Name it and it sticks

[yesthattom]

The Republicans know that if something doesn’t get “a name” it doesn’t “stick”. There was 6 months of Clinton-did-something-murmurs but once they all started calling it “MonicaGate”, then it got traction. Creating the name “Snowflake Babies” turned the entire “Republicans want to stop America from curing diseases and force all the good biotech jobs to other countries” into photo ops for newborns that people I wouldn’t trust with a beanie-baby were claiming had been born from embryos that would otherwise have been destroyed.

The liberals (and I say liberals... as in the word with the same root as “liberation”) need to name things better. Here are some things that need names:

• The 100,000 people that are arm-less, leg-less, or hand-less or otherwise have body parts blown up during the Iraq war. Half of them won’t talk to the media because they are afraid of losing their VA benefits. However the other half are ineligible for VA benefits because National Guard troops can’t use the VA (when Dems proposed it, it was voted down by the Republicans for being “too expensive”). That “other half” should be willing to talk to the media.
• A name of vets from the Iraq war that get no VA benefits because they were National Guard members.
• A name for the miscounting of the number of dead Americans in the Iraq war. We just surpassed 3,000 dead, right? Well, it turns out that number doesn’t count the people that die on the airplane to the military hospital in Germany (or while at that hospital). In other words, they under counted by getting wounded onto the airplane as soon as possible. Some estimate there are 5,000 people dead by that standard.
• Unemployment statistics count people getting unemployment benefits, but those run out after 6 months. Therefore the “low unemployment rate” means that very few people have lost their job recently. If you lost your job 6 months and a day, you are out of the statistics. The real unemployment story is much different (and a smart president could use this fact to sustain a long period of many-people-without-jobs as long as they all lost them early in his administration; and then just stayed unemployed for years)
• The people that have jobs without insurance, especially the ones that use expensive emergency room visits for normal treatment... which you and me pay for in taxes. (It would be cheaper to give them insurance and get them primary care)

Can you name more under-counted categories that should be named and/or suggest names for these groups of people?

Comments

[baerana.livejournal.com]

i've always wondered why liberals weren't good at this

1) half a soldier left behind
2) a soldier left behind
3) maybe a pronounceable acronym, something like... dowric soldiers (died of wounds received in combat)
4) the seriously fucked unemployed
5) an EBSF person - employed but still fucked

I don't know. I can't name things, I used to have a cat named "Cat" - coming up w/ the name "Nibbler" for my bunny was stretched my imagination. But we need to learn to be good w/ acronyms - like, how Bush + Co turned the most unpatriotic, anti-everything-America-stands-for piece of crap into the "US PATRIOT act"

unemployment statistics misunderstanding

[domiobrien.livejournal.com]

You are confusing unemployment statistics with claimant statistics. Claimants are people filing for unemployment benefits, whether they are unemployed or have reduced hours. Those are not necessarily unemployed. Unemployment statistics are based on statistical household sampling surveys and reflect people who are able, available, and looking for full-time (over 30 hours a week) work, and have had no work at all in the past four weeks. If you substitute taught for one day last week for $65, you are not unemployed; if you waitress every Saturday night for 4 hours at the club, you are not unemployed; if you only want 15 or 20 hours a week of work around your college schedule, you are not unemployed. To be counted as unemployed, you must be able, available, actively looking for work over 30 hours a week, and have had no work at all in 4 weeks. About 40% of American adults have full-time jobs (over 30 hours); about 22% have part-time jobs (under 30 hours); 38% have no jobs. (This includes people who are retired, stay-at-home parents, disabled persons unable to work, etc). Of those with full-time jobs in the private sector, almost half do not have employer-offered health insurance or sick leave. When we are at "full" employment, it means that about 70% of adult Americans have some kind of work, and the other 30% aren't looking for work. Underemployment-- needing a full-time job but only having temporary or part-time or occasional work-- is not reflected in the figures. The fact that only 15% of US jobs require a college degree, but about 25% of US adults claim to have a degree (based on records of accredited colleges, about 20% actually do) and many people are "overqualified" for positions is not reflected in this... Domi (who works in IT at the unemployment office....)

