P U L S E
"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."
Ken O’Keefe: ‘We, the defenders of the Mavi Marmara, are the modern example of Gandhi’s essence’
Ken O’Keefe, former US Marine, Gulf War veteran, and now survivor of the Mavi Marmara massacre, has issued a remarkable and searing statement from Istanbul. “While in Israeli custody I, along with everyone else, was subjected to endless abuse and flagrant acts of disrespect. Women and elderly were physically and mentally assaulted. Access to food and water and toilets was denied. Dogs were used against us, we ourselves were treated like dogs. We were exposed to direct sun in stress positions while hand cuffed to the point of losing circulation of blood in our hands. We were lied to incessantly, in fact I am awed at the routineness and comfort in their ability to lie, it is remarkable really. We were abused in just about every way imaginable and I myself was beaten and choked to the point of blacking out… and I was beaten again while in my cell.
In all this what I saw more than anything else were cowards… and yet I also see my brothers. Because no matter how vile and wrong the Israeli agents and government are, they are still my brothers and sisters and for now I only have pity for them. Because they are relinquishing the most precious thing a human being has, their humanity.“
O’Keefe was a human shield in Iraq who formally renounced his US citizenship in protest in 2001; he now has Irish as well as Palestinian citizenship. On the morning of the attack, as he describes it, he was “directly involved in the disarming of two Israeli Commandos. This was a forcible, non-negotiable, separation of weapons from commandos who had already murdered two brothers that I had seen that day.” Subsequently brutalised by the Israeli military, he is defiant: “I challenge any critic of merit, publicly, to debate me on a large stage over our actions that day. I would especially love to debate with any Israeli leader who accuses us of wrongdoing, it would be my tremendous pleasure to face off with you. All I saw in Israel was cowards with guns, so I am ripe to see you in a new context“.
In another context — one that does not involve Israel — O’Keefe’s valor would likely be recognized and rewarded by the country whose military he served and whose citizenship he has relinquished. Yet he will be a hero to millions around the world.
Read O’Keefe’s statement in full below.
I have for many years understood that we, people of conscience, are the true holders of power in this world. Frustratingly however we have largely relinquished that power and failed to reach our full potential. Our potential to create a better world, a just world. Nonetheless I have conspired with others of like mind to reveal and exercise our true power. In 2002 I initiated the TJP Human Shield Action to Iraq because I knew that the invasion of Iraq had been planned well in advance, that it was part of a ‘Global Spectrum Dominance’ agenda as laid out by the Project For A New American Century.
I knew that protests had no chance of stopping the invasion, and that largely these protests were just a way of making us feel better about the coming mass murder; by being able to say I protested against it. With that understanding I argued that the only viable way to stop the invasion was to conduct a mass migration to Iraq. A migration in which people from around the world, especially western citizens, would position themselves at sites in Iraq that are supposed to be protected by international law, but which are routinely bombed when it is only Iraqi, Palestinian, generally non-white, western lives who will be killed. I felt 10,000 such people could stop the invasion, or at the very least, expose the invasion for what it was from the start, an act of international aggression, a war crime and a crime against humanity.
When our two double-decker buses travelled from London to Baghdad through Turkey, it was ever clear that the people of Turkey also could sense the power of this act, and they were the biggest participants in it. In the end we did not get the numbers required to stop the war, with at least one million Iraqi’s dead as a result, but I remain convinced that it was within our power to prevent the invasion. A massive opportunity lost as far as I am concerned.
In 2007 I joined the Free Gaza Movement with its plan to challenge the blockade of Gaza by travelling to Gaza by sea. From the moment I heard of the plan I knew it could succeed and ultimately I served as a captain on the first attempt. The Israeli government said throughout our preparation that we were no better than pirates and they would treat us as such. They made clear we would not reach Gaza. And still I knew we could succeed. And we did. Two boats with 46 passengers from various countries managed to sail into Gaza on August 23, 2010; this was the first time this had been done in 41 years. The truth is the blockade of Gaza is far more than three years old, and yet we, a small group of conscientious people defied the Israeli machine and celebrated with tens of thousands of Gazans when we arrived that day. We proved that it could be done. We proved that an intelligent plan, with skilled manipulation of the media, could render the full might of the Israeli Navy useless. And I knew then that this was only the tip of the iceberg.
So participating in the Freedom Flotilla is like a family reunion to me. It is my long lost family whose conscience is their guide, who have shed the fear, who act with humanity. But I was especially proud to join IHH and the Turkish elements of the flotilla. I deeply admire the strength and character of the Turkish people, despite your history having stains of injustice, like every nation, you are today from citizen to Prime Minister among the leaders in the cause of humanity and justice.
I remember being asked during the TJP Human Shield Action to Iraq if I was a pacifist, I responded with a quote from Gandhi by saying I am not a passive anything. To the contrary I believe in action, and I also believe in self-defence, 100%, without reservation. I would be incapable of standing by while a tyrant murders my family, and the attack on the Mavi Marmara was like an attack on my Palestinian family. I am proud to have stood shoulder to shoulder with those who refused to let a rogue Israeli military exert their will without a fight. And yes, we fought.
When I was asked, in the event of an Israeli attack on the Mavi Mamara, would I use the camera, or would I defend the ship? I enthusiastically committed to defence of the ship. Although I am also a huge supporter of non-violence, in fact I believe non-violence must always be the first option. Nonetheless I joined the defence of the Mavi Mamara understanding that violence could be used against us and that we may very well be compelled to use violence in self-defence.
I said this straight to Israeli agents, probably of Mossad or Shin Bet, and I say it again now, on the morning of the attack I was directly involved in the disarming of two Israeli Commandos. This was a forcible, non-negotiable, separation of weapons from commandos who had already murdered two brothers that I had seen that day. One brother with a bullet entering dead center in his forehead, in what appeared to be an execution. I knew the commandos were murdering when I removed a 9mm pistol from one of them. I had that gun in my hands and as an ex-US Marine with training in the use of guns it was completely within my power to use that gun on the commando who may have been the murderer of one of my brothers. But that is not what I, nor any other defender of the ship did. I took that weapon away, removed the bullets, proper lead bullets, separated them from the weapon and hid the gun. I did this in the hopes that we would repel the attack and submit this weapon as evidence in a criminal trial against Israeli authorities for mass murder.
I also helped to physically separate one commando from his assault rifle, which another brother apparently threw into the sea. I and hundreds of others know the truth that makes a mockery of the brave and moral Israeli military. We had in our full possession, three completely disarmed and helpless commandos. These boys were at our mercy, they were out of reach of their fellow murderers, inside the ship and surrounded by 100 or more men. I looked into the eyes of all three of these boys and I can tell you they had the fear of God in them. They looked at us as if we were them, and I have no doubt they did not believe there was any way they would survive that day. They looked like frightened children in the face of an abusive father.
But they did not face an enemy as ruthless as they. Instead the woman provided basic first aid, and ultimately they were released, battered and bruised for sure, but alive. Able to live another day. Able to feel the sun over head and the embrace of loved ones. Unlike those they murdered. Despite mourning the loss of our brothers, feeling rage towards these boys, we let them go. The Israeli prostitutes of propaganda can spew all of their disgusting bile all they wish, the commandos are the murderers, we are the defenders, and yet we fought. We fought not just for our lives, not just for our cargo, not just for the people of Palestine, we fought in the name of justice and humanity. We were right to do so, in every way.
While in Israeli custody I, along with everyone else was subjected to endless abuse and flagrant acts of disrespect. Women and elderly were physically and mentally assaulted. Access to food and water and toilets was denied. Dogs were used against us, we ourselves were treated like dogs. We were exposed to direct sun in stress positions while hand cuffed to the point of losing circulation of blood in our hands. We were lied to incessantly, in fact I am awed at the routineness and comfort in their ability to lie, it is remarkable really. We were abused in just about every way imaginable and I myself was beaten and choked to the point of blacking out… and I was beaten again while in my cell.
