Sticking young people with the bill

A theme that is getting all too familiar. Students at Montgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring were mighty offended when President Bush used their school as a stage to promote his Social Security privatization plan a few weeks ago.

They turned out in force to protest, taking over the streets and turning the whole event into a PR nightmare for Bush, Rove, and their team. We caught the whole thing on film and the photos rock.

Now it seems that, after assurances that the White House would pay its own way, the school district---meaning the students---have been stuck with the bill. Talk about adding insult to injury!

Here's what the Washington Examiner has to say:

Did Bush's sponsors stiff the county?

By PATRICK RUCKER
Examiner Staff Writer
When President George W. Bush visited a Montgomery County public school in June to tout his Social Security plan, the event's sponsors failed to pay a $7,300 bill, officials say.

Montgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring hosted the June 23 rally, but at a cost: more than $4,000 to rent 17 school buses and about $3,000 more for use of the auditorium, according to school officials.

Tart letter of complaint

The school system billed the two sponsors - the National Retirement Planning Coalition and the National Association for Variable Annuities.

County Council Vice President George Leventhal sent a tart letter asking the group to cough up the money.

"President Bush may think that deficit financing works just fine for the federal government. But in Montgomery County we have to pay our bills," Leventhal, D-at large, wrote in the letter.

About $5,000 to be paid

Deborah Tucker of the National Association for Variable Annuities said the organization disputed some items on the bill.

"We always pay our vendors," Tucker said, but the association will not pay a bill that includes overcharges.

The organization since has agreed to pay about $5,000 and is seeking an itemized bill to explain the additional costs, she said.

Tucker also accused the council of political grandstanding and "using this dispute for political purposes."

On Wednesday, Leventhal said he was pushing the matter after constituents complained that a public school played host to such a high-profile, private event.

The organizers of the event assured the press at the time that the school was not being asked to subsidize the President's visit. After all, sticking young people with the debt would go against everything that they are trying to do, right?

Riiiiight...

Really, a few thousand bucks seems like a bargain compared to the $851 billion that the leaders in the House of Representatives are proposing to add to the national debt with their plan to privatize Social Security.

Did you know that the Pentagon is collecting a data profile on you? Its true. Soon the Pentagon military planners are going to have a data file with your name on it. It will include information such as your name, address, race/ethnicity---and even your GPA and other school-based statistics as well as information they can glean from consumer marketing techniques.

Does that creep you out?

Read more from our partner EPIC, the Electronic Privacy Information Center. They've just released a fact-packed memorandum; if you have a deeper interest in this issue, you need to check it out.

EPIC Releases Memorandum on DOD Recruiting Database, Privacy Act Violations

Voting Rights Infringement in Georgia

Georgia legislators have passed a law that sets a dangerous precedent on the issue of minority voting rights. The law, if approved by the Justice department, would stipulate that all voters in the state be required to present a government-issued form of identification before being permitted to vote. The primary concern with this law is the restriction it would potentially place on elderly African-American residents’ right to vote in Georgia. It is an undisputed fact that fewer elderly people in general have drivers’ licenses. However, the difference is much more exaggerated for black seniors, who also have a disproportionately smaller access to other forms of official identification, such as birth certificates.

This type of legislation certainly violates the Voting Rights Act, which was enacted in order to guard minorities against voting laws that have an adverse impact on particular communities such as the grandfather clauses and poll tax laws, common in the Jim Crow South. Such practices served as a legal means to keep blacks away from the polls and on the outside of the political process throughout most of the first half of the twentieth century.

It’s a good thing Congress has continued to reenact the Voting Rights Act in the years since it’s original expiration date. Cases such as this one in Georgia prove that, in spite of the sweeping advances of the Civil Rights Movement and the diversity of the country today, the Voting Rights Act is needed now more than ever.

See editorial in today's New York Times about Georgia voting rights law.

--Posted by Nicole Brown

The New Nominee!

