Sunday 06 December 2009
by: Bill McKibben | TomDispatch.com
Most political arguments don’t really have a right and a wrong, no matter how passionately they’re argued. They’re about human preferences -- for more health care or lower taxes, for a war to secure some particular end or a peace that leaves some danger intact. On occasion, there are clear-cut moral issues: the rights of minorities or women to a full share in public life, say; but usually even those of us most passionate about human affairs recognize that we’re on one side of a debate, that there are legitimate arguments to the contrary (endless deficits, coat-hanger abortions, a resurgent al-Qaeda). We need people taking strong positions to move issues forward, which is why I’m always ready to carry a placard or sign a petition, but most of us also realize that, sooner or later, we have to come to some sort of compromise.
That’s why standard political operating procedure is to move slowly, taking matters in small bites instead of big gulps. That’s why, from the very beginning, we seemed unlikely to take what I thought was the correct course for our health-care system: a single-payer model like the rest of the world. It was too much change for the country to digest. That’s undoubtedly part of the reason why almost nobody who ran for president supported it, and those who did went nowhere.
Instead, we’re fighting hard over a much less exalted set of reforms that represent a substantial shift, but not a tectonic one. You could -- and I do -- despise the insurance industry and Big Pharma for blocking progress, but they’re part of the game. Doubtless we should change the rules, so they represent a far less dominant part of it. But if that happens, it, too, will undoubtedly occur piece by piece, not all at once.
Moving by increments: it frustrates the hell out of many of us, and sometimes it’s truly disastrous. (I just watched Bill Moyers’ amazing recent broadcast of the LBJ tapes in the run-up to the full-scale escalation of the Vietnam War, where the president and his advisors just kept moving the numbers up a twitch at a time until we were neck deep in the Big Muddy.) Usually, however, incrementalism, whatever you think of it, lends a kind of stability to the conduct of our affairs -- often it has a way of setting the stage for the next move.
We may have to wait years for the next round of health-care reform and, in the meantime, doubtless many people will suffer, but here’s the one thing we know: what we don’t do now doesn’t foreclose future progress. In fact, it may make it more likely -- if, after all, people grow comfortable with the idea of a “public option,” then the next time around the insurance industry won’t be able to make actual, honest-to-God public medicine seem so scary.
Climate Change as Just Another Political Problem
When it comes to global warming, however, this is precisely why we’re headed off a cliff, why the Copenhagen talks that open this week, almost no matter what happens, will be a disaster. Because climate change is not like any other issue we’ve ever dealt with. Because the adversary here is not Republicans, or socialists, or deficits, or taxes, or misogyny, or racism, or any of the problems we normally face -- adversaries that can change over time, or be worn down, or disproved, or cast off. The adversary here is physics.
Physics has set an immutable bottom line on life as we know it on this planet. For two years now, we’ve been aware of just what that bottom line is: the NASA team headed by James Hansen gave it to us first. Any value for carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere greater than 350 parts per million is not compatible "with the planet on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.” That bottom line won’t change: above 350 and, sooner or later, the ice caps melt, sea levels rise, hydrological cycles are thrown off kilter, and so on.
And here’s the thing: physics doesn’t just impose a bottom line, it imposes a time limit. This is like no other challenge we face because every year we don’t deal with it, it gets much, much worse, and then, at a certain point, it becomes insoluble -- because, for instance, thawing permafrost in the Arctic releases so much methane into the atmosphere that we’re never able to get back into the safe zone. Even if, at that point, the U.S. Congress and the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Committee were to ban all cars and power plants, it would be too late.
Oh, and the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is already at 390 parts per million, even as the amount of methane in the atmosphere has been spiking in the last two years. In other words, we’re over the edge already. We’re no longer capable of “preventing” global warming, only (maybe) preventing it on such a large scale that it takes down all our civilizations.
So here’s the thing: When Barack Obama goes to Copenhagen, he will treat global warming as another political problem, offering a promise of something like a 17% cut in our greenhouse gas emissions from their 2005 levels by 2020. This works out to a 4% cut from 1990 levels, the standard baseline for measurement, and yet scientists have calculated that the major industrialized nations need to cut their emissions by 40% to have any hope of getting us on a path back towards safety.
And even that 17% cut may turn out to be far too high a figure for the Senate. Here’s what Senator Jim Webb (a coal-country Democrat) wrote to the president last week: "I would like to express my concern regarding reports that the Administration may believe it has the unilateral power to commit the government of the United States to certain standards that may be agreed in Copenhagen… The phrase 'politically binding' has been used. As you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country."