Re: unemployment statistics misunderstanding

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

And, yet, NPR, CNN, the Sunday morning talk shows, and others keep talking about the unemployment rate being deceptive because of the 6-month shelf.

Re: unemployment statistics misunderstanding

[domiobrien.livejournal.com]

That's because they haven't a clue what the figures are based on, though they COULD bother looking it up. Most of them have never heard of Wagner-Peyser (the 1933 act that started the unemployment system and job centers), the Reed Act, DOLETA, ELMI, etc, much less understand what they are about. People who are filing for unemployment insurance are CLAIMANTS-- they may, or may not be, unemployed. Information on them is reported as UI filings/claims, NOT unemployment. And while 6 months is the most common eligibility period, there are people who only qualify for a few weeks of UI, and others who qualify for much more (after 9/11 there were many people who qualified for 65 weeks of benefits; some people certified under Trade Act get 2 years of help). Unemployment figures come from the statistical household survey, not from claims. Job growth and shrinkage come from employer reports, not UI claims or the household survey. So you may see that new UI filings are down, but continued claims are steady, and the long-term claimant list is growing (if you've been claiming for 13 weeks, you are a long-term claimant-- most people are, historically back to work by then) but that the unemployment rate is up, and that there are fewer jobs; all of these come off different sources reported to DOLETA and turned into statistical reports by ELMI (Employment and Labor Market Information) personnel. Check out Bureau of Labor Statistics online.

veterans

[domiobrien.livejournal.com]

Anyone who served at least 180 days active duty not-for-training is a veteran, whether regular military, reserve, or national guard. Persons who served shorter terms than this are not considered veterans and are not entitled to veterans benefits. It's always been that way-- WWII, Korea, VietNam, Desert Storm, etc. All veterans are entitled to VA home loans and certain other benefits. Use of VA medical facilites, however, is limited to those with service-connected medical problems, veterans on retirement pay or disability pensions, and low-income veterans in other categories. Full benefits are only available to those on retirement pay or military disability pensions and their families, or the families of those who died on active duty or while recieving military retirement pay or disability pension. The GI bill ended long ago; educational benefits for veterans depend on what program they enlisted or were commissioned under and when.
All returning veterans not eligible for military retirement pay or disability pension have special eligibility for unemployment compensation and all veterans are entitled to specialized reemployment services.

Re: veterans benefits for National Guard

[domiobrien.livejournal.com]

http://www1.va.gov/environagents/docs/Summary_of_VA_Benefits_Guard_Reserve_March_04.pdf

National Guard members who were activated for Federal duty ARE entitled to veteran's benefits on the same basis are other veterans, whether regular military, reserve, or guard. National Guard and Reserve members who have never served on active duty are not veterans and are not entitled to VA benefits (George W. Bush is in this category).

Re: veterans benefits for National Guard

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

So these people with 3 legs shot off but can't use the VA are in this situation because they got hit on day 1 thru 179?

Re: veterans benefits for National Guard

[domiobrien.livejournal.com]

No-- those who are wounded/mulilated on Federal active duty, including whether after 180 days or before that, are supposed to be kept in the service, receiving medical services at military medical facilities, until either well enough to return to active duty, or until given a disability percentage rating and a monthly disability pension (at which point, they are entitled to use VA hospitals and receive other veterans benefits) and an official status of medical honorable discharge on the DD214. The widows/widowers/orphans of those killed on active duty are entitled to monthly Dependents Indemnity and Compensation, military medical care, commissary and PX privileges, etc. on top of the insurance/death benefits. But for people who simply don't serve at least 180 days Federal active, who return home safely, there are no vets benefits. The concern, of course, that some wounded Guards simply want to go home, to areas where there is no VA hospital near than, and without official resolution of their status. Due to Federal budget-cutting, there are fewer VA hospitals than there once were, and they are open fewer hours in some cases, with fewer staff. So while those with service-connected medical issues are priority, the services they need may not be available in their home area.

