Letter from Congressman Loebsack on Afghanistan February 2010 Dear Constituent, Thank you for contacting me about US operations in Afghanistan. I'm honored to represent you in Congress. Your opinion is very important to me and my priority is to provide Iowa's Second District with the best representation possible. In December 2009, President Obama announced a new strategy for US operations in Afghanistan, including the deployment of 30,000 additional US troops to the country. I have visited Afghanistan four times and have participated in a number of hearings and briefings on our progress in the country over the last several years, including hearings regarding the President's recently announced strategy with Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen, General McChrystal, and Ambassador Eikenberry. Our service members and their families who will be, and who are being, deployed to Afghanistan deserve a thorough, accurate, and ongoing assessment of the President's strategy. They need a well-defined mission, with clearly laid out goals, and an actively followed rubric for measuring progress. I have worked to ensure that our service members, military families, and the American people receive this information by asking the tough questions necessary to ensure they get the answers they need and deserve. As a member of the Military Personnel and Readiness Subcommittees, I remain deeply concerned about the toll multiple deployments are taking on our service members and our ability to respond to emergencies at home as well as other possible contingencies abroad. I do not believe that an open-ended commitment to Afghanistan will enhance our national security, nor do I believe that it is the best use of American resources, especially as Iowa families are tightening their belts here at home. That is why I cosponsored HR 2404 on May 18, 2009, which would require the President to submit a report to Congress detailing a strategy to succeed in Afghanistan and bring our troops home. As the President's strategy is carried out, it must enhance our national security and it must meet achievable and well-defined goals that will effectively deny al Qaeda a safe haven and allow our troops to come home. It must responsibly use America's resources, and include:
Clearly laid out goals, a well-defined mission, and a rubric for measuring progress.
An organized political-military structure that fully utilizes and coordinates our civilian economic, agriculture, political, and development resources with the military mission.
A realistic and up-to-date accounting of the costs.
A well-defined, and closely followed plan to transfer responsibility for Afghan security and stability to the Afghan people, including helping the Afghan government combat corruption and assume responsibility for their country's future.
Ongoing commitments from our NATO allies to support the UN and NATO-backed mission in Afghanistan with additional troops, civilian experts, and resources.
Active coordination with the Pakistani government to further secure and stabilize the region and deny a safe haven to extremists who wish to do us harm.
President Obama's decision to send additional troops into Afghanistan was meant to address the worsening security situation and reverse the momentum of al Qaeda and the Taliban in the region. However, we will not achieve success in Afghanistan and the region through military means alone. I believe that redefining and growing the Afghan economy will be key to stabilizing the country and allowing our troops to come home. Similarly, the Afghanistan government must be supported in its efforts to develop the Afghan National Security Forces so that the Afghan people can provide for their own security. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I added provisions to the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act (HR 2647) to increase inter-agency coordination and assure that the necessary agriculture, anti-corruption, and security training assets and resources are in place to support and enhance the military mission. On behalf of our service members, their families, and the American taxpayers, I will continue to hold this Administration as accountable as I held the Bush Administration. I will carefully monitor the strategy's progress, and I will ensure that, as 3,500 members of the Iowa National Guard prepare to deploy to Afghanistan, they have every resource they need. Please be assured that I will continue to carefully monitor our progress and operation in Afghanistan and will keep your thoughts in mind when considering any legislation concerning operations there. Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue. I encourage you to visit my website at www.loebsack.house.gov and sign up for my e-newsletters to stay informed of the work I'm doing in Congress. I am proud to serve Iowa's Second District, and I am committed to working hard for you.
Iowans Mark the 7th Anniversary of the Iraq Warby Paul Deaton
"We sang 'If I Had a Hammer,' written in
1949 in
support of the progressive movement. We were heartened against society’s
harshness by being together as friends."
A woman started crying as she read the names of people
killed during the first seven years of the Iraq war. Today marks the beginning
of the eighth year of US participation in this military action and it is hard
not to be affected by reading the names of those who died. A bell rang after
each name was read. It is especially disheartening when we realize that in addition
to 43 Iowans, uncounted Iraqi men, women and children lost their lives during the Iraq war.
Today was a day of vigils and demonstrations in many major population centers
in Iowa and the nation. It is up to the living to honor the dead. Before this
war ends, more will die.
