yesthattom: (Default)
yesthattom ([personal profile] yesthattom) wrote2007-01-06 08:09 am

Name it and it sticks

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?

Re: veterans benefits for National Guard

[identity profile] domiobrien.livejournal.com 2007-01-07 09:17 pm (UTC)(link)
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

[identity profile] redsonja.livejournal.com 2007-01-07 09:42 pm (UTC)(link)
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