Nancy Boyda's Visit to the show

Rep. Boyda's visit to the show has created something of a flood of questions people want answered. I am posting some of the information that has come in here for people to reference and review.

---------------------------------

" Chris: This soldier Op-Ed is another document to consider making sure Nancy Boyda and staff have perused."

The War As We Saw It
By Buddhika Jayamaha, Wesley D. Smith, Jeremy Roebuck, Omar Mora, Edward Sandmeier, Yance T. Gray and Jeremy A. Murphy. The New York Times, Sunday 19 August 2007.

For the complete article please visit:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081907A.shtml

--------------------------------------------------

"Christopher:

Congratulations on getting Nancy Boyda as a guest on Community Bridge! That's quite a coup.

On Bush's credibility: make sure her staff (and if possible she herself) has seen the MoveOn video about Bush's history of claiming "progress."

Raise the question of General Petraeus's own credibility (as distinct from his competence as a military commander under the circumstances). Here are some key sources.

Again, it would not be ill to let her staff know she can expect questions on this issue grounded in these sources. That's not putting her on the spot. It's giving her the courtesy of a heads-up about the audience's specific points of concern.

• Paul Krugman, "Time to Take a Stand: Five Things for Democrats to Remember"here at truthout.org. Krugman points out the bearing of Petraeus' past predictions in the light of the GAO report on benchmarks and the "Jones Report" (from the commission of senior retired military and police officers commissioned by Sen. Warner). (NYT, 7 Sept 07); text available w/out charge

• For more on the GAO Report
  
• US Auditor Queries Military Iraq Casualty Figures"Includes remarks from interview with committee head, who questions the military's method of measuring casualties from "sectarian violence" (in its estimate that such violence has declined since the surge). (AgenceFrance-Presse, 7 Sept 07).
• Anne Flaherty, "GAO: Iraq hasn't met 11 of 18 benchmarks" (AP News, 4 Sept 07). Reports on White House intervention in the report, and on reasons for skepticism about statistics used in military's claim of "progress" in reducing sectarian violence."
  
• "GAO Report Card on Iraq Benchmarks" (Boston Globe, 5 Sept 07).
• Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks, "Report Finds Little Progress on Iraq Goals: GAO Draft at Odds With White House" (Washington Post, 30 Aug 07).

• For more on the "Jones Report" see
• "Iraqi forces made 'uneven progress', study finds" (AP, 5 Sept 07).

• Patrick O'Connor, "Democrats skeptical of Petraeus report" (Politico, 9 Sept 07).

• Tom Englehardt, "Launching Brand Petraeus: 'Progress by the Numbers'" (Tomgram, 9 Sept 07).
• This is the third in Tomdispatch's "by the numbers" series, leading up to this week's White House "Progress Report" from the U.S. commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. The first, in June, was "Iraq by the Numbers"; the second, in August, was "Escalation by the Numbers." You can check them for topics missing this time around.

• New York Times Editorial, "Hiding Behind the General" (NYT, 9 Sept 07).

• Ray McGovern, "Are Petraeus and Westmoreland Birds of a Feather?" (Truthout Perspective, 7 Sept 07).
• McGovern served as an Army infantry/intelligence officer in the sixties. He was then a CIA analyst for 27 years (and became, until his retirement, the officer responsible for compiling the daily intelligence estimate for the presiden. After his retirement he cofounded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
  

• Gary Langer, "Iraqis Say Surge Is Not Working" (ABC News, 10 Sept 07).

• Damien Cave and Stephen Farrell, "At Street Level, Unmet Goals of Troop Buildup" (NYT, 9 Sept 07); text available free here at truthout.org.

• Frank Rich, "As the Iraqis Stand Down, We'll Stand Up" (NYT, 9 Sept 07); text available w/out charge here at truthout.org.

There is also the report being brought by Ambassador Crocker, with whom it is worth getting some familiarity. See

• Karen DeYoung, "The Iraq Report's Other Voice: Ambassador's Appraisal May Carry a More Lasting Weight" (WP, 10 Sept 07).

Rep. Boyda should understand clearly that she needs to be with the anti-war Democrats who are opposing the strategy (disastrous for the country, as for Democrat) of forging a "consensus policy" with the Republicans on continuing the war. You and she both would want to be familiar with the following:

• Martin Kady II, "Anti-war Democrats fight for timeline" (Politico, 7 Sept 07).

Again, congratulations on arranging for Representative Boyda to be on Community Bridge -- and in this crucial week, too.

-----------------------------------------

Hey Chris,
Please ask Nancy Boyda about HR 1717. It is a bill that wouls allow EXOTIC PATHOGENS WITH HIGH FATALITY RATES FOR WHICH THERE IS NO KNOW VACCINE OR THERAPY to be imported onto our mainland, a prerequisite for researching then in the Naitonal Bio and Agro Defense Facility (NBAF) proposed for Manhattan. HR 1717 is sponsored by representatives from Texas and Mississippi, states also in the running with Manhattan as sites for the biggest germlab in THE WORLD.

