Free Speech Carries Great Responsibility

Yesterday's shooting in Arizona is yet another wake-up call to America.  Our political rhetoric carries a grave responsibility to frame that rhetoric in fact and end the dangerous era of distortion, non-truths, vitriolic embellishments, and hate-based speech.

Regardless of your political beliefs, there is no need to vilify politicians, legislation, or programs because they are contrary to your own.  Fight against what you think is wrong - Absolutely.  Point out what you believe to be the flaws and mistakes - Absolutely.  But the language we use must accept the responsibility that accompanies the right to free speech.

Last December (2009), I blogged about the need for patience during the holidays.  The situation of that evening would have been aggravated by impatience because the woman I blogged about was dealing with a disorder that often controls her -- our patience helped her control it. Political discussions need the same measure of self-restraint. 

Between September and October 2009, I blogged several times about the debate over health care and in July 2009 I blogged specifically about Sarah Palin.  Did I contribute to the fray by calling her a whiner?  I examined evidence of her behavior and tried to frame it as to whether or not she was suitable to be our Vice President and even President.  Her behavior seemed to merit that label. 

In an August 2009 blog post, I had questioned whether Palin might be more accurately labeled a court jester.  I asked whether she was really working under the cover of being a fool -- one who is able to tell the king the truth without fear of harm -- or if she really were the fool.  I would sincerely hope that these questions and opinions would not lead someone to try to harm Palin.  There is a difference between raising questions about the intelligence and ability of someone to lead the nation versus vilifying that person.   

It is clear that I am not afraid to speak out about my beliefs.  The difference, I believe, is the tone of rhetoric.  I believe in reasonable debate.  Let's examine issues, based on facts, and skip the fictitious scenarios -- scare tactics -- that make reasonable debate impossible.

Recently, national attention has focused on hate-speech and bullying; just Google the topic.  While much of that discussion is framed in the context of anti-gay bullying, hate speech is hate speech no matter who is the target.  These incidents need to become the lessons through which we change our behavior and rhetoric.

My heartfelt sympathy goes to all those who were physically and emotionally injured or killed in yesterday's shooting.  While their families search for some solace, we need to put ourselves in their shoes and ask ourselves if we have become part of the problem.  

Update:  I just saw the Huff-Post (Huffington Post) article on Sarah Palin's map that has "gun sights" on  the Democrats she wants to unseat in the next election, including Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who was critically injured in yesterday's shooting.  This imagery is part of the problem I blogged about earlier this morning.  Targeting people with gun sights on a map sends a very disturbing message to people who are already on the edge between reality and insanity.  While she has the free speech right to do this, it seems very close to shouting "FIRE" in a theatre -- it is not reasonable and sane.  Palin's statement over this tragedy -- "we'll pray for peace and justice" -- just rings false when she has sent such a vitriolic message to her followers.

We have seen, over and over again, that people can react as if they were merely doing what the messenger said and no one else would do.  So how sane is it to continue to in the very behavior that we know triggers such an insane reaction?  It is clearly immoral and unethical.

That's my opinion.  What is your opinion?

Wrapping up the Week, 10/10/09

I've not posted much lately because so much has been the same thing over and over, especially on health care.  But this week was a little different and I'll give brief mention to a few items today.

NASA Rockets (in)to the Moon - Literally!

Being on the East Coast was a bonus on Friday, permitting me before heading to work to watch NASA launch twin rockets into the Moon surface in the search for water.  The experiment was designed to capture and analyze the plume of debris from the rocket impacts.  The debris, once ejected from the moon's dark side and exposed to the sun, will begin to break down into its basic components before vaporizing; any water-ice, hydrocarbon, or organic materials will be exposed to NASA's collection instruments.  It will be several weeks before NASA has all the data coordinated from the many sources collecting it and can state whether or not they found water.

If you've never explored NASA's website, here's a chance to do so.  There is a ton of "neat stuff" for all ages.

Health Care Indignities by CIGNA Just Keep on Coming

Cigna is a major health insurer with some major press issues.  Of course, that's not why I'm writing about them.  I'm writing because they do a terrific job of making the case for health care reform! 

