Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Ehrenreich: Is It Now a Crime to Be Poor?, Bernie on the radio

Bernie Pearl hosts Blues Power at KPFK Thursday August 13,
10:30pm - Midnight. He learned at the elbows of bluesmasters
'Lightnin' Hopkins, Mance Lipscomb, Mississippi Fred MacDowell,
and others, hosted 'Nothin' But the Blues", top rated show on then
KLON (now KJAZZ,) founded the Long Beach Blues Frestival in 1979,
leading it through the early 1990's. His knowledge, taste and style
promise a welcome, warm and thoroughly enjoyable show.

That's tomorrow, Thursday, August 13th, 10:30pm -Midnight.
On KPFK , 90.7 fm. It's about time.

***

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/opinion/09ehrenreich.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th

Is It Now a Crime to Be Poor?

By BARBARA EHRENREICH
NY Times Op-Ed: August 8, 2009

IT'S too bad so many people are falling into poverty at a time when it's
almost illegal to be poor. You won't be arrested for shopping in a Dollar
Store, but if you are truly, deeply, in-the-streets poor, you're well
advised not to engage in any of the biological necessities of life - like
sitting, sleeping, lying down or loitering. City officials boast that there
is nothing discriminatory about the ordinances that afflict the destitute,
most of which go back to the dawn of gentrification in the '80s and '90s.
"If you're lying on a sidewalk, whether you're homeless or a millionaire,
you're in violation of the ordinance," a city attorney in St. Petersburg,
Fla., said in June, echoing Anatole France's immortal observation that "the
law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep
under bridges."

In defiance of all reason and compassion, the criminalization of poverty has
actually been intensifying as the recession generates ever more poverty. So
concludes a new study from the National Law Center on Homelessness and
Poverty, which found that the number of ordinances against the publicly poor
has been rising since 2006, along with ticketing and arrests for more
"neutral" infractions like jaywalking, littering or carrying an open
container of alcohol.

The report lists America's 10 "meanest" cities - the largest of which are
Honolulu, Los Angeles and San Francisco - but new contestants are springing
up every day. The City Council in Grand Junction, Colo., has been
considering a ban on begging, and at the end of June, Tempe, Ariz., carried
out a four-day crackdown on the indigent. How do you know when someone is
indigent? As a Las Vegas statute puts it, "An indigent person is a person
whom a reasonable ordinary person would believe to be entitled to apply for
or receive" public assistance.

That could be me before the blow-drying and eyeliner, and it's definitely Al
Szekely at any time of day. A grizzled 62-year-old, he inhabits a wheelchair
and is often found on G Street in Washington - the city that is ultimately
responsible for the bullet he took in the spine in Fu Bai, Vietnam, in 1972.
He had been enjoying the luxury of an indoor bed until last December, when
the police swept through the shelter in the middle of the night looking for
men with outstanding warrants.

It turned out that Mr. Szekely, who is an ordained minister and does not
drink, do drugs or curse in front of ladies, did indeed have a warrant - for
not appearing in court to face a charge of "criminal trespassing" (for
sleeping on a sidewalk in a Washington suburb). So he was dragged out of the
shelter and put in jail. "Can you imagine?" asked Eric Sheptock, the
homeless advocate (himself a shelter resident) who introduced me to Mr.
Szekely. "They arrested a homeless man in a shelter for being homeless."

The viciousness of the official animus toward the indigent can be
breathtaking. A few years ago, a group called Food Not Bombs started handing
out free vegan food to hungry people in public parks around the nation. A
number of cities, led by Las Vegas, passed ordinances forbidding the sharing
of food with the indigent in public places, and several members of the group
were arrested. A federal judge just overturned the anti-sharing law in
Orlando, Fla., but the city is appealing. And now Middletown, Conn., is
cracking down on food sharing.

If poverty tends to criminalize people, it is also true that criminalization
inexorably impoverishes them. Scott Lovell, another homeless man I
interviewed in Washington, earned his record by committing a significant
crime - by participating in the armed robbery of a steakhouse when he was
15. Although Mr. Lovell dresses and speaks more like a summer tourist from
Ohio than a felon, his criminal record has made it extremely difficult for
him to find a job.

For Al Szekely, the arrest for trespassing meant a further descent down the
circles of hell. While in jail, he lost his slot in the shelter and now
sleeps outside the Verizon Center sports arena, where the big problem, in
addition to the security guards, is mosquitoes. His stick-thin arms are
covered with pink crusty sores, which he treats with a regimen of frantic
scratching.

For the not-yet-homeless, there are two main paths to criminalization - one
involving debt, and the other skin color. Anyone of any color or
pre-recession financial status can fall into debt, and although we pride
ourselves on the abolition of debtors' prison, in at least one state, Texas,
people who can't afford to pay their traffic fines may be made to "sit out
their tickets" in jail.

Often the path to legal trouble begins when one of your creditors has a
court issue a summons for you, which you fail to honor for one reason or
another. (Maybe your address has changed or you never received it.) Now
you're
in contempt of court. Or suppose you miss a payment and, before you realize
it, your car insurance lapses; then you're stopped for something like a
broken headlight. Depending on the state, you may have your car impounded or
face a steep fine - again, exposing you to a possible summons. "There's just
no end to it once the cycle starts," said Robert Solomon of Yale Law School.
"It just keeps accelerating."

By far the most reliable way to be criminalized by poverty is to have the
wrong-color skin. Indignation runs high when a celebrity professor
encounters racial profiling, but for decades whole communities have been
effectively "profiled" for the suspicious combination of being both
dark-skinned and poor, thanks to the "broken windows" or "zero tolerance"
theory of policing popularized by Rudy Giuliani, when he was mayor of New
York City, and his police chief William Bratton.

Flick a cigarette in a heavily patrolled community of color and you're
littering; wear the wrong color T-shirt and you're displaying gang
allegiance. Just strolling around in a dodgy neighborhood can mark you as a
potential suspect, according to "Let's Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of
Justice," an eye-opening new book by Paul Butler, a former federal
prosecutor in Washington. If you seem at all evasive, which I suppose is
like looking "overly anxious" in an airport, Mr. Butler writes, the police
"can force you to stop just to investigate why you don't want to talk to
them." And don't get grumpy about it or you could be "resisting arrest."

There's no minimum age for being sucked into what the Children's Defense
Fund calls "the cradle-to-prison pipeline." In New York City, a teenager
caught in public housing without an ID - say, while visiting a friend or
relative - can be charged with criminal trespassing and wind up in juvenile
detention, Mishi Faruqee, the director of youth justice programs for the
Children's Defense Fund of New York, told me. In just the past few months, a
growing number of cities have taken to ticketing and sometimes handcuffing
teenagers found on the streets during school hours.

In Los Angeles, the fine for truancy is $250; in Dallas, it can be as much
as $500 - crushing amounts for people living near the poverty level.
According to the Los Angeles Bus Riders Union, an advocacy group, 12,000
students were ticketed for truancy in 2008.

Why does the Bus Riders Union care? Because it estimates that 80 percent of
the "truants," especially those who are black or Latino, are merely late for
school, thanks to the way that over-filled buses whiz by them without
stopping. I met people in Los Angeles who told me they keep their children
home if there's the slightest chance of their being late. It's an ingenious
anti-truancy policy that discourages parents from sending their youngsters
to school.

The pattern is to curtail financing for services that might help the poor
while ramping up law enforcement: starve school and public transportation
budgets, then make truancy illegal. Shut down public housing, then make it a
crime to be homeless. Be sure to harass street vendors when there are few
other opportunities for employment. The experience of the poor, and
especially poor minorities, comes to resemble that of a rat in a cage
scrambling to avoid erratically administered electric shocks.

And if you should make the mistake of trying to escape via a brief
marijuana-induced high, it's "gotcha" all over again, because that of course
is illegal too. One result is our staggering level of incarceration, the
highest in the world. Today the same number of Americans - 2.3 million -
reside in prison as in public housing.

Meanwhile, the public housing that remains has become ever more prisonlike,
with residents subjected to drug testing and random police sweeps. The
safety net, or what's left of it, has been transformed into a dragnet.

Some of the community organizers I've talked to around the country think
they know why "zero tolerance" policing has ratcheted up since the recession
began. Leonardo Vilchis of the Union de Vecinos, a community organization in
Los Angeles, suspects that "poor people have become a source of revenue" for
recession-starved cities, and that the police can always find a violation
leading to a fine. If so, this is a singularly demented fund-raising
strategy. At a Congressional hearing in June, the president of the National
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers testified about the pervasive
"overcriminalization of crimes that are not a risk to public safety," like
sleeping in a cardboard box or jumping turnstiles, which leads to
expensively clogged courts and prisons.

