I was listening to an NPR story on the debate in the Senate to raise the federal minimum wage. Though Congress has raised its own salary several times since the mid-90s, the minimum wage for honest, hard-working people has remained the same: $5.15 an hour.
It's fairly well known that the federal minimum wage is well below what is needed for someone to have even a very modest standard of living in this country.
But on the Senate floor, Wyoming Republican Mike Enzi offered a a novel solution. What workers need to do to "get out of the minimum wage rut" (his words) is breathtakingly simple.
They need to think about "moving a little bit to get better jobs."
All that the honest, hard-working minimum wage workers need to do is look for higher paying jobs.
Many Americans think Congress is aloof and out of touch with reality, but not the senator from Wyoming. I'm sure millions of working poor will be sending their heartfelt thanks to Sen. Enzi for his innovative, life-changing advice!
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Thank God we don't have socialized medicine
During a soccer game at the beginning of the month, I suffered a freak injury to my leg. I had to be hospitalized and required two surgeries and a 6 day hospital stay. It was really my first major injury. Thank God I was lucky enough to have good health insurance via my employer. Or rather, that my employer offered good health insurance. Instead of a bill of knows how many thousands of dollars, I got off with a 500 dollar co-pay.
Here's what happened to me.
Step 1: I went to the ER and had to fill out paperwork. I had to give them my personal info as well as health insurance details.
Step 2: I was admitted to the hospital (same one that runs the ER) where I had to fill out a little more paperwork regarding personal medical history.
Step 3: I did a follow up exam with the operating doctor. His office is affiliated with the hospital. I had to fill out a crap load of paperwork involving personal info, health insurance details and personal medical history. This despite the fact that the specialist was affiliated with the hospital AND got a referral from my primary care doctor. In an efficient system, either of them could've transferred these details to them.
Step 4: I got my cast refitted at the occupational therapy office of the hospital (which is actually part of the hospital, just in a separate building). I had to call the hospital's administrative office and "register" before this appointment. During this "registration," I had to give my personal info and health insurance details.
Thank God we don't have some kind of (insert menacing music) socialized medicine in this country. Sure, there are 36 countries with better health systems that the US (primarily because of accesibility): most of them offer some kind of universal health coverage to their citizens, ALL of whom spend a lot less money per capita on health care. But they are forced to navigate paperwork and a big, slow bureaucracy.
Instead, we have our messed up, inaccessible system and we're stuck with even more paperwork and SEVERAL big, slow bureaucracies. We may be one of the least healthy populations of any western country, but at least we have our ideological purity. (Except for military veterans, the poor and the eldery, who get free or mostly free health care)
Of course, if I didn't have health insurance, I wouldn't have had to worry about any of this annoying paperwork. I just would've had to sell everything own.
Here's what happened to me.
Step 1: I went to the ER and had to fill out paperwork. I had to give them my personal info as well as health insurance details.
Step 2: I was admitted to the hospital (same one that runs the ER) where I had to fill out a little more paperwork regarding personal medical history.
Step 3: I did a follow up exam with the operating doctor. His office is affiliated with the hospital. I had to fill out a crap load of paperwork involving personal info, health insurance details and personal medical history. This despite the fact that the specialist was affiliated with the hospital AND got a referral from my primary care doctor. In an efficient system, either of them could've transferred these details to them.
Step 4: I got my cast refitted at the occupational therapy office of the hospital (which is actually part of the hospital, just in a separate building). I had to call the hospital's administrative office and "register" before this appointment. During this "registration," I had to give my personal info and health insurance details.
Thank God we don't have some kind of (insert menacing music) socialized medicine in this country. Sure, there are 36 countries with better health systems that the US (primarily because of accesibility): most of them offer some kind of universal health coverage to their citizens, ALL of whom spend a lot less money per capita on health care. But they are forced to navigate paperwork and a big, slow bureaucracy.
Instead, we have our messed up, inaccessible system and we're stuck with even more paperwork and SEVERAL big, slow bureaucracies. We may be one of the least healthy populations of any western country, but at least we have our ideological purity. (Except for military veterans, the poor and the eldery, who get free or mostly free health care)
Of course, if I didn't have health insurance, I wouldn't have had to worry about any of this annoying paperwork. I just would've had to sell everything own.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Polls are the cotton candy of journalism
I've written before on the popular fairy tale mouthed by so many journalists: "We don't make news. We just report it."