In any case, the Senate has decided that it will not debate any climate-change bill until “the spring,” after health care is settled, and maybe entitlement reform, and perhaps even financial regulation. And awfully close to the next election.
Meanwhile, the Chinese are apparently prepared to offer a 40% reduction in the “energy intensity” of their economy by 2020. In other words, they claim they’ll then be using 40% less energy to make each yuan worth of stuff they ship off to WalMart. Which is better than not doing it, but more or less what the experts think would happen anyway as China’s economy naturally becomes more high-tech and efficient. It’s at best a minor stretch from “business as usual.”
Meanwhile, the Indians almost sacked their environment minister after the newspapers decided he was compromising the national interest by engaging in real negotiations about global warming.
Meanwhile, the Australian opposition last week did sack their leader for being willing to compromise on an already-compromised Emissions Trading Scheme that would have capped carbon -- meaning nothing will pass.
Meanwhile…
A Challenge Unique in History
A new analysis released Thursday by a consortium of European think-tanks shows that the various offers on the table add up to a world in which the atmosphere contains 650 parts per million and the temperature rises an ungodly five degrees Fahrenheit.
What I’m saying is: even the best politicians are treating the problem of climate change as a normal political one, where you halve the distance between various competing interests and do your best to reach some kind of consensus that doesn’t demand too much of anyone, yet reduces the political pressure for a few years -- at which time, of course, you (or possibly someone entirely different) will have to deal with it again.
Obama is doing the same thing with climate change that he did with health care. He’s acting with complete political realism, refusing to make the perfect the enemy of the good (or, really, the better-than-Bush). He’s doing what might make sense in almost any other situation.
Here, unfortunately, the foe is implacable. Implacable foes emerge rarely. The best human analog to the role physics is playing here may be fascism in the middle of the last century. There was no appeasing it, no making a normal political issue out of it. You had to decide to go all in, to transform the industrial base of the country to fight it, to put other things on hold, to demand sacrifice.
Yet it’s all too obvious that we’re not dealing with it that way. The president hasn’t, for instance, been on a nonstop campaign to make everyone realize the danger. When he went to China, he certainly reached some interesting agreements about cooperation on automobile technology, but that’s not the same as seeking a wartime partnership.
Nor is the senate meeting late into the night figuring out how to mobilize our country’s resources and people in the struggle to save our planet. Here’s how Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill summed up the mood: “I don’t think anyone’s excited about doing another really, really big thing that’s really, really hard that makes everybody mad.”
Some of us have been trying hard to open some political space for world leaders to step up to this challenge. We built a worldwide movement at 350.org that managed to pull off the “most widespread day of political action in the planet’s history” (at least according to CNN). In some places, it even sparked the desired result. Ninety-two nations, all poor and vulnerable to the early effects of climate change, have endorsed that radical 350 target.
Some of their leaders, like Mohamed Nasheed, the president of the Maldives, a nation made up of more than a thousand islands in the Indian Ocean, have emerged as tigers, ready to fight. No one would be surprised to see him lead some kind of walkout from the Copenhagen negotiations, since he’s declared over and over that he won’t be party to a “suicide pact” for his low-lying nation; he is, in other words, unwilling to treat global warming as a normal political issue.
We, however, couldn’t get even the most minor player in the Obama administration to come to one of the 2,000 rallies we staged across this country. None of them were interested in jumping into the space we were trying to open. If the U.S. is this willing to treat climate change as politics-as-usual, most of the other major players will simply follow suit.
They'll sign some kind of paper in Denmark -- that became all but certain on Friday night when Obama announced he'd jet in for the meeting's close. European leaders and some environmental groups may then call it a “qualified success,” and on we will go through more years of negotiation. In the meantime, physics will continue to operate, permafrost will continue to thaw, sea ice to melt, drought to spread.
It’s like nothing we’ve ever faced before -- and we’re facing it as if it’s just like everything else. That’s the problem.
Bill McKibben is a scholar in residence at Middlebury College. His The End of Nature, published in 1989, is regarded as the first book for a general audience on global warming. He is a founder of 350.org, a campaign to spread the goal of reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide to 350 parts per million worldwide. He is, most recently, the editor of American Earth: Environmental Writing Since Thoreau (Library of America). His next book will be Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet, which will be published in April. To listen to a TomDispatch audio interview with McKibben on President Obama and climate change politics in the U.S., click here.