A Pew Center study released in March found states spending a record $51.7
billion on corrections, an amount that the center judged, with an excess of
moderation, to be "too much."

But will it be enough - the collision of rising prison populations that we
can't afford and the criminalization of poverty - to force us to break the
mad cycle of poverty and punishment? With the number of people in poverty
increasing (some estimates suggest it's up to 45 million to 50 million, from
37 million in 2007) several states are beginning to ease up on the
criminalization of poverty - for example, by sending drug offenders to
treatment rather than jail, shortening probation and reducing the number of
people locked up for technical violations like missed court appointments.
But others are tightening the screws: not only increasing the number of
"crimes" but also charging prisoners for their room and board - assuring
that they'll be released with potentially criminalizing levels of debt.

Maybe we can't afford the measures that would begin to alleviate America's
growing poverty - affordable housing, good schools, reliable public
transportation and so forth. I would argue otherwise, but for now I'd be
content with a consensus that, if we can't afford to truly help the poor,
neither can we afford to go on tormenting them.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Keith Olbermann, Come at 5pm Today to Rep.SCHIFF TOWN HALL MEETING

 
----- Original Message -----
 
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 9:12 AM
Subject: ALERT! Basttle for Turf- Rep.SCHIFF TOWN HALL MEETING TUES 5 pm- ALHAMBRA. KEEP THE BROWN SHIRTS OUT.

Keith Olbermann Rips GOP and Blue Dog Dems on Health Care

Olbermann src="http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c730253ef0120a51c4c7f970c-800wi" border=0>

Keith Olbermann, in his best Special Comment in quite some time, warns Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats on health care reform, mob rule.

***

Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 7:22:35 AM
 
  
 Whether you like this Blue Dog Democrat or not,
So Pas Peace believes that this is a historic  and gravely important event.
It is an essential moment in the struggle to keep our constitutional democracy.
 THIS IS ONE OF THOSE STAND UP AND BE COUNTED MOMENTS
Democrats and Progressives have to be there massively to fill the front of the hall, if not the whole hall, before the Mob does.
 
        There will be Police both outside and in, to maintain order.
THE EVENT WILL BE MODERATED BY
Dr. Bruce Hensel, the Medical, Health, and Science reporter/editor for NBC4 TV.
Bring Signs with your point of view.
Try to position yourself close to where you think the Media will see you.
Certainly these "tea-baggers" funded by well known GOP firms, will be so positioned.
ALSO ---IF YOU DON'T GET IN   DO NOT LEAVE
PLEASE BE PREPARED TO STAND RIGHT OUTSIDE THE DOORS  TO BE A SOUND BARRIER AGAINST THESE PEOPLE WHO AT OTHER MEETINGS AROUND THE COUNTRY HAVE STILL TRIED TO DROWN OUT THE CONVERSATIONS INSIDE BY LOUD CHANTING AND SHOUTING FROM THE OUTSIDE.Passively resist by just standing in a silent crowd around the outside entrances to keep the noise at a distance from the discussion inside
 
REMEMBER - THESE ARE PAID FOR DEMONSTRATIONS. 
THEIR SOLE PURPOSE  IS
TO DISRUPT THESE MEETINGS.
THAT IS THEIR MISSION, THAT IS WHAT THE GROUPS CARTING THEM AROUND ARE PAID TO DO.
 
HERE IS ADAM SCHIFF'S ANNOUNCEMENT:

"Adam Schiff Health Care Townhall

Tuesday, August 11, 2009  

Friends of Congressman AdamSchiff and Residents of the 29th Congressional District are invited to discuss the state of health care in America.

The Health Care Townhall will be moderated by Dr. Bruce Hensel, the medical, health, and science reporter/editor for NBC4.

We are sure there will be a lively discussion of the proposed National Heath Care proposals. We hope Democrats will attend and keep the discussion on the discussion -- not on the expected "NO's" from the party of "NO."

Alhambra Civic Center (Library Community Room)
101 S. First Street
Alhambra, CA

Accessibility: 
Accessible

The Staff urges people to be there at 5 pm

******************************************************

I repeat, This is a non-violent technique, a non-confrontational struggle for Turf - we must fill the seats in the auditorium and
preserve our "Turf for Democracy"
Come NOT  to confront, but to present your point of view, with signs, leaflets.
 
Remember Florida 2000-  The unruly GOP staffer mobs banging on the doors of the Vote counters as the Gore score edged towards winning?
 No these same forces of Profit over People  hope to stop any discussion of Healthcare Reform and to bully legitimate representatives into being afraid to sign on. 
            This really shows how desperate the Big For-Profits are in the face of overwhelming support for public universal healthcare among the great majority of Americans 
linda k so pas neighbors for peace and justice.
 
                

McReynolds: EdgeLeft: a Dialogue on Glenn Beck, Event

Hi. I think this will be of interest to most who get this. David provided
the first openly socialist talk I ever heard, as a student in 1956 at UCLA.
We became friends and though our life experiences are very different,
my better political self greatly admires and agrees with his approach,
if not always his conclusions. I love how he speaks with, not to, people
of differing opinions. Below, he gives us verbatim the letter he critiques.

So as not to be purely academic, here's info on a related event, tonight:

Ed

Adam Schiff, Alhambra, CA (Health Care Recess Event)
IMPORTANT! PLEASE ATTEND! Schiff is a BLUE DOG who SUPPORTS
the public option. Please attend and support/encourage him to work the
Blue Dogs rear flank.
Time: Tuesday, August 11 from 7:00 PM - 8:30 PM
Host: Firedoglake
Location: Alhambra Civic Center Library, Community Room (Alhambra, CA)
101 S. First Street
Alhambra, CA 91801


----- Original Message -----
From: David McReynolds
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 2:39 PM
Subject: EdgeLeft: a Dialogue on Glenn Beck

EdgeLeft: an occasional column by David McReynolds, retired from the staff
of War Resisters League, and Socialist Party candidate for President, 1980
and 2000. This may be circulated, in whole or part, without permission.

Dear Jennifer,

I'm deleting all the names and addresses on this exchange between a friend
of mine and yourself, but leaving everything else as it is. You had asked
that you not get further mail, and aside from this response from me, I
assure you that you are not on any of my lists. But I was impressed by your
letter, which was a serious attempt at dialogue, on a matter which concerns
all of us.

First, as to myself, I am an old radical, just so you'll know where I'm
coming from. I worked 39 years for War Resisters League, and am active in
the socialist movement. I believe deeply in free speech and a full and
respectful exchange of views. I concede that I don't share your enthusiasm
for Glenn Beck, but I am sometimes as critical of the material on MSNBC. One
of the problems we all face is finding reliable sources of information.
Perhaps the best we can do - even though it doesn't satisfy either the left
or the right, is NPR, PBS and the BBC material which one can get on line, if
the broadcasts aren't carried on your local TV.

Second, I am bitterly opposed to those on the left who seek to prevent
conservatives from speaking. It is one thing to engage in the grand old
American tradition of heckling - when I ran for office I often faced
hecklers. You expect speakers to know how to handle these with good humor.
What is different now, and what I've found very disturbing, is the efforts
to close down free discussion at the various town meetings taking up health
issues.

Third, in my decades of political work I've seen many demonstrations, and
have been arrested more than a dozen times for taking part in these
protests. But never have I seen these demonstrations "organized" by a
network (such as Fox). The media reported on the
Vietnam and Iraq protests - but they didn't urge people to attend them.
There were no commentators on any channel that urged people to turn up for
these actions. This is very different from what we see now, where Sean
Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Fox News, serve as sounding boards and organizers
for the "tea parties" and for the demonstrations at Congressional hearings.

I have always urged those on "my side" of the political line to meet with
members of Congress - as indeed, I've organized and taken part in meetings
with the US Ambassadors to the United Nations, serious and dignified efforts
at dialogue. But the idea of disrupting these meetings is alien to me, and
to the left in general. I find it deeply worrying.

You mention Rashid Khalidi and while I can't comment on every aspect of what
you say, many people within the Jewish community in this country are
sharply critical of actions of the Israeli government. You refer to the PLO
and need to understand that the PLO is a broad organization drawing in
almost a full range of Palestinian views, both moderate and radical. (In
this sense not so different from the international Zionist organization,
which includes both critics of Israeli
policy, such as Meretz, and strong supporters of the Israeli government).
The late, deeply respected Prof. Edward Said was a member of the PLO, which
was something close to a "parliament" of the Palestinians, both in Palestine
and abroad.

