Monthly Archives: December 2008

Voices of the Vermont Healthcare Crisis: The Human Right to Healthcare

Human Rights Day Report:

Voices of the Vermont Healthcare Crisis: The Human Right to Healthcare

Burlington, VT –  On Human Rights Day, the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights issued by the United Nations in  1948, the Vermont Workers’ Center (VWC) officially issued a comprehensive report entitled: Voices of the Vermont Healthcare Crisis: The Human Right to Healthcare.  This report was compiled from personal interview surveys conducted with over 1,200 Vermonters and human rights hearings held this Fall across the state.  The Workers’ Center is also organizing a major related event at the University of Vermont’s Davis Center; Ella Baker Human Rights Conference where over five hundred participants are expected.

“In this report, we present a collection of voices of Vermonters impacted by the healthcare crisis and present data examining our current healthcare system,” says Dawn Stanger, President of the Vermont Workers’ Center.  “We found that over 95 % of Vermonters believe healthcare should be a human right.  We are organizing a statewide network to establish healthcare as a human right and a public good.”

Download the Report Online: http://www.workerscenter.org/d…

More info:

www.workerscenter.org – General information on the Vermont Workers’ Center

www.workerscenter.org/healthcare – On Healthcare Is Human Right Campaign

www.workerscenter.org/hrconference – On Ella Baker Human Rights Conference and list of guest speakers and workshops

Contact: James Haslam, VT Workers’ Center, 802-272-0882, james@workerscenter.org

More info: www.workerscenter.org/healthcare

Participle

Was listening to Obama’s announcement of Daschle for Secretary and head honcho on health/medical, and Daschle mentioned that 50% of home foreclosures were due to medical expenses.

I thought “wow” and looked around for confirmation of that figure.

Wasn’t hard to find a lot like this discussing this recent study.

So we know

    about the

       home mortgage

            crisis but

                    maybe

                    we should

                         just

                         leave

                            this

                              to

                             dang

                              le

Leahy vs. Specter (This time it’s personal?)

Prior to the Blago flak-o, the Republicans’ first target in their attempts to regain momentum and relevance in the public eye by knocking the uber-popular Barack Obama from his PR perch was/is the nomination of Eric Holder to the position of Attorney General. Republicans think they might have something based on Holder’s role (whatever it was or wasn’t) in the controversial Clinton-era pardon of indicted financier Marc Rich. It was quite a kerfuffle at the time, but it’s hard to imagine it having any legs now.

Eyes have been on Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania as the GOP machine has tried to sputter back to life. As the Ranking Member on Senate Judiciary, he would have to be the point person on any such effort. But Committee Chair Leahy (who has set a confirmation hearing for January 8th – early, to be sure) has gone to great lengths (and even made a bit of a show) of being pals with Specter, and Specter has reciprocated in kind. The question, then, has been; would Specter toss all that over to play cynical partisan attack dog?

The traditional media narrative surrounding Specter has been one of moderation and free-thinking (maverick, anyone?), but for those of us who’ve followed Specter over the years, its been more than clear that he talks the moderate and free-thinking line quite well, but always ends up toeing the party line regardless. As such this should be no surprise:

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, wants to slow down the process of confirming Eric Holder attorney general, citing lingering concerns about the nominee’s role in the 2001 pardon of Marc Rich.

Specter said his concerns do not suggest he would oppose Holder, but said starting the hearings before Jan. 26 is “not realistic or fair.”

Leahy’s response came quickly (and is lengthy), and it goes straight for the personal, implying that Specter’s concerns are frivolous (or suspect) and fly in the face of their friendship:

Dear Arlen:

As I hope you know, I honored your request and asked Secretary Rice to facilitate your 14-day trip to 10 countries from December 25 through January 7.  Please do let me know who the other Senators are who will be accompanying you.

I also wanted to respond to your letter of last evening.  I am a bit confounded as to why you are surprised that the Holder hearing was noticed for January 8.