As the sun rose in front of us, food service tractor
trailers, beer trucks and refuse haulers plied the streets servicing nearby
bars and restaurants. Buses drove past and some of the drivers honked their
horns in recognition of the vigil. The bank showed the temperature to be 43
degrees, but none of us minded the chilly weather. We sang Pete Seeger and Lee
Hays’ song “If I Had a Hammer,” written in 1949 in
support of the progressive movement. We were heartened against society’s
harshness by being together as friends.
There were about two dozen of us this morning: a better
crowd than normal. We didn’t need the bullhorn. There were signs to hold and
candles to burn. As we were gathering we exchanged greetings and talked about
the future. This one was attending law school, another talked about nuclear
power and another about the cost of the wars. Someone wanted a new yard sign
because the first one had worn out during the course of this interminable war. After
an hour the group broke up and we parted to get on with our lives.
Ed Flaherty, a member of PEACE Iowa and Veterans for Peace,
organized two vigils in Iowa City at the University of Iowa’s Pentacrest. (If
you live in the area, the second one is at 7:00 PM today, March 19). We were pleased
that the Cedar Rapids Gazette sent a reporter to cover the event for both print
and television. A couple of participants gave interviews while the rest of us
stood as backdrop for the camera. If we weren’t standing our vigil, there may
not have been press coverage of the anniversary of the Iraq war at all. Many of
us thanked the reporter for coming and supporting us. When the government won’t
listen, we need every friend we can get.
~Paul
Deaton is a native Iowan living in rural Johnson County and weekend
editor of Blog for Iowa. He is also a member of Iowa Physicians for
Social Responsibility and Veterans for Peace.E-mail Paul
Deaton
"This all sounds great! However; some conservatives
already
have their scheming wheels in motion."
Iowans who follow nuclear disarmament issues are hoping that
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton resolves what remaining issues exist between
Russia and the United States while she is in Russia today. The Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty (START) could then be finalized and signed by the
parties this spring, and perhaps as early as this fall, ratified by the United
States Senate. Hope springs eternal in foreign affairs and among those who
follow them. The previous START treaty expired on December 5, 2009.
The benefit of a new START treaty is that the anticipated
reductions in the number of nuclear warheads and delivery systems specified by
the treaty would help prevent nuclear terrorism and make the United States (and
the rest of the world) more secure. With fewer strategic weapons being deployed,
there is less chance of nuclear materials being stolen. In addition, the new
START agreement will help maintain a healthy nuclear relationship with Russia.
Increased verification procedures and improved data sharing would enable a
relationship of trust to exist between the two countries.
This all sounds great! However; some conservatives already
have their scheming wheels in motion. A moderate Republican senator was
recently told by Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) “don’t say anything about the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) until the two of us talk.” It is well known that Senator
Kyl seeks to attach conditions regarding CTBT ratification to the expected senate
ratification of START. It is also well-known that the Republican senators follow
Senator Kyl’s lead on nuclear issues.
Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton said of
the START negotiations, “Mr. Obama was going too far. ‘The number they are
proposing, for delivery vehicles, is shockingly low.’” Bolton has been a
drumbeat of negativity towards President Obama’s nuclear disarmament
initiative. The only thing “shocking” is that anyone continues to listen to
Bolton.
During the debate on health care, we discovered the reality
of 21st Century Senate politics: partisan gridlock permeates
everything in Washington. This includes START, a treaty that has broad,
bipartisan support, would enhance national security and would reduce nuclear
weapons between the two parties that own the largest number of them. Why should
the senior senator from Iowa be beholden to someone like Senator Kyl, who can
only be called an extremist?
If what is suggested about Senator Chuck Grassley is true,
that he is beholden to Senator Kyl on START, the seniority he built during his
senate career is of little value to Iowans. To the extent Senator Grassley has
joined the Republican phalanx,
the less effective he will be for Iowans on important issues.
Let’s hope President Obama and Secretary Clinton conclude
the negotiations on START this week and that both Iowa senators vote for
ratification when the treaty is debated by the Senate.
~Paul
Deaton is a native Iowan living in rural Johnson County and weekend
editor of Blog for Iowa. He is also a member of Iowa Physicians for
Social Responsibility and Veterans for Peace.E-mail Paul
Deaton
To read more on this topic, try one of these articles:
Cedar Valley Voices: Iowa Communities Must Work Together To Fix Education by Gerald Reese
The Cedar
Valley Voices project is a citizen response to state Representative
Jeff Kaufmann’s column in the West Branch Times during the
Iowa legislative session.