Copyright 2009 Bill McKibben
http://www.truthout.org/1207095
Monday, December 7, 2009
Revitalizing the Antiwar Movement
Monday 07 December 2009
by: Camillo "Mac" Bica, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
With Nobel laureate Barack Obama's announced escalation of the occupation of Afghanistan, even those who believed his rhetoric of hope and change, who supported and voted for him in the last election, have realized at last that his administration represents neither, that the honeymoon is over and patience is no longer a virtue. Consequently, many peace-minded people are looking again to an anti-war movement and finding it somewhat in disarray, perhaps an understatement. If it is truly our intent to revitalize the anti-war movement, we must begin a dialogue to redefine our goals and to re-evaluate and clarify our tactics and strategy. That is, we must become more focused on ending American militarism and imperialism, war and occupation, and we must build a coalition of voices by practicing tolerance and understanding for a diversity of views and opinions.
I think a couple of important conceptual clarifications are necessary. Collective entities, as such, do not exist. Terms such as "movements," "nations," "corporations" etc. are rhetorical devices, referents, which designate a set of individual human beings with varied and diverse points of view, but who share (have in common) the relevant interest and/or belief that characterizes the particular collective in question. Consequently, collective entities lack agenthood or personhood. That is, movements, nations, corporations etc., do not act, individuals do. This is important because unscrupulous people - politicians, corporate executives etc. - have taken advantage of - exploited - this fallacy of reification, i.e., ascribing substance or real existence to mental constructs or concepts in order to shroud themselves within the anonymity of the abstraction, the collective, as a means of diffusing, and thereby avoiding, responsibility or culpability for their actions.
I understand "anti-war" to mean an opposition to and condemnation of war and occupation. An anti-war movement, therefore, designates individuals who share what I will term an "anti-war vision," that is, oppose and seek an end to war and occupation. "Peace," however, is much more encompassing than merely an absence of war. Even Ronald Reagan agreed, though tragically, more in word than in action. "True peace," he told us, "is justice, true peace is freedom. And true peace dictates the recognition of human rights." A peace movement, therefore, designates individuals who, in addition to opposing war and occupation, share what I will term a "peace vision," that is, support what they see as issues of human rights, justice, equality and fairness. A peace vision may be complex and varied and may include such demands as a recognition of gay marriage, a woman's right to choose, the rights of immigrants, perhaps even of advocating a velvet revolution - an end to the oppression and exploitation some see as intrinsic to a capitalist imperialist system. Both movements have their place; both are important. Understanding this distinction is crucial in building a viable anti-war movement, in motivating individuals to join together to end war and occupation.
We are at a crucial juncture in our nation's history, a time of great economic and social upheaval that is made even more precarious by Obama's insistence on continuing the occupation of Iraq, escalating the occupation of Afghanistan and the war in Pakistan. We continue to spend trillions of dollars to kill and to destroy rather than to build, educate and heal. Though we live in the illusion of America's greatness and beneficence, it is clear from our continued militarism and imperialism that we have lost our moral compass and have forfeited any moral authority we may have had in the world. We have become the world's pariah, and there is blood on all our hands. Perhaps, it is already too late; hopefully, it is not. If we are to salvage what remains of our nation and of our integrity, our moral character, we must act and act now to build a viable anti-war movement, to effect change that is far reaching and long lasting. We must foster a groundswell of resistance to a political leadership that, despite its rhetoric, sees war and violence as a substitute for the hard work of diplomacy and the peaceful resolution of differences.
If we are to build a viable anti-war movement, we must seek to unite all individuals who share the anti-war vision, i.e., that war and occupation is immoral, illegal and not in their interest, but yet who may have differences regarding their vision for peace, i.e., whether there is a right of choice or a fetal right to life, whether same sex marriage should be recognized or whether marriage is between a man and a woman, whether capitalism is intrinsically oppressive and must be overthrown or whether we can achieve fairness and justice in spite of its quest for profit. Be clear, I am not, by any means, advocating toleration or concession to "bigotry, misogyny and know-nothing jingoism." That's not what cooperative effort is about. It's about understanding that unanimity of beliefs is an ideal, not a reality. It's about working together with honest and sincere individuals for the betterment of humankind, ending war and occupation and agreeing to disagree about when life begins, the "definition" of marriage, the virtues or vices of capitalism, differences which can and must be discussed, debated and, hopefully, resolved at another time, and in another venue.
But the situation is dire and time is short, so as you continue to work for peace, be aware that if we are to build a viable anti-war movement, we must have understanding and toleration for a diversity of views. We must focus upon what we have in common, rather than on what divides us. We must seek to create an environment in which all sincere people who oppose war and occupation can be accommodated, not alienated. Perhaps, in developing this cooperative effort to resolve common concerns - revitalizing the anti-war movement - we may eventually be better able to engage in meaningful dialogue to resolve, reasonably and rationally, other differences that may divide us. Why not? Isn't this what a peace movement is supposed to be about?