…Initially, our staffs discussed possibly proceeding before Christmas if the designation were made around Thanksgiving. We commence the new session on January 6, but that day will be devoted to swearing in and recognizing the returning and newly elected Senators.  When you extended and expanded your travel plan to include January 7, my staff made sure yours knew that such an extension would mean that you would miss the Holder hearing.  Your staff indicated that you would be calling me.  You did not, but sent back the message that you chose to extend your travel through January 7.  I then learned that the Senate Republicans are planning a Republican caucus retreat for January 7.  I respected your desired travel plans and the Republican Senate retreat by postponing the start of the hearings to January 8.

I have sought to accommodate your interests on many occasions.  I scheduled field hearings for you in Pennsylvania on foreclosure and health care mergers issues, and worked hard to ensure fair treatment and confirmation for nominations in which you had a personal interest.  We worked in a bipartisan fashion last Congress to investigate the politicization of the Department and to expedite nominations to restock the leadership ranks at the Department after nearly every top official, including the Attorney General, resigned in the wake of the scandals.  I hope you will now join me to complete the hard work that must be done to right the ship at the Justice Department.  I will continue, as I always have, to work closely with you and Senators from both sides of the aisle to schedule consideration of both executive and judicial nominations and to make progress on our legislative agenda.  I look forward to working with you in the next Congress.

When Michael Mukasey was designated to be Alberto Gonzales’ successor last year, you urged that we “move promptly on the confirmation proceedings.”  I did not delay in scheduling that hearing, even though many were suggesting that I do so.  Instead, I proceeded promptly with a hearing 30 days after the nomination was announced.  For that, I received criticism from my side of the aisle.

And it goes on quite a bit, reviewing other historical, bipartisan, speedy AG hearings.

But the fascinating part is how Leahy aims right for the personal, juxtaposing it against the suggestion of crass partisan politics in order to try and force the conflict out of the tactical, institutional arena and into the context of individuals. It does so a bit ham-handedly, even.

But it is effective, and makes the message quite clear – if Specter pushes this against all reason and fairness at the behest of Mitch McConnell and a GOP still addicted to political slash-and-burn, the story won’t just be about Holder, but Specter’s character as well – a concern he has to take seriously given the popularity of Obama and his own 2010 re-election, where challengers have already begun positioning themselves.

Dumb, dumber and dumbest

Sleaze time … mostly because lying idiots shouldn’t be allowed to speak for movements:

“I asked him some pretty direct questions,” [Joe the Dumber non-Plumber) continued. “Some of the answers you guys are gonna receive – they appalled me, absolutely. I was angry. In fact, I wanted to get off the bus after I talked to him.”

Asked why he didn’t leave McCain’s campaign if he was “appalled” by the candidate, Wurzelbacher said, “honestly, because the thought of Barack Obama as president scares me even more.”

(Joe the Plumber: McCain ‘appalled me’, Politico, 12/09/08)

My main question is why the whackos of the right wrong … err whatever … have taken a liking to bald pretenders and wannabes?

Go ahead … look at Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher aka Joe the P …

(credit: Politico.com)

Now take a look at this guy:



(credit: Google images)

Yeah … that’s James Dale Guckert! Aka Jeff Gannon (once called himself a loose cannon no less) … former male escort, phony reporter and just one more right wrong wing nut case liar who didn’t like his real name.

I can understand why the radical wrong of the United States doesn’t catch on … they’re corrupt, but dumb.

Joe the P, the loose cannon guy and their apparently listening public. Dumb, dumber and dumbest.

Monday Statehouse invite

From State Democratic Vice Chair Judy Bevans via email:

On December 15, our electors, Sen. Claire Ayer, Euan Bear and Kevin Christie will finalize Vermont’s contribution to the historic election of Barack Obama to the Presidency by casting their Electoral College ballots in Room 11 of the Statehouse at 10 am. There will be a reception for in the Cedar Creek Room of the Statehouse immediately following. We hope you can come, and please invite others via GMD.

Thank you John…. Thank you so much.