In all this what I saw more than anything else were cowards… and yet I also see my brothers. Because no matter how vile and wrong the Israeli agents and government are, they are still my brothers and sisters and for now I only have pity for them. Because they are relinquishing the most precious thing a human being has, their humanity.
In conclusion; I would like to challenge every endorser of Gandhi, every person who thinks they understand him, who acknowledges him as one of the great souls of our time (which is just about every western leader), I challenge you in the form of a question. Please explain how we, the defenders of the Mavi Marmara, are not the modern example of Gandhi’s essence? But first read the words of Gandhi himself.
I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence…. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour. – Gandhi
And lastly I have one more challenge. I challenge any critic of merit, publicly, to debate me on a large stage over our actions that day. I would especially love to debate with any Israeli leader who accuses us of wrongdoing, it would be my tremendous pleasure to face off with you. All I saw in Israel was cowards with guns, so I am ripe to see you in a new context. I want to debate with you on the largest stage possible. Take that as an open challenge and let us see just how brave Israeli leaders are.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
ANC Scores Own Goal?
“The ANC Scores Own Goal”: A Statement on the World Cup from the Socialist Party of Azania (SOPA)
25th April 2010
June 2010 – the year we witness the glorious bursting forth from the chrysalis of “democratic state” the ravenous beast of the security-centric state. A one kilometre Ring of Steel to be erected around each and every stadium where FIFA fixtures are to be played, meaning that any “unpatriotic citizens” who hope to use the hundreds of international media networks to highlight their conditions of poverty will be dealt with in the same manner that exactly 34 years ago the apartheid regime dealt with Black people on June 1976.
Far more than the first proposed R28 billion has been spent in the past two years to upgrade stadiums and airports. An estimated R20 billion was also spent on the revamping and widening of highways. R35 billion has so far been spent on the Gautrain (a single train service for the rich whose destination is the international airport and the country’s capital, Pretoria, the initial budget was R13 billion, which in itself was enough to resolve all the transport problems of the country). There is also, of course, the undisclosed R100’s of millions to the Local Organising Committee, certainly with such hefty expenditure to entertain the world at the expense of the poor, the ANC cannot take any chances that the “chattering masses” will behave themselves. All their detailed planning and event co-ordination strategies of an event of this magnitude, no doubt, gives them sleepless nights, for to visualise every contingent plan requisite under almost any perceived scenario takes both insight, which they clearly do not have and billions of Rand which have yet to be paid for in blood on the backs of the Black working class over the next generation.
So, exactly why should there be discontent on the eve of a “world-class extravaganza”?
Well to start with, the empty campaign promises of 1994, 1999, 2004 and again 2009 of “Ša better life for allŠ”, in the face of the reality of rising unemployment, reduced wages, growing squatter camps, lowered education outcomes and failing health systems. Given a 15 year tenure of the ANC as a ‘democratically elected government’, given their near-perfect track record of non-delivery, given the extent of expenditure running literally into hundreds of billions of Rand in preparation for the World Cup with almost none of it qualitatively changing the lives of the millions of citizens, given the potential for rebellion and social dissent amongst those “unpatriotic” citizens can very easily spell disaster for the best-laid plans of mice and men.
What contingency plan could the ANC possibly put in place to mitigate the righteous indignation and protestations of a people denied of the historical “land, bread and peace”. Well, that’s easy – thousands of police and soldiers and of course the “old” Act No: 74 of the Internal Security Act of 1982 been substituted with the “new improved” Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Bill of 2003 that will simply ban all public gatherings, and that includes the potential banning of all June 16 Commemoration Services. June 16th 1976 being the cornerstone and milestone of the liberation struggle in South Africa/Azania.
The ANC faces an intractable dilemma having squandered vast sums of money in order to beautify infrastructure “suitable” for a handful of transient tourists so as to proudly proclaim our civility and ability to savour the finer things in life, thus revealing their oafish nature and their shrink-wrapped ability to match the consumptive patterns of western culture so evident and readily exportable from the Imperialist countries to the deliberately underdeveloped countries of Africa and elsewhere. Now they have to bluster and bully the populace into believing that what they did was for the common good.
A devastatingly risky gamble, taken on the assumption that their “historical popularity” or the ‘Mandela Magic’ as it is commonly called, will carry them through yet again, the same dwindling popularity that has consistently returned them to power over and over again in the past 15 years, yet unwittingly squandering the last vestiges of credibility it had in its “goodwill coffers” in the hope that such a gamble could pull off an amazing “smoke and mirrors” event, both at the level of, bamboozling citizens with non-delivery while alleging lack of resources, yet pulling off a successful World Cup, at a huge expense to adulating bourgeois audiences to whom South Africa will be further be indebted post 2010.
The staggeringly disproportionate expenditure used to create “world-class facilities”, when compared against the allocated budgets for social delivery programmes boggles ones’ mind. Will the hard-pressed working class of this country realise how they have been short-changed by the ruling party, and if they do realise it, what is the most likely courses of action that they would engage in order to express their displeasure. Clearly something of this magnitude cannot go unnoticed and surely millions of people will not merely shrug their shoulders and declare that as ‘life’ and then wander on in their expected state of complacency in the face of brute oppression.
How does one reconcile the fact that every second Municipal water treatment plant has ground to a halt as a result of poor maintenance and inadequate upgrades, triggering cholera outbreaks across the country? How does one reconcile the fact that the numerous public hospitals across the country are desperately short of adequately trained staff and desperately short of sufficient medical supplies and equipment? How does one reconcile the fact that millions of children engage in an educational system that is largely dysfunctional?
How does one reconcile the fact that millions of children attend school on a daily basis hungry and tired, also the fact that there are still children learning to read and write under trees or an open sky? How does one reconcile the fact that some 22 million of our people live in the worst kind of squatter conditions imaginable? How does one reconcile the fact that some 22 million of our people do not have access to clean and potable water? How does one reconcile the fact that some 14 million of people are still unemployed when we are fed the lie that our economy is stable and will weather the storms of the now evident global depression? What about the fact that 42.9% of our people live at less than U$2 a day, below the poverty datum line?
We consistently hear the ANC using the term “Šour young democracy”, purely in reference to voting and elections, as if the notion of democracy has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution of hunger, resolution of all homelessness, resolution of faulty education, resolution of landlessness, resolution of unemployment, etc. It appears that the ANC through its rapacious expropriation of the wealth of this country from the workers in order to benefit the few elites has by their own actions set in motion a series of events that do not bode well for the outcome of the 2010 World Cup. The ANC does not need clever “first world” risk analysis strategies and complex disaster management scenario to be painted for them in order for them to understand or forestall the inevitable consequences of an empty stomach. Unfortunately, for its card carrying membership, there is no “battle for the soul of the ANC” its soul is already owned lock stock and barrel by the IMF, World Bank overlords and they do not have the requisite authority to deliver on their “promises” in order to negate those very likely consequences and outcomes of popular dissent and the rising tide of rebellion.
We expect to hear the standard defence line normally advanced by the ANC government and its sycophants in the face of such spontaneous uprisings, “Šthat they are the work of a third force, who are intent on destroying our fragile democracy”. We may even see the phrase “third force” been replaced with the word “terrorist”, yet surely, the answer must be less “conspiratorial” and lie somewhere in the area of the “accepted responsibility” of a democratically elected government to ensure the adequate delivery of basic housing in order to negate the potential damage and destruction to their precious “world-class” infrastructure put in place for 2010. In order to mitigate against theft from and robbery of tourists, you do not need to deploy 41,000 more police and 20,000 soldiers, just create more jobs for the ordinary citizen.
It is no credit to the government as it finds itself in a situation where it has to quell angry dissent of its own citizens, (using revised laws originally created by the apartheid apparatchik) citizens who simply demand what is due to them in the context of their understanding of democracy. In a nutshell the ANC is an event management team put together for the sole purpose of expediting the will of Global Capitalism, yet, foolishly have come to believe that their authority and function transcends the rather narrow boundaries prescribed by the dictates of both the World Bank and the IMF and the specific requirements of their global economic strategies, and much like the former regime, it could well be the defining month wherein the dissent you seek to suppress, will swamp the embankments of your sophistry.