I have listened to Rev. Jeremiah Wright and while his views are not mine, I
do understand his anger and his fury at what Black America has gone through.
I disagree with some of what he has said, but I agree with much of it. Let's
turn to Bill Ayers. The Weather Underground, of which Ayers was a member,
was a sad fragment of the movement against the Vietnam War. I strongly and
publicly opposed the Weather Underground. I do know - as I'm sure you do as
well - how strongly held beliefs can lead people to violent actions, as is
the case with the anti-abortion movement, which recently led to the murder
of a doctor - in his church! Surely it would be wrong of me to say that all
those who oppose abortion are terrorists and murderers because of the
actions of this one man. Ayers' statement that "we should have done more"
did not refer to the Weather Underground bombings, but to the general
opposition to the Vietnam War - a war which cost the lives of 58,000
Americans, and three million Vietnamese.

Ayers engaged in acts of violence but no one was killed in any of those
actions, except, very sadly, the 11th Street bombing here in New York City
(across the street from a town house ironically owned by Quaker friends of
mine!) in which the house was totally destroyed and several of those in the
Weather Undeground died.

I agree with you, Jennifer, that truth is never entirely on one side. I
know, also, that all sides have extreme elements.
What I find very discouraging is that in this situation the leadership of
the Republican Party has been very slow to call the disrupters to account. I
have been horrified - genuinely horrified - at the string of paranoid
attacks which come from both the left and the right.

Under Bush there was the whole "9.11 truth movement" which accused Bush of
organizing the bombing of the World Trade Center (which is just a mile from
where I live). That was a left wing conspiracy movement. There were even
those on the left who assured us that Obama would never be elected because
the Republicans wouldn't allow a fair count of the votes - or might declare
marital law and prevent the election. Such rumors were dangerously wrong.
Now we see a string of them from the right - the whole set of charges that
Obama is a Muslim, the "birthers"
movement, and now the well-organized assault on these public hearings.

I've already stated that I'm a socialist - and if we had socialized medicine
I'd be happy. But we don't, that isn't on the table. What is happening is
that the massively prosperous HMO's and drug industry are afraid (with good
reason!) that any fair plan would cut their profits. And they are the
organizers, behind the scenes, of much of the current ruckus. The things
Americans take for granted today - social security, medicare - were opposed
by the Republicans.
Yet who would now want to remove them?

I believe health care should not be for profit - anymore than our public
safety (police and fire) is "for profit". Our society depends on fire and
police protection for all, just as we need public education for all. We need
health care for all. A great many doctors have now swung over to support for
a single-payer system - but the HMO's and the drug companies are fighting
this tooth and nail.

There was a time when the Republican Party had men and women of real
stature - even if I didn't agree with them. You had Dwight D. Eisenhower as
President (a man who was called a Communist by the John Birch Society!). If
you are as old as I am, you will remember the late Senator Robert Taft who
helped craft a decent public housing bill. And Barry Goldwater, deeply as I
opposed him, not only had a sense of humor, but rebuked the more extreme
elements in his party before his own death.

What America needs is serious public dialogue, not panic. I've lived through
many periods of public panic - the McCarthy period, the insanity of
the"civil defense" program (and that was pushed by John F. Kennedy) - and we
have survived. Help us to survive now by civil dialogue, by honest concern
that we know who is behind the efforts to disrupt the public hearings. By
listening to one another, knowing that none of us has the whole truth.

Peace,
David McReynolds
(David McReynolds retired from the staff of War Resisters League in 1999. He
served a term as Chair of the War Resisters International. He is active in
affairs in his local community and lives on the Lower East Side of Manhattan
with his two cats)


----- Original Message -----
From:

Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: Glenn Beck

First of all, I want to say that I tend to support and concur with most of
Glenn Beck's political views. I do not consider myself a Republican or
Democrat and tend to vote simply on the issues.

Before you sent this email out, did you happen to research it's validity?
Being a "fan" of Beck, I find it troubling that he would verbatim express
this point of view as you mention below in your e-mail. I would not make
such a bold statement and call Beck a racist or being a part of a group that
"pushes racist propaganda" simply for having a "far right" opinion on
politics. Furthermore, Beck does not even classify himself as a Republican
or part of the "far left." I watch Beck almost nightly and can't recall a
time that he has even made a racial comment.

Perhaps, he is not a racist, but rather questioning some of our Presidents
history and personal connections to some very radical and racist people such
as:

Rashid Khalidi, "The board of a nonprofit organization on which Sen. Barack
Obama served as a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist
granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment
of Israel as a "catastrophe" and supports intense immigration reform,
including providing drivers licenses and education to illegal aliens. " The
co-founder of the Arab group in question, Columbia University professor
Rashid Khalidi, also has held a fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi is a harsh
critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and
reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization
while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State
Department as a terror group.

Or what about his ties to Rev. Jeremiah Wright? Do you find it troubling
that Rev. Wright was Obama's pastor for the last 20 years at the Trinity
United Church of Christ on Chicago's south side and has a long history of
what even Obama's campaign aides concede is "inflammatory rhetoric,"
including the assertion that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks
with its own "terrorism." Rev. Wright has also been quoted as stating
"blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America."

And we all cannot forget Bill Ayers. Both Obama and Ayers were members of
the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 1999
and 2002. In addition, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund to
the Illinois State Senate in April 2001, as reported. They lived within a
few blocks of each other in the trendy Hyde Park section of Chicago, and
moved in the same liberal-progressive circles. Ayers was a former member of
the Weather Underground Organization that claimed responsibility for a dozen
bombings between 1970 and 1974. The former Weatherman, Ayers, now holds the
position of distinguished professor of education at the University of
Illinois-Chicago. Although never convicted of any crime, he told the NY
Times in September 2001, "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do
enough."

Why is it acceptable or just not spoken about when CNN, ABC news NBC and
many other left-wing media networks make similar comments? Why is it
acceptable for The NY Times to call the people who have attended the recent
town hall meetings on HC "The Town Hall Mob?" Democrats say their outrage
isn't genuine. These are ordinary American people who have exercised their
use of free speech in a public forum to show our government how displeased
they are with the health care proposal coming out of the White House.

I watch National news daily and I am disgusted every day at some of the
attacks our media representatives make at anyone who even tries to speak of
a "right" agenda.

Look this all boils down to different points of view in politics. No one is
right. You can believe what you want and even speak of it publicly. That
is your right in this great country and I encourage you to continue to
exercise your right. However, I simply ask to be removed from all your
emails that seem to be repeated diatribes against Republicans and the
"right." We will agree to disagree and in the interim, I kindly request
that you no longer include me on these emails. At least until you come to
your senses in politics.


-----Original Message-----
From:

Sent: Sun, Aug 9, 2009 3:01 pm
Subject: Fw: Glenn Beck

This just in from Joe Frazier of the Chad Mitchell Trio. Most of you know
that Dennis and I met him and the other Trio members on a cruise a couple of
years ago. We've been in occasional touch with them and other fans from the
cruise.


Friends,


Please consider joining this effort! Peace.

Joe Frazier

CMT

Dear friends,
As you may know, right-wing talk show hosts have been bringing race-based
fear mongering into the mainstream, but FOX's Glenn Beck just took it to
another level. On Tuesday, Beck said:
This president has exposed himself as a guy over and over and over again who
has a deep-seated hatred for white people... this guy is, I believe, a
racist.

It's part of a larger argument Beck has been making: that President Obama
wants to serve the needs of Black communities at White people's expense.
This kind of talk stirs up fear, hate, and it can lead to violence.

I've joined ColorOfChange.org's effort to stop Glenn Beck. ColorOfChange is
already putting calls into Beck's advertisers, asking them if they want to
be associated with this kind of racist hate and fear-mongering. When the
advertisers see that tens of thousands of us are behind that question, I
believe they'll move their advertising dollars elsewhere, and his show and
platform will be history.
Will you take a stand and be counted, and invite your friends and family to
do the same? It takes just a moment:
http://www.colorofchange.org/beck/?id=2329-963444

Glenn Beck is appealing to the worst in America. Of course, some Americans
refuse to accept the fact that our president is Black or the idea that he
could truly serve all Americans. But the only way these views fade away is
if they're not reinforced by mainstream society. Instead, folks like Glenn
Beck, Lou Dobbs, and Rush Limbaugh are exploiting racism and race-based fear
to bump their ratings, stirring up racial discord in the process.

