Thursday, August 6, 2009

Hiroshima/Nagaski Commemoration 8-9-09, "My Name is Rachel Corrie"

please distribute widely


"NEVER AGAIN"


 

On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped the atomic bom  on Hiroshima, Japan. 200,000 civilians were killed, injured or disappeared. On August 9, 1945 another atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, killing and injuring over 100,000 civilians. Estimates are that within five years of the bombings twice as many civilains died. THIS MUST NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN!

 

Attend the:


 

2009 Hiroshima - Nagasaki Commemoration


 

SUNDAY, AUGUST 9, 2009

3:00 PM to 5:00 PM

Meet at Higashi Honganji Buddhist Temple

505 East 3rd St for a brief service

followed by a Mindful Walk to L.A. City Hall

(bring an umbrella for visual effect)


 

- speakers include ICUJP President Steve Rohde,
Professor Reza Aslan,
congressional candidate Marcy Winograd, Arin Ghosh,
and others to be announced -


 

In additon to being a commemoration event, this event is intended to educate and mobilize the public for nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapons remain as the greatest threat to humanity. Billions of dollars are wasted each year on nuclear weapons programs. Billions that could be used for healthcare, education and green jobs. Disarmament Now!

 

 Sponsored by the Los Angeles Area Nuclear Disarmament Coalition and endorsed by Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace


 

Participating LAANDC organizations: Global Voices for Justice * Institute for Genetic Medicine Art Gallery * Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace * LA Fellowship of Reconciliation * LA Jews for Peace * Long Beach First Congregational Church * Nuclear Age Peace Foundation * Physicians for Social Responsibility - LA * Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Ethics * Unity-and-Diversity World Council * South Coast Interfaith Council * Southern California Federation of Scientists * Student Physicians for Social Responsibility * USC College Democrats * Westside Progressives * for more info about the Coalition see http://laandc.org

***

Subject: Sat, Aug 9, "My Name Is Rachel Corrie"
 

Invites you to a Rare North American Reading of ....

"My Name Is Rachel Corrie"

Read by

 Mimi Kennedy & Meredith Dilg

Saturday, August 8th, 5:00 PM - 8:00 PM

The Levantine Center
5998 West Pico Blvd., Los Angeles  90035

(between La Cienega & Fairfax)


Middle Eastern Light Finger Food & Music

Donation:  $50 or more.  Seating is limited.

RSVP Required: http://www.actblue.com/page/rachelcorrie

Rachel Corrie -www.rachelcorrie.org

Sponsors: Marcy Winograd, Winograd for Congress 2010; Dr. Anthony Saidy; Sami Mashney, Esq., Publisher, The Independent Monitor;  Jeff Warner & Rick Chertoff, Co-Chairs, LA Jews for Peace; Mashael Moamar, Past. Pres., CDP Arab-American Caucus; Lillian Laskin, LA Jews for Peace; Rima Nashashibi, Vice-Chair, Dem Party of Orange County

"My Name is Rachel Corrie"

On March 16, 2003, Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old American, was crushed to death by an Israeli army bulldozer in Gaza as she was trying to prevent the demolition of a Palestinian home.  My name is Rachel Corrie is a one-woman play composed from Rachel's own journals, letters and emails, creating a portrait of a young woman who left her home and school in Olympia, Washington to work as an activist in the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  In three sold-out London runs since its Royal Court premiere, the piece has been surrounded by both controversy and impassioned proponents. - www.rachelcorrie.org

About Marcy Winograd

Marcy Winograd is running for Congress to unseat Jane Harman in the 36th congressional district, a 30-mile stretch that spans West LA, beach cities, Torrance, and San Pedro.  A long-time anti-war and human rights activist Marcy mobilized almost 40% of the vote in her primary challenge in 2006.  To learn more, donate or volunteer on Marcy's campaign, visit www.winograd4congress.com  and become a supporter on Facebook: Marcy Winograd for Congress.

About Mimi Kennedy, Advisory Board Chair, Progressive Democrats of America: www.pdamerica.org

  

Mimi is an actress and activist. She was a charter member of Artists United to Win Without War, and a leading supporter of Dennis Kucinich's antiwar presidential campaign in 2004. She has worked on human rights, environmental and labor issues, and studied nonviolent social action with Rev. James Lawson. Perhaps best known for her role as Dharma's mom on TV's "Dharma and Greg," Kennedy has appeared widely on TV, the stage, and in movies such as "Erin Brockovich" and "Pump Up The Volume."  Currently she stars on screen in the political tragi-comedy "In the Loop." She has also appeared on Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect." Her mid-life memoir was titled, "Taken to the Stage: The Education of an Actress."

About Meredith Dilg

 

Meredith Dilg graduated in 2007 from USC with a BA in Theatre.  While pursuing her acting career, Meredith interned with Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice (CLUE) and focused on immigration rights.  Meredith is currently in a webisode series for the WB.com called The Lake, directed by Jason Priestley. 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.44/2283 - Release Date: 08/05/09 05:57:00

__._,_.___
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Yahoo! News

Odd News

You won't believe

it, but it's true

Need traffic?

Drive customers

With search ads

on Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups

Auto Enthusiast Zone

Passionate about cars?

Check out the Auto Enthusiast Zone.

.

 

Marilyn Klement, Kuttner: Faint Praise

Longtime activist and organizer Marilyn Clement has died at age
seventy-four after a battle with cancer. She was founder and national
coordinator of Healthcare-NOW. Over the past five decades, she
worked for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference, the Women's International League
for Peace and Freedom, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the
African National Congress, and The Guardian newspaper. Marilyn
Clement appeared on Democracy Now! in 2007 advocating for a
single-payer healthcare system.

Marilyn Clement: "We need healthcare now. People are desperate.
Desperate. And 18,000 people are dying every year, simply for lack of
healthcare coverage of any kind. Think about how many thousands
will die between now and 2012. So we put forward a single-payer
national healthcare system for everybody that would cost a lot less money.
Think about every dollar you spend on healthcare: one-third of it now
goes to the insurance companies for their profits, their administration,
their advertising, their lobbyists. If we take that one-third that we now
spend on spurious--we don't need the insurance companies-- that would
cover literally everybody who is uncovered in the United States for a lot
less money and provide for the kind of system that most of the advanced
countries in the world, enjoy."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/faint-praise_b_249635.html

Faint Praise

As Shakespeare wrote, "Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds." The
satisfaction of a Rose Garden signing ceremony is not worth it, if the plan
is more thorn than rose.

By Robert Kuttner
American Prospect: August 2, 2009

President Obama wanted health insurance reform in the worst way. And at the
rate things are going, he is likely to get it.

Let's review the bidding -- first the substance, then the politics. America
spends 15 percent of its GDP covering far less than the entire population,
while other wealthy nations cover everyone, more effectively, for about nine
percent. We under-insure tens of millions of others by leaving big loopholes
in what's covered. More than half of Americans who file medical bankruptcy
nominally have insurance.

Why is our system so massively inefficient? Because it is run by and for
private insurers, aided and abetted by for-profit drug companies and
hospitals. Even if we insure more people, as President Obama hopes to, a
fragmented, profit-oriented system dominated by these interests simply
cannot yield the most efficient use of health outlays.

By contrast, a comprehensive system with a national health budget naturally
looks for the most efficient way to spend health dollars. That means much
greater investment in prevention, and in the comprehensive use of proven
treatment protocols for the easy stuff that makes a big difference in
heading off more expensive treatments later on, such as childhood asthma,
high blood pressure, and diabetes. It means a more sensible breakdown of
primary care doctors and specialists. It means not saddling med school grads
with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, which turns them into profit
machines rather than healers.

Private health insurers cannot get us to this outcome because they maximize
their profits by targeting the young and the healthy, and avoiding the sick,
the old, and the risky. They invent preposterous concepts such as exclusion
of people with "pre-existing conditions." Hendrik Hertzberg recently
observed that we are all born with a pre-existing condition -- mortality. In
theory, HMOs were supposed to increase prevention and collaboration. But
they rapidly deteriorated into merely a system where large panels of doctors
are approved providers if they accept the HMO's fee schedule, and physicians
are under pressure to cut costs and see ever more patients in ever shorter
appointments if they wish to maintain their incomes.

The "staff model" group practice -- where doctors are salaried and a medical
team of generalists and specialists works in close collaboration -- is our
closest equivalent of national health insurance, but it is being crowded out
by the cherry-picking practices of the insurance industry. The exceptions
invariably provide the best and most efficient care, such as the Cleveland
Clinic and the Mayo Clinic.

The press commentary on the cause and cure of medical inflation has largely
missed the point. The problem is not that "hospitals" and "doctors" in
general make or charge too much money. The problem is feast coexisting with
famine. The current system gives hospitals incentives to target the services
that produce the most reimbursement at the least cost, such as complex
cardiac interventions. So cardiology departments are gold-plated, while
money-losing emergency rooms are threadbare. To make matters worse,
specialty day-surgery hospitals, often owned by doctor- entrepreneurs,
divert profitable patients from hard-pressed local general hospitals.

