Seyyed Ali Mousavi Killed in Iran Protest

Over the weekend, and grossly underreported, Seyyed Ali Mousavi, the nephew of the former Presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi, was killed during protests in Iran. It is reported that he was shot by Iranian Security officials. This comes amidst numerous reports of fatalities during demonstrations.

It has yet to be reported whether he was targeted intentionally or shot randomly.

The Gulf Daily News is reporting:

Video footage showed an enraged crowd carrying away one of the casualties chanting, "I'll kill, I'll kill the one who killed my brother." Witnesses said one victim was an elderly man who had a gunshot wound to the forehead. He was carried away by opposition supporters with blood covering his face.

All the while, our main stream media cannot find anything to talk about other than a man who spent too long in the bathroom on an airplane.

The video below apparently shows Seyyed Ali lying in the streets:

Redstate.com Against Filibuster Before They Were For It

Over at Redstate.com, they have a front page post up titled, The Filibuster is Essential For Democracy, where they argue:

The filibuster is essential for democracy, because it protects Americans from a tyranny of the majority, whether that majority be Democrats or Republicans.

What is hilarious, is that they did not even bother to do a quick google search to see what they might have said about the filibuster before:

The magic number is 51. It takes 51 votes to change the rule to ensure that the President's judicial nominations can be confirmed with a majority of 51 votes. From Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO's The Corner comes word that he has heard "that Republicans now have at least 50 votes to change the rules--which means at least 51 if you add Cheney."

(snip)

If Frist doesn't go through with the rule change, though, I'm going to stop accepting his telephone calls.

I mean, seriously. When on earth will mainstream conservatives learn how to use "teh google"?

Lefties Win Against Whole Foods

I am taking a quick break from my Christmas dinner with the family. Today, liberals all across the country got a great Christmas present. The chairman of Whole Foods is stepping down voluntarily as the result of lefty rabble-rousers (we should add that he does still retain his seat on the board and is still a major player at Whole Foods, but we celebrate the message the company is sending):

[Mackey] attempted to capitalize on the brand reputation of Whole Foods to champion his personal political views but has instead deeply offended a key segment of Whole Foods consumer base.

I have not shopped at Whole Foods in months. My entire family began shopping elsewhere after I came across the calls to boycott online. As a somewhat young man, I have not taken part in many nation-wide boycotts, and cannot remember any specific victories before this.

So today, this Christmas, is a day that I did not expect to remember forever as a significant organizing milestone for me. This boycott brought no health care to the uninsured, it did not make the health care bill stronger, and it had no direct impact on my life or my friends' and family's. It did, however, send a message to anyone who would dare to use their corporate position to further corporate political philosophy: your customers are listening and have no problem shopping accordingly.

Medicare for Environmental Health Hazards?

UPDATE: Hat tip goes out to Jeremy Koulish, of Carrots and Sticks, for running down the CBO numbers and giving us a rough estimate of how many people would likely be covered by this provision of the bill. That number is in the thousands, a few thousand or so. As Jeremy said, "Yeah, not particularly earth-shattering, but obviously great for those 3,000 people." We will be doing some more analysis of this, and should it pass, we will check back to see how this provision is being implemented.

There is something interesting in the new health care amendment, Section 1881A.

MEDICARE COVERAGE FOR INDIVIDUALS EXPOSED TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARDS.

We have still got a lot of reading left to do on this section of the amendment, but it has raised some very interesting questions.

I will start with what, as my reading leads me to believe, this section of the amendment does. This section allows for certain individuals, deemed affected by environmental health hazards, to be eligible for Medicare in the event that the individual is not eligible for necessary care under other public or private programs. It also allows for the creation of a pilot program to determine eligibility and to provide necessary benefits.

First and foremost, this is not restrictive by age. Meaning, regardless of how old you are, if you are deemed affected by environmental health hazards, you may be eligible for Medicare.

The first question this raises, who is considered an "environmental exposure affected individual"

(e) ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE AFFECTED INDIVIDUAL DEFINED.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘environmental exposure affected individual’ means—

(A) an individual described in paragraph (2); and
(B) an individual described in paragraph (3).

(2) INDIVIDUAL DESCRIBED.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—An individual described in this paragraph is any individual who—

(i) is diagnosed with 1 or more conditions described in subparagraph (B);
(ii) as demonstrated in such manner as the Secretary determines appropriate, has been present for an aggregate total of 6 months in the geographic area subject to an emergency declaration specified in sub- section (b)(2)(A), during a period ending—

(I) not less than 10 years prior to such diagnosis; and
(II) prior to the implementation of all the remedial and removal actions specified in the Record of Decision for Operating Unit 4 and the Record of Decision for Operating Unit 7;

(iii) files an application for benefits under this title (or has an application filed on behalf of the individual), including pursuant to this section; and
(iv) is determined under this section to meet the criteria in this subparagraph.