The bottom line is that newspapers decide what's news and what isn't. That's not a bad thing or a good thing. It's simple logistics.
The amount of news out there is infinite; after all, what I had for dinner last night was news and was important to me. The amount of space in a newspaper is finite. Editors and journalists have to decide what news they think is most important to the largest part of their readership.
When a paper runs one wire service story about about a bridge in Scotland that dogs like to jump off and puts it on the front page, then it has another wire story about one of the most populous states in the country mandating universal health insurance and buries it in the middle of the paper next to a cheesy graphic... when a paper does this, it's expressing its editorial judgement. Stories about Tartan canines belong on the front page; stories about one of the nation's most pressing issues belong next to a picture of an Elvis stamp.
But the ways newspapers make news is not simply limited to editorial judgement. One of the most obnoxious trends in modern journalism is the tendency to make news out of polls.
Or to be more specific. The tendency for major news organizations to commission a poll and then create a story out of the results of that poll. That IS making news.
Most polls sample several hundred people. Even the most prominent national polls usually don't sample more than 1200 people. Headlines for such polls always read, "Bush approval rating down to 25%." In reality, they should read, "300 people sampled approve of Bush."
Is it really news that a few hundred people approve of the president or of the war in Iraq or whatever issue?
I accept the reality of polls IN news, but not of polls AS news.
What's the difference?
Polls IN news supplement a broader, more substantive story.
Polls AS news are the whole story.
As such, polls as news are a crutch. They are a crutch for lazy reporter in search of an easy, formulaic story. It's the journalistic equivalent of cotton candy. Tastes good but with no nutritional value whatsoever. Cotton candy is fine for a dessert but not as a main course.
The local Post-Star did not invent this unfortunate trend, but they are dilligently following it as they do every other journalistic fad.
Recently, paper did one such 'story' on a poll conducted by Zogby International. According to The Post-Star, Zogby reported that of 401 registered voters asked: 51.2 percent supported incumbent GOP Rep. John Sweeney, 26.5 percent supported Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand and 22.4 percent chose other or undecided.
The headline was: Poll: Sweeney leads 2 to 1.
It could just as easily have been: Sweeney ahead 205-106.
The paper also made a story of the polls results indicating that Sweeney allegedly did well among 'military personnel, NASCAR fans and people who shop at Wal-Mart.'
The paper made a big deal of this story despite the fact that:
a) The poll was commissioned by the Saratoga County REPUBLICAN Committee and
b) Kirsten Gillibrand is not even the Democratic nominee yet. She faces a primary in September against a couple of Democratic opponents. This fact was not mentioned by The Post-Star, not even casually in passing at the very end of the article as per their usual standards.
How is this a story in and of itself? I mean, how is this a story to anyone outside the campaigns? How does this make us better understand Sweeney's and Gillibrand's positions on the issues? (To say nothing of the other candidates)
Stories like this are not about illuminating the public's understanding. They're easy, lazy stories about 'the horse race.' Stories which better belong in the sports section not the news section.
The paper wrote: "I think it is premature to say Sweeney is 'winning' the race 2-1," said [Skidmore College professor Robert] Turner, who analyzed the poll results.
Yet that's exactly what the paper declared: Poll: Sweeney leads 2 to 1.
None of this is surprising. The news media routinely makes news and pre-empts citizen voters by deciding who is a candidate 'worthy' of their attention and who isn't.
It's no secret that they are ignoring Greens and candidates from other smaller parties as well. They are making news by deciding that Greens, Libertarians and others aren't serious enough to cover. If Eliot Spitzer's campaign gets hundreds of articles and Malachy McCourt's campaign gets none, The Post-Star is thus editoirializing in the news coverage, even by omission. This goes to show that media bias is most insidious not when something is written, but in something is omitted.
But the media does the same thing even within the major parties. The establishment media has already decided that Eliot Spitzer is going to win the Democratic nomination for New York governor which is why it's all but ignoring the campaign of his challenger Tom Suozzi. The establishment media has already decided that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to be re-nominated to run again for her seat so it's ignoring her challenger Jonathan Tasini.