Camillo "Mac" Bica, Ph.D., is a professor of philosophy at the School of Visual Arts in New York City. His focus is in ethics, particularly as it applies to war and warriors. As a veteran recovering from his experiences as a United States Marine Corps Officer during the Vietnam War, he founded, and coordinated for five years, the Veterans Self-Help Initiative, a therapeutic community of veterans suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. He is a long-time activist for peace and justice, a member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and the coordinator of the Long Island Chapter of Veterans for Peace. Articles by Dr. Bica have appeared in Cyrano's Journal, The Humanist Magazine, Znet, Truthout.org, Common Dreams, AntiWar.com, Monthly Review Zine, Foreign Policy in Focus, OpEdNews.com, AfterDowningStreet.org and numerous philosophical journals.
http://www.truthout.org/1207096?print
by: Camillo "Mac" Bica, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
With Nobel laureate Barack Obama's announced escalation of the occupation of Afghanistan, even those who believed his rhetoric of hope and change, who supported and voted for him in the last election, have realized at last that his administration represents neither, that the honeymoon is over and patience is no longer a virtue. Consequently, many peace-minded people are looking again to an anti-war movement and finding it somewhat in disarray, perhaps an understatement. If it is truly our intent to revitalize the anti-war movement, we must begin a dialogue to redefine our goals and to re-evaluate and clarify our tactics and strategy. That is, we must become more focused on ending American militarism and imperialism, war and occupation, and we must build a coalition of voices by practicing tolerance and understanding for a diversity of views and opinions.
I think a couple of important conceptual clarifications are necessary. Collective entities, as such, do not exist. Terms such as "movements," "nations," "corporations" etc. are rhetorical devices, referents, which designate a set of individual human beings with varied and diverse points of view, but who share (have in common) the relevant interest and/or belief that characterizes the particular collective in question. Consequently, collective entities lack agenthood or personhood. That is, movements, nations, corporations etc., do not act, individuals do. This is important because unscrupulous people - politicians, corporate executives etc. - have taken advantage of - exploited - this fallacy of reification, i.e., ascribing substance or real existence to mental constructs or concepts in order to shroud themselves within the anonymity of the abstraction, the collective, as a means of diffusing, and thereby avoiding, responsibility or culpability for their actions.
I understand "anti-war" to mean an opposition to and condemnation of war and occupation. An anti-war movement, therefore, designates individuals who share what I will term an "anti-war vision," that is, oppose and seek an end to war and occupation. "Peace," however, is much more encompassing than merely an absence of war. Even Ronald Reagan agreed, though tragically, more in word than in action. "True peace," he told us, "is justice, true peace is freedom. And true peace dictates the recognition of human rights." A peace movement, therefore, designates individuals who, in addition to opposing war and occupation, share what I will term a "peace vision," that is, support what they see as issues of human rights, justice, equality and fairness. A peace vision may be complex and varied and may include such demands as a recognition of gay marriage, a woman's right to choose, the rights of immigrants, perhaps even of advocating a velvet revolution - an end to the oppression and exploitation some see as intrinsic to a capitalist imperialist system. Both movements have their place; both are important. Understanding this distinction is crucial in building a viable anti-war movement, in motivating individuals to join together to end war and occupation.
We are at a crucial juncture in our nation's history, a time of great economic and social upheaval that is made even more precarious by Obama's insistence on continuing the occupation of Iraq, escalating the occupation of Afghanistan and the war in Pakistan. We continue to spend trillions of dollars to kill and to destroy rather than to build, educate and heal. Though we live in the illusion of America's greatness and beneficence, it is clear from our continued militarism and imperialism that we have lost our moral compass and have forfeited any moral authority we may have had in the world. We have become the world's pariah, and there is blood on all our hands. Perhaps, it is already too late; hopefully, it is not. If we are to salvage what remains of our nation and of our integrity, our moral character, we must act and act now to build a viable anti-war movement, to effect change that is far reaching and long lasting. We must foster a groundswell of resistance to a political leadership that, despite its rhetoric, sees war and violence as a substitute for the hard work of diplomacy and the peaceful resolution of differences.