Two nights ago in a much-awaited press conference, President George W. Bush announced his first nomination to the US Supreme Court: Federal Judge John Roberts. For weeks, partisans on both sides of the aisle have been speculating about the judicial record of the President’s future nominee. Lefties lemented the possiblity that the President might replace the very powerful O'Connor swing vote with an archconservative; while righties feared a potentially moderate nominee such as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Well, we'll see what we got---Judge Roberts has almost nothing of a paper trail. During his time on the US Appellate Court for the District of Columbia prior to this nomination, Roberts was known for being an intelligent legal scholar. Previously he was one of the nation's top lawyers representing major corporations.

One thing's for sure: Roberts' confirmation process promises to be a thorough investigation into his professional history. A fuller picture of his judicial philosophy, such as his attitudes towards individual rights and liberties, etc etc, will come out during the hearings. Read more about Roberts in today's New York Times.

--Posted by Nicole Brown

Gore Gets his Groove Back

Vice President Al Gore has set out to reinvent the mainstream media. His weapon of choice: Current, the new political television station for people age 18-34 he purchased and recently launched.

If he’s lucky, maybe he’s tapped into what young people are looking for in a political news source. He's got the best concept strategists that money can buy. In spite of Current’s grassrootsy image, the startup cable station boasts an impressive budget. But it’ll have to grab the attention of some members of the current MTV crowd in order to be successful.

Here’s what all you channel surfers out there can expect to find on Current (from The Nation Magazine):

Current screened three video clips as evidence of what the network plans to offer: the first a high-speed montage, created by a team of producers, freelancers and the audience itself, touching on everything from poppy fields in Morocco to hacking into Paris Hilton's cell phone; the second, a twice-hourly news update spotlighting the top ten queries on Google for any given subject; and the third, winner of a $10,000 submission prize, a satire of political campaign ads that came across as an amateurish stab at The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.

Sound like what you’ve been missing? Does the channel have a chance?

--Poste by Nicole Brown

Urgent: Higher Ed Bill up for Reauthorization

If you’re a college student, recent graduate, or you know someone who’s struggling to pay for college, then you should watch out for the Heighter Education Act reauthorization bill, H.R. 609, currently up for consideration in the House Education Committee. If passed, H.R. 609 would freeze the maximum grant aid awarded to current college students as well as interest rates on loans used to pay for higher education. As we all know, the average expense of college increases by a significant percentage every year. So if the government decides to freeze aid, it’ll be impossible for working families to close the gap without going deeper into debt. Check out this website sponsored by the Student Aid Action PIRG, especially the link to the top ten ways that H.R. 609 would make college less affordable. Also, don’t forget to call or email your representatives and urge them to say no to reduced funding for higher education.

New York Times Takes On Your College President

Check out the New York Times editorial that chastizes the Washington college groups (largely controlled by college presidents) for "shilling" for the loan industry and failing to advocate in the best interests of students and would-be students.

The specific charge is that schools are failing to support a bill that would provide billions more for college aid because it would create new choices (for schools) that might threaten the often cosy relationship they have with lenders.

Right now schools can work with lenders to get a big kick back for making the federal loans direcltly and then selling them off to a lender. Under the STAR Act (pdf), schools who use the cheaper Direct Loan program would have the savings passed on to students. Pretty clear choice: Kickback to schools or kickback to students (and some for deficit reduction because it is taxpayers money).

Students are one oneside with bipartisan sponsors for their bill. Lenders and schools are on the other.

I am outraged that college presidents are increasingly looking out for their own self interest rather than the broader public interest. Indeed they have been busy recently praising the House version of the Higher Education Act because it provides them some regulatory relief and haven't joined with student organizations that oppose the bill because it actually will make it harder to go to college.

Look, this is Washington and these college presidents gotta do what they gotta do. The squeeze is on for higher education and college presidents get to decide who gets in to the life boat first.