Given the above “scenarios”, what we should be focusing on is as the Socialist Party of Azania is, how best to ride out the gathering storm. But then again, the workers and the Black majority should in all fairness be assisted to become the arbiters of their own destiny. The past sixteen years have clearly confirmed what we have known and believed about the crisis of humanity being that of leadership, the need for revolutionary leadership.
25th April 2010
June 2010 – the year we witness the glorious bursting forth from the chrysalis of “democratic state” the ravenous beast of the security-centric state. A one kilometre Ring of Steel to be erected around each and every stadium where FIFA fixtures are to be played, meaning that any “unpatriotic citizens” who hope to use the hundreds of international media networks to highlight their conditions of poverty will be dealt with in the same manner that exactly 34 years ago the apartheid regime dealt with Black people on June 1976.
Far more than the first proposed R28 billion has been spent in the past two years to upgrade stadiums and airports. An estimated R20 billion was also spent on the revamping and widening of highways. R35 billion has so far been spent on the Gautrain (a single train service for the rich whose destination is the international airport and the country’s capital, Pretoria, the initial budget was R13 billion, which in itself was enough to resolve all the transport problems of the country). There is also, of course, the undisclosed R100’s of millions to the Local Organising Committee, certainly with such hefty expenditure to entertain the world at the expense of the poor, the ANC cannot take any chances that the “chattering masses” will behave themselves. All their detailed planning and event co-ordination strategies of an event of this magnitude, no doubt, gives them sleepless nights, for to visualise every contingent plan requisite under almost any perceived scenario takes both insight, which they clearly do not have and billions of Rand which have yet to be paid for in blood on the backs of the Black working class over the next generation.
So, exactly why should there be discontent on the eve of a “world-class extravaganza”?
Well to start with, the empty campaign promises of 1994, 1999, 2004 and again 2009 of “Ša better life for allŠ”, in the face of the reality of rising unemployment, reduced wages, growing squatter camps, lowered education outcomes and failing health systems. Given a 15 year tenure of the ANC as a ‘democratically elected government’, given their near-perfect track record of non-delivery, given the extent of expenditure running literally into hundreds of billions of Rand in preparation for the World Cup with almost none of it qualitatively changing the lives of the millions of citizens, given the potential for rebellion and social dissent amongst those “unpatriotic” citizens can very easily spell disaster for the best-laid plans of mice and men.
What contingency plan could the ANC possibly put in place to mitigate the righteous indignation and protestations of a people denied of the historical “land, bread and peace”. Well, that’s easy – thousands of police and soldiers and of course the “old” Act No: 74 of the Internal Security Act of 1982 been substituted with the “new improved” Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Bill of 2003 that will simply ban all public gatherings, and that includes the potential banning of all June 16 Commemoration Services. June 16th 1976 being the cornerstone and milestone of the liberation struggle in South Africa/Azania.
The ANC faces an intractable dilemma having squandered vast sums of money in order to beautify infrastructure “suitable” for a handful of transient tourists so as to proudly proclaim our civility and ability to savour the finer things in life, thus revealing their oafish nature and their shrink-wrapped ability to match the consumptive patterns of western culture so evident and readily exportable from the Imperialist countries to the deliberately underdeveloped countries of Africa and elsewhere. Now they have to bluster and bully the populace into believing that what they did was for the common good.
A devastatingly risky gamble, taken on the assumption that their “historical popularity” or the ‘Mandela Magic’ as it is commonly called, will carry them through yet again, the same dwindling popularity that has consistently returned them to power over and over again in the past 15 years, yet unwittingly squandering the last vestiges of credibility it had in its “goodwill coffers” in the hope that such a gamble could pull off an amazing “smoke and mirrors” event, both at the level of, bamboozling citizens with non-delivery while alleging lack of resources, yet pulling off a successful World Cup, at a huge expense to adulating bourgeois audiences to whom South Africa will be further be indebted post 2010.
The staggeringly disproportionate expenditure used to create “world-class facilities”, when compared against the allocated budgets for social delivery programmes boggles ones’ mind. Will the hard-pressed working class of this country realise how they have been short-changed by the ruling party, and if they do realise it, what is the most likely courses of action that they would engage in order to express their displeasure. Clearly something of this magnitude cannot go unnoticed and surely millions of people will not merely shrug their shoulders and declare that as ‘life’ and then wander on in their expected state of complacency in the face of brute oppression.
How does one reconcile the fact that every second Municipal water treatment plant has ground to a halt as a result of poor maintenance and inadequate upgrades, triggering cholera outbreaks across the country? How does one reconcile the fact that the numerous public hospitals across the country are desperately short of adequately trained staff and desperately short of sufficient medical supplies and equipment? How does one reconcile the fact that millions of children engage in an educational system that is largely dysfunctional?
How does one reconcile the fact that millions of children attend school on a daily basis hungry and tired, also the fact that there are still children learning to read and write under trees or an open sky? How does one reconcile the fact that some 22 million of our people live in the worst kind of squatter conditions imaginable? How does one reconcile the fact that some 22 million of our people do not have access to clean and potable water? How does one reconcile the fact that some 14 million of people are still unemployed when we are fed the lie that our economy is stable and will weather the storms of the now evident global depression? What about the fact that 42.9% of our people live at less than U$2 a day, below the poverty datum line?
We consistently hear the ANC using the term “Šour young democracy”, purely in reference to voting and elections, as if the notion of democracy has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution of hunger, resolution of all homelessness, resolution of faulty education, resolution of landlessness, resolution of unemployment, etc. It appears that the ANC through its rapacious expropriation of the wealth of this country from the workers in order to benefit the few elites has by their own actions set in motion a series of events that do not bode well for the outcome of the 2010 World Cup. The ANC does not need clever “first world” risk analysis strategies and complex disaster management scenario to be painted for them in order for them to understand or forestall the inevitable consequences of an empty stomach. Unfortunately, for its card carrying membership, there is no “battle for the soul of the ANC” its soul is already owned lock stock and barrel by the IMF, World Bank overlords and they do not have the requisite authority to deliver on their “promises” in order to negate those very likely consequences and outcomes of popular dissent and the rising tide of rebellion.
We expect to hear the standard defence line normally advanced by the ANC government and its sycophants in the face of such spontaneous uprisings, “Šthat they are the work of a third force, who are intent on destroying our fragile democracy”. We may even see the phrase “third force” been replaced with the word “terrorist”, yet surely, the answer must be less “conspiratorial” and lie somewhere in the area of the “accepted responsibility” of a democratically elected government to ensure the adequate delivery of basic housing in order to negate the potential damage and destruction to their precious “world-class” infrastructure put in place for 2010. In order to mitigate against theft from and robbery of tourists, you do not need to deploy 41,000 more police and 20,000 soldiers, just create more jobs for the ordinary citizen.
It is no credit to the government as it finds itself in a situation where it has to quell angry dissent of its own citizens, (using revised laws originally created by the apartheid apparatchik) citizens who simply demand what is due to them in the context of their understanding of democracy. In a nutshell the ANC is an event management team put together for the sole purpose of expediting the will of Global Capitalism, yet, foolishly have come to believe that their authority and function transcends the rather narrow boundaries prescribed by the dictates of both the World Bank and the IMF and the specific requirements of their global economic strategies, and much like the former regime, it could well be the defining month wherein the dissent you seek to suppress, will swamp the embankments of your sophistry.
Given the above “scenarios”, what we should be focusing on is as the Socialist Party of Azania is, how best to ride out the gathering storm. But then again, the workers and the Black majority should in all fairness be assisted to become the arbiters of their own destiny. The past sixteen years have clearly confirmed what we have known and believed about the crisis of humanity being that of leadership, the need for revolutionary leadership.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Dr. Flowers: Health Care Hero
After the Reform: Aiming High for Health Justice
By Margaret Flowers, M.D.