If we are to build a viable anti-war movement, we must seek to unite all individuals who share the anti-war vision, i.e., that war and occupation is immoral, illegal and not in their interest, but yet who may have differences regarding their vision for peace, i.e., whether there is a right of choice or a fetal right to life, whether same sex marriage should be recognized or whether marriage is between a man and a woman, whether capitalism is intrinsically oppressive and must be overthrown or whether we can achieve fairness and justice in spite of its quest for profit. Be clear, I am not, by any means, advocating toleration or concession to "bigotry, misogyny and know-nothing jingoism." That's not what cooperative effort is about. It's about understanding that unanimity of beliefs is an ideal, not a reality. It's about working together with honest and sincere individuals for the betterment of humankind, ending war and occupation and agreeing to disagree about when life begins, the "definition" of marriage, the virtues or vices of capitalism, differences which can and must be discussed, debated and, hopefully, resolved at another time, and in another venue.
But the situation is dire and time is short, so as you continue to work for peace, be aware that if we are to build a viable anti-war movement, we must have understanding and toleration for a diversity of views. We must focus upon what we have in common, rather than on what divides us. We must seek to create an environment in which all sincere people who oppose war and occupation can be accommodated, not alienated. Perhaps, in developing this cooperative effort to resolve common concerns - revitalizing the anti-war movement - we may eventually be better able to engage in meaningful dialogue to resolve, reasonably and rationally, other differences that may divide us. Why not? Isn't this what a peace movement is supposed to be about?
Camillo "Mac" Bica, Ph.D., is a professor of philosophy at the School of Visual Arts in New York City. His focus is in ethics, particularly as it applies to war and warriors. As a veteran recovering from his experiences as a United States Marine Corps Officer during the Vietnam War, he founded, and coordinated for five years, the Veterans Self-Help Initiative, a therapeutic community of veterans suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. He is a long-time activist for peace and justice, a member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and the coordinator of the Long Island Chapter of Veterans for Peace. Articles by Dr. Bica have appeared in Cyrano's Journal, The Humanist Magazine, Znet, Truthout.org, Common Dreams, AntiWar.com, Monthly Review Zine, Foreign Policy in Focus, OpEdNews.com, AfterDowningStreet.org and numerous philosophical journals.
http://www.truthout.org/1207096?print
John Gary Maxwell: Health reform from my side of the surgery table
Published: Saturday, December 5, 2009 at 3:30 a.m.
Last Modified: Friday, December 4, 2009 at 9:10 a.m.
Forty years as a surgeon in university and community hospitals gives some authenticity for the following reflections regarding the failings of our health care delivery. Partisan rhetoric has led to shouting matches rather than reasoned choices, while the most fundamental issue in health care reform has yet to be stated: should health care be continued as a profit-driven enterprise? If a problem well-stated is a problem half solved, a clear answer will allow for progress. Here are the some of the problems I have observed:
Health care is already rationed and socialized. We have an unacknowledged disparity between insatiable demand for health care and a capability that cannot meet it. We now find health care rationed on the basis of who will receive care, not on what care will be provided.
Rationing does not apply to emergency care. The unemployed laborer severely injured in a car crash or the farmer who collapses will be given the best care possible. No expense will be spared, all needed consultants will be called, all necessary surgery and definitive care completed.
The patient who presents for planned, scheduled health care gets a different reception. Those needing elective heart surgery, or joint repair, for example, are filtered carefully. Care is rationed by ability to pay.
Insurance coverage, pre-approval, deductible, non-covered services, co-pays, will all be scrutinized. If the patient cannot pay, he or she will either not receive the needed care or will be directed to public facilities or programs that depend heavily on outside or tax-supported funding.
What is certain is that the hospital bill for the well-insured will be sufficiently high to cover expenses generated by poorly insured or uinsured patients.
If "spreading the wealth" is socialization, our system is already socialized, with the "haves" paying for the "have-nots" by a tax on the wealthier group. This explains a $15 aspirin, $10,000 to $15,000 antibiotic bills, and bills for heart surgery of $250,000 or more.
We resist "socialized medicine" from the federal government while oblivious that we have embraced socialized medicine delivered -after profits - by the insurance industry.
A crisis is dangerously imminent in which the "haves" will not be able to pay for the increasingly larger segment of "have-nots."
Rationing of medical care in a non-profit system should be based on society defining what services should be provided, not on restricting care on the basis of income, as in a profit based system.
We currently give priority to crisis care rather than preventive or other types of care. For the best care to the greatest number with the least expense, we should to place preventive care first.
There are inequitable and unreasonable variations in the system. The rates of people having surgical removal of atherosclerotic plaques in the carotid artery, coronary artery bypass or joint replacement operations varies so widely across the nation that it appears that factors other than well-defined indications for the operation are responsible. Could the income generated for hospital, clinics, and ancillary services be a major factor in these widely different rates?