Pardon me for putting up another “Daily Show” clip, but this one merits special attention.

Jon Stewart’s guest last night was none other than Mike Huckabee. You know, the former governor of Arkansas who ran for president? Anyway… the social conservative was touting his new book, “Do the Right Thing.” Much of the book focuses on social issues and Stewart wanted to discuss gay marriage. Stewart did an amazing job, just amazing. He discussed it in a way no mainstream journalist would ever have the courage to do… and Jon Stewart isn’t even a journalist!

To make a long story short, this is one of the best episodes I’ve ever seen. When you watch, you’ll know why.

Spread this video… this needs to go viral!

More on the reporter shortage

On his welcome new blog (gotta get the blogosphere beefed up in this state, y’know… h/t to Shay to pointing the way to this new resource), Jon Margolis essentially puts some meat on the bones of a key point of the discussion in yesterday’s diary. Here’s a piece:

The Free Press Montpelier operation is down to two reporters while the Legislature is in town. The paper shuts down the office shortly after the session ends, said political reporter Terri Hallenbeck.

…the Free Press is not the only news organization that has cut back on covering government and politics in Vermont. So has the Associated Press, and it was the AP’s daily coverage of routine matters that gave the other bureaus the “luxury,” as Hellenbeck put it, to probe more deeply into what was going on in state government.

Now the AP reporter who covers the Legislature is at the Capitol only sometimes, Hallenbeck said…

…Well, one might say, who cares? Isn’t this just a lot of journalistic Inside Baseball?

Yes and no. Because when news organizations don’t cover public affairs as much, or as well, the citizenry doesn’t know as much…

…when people learn less about something, they know less about it. In theory “new media” (blogs and the like) can fill in where traditional “old media” outlets have cut back. But Vermont’s blogs don’t really pretend to inform, merely to convey the blogger’s passions.

It’s good (if not revolutionary) stuff, despite the unnecessary little “conclusion” (rather reductive, no?) at the end. Obviously we on the blogs do “pretend” to inform when we’re informing, and editorialize when we’re doing that.

Still, I’m pretty psyched about this new blog. I’m sure he won’t continue to feel the need to so compartmentalize his fellow bloggers as he gets more into it. Those boxes just aren’t quite so clear cut as all that.

Douglas will “applaud” Vermont’s economy. He’ll be proud of hard working Vermonters all over again

Governor Douglas' use of rhetorical device in speech is so consistent it's possible to predict what he will say.  After six years of nearly daily presence in the press, even an untrained ear can recognize the governor's most common catch-phrases and the specific words he often uses to begin a a response to a question or or issue. 

On Tuesday,  the Vermont Business Magazine reported a favorable outlook on the economy in Chittenden County.  The report is titled, Burlington Job Market Expected to be Among Strongest in Nation.

If the Governor's Office responds to this good news, it's not difficult to imagine an approximation of what he might say.  Below the fold, I offer the following:   

  • a three sentence example of Douglas praise such as we might expect in response to the VBM report;
  • the rhetorical device framing Douglas' speech; and
  • why it's important to learn the definition of “anaphora.”

A recent Manpower Employment Outlook Survey (issued quarterly) reports:

“From January to March, 25% of the companies interviewed plan to hire more employees, while 7% expect to reduce their payrolls,” according to Manpower spokesperson Amanda Niklaus. “Another 62% expect to maintain their current staff levels and 6% are not certain of their hiring plans.” 

That's really great news for Vermont, considering the huge negative impact of the financial crisis across the nation.  Even small growth in early 2009 is an indicator that Vermont may have some insulation from the overall economy, just as we had last year during the housing meltdown.  Assuming the local press or the Governor's office picks up the news, my first prediction is that he will comment on it in one way or another.  Here's an approximation of what he is likely to say:

I'm proud of the fact that Vermont businesses and our overall economy remain in good shape relative to the rest of the country as we continue our long tradition of hard work and innovation in the private sector.  I applaud the companies that are bringing new jobs to Chittenden County at a time when we need it most, and I see this as part of my administration's economic initiatives such as our designation of the Green Triangle between Burlington, Middlebury and Montpelier.  I think all Vermonters should be reassured by this news as a good indicator that we will be relatively sheltered from the financial crisis as we make progress toward new opportunities for businesses that will help bring revenue to next year's general fund.