The dangers of these tactics are real. We saw the same dynamic during the
presidential race: By the end, the McCain/Palin campaign was unable to
control the violent energy whipped up by their race-baiting. It resulted in
an unprecedented number of threats on Obama's life, a rise in the number of
hate groups, and an increase in the number of threats and crimes against
immigrants and Black people.

FOX has a horrible track record on pushing racist propaganda, but Glenn Beck
appears to be taking the network to an even lower standard. He's trying to
divide and distract America when we should be coming together and talking
about issues that really matter--like health care and the economy.

The good news is that we have the power to stop this. All major media is
funded by advertising. And advertisers care more than anything what
consumers think. If we want to change what's happening and put an end to
folks like Glenn Beck having a platform, we can do it.
It's up to us, and it can start now. Please join me:
http://www.colorofchange.org/beck/?id=2329-963444


Thanks.


Here are some links to more info:
"Beck: Obama has 'exposed himself as a guy' with 'a deep seated hatred for
white people'"
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907280008
"Glenn Beck: Obama agenda driven by 'reparations' and desire to 'settle old
racial scores'"
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907230040
"MSNBC's Deutsch encourages viewers to demand advertisers on Beck's show
spend money elsewhere"
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907290037
"On Television and Radio, Talk of Obama's Citizenship"
http://tinyurl.com/mb467j

Monday, August 10, 2009

The Conservative Counter-Attack in Latin America

http://www.counterpunch.org/salas08072009.html

The Conservative Counter-Attack in Latin America
By MIGUEL TINKER SALAS

Counterpunch: Aug 7-9, 2009

I would submit that events in Honduras are not isolated, but rather part of
a conservative counterattack taking shape in Latin America. For some time,
the right has been rebuilding in Latin America; hosting conferences, sharing
experiences, refining their message, working with the media, and building
ties with allies in the United States. This is not the lunatic right fringe,
but rather the mainstream right with powerful allies in the middle class
that used to consider themselves center, but have been frightened by recent
left electoral victories and the rise of social movements. With Obama in the
White House and Clinton in the State Department they have now decided to
act. Bush/Cheney and company did not give them any coverage and had become
of little use to them. A "liberal" in the White House, gives conservative
forces the kind of coverage they had hoped for. It is no coincidence that
Venezuelan opposition commentators applauded the naming of Clinton to the
State Department claiming that they now had an ally in the administration.
The old cold-warrior axiom that the best antidote against the left is a
liberal government in Washington gains new meaning under Obama with Clinton
at the State Department.


Coup leaders in Honduras and their allies continue to play for time.
Washington's continuing vacillation is allowing them to exhaust this option,
but so are right-wing governments in Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Peru.
After all, this coup is not just about Honduras but also about left success
in Latin America, of which Honduras was the weakest link. It is increasingly
becoming obvious that there is no scenario under which elites in Honduras
will accept Zelaya back. I do not think that they have a plan "B" on this
matter and this speaks to the kind of advice they are getting from forces in
the U.S. and the region. If Zelaya comes back, the Supreme Court, the
Congress, the military and the church all-loose credibility and it opens the
door for the social and political movements in Honduras to push for radical
change that conservative forces would find more difficult to resist.


But Honduras is only part of the equation. Colombia's decision to accept as
many as 7 new U.S. military bases (3 airbases, including Palanquero, 2 army
bases, and 2 naval bases one on the Pacific and one on the Caribbean),
dramatically expands the U.S. military's role in the country and throughout
the region. The Pentagon has been eyeing the airbase at Palanquero with its
complex infrastructure and extensive runway for some time. This is a very
troubling sign that will alter the balance of forces in the region, and
speaks volumes about how the Obama administration plans to respond to change
in Latin America. A possible base on the Caribbean coast of Colombia would
also offer the recently reactivated U.S. Fourth Fleet, a convenient harbor
on the South American mainland. In short, Venezuela would be literally
encircled. However, Venezuela is not the only objective. It also places the
Brazilian Amazon and all its resources within striking distance of the U.S.
military, as well as the much sought after Guarani watershed. After public
criticism from Bachalet of Chile, Lula of Brazil and Chávez of Venezuela,
Uribe refused to attend the 10 August meeting of UNASUR, the South American
Union, where he would be expected to explain the presence of the U.S. bases.
The meeting of the UNASUR security council was scheduled to take up the
issue of the bases and Bolivia's suggestion for a unified South American
response to drug trafficking. Instead, Uribe has launched his own personal
diplomacy traveling to 5 different countries in the region to explain his
actions. In addition, Obama's National Security Advisor James Jones is in
Brazil trying to justify the U.S. position on the bases.


The recent media war launched by Uribe against Ecuador and Correa once again
claiming financing of the FARC and the more recent offensive against
Venezuela concerning 30 year old Swedish missiles, that like, the Reyes
computers, cannot be independently verified, have filled the airwaves in
Venezuela, Colombia and the region. The current Colombian media campaign was
preceded by Washington's own efforts to condemn Venezuela for supposed
non-compliance in the war against drug trafficking. In addition, Israel's
foreign minister Avigdor Liberman also travelled throughout Latin America in
July claiming that Venezuela is a destabilizing force in the region and in
the Middle East.


Lost in all this, is the fact that Uribe is still considering a third term
in office and his party has indicated it will push for a constitutional
reform. So conflicts with Ecuador and Venezuela serves to silence critics in
Colombia and keep Uribe's electoral competitors at bay. All we need now is
for Uribe to ask the Interpol to verify the missiles origins and director
Ron Noble to give another press conference in Bogota. Déjà vu all over
again!


The right and its allies in the U.S. are also emboldened by the electoral
victory in Panama and the very real prospects of leftist defeats this year
in Chile and even Uruguay. Obviously they are also encouraged by the
humiliating defeat of the Fernández / Kirchner's in Argentina. These
developments could begin to redraw the political map of the region. Correa
of Ecuador has already expressed concern about being the target of a coup
and Bolivia will undoubtedly come under intense pressure as they are also
preparing for an election later this year.


All this is occurring with an increased U.S. military commitment in Mexico
with Plan Mérida which seeks to build on the lessons of Colombia; maintain
in power a president whose economic and social policy are highly unpopular,
but who relies on conflict, in this case the so-called war on the drug
cartels, to maintain popularity. Parts of Mexico are literally under siege
including, Michoacán, Ciudad Juarez, and Tijuana. The backdrop for this is a
divided left, the PRD was the biggest looser in recent midterm elections,
and social movements remains localized and unable to mount a national
challenge.


None of these developments are forgone conclusions, but they nonetheless
speak to the fact that conservative forces in Latin America and their allies
in the U.S. are mounting a concerted counter offensive that could increase
the potential for conflict in the region.

Miguel Tinker Salas is Professor of History at Pomona College. He is the
author of The Enduring Legacy: Oil, Culture and Society in Venezuela.

You Do Not Have Health Insurance, Take Action

http://www.truthout.org/080709A?n

You Do Not Have Health Insurance

by: James Kwak
The Baseline Scenario: August 5, 2009

Right now, it appears that the biggest barrier to health care reform is
people who think that it will hurt them. According to a New York Times poll,
"69 percent of respondents in the poll said they were concerned that the
quality of their own care would decline if the government created a program
that covers everyone." Since most Americans currently have health insurance,
they see reform as a poverty program - something that helps poor people and
hurts them. If that's what you think, then this post is for you.

You do not have health insurance. Let me repeat that. You do not have
health insurance. (Unless you are over 65, in which case you do have health
insurance. I'll come back to that later.)

The point of insurance is to protect you against unlikely but damaging
events. You are generally happy to pay premiums in all the years that
nothing goes wrong (your house doesn't burn down), because in exchange your
insurer promises to be there in the one year that things do go wrong (your
house burns down). That's why, when shopping for insurance, you are supposed
to look for a company that is financially sound - so they will be there when
you need them.

If, like most people, your health coverage is through your employer or
your spouse's employer, that is not what you have. At some point in the
future, you will get sick and need expensive health care. What are some of
the things that could happen between now and then?

a.. Your company could drop its health plan. According to the U.S. Census
Bureau (see Table HIA-1), the percentage of the population covered by
employer-based health insurance has fallen every year since 2000, from 64.2%
to 59.3%. *
a.. You could lose your job. I don't think I need to tell anyone what the
unemployment rate is these days.**
a.. You could voluntarily leave your job, for example because you have to
move to take care of an elderly relative.
a.. You could get divorced from the spouse you depend on for health
coverage.
For all of these reasons, you can't count on your health insurer being
there when you need it. That's not insurance; that's employer-subsidized
health care for the duration of your employment.