Is there something really wrong with our educational system, or is it a matter of perception? Or is there something wrong with the way we administer our funding? Do we rely too much on tests to measure achievement, whether it is to pass a grade, or to hire a new teacher? Do we have too much top-heavy administration and too many associations trying to invent the better mousetrap? Do we concentrate too much on the better students and too little on the underachievers? Do we need to overhaul the education system every time we elect a new president?
Right now President Obama is calling for a massive overhaul of the system, and to throw billions of dollars at it, as if this is going to improve test scores. Here in Iowa our Association of School Boards is embroiled in controversy involving alleged misuse of funds, etc. While this association has many benefits, it lacks oversight. It seems like public money is too much temptation for some. We have 361 school districts that have their own set of administrators and staff. In years past, we had county (99) superintendents that worked well for us. Should we go back to this system simply to save money? We could hire, or retain more teachers with the money saved. Maybe in times of economic distress we would not have to layoff teachers, and increase class size.
When economic times are good we go all out for the arts (both preforming and visual) that many students enjoy. These are the classes where students learn who they are in our society, and form a sense of identity. For some, it is a way of making it through another boring day of feeling left out, of losing hope. This past week, students and teachers in Des Moines were protesting cuts in these same classes. And these students are right to expect the same level of educational opportunities as the predecessors. We need to plan ahead to maintain that same level of opportunity, and not overreact to each downward financial condition.
When we cut teachers, and increase class sizes, we are multiplying the number of students in each class that need extra help, and decreasing the amount of time the teacher has to help. Parents may have the means to hire a tutor for their student, which helps that student understand and learn a particular subject. What about those students whose parents or guardians cannot or will not provide the extra tutoring? Not all in our society place the same value on education as the majority. It then falls back onto the community to help those who desperately need help. And it does take the community pulling together to provide a quality education for all of its members.
What it boils down to, is that the better our society is educated, the healthier society is. Do we need national standards of educational goals, of funding our schools? Declining enrollment in our smaller communities exacerbate the problems inherent with funding per student policies. Less funding leads to cuts, and cuts lead to fewer opportunities for students. It can become a vicious cycle that catches our young people in the middle, and our communities at odds as to a viable solution.
Working together, we can, and will come up with answers.
Salute To The Sustainable Ag Women Of Iowa! by Denise O'Brien
Given that March is Women’s History Month and that March 8th was International Women’s Day, I thought I would pay tribute to the incredible women of Iowa’s sustainable agriculture community. Over my years of involvement in Iowa agriculture (which now number 34), I have worked with women all over the state. Not all women in the sustainable ag community are farmers.
To honor the women farmers who provide food for their communities in Iowa is a large task. The list is long and goes back a great number of years. There are women out there that have laid the foundation for the sustainable ag work that continues to move forward.
This tribute is in alphabetical order and not an order of “importance.” The list is incomplete because it is limited to the women with whom I have personally worked. I am including the websites to their farms. Most of the women have a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA). Many of you may know that a CSA is a membership based farm and that members pay a fee to receive a weekly box or basket of fresh produce during the growing season. My CSA is Rolling Acres Farm and we are just getting the season underway. As I looked through the websites the pictures of green growing things has made me hopeful that spring will soon be here.
Some women don’t have websites but I am mentioning their names to honor their work.
The list would not be complete without mentioning other women in Iowa who have played a role both in the state and nationally. Take for instance, Tanya Meyer-Didericksen. Tanya has been a United States Department of Agriculture employee in the state of Iowa who has worked on outreach and diversity through the Natural Resource and Conservation Service. Tanya worked closely with Women, Food and Agriculture Network (WFAN) starting in the 1990s to reach out to women farmland owners.
In academia there have been a number of women who have moved the sustainable ag agenda forward. Rural sociologist, Betty Wells was a founder of WFAN in 1997. Kathleen Delate became the first organic specialist in horticulture and commodity agriculture at Iowa State University. Cornelia Flora, another rural sociologist, has been actively involved in rural issues since the 80s farm crisis and has been an amazing supporter of women. Jean Eells has worked between government agencies and academia to bring forward the importance of women as farmland owners.