National Journal's Congress Daily: Youth Groups Skirmish Over Social Security Overhaul Plans

Youth-oriented groups on opposite sides of a proposed Social Security overhaul are working this week to become more than a sideshow in the debate, while also taking very different approaches to asserting their influence. Students for Saving Social Security, which supports private Social Security accounts, staged a rally Wednesday in the Upper Senate Park and were flanked by a snow-making machine and melting ice sculptures. "Congress is giving us the cold shoulder. Our future is melting away," University of Mississippi senior Ben Ferguson said today. "It's time for Congress to listen to us." Ferguson, the group's spokesman, said college students then met with House and Senate members, including "key members of the Senate Finance Committee." The student group and many of its 163 campus chapters are members of the business-led Coalition for the Modernization and Protection of America's Social Security. Ferguson said CoMPASS has encouraged its efforts, but said the student effort is not a "front group" for the business lobby.
Rock the Vote, which opposes private accounts, countered today by releasing a Web video to its more than 1 million members urging youth to question what the group considers overly pessimistic forecasts of Social Security's demise. "Social Security, You've been told it's going to disappear one day. Did you ever stop to think, 'Is it true?'" the video asks. "Social Security will never disappear." The video contends the program will keep running after the baby boom generation retires, noting that workers entering the workforce continue to pay payroll taxes. The video acknowledges problems with Social Security, but does not mention projected shortfalls. Rock the Vote Washington director Hans Riemer said many of its members, who are under 30, do not understand how Social Security is funded. "We want to start with a particular vantage point," Riemer said. "People have to understand the actual situation." Best known for its quadrennial get-out-the-vote drives, Rock the Vote is registered as a 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 group and has a three-person Washington staff. The group has partnered with AARP for some events. Rather than focus on lobbying, Riemer said the group plans to focus its energies on events outside Washington this fall.
-- by Mark Wegner

A fascinating article called an Army of (No) One about the military's increasingly sophisticated use of the internet to spur recruitment.

Are you worried about the Pentagon collecting data on you and your peers in order to precision market, or is this just business as usual?

Rove in Hot Water, But Will He Get Fired?

With further developments in the Valerie Plame/Karl Rove/Breach of National Security case, Karl Rove has got to be sweating. It has now been confirmed that Rove spoke with Time Magazine reporter Matt Cooper before columnist Robert Novak’s article was published disclosing Plame's secret identity.

To be considered a violation of the law, a disclosure by a government official must have been deliberate, the person doing it must have known that the CIA officer was a covert agent, and he or she must have known that the government was actively concealing the covert agent's identity. Its unclear whether Rove will be convicted of a crime. There are legal technicalities that could prevent that.

The official White House position is to not comment until the end of the investigation. But reporters have been eating the White House press secretary alive over this since White House officials previously commented on the story back when they were denying that Karl Rove had anything to do with it.

As Rove's lawyer explains in a Washington Post story:

"'It puts Karl in a no-win position,' Luskin said. 'If he doesn't talk to [reporters], he subjects himself to criticisms like we're hearing from the Democrats on why he won't come forward and talk about his role. But if he does . . . he runs the risk of being accused of not cooperating with the investigation.' "

For now, though, the question on everyone's mind is whether the President is going to have to follow through on his earlier statement in a June 10th, 2004 press conference.

QUESTION: Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?
THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --
QUESTION: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

So if Rove didn't actually leak her name but clearly leaked her identity, does the President have to fire him (in order to keep his word)? What do you think?

-- Posted by Sam Buffone

First Open Thread

We've been noticing that people have been posting comments that don't necessarily have to do with the post. We want to know what you are thinking and want you to talk about what interests you so we have created your forum: the OPEN THREAD!!

Yeah I know its not that exciting but I hope you have fun with. Feel free to post an issue that matters to you, an interesting experience, or whatever you want.

It's your post.

Will the President's Social Security Plan Hurts Survivors?

Social Security is often thought of as a safety net for seniors in this country. But what's often forgotten is that survivors of those who die or become disabled before reaching retirement age are also entitled to Social Security funds. In fact, currently 4 million children collect Social Security survivor's benefits ever month.

Well, according to a study by the Economic Policy Institute, these special beneficiaries would lose 9.4% of their survivor benefit ($3,000 per year in today's money) with private accounts. The outlook is even worse for African-Americans and Hispanics. Read the whole report, and speak out about the dangers of privatization.

Social Security: its about the kid down the street whose mom died.