There is also a misallocation of resources according to medical specialty.
As reimbursements are cut by insurers and by Medicare, primary care doctors
are squeezed; likewise OB/GYNs, psychiatrists, and pediatricians. Meanwhile,
some specialists such as oncologists (who are permitted to personally profit
from the sale of cancer drugs), surgeons, dermatologists, and others, are
still making out just fine. And standard practices and charges wildly vary
by region.

The bottom line is that these structural problems cannot be fixed by what is
likely to be approved by Congress as the Obama plan. Obama hopes that heavy
reliance on new electronic record-keeping can somehow reduce medical
inflation. But this is not where the problem (or the solution) lies --
because the plan builds on the existing insurance industry, with all of its
inefficiencies. The candid Doug Elmendorf, director of the Congressional
Budget Office, recently testified that the design of the Obama approach did
nothing that would fundamentally change the pattern of medical cost
inflation.

Putting the best possible gloss on Obama's approach, its inclusion of a
public option will gradually move more and more people to a Medicare-style
system; its much tougher regulation of private insurers will yield at least
some of the efficiencies that we could get through true national health
insurance, it will ban some of the worst practices such as exclusion for
pre- existing conditions, and its "play-or-pay" feature for employers and
subsidy of the near-poor will bring insurance to most Americans.

That is the best possible outcome. But it is not the likely one. That brings
us to the politics.

President Obama set the terms of this legislative battle by proposing to
work with, not against the insurance and drug industries. That added one
lead weight to his feet. Then he added a second lead weight by trying to
make the affair bipartisan, inviting Republicans to collude to produce an
unacceptably weak plan. (Let's seek what kind of bastard child emerges from
the collaboration between the unreliable Democrat Max Baucus of the Senate
Finance Committee and his Republican counterpart, Chuck Grassley.) Obama
also waited until very late in the game to take his case to the country.

The result? The insurance and drug industry lobbies say they support Obama.
They just happen to oppose all of the details that would make the reform
meaningful. The bill that (barely) cleared the House Energy and Commerce
Committee on Friday keeps alive a somewhat stripped down public option. It
bans exclusions for pre-existing conditions. And it requires employers to
provide at least standard insurance or pay a tax. But the proposed tax is
far less than the cost of the insurance, shifting some costs onto
government. And it remains to be seen whether the remaining teeth in the
House bill can survive what will surely be a weaker Senate bill. The
Democratic Blue Dogs remain sunshine patriots on health reform if there is a
risk of increasing costs to business; and the Republicans have defined
defeat of health reform as a strategy of handing Obama a disabling symbolic
defeat.

Given the partial progress by the House, it seems almost churlish to
criticize Obama for not having set the bar higher in the first place. The
liberal commentariat has bent over backwards to find things in the bill to
like.

The estimable Hertzberg writes, "The American health-care system is bloated,
wasteful, and cruel. Under the health-insurance-reform package now being
bludgeoned into misshapen shape on Capitol Hill, it will still be bloated,
wasteful, and cruel -- but markedly less so." Yes, but the consequence will
be that medical inflation will likely drive us to further cuts in care,
further speed-ups on primary care doctors, and further cost-shifting to
patients and taxpayers.

The New York Times, in another classic of faint praise, editorialized, "It
seems hard to believe that over the long haul the introduction of electronic
medical records will not save substantial money." Actually, it is quite easy
to believe. This editorialist must be extremely healthy. If he or she has
been to the doctor lately, the medical records are already computerized and
"charts" are electronic, not hand written. The problem is not the technology
but the insurer-dominated system in which it reposes.

The behavior of Harry & Louise, the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats is so
odious that it's hard not to put in a kind word for Obama. Paul Krugman was
never a fan of the Obama approach. His latest column is a general tutorial
on why we should thank government for the fact that health insurance
functions at all. He declines to say anything nice about the Obama bill, but
concludes, very graciously, with more faint praise: "Now Mr. Obama basically
proposes using additional regulation and subsidies to make decent insurance
available to all of us. That's not radical; it's as American as, well,
Medicare."

In my book, Obama's Challenge, I argued that our new president should devote
all his effort in his first year to getting the economy back on track. Then,
armed with the gratitude of the people and an increased majority in
Congress, he should offer a much more robust health reform such as single
payer after the first mid-term election. It would be a huge mistake, I
contended, to tackle the Mount Everest of domestic reform as a novice.

Well, President Obama didn't take my advice (not the first time.) I can only
join my fellow progressive journalists in hoping that something like the
House version of the bill survives. But the likelihood is that whatever
finally makes it through this session of Congress will reinforce and further
bloat the current disaster of a health insurance system rather than
fundamentally changing it. And if the decent elements of the plan are
blocked, Obama should have the courage to pull the bill and take his case to
the people.

As Shakespeare wrote, "Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds." The
satisfaction of a Rose Garden signing ceremony is not worth it, if the plan
is more thorn than rose.

Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect, a senior fellow at
Demos, and author of Obama's Challenge.

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Budget Summary from Assemblywoman Julia Brownley

Here's an exemplar of evaluation of the California budget.  Would that
all of us got such from our Representatives.  Or the LA Times.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 10:00 AM
Subject: Budget Summary from Assemblywoman Julia Brownley



Please click here for printable version.

Photo: Banner Julia Brownley Assembly District 41

August 5, 2009

Finally a Budget.
The Good, Bad, and Ugly.

The good news?

There is no good news.  However, the Assembly and Senate leadership did strike a deal with the Governor on a budget that keeps California, one more time, from falling over the cliff.  This budget is not that different from the budget the legislature passed at the end of June that the Governor vetoed with great fanfare.  Three weeks later, with the state issuing IOUs and losing $25 million dollars every day a budget is not passed, he decided that he did agree.  A balanced budget was on his desk in June and he opted for more grandstanding.  The Governor should be ashamed.

It could have been worse.  We think we can now stop issuing IOUs to state vendors, although that's still not certain.  Hopefully the state's credit rating won't fall any further, having already been downgraded twice in recent weeks to near-junk status.  Mass closure of our precious state parks was taken off the table, although the Governor used his line-item veto to blue-pencil more cuts after the Legislature sent the budget to him, which put at least some parks in jeopardy again. 

Serious legal questions have been raised about whether the Governor exceeded his authority in those vetoes.  The California Supreme Court has said that his authority extends only to new appropriations, while the vetoes he made are to items in the budget he signed in February.  He could have vetoed them in February, but he does not get "a second bite at the apple."  This issue is likely to end up back before the Court.

I don't count the fact that the budget includes no new revenues as automatically good.  Oil companies, for example, are surely celebrating.  Thanks to the Governor's patronage, California remains the only one of the 22 oil-producing states in the nation that exempts its oil companies from having to pay an oil severance tax that could be generating billions of dollars every year for schools, health care, parks, transportation, public safety, etc., etc.  In 2007, Alaska's Governor raised their oil severance tax to 25%.  The proposed 9.9% tax for California would have been a bargain if Governor Schwarzenegger wanted to prove genuine environmental credentials.  

Related to that, I helped lead the charge that successfully fought off new oil drilling off Santa Barbara that the Governor leveraged into the budget, breaking the promise of decades of environmental protection along that beautiful coast.  Another "shame on him" for putting the interests of big oil over those of some of the most vulnerable people in the state.  To make up for the money that he had hoped new off-shore oil drilling would generate, he blue-penciled cuts to social services, including a massive blow to the Healthy Families program that provides low-cost health coverage to children and teens whose families don't qualify for Medi-Cal.

The Bad?

Because some of the revenues proposed at the May special election were rejected by the voters, and because Republican caucus members are all required to sign irresponsible pledges not to raise any taxes or revenues regardless of the how dire the circumstances, the budget solution includes more than $15 billion in program cuts.  $875 million that will hit the poor, elderly, disabled, and children.  Cities and counties that deliver the services people count on every day suffered another raid of roughly $1.7 billion.  The Governor wanted $3 billion from local government, but we managed to save about $1 billion, although a massive coalition of cities is readying to file suit to recover all of it.

And, again, our schools took a huge hit of approximately $9 billion, all the way from kindergarten through to the community colleges and UC and CSU systems.  Fortunately, the Governor's direct assault on the Prop. 98 funding guarantee to K-12 education, and insistence on suspending it entirely, was rejected by the Democrats and a commitment was made to repay this money to schools when the economy rebounds. 

Nevertheless, education is going to suffer badly.  This means not just the lives of the children themselves who are in our care and who will fall further behind, but also many schools, having already suffered year after year of cuts, that will have to increase class sizes, lay off teachers, and scale back on the core quality and breadth of the education they can and want to provide.

The lost opportunities for new high school graduates who won't be able to afford substantial college tuition increases will ultimately damper the success of California's economy long term, when business depends on an educated workforce to meet the competitive challenges of a global marketplace.

The Ugly?

More accounting gimmicks, including shifting 10% of next year's income tax withholding into this year's budget, and delaying state workers' June 30, 2010 paycheck for one day to July 1, pushing that expenditure into the 2010-2011 fiscal year but counting the revenue this year.