The non-profit sector has contributed immensely to the strength of Iowa’s sustainable agriculture. If you look at the staff of many community based organizations you will notice a substantial number of women. Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI) has at it’s helm, Teresa Opheim. Teresa has been in the sustainable ag community for a long while working on both a state and national level. She is supported by staff that are competent and capable. Women, Food and Agriculture Network (WFAN), with Leigh Adcock as Director, works hard every day to help women connect the dots with farming and conservation practices. Of course, as the founder of WFAN, I am partial to this non-profit. Laura Dowd at Local Foods Connection works tirelessly to bring low income people into the good food movement.
There are many rural community women that spend their days working to advance sustainable agriculture in Iowa. Carol Smith of Perry; Mary Swalla-Holmes, of Madrid; Susan Roberts of Ankeny; Angie Tagtow of Elkhart; Penny Brown of Maxwell; Stacey Brown of Ames; Danielle Wirth and Maggie Howe of Woodward, are names that are constantly lifted up as a resource for navigating the maize of sustainable agriculture in Iowa and in the nation.
I have saved the best for the last. No disrespect to the aforementioned women - if it were not for the work that they do, Iowa sustainable agriculture would not have the credibility and respect it has throughout the world.
Iowa sustainable agriculture has strong roots and with the help of Iowa consumers, can make the food landscape in Iowa change from commodity orientation to food self sufficiency
~ Denise O'Brien lives and
works on her farm in southwest Iowa. O'Brien has been a farm activist
for over thirty years. Her work has taken her all over the world working
on agriculture and women in agriculture issues. Check out her website Rolling Acres
CSA or E-mail Denise O'Brien.
Health
Care Reform Update: Messages to BFIA Readers from Senator Harkin and Representative Braley
by Alta Price, M.D.
"Although Braley did not say so, I
heard others at the dinner say that Representative Boswell may not vote
for the bill. Those of you in his district may want to give him a call
and find out what’s up with that! " Last Saturday, March 13, 2010 I attended the Scott County Democrats’ annual Red, White, and Blue banquet. Guests of honor included Senator Tom Harkin and first district Representative Bruce Braley. I asked each of them for comments on what is happening in health care reform right now to convey to the readers of Blog for Iowa.
Senator Harkin said that a package was being put together that the House will vote on late this week. The Senate will vote before they go on Easter recess. Unfortunately, there will be no public option in the bill, and he knew progressives would be disappointed. Attached to the health care “fix” bill will be a bill to make college more affordable. This bill will save money by cutting payments to the middlemen (banks) for student loans.
Senator Harkin also thanked all of us for our efforts in the state, including our work for Blog for Iowa. We had several exchanges of “thank you for all your efforts” and “no, thank you for everything you are doing” – ending in a draw with neither party willing to accept more of the gratitude.
The message from Representative Braley was a bit less sanguine. For one thing, Representative Braley was less confident that the vote would occur this week. He did say he thought leadership had come up with a way to carry out the vote that would allow them to pass the Senate health care reform bill and the “fix” bill at the same time, which he believed most members of the House would prefer. Unfortunately, Representative Braley was not sure they had enough votes lined up to pass the bill at this point. There is a lack of trust that the Senate will pass the “fix” bill, and the House members don’t think the Senate bill is as good as the bill the House passed. Representative Braley advised us that the status of the legislation will continue to change every day this week.
The message Representative Braley would like to send to BFIA readers is to continue to push hard over the next week (weeks?) to get this passed. Now would be an excellent time to contact your member of Congress and encourage them to finish up this bill.
Although Braley did not say so, I heard others at the dinner say that Representative Boswell may not vote for the bill. Those of you in his district may want to give him a call and find out what’s up with that!
I assume Representative Loebsack will vote for it, but you might want to check in with his office to be sure. Since the “anti’s” are no doubt calling, it is important for us to call and thank our Democratic members of Congress for their support.
I want to thank Tracy for doing such a good job in her post yesterday updating you on the health care bill and the process of getting it passed. Health care reform is vital to the well-being of Iowa’s working men and women and their families. I, too, will be posting smiley faces next Tuesday if we have a bill by then!