The media does this because they are overreliant on polls. They do this because they see Spitzer at 80 percent in the polls and decide Suozzi has no chance. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If Spitzer gets all the media coverage and Suozzi none, then Suozzi WILL have no chance. The media is making and shaping news, not simply reporting.
Polls are not a substitute for editorial judgement. They are not a substitute for information. And they should never be used as an excuse to avoid treating candidates fairly.
Update: While The Post-Star may be doing a disservice to its readers by ignoring McCourt, not all media outlets are doing so. The New York Daily News ran an article on his candidacy and the Albany Times-Union did the same. Because these papers trusted that their readers were intelligent to comprehend more than two choices, you can read the articles and make up your own mind. Isn't that what the news media is supposed to be about?
The bottom line is that newspapers decide what's news and what isn't. That's not a bad thing or a good thing. It's simple logistics.
The amount of news out there is infinite; after all, what I had for dinner last night was news and was important to me. The amount of space in a newspaper is finite. Editors and journalists have to decide what news they think is most important to the largest part of their readership.
When a paper runs one wire service story about about a bridge in Scotland that dogs like to jump off and puts it on the front page, then it has another wire story about one of the most populous states in the country mandating universal health insurance and buries it in the middle of the paper next to a cheesy graphic... when a paper does this, it's expressing its editorial judgement. Stories about Tartan canines belong on the front page; stories about one of the nation's most pressing issues belong next to a picture of an Elvis stamp.
But the ways newspapers make news is not simply limited to editorial judgement. One of the most obnoxious trends in modern journalism is the tendency to make news out of polls.
Or to be more specific. The tendency for major news organizations to commission a poll and then create a story out of the results of that poll. That IS making news.
Most polls sample several hundred people. Even the most prominent national polls usually don't sample more than 1200 people. Headlines for such polls always read, "Bush approval rating down to 25%." In reality, they should read, "300 people sampled approve of Bush."
Is it really news that a few hundred people approve of the president or of the war in Iraq or whatever issue?
I accept the reality of polls IN news, but not of polls AS news.
What's the difference?
Polls IN news supplement a broader, more substantive story.
Polls AS news are the whole story.
As such, polls as news are a crutch. They are a crutch for lazy reporter in search of an easy, formulaic story. It's the journalistic equivalent of cotton candy. Tastes good but with no nutritional value whatsoever. Cotton candy is fine for a dessert but not as a main course.
The local Post-Star did not invent this unfortunate trend, but they are dilligently following it as they do every other journalistic fad.
Recently, paper did one such 'story' on a poll conducted by Zogby International. According to The Post-Star, Zogby reported that of 401 registered voters asked: 51.2 percent supported incumbent GOP Rep. John Sweeney, 26.5 percent supported Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand and 22.4 percent chose other or undecided.
The headline was: Poll: Sweeney leads 2 to 1.
It could just as easily have been: Sweeney ahead 205-106.
The paper also made a story of the polls results indicating that Sweeney allegedly did well among 'military personnel, NASCAR fans and people who shop at Wal-Mart.'
The paper made a big deal of this story despite the fact that:
a) The poll was commissioned by the Saratoga County REPUBLICAN Committee and
b) Kirsten Gillibrand is not even the Democratic nominee yet. She faces a primary in September against a couple of Democratic opponents. This fact was not mentioned by The Post-Star, not even casually in passing at the very end of the article as per their usual standards.
How is this a story in and of itself? I mean, how is this a story to anyone outside the campaigns? How does this make us better understand Sweeney's and Gillibrand's positions on the issues? (To say nothing of the other candidates)
Stories like this are not about illuminating the public's understanding. They're easy, lazy stories about 'the horse race.' Stories which better belong in the sports section not the news section.
The paper wrote: "I think it is premature to say Sweeney is 'winning' the race 2-1," said [Skidmore College professor Robert] Turner, who analyzed the poll results.
Yet that's exactly what the paper declared: Poll: Sweeney leads 2 to 1.
None of this is surprising. The news media routinely makes news and pre-empts citizen voters by deciding who is a candidate 'worthy' of their attention and who isn't.
It's no secret that they are ignoring Greens and candidates from other smaller parties as well. They are making news by deciding that Greens, Libertarians and others aren't serious enough to cover. If Eliot Spitzer's campaign gets hundreds of articles and Malachy McCourt's campaign gets none, The Post-Star is thus editoirializing in the news coverage, even by omission. This goes to show that media bias is most insidious not when something is written, but in something is omitted.