Tikkun Magazine, May/June 2010
As we sit here on the other side of the recent health reform process, we have an opportunity for reflection. There were many times during the past year and a half when passage of a health bill seemed unlikely. However, in the end, the White House and Democratic leadership joined forces and converted the last holdouts with scare tactics of electoral turnovers and even a trip on Air Force One in order to muscle a bill over the final hurdles. The mere fact that any bill was passed at all was hailed as the great accomplishment, because no honest proponent of health reform could call the final product a solution to our nation's serious health care crisis.
This entire health reform process occurred under the shadow of the previous attempt to pass significant health legislation. President Obama made this his signature issue, and so for his administration failure was not an option. He surrounded himself with many of those who were traumatized by their participation in the last go-round. Thus, the resulting strategy was based more on fear of the opposition than on sound health policy. An opportunity for an honest debate about the needs of our people was squandered for backroom deals with industry giants and the photo ops so reminiscent of the previous administration. And for the most part, the resulting legislation benefits the very industries that profit most from our current situation more than it benefits the people of America.
Pros and Cons of the Legislation
There are some provisions within the bill that are positive steps: comparative effectiveness research; funding for demonstration projects to improve care; a new emphasis on prevention, wellness, and public health; increased funding for community health centers; and incentives for primary care providers. These are all necessary provisions, but they do not offset the harm done by other provisions in the bill, such as the individual mandate to purchase private insurance with penalties for noncompliance and the $447 billion in public dollars being used to subsidize such purchases. The bill will omit at least 23 million people from having any coverage. And the requirement to accept people with pre-existing conditions will most certainly increase premiums such that they become unaffordable, or people will purchase policies with skimpier coverage. This will likely result in a larger population of underinsured people—those who risk bankruptcy from medical debt should they develop health problems.
And none of the positive steps turn us in the direction of creating a national health system such as there is in every other advanced nation. Rather, on the whole, this legislation, which was written with heavy input from private health insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists, further privatizes the financing of our health care and further enriches and empowers the very industries that are the problem. We know from experience both in the United States and abroad that market-based financing of health care is both the most expensive model and the most unjust, providing only as much health care as the patient can afford.
The Public Option Was Ruled Out at the Start
From the beginning of this process, it was clear that the administration and leadership had developed a strategy based on an outcome they believed they could achieve. The path was predetermined. All of the steps along the way, from the house parties that started during the winter of 2008 to the hearings, to the media spin, were planned so that the resulting "debate" was a drawn out performance of political theater. In order to disarm the corporate interests, the health industries that had opposed previous reforms were included on the inside. In order to disarm the Right, bipartisanship was at the forefront. In order to disarm the supporters of a single-payer plan, who are the majority, a campaign was developed around a promised "compromise," the public option, and given tens of millions of dollars for organizing and advertising. The public option succeeded in splitting the single payer movement and confusing and distracting it with endless discussion about what type of public option would be effective.
Despite all of the attention, the public option was never meant to be part of the final legislation. As early as March 2009, Senator Baucus admitted that the public option existed as a bargaining chip to convince private insurers to accept increased regulation. And a year later, Glenn Greenwald and others confirmed that the public option had been privately negotiated away, although members of Congress continued the charade and "fought" for it.
Toward the final vote, supporters of the public option were hearing the same excuses that single-payer advocates have heard for decades. We are always told that single-payer is not politically feasible. However, we know that political feasibility can change. We are told to be pragmatic, yet we know that the reform being passed was not practical, in that it failed to guarantee health care to everyone and to be financially sustainable. We are told we are asking for too much and should accept incremental change. However, we know that the smallest effective step we can take in health reform is the creation of a publicly funded health system. Beyond that, there is much more to do in order to create a health system that raises us into the top ten in the world.
Profit-Driven Insurers Cannot Prioritize Care
While politicians claim that we have finally achieved comprehensive health reform and that now all Americans will have guaranteed affordable health care, we in the single-payer movement experience a sense of déjà vu. We have seen the same scenario occur at the state level from Oregon to Maine to Tennessee, and most recently in Massachusetts. Every state that has passed a health reform package has made these claims, only to find that within a few years they were unable to cover the number of people they had hoped to cover and that their health care costs exceeded their budget. The reason for this is that every state, and now our federal government, ignored the data showing that we cannot achieve universal and affordable health care as long as we retain private insurers as an integral part of health care financing. This truth has been documented both in practice and in numerous economic studies.
We cannot control health care costs, without severe rationing, as long as we retain multiple private insurers, because this model wastes at least a third of our health care dollars on areas that have nothing to do with direct health care: marketing, high CEO salaries, profits, and administration. We cannot guarantee that patients will be able to afford needed care using private insurers because the private insurance model is profit driven. These corporations profit by avoiding the sick and denying and restricting payment for care. Their bottom line is profit, not improved health. And no amount of industry regulation to date has been successful in changing that bottom line. Likewise, the new federal legislation is full of loopholes that will allow private insurers to continue to skirt the regulations.
The White House and Congress claimed throughout the process that we must retain private insurance because Americans desire choice, and this has been framed as choice of insurance. However, this is a false concept. No person can anticipate what their health care needs will be or which insurance will be best. Health care needs change the day a patient has a serious accident or is diagnosed with a serious illness. We all need the same health insurance: one that covers all medically necessary care when and where we need it. Those of us who travel and listen find that people in America desire choice of health care provider and choice of treatment: the two choices that private health insurers restrict.
So what are the White House and Congress really saying when they claim that we must retain a private insurance model? That they are unwilling to take on these powerful industries, and so we, the people, must be willing to compromise and work within their framework. Mohandas Gandhi said:
All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take.
When it comes to health reform, compromise on the fundamentals is unacceptable because the human costs are continued preventable deaths, continued suffering as patients fight for needed care, and continued bankruptcy from medical debt as families struggle to pay for deductibles and uncovered services. In a study published in Health Affairs in January 2008 that looked at the top nineteen industrialized nations, the United States ranked the worst—we have the highest number of preventable deaths (101,000 each year) because we lack a health system. All of the other industrialized nations have health systems based on the principles of health care as a human right: universality, equity, and accountability.
Why We Failed
Why have the American people been denied this same right? As I look back at the health reform process, I see three serious errors: a willingness to compromise, a lack of clarity about what we require, and a fear that failure to pass reform will have electoral consequences. These are the areas we must address as a people if we want to see real change in this nation, not just in health care but also in many areas that affect our ability to survive on this planet.
The willingness to compromise has occurred repeatedly at the state level. As a result, fewer people have access to care, and health care costs continue to rise; the fundamental problems are not corrected. This willingness to compromise is based on a real sense of desperation. We see real suffering. We want to do something. We are told that this reform, whatever it is, is the best we can get this time. We accept that and tell ourselves that it is something, it is a step.
As the congressional fellow of Physicians for a National Health Program, I saw this desperate attempt to pass something, anything, rise to the surface in the final weeks of the reform process. Patients and their families were brought into Congress to tell their stories of abuse at the hands of private insurers. Well-meaning legislators looked them in the eye and told them that this reform would change that. When I challenged the truth of that response, I was told, often in heated tones, that they (the legislators) had to do something and that at least this reform would help some people. I could only think of those who would not be helped. What about them?
The lack of clarity was grounded in the belief that if we simply advocated based on principles such as access and affordability, then the legislation would meet those principles. Legislators and pro-reform groups were content to speak based on principles as long as they were not challenged about whether those principles were being met. We must go beneath the surface of simple principles, educate ourselves, and define what is acceptable and what isn't. If we don't know exactly what we are asking for, we won't get it. And we mustn't be afraid to ask for what we require. As a people, we have become willing to accept crumbs when we require so much more than crumbs.
The final mistake was to pin the results of the upcoming elections to the success or failure of passing reform. Those who were reluctant to support the legislation were forced to support it in the end or risk being blamed for possible electoral consequences. As has often happened in past campaigns, people were forced to vote for the lesser of two evils instead of for what they truly wanted.