No matter what he says, the catch-phrases highlighted below will inevitably be tossed into the mix in one arrangement or another.  Over the last six years the repitition of these phrases seem to have become ingrained in the muscle-memory of our governor's tounge.  In fact, the use of these phrases and the constant repitition over the last six years are an intentional use of a rhetorical device, such as the kind one might learn in a Dale Carnegie two-day seminar on Public Speaking Mastery.

The rhetorical device Douglas applies consistently in his speech and written press releases is called “anaphora,” defined as follows:

Anaphora:  the repitition of the same  words at the beginning of successive sentences.

You've heard them before:   

I applaud…


I'm proud of…

 

I think Vermonters… 

Douglas has consistently used these three phrases in combination with a sprinkling of others (below) that I can't recall him going through a single speech or interview without using at least one of the above.  If he uses only one of these catch-phrases, it's most likely because he's not talking at any considerable length.

You don't need to know the word “anaphora” to notice Douglas' use of this verbal device over the last six years.  In fact, you can Google the catch-phrases to see the plethora of results.  If you click through the first 5-10 pages of search results you'll get a sense of the scope of how often our governor applies even one of several key catch-phrases.

Here are three Google search examples.

  • “Jim Douglas” “I applaud”
  • Vermont Douglas” “I'm proud”
  • Vermont Douglas “work hard” 

…and this is just a Google search.  Years from now a Masters level English major may write his/her post-graduate thesis on Douglas' superfluous use of anaphora by sifting through the State's archives of public records.  It would be a very long thesis.    

Who needs to know? 

  • Reporters probably already know, but sometimes a reminder is helpful.  Vermont's professional reporters are pretty savvy, but they have deadlines to meet and are often pressed for an opportunity to ask follow up questions.
  • Democrats in Legislature and future candidates.  It might be helpful to follow the master.  Sign up for the Dale Carnegie session and fight rhetoric with rhetoric.
  • The rest of us.  Just so we see it when it's coming.  If we're luckyenough to predict Douglas' next response we can take the wind out of his sails.

Why is this important?

There are three reasons why Jim Douglas' use of anaphora have proven highly effective over time.  Each reason alone is significant.  When we look at all three reasons together, it's easy to see how Jim Douglas keeps winning elections, despite the fact few if any accomplishments are of his own making.  Here's why.

1.  First and most obvious, Douglas uses rhetorical device because it works.  30 seconds after you hear him say something like the first sentence in my quote prediction above, “I'm proud of blah, blah, blah…,” all you can remember is the first few words.  The sentence is long and generalized.  When speaking, Douglas' emphasizes the introductory catch-phrase, then shifts into a hypnotic monotone voice.  By the time he's finished his first sentence, all you can remeber is, “Jim Douglas is proud of Vermont businesses.”  By the time he's done with the paragraph, it's time to move to the Q&A or photo-op.  The device works because achievement becomes secondary to Douglas' identiy.  This leads into reason #2….

2.  The use of anaphora gives Douglas credit for whatever acheivement he's praising.  The most common catch-phrase anaphora's begin with the word, “I.”  This creates a strong association between himself and thesuccess he's delivering.  “I'm proud of Vermont's farming tradition…” or, “I applaud the hard work of Vermonters….”  The rhetorical device simultaneously offers gratitude and connects Douglas' identity with the success story.  It allows him to co-opt the story as if he's responsible making it happen.  Additionally, he's sending a message that Jim Douglas is a likeable guy because he appreciates who we are and what we do.  This leads in to #3….

