilometres by September 2007.
The past two summers have shown modest recoveries in ice extent to a late-summer minimum of about 4.7 million square kilometres (2008) and 5.4 million square kilometres (2009), still the second- and third-lowest extents since satellite measurements began in 1979.
The Colorado centre's experts and most other ice-monitoring researchers around the world — including the federal Canadian Ice Service — recently predicted another significant meltdown this summer, but not a record-setting one exceeding the historic retreat of 2007.
While many scientists expect virtually ice-free summers to occur in the Arctic in the coming decades — with some forecasting clear sailing within a few years — scientists continue to probe the reasons for the recent pattern of ice loss, its significance in long-term climate history and the immediate implications of a reduced polar cap, including the "feedback" risk of decreased sunlight reflection and even greater ocean warming.
Meanwhile, Canada and other northern nations — anticipating an increasingly ice-free polar realm and more Arctic ship traffic — are rushing to implement new transport and environmental regulations, bolster international search-and-rescue protocols and prepare for increased Arctic oil and gas development.
Last week, the world's largest association of maritime cargo carriers raised concerns about the Canadian government's July 1 implementation of a new, mandatory Arctic ship-tracking system for most foreign and domestic vessels travelling through Canada's northern waters.
PBS, George Shultz and Funny Funding: Do PBS's conflict of interest rules apply?
From a FAIR email alert.
7/12/10
Many PBS stations around the country will begin airing a three-part, three-hour documentary tonight (7/12/10) about Reagan-era Secretary of State George Shultz. According to the New York Times (7/12/10), the unusually lengthy, completely uncritical tribute is partially sponsored by corporations linked to Shultz's corporate career.
The special, Turmoil and Triumph, was funded by the Stephen Bechtel Fund and Charles Schwab. Shultz was a board member at both companies, and was president of the Bechtel Corporation from 1975 to 1982.
According to reviews, the documentary takes an overwhelmingly positive, even gushing stance. The Times' Alessandra Stanley points out, "There is no mention that Mr. Shultz was a cheerleader for the 2003 invasion of Iraq while still on the board of Bechtel, a construction and engineering firm that won huge contracts that were later criticized by the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction."
As the San Francisco Chronicle put it (7/10/10), "Only once in Turmoil's three hours will you hear someone disagree with Shultz"--not about his own performance, but about whether Reagan knew about the Iran/Contra arms deals. Conservative Wall Street Journal columnist Dorothy Rabinowitz (7/9/10) noted that the speakers in the film are "an exceptionally enthusiastic lot even by the prevailing standards for testimonials of this sort."
The political slant of the film is not a surprise. The company that produced it, Free to Choose Media, has had a hand in several conservative-oriented programs that have aired on public television, including 1980's Free to Choose, a special PBS series celebrating conservative economist Milton Friedman. As Greg Mitchell noted in the Nation (7/12/10), Free to Choose Media "was founded with money from the conservative Bradley Foundation and is part of the Palmer R. Chitester Fund."
Beyond questions about the tone and length of the special--"Even Ken Burns was able to polish off an entire mini-series about Thomas Jefferson in three hours," Stanley notes--it's troubling that PBS is airing a documentary funded by corporations with distinct ties to the subject of the film. In the past, PBS has rejected films for distribution based on these apparent conflicts of interest: The 1997 film Out at Work was refused because it received funding from labor unions and a lesbian group. The 1993 documentary Defending Our Lives addressed domestic violence--but one of the producers was affiliated with a support group for battered women, so PBS wouldn't air it (Extra!, 1-2/98). Even Lost Eden, a historical drama about a 19th century textile strike, was turned away because of labor funding (Extra!, Summer/90).
Corporate interests, by contrast, have been given more freedom; a series about the oil industry presented by industry-affiliated companies (Extra!, 9-10/93), for example, or the glowing tribute to New York Times pundit James Reston--produced with funding from the New York Times (Extra!, 1-2/98). A 2002 film about corporate globalization was underwritten by the likes of FedEx and British Petroleum (FAIR Press Release, 4/3/02).
What's PBS's excuse this time for airing a program whose subject is so closely tied to the interests of its funders? PBS chief TV programming executive John Wilson told the New York Times (7/12/10): "We evaluate programs on their merits.... PBS has a vivid track record of covering this administration's key players. It goes without saying this is not our first look at the Reagan White House and not the last."
So apparently we should wait for the next time PBS airs a three-hour documentary on George Shultz to hear a critical word about the man.
PBS ombud Michael Getler once wrote (10/23/06) that the "internal guidelines are fairly extensive. They state, in part, that 'PBS expects producers to adhere to the highest professional standards' including 'real or perceived conflicts of interest.'"
If those are still the rules, how does PBS justify its decision to give Turmoil and Triumph a national public television platform?
ACTION:
Write to PBS ombud Michael Getler and ask him to investigate the relationship between the subject and funders of Turmoil and Triumph.
CONTACT:
PBS Ombud
Michael Getler
ombudsman@pbs.org
(703) 739-5290
Dick Quinn provided this article/link.
A cowboy, who has moved to Wyoming from Texas, walks into a bar and orders three mugs of Bud. He sits in the back of the room, drinking a sip out of each one in turn. When he finishes them, he comes back to the bar and orders three more.
The bartender approaches and tells the cowboy, "You know, a mug goes flat after I draw it. It would taste better if you drank one at a time."
The cowboy replies, "Well, you see, I have two brothers. One is in Arizona, the other is in Colorado . When we all left our home in Texas , we promised that we'd drink this way to remember the days when we drank together. So I'm drinking one beer for each of my brothers and one for myself."
The bartender admits that this is a nice custom and leaves it there.
The cowboy becomes a regular in the bar, and always drinks the same way. He orders three mugs and drinks them in turn.
One day, he comes in and only orders two mugs. All the regulars take notice and fall silent. When he comes back to the bar for the second round, the bartender says, "I don't want to intrude on your grief, but I wanted to offer my condolences on your loss." The cowboy looks quite puzzled for a moment, then a light dawn's in his eyes and he laughs. "Oh, no, everybody's just fine," he explains, "It's just that my wife and I joined the Baptist Church and I had to quit drinking."
"Hasn't affected my brothers though."
Thank You for Subscribing to Derrick's Progressive News
Feel free to forward this email…
Contact Derrick at Derrick@Duehren.com to subscribe for free or to unsubscribe. Please put “Newsletter” in the subject line.
|
Publisher/Editor |
||
|
|
Derrick Duehren www.Duehren.com By day, I’m a technical writer/human factors Specialist for a local telecommunications company; by night, I’m a fire-breathing defender of liberal social policies. I’m a news hound and share with you stories and videos that I feel are worth sharing with you all (590 as of July 2010). I do not share my mailing list and all newsletters go out as blind copies, so everyone gets their own individual copy. |
~ YES WE ARE ~
Making single payer happen
one person one phone call/Fax
~ at a time ~ Regina Dobson |
Get information, resources, and more at our web site: SinglePayUSA.com.
Contact Congress Daily: Send a Free E-Fax at www.1payer.net/faxapp/.
Other Good Sites for Single Payer Information:
Recent comments
1 week 3 days ago
1 week 3 days ago
2 weeks 12 hours ago
2 weeks 18 hours ago
3 weeks 6 days ago
5 weeks 2 days ago
9 weeks 2 days ago
16 weeks 6 days ago
30 weeks 4 days ago
31 weeks 5 days ago