We Can Still Create a National Health Program!
So what do we do now that a health bill has been signed? Now that the clamor has quieted, it is time for a civilized discussion of what our health needs are and how best to meet them. This discussion is unlikely to occur in a mainstream media dominated by advertising dollars from health insurance and pharmaceutical corporations. We will need to have this discussion at a more personal level and through independent sources of media. We must educate ourselves and those around us about what is possible to achieve in this nation.
It is possible to create a national health program in which every person living in this country is able to receive the same high standard of medical care whenever and wherever they need it, without fear of financial consequences. We call this health security. Other advanced nations have achieved this goal. The United States has not, and is currently ranked thirty-seventh in the world for health outcomes. We spend more per capita on health care than every advanced nation, yet leave a third of our population either completely on the outside or vulnerable to financial ruin should they have a serious health problem.
Physicians for a National Health Program, founded in 1987, educates and advocates for a health system that will improve our health outcomes and provide health security based on the evidence of what has worked in our nation and what is effective in other advanced nations. We envision a lifelong universal health system—much like traditional Medicare—that is nationwide. We envision a system that allows patients to choose where they receive their care, permits caregivers and patients to determine the best course of treatment with assistance from evidence-based data, controls costs in a rational way through simplified administration and negotiation of fair prices, and is progressively financed. Its publicly funded nature would make it transparent and accountable. Because it would be privately delivered, it would allow caregivers to compete based on quality of care provided. Private health insurers would be relegated to a position of offering supplemental plans and possibly providing administrative support.
The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. taught us that to witness an injustice and not work to correct it is in itself an act of violence. As a physician and an advocate for nonviolence, I cannot ignore the injustice of the great health inequality that exists in our nation or ignore those in need who cannot afford medical treatment. We have delayed this struggle for too long. Alice Walker said, "We are the ones we have been waiting for." So, let's do it. We have the resources. Now we must create the political will. Together, we can create a health justice movement, educate ourselves, speak with clarity, and organize independently of any political party. Please join us. You can learn more at www.pnhp.org or join the grassroots movement at www.healthcare-now.org.
Dr.Margaret Flowers is a pediatrician who serves as the congressional fellow for Physicians for a National Health Program and is on the board of Healthcare-NOW! She is one of the "Baucus 8."
http://www.tikkun.org/article.php?story=may2010flowers
By Margaret Flowers, M.D.
Tikkun Magazine, May/June 2010
As we sit here on the other side of the recent health reform process, we have an opportunity for reflection. There were many times during the past year and a half when passage of a health bill seemed unlikely. However, in the end, the White House and Democratic leadership joined forces and converted the last holdouts with scare tactics of electoral turnovers and even a trip on Air Force One in order to muscle a bill over the final hurdles. The mere fact that any bill was passed at all was hailed as the great accomplishment, because no honest proponent of health reform could call the final product a solution to our nation's serious health care crisis.
This entire health reform process occurred under the shadow of the previous attempt to pass significant health legislation. President Obama made this his signature issue, and so for his administration failure was not an option. He surrounded himself with many of those who were traumatized by their participation in the last go-round. Thus, the resulting strategy was based more on fear of the opposition than on sound health policy. An opportunity for an honest debate about the needs of our people was squandered for backroom deals with industry giants and the photo ops so reminiscent of the previous administration. And for the most part, the resulting legislation benefits the very industries that profit most from our current situation more than it benefits the people of America.
Pros and Cons of the Legislation
There are some provisions within the bill that are positive steps: comparative effectiveness research; funding for demonstration projects to improve care; a new emphasis on prevention, wellness, and public health; increased funding for community health centers; and incentives for primary care providers. These are all necessary provisions, but they do not offset the harm done by other provisions in the bill, such as the individual mandate to purchase private insurance with penalties for noncompliance and the $447 billion in public dollars being used to subsidize such purchases. The bill will omit at least 23 million people from having any coverage. And the requirement to accept people with pre-existing conditions will most certainly increase premiums such that they become unaffordable, or people will purchase policies with skimpier coverage. This will likely result in a larger population of underinsured people—those who risk bankruptcy from medical debt should they develop health problems.
And none of the positive steps turn us in the direction of creating a national health system such as there is in every other advanced nation. Rather, on the whole, this legislation, which was written with heavy input from private health insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists, further privatizes the financing of our health care and further enriches and empowers the very industries that are the problem. We know from experience both in the United States and abroad that market-based financing of health care is both the most expensive model and the most unjust, providing only as much health care as the patient can afford.
The Public Option Was Ruled Out at the Start
From the beginning of this process, it was clear that the administration and leadership had developed a strategy based on an outcome they believed they could achieve. The path was predetermined. All of the steps along the way, from the house parties that started during the winter of 2008 to the hearings, to the media spin, were planned so that the resulting "debate" was a drawn out performance of political theater. In order to disarm the corporate interests, the health industries that had opposed previous reforms were included on the inside. In order to disarm the Right, bipartisanship was at the forefront. In order to disarm the supporters of a single-payer plan, who are the majority, a campaign was developed around a promised "compromise," the public option, and given tens of millions of dollars for organizing and advertising. The public option succeeded in splitting the single payer movement and confusing and distracting it with endless discussion about what type of public option would be effective.
Despite all of the attention, the public option was never meant to be part of the final legislation. As early as March 2009, Senator Baucus admitted that the public option existed as a bargaining chip to convince private insurers to accept increased regulation. And a year later, Glenn Greenwald and others confirmed that the public option had been privately negotiated away, although members of Congress continued the charade and "fought" for it.
Toward the final vote, supporters of the public option were hearing the same excuses that single-payer advocates have heard for decades. We are always told that single-payer is not politically feasible. However, we know that political feasibility can change. We are told to be pragmatic, yet we know that the reform being passed was not practical, in that it failed to guarantee health care to everyone and to be financially sustainable. We are told we are asking for too much and should accept incremental change. However, we know that the smallest effective step we can take in health reform is the creation of a publicly funded health system. Beyond that, there is much more to do in order to create a health system that raises us into the top ten in the world.
Profit-Driven Insurers Cannot Prioritize Care
While politicians claim that we have finally achieved comprehensive health reform and that now all Americans will have guaranteed affordable health care, we in the single-payer movement experience a sense of déjà vu. We have seen the same scenario occur at the state level from Oregon to Maine to Tennessee, and most recently in Massachusetts. Every state that has passed a health reform package has made these claims, only to find that within a few years they were unable to cover the number of people they had hoped to cover and that their health care costs exceeded their budget. The reason for this is that every state, and now our federal government, ignored the data showing that we cannot achieve universal and affordable health care as long as we retain private insurers as an integral part of health care financing. This truth has been documented both in practice and in numerous economic studies.
We cannot control health care costs, without severe rationing, as long as we retain multiple private insurers, because this model wastes at least a third of our health care dollars on areas that have nothing to do with direct health care: marketing, high CEO salaries, profits, and administration. We cannot guarantee that patients will be able to afford needed care using private insurers because the private insurance model is profit driven. These corporations profit by avoiding the sick and denying and restricting payment for care. Their bottom line is profit, not improved health. And no amount of industry regulation to date has been successful in changing that bottom line. Likewise, the new federal legislation is full of loopholes that will allow private insurers to continue to skirt the regulations.
The White House and Congress claimed throughout the process that we must retain private insurance because Americans desire choice, and this has been framed as choice of insurance. However, this is a false concept. No person can anticipate what their health care needs will be or which insurance will be best. Health care needs change the day a patient has a serious accident or is diagnosed with a serious illness. We all need the same health insurance: one that covers all medically necessary care when and where we need it. Those of us who travel and listen find that people in America desire choice of health care provider and choice of treatment: the two choices that private health insurers restrict.
So what are the White House and Congress really saying when they claim that we must retain a private insurance model? That they are unwilling to take on these powerful industries, and so we, the people, must be willing to compromise and work within their framework. Mohandas Gandhi said:
All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take.