Re: veterans benefits for National Guard

[redsonja.livejournal.com]

During my USAF technical training, I had a roommmate who fell while doing her mile and a quarter PT run and broke her wrist. The TI didn't believe her and forced her to do pushups on it. Her AFSC was computer operator, and the injury made her unfit for both her job description and any sort of military duty beyond guarding facilities. She should have been medically discharged.

Instead they made her wait over nine months while trying to decide what to do with her. A civilian would have been able to take any other employer to court over this. They relegated this extremely intelligent young lady to guard duty for nine months while they tried to find a way out of paying her disability. They wanted to get their investment back and they were going to get it, even if it was setting her at guard duty for months; literally adding insult to injury. And this is how they treated someone active duty in peacetime (1986). If I had known then what I know now, I would have told her to get in touch with her Congressman pronto.

On two occasions, at two different bases, I came down with bronchial pneumonia. At Keesler, I was openly accused of malingering, but at least given the medicine I needed. At Ramstein, I was made to wait three hours in the waiting room, shivering in my field jacket until the fever broke, then handed a prescription for ASPIRIN (!!!!) and again accused of malingering. I had to go back a second time when a different doctor was on duty to get the antibiotics necessary.

Military medical care can be heinous on the best of occasions. I have no illusions about that.

The concern, of course, that some wounded Guards simply want to go home, to areas where there is no VA hospital near than, and without official resolution of their status. Due to Federal budget-cutting, there are fewer VA hospitals than there once were, and they are open fewer hours in some cases, with fewer staff. So while those with service-connected medical issues are priority, the services they need may not be available in their home area.

One of the things the newly Democratic Congress should look at is allowing vets to use their military benefits from whatever medical facilities are nearest them. Whether they are guard, reserve or active duty, you don't see anyone military saying "Well this isn't MY little backwater, why should *I* bother putting my life on the line for it?" The military protects the entire nation, why should it be that only PARTS of the nation are made available to them when they need medical attention for injuries sustained in that service?

Re: veterans benefits for National Guard

[domiobrien.livejournal.com]

My father was career Air Force; my ex put in a full Army career (AGR, active guard & reserves). I've dealt with military medical facilies, the CHAMPUS program, etc all my life. The military medical system is just like civilian HMOs-- some good people, some bad ones, some trying to give the patient an aspirin, an antibiotic, or a tranquilizer and get them out of there, some willing to run the tests, make the referrals, do it right. During the three years my father was stationed at Hahn AFB in Germany, the clinic was so bad on base that after a few months run-arounds my parents finally made the decision that all of us-- including my active-duty officer father-- would see the local German doctor and pay him cash, with no reimbursement. (Herr Doktor Doktor Doerr identified my mother's long-term medical issues, referred her to a specialist, and followed up her treatment-- including by correspondence after we returned to the States, and shipping her medication not available in the US). I've had very good experiences with military medical, however, at Kelly AFB, Langley, and Sand Point Naval Station. Ft. Bragg was another story entirely. Those military personnel who are on retirement pay or disability pension can use the closest VA hospital, or designated civilian facilities at government expense if there is no VA hospital in the area. Some civilian facilities, however, don't like dealing with the military medical insurance process. They finally did get a law through Congress that if a doctor or medical facility accepts Medicare or Medicaid, they must also accept CHAMPUS/TRICARE coverage.

Re: veterans benefits for National Guard

[redsonja.livejournal.com]

It says a lot that your family got treated that way at Hahn and you were officer dependents. I was at the MAJCOM HQ (10 minutes away from Landstuhl), but it wasn't much better there, and I was enlisted. Yes, that unfortunately makes a difference - and I seriously doubt an enlisted paycheck could even begin to cover what a German doctor would ask for in payment.