Once you lose your employer-based coverage, for whatever reason, you're
in the individual market, where, you may be surprised to find, you have no
right to affordable health insurance. An insurer can refuse to insure you or
can charge you a premium you can't afford because of your medical history.
That's the way a free market works: an insurer would be crazy to charge you
less than the expected cost of your medical care (unless they can make it up
on their healthy customers, which they can't in the individual market).

In honor of the financial crisis, let's also point out that all of these
risks are correlated: being sick increases your chances of losing your job
(and, probably, getting divorced); losing your job reduces your ability to
afford health insurance, either through COBRA or in the individual market;
if your employer drops its health plan, that's either because health care is
getting more expensive (meaning harder for you to afford individually) or
the economy is in bad shape (making it harder for you to get a job that does
offer health coverage).

In addition, there is the problem that even if you are nominally covered
when you do get sick, your insurer could rescind your policy, or you may
find out, as Karen Tumulty's brother did, that your insurance doesn't cover
the treatment you need. But while important, this is a second-order problem.
The first-order problem is that as long as your health insurance depends on
your job, your health is only insured insofar as your job is insured - and
your job isn't insured.

The basic solution is very simple. In Paul Krugman's words: "regulation
of insurers, so that they can't cherry-pick only the healthy, and subsidies,
so that all Americans can afford insurance." I know that there are lots of
details that consume people who know health care better than I do, and I
know those details are important. But as an individual who is worried about
his or her own health insurance (and that is the point of this post), that's
what you want. You want to know that if you lose your job, you won't be shut
out because you're too sick,*** and you won't be shut out because you're too
poor.

But we won't get there as long as people remain convinced that health
care reform is for poor people. It's for everyone - everyone, that is, who
isn't independently wealthy or over the age of 65. Because all of us could
lose our jobs. (Have I repeated that point enough?)

Now, I admit that if you are over 65, health care reform is not for you,
because you are in the one group in our society that enjoys true health
insurance - insurance that you cannot lose, that is paid for by taxes, and
that is effectively guaranteed by the government. So maybe there's nothing
in it for you, except perhaps an improvement to the prescription drug
component of Medicare. But I cannot believe that, as the only people who
have reliable health insurance, you would oppose health care reform that
would provide reliable insurance for the rest of us.

* This doesn't necessarily mean that all those people lost
employer-based health coverage because their employers dropped their plans;
some of it could be that the employee contributions were increased to the
point where they couldn't afford it anymore. 1.1 percentage points of the
shift is due to people becoming eligible for Medicare or military health
plans.

** If you lose your job, or you get divorced from a spouse through whom
you get health coverage, you are eligible for continued coverage under
COBRA. However: (a) this only necessarily applies if your employer has 20 or
more employees; (b) you have to pay the full, unsubsidized cost of your
health plan, which can be particularly difficult after losing your job; and
(c) it only lasts for eighteen months.

*** I said earlier that insurers can't charge premiums that are less
than the expected cost of your care unless they can make it up on the
healthy customers, and they can't in the individual market. But if all
insurers are prohibited from doing medical underwriting (pricing based on
healthiness), then they will all have to overcharge the healthy customers,
and the system could work. This is still a tricky issue - and single-payer
(like Medicare) would be much simpler - but it can be made to work even in a
competitive market.

Update: A couple of small things. and one big thing:

First, I called rescission a "second-order" problem, which was probably
surprising, given that my post on it got over 100,000 page views (thanks to
the Huffington Post). I meant "second-order" not to mean that it isn't
important, but that it is logically subsequent to the question of whether
you have health insurance in the first place, and this post is about whether
you can count on having health insurance in the first place.

Second, J.D. points out in the comments that there is a problem with
COBRA I didn't mention: If you relocate to an area where your employer
doesn't have a plan, then you can't count on it at all.

Third, a few people said that it was the fault of the administration (or
the Democrats generally) that health care reform is framed as a "poverty
program." There's something to that point, but I don't think it's quite
right (and I didn't put it right in the first paragraph above). I think it
is a poverty program - but the vast majority of us are, actually, poor. The
combination of job loss and serious illness could wipe out almost anyone
(under the age of 65 - actually, anyone over 65 as well, since Medicare
doesn't cover extended nursing home care), and we all suffer serious
economic insecurity because of it. The political problem is that the median
American doesn't identify as poor (although he probably thinks he needs more
money) and thinks that poverty programs are for "other people." I think that
middle-class and upper-class people should support poverty programs for
other people, but that's an unnecessary discussion. My point here is that
the vast majority of us are poor, when it comes to health care, and
therefore we should get behind reform out of self-interest.

***

From: naomi browar

Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 12:09 PM
Subject: turning into a fascist country: take action!


Jam those phone lines, writes letters, send Durbin's internet server
crashing- write write write-demonstrate-go to town meetings- they're
waiting to hear from us.......the letter below isn't great but it's the best
I could do now- I just couldn't sit by any longer while the Republicans
laugh there way back into the majority.....
N

Dear Senator Durbin:

As a clinical social worker who visits senior citizens in their homes, a
mother of 3 children, with a husband who is a therapist and professor, I am
appalled at the lack of moral integrity shown by the party I have voted for
my entire life. I just read in the Huffington Post that you are now wavering
also, on the public option. We are watching Obama's presidency and all his
minions and all his promises turn from strength to weakness as he caves into
money...that is what it boils down to....money.

As a social worker, I understand that sometimes I am negotiator and
sometimes I take sides and advocate for my client. I also understand that
as a citizen I am able to understand the difference between my professional
and private life. There are times, I must make a decision and be partisan.

Trying to be bipartisan, is ridiculous. Metaphorically speaking, community
organizing is fine when the opposition isn't using guns and when there
aren't millions of people dying, mentally and/or physically, from health
care related issues. The opposition will stop at nothing to get what they
want or don't want, based on ignorance, fear and greed.

You have a responsibility to the American people to help them, and not place
obstacles in front of every move we make.

My relatives in Switzerland and friends in France, who are middle class,
laugh at us...they say Americans live to work, and when they work, it is in
stress and anxiety (the average case load for a social worker in a non
profit agency is between 70 and 100 people)!! My salary is $40,000 a year
and I pay $1,000 a month for health insurance. I called four gynecologists
and dermatologists to schedule a regular check up and each was a 3-month
wait. These are minor issues compared to what millions have gone through,
so AETNA and CIGNA CEO's can have their 4 mansions and private jets! It's
disgusting- how can you let this happen? And you do let it happen if you
vote against single payer or a strong public option. It is plain murder.
The conservative right wing has funded organizers to go out and silence
debate, and cast fear into every politician and citizen. They have used
swastika's and painted Obama as Hitler. In psychological terms this is a
projection. They are the fascists. And you politicians are the "good
Germans" who remain silent, cave in and state "we were just following
orders."

Please do not cave in. Find the courage and do the job you were elected to
do in a supposedly "democratic" country.

Yours truly,
Naomi Browar

Sunday, August 9, 2009

A Jeremiad

From: Sid Shniad

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1249169057/

Uri Avnery
01/08/09

A Jeremiad

"Therefore I, a 95 year old Sabra [native born Israeli Jew], ….declare
herewith that I renounce my belief in the Zionism which has failed, that I
shall not be loyal to the Jewish fascist state and its mad vision"

− Dov Yermiya

Dear Dov Yermiya,

I have received the distressing letter that you recently sent to a limited
number of friends. You paint the Israeli reality in dark – but true –
colors, and end by cutting your ties with it.

"Therefore I, a 95 year old Sabra (native born Israeli Jew), who has plowed
its fields, planted trees, built a house and fathered sons, grandsons and
great-grandsons, and also shed his blood in the battle for the founding of
the State of Israel,

"Declare herewith that I renounce my belief in the Zionism which has failed,
that I shall not be loyal to the Jewish fascist state and its mad visions,
that I shall not sing anymore its nationalist anthem, that I shall stand at
attention only on the days of mourning for those fallen on both sides in the
wars, and that I look with a broken heart at an Israel that is committing
suicide and at the three generations of offspring that I have bred and
raised in it."

SINCE I first met you, Dov, some fifty years ago, I have always considered
you the salt of the earth. You were born in a village, the son of a farmer,
were a fighter in the 1948 war and later a Colonel in the army, a modest
man, a moral person in every fiber.

In the first Lebanon War, you exposed the atrocities committed against the
Palestinian refugees in the Tyre-Sidon area, and your courageous report
shocked me no less than those of the Sabra and Shatila massacre. You did not
hesitate to break the silence, as the "Breaking the Silence" youngsters are
doing now, knowing full well that your peers in the officers' corps would
excommunicate you.