Example 1:  Cigna is still experiencing fallout from a protest over the 2007 death of Nataline Sarkisyan who died needing a liver transplant that Cigna deemed too experimental.  After protests in 2007, Cigna reversed its decision, but Sarkisyan died hours later.  In 2008, Sarkisyan's mother and supporters from the California Nurses Association went to Cigna headquarters to confront the CEO and demand an apology.  Angry protestors were heckled by Cigna employees, with one employee literally "flipping off" (giving the "bird" or middle finger) to them.   Sarkisyan's mother left, feeling defeated and stunned by the employees' actions.  She also did not get to meet with CEO Edward Hanway.  Read the article on Huffington Post or this article on Los Angeles Times. 

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/08/cigna-employee-flips-off_n_314189.html

Example 2: Cigna has another battle on its front lawn and this fight is being supported by MoveOn.org and its supporters.  Dawn Smith is trying to fight a treatable brain tumor, but with Cigna as her insurer, it's not a battle with the disease that has Dawn in a fight - it's been a 2-year battle with Cigna which won't even tell her why they won't cover her treatment.  Cigna recently reversed its decision and says it will cover treatment, but they won't tell her why they denied it for 2 years or why it will treat her now.

Cigna only reversed its decision after the public spotlight was thrown on it; does this mean everyone has to go public with their medical conditions to get appropriate treatment?

Health Care Reform is Still a Political Game that Ignores What Americans Want

The above are just 2 examples of why our public health care system needs reform.  The large health insurers are the major voice that seems to get the attention of the Senate Finance Committee.  They continue to ignore the huge numbers of Americans who have signed petitions calling for a "public option" in health  care.  And my previous posts on health care tell that story pretty well. 

Current proposals to include the public option but permit states to opt out show that legislators are not listening; they are playing politics as usual.  They want to be able to say they support the public option and voted for it, so voted for this proposal to get the bill passed.  Others will say they didn't support it but voted for it because it will then be up to each state to adopt or not adopt it.  This is how Congress has its cake and eats it too.

On the Local Front...

Here's something I learned about this week.  Last month, a Massachusetts senior received notice that her October Social Security check was going to reduced by almost $200 (for that month only) and then subsequent checks would be reduced by almost $100.

How many of you can afford to have $200 taken from one month's income, and following that it would be reduced by $100/month?  Now answer that question again knowing that your monthly income was only around $1,100 in the first place!

You probably agree with me that this is a lot of money.  Seniors depend on Social Security for rent, food, medical bills, clothing, and more.  Getting a 10% cut like that hurts.  And getting 20% in one month hurts even more.  The senior was advised to ask Social Security about it, who informed her that MassHealth was taking the money out to cover her Medicare premiums.  Interestingly, the senior had received a letter from MassHealth in August stating that MassHealth was paying her Medicare premiums and that she should not have any money taken out of her Social Security check for it!

A phone call to MassHealth confirmed that the August notice was correct, so the senior brought the caseworker's notes on that call back to Social Security.  The person at Social Security again said they were taking out the Medicare premiums, but the senior argued back, showed her the notes from the previous day's conversation, and insisted that the worker check again.  A little further checking, going farther back into her Social Security computer record, showed that MassHealth was correct and Social Security was wrong.

This senior will get her money back and we hope this is resolved.  But it demonstrates how easily an agency can get something wrong, insist on maintaining what is wrong by not taking a look beyond the initial computer screen, and severely affect someone's life.

For anyone who is having this sort of difficulty, and for the advocates who assist them, documenting every phone call, getting the name of the person you speak with (& confirmation # of calls when they're available), and being politely persistent can make a difference.  We all have the right to question decisions that are made like this.  We also have the right to file an appeal.  Be sure to read notices to determine your rights to appeal and follow those instructions carefully and to the letter.  Meet those deadlines, even if you file a very brief appeal and then follow it up more details later.

Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize

People have mixed reactions to the news that the Nobel Committee has selected President Obama as the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Prize for Peace.  I'm pleased.  I think many people have not given Obama the respect he deserves for what he has accomplished and tried to accomplish in his first year in office.  Some talk as if he's been in office several years and cannot seem to get everyone behind his programs.  Some are seriously trying to derail anything he supports.  The Nobel Committee reflected on what he has done and is doing to stimulate peaceful talks and negotiations between and among several world communities and also what he's doing to try to reduce nuclear arms.

The award is recognition of the immediacy with which he tackled these tough world issues and has tried to lead by example in bringing people together to effect change on such important world issues.