Doctors' pay is equally disparate. Despite similar length of training, extreme variations in amounts paid different doctors exist nation-wide. Six- and seven-figure incomes are common among several specialties, while general surgeons, pediatricians, internists, family practitioners and geriatricians whose education was as arduous - and who may put in more hours - earn far less.
Should limitless profit be the motivation to choose medicine as a career? Inequities in earnings have their origin, in large part, because doctors' pay is based on fee for service.
The more tests performed, the more X-rays ordered, every consultant called, every operation done influences income - directly or indirectly.
The solution to these disparities is one that will not sit well with some of my colleagues: Doctors should be paid a base salary commensurate with their time in education and the responsibilities they carry. Increases in pay should be based on such factors as measurements of quality of care, research and teaching. Highly specialized fields requiring extra education and experience, remaining current in new techniques and extra call on nights, weekends and holidays should be compensated.
Fear of litigation, defensive medicine and end-of-life care contribute to costs. Excessive X-rays, unnecessary consultations and inappropriate antibiotic treatments - all contributors to the cost of medical care - are used to ward off malpractice litigation that can be catastrophic for the doctor. The results of these seldom change treatment or give a better outcome.
End-of-life costs constitute the majority of the total health care dollars spent on each individual. The final 90 days often account for 30 percent to 40 percent of lifetime medical costs. CAT scans, repeated blood tests, ventilator support, dialysis, are often done for fear of litigation or demanded by family members who want "everything" done.
Expense of final days can decimate the family finances without bringing benefit or qualify of life. Decisions made before the stress of imminent death, would allow patient dignity without sacrificing financial solvency.
Tort reform, unequivocally needed, is a small wave in the financial tsunami of our dysfunctional health care delivery.
Continuity of care is disappearing. After work hours, emergency rooms often are the only available caregivers. Care within the hospital is increasingly provided by hospitalists whose entire professional work is inside the hospital. Patient and assigned hospitalist may never have seen one another.
Dr. A will send the patient to the emergency room, where Dr. B will decide on admission. Hospitalist Dr. C provides the care, with the patient discharged to Dr. A's partner, Dr. D, in a system fraught with chances for errors and poor outcomes. All four doctors will send separate bills for their disjointed services.
Other issues: profit, payers and an attitude adjustment for Americans. Rejection of payment claims for any reason, is in the best interest of the insurance company, and claims are often returned for minor or nonexistent deficiencies, denied for pre-existing conditions, alleged improper coding and for failure to receive pre-approval. "Beneficiaries" have their policies cancelled for technicalities when the condition is expensive to treat.
In Great Britain several years ago, a perceptive woman afflicted with a bowel disease requiring a great deal of medical attention, offered me her view: "Americans have no sense of community welfare, no willingness to be discomforted in the least for the greater good of the entire population."
She might have been blunt that well-insured Americans say, "I got mine. To hell with you!"
Unless personal selfishness can be refocused to the common good, health care in the United States will remain with irrational rationing and inappropriate and financially unsustainable socialization by insurance, drug and medical supply industries.
Despite professing Christian love for our neighbor, it has fallen to President Obama to call us to the painful truth: "We are ... the only advanced democracy on Earth -- the only wealthy nation -- that allows (health care) hardship for millions of its people."
The fundamental question in the discussion of improved health care deserves repeating: With its widespread and profound problems, do Americans truly want health care to continue as a profit-driven enterprise?
Retired surgeon John Gary Maxwell is former director of the surgical residency program at New Hanover Regional Medical Center and a professor emeritus at the University of North Carolina and the University of Utah medical schools.
All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091205/ARTICLES/912044001/-1/EDITORIAL?Title=John-Gary-Maxwell-Health-reform-from-my-side-of-the-surgery-table&tc=autorefresh
Last Modified: Friday, December 4, 2009 at 9:10 a.m.
Forty years as a surgeon in university and community hospitals gives some authenticity for the following reflections regarding the failings of our health care delivery. Partisan rhetoric has led to shouting matches rather than reasoned choices, while the most fundamental issue in health care reform has yet to be stated: should health care be continued as a profit-driven enterprise? If a problem well-stated is a problem half solved, a clear answer will allow for progress. Here are the some of the problems I have observed:
Health care is already rationed and socialized. We have an unacknowledged disparity between insatiable demand for health care and a capability that cannot meet it. We now find health care rationed on the basis of who will receive care, not on what care will be provided.
Rationing does not apply to emergency care. The unemployed laborer severely injured in a car crash or the farmer who collapses will be given the best care possible. No expense will be spared, all needed consultants will be called, all necessary surgery and definitive care completed.