But the media does the same thing even within the major parties. The establishment media has already decided that Eliot Spitzer is going to win the Democratic nomination for New York governor which is why it's all but ignoring the campaign of his challenger Tom Suozzi. The establishment media has already decided that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to be re-nominated to run again for her seat so it's ignoring her challenger Jonathan Tasini.
The media does this because they are overreliant on polls. They do this because they see Spitzer at 80 percent in the polls and decide Suozzi has no chance. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If Spitzer gets all the media coverage and Suozzi none, then Suozzi WILL have no chance. The media is making and shaping news, not simply reporting.
Polls are not a substitute for editorial judgement. They are not a substitute for information. And they should never be used as an excuse to avoid treating candidates fairly.
Update: While The Post-Star may be doing a disservice to its readers by ignoring McCourt, not all media outlets are doing so. The New York Daily News ran an article on his candidacy and the Albany Times-Union did the same. Because these papers trusted that their readers were intelligent to comprehend more than two choices, you can read the articles and make up your own mind. Isn't that what the news media is supposed to be about?
Monday, June 19, 2006
The need for scapegoats
If the Founding Fathers had thought dissent were unpatriotic, we'd still be singing 'God Save the Queen'
Earlier, I posted an entry on efforts by the far right wing to censure former president and Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter.
A reader commented:
Someone should inform these loonies that Carter has not been president for 25 years and that they really should check the calendar. SHEEEEESH!
The reader is absolutely right, but what she fails to realize is the facts are irrelevant to that crowd.
The far right controls all the levers of power. The presidency and executive agencies. The House. The Senate (where at least the right's power is moderated a little by the nature of the chamber). Even more right-wing judges, who believe that legislative mob rule and unrestricted executive authority, can trample individual rights, are flooding into the lower levels of the judiciary.
So when the far right controls everything, who do they have to blame when things go wrong? In addition to Jimmy Carter, I've seen the following people and groups be blamed for all our problems in recent weeks:
-Out of power Democrats.
-The mythical 'liberal media.'
-Ordinary citizens who criticize the Iraq aggression, the war on civil liberties or any of the other malfeasence launched and defended by the far right.
-Loving gay couples
-The Dixie Chicks (who've received DEATH THREATS, which just goes to show some people believe in freedom so long as you don't actually exercise any).
-TV commentator Keith Olbermann
-Former Vice-President Al Gore.
-Environmentalist and singer Joan Baez
-Feminists
-Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan
-Documentary maker Michael Moore
I don't care whether you like or dislike any of these people or groups. What's most notable is that none of these people/groups actually develop public policy. None of these people are responsible for the problems in our country (with the possible except of the media, which was so sycophantic toward Bush in the early days of the Iraq atrocity).
But the fact that none of these people/groups actually have power makes no different to the far right, who needs scapegoats because their plans are going badly wrong. And since right wingers are the ones who have the actual power, since they're the ones who actually made the disastrous decisions, they need to blame singers, filmmakers and ordinary citizen Americans.
I hope Americans are too smart to see through the deceitful blame-shifting. It's just too bad the pathetic Democrats won't provide a serious alternative and the establishment media won't give any coverage to other, real alternative parties.
Earlier, I posted an entry on efforts by the far right wing to censure former president and Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter.
A reader commented:
Someone should inform these loonies that Carter has not been president for 25 years and that they really should check the calendar. SHEEEEESH!
The reader is absolutely right, but what she fails to realize is the facts are irrelevant to that crowd.
The far right controls all the levers of power. The presidency and executive agencies. The House. The Senate (where at least the right's power is moderated a little by the nature of the chamber). Even more right-wing judges, who believe that legislative mob rule and unrestricted executive authority, can trample individual rights, are flooding into the lower levels of the judiciary.
So when the far right controls everything, who do they have to blame when things go wrong? In addition to Jimmy Carter, I've seen the following people and groups be blamed for all our problems in recent weeks:
-Out of power Democrats.
-The mythical 'liberal media.'
-Ordinary citizens who criticize the Iraq aggression, the war on civil liberties or any of the other malfeasence launched and defended by the far right.
-Loving gay couples
-The Dixie Chicks (who've received DEATH THREATS, which just goes to show some people believe in freedom so long as you don't actually exercise any).