Congratulations, Mr. President, and continue this important work.

Obama Must Not Back Down on Health Insurance Reform

Each day there are more articles revealing how some Republican leaders in town hall-style meetings are permitting misinformation, myths, and distortions about the health care reform bill to go unchallenged.  They're even furthering the "untruth" by tacking on additional editorial comments to the questioner's statement and taking the false scenarios even farther.

This is an intentional ploy to derail President Obama and is not about health care reform.  And it could work.  They pretend to discuss compromise but have no interest in forward movement.  These leaders are not serving the American public; they are serving a political party that wants its power back. Some of these leaders on the Senate Finance Committee, part of the "Gang of Six."  that is reviewing the bill for areas where they can compromise.  (See my Aug 29th post on this topic.)  

There are many people who have legitimate concerns about the costs and benefits of the reform bill under discussion.  Democratic and Republican leaders are among those with concerns.  This is not a bad thing.  Disagreement can lead to a better bill that serves us better.  Concern, discussion, and disagreement can lead to compromise.  But as I've discussed before, some of the dissenters are not interested in compromise.

These vocal opponents are interested only in derailing Obama's power.  Health care reform is their weapon. 

My message to the President, and to my legislators, is to stop playing "pretend compromise" and focus on what is best for the American public.  The Public Option is vital to true health care reform.  You knew that going in; now refocus and move forward.

The Democratic Party needs to find those Republican legislators who have the guts to vote on conscience, defying Republican leaders who are using this important bill to derail the President.  If there are areas where compromise makes sense without gutting the bill, then compromise.

Democrats and Republicans who have issues with the bill need to discuss those issues without distortion.  And they all need to tell the American public the truth, pointing out what the lies and distortions are when they surface so Americans can be informed and not lied to; the lies of omission must stop.

But overall, they must listen to the American public.  Our voices have been raised, loudly and clearly.  But it seems as if leaders in both parties are not listening.  Their ears are tuned elsewhere.

Tune in to us.

Listen to us.

We're talking to you...

Health Care Reform: One Argumentt -- Two Sets of Rules

Don't you just hate it when you are trying to understand an issue and someone comes along and starts talking about it -- but they're not really talking about it?  Instead, they're injecting a different topic into the conversation disguised as a position on the original topic?  It's like changing the rules in the middle of a game without telling the opponent.  The purpose, of course, is to derail the original discussion and get people talking about something else and never have to deal with the guts of the original.

The discussion was about health care reform.    Now Republican leaders are attempting to derail the conversation by introducing a senior health care bill of rights.  Republicans supposedly put this forward to ease seniors' concerns over health care "rationing" and cost-cutting under Medicare.  Now I wonder where that idea came from? 

"Under the Democrats' plan, senior citizens will pay a steeper price and will have their treatment options reduced or rationed," according to Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, in an op-ed in Monday's Washington Post (subscription required to view most articles).  This is the same Michael Steele who, in 2006, called for cuts to Medicare to control runaway costs.   How convenient that the GOP has an answer ready to assuage seniors' fears, making a radical shift in position from 3 years ago.  How ironic that this "ready answer" deals with a concern that they created! 

In 2006, Steele felt that the way to reduce Medicare costs was to cut benefits to seniors.  In the current health care reform bill, H.R. 3200, Medicare costs are reduced by reduction of payments to providers.  Everyone seems to complain about runaway health care costs, but when there is a plan on the table to curb those rising costs while maintaining a level of coverage for vulnerable seniors, the Republication option is to derail the conversation. 

And that moves the discussion away from real health care reform.

More Immigrants Than Non-Immigrants are Uninsured

A memorandum by the Center for Immigration Studies finds that more immigrants than non-immigrants are uninsured. This would seem to contradict my post of yesterday that immigration is good for the economy, since providing medical care for uninsured residents tends to drive up medical costs for everyone else.

I'm looking at it a bit differently though. Many businesses that need low-skilled workers rely on immigrants to do these jobs. When there are fewer immigrants, the jobs go unfilled. Sometimes it's because citizens won't take those jobs. Immigrants tend to stick to these jobs to bring money home for the family while Americans will quit and go elsewhere to try to earn more.