California's governance structure is broken.  Carpe diem.

We can't continue down this defensive and reactive path of BandAid government.  California is at a tipping point.  There is a growing consensus that out of this moment of crisis must come the will to craft realistic structural reforms.

I went to Sacramento to make meaningful change.

  • To return our K-12 schools and higher-ed schools to greatness. 
  • To provide quality accessible and affordable health care, especially for our children.
  • To protect our environment, and to leverage and transform California as the technological leader of a new "green" economy.
  • To promote social and economic justice for all.
  • And to make our government more transparent and effective.

I had no idea of the roadblocks I'd be facing beyond just the partisan divide.

  • Term limits means everyone's a short-timer.  By the time you develop some expertise on issues and have figured out how to navigate the process, you're out.
  • The requirement of a 2/3 supermajority to pass a budget and to raise revenues creates a tyranny of the minority.  Just a couple of days ago, a citizen ballot initiative was qualified to be circulated for signatures that would reduce the 2/3 to 3/5.  If successful, it would go before the voters in November 2010.
  • Even the bi-partisan commission that Assembly Speaker Karen Bass formed to craft recommendations for tax reform is reportedly descending into partisan gridlock.  It could put out separate majority and minority recommendations, and decline entirely to tackle some of the tough "holy grail" issues necessary to effect real tax reform.

So what can be done?

There is a lot going on in the Legislature.  There are bills pending right now on a two-year budgeting process; changing the voter threshold for parcel taxes; limiting the initiative process, including signature gathering and funding sources; and on putting more transparency and better accountability into our actions.

Outside of Sacramento, for example, Charles Young, former Chancellor of UCLA, has just filed suit against the provision in Proposition 13 that requires a 2/3 vote in the Legislature.  The legal theory is that when voters passed the 2/3 provision, it was a "revision" of the California Constitution rather than an "amendment."  The Constitution allows amendments to be made by the initiative process, but not revisions, which must be made through a constitutional revision commission or a constitutional convention.  The California Supreme Court will ultimately be asked to decide.

In the meantime, the Legislature is looking carefully at both a constitutional revision commission and a constitutional convention. I believe that now more than ever there is clear and powerful evidence that time and time again California's 2/3 voting requirement has negatively impacted the lives of all Californians.  Unless something changes, it will continue to be a roadblock to our ability to save our Golden State.

Make no mistake.  California's governance structure is broken, and we need to fix it.  Most of all, as legislators, we need to be visionary in our thinking, and to bring new strategies for governing and delivering public services in California to every decision we make.  And we need maximum public input and participation every step of the way.


Committee and Legislative Appointments

Chair, Assembly Education Committee
Chair, Select Committee on Higher Education in the 21st Century

Member:
Assembly Budget Committee
Assembly Judiciary Committee
Assembly Natural Resources Committee
Budget Subcommittee #1 - Health and Human Services
Budget Sub-Committee #2 - Education Finance
Select Committee on Domestic Violence

Member, State Allocations Board
California Commission on the Status of Women

Legislative Liaison, Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission
Legislative Participant, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy

HOW TO REACH ME:

District Office:
6355 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 205
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phones: (818) 596-4141 (805) 644-4141
(310) 395-3414
Fax: (818) 596-4150

Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0041
Phone: (916) 319-2041
Fax: (916) 319-2141


democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a41/ or www.assembly.ca.gov/brownley




Frida Berrigan: Reflections on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Our World

http://www.truthout.org/080409G?n

For the Sixty-Fourth Time: No More Nuclear War

Reflections on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Our World

by: Frida Berrigan
TomDispatch.com: August 3, 2009


I can't help myself. I still think it's worth bringing up, even for the
64th time. I'm talking, of course, about the atomic obliteration, at the end
of a terrible, world-rending war, of two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, on August 6 and 9, 1945, whose anniversaries - if that's even the
appropriate word for it - are once again upon us.

In this, at least, I know I'm not a typical American: Hiroshima and
Nagasaki still seem all too real to me. As the child of anti-nuclear
activists, I was raised to pay attention to two significant dates in
American history - the day when the Enola Gay, a B-29 Superfortress bomber
named after the pilot's mother, dropped Little Boy, a five-ton uranium
explosion bomb, on Hiroshima; and the moment, three days later, when another
plane, jokingly named Bock's Car (after the plane's original pilot), dropped
Fat Man (a moniker supposedly given it in honor of former British Prime
Minister Winston Churchill), a more complex plutonium implosion bomb, on
Nagasaki.

When I was little, in preparation for those dates - and in this we were
truly a minority of a minority in this country - we showed films documenting
the aftermath of the atomic bombings. To this day, I can remember threading
our old 16mm projector and then watching the shocking, shaky, grainy,
black-and-white footage of ruined cities and ruined bodies filling the
living room wall as one of those somber male over-voices narrated the facts.

So now, as the 64th anniversary of so many deaths approaches and
thinking the unthinkable remains incomprehensibly in vogue, it seems worth
the bother to recall one more time just what it means for the unthinkable to
become reality.

The Death Count

In Hiroshima, Little Boy's huge fireball and explosion killed 70,000 to
80,000 people instantly. Another 70,000 were seriously injured. As Joseph
Siracusa, author of Nuclear Weapons: A Very Short Introduction, writes: "In
one terrible moment, 60% of Hiroshima... was destroyed. The blast
temperature was estimated to reach over a million degrees Celsius, which
ignited the surrounding air, forming a fireball some 840 feet in diameter."

Three days later, Fat Man exploded 1,840 feet above Nagasaki, with the
force of 22,000 tons of TNT. According to "Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Remembered," a web resource on the bombings developed for young people and
educators, 286,000 people lived in Nagasaki before the bomb was dropped;
74,000 of them were killed instantly and another 75,000 were seriously
injured.

In addition to those who died immediately, or soon after the bombings,
tens of thousands more would succumb to radiation sickness and other
radiation-induced maladies in the months, and then years, that followed.

In an article written while he was teaching math at Tufts University in
1983, Tadatoshi Akiba calculated that, by 1950, another 200,000 people had
died as a result of the Hiroshima bomb, and 140,000 more were dead in
Nagasaki. Dr. Akiba was later elected mayor of Hiroshima and became an
outspoken proponent of nuclear disarmament.

Surviving Hiroshima

Those who somehow managed to survive call themselves Hibakusha, which
literally means "those who were bombed." Most of the inhabitants of those
two cities who miraculously made it through those hot and terrible August
days are, if alive, now in their seventies or eighties, and they continue to
tell their unique stories of horror, destruction, and survival. Their urgent
pleas for peace, disarmament, and atonement often go unheard by a
twenty-first century American culture that often seems to barely recall what
happened last week, much less 64 years ago. Many of them have, over the
years, traveled to the United States to tell their stories and show their
scars, demanding that we never forget and that the world work towards
nuclear disarmament.

Akihiro Takahashi is 77 years old now, but part of him will always be
the 14-year-old boy standing in line with his classmates on August 6, 1945,
less than a mile from where Little Boy detonated. He still recalls how he
and his classmates were knocked off their feet by the blast. When he stood
up again, he "felt the city of Hiroshima had disappeared all of a sudden.
Then I looked at myself and found my clothes had turned into rags due to the
heat. I was probably burned at the back of the head, on my back, on both
arms and both legs. My skin was peeling and hanging."

Since that time, Takahashi has endured many operations and spent
countless hours in the hospital to repair the damage wrought in that single
instant. On that August morning, he began to walk home - though there were
few homes left in the leveled city - stopping to relieve the terrible heat
and pain of his burns in the Ota River that flows through Hiroshima.

Along the way, he encountered injured friends, including a boy with
terrible burns on the bottoms of his feet whom he half carried along with
him. "When we were resting because we were so exhausted," he related in an
oral history, "I found my grandfather's brother and his wife, in other
words, great uncle and great aunt, coming toward us. That was quite [a]
coincidence... [W]e have a proverb about meeting Buddha in Hell. My
encounter with my relatives at that time was just like that. They seem[ed]
to be the Buddha to me wandering in the living hell."

Jigoku de hotoke ni au you is the phrase. In English, the equivalent
would be "an oasis in the desert," something rare that provides great
relief. There were not many such oases in Hiroshima that day.

Imagining Nagasaki

Akihiro Takahashi's story (of which the above was but a small part) is
just one of so many thousands - and hardly one of the grimmest. Of course,
80,000 to 140,000 stories went with their potential tellers to their graves
that day. Along with the stories that could be told, there were also the
photographs to help us imagine the unimaginable.

Yosuke Yamahata was 28 years old and working for the Japanese News
Information Bureau in August 1945. Along with Eiji Yamada, a painter, and
Jun Higashi, a writer, he was dispatched to devastated Nagasaki by the
Japanese military just hours after Fat Man exploded and instructed to
"photograph the situation so as to be as useful as possible for military
propaganda."