Finally, following up on my post from last week, here is some coverage in the Quad-Cities Online of our “Die-in” last Thursday, March 11. (By the way, if you read the ridiculous comments at the end of this story, and realize that those are the people calling the Congressional offices, you can see why it is vital that the saner members of our society also call our members of Congress to let them know we support health care reform!)
Let’s act on Representative Braley’s request to push for health care reform this week! Click on the links to write our elected officials now and ask them to vote for the health care reform bills before the congress.
Alta
Price is a physician practicing Pathology in Davenport, Iowa. One of
the original Deaniacs, she stays involved with Democracy for America,
Iowa, and the Quad Cities. She advocates for quality, affordable health
care for all, primarily as a volunteer with Progressive Action for the
Common Good (Health Care Reform Issue Forum).Watch for Dr. Price's Health Care Reform Update every Tuesday here on Blog for Iowa. E-Mail Alta Price
Iowa
Progressive Radio: This Week On The Fallon ForumDear Friends,
We’ve got thirteen hours of talk radio to fill this week – mostly issues
and politics, of course. But in honor of St. Patrick, Ed tells true
tales of his time in Ireland, including stories of mythical fairies who
managed to delay for two years a reforestation project on his family’s
farm. Seriously. Ed swears he’s not making this up.
Monday, 1:00 – 4:00 pm
, we talk about politics and the Des Moines
Register’s love affair with Senator Grassley, Jonathan Narcisse’s love
affair with himself, and Iowa
Senate Republicans’ burning love for coal.
Monday, 7:00 – 8:00 pm
, we talk about the recent national workshop
in Ankeny on competition in agriculture. George Naylor, a Greene County
farmer, was one of the there, and he joins us to talk about the issues
addressed – and those not addressed.
Tuesday, 1:00 4:00 pm
, we talk about Iowa floods past,
present and future. What’s up with the alleged mismanagement of funds in
Cedar Rapids’
flood relief efforts? Why is the levy designed to protect the Birdland
neighborhood in Des Moines still unfinished?
And since no discussion of natural disasters would be complete without
religious extremists weighing in, we’ll pose the tongue-in-cheek
rhetorical question: Are these floods a sign that God hates Iowa? For
good measure, we’ll also discuss the recent assertion by the Iowa Family
Policy Council that second-hand smoke is not as serious a health risk
as second-hand homosexuality. Seriously. We’re not making this up
either.
Tuesday, 7:00 – 8:00 pm, David Osterberg with the Iowa Policy
Project joins us to talk about opportunities for wind energy in Iowa.
Wednesday, 1:00 – 4:00 pm
, we talk about immigration
reform, including the latest developments in the ICN raid at Postville. This being St.
Patrick’s Day, and Ed being only a little Irish, Ed will talk about the
discrimination his Irish grandparents faced as immigrants in the 1920s
and ‘30s. We’ll also talk about the challenges immigrants to Iowa face
today.
Wednesday, 7:00 – 8:00 pm
, in a departure from the
usual political and issue focus of The Fallon Forum, Ed shares stories
from his time in Ireland in the 1960s and ‘70s. And he’ll also tell a
few of his favorite Irish
jokes, if Lynn and FCC rules let him.
Thursday 7:00 – 8:00 pm
, Tim Fink with Iowa Interfaith Power and Light
joins us to talk about climate
change.
So, pour yourself a hot cup of tea, a glass of wine, or on Wednesday a
pint of Guinness and join us for the fusion of politics and civility at
98.3 WOW-FM and on-line at
www.983wowfm.com. Call (515) 312-0983 or (866) 908-TALK to
participate in the conversation, and if you miss the show, you can hear
it as a podcast.
Labor Update: What's in the Health Care Bill for Iowa Workers? by Tracy Kurowski
By this time next week, we could finally have a health care bill on President Obama’s desk.
I stress the word "could" because if we’ve learned anything in the past year, it is that no legislation is a sure thing. Speaker Pelosi, however, feels confident enough in her whip count that she is ready to schedule a vote by Friday or Saturday of this week.
Health care reform’s final passage will be a combination of asking members of the House of Representatives to pass the Senate version of the bill, while simultaneously passing a series of amendments dealing with the bill’s financing, that would then be volleyed back to the Senate to pass through a reconciliation process that only requires a simple majority of fifty-one votes. So long as the Senate is honestly gauging their whip count, by next Monday, rather than posting a blog, I’m just going to post clip art of champagne, balloons, confetti, smiley faces and dancing figures.