To view the text of HB 1717 go to:
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110KFERud::
------------------------

"Christopher,
Here's a resource to exploit in preparing to talk with Boyda.

------- Original Message --------

Subject:	The People's Report: Answering the Petraeus Report
Date:	Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:48:45 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Institute for Policy Studies

Dear friends,

Gen. Petraeus today was full of no surprises -- the "surge" is working, we need more time, we need more cooperation from the Iraqi government, we need more U.S. troops to spend more time in Iraq, we need more dead Iraqis... oops, sorry, he didn't really say that last one, but he might as well have, since that's the consequence of his plan.

The only thing new, since the last general's briefing, was the focus on Iran. The U.S. occupation of Iraq is not any longer about the "global war on terrorism" -- now it's all Iran, all the time. This is extremely dangerous, and there must be no let-up in pressure to prevent further escalation of this war for empire to new vistas in Iran.

My IPS colleagues Erik Leaver and Saif Rahman and I have written a short new piece called "Iraq: The People's Report" to answer the claims of the Petraeus Report. It's being distributed by the United for Peace and Justice anti-war coalition -- and includes an assessment of what's wrong with the report, as well as a look at the costs of war to Iraq and to the U.S., and a one-page description of how to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq without abandoning our obligations to the Iraqi people. Please take a look -- it's a four-page flier, and you can download it and print it on either 8 1/2 x 11 or 11 x 17 inch paper.

It's available at http://www.unitedforpeace.org/downloads/people_s_report_11by17.pdf or at http://www.unitedforpeace.org/downloads/peoplesreport.pdf

There continues to be a lot of excuses from Democrats and their supporters, claiming that the reason they can't end the war is they don't have the votes, or don't have a veto-proof majority. They don't, but a number of peace organizations have realized that if the Democrats really WANTED to end the war, there is a different way of cutting the funding, without having to worry about getting 67 votes in the Senate or a veto-proof majority in the House.

The Bush administration is requesting $141 billion more funding for the occupation of Iraq, and is about to ask for another $50 billion on top of that. In a new campaign, some groups are calling on the House Appropriation Committee chairman, Congressman David Obey, to simply refuse to bring those latest funding requests to a vote. If you stop the vote, they reason, you stop the funding. And Bush can't veto something that hasn't been voted on. If the speaker of the house, California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, tries to do an end-run around such a decision by the Appropriations Committee chairman to force a vote on the House floor, she would have to admit that she's working awfully hard to support the war -- and peace groups point out that Nancy Pelosi represents a strongly anti-war district that wouldn't like that very much.

It's an interesting idea. After all, the Democrats have been in control of the Congress for almost a full year -- and nothing has changed. The war continues; there are MORE U.S. troops occupying Iraq than there were a year ago; almost TWICE as many Iraqis are being killed and injured as a year ago. U.S. troops continue to die and continue to kill.

It's way past time to end the occupation. Hope you find the new Report useful.

all the best

Phyllis Bennis

Director, New Internationalism Project

Institute for Policy Studies

1112 16th Street NW #600

Washington DC 20036

tel: (1-202) 234-9382 ex 206

----------------------------------------------
Representative Boyda,

First of all, I would like to thank you for voting in favor of the Hate Crimes bill earlier this year, which included hate crimes committed towards LGBT individuals. I understand that now Congress is working on passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would include sexual orientation and gender identity in the federal non-discrimination policy. Right now a person can be fired for being gay in 31 states and for your gender identity in 42 states including Kansas. Would you please tell us your thoughts about ENDA and whether you support such legislation?

------------------------------------

Representative Boyda,

I understand that you did not support the funding of a domestic partnership registry in Washington, DC, which would have enabled unmarried couples there who share a relationship of mutual support, caring and commitment to formally record their relationships. Would you please explain why you voted against using federal funds to establish such a registry?

Note from Christopher: Washingtion DC has never used federal funds for its domestic partner registry, so the vote in Congress was largely symbolic, but it is still rather unsettling that she voted for the resolution.

KILL THE POOR

I'm posting this because it shows how much organizations link to the Bush administration are purposely spreading false information about the state of the US economy and the impact of their policies.

09/04/2007
KILL THE POOR
Phony Poverty Study Fools Lazy Journalists
by Ted Rall

NEW YORK--They're baaack! Once again the Heritage Foundation is mangling statistics to whitewash the ugly facts of life in Republican-run America.

Last time, in 2005, they attacked the image of U.S. soldiers as cannon fodder being exploited for Halliburton. Au contraire, claimed the conservative propaganda mill. American troops, they said were actually "wealthier, more educated and more rural than the average" citizen. Of course, this wasn't true. "Military personnel are poorer and less educated" than the average Joe, I found when I took a closer look. Heritage's soldier study used junk logic and apples-to-oranges statistics to promote the GOP's wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. And it worked.

The lazy men who run the big newspapers and TV networks, deluded into believing there are two sides to every story, dutifully repeated Heritage's lies. They never questioned a word. More soldiers died. The Heritage story made us feel less guilty about it.