The patient who presents for planned, scheduled health care gets a different reception. Those needing elective heart surgery, or joint repair, for example, are filtered carefully. Care is rationed by ability to pay.
Insurance coverage, pre-approval, deductible, non-covered services, co-pays, will all be scrutinized. If the patient cannot pay, he or she will either not receive the needed care or will be directed to public facilities or programs that depend heavily on outside or tax-supported funding.
What is certain is that the hospital bill for the well-insured will be sufficiently high to cover expenses generated by poorly insured or uinsured patients.
If "spreading the wealth" is socialization, our system is already socialized, with the "haves" paying for the "have-nots" by a tax on the wealthier group. This explains a $15 aspirin, $10,000 to $15,000 antibiotic bills, and bills for heart surgery of $250,000 or more.
We resist "socialized medicine" from the federal government while oblivious that we have embraced socialized medicine delivered -after profits - by the insurance industry.
A crisis is dangerously imminent in which the "haves" will not be able to pay for the increasingly larger segment of "have-nots."
Rationing of medical care in a non-profit system should be based on society defining what services should be provided, not on restricting care on the basis of income, as in a profit based system.
We currently give priority to crisis care rather than preventive or other types of care. For the best care to the greatest number with the least expense, we should to place preventive care first.
There are inequitable and unreasonable variations in the system. The rates of people having surgical removal of atherosclerotic plaques in the carotid artery, coronary artery bypass or joint replacement operations varies so widely across the nation that it appears that factors other than well-defined indications for the operation are responsible. Could the income generated for hospital, clinics, and ancillary services be a major factor in these widely different rates?
Doctors' pay is equally disparate. Despite similar length of training, extreme variations in amounts paid different doctors exist nation-wide. Six- and seven-figure incomes are common among several specialties, while general surgeons, pediatricians, internists, family practitioners and geriatricians whose education was as arduous - and who may put in more hours - earn far less.
Should limitless profit be the motivation to choose medicine as a career? Inequities in earnings have their origin, in large part, because doctors' pay is based on fee for service.
The more tests performed, the more X-rays ordered, every consultant called, every operation done influences income - directly or indirectly.
The solution to these disparities is one that will not sit well with some of my colleagues: Doctors should be paid a base salary commensurate with their time in education and the responsibilities they carry. Increases in pay should be based on such factors as measurements of quality of care, research and teaching. Highly specialized fields requiring extra education and experience, remaining current in new techniques and extra call on nights, weekends and holidays should be compensated.
Fear of litigation, defensive medicine and end-of-life care contribute to costs. Excessive X-rays, unnecessary consultations and inappropriate antibiotic treatments - all contributors to the cost of medical care - are used to ward off malpractice litigation that can be catastrophic for the doctor. The results of these seldom change treatment or give a better outcome.
End-of-life costs constitute the majority of the total health care dollars spent on each individual. The final 90 days often account for 30 percent to 40 percent of lifetime medical costs. CAT scans, repeated blood tests, ventilator support, dialysis, are often done for fear of litigation or demanded by family members who want "everything" done.
Expense of final days can decimate the family finances without bringing benefit or qualify of life. Decisions made before the stress of imminent death, would allow patient dignity without sacrificing financial solvency.
Tort reform, unequivocally needed, is a small wave in the financial tsunami of our dysfunctional health care delivery.
Continuity of care is disappearing. After work hours, emergency rooms often are the only available caregivers. Care within the hospital is increasingly provided by hospitalists whose entire professional work is inside the hospital. Patient and assigned hospitalist may never have seen one another.
Dr. A will send the patient to the emergency room, where Dr. B will decide on admission. Hospitalist Dr. C provides the care, with the patient discharged to Dr. A's partner, Dr. D, in a system fraught with chances for errors and poor outcomes. All four doctors will send separate bills for their disjointed services.
Other issues: profit, payers and an attitude adjustment for Americans. Rejection of payment claims for any reason, is in the best interest of the insurance company, and claims are often returned for minor or nonexistent deficiencies, denied for pre-existing conditions, alleged improper coding and for failure to receive pre-approval. "Beneficiaries" have their policies cancelled for technicalities when the condition is expensive to treat.
In Great Britain several years ago, a perceptive woman afflicted with a bowel disease requiring a great deal of medical attention, offered me her view: "Americans have no sense of community welfare, no willingness to be discomforted in the least for the greater good of the entire population."
She might have been blunt that well-insured Americans say, "I got mine. To hell with you!"