When it comes to health reform, compromise on the fundamentals is unacceptable because the human costs are continued preventable deaths, continued suffering as patients fight for needed care, and continued bankruptcy from medical debt as families struggle to pay for deductibles and uncovered services. In a study published in Health Affairs in January 2008 that looked at the top nineteen industrialized nations, the United States ranked the worst—we have the highest number of preventable deaths (101,000 each year) because we lack a health system. All of the other industrialized nations have health systems based on the principles of health care as a human right: universality, equity, and accountability.
Why We Failed
Why have the American people been denied this same right? As I look back at the health reform process, I see three serious errors: a willingness to compromise, a lack of clarity about what we require, and a fear that failure to pass reform will have electoral consequences. These are the areas we must address as a people if we want to see real change in this nation, not just in health care but also in many areas that affect our ability to survive on this planet.
The willingness to compromise has occurred repeatedly at the state level. As a result, fewer people have access to care, and health care costs continue to rise; the fundamental problems are not corrected. This willingness to compromise is based on a real sense of desperation. We see real suffering. We want to do something. We are told that this reform, whatever it is, is the best we can get this time. We accept that and tell ourselves that it is something, it is a step.
As the congressional fellow of Physicians for a National Health Program, I saw this desperate attempt to pass something, anything, rise to the surface in the final weeks of the reform process. Patients and their families were brought into Congress to tell their stories of abuse at the hands of private insurers. Well-meaning legislators looked them in the eye and told them that this reform would change that. When I challenged the truth of that response, I was told, often in heated tones, that they (the legislators) had to do something and that at least this reform would help some people. I could only think of those who would not be helped. What about them?
The lack of clarity was grounded in the belief that if we simply advocated based on principles such as access and affordability, then the legislation would meet those principles. Legislators and pro-reform groups were content to speak based on principles as long as they were not challenged about whether those principles were being met. We must go beneath the surface of simple principles, educate ourselves, and define what is acceptable and what isn't. If we don't know exactly what we are asking for, we won't get it. And we mustn't be afraid to ask for what we require. As a people, we have become willing to accept crumbs when we require so much more than crumbs.
The final mistake was to pin the results of the upcoming elections to the success or failure of passing reform. Those who were reluctant to support the legislation were forced to support it in the end or risk being blamed for possible electoral consequences. As has often happened in past campaigns, people were forced to vote for the lesser of two evils instead of for what they truly wanted.
We Can Still Create a National Health Program!
So what do we do now that a health bill has been signed? Now that the clamor has quieted, it is time for a civilized discussion of what our health needs are and how best to meet them. This discussion is unlikely to occur in a mainstream media dominated by advertising dollars from health insurance and pharmaceutical corporations. We will need to have this discussion at a more personal level and through independent sources of media. We must educate ourselves and those around us about what is possible to achieve in this nation.
It is possible to create a national health program in which every person living in this country is able to receive the same high standard of medical care whenever and wherever they need it, without fear of financial consequences. We call this health security. Other advanced nations have achieved this goal. The United States has not, and is currently ranked thirty-seventh in the world for health outcomes. We spend more per capita on health care than every advanced nation, yet leave a third of our population either completely on the outside or vulnerable to financial ruin should they have a serious health problem.
Physicians for a National Health Program, founded in 1987, educates and advocates for a health system that will improve our health outcomes and provide health security based on the evidence of what has worked in our nation and what is effective in other advanced nations. We envision a lifelong universal health system—much like traditional Medicare—that is nationwide. We envision a system that allows patients to choose where they receive their care, permits caregivers and patients to determine the best course of treatment with assistance from evidence-based data, controls costs in a rational way through simplified administration and negotiation of fair prices, and is progressively financed. Its publicly funded nature would make it transparent and accountable. Because it would be privately delivered, it would allow caregivers to compete based on quality of care provided. Private health insurers would be relegated to a position of offering supplemental plans and possibly providing administrative support.
The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. taught us that to witness an injustice and not work to correct it is in itself an act of violence. As a physician and an advocate for nonviolence, I cannot ignore the injustice of the great health inequality that exists in our nation or ignore those in need who cannot afford medical treatment. We have delayed this struggle for too long. Alice Walker said, "We are the ones we have been waiting for." So, let's do it. We have the resources. Now we must create the political will. Together, we can create a health justice movement, educate ourselves, speak with clarity, and organize independently of any political party. Please join us. You can learn more at www.pnhp.org or join the grassroots movement at www.healthcare-now.org.
Dr.Margaret Flowers is a pediatrician who serves as the congressional fellow for Physicians for a National Health Program and is on the board of Healthcare-NOW! She is one of the "Baucus 8."
http://www.tikkun.org/article.php?story=may2010flowers
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
33 Billion Dishonest Excuses for War
33 Billion Dishonest Excuses for War
By David Swanson
If you were to call your congress member's office at 202-224-3121 and ask them to vote against spending $33 billion to escalate the war in Afghanistan, they would give you one of several common excuses.
If they refuse to tell you what they plan to do, you can let them know that they work for you and that you are going to vote against them in November unless they commit to opposing the funding of this escalation now. Sure, their opponent could be worse, but not much, and decent representation will only be possible if representatives fear the public more than they fear the funders, media, and parties. Ultimately, this is the only thing you can tell them that they might care about. Still, it helps for them to know that you understand the issue and will not be easily swayed. So . . .
If they tell you (as Rep. Delahunt told me) that they like the attention that comes from remaining undecided, ask them how they think that sounds to the loved ones of those killed. Let them know they could get even more attention by tattooing "Loser" on their forehead.
If they tell you they want to vote for aid to Haiti or some other lipstick included in the bill, or they want to wait and see what sweet-smelling things are packaged into the bill, tell them those things can pass separately and constitute no excuse. You want a commitment now to vote No no matter what. This is life and death. They need to be trying to block the bill, not just considering the possibility of individually voting No if it looks like no one will mind.
If they tell you this is the very last off-the-books war supplemental, tell them you didn't believe that BS last June and won't believe it now, and that it never constituted any excuse for funding war or escalation.
If they tell you they want to obey the president, ask them to read the U.S. Constitution and see what's in Article I. Ask them why they think the framers put the war power in the Congress.
If they tell you they want to "support duh troops," tell them that a No vote merely avoids or undoes an escalation, thus preventing troops from being sent to risk their lives under illegal orders.
If they tell you they're voting for a toothless non-binding request for an exit time-table, tell them a growing causus opposing the funding sends a stronger message and builds toward the ability to actually end the war. Tell them the exit strategy approach, last summer, was rightly delayed until after the funding vote, and then garnered 138 votes, to which the president merely gave a one-finger salute. Let them know that ineffective rhetoric is no substitute for action, and that you see through the use of this "timetable" vote as cover for funding an escalation. If they point to peace organizations that will accept that excuse and only want their support for the "timetable" make clear that those organizations do not speak for you.
If they tell you they're waiting to see who else will vote No before they decide to vote No, point them to the list at defundwar.org and point out that the Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee is on it, but also ask them whether they represent their constituents or their colleagues.
If they tell you that they're afraid Fox News and the rest of the "media" would attack them, let them know that Glenn Beck has been opposing war funding, that this is escalation funding, and that if they say they want the money for jobs at home nobody can touch them. On top of which, we'll have their back with independent media and media activism. They can encourage media outlets to ask President Karzai, when he's in town next week, whether he supports an escalation -- if they're not afraid of the answer.
If they make clear that they're afraid of losing funding, directly from the war profiteers or laundered through a political party, point them to the fundraising that members like Grayson and Kucinich are able to do on their own. Ask them if they will be able to live with having funded death for the sake of blood money.
Now, it's just conceivable that they will also try a more substantive excuse on you, so be prepared.