You are a man of my heart, Dov. That is why your words distress me so much.

I think it important to share the statement of a man of your caliber with
those in our camp who spend sleepless nights worrying about the situation of
our state.

YOU START your letter by mentioning the founders of the Zionist movement.

"If Herzl could come to life again and see what those who claim to carry the
flag of Zionism are doing, he would flee at once, miserable and shocked,
back to his grave. So would Chaim Weizmann and most of the pioneers, the
fathers and mothers of my generation. They were people of conscience and
morality, who held to the axiom that human beings are decent and honest."

Most of your fierce accusations concern Israel's treatment of the
Palestinians. "And thus, for 42 years, Israel turned what should have been
Palestine into a giant detention camp, and is holding a whole people captive
under an oppressive and cruel regime, with the sole aim of taking away their
country, come what may!!!

"The IDF eagerly suppresses their efforts at rebellion, with the active
assistance of the settlement thugs, by the brutal means of a sophisticated
Apartheid and a choking blockade, inhuman harassment of the sick and of
women in labor, the destruction of their economy and the theft of their best
land and water.

"Over all this there is waving the black flag of the frightening contempt
for the life and blood of the Palestinians. Israel will never be forgiven
for the terrible toll of blood spilt, and especially the blood of children,
in hair-raising quantities."

But I believe that the abysmal despair echoed in your words has other roots,
too. It is a feeling that troubles the heart of many of your and my
generation, the feeling that "they have stolen our state", that there is no
resemblance between the state which we dreamed of and fought for and the
thing that has taken its place.

WHEN I think of our youth, yours and mine, one scene is never far from my
mind: the 1947 Dalia festival.

Tens of thousands of young men and women were sitting on the slope of a hill
in the natural amphitheater near Kibbutz Dalia on Mount Carmel. Ostensibly
it was a festival of folk dancing, but in reality it was much more – a great
celebration of the new Hebrew culture which we were then creating in the
country, in which folk dancing played an important role. The dancing groups
came mainly from the kibbutzim and the youth movements, and the dances were
original Hebrew creations, interwoven with Russian, Polish, Yemenite and
Hassidic ones. A group of Arabs danced the Debka in ecstasy, dancing and
dancing and dancing on.

In the middle of the event, the loudspeakers announced that members of the
UN Commission of Inquiry, which had been sent by the international
organization to decide upon the future of the country, were joining us. When
we saw them entering the amphitheater, the tens of thousands spontaneously
rose to their feet and started to sing the "Hatikva", the national anthem,
with a holy fervor that reverberated from the surrounding mountains.

We did not know then that within half a year the great Hebrew-Arab war would
break out - our War of Independence and their Naqba. I believe that most of
the 6000 young people who fell in the war on our side, as well as the
thousands that were wounded – like you and me – were present at that moment
in Dalia, seeing each other and singing together.

What state did we think of then? What state did we set out to create?

What has happened to the Hebrew society, the Hebrew culture, the Hebrew
morality that we were so proud of then?

YES, WE did create a state. As the old song goes: "On the battlefield, a
town is now standing". We have brought millions of people to this country.
From a Hebrew community of 650 thousand we have grown into a population of
7.5 million. A fourth and fifth generation speaks Hebrew as their mother
tongue. Our economy is large and solid, even in these times of crisis. In
several fields we are in the first rank of human endeavor.

But is this the society, is this the state, which we saw in our mind's eye
on the day it was set up? Is this the army that you and I swore allegiance
to on the day it was founded?

Did we dream of this corrupt society, a society without compassion, where a
handful of the very rich live off the fat of the land, with a large band of
politicians and media people and other lackeys groveling in the dust at
their feet?

Did we dream of a state that is an isolated and shunned ghetto in the
region, lording it over an oppressed Palestinian ghetto-within-a-ghetto?

There were days when we could stand up anywhere in the world and proudly
declare "I am an Israeli". No one can do that now. The name of Israel has
become mud. Since the Gaza War, in which our army poured molten lead onto
men, women and children, many Israelis avoid speaking Hebrew in the streets
of foreign cities and the IDF has ordered the faces of some of its
officers – those whose rank equals yours – be obscured in pictures published
in the media.

WHY DID this happen? When did this happen?

My aim is not to start a discussion with you about the fundamentals of
Zionism, both positive and negative. We might not agree. Nor shall I enter
into the question of whether everything really started in 1967, with the
intoxicating and corruptive victory, or whether the seeds of disaster were
sown earlier. On one thing I agree with you entirely: that the fatal step
was taken then, on the morrow of that war, when we had the choice between
the shining gold of peace and the base metal of annexation, and stretched
our hands out towards the latter.

My personal conscience is clean. I am proud that I was one of the few in the
country, and the sole voice in the Knesset, who proposed even during the war
to turn over the occupied territories to the Palestinian people, so as to
enable them to set up their state. This unique opportunity was missed, as
you point out in your letter, because of the greed of the founders of the
settlement movement, the champions of a Greater Israel.

From there things rolled on, as in a Greek tragedy, to where we are now,
with an assorted crew of settlers, racists, nationalists, messianic zealots
and ordinary fascists in charge of the state, turning the Knesset into a
circus, undermining the Supreme Court, perverting the army, imposing
obscurantist religious laws, handing the public treasury to unbridled
tycoons, polluting the education system with a primitive nationalist
indoctrination, persecuting poor asylum seekers, oppressing the national
minority and planning military attacks that will wreak death and destruction
on civilian populations.

This is the state that you detest. I have no quarrel with you about that.

This is the state that you despair of. About that I do have a dispute with
you.

YOU BEAR the name of the prophet who is nearest to my heart, Yirmiyahu, the
prophet of anger who called out: "Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast borne
me a man of strife and a man of contention to the whole world … every one
doth curse me!" (Jer. 15:10)

But Jeremiah was not only an accuser, he was also a healer: "to root out,
and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down – to build and to
plant." (Jer. 1:10)

You, Dov, have invested in this state much too much to turn your back on it
in a gesture of anger and despair. The most hackneyed and worn-out slogan in
Israel is also true: "We don't have another state!"

Other states in the world have sunk to the depths of depravity and committed
unspeakable crimes, far beyond our worst sins, and still brought themselves
back to the family of nations and redeemed their souls.

We and all the members of our generation, who were among those who created
this state, bear a heavy responsibility for it. A responsibility to our
offspring, to those oppressed by this state, to the entire world. From this
responsibility we cannot escape.

Even at your respectable age, and precisely because of it and because of
what you represent, you must be a compass for the young and tell them: This
state belongs to you, you can change it, don't allow the nationalist
wreckers to steal it from you!

True, 61 years ago we had another state in mind. Now, after our state has
tumbled to where it is today, we must remember that other state, and remind
everybody, every day, what the state should have been like, what it can be
like, and not allow our vision to disappear like a dream. Let's lend our
shoulders to every effort to repair and heal!

You have voiced the message of Jeremiah, the prophet of anger. I beg you,
give voice also to Jeremiah, the prophet of hope!

[Dov Yermiya, a former Israeli Defence Forces lieutenant-colonel, who
published a critical eye-witness account of Israeli crimes in the 1982
Lebanon War, entitled "My War Diary: Lebanon June 5 -- July 1, 1982"]

Saturday, August 8, 2009

Truthdig Classic: The Terror America Wrought, Commemoration on Sunday

By Robert Scheer
Note: This column was originally published in August 2007.

During a week of mayhem in Iraq, in which terrorists have rightly been
condemned for targeting schoolchildren, it is sobering to recall that this
week is also the 62nd anniversary of a U.S. attack that deliberately took
the lives of thousands of children on their way to school in the Japanese
cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As noted in the Strategic Bombing Survey
conducted at President Harry Truman's request, when the bomb hit Hiroshima
on April 6, 1945, "nearly all the school children ... were at work in the
open," to be exploded, irradiated or incinerated in the perfect firestorm
that the planners back at the University of California-run Los Alamos lab
had envisioned for the bomb's maximum psychological impact.

The terror plot worked all too well, as Hiroshima's Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba
recalled this week: "That fateful summer, 8:15 a.m. The roar of a B-29
breaks the morning calm. A parachute opens in the blue sky. Then suddenly, a
flash, an enormous blast-silence-hell on Earth. The eyes of young girls
watching the parachute were melted. Their faces became giant charred
blisters. The skin of people seeking help dangled from their fingernails.
... Others died when their eyeballs and internal organs burst from their
bodies-Hiroshima was a hell where those who somehow survived envied the
dead."