--Posted by Nicole Brown

Student Loan Loophole to Close

Student loans are meant to help students, not banks. Congress realized this was a problem back in 1993 when they worked to phase out the 9.5% guaranteed subsidy to banks on student loans. Ever since then banks have been finding loopholes that have allowed them continue benefiting from this subsidy. Congress and the Bush Administration may finally close the last of these loopholes.

The secretary of education, Margaret Spellings, joined the chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, yesterday in asking Congress to close a loophole that lets lenders claim a 9.5 percent government subsidy on certain student loans.

Ms. Spellings called for an end to the practice, which is known as recycling. It allows lenders to use the income from loans that receive the 9.5 percent subsidy to make new loans that then receive the subsidy, too.

Closing this loophole will stop banks from taking advantage of the government and save billions of dollars. This is a step forward for all students and all Americans.

A new sign of the growing influence of young voters!

-- Posted by Sam Buffone

Virginia man seeks clemency as he awaits death today

This is a case full of gaping inconsistencies and several interesting twists. A Virginia man, Robin Lovitt, is scheduled to be executed today for brutally murdering Clayton Dicks, 45, during the robbery of the pool house where Clayton worked as a night manager. The surprising part about all this is that there is no DNA evidence linking Lovitt to the scene of the crime or the weapon, a pair of scissors, used to murder Dicks. That's becasue the state's DNA laboratory threw it all away. Despite the fact that several of the most vital pieces of evidence to the case were prematurely destroyed, a Virginia jury convicted Lovitt and sentenced him to death in just two hours of deliberations. Lovitt, who at the time was also employed at the pool hall where Dicks worked, admits to having been high on crack and stealing the cash register on the night Dicks was killed. But he insists that he had nothing to do with the slaying.

Members of Clayton Dick's immediate family intend to be present at Lovitt's execution at 9pm tonight. Grief-stricken over the senseless death of their relative, they desperately want the closure provided by seeing the man convicted of killing Clayton die as a punishment for his deed. However, the grief that Lovitt's family is going through is equally as pitiable. They believe Lovitt's claim of innocence, and can see no justice in his wrongful execution.

Lovitt has found a surprising ally in the legal battle of his life: one of his defense attorney's in the appellite case, Kenneth Starr, former infamous special prosecutor during the Clinton-Lewinsky scandals. Starr, who is working on the case pro bono, supports the death penalty, but only in the most severe of cases. And he is especially opposed to it in Lovitt's case because of the contamination of evidence that could have been used to prove his innocence. Another strange fact about this case: Lovitt is in a death row cell very near that of John Allen Muhammad, the convicted Montgomery County sniper. Starr is quoted as saying in a Washington Post article about the case, "To equate Robin Lovitt's crime with that of John Muhammad is so appaling."

It's cases like this one that force us to reconsider the morality and actual effectiveness of the death penalty. The Supreme Court is currently reviewing Lovitt's appeal, and will release a decision on whether or not the justices will hear the case sometime today. If the Court refuses to review the appeal, then Lovitt's last hope rests in the hands of Virginia Governor, Mark R. Warner. Warner released a statement in which he said he would review the case and consider granting Lovitt clemency if the Supreme Court refuses to hear his appeal. Until the judicial branch makes a move, Robin Lovitt's fate will hang in the balance. It's hard to see the morality and justice in an ending like this.

--Posted by Nicole Brown

Miller: Protecting the Constitution or a Criminal?

NY Times reporter Judith Miller decided on Wednesday to accept jail time instead of releasing her sources in the Valerie Plame case. For those of you unfamiliar with the case, Valerie Plame’s husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, wrote an Op-Ed saying that, in making its case for the Iraq war, the Bush Administration had misrepresented the facts about Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger.

Robert Novak in an article later disclosed the fact that Wilson's wife Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent---of the highest security level, a so-called NOC. The leak is thought to have come from someone in the White House in an attempt to punish or discredit Ambassador Wilson. Revealing Mrs. Plame’s identity destroyed her security (and her career) as well as jeopardized anyone she had worked with while in the CIA. In other words, it undermined the security interests of the United States in the war on terror.

In an editorial the NY Times defended Judith Miller’s decision.

The point of this struggle is to make sure that people with critical information can feel confident that if they speak to a reporter on the condition of anonymity, their identities will be protected.