If they tell you they're concerned for the safety of the country, point out that terrorism has been increased by the global war on terrorism and that there is no way escalating a war in Afghanistan doesn't make us less safe. We escalated it last year and saw violence increase, with nothing else accomplished. Last week, the Pentagon issued a new report finding that one in four Afghans in important areas support Karzai's government, violence is up 87% in the past year, European allies are bailing out, corruption runs rampant, insurgents still control Marjah, the Taliban is growing, and the Afghan government is getting weaker. Our military experts say we would need hundreds of thousands of troops and millions of civilians to accomplish anything. An inadequate escalation is an end in itself, quite literally for those it will kill.
If they tell you the U.S. public supports the war, ask them about polling in your district. And tell them this: Back in December, U.S. pollsters asked Americans if they supported funding an escalation, and in several polls a majority said No. So a lot of congress members voted for more war funding but promised to oppose the escalation funding in the spring. Then the White House began the escalation, and the pollsters (apparently assuming that our servile congress would fund anything the president had already begun, even if the people opposed it) stopped polling on the escalation. Polling just on the war, pollsters find the US public evenly split or leaning slightly in support. But they ask whether people support the president, not how much longer they want the war to last or whether that's their top choice for where to spend a trillion dollars. Many Americans think they are required to say they support the president, and others choose to support a political party, but both big parties support the war (which, by the way, will cause a lot of Democrats to stay home in November). When Democrats.com funded polling on Iraq that no one else would do, we found a majority in favor of Congress cutting off the funding. I'm confident we could find that on Afghanistan at least following the coming rise in deaths. And this supplemental is not to keep the war going but to escalate it, which the American people opposed when asked. Also, nobody has polled on the popularity of a congress member saying they want to fund jobs instead of wars. And what about the people who are best informed? A recent survey of Kandahar, the area where the escalation is planned, found that 94% of the people there prefer peace negotiations to U.S. attacks, and 85% see the Taliban as "our Afghan brothers." The survey was funded by that radical pacifist organization, the United States Army.
If they tell you they have to keep weapons jobs funded to benefit the economy, tell them we could have 20 green energy jobs paying $50,000 per year for every soldier sent to Afghanistan: a job for that former soldier and 19 more, and reduced demand for the oil and gas and pipelines and bases. We're spending as much as $400 per gallon to bring gas into Afghanistan where the US military used 27 million gallons of the stuff last month. We're spending hundreds of millions to bribe nations to be part of what we pretend is a coalition effort. We're spending at least that much to bribe Afghans to join the right side, an effort that has recruited 646 of the Taliban's 36,000 soldiers, but then lost many of them who took the money and ran back to the other side. We've spent $268 billion on making war on Afghanistan, and using Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz' analysis of Iraq we need to multiply that by four or five to get a realistic cost including debt, veterans care, energy prices, and lost opportunities. Public investment in most other industries or in tax cuts produces more jobs than investment in military. In fact, military spending is economically, as well as morally, the worst thing Congress can do. And this is economically the worst time in many decades to be doing the worst thing you can do.
Call Your Congress Member at (202) 224-3121 and tell them that you will vote against them if they vote to fund an escalation in Afghanistan. Tell them you will stand for no excuses.
By David Swanson
If you were to call your congress member's office at 202-224-3121 and ask them to vote against spending $33 billion to escalate the war in Afghanistan, they would give you one of several common excuses.
If they refuse to tell you what they plan to do, you can let them know that they work for you and that you are going to vote against them in November unless they commit to opposing the funding of this escalation now. Sure, their opponent could be worse, but not much, and decent representation will only be possible if representatives fear the public more than they fear the funders, media, and parties. Ultimately, this is the only thing you can tell them that they might care about. Still, it helps for them to know that you understand the issue and will not be easily swayed. So . . .
If they tell you (as Rep. Delahunt told me) that they like the attention that comes from remaining undecided, ask them how they think that sounds to the loved ones of those killed. Let them know they could get even more attention by tattooing "Loser" on their forehead.
If they tell you they want to vote for aid to Haiti or some other lipstick included in the bill, or they want to wait and see what sweet-smelling things are packaged into the bill, tell them those things can pass separately and constitute no excuse. You want a commitment now to vote No no matter what. This is life and death. They need to be trying to block the bill, not just considering the possibility of individually voting No if it looks like no one will mind.
If they tell you this is the very last off-the-books war supplemental, tell them you didn't believe that BS last June and won't believe it now, and that it never constituted any excuse for funding war or escalation.
If they tell you they want to obey the president, ask them to read the U.S. Constitution and see what's in Article I. Ask them why they think the framers put the war power in the Congress.
If they tell you they want to "support duh troops," tell them that a No vote merely avoids or undoes an escalation, thus preventing troops from being sent to risk their lives under illegal orders.
If they tell you they're voting for a toothless non-binding request for an exit time-table, tell them a growing causus opposing the funding sends a stronger message and builds toward the ability to actually end the war. Tell them the exit strategy approach, last summer, was rightly delayed until after the funding vote, and then garnered 138 votes, to which the president merely gave a one-finger salute. Let them know that ineffective rhetoric is no substitute for action, and that you see through the use of this "timetable" vote as cover for funding an escalation. If they point to peace organizations that will accept that excuse and only want their support for the "timetable" make clear that those organizations do not speak for you.
If they tell you they're waiting to see who else will vote No before they decide to vote No, point them to the list at defundwar.org and point out that the Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee is on it, but also ask them whether they represent their constituents or their colleagues.
If they tell you that they're afraid Fox News and the rest of the "media" would attack them, let them know that Glenn Beck has been opposing war funding, that this is escalation funding, and that if they say they want the money for jobs at home nobody can touch them. On top of which, we'll have their back with independent media and media activism. They can encourage media outlets to ask President Karzai, when he's in town next week, whether he supports an escalation -- if they're not afraid of the answer.
If they make clear that they're afraid of losing funding, directly from the war profiteers or laundered through a political party, point them to the fundraising that members like Grayson and Kucinich are able to do on their own. Ask them if they will be able to live with having funded death for the sake of blood money.
Now, it's just conceivable that they will also try a more substantive excuse on you, so be prepared.
If they tell you they're concerned for the safety of the country, point out that terrorism has been increased by the global war on terrorism and that there is no way escalating a war in Afghanistan doesn't make us less safe. We escalated it last year and saw violence increase, with nothing else accomplished. Last week, the Pentagon issued a new report finding that one in four Afghans in important areas support Karzai's government, violence is up 87% in the past year, European allies are bailing out, corruption runs rampant, insurgents still control Marjah, the Taliban is growing, and the Afghan government is getting weaker. Our military experts say we would need hundreds of thousands of troops and millions of civilians to accomplish anything. An inadequate escalation is an end in itself, quite literally for those it will kill.
If they tell you the U.S. public supports the war, ask them about polling in your district. And tell them this: Back in December, U.S. pollsters asked Americans if they supported funding an escalation, and in several polls a majority said No. So a lot of congress members voted for more war funding but promised to oppose the escalation funding in the spring. Then the White House began the escalation, and the pollsters (apparently assuming that our servile congress would fund anything the president had already begun, even if the people opposed it) stopped polling on the escalation. Polling just on the war, pollsters find the US public evenly split or leaning slightly in support. But they ask whether people support the president, not how much longer they want the war to last or whether that's their top choice for where to spend a trillion dollars. Many Americans think they are required to say they support the president, and others choose to support a political party, but both big parties support the war (which, by the way, will cause a lot of Democrats to stay home in November). When Democrats.com funded polling on Iraq that no one else would do, we found a majority in favor of Congress cutting off the funding. I'm confident we could find that on Afghanistan at least following the coming rise in deaths. And this supplemental is not to keep the war going but to escalate it, which the American people opposed when asked. Also, nobody has polled on the popularity of a congress member saying they want to fund jobs instead of wars. And what about the people who are best informed? A recent survey of Kandahar, the area where the escalation is planned, found that 94% of the people there prefer peace negotiations to U.S. attacks, and 85% see the Taliban as "our Afghan brothers." The survey was funded by that radical pacifist organization, the United States Army.