(B) CONDITIONS DESCRIBED.— For purposes of subparagraph (A), the following condi- 13 tions are described in this subparagraph:
(i) Asbestosis, pleural thickening, or pleural plaques as established by—

(I) interpretation by a ‘B Read-er’ qualified physician of a plain chest x-ray or interpretation of a computed tomographic radiograph of the chest by a qualified physician, as determined by the Secretary; or
(II) such other diagnostic standards as the Secretary specifies, except that this clause shall not apply to pleural thickening or pleural plaques unless there are symptoms or conditions requiring medical treatment as a result of these diagnoses.

(ii) Mesothelioma, or malignancies of the lung, colon, rectum, larynx, stomach, esophagus, pharynx, or ovary, as established by—

(I) pathologic examination of bi- opsy tissue;
(II) cytology from bronchioalveolar lavage; or
(III) such other diagnostic standards as the Secretary specifies.

(iii) Any other diagnosis which the Secretary, in consultation with the Com- missioner of Social Security, determines is an asbestos-related medical condition, as established by such diagnostic standards as the Secretary specifies.

(3) OTHER INDIVIDUAL DESCRIBED.—An individual described in this paragraph is any individual who—

(A) is not an individual described in paragraph (2);
(B) is diagnosed with a medical condition caused by the exposure of the individual to a public health hazard to which an emergency declaration applies, based on such medical conditions, diagnostic standards, and other criteria as the Secretary specifies;
(C) as demonstrated in such manner as the Secretary determines appropriate, has been present for an aggregate total of 6 months in the geographic area subject to the emergency declaration involved, during a period deter- mined appropriate by the Secretary;
(D) files an application for benefits under this title (or has an application filed on behalf of the individual), including pursuant to this section; and
(E) is determined under this section to meet the criteria in this paragraph.

That is a lot of language to say that, essentially, an "environmental exposure affected individual" is someone affected by asbestos or someone in the geographic area where an "emergency declaration aplies."

I am going to ignore the part about asbestos, for now (it comes back up at the end). How do we define whether or not an "emergency declaration applies?"

(2) EMERGENCY DECLARATION.—The term emergency declaration’ means a declaration of a public health emergency under section 104(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

In other words, a Superfund site that has been deemed an emergency. So this amendment would make it so anyone affected by a health hazard, who lives in an area designated a Superfund site under an emergency declaration, would be eligible for Medicare if they are not already eligible for the needed care through other public or private entities.

Not a huge deal. Especially considering how rarely a Superfund site is deemed an emergency.

But there was one part that caught my eye, when I came across the section on pilot programs:

(b) PILOT PROGRAM FOR CARE OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN EMERGENCY DECLARATION AREAS.—
(1) PROGRAM; PURPOSE.—

(A) PRIMARY PILOT PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall establish a pilot program in accordance with this subsection to provide innovative approaches to furnishing comprehensive, coordinated, and cost-effective care under this title to individuals described in paragraph (2)(A).
(B) OPTIONAL PILOT PROGRAMS.—The Secretary may establish a separate pilot program, in accordance with this subsection, with respect to each geographic area subject to an emergency declaration (other than the declaration of June 17, 2009), in order to furnish such comprehensive, coordinated and cost-effective care to individuals described in subparagraph 15 (2)(B) who reside in each such area.

"Other than the declaration of June 17, 2009." What declaration was that? None other than the first, and only, emergency declaration by the EPA under the Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

And now is when I will bring back the asbestos stuff that I chose to ignore at the beginning. This emergency declaration happens to revolved around problems with, you guessed it, asbestos. So, now I am confused.

Does this bit about excluding the declaration of June 17th exclude all these people from being eligible for Medicare, or are they included by the bits about asbestos?

We are working on getting in touch with Senator Baucus's office (given that it is the weekend, and a crazy one at that, we may have to wait for Monday) to help us tackle some of these questions. I hope you will join us in trying to figure out this peculiar section of the amendment. Check back for updates.

Deanna Zandt on New Media, Race Relations, and the Power of Storytelling

There was a moment in Deanna Zandt's speech at the Organizing 2.0 conference that I wanted to highlight:



The power of storytelling must not be underestimated. I will use the Obama campaign as an example, since storytelling played a larger role than anything else, I would argue, in their message strategy.

The campaign had introduced a rather different candidate to the world, an improbable campaign. They clearly recognized that he would not be able to win on issue statements alone, he had to reach out to people who agreed with him on policy but were questioning, "Who is this different looking guy with a funny name?" Through telling his story, he was able to bridge whatever divides existed between himself and millions of Americans.

Although the campaign officially began years later, we can really trace the 2008 Presidential campaign all the way back to the 2004 Democratic National Convention when, then a candidate for U.S. Senate, Barack Obama was introduced to the country when he gave the keynote address. What he did in that speech, more than talk about issues, was that he told his story. He told where he came from, and through that we learned why it was that he was supporting Senator Kerry for President. Without question, it was the most memorable moment in the 2004 Presidential campaign. And that is exactly what President Obama trained his volunteers to do. As an organizer for the campaign, I told my story 8 trillion times. I repeatedly told volunteers, "You may not be an expert on every issue, or on any, but you are an expert on who you are and why you support Barack Obama, and that is what you need share with your neighbors."