Their train arrived at the outskirts of the ruined city in the middle of
the night. Here's how Yamahata describes the scene: "I remember vividly the
cold night air and the beautiful starry sky... A warm wind began to blow.
Here and there in the distance I saw many small fires, like elf fires,
smoldering. Nagasaki had been completely destroyed." By the time the sun
rose, Yamahata had made his way to the center of what was no longer a city.
As the day went on, he retraced his steps, along the way taking photographs
of the carnage and destruction until he was back at the train station.

All in all, he took 119 photographs that day, capturing some of the most
haunting and enduring images of the atomic age. In one, a bloodied boy
holding a rice ball stares, his head covered with an air raid hood (a dark
cloth that the Japanese military handed out to civilians telling them it
would protect them from American bombs); in another, an exhausted-looking
woman nurses a badly burnt baby.

In almost every image, the ground is littered with burnt bodies and
unattached limbs, household items, rubble, and timbers. As he walked through
the missing city, people cried out for water or for help uncovering bodies
buried in the rubble. "It is perhaps unforgiveable," reflected Yamahata,
"but in fact at the time I was completely calm and composed. In other words,
perhaps it was just too much, too enormous to absorb." Returning to Tokyo,
Yamahata took advantage of the general confusion that surrounded the
Japanese surrender to the Americans and managed to hold on to his negatives,
rather than turning them over to his superiors.

A handful of his images were published in Japanese newspapers at the end
of August 1945, before the American army arrived and the U.S. occupation
began. In October 1945, occupation authorities imposed a ban on
photographing the atomic sites and on the publication of all atomic-related
stories (and the images that went with them). Most of Yamahata's photographs
from Nagasaki were not seen until 1952, after Japan was once again an
independent nation and Life Magazine published a few of his Nagasaki photos.
That same year almost all the Nagasaki photographs were published in Japan
under the title: Atomized Nagasaki: The Bombing of Nagasaki, A Photographic
Record. The book includes sketches by Eiji Yamada and an essay by Jun
Higashi, his two companions in Nagasaki that day.

In the introduction, Yamahata wrote: "Human memory has a tendency to
slip and critical judgment to fade with the years and with changes in life
style and circumstance... These photographs will continue to provide us with
an unwavering testimony to the realities of that time."

Remembering

When I was young, to keep memory from "slipping," our family and friends
marked the anniversary of those terrible days in a distant land with a
demonstration or vigil. Often, we ended with a ceremony of remembrance,
setting paper lanterns afloat on water in honor of those who died.

Admittedly, this would not pass for a carefree American summer evening,
but even as a little girl I came to feel as if I knew some of the A-bomb
survivors personally - the experience of Akihiro Takahashi, the photographs
of Yosuke Yamahata, and perhaps closest to my heart, the story of Sadako
Sasaki.

The children's book, Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes, written by
Eleanor Coerr, brought me close to one girl whose life was cut short by my
government's A-bomb long before I was born. I was then a chubby, sedentary
kid, and so found myself strangely intrigued and confused by Sadako's deep
love of running.

She was just two years old when Little Boy exploded above her city, but
eight or nine as the book begins, impatient and uncomfortable with all the
obligatory ceremonies surrounding the anniversary of the bomb in Hiroshima.
She did not like to look at the survivors or care to hear the terrible
stories. All she wanted to do was run. Lithe, athletic, and popular, Sadako
joined a footrace on the very anniversary of the destruction of her city
and, when she found herself unable to finish, was taken to the doctor only
to discover that she had "atom bomb sickness" - in her case, leukemia.

In the hospital, a friend reminded her of an ancient Japanese belief: if
you fold 1,000 paper cranes, the Gods will grant you a wish. So with the
help of her classmates, she began to do just that. Scrap paper, candy
wrappers, fancy printed paper: all become tiny origami birds of hope.

With her as an inspiration, I learned to fold paper cranes, practicing
until I could do so with my eyes closed and fold them as small as a pea.
Childhood being childhood, what may have impressed me most was a friend of
mine who could fold those origami birds with her toes.

On October 25, 1955, with 356 birds left to go (as Coerr tells it),
Sadako died. Since 1958, a statue of Sadako holding a golden folded crane
has stood in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial, draped with small paper birds
sent from children all over the world, a symbol of peace.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki Today

Sixty-four years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we need more than symbols
of peace. Folding paper cranes alone cannot, unfortunately, end the threat
of nuclear war. Memories of the destruction fade, the hibakusha grow even
older and die, the haunting pictures end up in books stored spine out on
bookshelves.

Meanwhile, the terror of nuclear annihilation - so keen at certain
moments during the long superpower Cold War stand-off - seems to have worn
off almost completely. That's too bad, since the actual threat of nuclear
war remains hidden but potent. The nine nuclear powers - the United States,
Russia, France, England, China, Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea -
have more than 27,000 operational nuclear weapons among them, enough to
destroy several Earth-sized planets. And in May, Mohamed
ElBaradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency,
warned that the number of nuclear powers could double in a few years unless
new disarmament is a priority. Is it any wonder then that, according to a
recent Rasmussen opinion poll, one in five Americans believe nuclear war
"very likely" in this century, and more than half, "likely"?

The unthinkable is still under consideration - even as the Obama
administration takes its first steps in the right direction. In an April
speech in Prague, President Obama publicly embraced the goal of seeking "the
peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." In its wake, his
administration has begun taking still quite modest but potentially important
steps towards that goal, including: renewed talks with Russia over mutual
nuclear reductions, conversations initiated in the Senate about
jump-starting the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban, stalled these
last 10 years, and of negotiations for the also stalled Fissile Material
Cutoff Treaty, imagined as an internationally verified ban on the production
of nuclear materials for weapons.

Right now, however, the American nuclear landscape - little acknowledged
or discussed - remains grimly potent. According to the authoritative
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the United States still maintains a
nuclear stockpile estimated at 5,200 warheads - of which approximately 2,700
are operational (with the rest in reserve), while the Obama administration
will spend more than $6 billion on the research and development of nuclear
weapons this year alone.

At some point early next year, the administration will complete a
Nuclear Posture Review outlining the role it believes nuclear weapons should
play in the American pantheon of power, and, if the president follows
through on his anti-nuclear statements, perhaps that document will at least
begin to limit the scenarios in which such weapons could be used. In the
meantime, the policy of the United States remains no different than it was
in 2004, when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signed the Nuclear Weapons
Employment Policy. It said, in part, that the United States possesses
nuclear weapons for the purposes of "destroying those critical war-making
and war-supporting assets and capabilities that a potential enemy leadership
values most and that it would rely on to achieve its own objectives in a
post-war world." Read that sentence again, and think, under such a doctrine,
what might the United States not bomb?

Keep in mind as well that the bombs which annihilated two Japanese
cities and ended so many lives 64 years ago this week were puny when
compared to today's typical nuclear weapon. Little Boy was a 15 kiloton
warhead. Most of the warheads in the U.S. arsenal today are 100 or 300
kilotons - capable of taking out not a Japanese city of 1945 but a modern
megalopolis. Bruce Blair, president of the World Security Institute and a
former launch-control officer in charge of Minutemen Intercontinental
Ballistic Missiles armed with 170, 300, and 335 kiloton warheads, pointed
out a few years ago that, within 12 minutes, the United States and Russia
could launch the equivalent of 100,000 Hiroshimas.

It is unthinkable. It seems unimaginable. It sounds like hyperbole, but
consider it an uncomfortable and necessary truth. The people of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki and the children of our future need us to understand this and
act upon it - 64 years too late... and not a minute too soon.

--------

Frida Berrigan, a Senior Program Associate at the New America
Foundation's Arms and Security Initiative, is the eldest daughter of peace
activists Liz McAlister and Philip Berrigan. The two met during the Vietnam
War, founded the Jonah House community in the early 1970s and spent eleven
years of their marriage separated by prison sentences stemming from their
anti-nuclear and peace activities. Phil Berrigan died in 2002 at the age of
79.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Pitt: Missing New Orleans, Homage to Soviet Yiddish Creativity

http://www.truthout.org/080309R?n

Do You Know What It Means to Miss New Orleans?

by: William Rivers Pitt,
t r u t h o u t : August 3, 2009

Do you know what it means to miss New Orleans,
And miss it each night and day?
I know I'm not wrong, the feeling's getting stronger,
The longer I stay away ...
- Louis Armstrong

The city of New Orleans will be on the minds of many in the coming days
and weeks. The four-year anniversary of the worst civil catastrophe in
American history - one of the worst such catastrophes in all of human
history - will soon be upon us. It was four years ago, the length of one
presidential term, that a storm came, and the seas rose, and the levees fell
and a city was, for all practical purposes, murdered right before our eyes.

Four years ago, it happened like this.

On August 23, 2005, Tropical Depression Twelve swallowed up the remains
of Tropical Depression Ten over the Bahamas and Puerto Rico and began moving
towards the United States. Two days later, the storm was designated a
hurricane and named Katrina. It made landfall in Florida and swung to the
south-southwest, gathering strength from the warm waters of the Gulf of
Mexico. A day later, the storm's track was recalibrated by the National
Hurricane Center, with the line pointing straight into the heart of the
Mississippi Delta. Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco declared a state of
emergency, and the Louisiana National Guard was mobilized.