3.  The use of anaphora allows Douglas to evade the issue.  First, since he emphasizes the first few words in his response, then simply fills in the remainder with a generalized abstraction about the issue in a monotone voice, it's easy to become lulled into thinking he answered the question when in fact he's offered little information in all of the fluff.  While he appears to be seriously engaged in the dialogue, he's actually just rephrasing the question within the framework of the anaphora rhetorical device.  At the same time, Douglas consumes 3-5 minutes responding to a single question.  By the time he's finished, it's time to move to the next question.  If Douglas is sitting through a half-hour interview, the reportr will be lucky to ask 3 follow up questions, just given the lack of time.  

 

Jim Douglas' formula is boiled down to this:  

Use anaphora #1, associate with the good news, then fill in the rest of the comment with catch-phrases and vague references to the specific issue.  Follow with anaphora #2 and repeat.  Continue as necessary.

Conversely, if the news is bad or if he's on the attack:

Use anaphora #1, disassociate with the bad news or, most often, Legislature, then fill in the rest with catch-phrases, slogans, and vague references to imminent doom.  Follow with anaphora #2 and repeat.  Etc.

Here are some catch-phrases to watch for.  Douglas sprinkles them in with the anaphora lead-in.

“Hard work…” or “Work hard…”  

 “The progress we've made…” or “the steps we have taken…”

 “Our long tradition…” or “Vermont's long tradition…”

“Safe and affordable…” or “Safe and reliable…” or “Safe and…”

 

Ok, if you've made it this far you deserve a chuckle.  Here's Jim Douglas using the same rhetorical device with a huge, unintended twist of comic irony:

“I applaud the spirit of any young Vermonter who sprints back and forth from a warm shanty to bait a hook,” Gov. Douglas said.

 

Three months before we discovered that Governor Jim Douglas can't bait his own hook, he was out applauding others who could.  

Mabye he should have said, “Wow!  I wish I could do that!”

 

A response from Hallenbeck

Lots of interesting emails today. Nothing brings in the emails like media-metablogging, I tellya. Never fails. And always interesting emails.

But one did come from Terri Hallenbeck. She wanted to make the point that she does not feel “contempt” for this site, and she did so rather emphatically. She also took a moment to engage with the history I cited, refuting my source that claimed she was pissed off about the old Welch diary I linked to (although she at the very least sounded annoyed – sorry Terri).

In any event, she genuinely seemed to appreciate how her comment could be interpreted poorly, but I think sincerely indicated that she didn’t mean it that way (in fact suggesting that my interpretation was removed from “reality.” A little much, maybe, but then it was a big diary).

So consider this my mea culpa for seeing a sense of contempt when there was none in play. It was, I think, an aggressively judgmental quote from Hallenbeck, but I can acknowledge my over-defensiveness. Wouldn’t be the first time, after all. At least it did present a springboard for a discussion about blog-reporter relationships, which is a conversation I enjoy having and hadn’t had the occasion to for too many months.

So there ya go. One big, happy, extended, weird, dysfunctional, multimedia family once again.

The Wake Up Wal-Mart Holiday Campaign: Ad #2

This December, Wake Up Wal-Mart is going all out with our annual Holiday Campaign to awaken America’s largest retailer to its responsibilities. Here is a peek at our second TV ad for 2008’s holiday season:

Titled Wal-Mart: America Just Can’t Afford It Any Longer, the ad focuses on the hidden costs of shopping at Wal-Mart:

1) The tax burden Wal-Mart imposes on Americans by forcing its employees to rely on state resources for healthcare,

2) The lost wages of the legions of women who have had to take the company to court in order to receive equal pay, and

3) The devastating loss of American jobs as the retailer relocates its supply base to China.

What did we miss?

Is this ad going to convince your co-workers and neighbors not to patronize Wal-Mart this holiday season?

Have you seen this ad airing in Vermont?

THE FIRST VERMONT PRESIDENTIAL STRAW POLL (for links to the candidates exploratory committees, refer to the diary on the right-hand column)!!! If the 2008 Vermont Democratic Presidential Primary were

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...