Now Heritage is telling us that there are no poor people--very few, anyway, and then only for short periods of time--in the United States. The truth is that capitalism is failing millions of Americans. The less we think about the problem, the less we think it is a problem, the worse it will become.

The pseudoacademic demagogues of the right want us to distrust our own eyes. Panhandlers? "Homeless by choice" urban campers, Ronald Reagan, patron saint of modern Republicanism, called them. Single mothers? He said they were "welfare queens." Americans who live in the sprawling slums of the inner cities, the washed-up Walmarted Main Streets of the farm belt, and the scary barred-window suburbs of California and Georgia and Illinois? They're living large, says the Heritage Foundation in a "study" whose dubious findings have already been reprinted--completely unquestioned, as usual--by hundreds of newspapers read by millions of gullible subscribers.

The Census Bureau says that 36.5 million Americans--one in eight--are poor. But "if poverty means a lack of nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, then very few of the people identified as living 'in poverty' would, in fact, be characterized as poor," says Heritage's Robert Rector. "The typical person defined as 'poor' by the Census has cable or satellite TV, air conditioning, a microwave, a DVD player or VCR, and two color TVs."

No doubt, poor people in a technologically advanced nation like the United States don't live as minimally as those in undeveloped states like Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, on the other hand, a middle-class American homeowner would be spectacularly wealthy. A man worth $500,000 could become a warlord. There are no Afghan billionaires. Poverty is relative.

Even the claim that gadget ownership is incompatible with true poverty doesn't hold up: Rector refers to "a DVD player or VCR." But VCRs are antiquated, a decade out of date. It's like saying that someone who owns "a computer or a typewriter" isn't poor.

"Poor Americans living in houses or apartments, on average, have more living space per person than does the average citizen living in European countries such as England, France and Germany," the Heritage study asserts. There's a footnote--but the source material doesn't include figures for per-capita housing density in Europe. (As far as I can tell, such data doesn't exist.) Even if it's true, though, it's a factoid without a point. Europe, urbanized for the past 2000 years, has an overall higher population density than we do--yet enjoys the world's highest standard of living.

The more you think about Heritage's BS, the worse it gets.

"Three quarters of these 'poor'"--note the quotes--own a car," Rector continues. Are those cars in good working order, or up on blocks? He doesn't say--but there's a difference.

"When asked, [the typical 'poor person'] reports that his family was able to obtain medical care whenever needed during the past year," he continues. True--sorta. Uninsured people often rely on hospitals, enduring long waits and high fees for substandard care rendered by harried emergency room staffers. Hospitals are legally obligated to treat them--but it's hardly a workable system. Many poor (and middle class) people put off going to the doctor as long as possible.

Then there's this sparkling gem of compassion: "Some poor families," admits Rector, "do experience a temporary food shortage, a condition touted as 'hunger' by activists. But even this condition is relatively rare: 89 percent of the poor report their families always have 'enough' food to eat, while only 2 percent say they 'often' do not have enough to eat."

"Temporary food shortage." If that isn't hunger, what is? "Very simply," says the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "hunger is defined as the uneasy or painful sensation caused by lack of food. When we talk about hunger in America, we refer to the ability of people to obtain sufficient food for their household. Some people may find themselves skipping meals or cutting back on the quality or quantity of food they purchase at the stores. This recurring and involuntary lack of access to food can lead to malnutrition over time."

Economists consider a society's infant mortality rate to be the most reliable indicator of its citizens' quality of life, and the prevalence of poverty. The United States has the second-worst infant morality rate in the industrialized world--behind Latvia, tied with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia. Western Europe--France, Germany, etc.--kicks our national ass. The poverty rate for American children under 18 was 21.9 percent in 2006, the highest in the developed world.

Upwardly mobile Americans can escape poverty numerous ways--by, for example, earning a college scholarship. But we also suffer a lot of downward mobility, typically after losing a job. "While in any given year 12 to 15 percent of the population is poor," says Michael Zweig, author of "What's Class Got To Do With It, American Society in the 21st Century" (2004), "over a ten-year period 40 percent experience poverty in at least one year because most poor people cycle in and out of poverty."

Even the Heritage Foundation concedes that some poverty exists in this best of all possible laissez faire worlds. But, they argue in the finest tradition of blame-the-victim, it's "self-inflicted, a result of poor decisions and self-defeating behaviors."

Poor Americans, they say, have a "weak work ethic." The evidence: "The typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year--16 hours per week. "If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty." This assumes that poor parents live in a magical job market where they can work as many hours as they please--a condition that would only exist with zero percent unemployment.

"Father absence is another major cause of child poverty," says Heritage's poverty study. True. "Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock." Again true. The conservative solution: "If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty." Stupid welfare queens! Why do they refuse to marry the fathers of their children?

A cat or dog understands hunger. The fact that we have to have this discussion demonstrates the success of the right in redefining basic terms--and the failure of the press to question it.

(Ted Rall is the author of the new book "Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?," an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge.)

COPYRIGHT 2007 TED RALL