By dawn the next day, Katrina had become a Category 3 hurricane.
Evacuations, at first voluntary and later mandatory, were ordered in the
parishes that lay across the path of the storm. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin
emphasized to residents of the Ninth Ward to get a head start on the
evacuation. Ten truckloads of water and meals were delivered to the
Superdome, enough to support 15,000 refugees for three days. That night,
George W. Bush was briefed by National Hurricane Center Director Max
Mayfield on the status of and potential danger posed by Katrina. Forty
minutes after midnight, Katrina became a Category 4 hurricane.

By 7:00 AM (CDT), Katrina had become a Category 5 hurricane, with
maximum sustained winds of 175 mph and gusts up to 215 mph. The storm was
expected to make landfall overnight, and New Orleans lay directly in its
path. Mayor Nagin ordered the mandatory evacuation of the city, and close to
30,000 people poured into the Superdome seeking shelter. George W. Bush
participated in a video conference with Max Mayfield and FEMA Director
Michael Brown, who warned Mr. Bush that the storm was more severe than
Andrew, was headed directly for New Orleans and the city's levees were in
grave danger of collapse. Brown emphatically described Katrina as "the big
one." Mr. Bush said exactly 40 words - one sentence promising support - and
stayed mute for the rest of the meeting.

That was Sunday, August 28, 2005, the last day the city of New Orleans
would exist as we have known it. At 6:10 AM (CDT) the next day, Katrina made
landfall in Louisiana.

By the end of that Monday, virtually the entire city of New Orleans was
under more than ten feet of water. Rooftops began to disappear under the
incoming tide. Levee after levee failed, an event later blamed on the
Louisiana Army Corps of Engineers, despite the fact that George W. Bush that
same year had stripped more than $70 million in funding for the maintenance
of those levees - virtually the entire Louisiana COE budget - to pay for his
ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Like a slow-motion nightmare, Americans watched the steady annihilation
of New Orleans unfold on television while Bush discussed immigration with
Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff, shared a birthday cake photo-op
with Sen. John McCain, promoted his Medicare Drug Benefit plan in Arizona
and California and went to bed without responding to Governor Blanco's
urgent plea for assistance. "Mr. President, we need your help," read the
message she had relayed to Bush that day. "We need everything you've got."
There would be no reply that day.

It was not until the middle of the next day that Director Chertoff
became aware that the New Orleans levees had failed and that the city was in
mortal peril. Mr. Bush played guitar on television with country star Mark
Willis next to split-screen images of bodies floating in the floodwaters and
scenes of residents "looting" stores, much of which was perpetrated by
stranded citizens seeking food and shelter. It had been three days since
tens of thousands of people had sought shelter in the Superdome, food and
water were running out, sanitary conditions were execrable, the heat became
overwhelming and people started dying like insects stuffed in a killing
bottle by a cruel, sadistic child. Residents trying to flee across the
bridge were turned back at gunpoint. The city of New Orleans finally
collapsed into chaos and drowned in salt water on national television.

A city still stands where New Orleans once was, and bears the same name,
but it is not the same city, and never will be again. The death toll will
never be known, because the river and the swamp and the sea took so many and
kept them, because those who were lost were mostly the unnumbered poor who
lacked the means to flee, because back in those days, we didn't do body
counts. Thousands upon thousands of the city's residents are still gone four
years later, either to the grave or to far-flung points on the compass,
evacuees with no way to return home and, in many cases, no homes to return
to. Most of the Ninth Ward still remains a sculpture of rubble and
destruction to this day.

What does it mean to miss New Orleans? It means knowing that one of the
most golden citadels of our shared history - a cradle of multiculturalism,
the birthplace of jazz, seed corn of so much that is America - was allowed
to die of neglect, disdain, racism, greed and simple stupidity right before
our eyes. A city stands where New Orleans once was, but it is not New
Orleans, not really. All that was the city, all that it gave this country,
and so many of the people who lived there, are gone forever.

Do not forget, do not let your children forget, what it means to miss
New Orleans.

***

Sunday, August 9 @ 2 pm

Sorrowfully and Jofully:
Homage to Soviet Yiddish Creativity

Annual Commemoration of Murdered Soviet Yiddish Writers featuring songs
performed by the Arbeter Ring Mit Gezang Yiddish Chorus, with the
participation of prominent readers in both Yiddish and English. Hershl
Hartman's narration and translations will be used.

As we have done for many years, a coalition of secular Jewish organizations
in the Los Angeles area will commemorate these events with a program on
Sunday, August 9. This unique afternoon program will be in Yiddish and
English.

Admission will be free and open to the public (donations accepted),
reservations not required. Light refreshments will be served.

This year's program is dedicated to the memory of Lilke Majzner Z"l, who
passed away July 17. Lilke was a towering presence in the Yiddish and
progressive communities, and her spirit and wisdom will be greatly missed.

The Arbeter Ring
(Workmen's Circle)
1525 S. Robertson Blvd. LA CA 90035

E-mail: circle@circlesocal.org
PH: 310.552.2007

Jeff Cohen: Are Liberal Netroots Groups Helping Obama Fail?

Here's a critical lesson in realpolitic learned by the right after the
defeat of Barry Goldwater. It's now our time to act strategically, says
Jeff Cohen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-cohen/are-liberal-netroots-grou_b_247781.html

Are Liberal Netroots Groups Helping Obama Fail?

By Jeff Cohen
Huffington Post: July 30, 2009

I've started deleting them as spam.
I'm not talking about the enlarge-your-penis emails or "You've Won the
Lottery" notices.

I'm talking about the increasingly-urgent emails coming for weeks from
liberal Netroots groups calling for a "public option" for health care -- a
government insurance plan citizens could choose to pay for instead of
private insurance.

Never has so much passion been so misdirected. If what these liberal groups
ultimately wanted out of President Obama and corporate-funded Democrats in
Congress was a topnotch public plan to compete with the first-rate private
plans, the wrong way to get it was to make that the demand.

Especially of a president whose instinct is toward conciliation and
splitting the difference with big business and the right wing.

Sure, Obama was a community organizer once. That was decades ago when Russia
was still our mortal enemy, Nelson Mandela was still an official State
Department terrorist threat and the White House was still funding Islamist
fanatics in Afghanistan.

For the last dozen years Obama has been a politician -- and a consummate
compromiser at that. Have we failed to notice?

Activists must recognize the surest way to get a strong public option that
could compete with the Cadillac of health plans. We needed to mobilize
millions of Netroots people, almost every union and 150 members of Congress
to endorse a maximum demand: National health insurance . . . enhanced
Medicare for All. In other words, a cost-effective single-payer system of
publicly-financed, privately-delivered healthcare that ends private health
insurance (and its waste, bureaucracy, ads, sales commissions, lavish
executive salaries, profiteering).

Had liberal groups sent out millions of emails building a movement that
posed an existential threat to the health insurance industry, Sen. Baucus
and Blue Dog Democrats and their corporate healthcare patrons might well be
on their knees begging for a comprehensive public option -- to avert the
threat of full-blown Medicare for All.

As things stand now, as writers like Bob Kuttner and Norman Solomon have
warned, a weak public option would institutionalize a two-tiered system with
healthier, wealthier citizens getting the best (private) plans, and sicker,
harder-to-treat people getting an inferior (public) plan. Newt Gingrich
couldn't dream up a better scenario to discredit an enhanced government role
in health care.

To win serous reforms, we need activist leaders who are tough-minded
progressives making maximum demands for reforms that truly address our
nation's problems. Leave the inside-the-Beltway deal-making to the
politicians, properly frightened and moved by the roar of mass movements.

We need activist leaders who have a clearer idea of who Obama is. He's not
one of us. He's one of them -- a politician bent on placating corporate
interests. We knew all we needed to know about his current worldview from
all the corporatists he put in top jobs.

And from the fact that he felt the need -- six weeks into his
administration, after the middle-class bailed out Wall Street -- to call up
the New York Times and assure the world that his policies were not socialist
but were "entirely consistent with free market principles." At a time the
corporate greedsters and free-market ideologues had been exposed as having
threatened the economic well-being of the world, they weren't the ones on
the defensive. They weren't doing the apologizing. Obama was on the
defensive; he was apologizing to them!

When Democratic leaders start borrowing right wing rhetoric, we know our
activism has not been strong or progressive enough. At the AARP townhall
Tuesday, Obama described a public option as "controversial, I understand
people are worried about that." He went on to assure his audience that
"nobody is talking about . . . government-run health care" or "a
Canadian-style plan." At one point, he further assured seniors that no
"bureaucratic law in Washington" would interfere in their healthcare
decisions -- seeming to adopt the faux-populism of anti-government
rightists. Yet he seems incapable of anti-corporate populism, even with
despised industries like Wall Street and health insurance.

I have huge respect for the smart young activists who built up the Netroots,
unleashing all sorts of progressive possibilities for our country. But I'm
bothered by their often ineffectual, Beltway-originated, halfway demands.