The media certainly does need to be protected. There are many times when the media skirts the limit of legality when releasing confidential information. These gray areas need to be protected as the NY Times points out. We want a media that uncovers the truth and people who can give anonymous tips to the media so they can find this truth. But:

Responsible journalists recognize that press freedoms are not absolute and must be exercised responsibly. This newspaper will not, for example, print the details of American troop movements in advance of a battle, because publication would endanger lives and national security.

There are instances when releasing information is clearly wrong and illegal. In my opinion releasing the identity of an undercover CIA agent for no reason other than her husband is in the news is criminal. It endangers people’s lives and puts America at risk. This is not a time the media needs protection but a time the media needs to help uncover the perpetrator of this crime against America.

What do you think? Is Miller a patriot or is she protecting a criminal?

-- Posted by Sam John Buffone

Terrorists deal a blow to the G8 Summit

Just as world leaders gathering at the G8 Summit began discussing solutions to the crises of world poverty, AIDS in Africa and global warming, the first of four bombs went off yesterday in London. Naturally, in the wake of such a horrific event, Prime Minister Blair was forced to withdraw from the conference and reassure the people of the UK. So in effect, the terrorists executed a two-pronged attack. Not only did they take the lives of innocent London commuters, but they also interrupted a conference intended to address a number of the most pressing global issues today. Now, though the summit will go on, the mood, if not the agenda, has completely shifted. According to the Washington Post, after word of the bombings arrived in Scotland, "The summit shifted from a discussion of the causes of poverty and global warming to finding those responsible for an attack that resembled the 2004 bombings of four rush-hour commuter trains in Madrid.." In the US, attacks such as the one that shook London hit especially close to home, and we all sympathize with our British allies. But for the sake of the thousands dying everyday in Africa and other severely impoverished areas all over the world, I hope that the work of the G8 summit is not diminished.

Posted by Nicole Brown, RTV Intern

Lil' Kim is heading to the Big House, having been sentenced to jail for perjury. So soon after she registered to vote with Rock the Vote, she's going to lose her right to vote...at least until she completes her sentence (including probation).

NOTE: The last version of this entry was a unclear about when or how Lil' Kim might get to vote again. Updated to make it more clear.

How many civil rights heroes lost their right to vote?

Last weekend, a cousin of mine was married here in Silver Spring, Maryland. A patriarch of the family, Bill Terry, was a Tuskegee Airman. He told me an incredible story about how when he was in the military, he was arrested and thrown in jail for causing disorder.

It turns out that he was trying to integrate the military base. This was back when Franklin Roosevelt was president. He and a group of other young soldiers organized a sit-in of sorts where they went, row after row, to the front door of a social club and demanded to be let in.

Terry and some others got thrown in jail. Their plan to have housekeepers at the White House talk to Eleanor Roosevelt, so that she could lean on FDR to do something about the situation, was foiled by Roosevelt's absence from the White House and then his death. So Bill Terry sat in jail for nearly a month.

And as a result he lost his right to vote. In his own words,

I was convicted, and I stayed convicted for 50 years and one month. And, after 50 years...I was given a full pardon, and I restored my rank, etc. For the first time in 50 years, I could vote, I could hold office, I was restored to my rank of Second Lieutenant, and it only goes to show that we're a nation of laws. If you wait long enough, you will be vindicated.

You can read more about Bill Terry's efforts to fight discrimination in the Armed Forces here.

Nationwide today, nearly 5 million Americans don't have the right to vote because they were convicted of a felony, even though they have served their time.

Read more about the issue and take action with the Sentencing Project.

Change is possible.

P.S., as a sidenote, this is a particularly great story for anyone who thinks that the Civil Rights Movement started when some brave lady named Rosa Parks decided to stand up on a bus in the 1950s. It was a mass movement underway for decades, and there are many, many heroes.

We are the champions

Rock the Vote's campaign to register voters in 7-Eleven stores during 2004 has one won the Cause Marketing Golden Halo Award! Yow!

Women on the Bench

As the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O’Connor has been a pioneer for gender equality in the legal profession. Get more info on her impact on the advancement of women (registration required) and her possible successors.