But low-paying jobs mean people cannot afford to pay health insurance premiums. Oh, here's an idea! Why not develop a health care system that will provide low-cost premiums for people in low-paying jobs; get insurers to come down a bit in their premiums and partly subsidize the plan so the insured pays what they can afford. It will certainly cost less to subsidize premiums a bit, helping keep people healthy, than to pay the full cost of emergency care for serious illness brought on by lack of access to preventive health care. And this plan gets the insurance providers to share the burden.

Oh, wait -- that's what the current health care reform is all about!

Instead of seeing health care reform as government intrusion, let's look at it as another choice being put into the mix. Along with current insurance options and insurers, there would be an additional option for people who have low-paying jobs or may be long-term unemployed. Let insurers bear part of the burden, the government bear part of the burden, and the individual and company s/he works for bear part of the burden.

Small businesses could opt for a subsidized plan that covers their employees but is affordable for both the business and the individual. Why is that so threatening? Wouldn't it cost less, in the long run, to keep people healthy through preventive health care? Wouldn't business owners rather be able to say, "yes, we're small but we can provide basic health insurance."?

The current health care system has a lot of problems; rising costs -- skyrocketing costs -- among them. We need to work on containing those costs. Let's acknowledge first that among the reasons for those costs are several factors that don't improve health care (rewarding physicians for unnecessary medical procedures comes to mind) and a number of factors that are directly related to good health care or illness (research into diseases and treatments, covering medical costs for the uninsured, unhealthy lifestyles, etc.).

We need a health care system that provides preventive health care for all, shares the cost-burden among all the players as much as possible, provides incentives for good health care, eliminates excesses where they don't improve health care, and reduces costs by helping create a healthier society.

I don't know that any reform plan out there does all that. But I do believe that current reform efforts are a step in the right direction. If we move in the current reform direction, I believe we can help immigrants get health insurance, get better preventive health care, and reverse those numbers derived by the Center. And that would be good medicine in my book.

Word Cloud courtesy of Wordle

Immigration Reform Heats Up

I listened this morning to Power Breakfast from Capitol News Connection, a 2-minute briefing on a hot topic of the coming day on Capitol Hill. This Power Breakfast, by CNC Senior Correspondent Elizabeth Wynne Johnson, focused on two topics , Immigration Reform and Government Transparency. I want to focus on Immigration Reform this morning.

Immigration Reform
Legalization of America's low-skilled illegal workers (undocumented immigrants) could deliver $180B benefit to US households, according to a study released this week by the Cato Institute. The Cato Institute is a "pro-free market, libertarian think tank" in Washington DC, according to this page in wikipedia.

Their study reveals that legalization of these low-skilled workers would benefit the US economy and the immigrants. It would also reduce or eliminate many of the negative elements associated with illegal immigration: smugglers' fees, low productivity, unfilled entry-level jobs, etc.

Tighter restrictions on undocumented workers already in the US would end up costing the US economy. While restrictions may show initial costs savings, these would be offset by lower economic output and fewer job opportunities for skilled workers.

In dollars and cents:
- Tighter restrictions. reducing the number of low-skilled immigrant workers by 28.6, would show a temporary gain of 0.5 percent, or $80B. This figure was reached by projecting a reduction of US household welfare.

- Legalization of low-skilled immigrant workers could show a gain of $180B.

One conclusion from the study:
Reduced Immigration Causes Drops in Investment, Output, and Consumption

Sarah Palin -- "a flaky, intellectual lightweight "

Paul Begala thinks that Newt Gringich's advice to Sarah Palin, while good advice, is wasted on Palin because she's not in the same league as Gringrich and "almost anybody in the Republican party." I think he's correct. The best description I've read on this comes from "blak n lovingamerica," in one of the responses to the HuffPost blog.

"If we would only discuss Sarah Palin when she does something, or says something containing real substance, she would go away. People on the left should realize that Palin is a prop used by the right to get a rise out of the left. By attacking her intellegence (sic), or perceived lack thereof, it energizes their base and gives them a reason to be gratuitously mad and fight anything noble the left initiates. Palin is a small pawn that moves like a queen in a large right wing chess game. The sooner folks realize that, the sooner she'll be neutralized. Why do you think the right insists that libs are "scared of Sarah Palin?" They know it will create a strong response and some of those responses will be hateful and perpetuate the cycle."