I became active during the Vietnam War. We might still have troops in
Vietnam if - instead of militantly demanding "All Troops Home Now" -- we'd
organized behind polite Beltway initiatives like: "Let's begin negotiations"
or "Let's set a timeline for phased withdrawal."

I fear that Netroots leaders are doing the same dance with Obama today that
they did with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in 2007-08. Instead of demanding
that Democrats in Congress bring our troops home from Iraq by using the
power of the purse to defund the war, Netroots leaders rallied behind weak,
non-binding timelines and other halfway measures cooked up with
Congressional leaders.

Without a loud, clear demand for "troops home" from the large online antiwar
forces, Democratic leaders started retreating and succumbing to Republican
rhetoric. Reid proclaimed: "We will never abandon our troops in a time of
war." Pelosi declared: "We will have legislation to fund the troops!"

And the corpses kept piling up.

Great social reforms have occurred in our country not when social movements
took their lead from what the White House deemed possible, but when the
White House was pushed by powerful movements demanding reforms bolder than
what the president was comfortable with. Leading abolitionists pushed
Lincoln toward ending slavery by demanding immediate abolition. Socialist
and workers movements in the '30s sufficiently scared elites so that FDR
could pass New Deal reforms far short of socialism. Martin Luther King and
civil rights activists continuously pushed and prodded JFK and later LBJ.

And these movements didn't have the Internet.

In 1993, a National Health Insurance bill gained 100 co-sponsors in the
Democrat-led House, plus endorsements from many unions, even Consumers
Union. There was unfortunately no Internet then when the Clinton White House
undermined this growing movement by pushing an incredibly complex plan that
left big insurers dominating the system. Clinton's plan inspired few and
confused many. After it went down in flames, talk radio host Jim Hightower
asked President Clinton why he didn't back an easily-explained Medicare for
All approach that had so much support in Congress. Clinton said he'd thought
it was politically too difficult but now wondered about that judgment.

Here we are 16 years later. Neglected by Netroots groups, John Conyers today
has 85 House co-sponsors for HR 676, the Expanded Medicare for All Act, as
well as the endorsement of many unions and Obama's longtime personal
physician. If all those emails I've received lately had been about building
the HR 676 movement and a public system instead of a "public option," the
bill would have many more co-sponsors and could be pressuring Democrats to
stand tough today.

For Obama to feel secure about reform and standing up to the right, he needs
to feel that he's in the center pushed by noisy forces to his left. He's
admitted as much. The way to help him succeed is to mobilize seriously to
his left.

The way to help Obama fail is for Netroots and liberal groups to collapse
toward him from the get-go.

And if Obama does fail, we can quit laughing at a Republican Party in
disarray due to Bush, religious extremism, hypocrisy and
anti-intellectualism.

Because in this period of crisis and fear, unless a progressively-prodded
White House delivers reforms that actually improve lives soon, right wing
reaction could rebound more dangerous than ever in 2010 and/or 2012.

* *
Jeff Cohen is an associate professor of journalism at Ithaca College,
founder of the media watch group FAIR, and former board member of
Progressive Democrats of America .

Monday, August 3, 2009

Schechter: As Obama's Support Erodes, Pay to Play in DC

http://www.commondreams.org/

As Obama's Support Erodes, the Right is Resurgent

Will Progressives Respond To The Attempt to Overthrow The President?

By Danny Schechter
CommonDreams.org: August 1, 2009

The tide of public opinion may be turning against the President. Pollsters
report growing skepticism about health care reform, and more active
hostility on racial matters, thanks to that "uncalibrated" expression of
opinion on the arrest of Professor Gates in his own home. That remark turned
him, in the eyes of some, from a small b black President into a militant
Black Panther, or at least someone who can bashed as such.

These are the new controversial issues with no one right answer, and a noisy
debate everywhere, but something else is also going on.

With Democrats fussing among themselves, with Obamacrats forced to rely on
corporate media, the right-wing TV and radio stations close ranks behind the
most self-righteously-correct ranters having a filed day poking , prodding,
pummeling, and peeing into cups of their own resentment, hate and venom.

There is no smear that is beneath them, no inference or insult out of
bounds. Lou Dobbs blesses the birthers while that Elmer Gantry of
demagoguery, Glenn Beck, meditates on his mountain and pronounces Obama a
racist. An Israeli settler refers to our President as "that Arab," and
worse.

These are the nattering nabobs of negativity of our times, to resurrect an
old canard once aimed at the left. The Yes We Can advocates seem to be
taking refuge in the No We Won't center. The next thing you know, the
removal of a democratically elected President that worked in Honduras might
be attempted here at home.

Some of us are still singing "We Shall Overcome" when our adversaries are
chanting "We Shall Overthrow."

If Barack's legitimacy as a citizen won't bring him down, his
actions---moderate if not reactionary as they are--- unites the crazies
against him and drives them even more beserk. The contentious Congressman
who vowed to "break him," should be taken seriously

This relentless riposte is having an effect on a demoralized and
economically challenged population that is not well informed in the first
place-except perhaps about Michael Jackson's dubious doctor who may have
done the dirty deed. Sensing possible victory-whatever that means--- the
Angeroid microfactions that lost the election are now seeking to polarize
the public to topple the Administration with an electronic coup d'media. It
is all that serious.

Only Jon Stewart seems to be calling them on their game, while at the same
time despairing about the obvious missteps and mistakes that the White House
is making. They may be a garden outside the Oval Office but there is a
minefield inside it.

At the same time, another enemy is mounting a counterattack, perhaps in a
more stealth manner, not by what it says, but by what it does The banks are
deploying regiments of lobbyists and PR firms to defeat proposed new
financial rules and an agency to protect consumers. They are escalating the
gouging of the public.

Emboldened by billions in bailout monies, and funds from the Treasury and
Federal Reserve, the Bankster are in full loot mode. New York Attorney
General Andrew Cuomo reports that extravagant bonuses at some banks now
outstrip revenues. The financial elite takes our money--and tells us to
shove it.

As a new wave of foreclosures threatens, the banks are not willing to modify
most mortgages-even those sold fraudulently, because they make more money
forcing families out and reselling their homes.

The pace of regulatory reform, meanwhile is a slow-go, with few calls for
more radical measures like a moratorium on foreclosures of the kind declared
by FDR during the last Depression.

Are you aware that outside of the government, a not for profit called NACA
(The Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America) is touring the country
mobilizing homeowners to demand financial relief. I was at their original
"Save The Deam" event in Washington last summer where members of Congress
and officials like FDIC chairman Sheila Bair pledged support, but little
happened.

Government help as only reached 200,000 of the more than 12 million families
in need. If you are not familiar with this issue or the role of devious
mortgage servicers like Litton, owned by Goldman Sachs, see these You Tube
videos on the PACFILM Channel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVyahxDc5OU
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mov0AVLsvQg

According to FEED News, NACA is doing better-even though they are not
getting the national publicity they deserve, perhaps because media outlets
don't want to send the few staffers they have to the heartland,

"About 50,000 people attended the second Save the Dream event in Chicago.
This is a dramatic increase over the 25,000 people who attended NACA's first
two Save the Dream events last year in Columbia, SC, and Washington, DC.

"One of the reasons why turnout has increased this year is NACA's use of
optimized press releases, blog outreach, and YouTube videos to let people
know that the national non-profit community advocacy and homeownership
organization offers unprecedented solutions for homeowners caught up in the
current mortgage and economic crisis. During the Save the Dream events,
borrowers can get mortgages restructured the same day."

If the Obama Administration is to survive an ongoing assault still building
steam, it needs a grass roots action-oriented army like the one NACA is
building. They can't just rely on the Netroots activists who prefer emails
to organizing. They can't rely on that co-opted in-house DNC arm, Organizing
for America either. That is there only to rally support for the White House.

A new movement has to develop outside the Democratic party in the same way
that the right acts outside the GOP, and has built a capacity for
independent action with echo chambers, message points and personalities.
Their ideas may be backward but their dedication can't be denied.

We can defend Obama's ideals, and also press for more action. As Jeff Cohen
reminds us, we have a "president whose instinct is toward conciliation and
splitting the difference with big business and the right wing. Sure, Obama
was a community organizer once. That was decades ago when Russia was still
our mortal enemy, Nelson Mandela was still an official State Department
terrorist threat and the White House was still funding Islamist fanatics in
Afghanistan. For the last dozen years Obama has been a politician -- and a
consummate compromiser at that. Have we failed to notice?"

Can progressives fight a three front war---against the vicious right,
against the slippery center, and for a more comprehensive and empowering
agenda? Can they finally realize that all politics does not occur in DC, and
that being tethered to the denizens on the Hill can be a liability at a time
when most political chameleons enjoy so little respect.

Will they ever realize that they have to get into the economic trenches and
fight the power of the banks with groups like A New Way Forward? Why is
economic justice a priority for so few activists when these issues impact
millions?

Knock, Knock, anyone there?