Justice O’Connor’s nomination marked a beginning to the acceptance of women into the legal world. At the time of her appointment to the bench Justice O’Connor was one of only 5 women to graduate from Stanford Law School and had been turned away from every law firm to which she had applied, being offered secretarial work instead. Can you imagine?

When President Reagan nominated Justice O’Connor in 1981 women made up a measly 6% of federal judges; today that number has jumped dramatically to 24%. But women still have a great distance to climb to achieve equality in the legal work force. To this day men still occupy 3/4 of the federal judiciary, only 16% of law firm partners are women and men dominate the legal professorship. In order for women to continue along the path toward gender equality attention must be paid to their advancement.

With only one woman (Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg) amongst the eight left on the Supreme Court, how important do you think it will be for Bush’s appointment to be female?

Posted by Regina Schwartz

What difference did Sandra Day O'Connor make?

What kind of Justice was she? Review these decisions, courtesy of People for the American Way, where she was the swing vote between two sides and give it some thought. What if she had gone the other way?

Key 5-4 rulings in which Sandra Day O’Connor was decisive

Sandra Day O’Connor has been the deciding vote in many important Supreme Court decisions affecting civil rights, environmental protection, personal privacy, voting rights, protection against discrimination, and more. If she is replaced by someone who doesn’t share her fair and impartial perspective, these are among the key 5-4 decisions in danger of being overturned:

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) affirmed the right of state colleges and universities to use affirmative action in their admissions policies to increase educational opportunities for minorities and promote racial diversity on campus.

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA (2004) said the Environmental Protection Agency could step in and take action to reduce air pollution under the Clean Air Act when a state conservation agency fails to act.

Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran (2002) upheld state laws giving people the right to a second doctor’s opinion if their HMOs tried to deny them treatment.

Hunt v. Cromartie (2001) affirmed the right of state legislators to take race into account to secure minority voting rights in redistricting.

Tennessee v. Lane (2004) upheld the constitutionality of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and required that courtrooms be physically accessible to the disabled.

Hibbs v. Winn (2004) subjected discriminatory and unconstitutional state tax laws to review by the federal judiciary.

Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) told the government it could not indefinitely detain an immigrant who was under final order of removal even if no other country would accept that person.

Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (2001) affirmed that civil rights laws apply to associations regulating interscholastic sports.

Lee v. Weisman (1992) continued the tradition of government neutrality toward religion, finding that government-sponsored prayer is unacceptable at graduations and other public school events.

Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington (2003) maintained a key source of funding for legal assistance for the poor.

Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia (1996) said key anti-discrimination provisions of the Voting Rights Act apply to political conventions that choose party candidates.

Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) upheld laws that limit political party expenditures that are coordinated with a candidate and seek to evade campaign contribution limits.

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) upheld most of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, including its ban on political parties’ use of unlimited soft money contributions.

Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) overturned a state ban on so-called partial birth abortion.

McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) upheld the principle of government neutrality towards religion and ruled unconstitutional Ten Commandments displays in several courthouses.

Live 8 concert

Some of the world's biggest artists are pooling their efforts to convince world leaders to increase thier aid to African nations. Tomorrow, July 2 there will be 10 Live 8 concerts around the world from Philidelphia to Japan. The concerts are meant to coincide with the G8 Summit, a gathering of the leaders of the 8 most powerful countries, set to take place next week in Scotland. Rock the Vote is proud to support this effort.

The campaign is not really about raising money. It's about mobilizing people to call on their governments to do more to eradicate poverty in Africa. This is one of our generation's big chances to use music to change the world. And, by the way, its not about Bush bashing, in case you were wondering. As USA Today reports:

"This isn't going to ba a Bush-bashing event. In fact, praising Bush is part of the strategy...Bob, Geldof, the British rocker who conceived Live Aid and Live 8 commends Bush for creating the Millennium Challenge Accounts to increase aid to poor countries."

So if you're near any one of the 10 cities with a Live 8 concert, purchase a ticket! And if not, make relieving poverty in Afica one of your issues!

--posted by, Nicole RTV Intern