If they tell you they have to keep weapons jobs funded to benefit the economy, tell them we could have 20 green energy jobs paying $50,000 per year for every soldier sent to Afghanistan: a job for that former soldier and 19 more, and reduced demand for the oil and gas and pipelines and bases. We're spending as much as $400 per gallon to bring gas into Afghanistan where the US military used 27 million gallons of the stuff last month. We're spending hundreds of millions to bribe nations to be part of what we pretend is a coalition effort. We're spending at least that much to bribe Afghans to join the right side, an effort that has recruited 646 of the Taliban's 36,000 soldiers, but then lost many of them who took the money and ran back to the other side. We've spent $268 billion on making war on Afghanistan, and using Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz' analysis of Iraq we need to multiply that by four or five to get a realistic cost including debt, veterans care, energy prices, and lost opportunities. Public investment in most other industries or in tax cuts produces more jobs than investment in military. In fact, military spending is economically, as well as morally, the worst thing Congress can do. And this is economically the worst time in many decades to be doing the worst thing you can do.
Call Your Congress Member at (202) 224-3121 and tell them that you will vote against them if they vote to fund an escalation in Afghanistan. Tell them you will stand for no excuses.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Peace on Mother's Day
Teach Peace Moment: Mother's Day for Peace
Mother’s Day is celebrated on the second Sunday in May.
Different countries celebrate Mother's Day for different reasons and on different days of the year. In the United States, Mother’s Day was created to be a day for peace. The first Mother’s Days were celebrated by peace groups often consisting of mothers whose sons had fought or died in the Civil War.
The Mother’s Day concept was influenced by Anna Jarvis who in 1858 created Mothers’ Work Days to improve sanitary conditions for both sides during the Civil War. In 1861 Julia Ward Howe wrote The Battle Hymn of the Republic to inspire Union soldiers to end slavery. She was famous in 1870 when she built on Jarvis’s work and created Mother’s Day for Peace with a Mother's Day Proclamation calling for peace and disarmament. The original Mother’s Day for Peace was for women to rise up and oppose war in all its forms.
In 1907 Anna Jarvis' daughter, also named Anna Jarvis, continued the effort for a peaceful and noncommercial Mother’s Day. In 1912, Anna Jarvis trademarked the phrases "second Sunday in May" and "Mother's Day", and created the Mother's Day International Association. Anna Jarvis broadened the peace focus to honor individual mothers for their contributions. She specifically wanted each family to celebrate their mother and this is why the apostrophe is a singular possessive and not a plural possessive to commemorate all mothers in the world.
In 1912 states declared the second Sunday in May a holiday and on May 9, 1914, President Woodrow Wilson declared Mother’s Day a national holiday. Unfortunately, he also changed Mother’s Day from opposing wars to a day to encourage support for wars. President Wilson changed the purpose by declaring Mother’s Day as a day for citizens to show the flag in honor of those mothers whose sons had died in war.
Today, the peace purpose of Mother’s Day is often unknown. For most people, Mother’s Day is simply a day to say thank you to mothers with a pampering gift. The commercial dimension of Mother’s Day has made it the most popular day of the year for the restaurant industry and a top day for the jewelry, flower, and greeting card purchases. Had President Wilson reinforced the original purpose of Mother’s Day to be a peace education day, instead of receiving flowers, many mothers would have had the greater gift of a son not killed in war.
When Mother’s Day lost its focus as a day to oppose wars and teach peace, Anna Jarvis became a major opponent of the holiday. For the rest of her life she used her inheritance to reclaim the peaceful purpose of Mother’s Day and fight the abuse of the celebration.
We can reclaim Mother’s Day for Peace by educating family and friends about its intended purpose and support work to teach peace. For a donation of $25, the Teach Peace Foundation will send a "Happy Mother's Day for Peace" email or letter to your mother (click here for a sample email) and click on the picture on the left to donate).
Dave Dionisi, Teach Peace Foundation
Notes:
Carnations have come to represent Mother's Day, since they were delivered at one of its first celebrations by its founder. In part due to the shortage of white carnations, and in part due to the efforts to expand the sales of more types of flowers in Mother's Day, the florists promoted wearing a red carnation if your mother was living, and a white one if she were not.
In May 2008, the US House of Representatives voted twice on a resolution commemorating Mother's Day, the first one being unanimous so that all congressmen would be on record showing support for Mother's Day.
According to the National Restaurant Association, Mother's Day is the most popular day of the year to dine out in the United States.
According to IBISWorld, a publisher of business research, Americans will spend approximately $2.6 billion on flowers and another $68 million on greeting cards.
Mother's Day will generate about 7.8% of the U.S. jewelry industry's annual revenue in 2008, with custom gifts like Mother's rings.
To access more Teach Peace Moments, click here.
Mother’s Day is celebrated on the second Sunday in May.
Different countries celebrate Mother's Day for different reasons and on different days of the year. In the United States, Mother’s Day was created to be a day for peace. The first Mother’s Days were celebrated by peace groups often consisting of mothers whose sons had fought or died in the Civil War.
The Mother’s Day concept was influenced by Anna Jarvis who in 1858 created Mothers’ Work Days to improve sanitary conditions for both sides during the Civil War. In 1861 Julia Ward Howe wrote The Battle Hymn of the Republic to inspire Union soldiers to end slavery. She was famous in 1870 when she built on Jarvis’s work and created Mother’s Day for Peace with a Mother's Day Proclamation calling for peace and disarmament. The original Mother’s Day for Peace was for women to rise up and oppose war in all its forms.
In 1907 Anna Jarvis' daughter, also named Anna Jarvis, continued the effort for a peaceful and noncommercial Mother’s Day. In 1912, Anna Jarvis trademarked the phrases "second Sunday in May" and "Mother's Day", and created the Mother's Day International Association. Anna Jarvis broadened the peace focus to honor individual mothers for their contributions. She specifically wanted each family to celebrate their mother and this is why the apostrophe is a singular possessive and not a plural possessive to commemorate all mothers in the world.
In 1912 states declared the second Sunday in May a holiday and on May 9, 1914, President Woodrow Wilson declared Mother’s Day a national holiday. Unfortunately, he also changed Mother’s Day from opposing wars to a day to encourage support for wars. President Wilson changed the purpose by declaring Mother’s Day as a day for citizens to show the flag in honor of those mothers whose sons had died in war.
Today, the peace purpose of Mother’s Day is often unknown. For most people, Mother’s Day is simply a day to say thank you to mothers with a pampering gift. The commercial dimension of Mother’s Day has made it the most popular day of the year for the restaurant industry and a top day for the jewelry, flower, and greeting card purchases. Had President Wilson reinforced the original purpose of Mother’s Day to be a peace education day, instead of receiving flowers, many mothers would have had the greater gift of a son not killed in war.
When Mother’s Day lost its focus as a day to oppose wars and teach peace, Anna Jarvis became a major opponent of the holiday. For the rest of her life she used her inheritance to reclaim the peaceful purpose of Mother’s Day and fight the abuse of the celebration.
We can reclaim Mother’s Day for Peace by educating family and friends about its intended purpose and support work to teach peace. For a donation of $25, the Teach Peace Foundation will send a "Happy Mother's Day for Peace" email or letter to your mother (click here for a sample email) and click on the picture on the left to donate).
Dave Dionisi, Teach Peace Foundation
Notes:
Carnations have come to represent Mother's Day, since they were delivered at one of its first celebrations by its founder. In part due to the shortage of white carnations, and in part due to the efforts to expand the sales of more types of flowers in Mother's Day, the florists promoted wearing a red carnation if your mother was living, and a white one if she were not.
In May 2008, the US House of Representatives voted twice on a resolution commemorating Mother's Day, the first one being unanimous so that all congressmen would be on record showing support for Mother's Day.
According to the National Restaurant Association, Mother's Day is the most popular day of the year to dine out in the United States.
According to IBISWorld, a publisher of business research, Americans will spend approximately $2.6 billion on flowers and another $68 million on greeting cards.
Mother's Day will generate about 7.8% of the U.S. jewelry industry's annual revenue in 2008, with custom gifts like Mother's rings.
To access more Teach Peace Moments, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)