What anyone working the campaign will tell you, we would not have won without storytelling. The polls showed that President Obama was right on the issues, but everyone knows that is not enough when it comes to politics. People need to be able to trust their President. And trust, as Deanna Zandt mentions in her speech, is developed through sharing stories with one another. What the campaign realized is that it was not enough to have President Obama's story out there, he needed to expand the reach exponentially by turning every volunteer into a little storytelling machine themselves. President Obama's story is "uniquely American," and it was not enough. What the campaign demonstrated, and what sounds obvious, is that your neighbor's story is more likely to impact you than a candidate's.

They had members of the community talking with their neighbors, sharing struggles of a failing economy and failing health care system, together. And this made all the difference. During President Obama's speech on race, back in PA during the primary, he ended his speech on the power of storytelling:

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."

"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

Really Operation Rescue?

Do you get the same reaction when you read this paragraph from an email Operation Rescue sent out? It was an email announcing that Operation Rescue is honoring the life of James Pouillon as OR's 2009 person of the year. (emphasis mine)

Mr. Pouillon was a long-time pro-life street activist from Owosso, Michigan, who was gunned down on September 11, 2009, as he protested abortion outside Owosso High School. A local man, Harlan Drake, has admitted to targeting Mr. Pouillon for death because he did not agree with his views on abortion.

Wait, what? "Admitted to targeting Mr. Pouillon for death because he did not agree with his views on abortion"? Seriously? For those of you that are not completely familiar with this story. Harlan Drake was the man who recently gunned down two people, and planned to go after a third. They were based on grudges, all having a different motive.

Harlan Drake has admitted that he was "offended" by James Pouillon's anti-choice demonstrations, but the admission had little to do with Mr. Pouillon's views. Harlan Drake said he was offended by "the fact that [Mr. Pouillon] was outside the high school with his signs in front of children going to school," according to the county's chief assistant prosecutor, Sara Edwards. Let me repeat that, the chief assistant prosecutor, you know, the person arguing against Mr. Drake, not some pro-choice activist, said that he was offended that Mr. Pouillon was outside a school with his signs.

And what were these signs? "Graphic fetus images".

Keep this in mind. Harlan Drake has said nothing about being offended by anti-choice beliefs, he has admitted to being offended by someone holding up huge "graphic fetus images" outside a school. Definitely not an excuse for murder. But murder is no excuse for OR to go around lying in order to drum up political support.

Now, before some anti-choice nuts yell at me, I am not saying that James Pouillon should not be OR's person of the year (I am in no position to make any judgement on who they choose as their person of the year). However, I will not keep silent when they send a blatant lie to my inbox.

Training Tuesday with #org20: Getting Through the Bureaucracy

This week, we have something new for our Training Tuesday series. We still have plenty of videos left to come from Democracy for America's Campaign Academy, but a couple weekends back, we attended the Organizing 2.0 conference in New York. This conference was a unique opportunity for activists to learn about new media and online organizing from some of the greatest online organizers around.

Today, we present the first session we attended on navigating the bureaucracy of organizations and figuring out how to fit new media into existing organizational structures. Our panelists today are Charlie Albanetti of Citizen Action of New York, Elana Levin of the Writers Guild of America, East (WGAE), and Michael Whitney of Fire Dog Lake. A lot of their advice today boils down to one thing: you need to have a policy for this. That is, you cannot just plop your organization online and expect everything to run efficiently. You will need to sit down with the leadership and anyone else involved online and build a policy for online engagement. This is a process over time, not a Friday meeting over lunch.

Today's training is all bout opening the door. How do you maneuver through the bureaucracy of well entrenched community organizations to provide the conditions necessary to succeed with new media? Not everyone gets to be the Obama campaign with a boss that gets and appreciates online activism (and even they had to fight through a lot of bureaucracy to build their online organization).

Our panelists will provide us with some helpful tips on how to manage your organization's transition into the new media world. There are all these fun and powerful tools available online, but they are useless to you if your organization is not prepared to accept or understand them.

One of the more significant changes you will encounter as you transition your organization from 1.0 to 2.0 is that what was once primarily one-way communication is now heavily two-way (or three, four, five, six thousand.... etc)



Now that you have made it clear that what happens online is very different from traditional forms of organizing, you need to figure out how to include something so overarching and so necessarily flexible into the rigid structure of an organization:



An interesting conversation was sparked by a question about what to do with a boss that not only accepts online activism, but wants to play a large role, maybe too large a role...



And our last video for today, certainly not our least, is about when to train other staff to use online tools and when not to:


That's all for today. Check back next Tuesday at 6:00pm EST for another session of Training Tuesday!