Mediachannel's News Dissector Danny Schechter investigates the origins of
the economic crisis in his new book Plunder: Investigating Our Economic
Calamity and the Subprime Scandal (Cosimo Books via Amazon). Comments to
dissector@mediachannel.org

***

Michael Winship Pay to Play Is Washington's Sport of Kings
http://www.truthout.org/080109Z?n
Michael Winship, Truthout: "This week, the Center for Responsive Politics
reported that in the second quarter of this year alone, the pharmaceuticals
and health product industries spent $67,959,095 on lobbying, and the
insurance industry $39,760,477. Another $25,552,088 was spent by lobbyists
for hospitals and nursing homes. That's a total of $133,271,660 in just
three months, and that's not even counting the lobbying money spent to fight
health care reform by professional associations like the US Chamber of
Commerce."

Alex Cockburn: The Biden and Clinton Mutinies

Hi. I'm listening to a fascinating, informative and personally valuable
program on our food, and biologically, why we eat, often too much.
Dr. David Kessler, former U.S. Health Commissioner and Prof. of
Medicine at UCSF is intervewed, extensively and specifically, on
Democracy Now. Listen @9AM, today. Highly recommended.
Ed

From: Abie Dawgee/ The R.A.I.N. Newsletter: So. Africa

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07312009.html

The Biden and Clinton Mutinies

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

CounterPunch: July 31 - August 2, 2009

Time bombs tossed seemingly casually in the past month by his vice president
and his secretary of state disclose president Obama, in the dawn of his
first term, already the target of carefully meditated onslaughts by senior
members of his own cabinet.

At the superficial level Obama is presiding over an undisciplined
administration; on a more realistic and sinister construction, he is
facing mutiny, publicly conducted by two people who only a year ago were
claiming that their qualifications to be in the Oval Office were far
superior to those of the junior senator from Illinois .

The great danger to Obama posed by Biden's and Clinton's "time bombs" (a
precisely correct description if we call them political, not diplomatic time
bombs) is not international confusion and ridicule over what precisely are
the US government's policies, but a direct onslaught on his presidency by a
domestic Israeli lobby that is so out of control that it renders ridiculous
Obama's puny attempt to stop settlements--or to curb Israeli aggression in
any other way.

Take Joe Biden. Three weeks ago he gave Israel the green light to bomb Iran,
only to be swiftly corrected by his boss. At the time it seemed yet
another,somewhat comical mile marker in a lifetime of gaffes, perpetrated in
the cause of self-promotion and personal political advantage.

But Biden's subsequent activities invite a darker construction. In the
immediate aftermath of Obama's Moscow visit, the air still soft with honeyed
words about a new era of trust and cooperation, Biden headed for Ukraine and
Georgia, harshly ridiculing Russia as an economic basket case with no
future. In Tbilisi he told the Georgian parliament that the U.S. would
continue helping Georgia "to modernize" its military and that Washington
"fully supports" Georgia's aspiration to join NATO and would help Tbilisi
meet the alliance's standards. This elicited a furious reaction from Moscow,
pledging sanctions against any power rearming Georgia.

Georgia could play a vital, enabling role, in the event that Israel decides
to attack Iran's nuclear complex. The flight path from Israel to Iran is
diplomatically and geographically challenging. On the other hand, Georgia is
perfectly situated as the take-off point for any such raid. Israel has been
heavily involved in supplying and training Georgia's armed forces. President
Saakashvili has boasted that his Defense Minister, Davit Kezerashvili and
also Temur Yakobashvili , the minister responsible for negotiations over
South Ossetia, lived in Israel before moving to Georgia, adding "Both war
and peace are in the hands of Israeli Jews."

On the heels of Biden's shameless pandering in Tbilisi, Secretary of State
Clinton took herself off to Thailand for an international confab with Asian
leaders and let drop to a tv chat show that "a nuclear Iran could be
contained by a U.S. 'defense umbrella,'" actually a nuclear defense umbrella
for Israel and for Egypt and Saudi Arabia too.

The Israel lobby has been promoting the idea of a US "nuclear umbrella" for
some years, with one of its leading exponents being Dennis Ross, now in
charge of Middle Eastern policy at Obama's National Security Council. In her
campaign last year Clinton flourished the notion as an example of the sort
of policy initiative that set her apart from that novice in foreign affairs,
Barack Obama.

From any rational point of view the "nuclear umbrella" is an awful idea,
redolent with all the gimcrack theology of the high cold war era, about
"first strike", "second strike", "stable deterrence" ,"controlled
escalation" and "mutual assured destruction", used to sell US escalations
in nuclear arms production, from Kennedy and the late Robert McNamara("the
Missile Gap") to Reagan ("Star Wars").

Indeed, as one Pentagon veteran remarked to me earlier this week, "the
Administration's whole nuclear stance is turning into a cheesy rerun of the
Cold War and Mutually Assured Destruction, all based on a horrible
exaggeration of one or two Iranian nuclear bombs that the Persians may be
too incompetent to build and most certainly are too incompetent to deliver."

The Biden and Clinton "foreign" policy is: 1) to recreate the same old Cold
War (with a new appendage, the US versus Iran nuclear confrontation) for the
same old reasons: to pump up domestic defense spending; and 2) to continue
sixty years of supporting Israeli imperialism for the same reasons that
every president from Harry to Dubya (perhaps barring Ike) did so: to corner
Israel lobby money and votes. Regarding the latter, Obama did the same by
grabbing the Chicago-based Crown and Pritzker family money very early in his
campaign and by making Rahm Emanuel his very first appointment (the two are
hardly unrelated).

So right from the start Obama was already an Israel lobby fellow traveler.
The Mitchell appointment and the toothless blather about settlements were
simply cosmetic, bones tossed to the increasing proportion of the American
electorate that's grossed out by the ethnic cleansing of the Arabs from the
Holy Land. Obama does have a coherent strategy: keep the defense money
flowing and increasing, but without making so much noise as the older
generation did about ancient Cold War enemies (e.g. Russia and Cuba). The
F-22 -- to date, the one and only presidential issue on which he's shown any
toughness at all -- is in no sense a departure from keeping the money
flowing, since he is indeed increasing the defense budget, in part by using
the F-22 cancellation to push spending on the even worse F-35 and to hide
his acquiescence to all the other pork in the Congressional defense budget.

The window for any new president to impose a decisive change in foreign
policy comes in the first three months, before opposition has time to
solidify. Obama squandered that opportunity, stocking his foreign policy
team with tarnished players such as Ross. As the calculated indiscretions of
Biden and Clinton suggest, not to mention the arrogance of Netanyahu and his
political associates, the window of opportunity has closed.

Would it have been that hard to signal a change in course? Not really. Obama
could have excited the world by renouncing the Bush administration's
assertion, in the "National Defense Strategy of the United States" in 2005,
of the right and intention of the United States to preëmptively attack any
country "at the time, place, and in the manner of our choosing." As
William Polk, the State Department's middle east advisor in the Kennedy era,
wrote last year: "As long as this remains a valid statement of American
policy, the Iranian government would be foolish not to seek a nuclear
weapon."

But Obama, surrounded with Clinton-era veterans of NATO expansionism and, as
his Accra speech indicated, hobbled with an impeccably conventional view of
how the world works, is rapidly being overwhelmed by the press of events.
He's
bailed out the banks. He's transferred war from Iraq to Afghanistan. The big
lobbies know they have him on the run.

Hence Biden and Clinton's mutinies, conducted on behalf of the Israel lobby
and designed to seize administration policy as Obama's popularity weakens.
When the results of the latest Rasmussen presidential poll were published,
showing Obama's declining numbers, there were news reports of cheering in
Tel Aviv. And remember two useful guiding principles: first, it is
impossible to underestimate the vanity of politicians, particularly of Joe
Biden. Maybe he secretly entertains some mad notion of challenging Obama in
2012, propelled by Israel Lobby money withheld from Obama. Maybe Bill is
reminding HRC that he reached the White House in 1992 partly because the
Israel lobby turned against George Bush Sr. Second, there is no such thing
as foreign policy, neither in democratic governments nor in dictatorships.
All policy is domestic.

Professor Gates Should Count Himself Lucky!

"Eighty years ago, with the publication of the Wickersham Report on
Lawlessness in Law Enforcement, America learned that torture didn't work.and
promptly forgot.

"Debates on the morality and practical efficacy of torture periodically
erupt in American politics. Now, the issue has re-emerged with the efforts
of ex-Bush administration officials and allies to defend their legacy and
their legal impunity against the current administration's stated desire to
move beyond coercive interrogations."

This is Peter Lee in our latest CounterPunch newsletter, in an enthralling
piece of historical excavation about how a commission appointed by Herbert
Hoover managed to include a savage expose of torture as practiced by US
police departments. Lee shows how exactly the torture techniques of our
current era and their rationales mirror those of the practitioners and
sponsors of torture in the last century.

Alexander Cockburn can be reached at alexandercockburn@asis.com

Sunday, August 2, 2009

Quote of the Week, Landau: The Egyptian River Flows Through Washington

http://tinyurl.com/knfho2

Quote of the Week

Katrina vanden Heuvel
The Nation: July 27, 2009

'The danger is that promoting the view that these conservative Democrats are
somehow at the center of our politics plays into the hands of those who
would like to marginalize progressives as far outside of the mainstream.
(And I have no doubt K Street is advising Republicans to onstantly refer to
their Democratic allies as "moderate" and "centrist".) It also misrepresents
what most Americans want from the government in these times.