Anything in CONUS that is high profile - DC and the Baltiwash area, Texas, Denver, etc - is going to get better facilities and treatment because there are enough people who know to go to their Congressperson if things start hitting the fan. A lot of stuff can be hidden from the general American public by keeping it overseas.

Re: veterans benefits for National Guard

[domiobrien.livejournal.com]

One of the problems here is that the National Guard are NOT supposed to be serving outside of the US, nor are they supposed to be under the Commander in Chief, though Bush and company insists this is legit. The National Guard units are, effectively, the original Homeland Security forces. They are legally under the command and control of the Governor of their state, NOT the US military/Commander in Chief, unlike active duty forces and the Reserves. They are supposed to be mobilized to handle issues in their own state; a Governor may "loan" troops on request to the Governor of another state in case of invasion, natural disaster, or civil unrest. If active duty troops aren't enough for an international situation, it's supposed to be the Reserves who get mobilized for active duty; the Guard are supposed to stay home, protecting the US. Now they are being Federalized (which happened to a much lesser extent also during VietNam) so if they meet the same criteria, they get the same benefits. But they should not be serving abroad, and no one in Congress seems willing to say it, or address the Federal power-grab. (Governor Lynch here in NH has spoken out, as have a few other Governors, but most are strangely silent.)

Re: veterans benefits for National Guard

[redsonja.livejournal.com]

One of the problems here is that the National Guard are NOT supposed to be serving outside of the US, nor are they supposed to be under the Commander in Chief, though Bush and company insists this is legit.

Oh, bring THAT insignificant, paltry, meaningless detail up why don't you. *chuckle*

It will be very interesting to see what Spitzer (who just unseated Pataki in NY) does with that particular hot potato. He's his own little wave making machine right now as it is. Every 2 hours a buzzer goes off at the NY Times and all the little Democrats come running out in their bathing suits yelling "WOOHOO!!!" :D

[polydad.livejournal.com]

Fractional Soldiers?

The National Unguarded?

Bush Body-Counts? (This comes under the general heading of Lying With Statistics, which needs its own name and I haven't read my Mencken recently.)

Creating UnPeople. If you don't have a job and you're not getting paid to not have it, you're not a person. Hey! We're Zombies!

Disposable Citizens.

I'll try for more, later.

best,

Joel. Current disposable UnPerson, but working on it.

not so

[domiobrien.livejournal.com]

If you are able, available, and looking for full-time (over 30 hours) work, and have had no work in the last 4 weeks, you are officially unemployed, whether or not you filed for or are eligible for unemployment compensation.
If you served on Federal duty for 180 days other than for training, you are a veteran, whether you were regular military, reserves, or national guard. If you didn't, you aren't, just like George W. Bush, whose Air National Guard duty didn't include any mobilization for active duty. If you are a veteran, you are entitled to veteran's benefits; see my above post for the link to the details. If you were injured on active duty, you are a CASUALTY, entitled to medical care for your service-connected medical issues (many people think casualty means death, but any personnel injured in the line of duty are casualties). The official Iraq casualty figures are here (note this is Iraq and does not include Afghanistan or other theatres). http://www.icasualties.org/oif/
Most veterans do not have service-connected medical issues, are not retired or disabled military, and are not low-income; these are the priority service categories for VA medical care, not the guys (and gals) who served a hitch and came home safely. I grew up in a military family (my father put in a full career in the Air Force) and then was an Army wife (my ex put in a full career and is now retired) and I work at unemployment; these are areas I'm very familiar with.

Re: not so

[polydad.livejournal.com]

In what state do you work at unemployment?