-TV commentator Keith Olbermann
-Former Vice-President Al Gore.
-Environmentalist and singer Joan Baez
-Feminists
-Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan
-Documentary maker Michael Moore
I don't care whether you like or dislike any of these people or groups. What's most notable is that none of these people/groups actually develop public policy. None of these people are responsible for the problems in our country (with the possible except of the media, which was so sycophantic toward Bush in the early days of the Iraq atrocity).
But the fact that none of these people/groups actually have power makes no different to the far right, who needs scapegoats because their plans are going badly wrong. And since right wingers are the ones who have the actual power, since they're the ones who actually made the disastrous decisions, they need to blame singers, filmmakers and ordinary citizen Americans.
I hope Americans are too smart to see through the deceitful blame-shifting. It's just too bad the pathetic Democrats won't provide a serious alternative and the establishment media won't give any coverage to other, real alternative parties.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
US 1-1 Italia
So the US forced a 1-1 draw with Italy today. Italy had a man sent off and the US two. Perhaps I'm biased, but the Italian red card was deserved for a flagrant elbow. Both of the US reds were bogus. One was, at worst, a foul not a (second) yellow card. And the other wasn't even a foul but the ref gave a straight red. The ref completely changed the game. Not only because of the bogus reds but even for giving yellow cards to every player (on both teams) who sneezed, coughed or looked at him funny. I think my friend jinxed it by saying before the tournament how well officiated all the games had been. Then after the game, the ABC commentators point out that this ref had been suspended by his domestic federation for improper conduct... yet somehow he gets chosen to ref a World Cup game? Absurd.
I can't complain, though. The US completely dominated the first half, even before the Italian red card. They played with more energy in any five minute segment of the half than they did during the whole game vs the Czech Republic. The first half, THAT is how the US is supposed to play.
My friend and I were screaming at the TV in the second half, "Bring on Eddie Johnson!" Lots of space. Tired legs. Bring on a forward with fresh legs, speed and who can create things on his own, something Brian McBride can't. I generally defer to Bruce Arena as he has the results to back up his decision making, but it was a crime Eddie Johnson was left on the bench today. It was even more of a crime to not use an available sub when you're down to 9 men. I honestly think Johnson might've created one or two goal chances.
But after the two bogus expulsions, the Americans did well to hold on for a draw. Given Ghana's shock thrashing of the Czechs, the group is wide open. If the Italians beat the Czechs and the Americans beat Ghana, the US will go through regardless of the score. (Technically, we could go through if the Czechs crush Italy and we crush Ghana, but the combination of both is very unlikely).
This is no small task, as the Italians looked beatable today and Ghana looked excellent. But at least we have a chance, which is more than most expected after Monday.
There are still some things they have to improve upon. Especially defensively and not giving up dangerous set pieces. And Bruce Arena needs to get Eddie Johnson's rear end off the bench. But a repeat performance like today (sans les cartons rouges) and better use of Johnson and we can beat Ghana.
I can't complain, though. The US completely dominated the first half, even before the Italian red card. They played with more energy in any five minute segment of the half than they did during the whole game vs the Czech Republic. The first half, THAT is how the US is supposed to play.
My friend and I were screaming at the TV in the second half, "Bring on Eddie Johnson!" Lots of space. Tired legs. Bring on a forward with fresh legs, speed and who can create things on his own, something Brian McBride can't. I generally defer to Bruce Arena as he has the results to back up his decision making, but it was a crime Eddie Johnson was left on the bench today. It was even more of a crime to not use an available sub when you're down to 9 men. I honestly think Johnson might've created one or two goal chances.
But after the two bogus expulsions, the Americans did well to hold on for a draw. Given Ghana's shock thrashing of the Czechs, the group is wide open. If the Italians beat the Czechs and the Americans beat Ghana, the US will go through regardless of the score. (Technically, we could go through if the Czechs crush Italy and we crush Ghana, but the combination of both is very unlikely).
This is no small task, as the Italians looked beatable today and Ghana looked excellent. But at least we have a chance, which is more than most expected after Monday.
There are still some things they have to improve upon. Especially defensively and not giving up dangerous set pieces. And Bruce Arena needs to get Eddie Johnson's rear end off the bench. But a repeat performance like today (sans les cartons rouges) and better use of Johnson and we can beat Ghana.