My new term for Palin is Sensationalist Sarah. She goes for the headlines but has no substance. That's not a problem for her, however, since she can just make it up or rely on what has been made up by others. Sometimes there's a grain of truth in there somewhere, but it gets distorted, blown out of proportion, or just plain exaggerated to make headlines.

That's Sarah's job today. As "blak n lovingamerica" states so well she is the Republican Party's pawn in a game of political chess. Another term that describes her role is jester.

However, the traditional role of the Jester, as used in literature, was also to give counsel to the monarch. Only the Jester could get away with giving advice that was contrary to the monarch's already-stated desires. The Jester had the cover of being a fool to hide behind.

Is Sarah Palin hiding behind "the cover of being a fool" or is she a fool? You decide.

Who is Behind Health Care Misinformation?

I don't know whether these folks oppose health insurance reform due to true conscience -- and huge change of heart about government intrusion into our lives -- or if they are playing the same old, "I lost at my turn, so now I'll cheat and make sure you lose at your turn."

Either way, some of the champions behind spreading myth and misinformation are the same people who felt that Congress should step in and take over the life-or-death decision regardng Terry Schaivo about 4 years ago.

From the Huffington Post...
"Some of the same conservative figures taking potshots at Democrats for wanting to fund voluntary discussions about end-of-life decisions between doctors and their patients were leading the charge four years ago to contravene the decision by Schiavo's husband and guardian to remove the feeding tubes from his wife after she had spent 15 years in a vegetative state."
...learn more with wikipedia information on the Terry Schiavo case...

Once again, GOPers want to have it both ways. It's interesting to note, however, that their charges of government intrusion in the health insurance reform bill are actually made up, fictitious, as in not real. The language of the bill does not mandate any end-of-life decisions. The langauge does encourage and provide incentives for end-of-life discussions between physician and patient about every 5 years.

They are getting the headlines, though. And this is confusing the heck out of a lot of people, especially those with limited access to information from both sides of the issue. Who are the people with such limited access to information? Why, in many cases, they're the very people that health insurance reform is supposed to help! They're low-income elderly who don't have cable (yes, America, not everybody in America can afford even basic cable), they're homeless, or non-English speaking, and others who aren't digitally connected to high speed Internet or aren't computer savvy.

Another problem is that sorting out this misinformation takes time. I've spent many hours reading through different viewpoints and actual text of legislation. I've had the privilege of a summer intern who did some basic research for me, bookmarking websites and getting bill #s and references so I can do a more thorough review. Not too many people have that assistance. I'll do a separate post with many of those links.

Why is the GOP so intent on spreading myth and misinformation? Could it be that they have no valid reasons to fight against health insurance reform? Is this just a GOP tactic to make it difficult for Democrats to push through reform? It isn't a stretch for me to believe that. I just look at some of the other tactics they've taken over the years when it looked as Democrats might win. The "Swift Boat" attacks on John Kerry come to mind.

The GOP seems to find it easier to make things up rather than argue the facts. The sensational headlines are an easy grab, make for more media coverage, and give them air time when they have nothing real to say. Shame on them.

Health care and health insurance reform are needed. Now. Whether the President's plan is the best one to follow, it's a start in the right direction. It does not create socialized medicine, which is something so many people fear. It creates a multi-player and multi-payer system that extends health coverage to a great many people who don't have any coverage now.

Let's face it; staying healthy is less expensive than getting sick. If we can provide health care to more people, so they stay healthy, we'll have gone a long way toward fixing a broken system.

Debunking Health Care Misinformation

I still have more reading to do, but this site is a great resource for getting behind the many rumors and misinformation regarding the Health Care bill.

Check it out for yourself and see what you think. I'll post more on it later, but wanted to get this resource out there, in your view.

Sarah Palin, Warrior - OR - Sarah Palin, Whiner

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's surprise announcement the other day that she is stepping down at the end of the month -- almost 18 months before the end of her first term in office -- caught a lot of people by surprise. But she's full of surprises. Many of her surprises, however, seem to stem from an acute lack of judgement rather than some innate sense of good politics or timing.