Like most of the others killed by the two American bombs, neither the
children nor the adults had any role in Japan's decision to go to war, but
they were picked as the target instead of an isolated but fortified military
base whose antiaircraft fire posed a higher risk. The target preferred by
U.S. atomic scientists-a patch in the ocean or unpopulated terrain-was
rejected, because the effect of hundreds of thousands of civilians dying
would be all the more dramatic.

The victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were available soft targets, much like
the children playing in Iraq, suddenly caught in the crossfire of battles
waged beyond their control. In "White Light/Black Rain," a devastating HBO
documentary released this week, there is an interview with the sole survivor
of a Japanese elementary school of 620 students. The murder of the other
619, and the 370,000 overall deaths attributed to the bombings, 85 percent
of which were civilian deaths, has never compelled a widespread examination
of the "end justifies the means" morality of our own state-sanctioned acts
of terror. Indeed, the horrifying footage taken by Japanese and American
cameramen soon after the devastation, and shown in the HBO film, was long
kept secret by the U.S. government for fear that an informed American public
might question this nation's incipient nuclear arms race.

Just exactly what distinguishes the United States' use of the
ever-so-cutely-named "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" atomic bombs on cities in
Japan from the car bombs of Baghdad or the planes that smashed into the
World Trade Center? To even raise the question, as was found in one recent
university case, can be a career-ending move.

Of course, we had our justifications, as terrorists always do. Truman
defended his decision to drop the atomic bombs on civilians over the
objection of leading atomic scientists on the grounds that it was a
necessary military action to save lives by forcing a quick Japanese
surrender. He insisted on that imperative despite the objections of top
military figures, including Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, who contended that the
war would end quickly without dropping the bomb.

The subsequent release of formerly secret documents makes a hash of Truman's
rationalization. His White House was fully informed that the Japanese were
on the verge of collapse, and their surrender was made all the more likely
by the Soviets' imminent entry into the fight.

At most, the Japanese were asking for the face-saving gesture of retaining
their emperor, and even that modest demand would likely have been abandoned
with the shift of massive numbers of Allied troops and firepower from the
battlefront of a defeated Germany to a confrontation with its deeply wounded
Asian ally. Instead, the U.S. played midwife to the birth of the nuclear
monster, the ultimate terrorist weapon that presents a continuing and
growing threat to the survival of human life on Earth.

This is a lesson to be pondered at a time when President Bush plays power
games with a nuclear-equipped Russia while coddling Pakistan, the main
proliferator of nuclear weapons to rogue regimes, and Congress authorizes an
expansion of the U.S. nuclear program to better fight the war on terror by
"improving" the ultimate weapon of terror, which the U.S. alone stands
guilty of using.

***


"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

Friday, August 7, 2009

Aug 11-18 : free medical care, Krugman: The Town Hall Mob

----- Original Message -----
From: aSharpShow@aceweb.com

FREE MEDICAL, DENTAL, VISION CARE, provided by R.A.M., 8 days,
Aug 11-18, at the Forum in Inglewood.

Please forward..there are many folks who could take advantange of this
service.

RAM/LA: August 11th through August 18th, Remote Area Medical will
provide free medical, dental and vision care to thousands in need, in
the Los Angeles area. The free clinic will be held at the Forum in
Inglewood, and will treat an estimated 1,200 people a day – possibly more
depending on the final number of volunteers and participating organizations.

The event is being planned and will be operated by Remote Area Medical, an
all volunteer 501(c)(3) charity providing free care to uninsured,
underinsured and indigent individuals throughout the United States. RAM has
organized and conducted 572 events to date. Visit www.ramusa.org to learn
more about this organizaiton, and click on the "60 Minutes" link to see that
programʼs revealing story on RAM and its work. Free care will be provided to
anyone who needs it, without cost of any kind to the patient, the taxpayer
or the government. There is no income test, no insurance requirement, no
restriction of any kind. Medical and non-medical personnel will all be
volunteers; supplies and equipment will be donated or provided by RAM.

The Forum is available through the generosity of the Faithful Central
Bible Church, owners of the facility. We expect there to be 100 dental
stations, 45 medical exam rooms, 25 eye exam stations. Dentistry will
include cleanings, extractions, fillings, restorative procedures and root
canals. Prescription eye glasses will be ground and fitted on-site. Minor
dermatological and other medical procedures will be performed. Pediatricians
and pediatric dentists will be present. Follow-up care will be arranged for
those who need it, with most referrals to private sector practices and
facilities.

There will be a strong emphasis on education, prevention and self-care.
Mammography, pap smears, chest x-rays, diabetes screening, blood
pressure screening, and other services will be provided. Healthcare
foundations and agencies will be invited to distribute patient education
materials. RAM/LA is a large undertaking, on a scale to make a significant
difference in this time of great and urgent need. Success will depend on the
medical and non-medical volunteers, local healthcare organizations,
equipment and supply donors, and others who contribute their time, talents
and resources.

To date, the following organizations and agencies have volunteered to
provide support: • The Forum • The City of Inglewood • The County of Los
Angeles (Supervisor's Office, Public Health Deparment, Health and Mental
Health Services, Office of Ambulatory Care, Emergency Medical Services) •
Community Clinic Association • L.A. Care • Tzu Chi Foundation • Los
Angeles Dental Society • San Fernando Valley Dental Society • Tri-County
Dental Society • West L.A. Dental Society • Harbor Dental Society • USC
School of Dentistry • Keck School of Medicine, USC • Centinela Hospital •
Catholic Healthcare West • Southern California School of Optometry • Beach
Cities Health District • Lions Clubs • Rogers & Cowan Public Relations

We are contacting other organizations in the area, are receiving help from
church groups, equipment makers and suppliers, and, of course, from a group
of hard working volunteers. Remote Area Medical will bring its own mobile
units, resources and personnel. The RAM Los Angeles event will be the first
in a major population center and possibly the largest healthcare event of
its kind ever. The time is right, the need is great, and RAM/LA can be an
island of help and hope for the many thousands who so desperately need our
assistance.

***

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/opinion/07krugman.html?th&emc=th

The Town Hall Mob

By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times Op-Ed: August 7, 2009


There's a famous Norman Rockwell painting titled "Freedom of Speech,"
depicting an idealized American town meeting. The painting, part of a series
illustrating F.D.R.'s "Four Freedoms," shows an ordinary citizen expressing
an unpopular opinion. His neighbors obviously don't like what he's saying,
but they're letting him speak his mind.

That's a far cry from what has been happening at recent town halls, where
angry protesters - some of them, with no apparent sense of irony, shouting
"This is America!" - have been drowning out, and in some cases threatening,
members of Congress trying to talk about health reform.

Some commentators have tried to play down the mob aspect of these scenes,
likening the campaign against health reform to the campaign against Social
Security privatization back in 2005. But there's no comparison. I've gone
through many news reports from 2005, and while anti-privatization activists
were sometimes raucous and rude, I can't find any examples of congressmen
shouted down, congressmen hanged in effigy, congressmen surrounded and
followed by taunting crowds.

And I can't find any counterpart to the death threats at least one
congressman has received.

So this is something new and ugly. What's behind it?

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, has compared the scenes at
health care town halls to the "Brooks Brothers riot" in 2000 - the
demonstration that disrupted the vote count in Miami and arguably helped
send George W. Bush to the White House. Portrayed at the time as local
protesters, many of the rioters were actually G.O.P. staffers flown in from
Washington.

But Mr. Gibbs is probably only half right. Yes, well-heeled interest groups
are helping to organize the town hall mobs. Key organizers include two
Astroturf (fake grass-roots) organizations: FreedomWorks, run by the former
House majority leader Dick Armey, and a new organization called
Conservatives for Patients' Rights.

The latter group, by the way, is run by Rick Scott, the former head of
Columbia/HCA, a for-profit hospital chain. Mr. Scott was forced out of that
job amid a fraud investigation; the company eventually pleaded guilty to
charges of overbilling state and federal health plans, paying $1.7 billion -
yes, that's "billion" - in fines. You can't make this stuff up.

But while the organizers are as crass as they come, I haven't seen any
evidence that the people disrupting those town halls are Florida-style
rent-a-mobs. For the most part, the protesters appear to be genuinely angry.
The question is, what are they angry about?

There was a telling incident at a town hall held by Representative Gene
Green, D-Tex. An activist turned to his fellow attendees and asked if they
"oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care." Nearly all
did. Then Representative Green asked how many of those present were on
Medicare. Almost half raised their hands.