And now that we are at the end game, it’s important to resist the temptation to look back at this point and figure out why something like the desire to provide health care access to all of a nation’s citizens should have conjured up so much controversy. At an interfaith forum on health care reform late last year, two of the panelists rightly agreed that the debate we had been having throughout 2009 brought out more heat than light. But whatever compromises are in the final outcome, the significance of having passed a health care overhaul will mean an awful lot for both improving on the bill’s flaws as we move forward, as well as for moving any other legislation over the rest of Obama’s tenure as President.
So let me talk now about the parts of the bill that most affect labor. The forty percent excise tax on benefits in the Senate version stands out as the most egregious flaw of the bill. However, the version going through reconciliation would reduce the effect that will have on working families by eighty percent. The reconciled bill would delay implementation of the tax until 2018. This is only fair since implementing it any earlier would undermine the negotiated agreements currently in place – at the expense to both workers and employers. By delaying implementation until 2018, not only is there an opportunity to re-visit financing of the health care bill, but even if left untouched, the delay gives workers and employers the opportunity to negotiate future contracts based on the impact of such an enormous tax.
The reconciled bill also resets the excise tax threshold at $27,500 for family coverage and $10,200 for individual plans, exempting many working families. The threshold excludes vision and dental benefits and is adjusted higher if age and gender of workforce increases costs. Finally, the threshold will be adjusted if costs outpace projected increases.
Because these modifications reduce revenue from the excise tax from $116 billion to $33 billion over ten years, the reconciled version pays for reform by increasing the Medicare tax on tax payers earning over $200,000 (families over $250,000) per year. It would also for the first time put a Medicare tax on unearned income.
There is no employer mandate to provide coverage, but there will be penalties for employers with greater than fifty full-time employees. For employers in the building trades, the number being negotiated right now is five full-time employees and payroll of $250,000 or more. The penalty for employers not providing health care benefits is increased to $2000 per worker up from $750 in the current Senate version.
For retirees, the bill would get rid of the doughnut hole that hung seniors out to dry when it came to paying for their prescription costs.
The deal with Nebraska is gone (take that Blue-Dog Bill Nelson!) And by some accounts, there’s a chance for a public option to re-emerge.
It improves on federal funding to states to offset costs of Medicaid – currently a heavy burden for states and retains qualification for Medicaid for those up to 133% of poverty level. For moderate – income earners, the subsidy will be increased for individuals and families up to four times poverty level. It also puts a cap on out-of-pocket costs so illness won’t bankrupt families anymore. And for working families who are moderate to higher end wage earners, there are subsidies available so your premium for employer-provided coverage will never be more than 9.8% of income.
The bill permits states to establish a single-payer system for themselves – something people in progressive states may want to start work on at a much-smaller scale – remember women’s enfranchisement only happened after a critical mass of states already allowed women the right to vote.
The fight for comprehensive health care reform has gone on for decades. It’s absolutely senseless to toss out the current version because it fails to please everyone. The last time comprehensive health care reform was attempted was in 1992. If reform fails again, are we willing to wait until 2028 to revisit it? Compounding the current rate of health insurance premium increases – which were anywhere from ten to sixty percent this year – and you‘ll soon realize that doing nothing is not an option, that is unless you’re ok with becoming a third-world nation.
Tracy
Kurowski has been active in the labor movement
for ten years, first as a member of AFSCME 3506, when she taught adult
education classes at the City Colleges of Chicago. She moved to the
Quad Cities in 2007 where she worked as political coordinator with the
Quad City Federation of Labor, and as a caseworker for Congressman
Bruce Braley from 2007 - 2009.
Tracy Kurowski writes a labor update every
Monday on Blog for Iowa
*IBLTV is a group of citizens from the Iowa City/Cedar Rapids area who are concerned about the decline in the quality of local television. Fight local media consolidation, as it leads to an unaccountable medium that enriches itself while disregarding the need to serve the public good.
*The rational counter to 'The Point,' 'The Counterpoint' critiques and corrects the daily editorial by Sinclair Broadcasting's corporate vice president, Mark Hyman, that is broadcast on all Sinclair-owned television stations across the country
February 2010
by Gerald Reese