In New Jersey, they stopped tracking me as soon as they could deny me benefits. I'm not employed yet, but I'm not in New Jersey any more, either.

best,

Joel

Re: not so

[domiobrien.livejournal.com]

Unemployment compensation has to do with CLAIMANTS, NOT unemployment statistics. I'm in NH (and am the state rep for American's Job Bank and am a WRIS and PACIA authorized user-- meaning if I have a legitimate reason I can pull any wage records in the US, US territories, or in some circumstances Canada), but unemployment figures are not dependent on or based on state; they are based on national statistical household samples, which have nothing to do with claiming or qualifying. (Most unemployed people don't qualify for unemployment compensation; you have to have been employed in covered employment for long enough hours/wages on which unemployment insurance was paid by your employer in the base period for that.) What matters is being able, available, and looking for full-time employment and not having any employment in 4 weeks, and no individual counts at all, as is always the case with statistical sampling and interpolation.Doesn't matter if you qualified for unemployment compensation (many people who are still partially employed do; many completely unemployed people don't; or if your UI ran out) What matters if you are able, available, and looking for full-time work, and have had no work in the last 4 weeks. I deal with ELMI (Economic and Labor Market Information) all the time. They don't care at all who qualifies for UI and who doesn't; it's pretty well irrelevant. What matters to them is how many jobs there are, and how many employed people, and how many looking for jobs who don't have one, in which categories at what wages. Domi

Re: not so

[domiobrien.livejournal.com]

actually, Federal regulations require that they track you for a minimum of THREE years after the last time you 1) filed a UI claim 2) received UI benefits 3) registered in a state Job Match System 4) filed a Worker's Compensation claim or First Report of Injury 5) came off active duty, including Nation Guard or Reserve mobilization 6) were on welfare or food stamps 7) received any service from a state employment agency, welfare agency, or veteran's agency///
we track you by SSN through WRIS (wage reporting information system), New Hire Report, interviews, household surveys, and other methods. Unless you have managed to drop off the grid entirely (not possible for anyone working above the table, using their SSN, credit cards, cell phone, etc) you are being tracked, routinely. I can't tell you how many times daily people try to tell me garbage while their entire record with employers, wages, and government services for the last 15 years is sitting on the screen in front of me at work.

Re: not so

[polydad.livejournal.com]

If that's what they're required to do, they're not doing it. I showed up to register, was told I was ineligible and told to leave. So I did.

best,

Joel

Re: not so

[domiobrien.livejournal.com]

This makes no sense, Joel. All state job services are required under Wagner-Peyser(this is Federal law, not state, since 1933) to provide services to all lawful job seekers (US citizens, nationals, and legal aliens of legal age to work) whether they are eligible for unemployment compensation or not, and no one in a state job service can tell you instantly whether or not you qualify for UI; even if they think you don't based on what you say and they see on the wage scrape (lacks sufficient qualifying wages, quit the job voluntarily not with good cause attributable to the employer, fired for misconduct, spent the last 18 months in prison, have never worked in the US or Canada or for the Feds or the military, only work history is self-employment, temporarily disabled and doctor will not release for work, etc etc; they are supposed (by law) to take your application for unemployment, and have you register for work. Indeed, in most states, they simply have you do it all online on an office computer, and they won't hazard a guess as to your eligiblity, since that's up to a certifying officer/adjudicator, and the people in the office can get in trouble for making a guess. They send the notice of claim to your former employer or employers, who have 10 days to respond. You file a continued claim to request payment the next week, and weekly or biweekly thereafter. Some time 10 to 42 days after you initially file, depending on season, caseloads, and whether it's a combined wage claim with another state, territory, or Canada, you get a letter saying you are, or not, eligible. But long before that you get a letter requiring you to show up at a workshop on your rights and obligations under unemployment law. When you get the determination letter, it either says you are eligible, and they pay retroactive benefits for eligible weeks you filed on time, or you get a "not eligible" letter, with rights of appeal. And from the first day you file, your SSN is in as a claimant, and you will be tracked in WRIS for the next 3 years, looking for wages in any state or territory under your SSN. And the determination letter is terribly important, and why even if they think you aren't likely to qualify they are supposed to take your application-- because you will need it for applications for other services if you don't promptly find employment-- welfare, food stamps, housing and fuel assistance, medical assistance, etc AND most private non-profit social service agencies will all want the letter stating whether you do qualify (and for how much) or not, in determining eligibility for their programs. And whether or not you are eligible for anything, they are supposed to help you find a job-- register you for work, review your resume, give you job leads, offer you workshops on interviewing, internet job search, etc. No matter what state it is. (Or Guam, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, US Marianas, Puerto Rico) That is the law.