Now, people who don't know that Medicare is a government program probably
aren't reacting to what President Obama is actually proposing. They may
believe some of the disinformation opponents of health care reform are
spreading, like the claim that the Obama plan will lead to euthanasia for
the elderly. (That particular claim is coming straight from House Republican
leaders.) But they're probably reacting less to what Mr. Obama is doing, or
even to what they've heard about what he's doing, than to who he is.

That is, the driving force behind the town hall mobs is probably the same
cultural and racial anxiety that's behind the "birther" movement, which
denies Mr. Obama's citizenship. Senator Dick Durbin has suggested that the
birthers and the health care protesters are one and the same; we don't know
how many of the protesters are birthers, but it wouldn't be surprising if
it's
a substantial fraction.

And cynical political operators are exploiting that anxiety to further the
economic interests of their backers.

Does this sound familiar? It should: it's a strategy that has played a
central role in American politics ever since Richard Nixon realized that he
could advance Republican fortunes by appealing to the racial fears of
working-class whites.

Many people hoped that last year's election would mark the end of the "angry
white voter" era in America. Indeed, voters who can be swayed by appeals to
cultural and racial fear are a declining share of the electorate.

But right now Mr. Obama's backers seem to lack all conviction, perhaps
because the prosaic reality of his administration isn't living up to their
dreams of transformation. Meanwhile, the angry right is filled with a
passionate intensity.

And if Mr. Obama can't recapture some of the passion of 2008, can't inspire
his supporters to stand up and be heard, health care reform may well fail.

The White House Deal with Big PhRMA, Goodman: A Coup for Lobbyists

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/the-white-house-deal-with_b_252696.html

The White House Deal with Big Pharma

by James Love
Huffington Post: August 6, 2009

The front page of today's New York Times has an article by David
Kirkpatrick, confirming more details of the White House deal with big
pharma. (Be sure to read the original, and support the NYT)

For anyone who didn't notice earlier, this description by PhRMA CEO Billy
Tauzin spells out the dynamics:

Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured
drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to
block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an
agreed-upon $80 billion. . .
"We were assured: 'We need somebody to come in first. If you come in
first, you will have a rock-solid deal,' " Billy Tauzin, the former
Republican House member from Louisiana who now leads the pharmaceutical
trade group, said Wednesday. "Who is ever going to go into a deal with the
White House again if they don't keep their word? You are just going to duke
it out instead."

Mr. Tauzin said the administration had approached him to negotiate. "They
wanted a big player to come in and set the bar for everybody else," he said.
He said the White House had directed him to negotiate with Senator Max
Baucus, the business-friendly Montana Democrat who leads the Senate Finance
Committee.

Mr. Tauzin said the White House had tracked the negotiations throughout,
assenting to decisions to move away from ideas like the government
negotiation of prices or the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada. The
$80 billion in savings would be over a 10-year period. "80 billion is the
max, no more or less," he said. "Adding other stuff changes the deal."

Some elements of the deal have been reported earlier in the NY Times and
other newspapers, as well as in this report in the LA Times by Tom
Hamburger, but experts following pharmaceutical issues doubt that the full
extent of the dealings between big pharma, the White House and Senator
Baucus are known.

The crushing defeat of the proposals by Senator Brown and Representative
Waxman to speed entry of generic biologic medicines (known as biosimilars),
was partly due to the hands-off approach taken by the White House, which was
been widely read as a green light for Democrats to side with big pharma on a
hugely important issue that will be extremely difficult to fix later. (More
on this issue here).

The so-called cost savings from big pharma of $8 billion per year for 10
years are a joke for an industry that generates more than $300 billion in US
sales from products that mostly replicate but do not significantly improve
therapeutic benefits over existing medicines. Moreover, the "savings" will
likely take the form of lower consumer co-payments for medicines or small
discounts of reimbursements for expanded government backed insurance
programs. PhRMA and its members are also getting mandatory insurance
coverage, and increased legal obligations to buy their expensive drugs. The
White House has abandoned any real effort to control costs in the pharma
sector.

Unreported by the press are the favors that the White House and Baucus are
doing in the international arena. The White House has slapped and pressured
Thailand for issuing compulsory licenses on medicine patents, killed an
industry-opposed medical R&D treaty at the WHO (here and here), opposed a
PAHO resolution on transparency of pharmaceutical economics, and
collaborated on a disastrous manipulation of a WHO Expert Working Group on
R&D Financing that is embracing industry norms for intellectual property
protection. The Administration has refused to answer questions from the
TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) on intellectual property aspects of
pandemics. The White House won't release the negotiating text of the
so-called "Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement," or even the names of the
documents they are withholding, claiming they are state secrets. (More
details here)

Senator Baucus is also working on proposals to mandate high drug prices in
all but the poorest developing countries. Senator Baucus asked that Pfizer
CEO Jeff Kindler (a frequent White House guest these days) work out the
details with the late Professor John Barton, in secret negotiations attended
mostly by pharma industry lobbyists, and Microsoft officials.

Tauzin asks who can trust a White House that does not keep it's promises.
Good question.

***

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_coup_for_lobbyists_at_the_white_house/

A Coup for Lobbyists at the White House

By Amy Goodman
Truthdig: August 5, 2009

Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, ousted in the middle of the night just
over a month ago, enjoys global support for his return, with the exception
of the Obama White House. Though Barack Obama first called the Honduran
military's removal of Zelaya a coup, his administration has backpedaled.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Zelaya's attempt to cross the
Nicaraguan border into Honduras "reckless." Could well-placed lobbyists in
Washington be forging U.S. foreign policy?

Lanny Davis was special counsel to President Bill Clinton from 1996 to
1998, functioning as lawyer, crisis manager and spokesman through Clinton's
various scandals. Davis has developed a lucrative specialty as a partner at
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, offering a "unique 'Legal Crisis
Communications' practice," helping people embroiled in investigations or
scandal. According to recent congressional filings, Davis is lobbying for
the Honduran chapter of the Latin American Business Council. Zelaya had
recently increased the Honduran minimum wage.

Davis testified before Congress on July 10, saying his clients "believe
the best chance for a solution is the dialogue between Mr. Zelaya and
President [Roberto] Micheletti, mediated by President [Oscar] Arias, that is
now ongoing in Costa Rica." That is, until the Arias sessions resulted in a
call for the return of Zelaya. Coup spokesman Cesar Caceres said, "The
mediation has been declared a failure."

Davis continued before Congress, "No one wants bloodshed, and nobody
should be inciting violence." Yet a number of Zelaya supporters have been
killed, and there has been a crackdown on independent media, making
information hard to obtain.

I reached Zelaya by phone in Nicaragua, near the Honduran border, and
asked about Obama's reluctance to use the word coup. He told me, "Everyone
in the world-governments, international organizations, all the lawyers and
judges in the world-have called the fact of capturing a president at 5 a.m.
without trying him, shooting arms, that's a coup d'etat. No one doubts that
that's a coup d'etat."

Bennett Ratcliff, another Clinton White House connection, was a key
adviser to the coup leader, Micheletti, during the Costa Rica negotiations.
According to Ratcliff's firm's bio, he "created TV and radio advertisements
for President Bill Clinton's 1992 and 1996 Presidential campaigns." Firm
partner Melissa Ratcliff "worked as communications strategist for The White
House during the Clinton Administration." Their firm promises "access to key
decision makers and influencers."

With similar anti-Zelaya goals comes lobbyist Roger Noriega, George W.
Bush's assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs and
former staff member of Sen. Jesse Helms. Noriega is lobbying on behalf of
the Honduran Association of Maquiladoras, owners of low-wage factories that
export goods, principally to the U.S.

Both Noriega and Davis represent business interests that benefit from
"free trade" with the U.S. Zelaya, elected originally with the support of
the Honduran business community, has shifted to more populist policies. He
recently joined the emerging Latin American trade bloc ALBA, organized by
countries like Venezuela and Bolivia to counter the economic dominance of
the United States.

During Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, Davis repeated the charge
that Obama would not be capable of handling a crisis "call at 3 a.m."

In his recent visit to Africa, Obama declared the importance of democracy.
Yet here in his own backyard is a genuine coup d'etat that his
administration has done little to reverse. Obama will be in Mexico to meet
President Felipe Calderon and Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada on
Aug. 9. Honduras is expected to be on the agenda. The 3 a.m. call has
come-who will have Obama's ear? Democracy, or the special interests' hired
guns, against whom Obama promised change?

Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.

Amy Goodman is the host of "Democracy Now!," a daily international
TV/radio news hour airing on more than 750 stations in North America. She is
the co-author of "Standing Up to the Madness: Ordinary Heroes in
Extraordinary Times," recently released in paperback.