Some of the "winners" she's come up with include:

during the Presidential campaign, asking Steve Schmidt, chief strategist for the McCain campaing, to lie about her husband's 1995-2002 membership in the Alaska Independence Party, a secessionist Alaska organization. ...link to related story

in her emails to Schmidt on the above topic, she failed to mention that she delivered the AIP's opening convention remarks in 2008 ...oops, she just forgot???

failure to credit author Craig Shirley & Newt Gringich for significant portions of her introduction of Michael Reagan at the Alaska Center for the Performing Arts last month ...link to recording

not only did she borrow liberally from their 2005 article--she mentioned Gringich but failed to mention Shirley at all--not once did she reveal that she was actually quoting heavily from their article with some slight paraphrasing ...link to related article

Palin has a habit of exaggerating what is, and spinning it to an out-of-control level that seems to justify her rage & retaliation; when people say unflattering things about Palin, she gets mad and when she's mad she doesn't seem to think.
Latest case in point? Palin's attorney, Thomas Van Flein, issued a letter stating that Palin is considering legal action against Alaskan and Huffington Post blogger Shannon Moore, as well as the Washington Post, New York Times, MSNBC, and Huffington Post. Moore was apparently individually singled out because she talked about, on national television, the rumors that Palin resigned because she is under criminal investigation. Van Flein's letter is innacurate (oh, those pesky details) and charges that Moore said it is "fact" that Palin is resigning because she is under federal investigation; in reality Moore stated that rumors have been floating for "6 weeks or two months" that Palin was under "criminal investigation." Put that together with her sudden resignation and the rumors are increasing; Moore reported on this.

Rumors about politicos circulate all the time, but Palin felt that Moore's exposure on national television merited at attack. Moore has been put "on notice by Sarah Palin's lawyers not to speak crtically of Palin in the media." Moore did not even receive the actual letter before dozens of others received it, but when she did, on July 4th, her response was incredulity that on our national day commemorating our freedom, she received an order attempting to limit her freedom as a reporter and citizen or be subject to legal action. Of course, since nothing she said is libelous, Moore will ignore the letter and continue to report.

In reading through many blogs and other articles to create this post, I came away with one major impression of Sarah Palin. She's a whiner. Rather than gather facts, admit faults, and deal with reality, Palin goes after the person who points out her deficits and declares war. She is upset that the media picks on her, points out her flaws, demands accountability, and reports on her mistakes. Uh, that's part of their job, isn't it?

This woman thought she was qualified to be our Vice President. She'd be the person to take charge if the President were unable to complete a term of office. And she cannot deal with the scrutiny of her actions while in office? We are talking about scrutiny of her actions related to office, not her personal life, so she had better learn to take the heat and perhaps starting thinking before she makes some of those questionable decisions that brought the heat on in the first place.

Sarah Palin, Warrior? NOT! Sarah Palin, Whiner? YES!

For a more indepth, but unflattering, look at Palin, check out Vanity Fair's lengthy article by Todd Purdum .

Have You Tried Ask Your LawMaker?

Last night, Melinda Wittstock, Burueau Chief/Executive Director of Capitol News Connection (CNC) was featured at the Ethos Roundtable. An award-winning broadcast and print journalist, Melinda's experience in New York, Washington, and London spans BBC Radio and TV News, ABC News, National Public Radio (NPR), MSNBC/CNBC, as well as London's Times, Guardian, and Observer newspapers.

Melinda touched on a number of Web 2.0 topics with the guests as she demonstrated Ask Your Lawmaker and its widgit*. Ask Your Lawmaker provides ordinary people, like you and me, the opportunity to raise questions to our nation's lawmakers. The site's viewers vote on which questions they'd like to see answered; those with the highest votes get asked by CNC staff with the answers posted to the website.

The site includes podcasts, a blog, a widigit, and the Ask Your Question opportunity. There's a daily 2-minute Power Breakfast Podcast, which gives you a preview of what CNC expects to be covering during the day -- a preview of the day's news coverage!

While the website is being further developed, to improve functionality and smooth out the interaction between you and the site, it's fully functional and deserves your attention. If there's a question you've wanted asked on Capitol Hill, a burning issue you believe is being neglected, or maybe you want to find out if you're the only one who thinks they way you do about a particular national topic or trend, then pose your question and see what develops.

Capitol News Connection is owned by the nonprofit multimedia organization Pundit Productions, Inc. CNC provides nonpartisan news reporting and operates the Ask Your Lawmaker website.

*widgit = a web-based applet that provides ongoing content or permits user interaction; the Ask Your Lawmaker widgit permits anyone to run its feed on their website