Re: not so

[polydad.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you live in a lawful country; I don't. I'm sorry my experience doesn't meet with your approval, but it *is* my experience, and I'm sure the guy who threw me out would be just as quick to deny it ever happened as you are, if there's anybody watching.

best,

Joel

Re: not so

[domiobrien.livejournal.com]

Joel, if you can give me a place (town/city in NJ), the date it happened, and a way for them to contact you, this is a heads-gonna-roll. If it happened as you say, someone broke both state and Federal law, and gets to lose his job if he's still there, or be prosecuted anyway if he isn't. And there is ALWAYS someone watching; services provided is crucial-- state UI/employment offices are funded by the Feds, and even if someone just comes in and asks to check job listings, any staff member at the desk will make sure he or she signs in-- so the state gets credit with the Feds for services rendered. Signatures lacking mean staff positions lost. Funding is based on the number of people who come through the office, and that's documented with sign-in sheets, registrations, and claims. Fed audits are constant. Domi

Re: not so

[polydad.livejournal.com]

And what good would getting some incompetent bureaucrat in New Jersey canned do for me?

I thank you for your interest and enthusiasm, but it took the combined actions of about eight bureaucrats to run me out of New Jersey, and unless there's some way to get my *life* back out of the deal, any vengeance short of having all eight of 'em taken out and shot isn't worth my time.

best,

Joel

Re: not so

[domiobrien.livejournal.com]

The job services under Wagner-Peyser since 1933 are one of the few government programs which actually WORK. Employers pay into the state and federal UI trust funds. The money can't be used for anything else. The primary mission is to find people jobs. The secondary mission is to help employers find employees. The third mission is to pay unemployment benefits timely to eligible claimants. Job training and career planning are more recent additions. And they work. Federal audits show most people get back to work within 13 weeks (here in NH, it's 8 weeks). Intensive services are provided to people at high risk of being long-term unemployed. Job counseling and training are provided to those whose jobs have gone overseas. There is intensive training for staff, including internationally-recognized certification programs for workforce professionals. Funding is directly dependent on services provided timely, accurately, legally. So when you say that someone in a UI/job service/works/one-stop turned you away, told you on the spot that you didn't qualify for UI when determination is in fact a 10 day to 42 day process (faster IF an employer provides the information up front on a mass layoff), offered you no job services, you are saying that the system fell apart. But NJ has the same requirements for staff and training as other states, and all of us plug into the same databases, have the same resources, no matter what state we're in. Every person who enters the office, calls on the phone, uses the website has to be accounted for; not only their jobs and benefits but ours depend on it. So there is more to this story, or someone's head ought to roll (or already has).

Re: not so

[polydad.livejournal.com]

I think you're missing my point. Of course heads deserve to roll. So what? What good does getting the asshole who denied me service fired do *for me*? If three years of back benefits were taken out of his personal savings and put in my account, sure, let's go for it. But they won't do that.

The best I could see coming out of this would be wasting years of my time running around trying to prove what I already know to be true, for the reward of ruining some *other* poor slob's life. So what?

best,

Joel

Re: not so

[domiobrien.livejournal.com]