'As Drew Westen, professor of psychology at Emory University, founder of
Westen Strategies, and author of the invaluable The Political Brain, told
me: "The average American, according to all available data, has largely
moved slightly left of where it was in the Reagan years, and with changing
demographics, it will be far left of Reagan and Bush in twenty years. So to
call Democrats who are substantially right of the center of the electorate
(let alone of their party), like Heath Shuler, 'moderates,' is both to
misrepresent the center of political gravity in the general electorate and
in the Democratic Party."

'How we tell the story of this battle for health care reform matters and
will impact whether the battle is won or lost. So-called "centrists" are far
from the center of this debate. They are, in fact, out of touch and out of
the mainstream -- like the rest of their conservative brethren.'

***

From: zhelp@zcommunications.org

The Egyptian River Flows Through Washington

By Saul Landau
Landau's ZSpace: July 30, 2009

During mid July, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on Judge Sonia
Sotomayor's qualifications for the Supreme Court. The Solon's oratory
focused on themes of some fictional world, not one threatened by global
warming and diving economies. Scientists regularly predict dire consequences
if current production and consumption practices continue, but southern
Republicans emphasized the country's "fundamental" issues: the rights to own
guns and numchuks, plus the sins of abortion, affirmative action and
liberal-activist judges who allow "foreign law" to stain our judicial
system.

Simultaneously, news of record June foreclosures and higher unemployment
competed with stories of three self-righteous, high-level, elected
Christians who practiced the very sins against which they had preached.

Why was this news -- again? Marital infidelity -- the usual sexual hanky
panky -- led reporters to "discover" dozens of Members of both Houses
belonged to or lived inside a "Christian" cult house on Capitol Hill. South
Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, Nevada Senator John Ensign and former
Mississippi Congressman Chip Pickering partook of the spiritual guidance of
fellow legislative residents and dramatic preachers at this religious prayer
center. The emerging details should cause the public to question the
sanity -- or inanity -- of part of its governing class.

The sexual sinners fell from their self-constructed state of grace into the
garbage or gossip pile. Their actions and words symbolized the banality of
politics in the era of imperial denial. They dallied with "other" women;
then engaged in burlesque cover ups of their indiscretions. Having given
hypocrisy a bad name -- again -- the sinners then implicated The Fellowship,
the secret sect that housed these A-type religious narcissists.

Before getting elected governor, Sanford had served three terms in the House
(1995 to 2001) and linked himself to the C Street Bible study group. A
mysterious foundation, The Fellowship, runs the place and also sponsors the
yearly National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, formally owned by Youth With
A Mission and valued at $1.8 million. (WORLD Magazine June 26, 2009)

The legislators followed the unusual Christian doctrine of Pastor Doug Coe,
whose son David guided John Ensign through the cover-up of his affair. Doug
told reporter Jeff Sharlet the meaning of being "chosen for leadership like
King David was -- or Mark Sanford." For example: "Let's say I hear you raped
three little girls." This question would be asked of a young man who'd put
himself, body and soul, under the Family's authority. "What would I think of
you?"

Like most people, the man guessed Coe would think he was a monster. "No,"
answered Coe, "Because," wrote Sharlet, "as a member of the Family, he's
among what Family leaders refer to as the 'new chosen'." Pastor Doug,
David's father, leaked an even more important secret. The Supreme One had
revealed to him in the 1960s, that He had chosen selected individuals to
live in the C Street house. Doug Coe led The Family fellowship going back to
the mid '60s. "I knew Coe when I was part of The Family. He explained what
it means to be a chosen politician. (Salon.com, July 22, 2009. In 2002, Jeff
Sharlet lived in The Family's house.)

These chosen ones, albeit mere mortals - for those who haven't slept with
them -- might not have discerned their Divine mission, based on their higher
spiritual values. So, Coe and his preacher sons, having determined their
elite status in private conversations with God, began to coach the powerful
in the proper methods of running the country -- and maybe the world. At any
given time, eight members of the Senate and House have resided at the C
Street Center where they sleep, pray, and eat for a mere $600 a month. (Does
this indicate that the residents are also cheapskates?) Other Members
visited regularly to pray and seek spiritual guidance.

Coe's -- a modern Elmer Gantry? -- mysterious Bible study residence had
Christian politicians praying, extolling fundamental principles and the Ten
Commandments and then screwing around; after which they discussed their
extramarital affairs.

The disgraced pols lied and covered up their affairs while continuing to
preach traditional family values for everyone else; especially Bill Clinton.
"I did not have sex with that woman," Clinton swore, referring to Monica
Lewinsky. He didn't finish the thought. "All I did was stick my dick in her
mouth."

Sanford and Ensign weren't only "playing around." They had sex with "those
women," or else they might have repeated Clinton's quaint denial. Indeed,
months before the affairs became news, they confessed infidelity to C Street
House buddies. The devout comrades tried to help the lusty hypocrites to
"resolve their extramarital relationships." In group counseling, following
proper Christian ways, the sinners could repent in biblical fashion: lying,
bribing and finessing. Some would say the dalliers thought they had gotten
"lucky," but instead got hoisted -- not literally, unfortunately -- on their
own petards.

Ensign boinked his aide, Cynthia Hampton, until it reached the point where
lust got out of hand -- or wherever -- and cult members interceded. Doug
Hampton, Cynthia's husband and also an Ensign aide, confronted the
Christians at the C Street House. Given the possibility of major scandal --
which God strongly disapproves of, but cannot for some reason control as He
does the weather -- Fellowship leader Coe's sons, David and Tim, joined C
Street roommate Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) to confront Ensign. They
"resolved" the affair by convincing him to send a Dear Jane letter to
Cynthia.

Tim Coe drove Ensign to FedEx with the letter, which also promised Ensign's
wealthy parents would pay $96,000 in "shut your mouth honey" money to the
Hampton family -- anything to keep a family together. After sending the
letter, Ensign clearly felt horny, called his sweetheart and told her to
disregard the content of the letter she would receive.

Sanford's middle age lust also led him to the woman of his hot dreams. An
Argentine siren lured him south to engage his libido. As he trysted with the
dark-eyed se?ta, he also tried to cover up his dangerous liaison with an
Appalachian-trail hike lie.

Until the "news" broke, he and Ensign were reputedly Republican
front-runners for the 2012 presidential race. What a tragedy for the Nation
and disappointment for the Supreme Being that they blew their chances for
gaining the highest office, just because the public learned they failed to
practice what they preached. What disgrace for The Fellowship to have its
members burned by the light of sensational publicity.

Another powerful C House resident for seven years, Senator Jim DeMint,
Sanford's fellow South Carolinian, quoted God: "'We are salt and light.'"
DeMint meant "there are people of faith who have been sprinkled in
Washington, D.C." Among these scattered flakes DeMint counts the Health
Insurance lobby that contributed $3 million to his campaign coffers over the
past four years. For DeMint, this kind of private sector influence
represents God's will. Obama, on the other hand, by offering
government-backed health care, has engaged in socialistic sin, the Devil's
domain. C Street House members know the secret eleventh commandment in which
God blessed private enterprise and outlawed sinful government run programs.

Faith -- and millions of dollars -- drove pious Solons to deliver God's
message at the Sotomayor hearings: own guns and numchucks, deny global
warming, rail against abortion, affirmative action, foreign law and
(liberal) activist judges. Group members Coburn and Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN)
shared not only values but millions of dollars contributed to their coffers
by gun lobbyists and anti-regulators from other industries: God's agents.

In a time of economic and environmental crises, the fundamentalist hold on
some of the powerful appears as dark comedy. Right wing preachers Pat
Robertson and Jerry Falwell once explained how God punished New Orleans --
modern Sodom -- with Hurricane Katrina for allowing homosexuals to practice
immoral behavior.

Some Democrats also belong to this cult. Coincidentally, powerful lobbies
have also purchased their allegiance (or faith), making it difficult to pass
the health bill. One surprise Democrat also flirted with The Family. Hillary
Clinton called Coe, "a genuinely loving spiritual mentor . . . a source of
strength and friendship." In her autobiography, Clinton was in the midst of
fighting off right wing Republicans' demands for Whitewater investigations
and impeachment hearings. She nevertheless prayed with members of that "vast
right-wing conspiracy."

Doug Coe accompanied Mrs. Clinton as a member of the U.S. delegation that
attended Mother Theresa's state funeral in Calcutta in 1997. Mother Theresa
spoke to Coe's National Prayer Breakfast meeting in Washington in 1994.

Thus far, no leading Democrat has demanded that some fellow legislators
remove their heads from their nether crevices, forget numchuk ownership and
face the imminent dangers to the country and planet. Or must we wait for
Him -- or Her?

Saul Landau is an Institute for Policy Studies fellow whose films are on DVD
( roundworldproductions@gmail.com This e-mail address is protected from
spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ).

From: Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives
http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/3938

commentaries: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/
Comment: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/3938#AddComment