Friday, June 16, 2006
Soweto: 30 years later
This essay is part of a (more or less) weekly feature on this blog that presents interesting stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world outside the US, Israel, Iraq and Iran*. (*-added on the suggestion of a reader)
Today is the 30th anniversary of the Soweto massacre. In 1976, the racist apartheid government imposed Afrikaans as the sole language of education. Thousands of black South African students took to the streets to protest. Over 300 peaceful student protesters were slaughtered in Soweto (a township of Johannensburg) by the regime's forces of disorder and over 100 more in other parts of the country. It was an important event in the anti-apartheid movement that really re-launched blacks' struggle for freedom and liberty in the country. The act of state terrorism was a major black eye for the regime and really caused the beginning of its deserved isolation.
US National Public Radio ran an excellent radio documentary on the anniversary.
Today is the 30th anniversary of the Soweto massacre. In 1976, the racist apartheid government imposed Afrikaans as the sole language of education. Thousands of black South African students took to the streets to protest. Over 300 peaceful student protesters were slaughtered in Soweto (a township of Johannensburg) by the regime's forces of disorder and over 100 more in other parts of the country. It was an important event in the anti-apartheid movement that really re-launched blacks' struggle for freedom and liberty in the country. The act of state terrorism was a major black eye for the regime and really caused the beginning of its deserved isolation.
US National Public Radio ran an excellent radio documentary on the anniversary.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Censure the president
If the Founding Fathers had thought dissent were unpatriotic, we'd still be singing 'God Save the Queen'
President George W. Bush has:
-authorized an almost certainly illegal domestic spying program
-repeatedly defended the Guatanamo Bay camp where kidnapees are kept indefinitely without trial, accusation or either (which constitutes, in and of itself, a form of torture)
-launched a hideous, unprovoked war of aggression against Iraq
-insisted we 'stay in the course' in Iraq (whatever that means) despite overwhelming evidence that our continued presence is doing more harm than good both for Iraqi security and our own.
There's quite a bit more malfeasance I'm omitting.
So naturally, the far right believes the president should be censured.
Oops, my bad. They want the president censured, just not the sitting president.
Then again, the president they want censured has won a Nobel Peace Prize, something the current president has no chance in heck of being nominated for. Maybe if Jimmy Carter had launched an assault on civil liberties and an unprovoked war of aggression, the far right might think more favorably of him.
President George W. Bush has:
-authorized an almost certainly illegal domestic spying program
-repeatedly defended the Guatanamo Bay camp where kidnapees are kept indefinitely without trial, accusation or either (which constitutes, in and of itself, a form of torture)
-launched a hideous, unprovoked war of aggression against Iraq
-insisted we 'stay in the course' in Iraq (whatever that means) despite overwhelming evidence that our continued presence is doing more harm than good both for Iraqi security and our own.
There's quite a bit more malfeasance I'm omitting.
So naturally, the far right believes the president should be censured.
Oops, my bad. They want the president censured, just not the sitting president.
Then again, the president they want censured has won a Nobel Peace Prize, something the current president has no chance in heck of being nominated for. Maybe if Jimmy Carter had launched an assault on civil liberties and an unprovoked war of aggression, the far right might think more favorably of him.
Adirondack Progressives to meet in Glens Falls
Matt reports:
Tonight [Thursday June 15] at 7:30 pm, the Adirondack Progressives will meet UPSTAIRS at Rock Hill Cafe [in Glens Falls]. This meeting is an organizational one to plan for the upcoming visit to Glens Falls by the Green U.S. Senatorial Candidate, Howie Hawkins. We'll also be talking about how this visit will be the precursor to [Green candidate for governor] Malachy McCourt coming to see us in the fall... Please attend if its at all possible. We'll keep things brief.
Tonight [Thursday June 15] at 7:30 pm, the Adirondack Progressives will meet UPSTAIRS at Rock Hill Cafe [in Glens Falls]. This meeting is an organizational one to plan for the upcoming visit to Glens Falls by the Green U.S. Senatorial Candidate, Howie Hawkins. We'll also be talking about how this visit will be the precursor to [Green candidate for governor] Malachy McCourt coming to see us in the fall... Please attend if its at all possible. We'll keep things brief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)