Joel, when you walk into, call, or contact by internet any state job service/unemployment office, you are VALUABLE to any employee who deals with you. Answer your e-mail? Essentially, I get a point. Get your signature on a sign-in sheet? 2 points. Take your claim? 25 points. Get you to register in the state job system? 25. Talk with you about your qualifications-- that's assessment. Wow. 50 points. Discuss the local labor market with you, another 25. But only if I have you on file, can attach those services to your computerized file, with your SSN on it (validated with the Feds on my computer), and your work authorization if you're an alien and confirm the alien work authorization with the Federal database. Review your resume? Another 20 points. Refer you to a veteran's counselor, 10 points, to food stamps, 10 points, etc etc etc. If I don't provide services, I'm out of a job. When you walk in, everyone in the office not already working with a client should be falling over their feet to help you, get to know you, get you to come back again next week. Would you like to take an aptitude test? Sign up for an interviewing workshop? Talk to an employment counselor? Fill out a college application, job training application, fuel assistance app, get a FAFSA, apply for WIC? POINTS. f you don't tell us when you get a job, we'll still check new hire reports and wage records through WRIS for all states and territories for 3 years and hope your number comes up as a hire, because I can get credit for that, or at least the most recent government employee, in any state, who provided you a service can. Hey-- with a BA and some customer service experience you, too, can qualify to train as an employment interviewer, $24,132 a year to start and state benefits. Or you can take on the years of training to become a certifying officer/adjudicator to determine if people are qualified to receive unemployment; that starts at around $26,000. If you get enough service points, you'll even get to keep your job. If you're good, you may even get promoted. And if you can't connect with the clients, get validated SSNs on file, document services, you're GONE.

Re: not so

[polydad.livejournal.com]

So you're suggesting I apply to the local unemployment service for a job? Or are you going back to the idea that because my experience doesn't match with your idea of what it should be that it didn't happen? I'm not sure what you're trying to do, here.

I have no plans on trying to do anything to the bureaucrat in New Jersey because I don't get anything out of it. I'm working with an educational nonprofit here in LA, and with any luck I'll start getting paid for that soon. Going back to NJ with anything short of a tac nuke in my hip pocket is a waste of time.

best,

Joel

Re: not so

[domiobrien.livejournal.com]

Hope your work with the educational non-profit works out well, and your career goes in the direction you hope.
Domi

John McCain

[mrfantasy.livejournal.com]

Some blogs (Daily Kos) have taken to calling him "pander bear" for his ability to espouse whatever opinion whatever constituency he happens to be in front of believes.

I think Pander Bear is much better than "flip-flopper" and we all know how effective that was.

Perhaps "multilated veterans" for those who came back with parts missing?

People who have jobs without insurance? How about "profiteering victims"?

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

Do you have a reference for the war casualty undercount?

If true, this is the same kind of crap pulled by the people who foisted the 55-mph national speed limit on us back in the late 70's - the counting of people who died in auto accidents was changed at the same time to only include those who were dead at the scene, not dead later in a hospital as a direct result of injuries sustained in an auto accident. This, so the speed limit advocates could claim that, in addition to saving fuel, fewer people died in auto accidents!

casualty counts-- dead, wounded, evacuated

[domiobrien.livejournal.com]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

Re: casualty counts-- dead, wounded, evacuated

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

Another way that these are misleading is by using the term "wounded". As a friend of mine who was in the marines says (paraphrased), "Wounded sounds like you got hurt. You get 'hurt' every day! Cuts, scrapes, bandages, etc. The military definition of "wounded" is 'wounded so bad you can't go back into battle'. That means limbs cut off, usually. So when you hear 'and 50 wounded' that doesn't mean 50 men had a boo-boo that needed to be kissed. That means 50 more people that will be in wheelchairs for life, or walking around with 1 arm, etc. 'Wounded' my ass."

Fuzzy numbers

[rakshathewolf.livejournal.com]

I'm a great believer in hoisting people with their own petards; I think we need merely to revive some of the Republicans' own phrases: "Excuse me, Mr. Snow, were those casualty figures you just quoted "fuzzy" or "reality-based? I mean, I know the fuzzy numbers say 3,000 dead, but..."

Soldiers who fought for their country only to be screwed by it almost immediately could be the "war lint" produced by repub fuzzy math.

BTW, I always shall believe that the whole Monica hoopla should be referred to as "Tailgate."

Re: Fuzzy numbers

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

That's a great idea!

undercounted casualties

[domiobrien.livejournal.com]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/19/60minutes/main656756.shtml