Unless personal selfishness can be refocused to the common good, health care in the United States will remain with irrational rationing and inappropriate and financially unsustainable socialization by insurance, drug and medical supply industries.
Despite professing Christian love for our neighbor, it has fallen to President Obama to call us to the painful truth: "We are ... the only advanced democracy on Earth -- the only wealthy nation -- that allows (health care) hardship for millions of its people."
The fundamental question in the discussion of improved health care deserves repeating: With its widespread and profound problems, do Americans truly want health care to continue as a profit-driven enterprise?
Retired surgeon John Gary Maxwell is former director of the surgical residency program at New Hanover Regional Medical Center and a professor emeritus at the University of North Carolina and the University of Utah medical schools.
All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091205/ARTICLES/912044001/-1/EDITORIAL?Title=John-Gary-Maxwell-Health-reform-from-my-side-of-the-surgery-table&tc=autorefresh
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Obama's War: Why is the Largest Military Machine on the Planet Unable to Defeat the Resistance in Afghanistan
by Sara Flounders
Global Research, December 2, 2009
Workers World - 2009-11-15
Just how powerful is the U.S. military today?
Why is the largest military machine on the planet unable to defeat the resistance in Afghanistan , in a war that has lasted longer than World War II or Vietnam ?
Afghanistan ranks among the poorest and most underdeveloped countries in the world today. It has one of the shortest life expectancy rates, highest infant mortality rates and lowest rates of literacy.
The total U.S. military budget has more than doubled from the beginning of this war in 2001 to the $680 billion budget signed by President Barack Obama Oct. 28. The U.S. military budget today is larger than the military budgets of the rest of the world combined. The U.S. arsenal has the most advanced high-tech weapons.
The funds and troop commitment to Afghanistan have grown with every year of occupation. Last January another 20,000 troops were sent; now there is intense pressure on President Obama to add an additional 40,000 troops. But that is only the tip of the iceberg. More than three times as many forces are currently in Afghanistan when NATO forces and military contractors are counted.
Eight years ago, after an initial massive air bombardment and a quick, brutal invasion, every voice in the media was effusive with assurances that Afghanistan would be quickly transformed and modernized, and the women of Afghanistan liberated. There were assurances of schools, roads, potable water, health care, thriving industry and Western-style “democracy.” A new Marshall Plan was in store.
Was it only due to racist and callous disregard that none of this happened?
In Iraq , how could conditions be worse than during the 13 years of starvation sanctions the U.S. imposed after the 1991 war? Today more than a third of the population has died, is disabled, internally displaced and/or refugees. Fear, violence against women and sectarian divisions have shredded the fabric of society.
Previously a broad current in Pakistan looked to the West for development funds and modernization. Now they are embittered and outraged at U.S. arrogance after whole provinces were forcibly evacuated and bombarded in the hunt for Al Qaeda.
U.S. occupation forces are actually incapable of carrying out a modernization program. They are capable only of massive destruction, daily insults and atrocities. That is why the U.S. is unable to win “hearts and minds” in Afghanistan or Iraq . That is what fuels the resistance.
Today every effort meant to demonstrate the power and strength of U.S. imperialism instead confirms its growing weakness and its systemic inability to be a force for human progress on any level.
Collaborators and warlords
Part of U.S. imperialism’s problem is that its occupation forces are required to rely on the most corrupt, venal and discredited warlords. The only interest these competing military thugs have is in pocketing funds for reconstruction and development. Entire government ministries, their payrolls and their projects have been found to be total fiction. Billions allocated for schools, water and road construction have gone directly into the warlords’ pockets. Hundreds of news articles, congressional inquiries and U.N. reports have exposed just how all-pervasive corruption is.
In Iraq the U.S. occupation depends on the same type of corrupt collaborators. For example, a BBC investigation reported that $23 billion had been lost, stolen or “not properly accounted for” in Iraq . A U.S. gag order prevented discussion of the allegations. (June 10, 2008)
Part of the BBC search for the missing billions focused on Hazem Shalaan, who lived in London until he was appointed minister of defense in 2004. He and his associates siphoned an estimated $1.2 billion out of the Iraqi defense ministry.
But the deeper and more intractable problem is not the local corrupt collaborators. It is the very structure of the Pentagon and the U.S. government. It is a problem that Stanley McChrystal, the commanding general in Afghanistan , or President Obama cannot change or solve.
It is the problem of an imperialist military built solely to serve the profit system.
Contractor industrial complex
All U.S. aid, both military and what is labeled “civilian,” is funneled through thousands and thousands of contractors, subcontractors and sub-subcontractors. None of these U.S. corporate middlemen are even slightly interested in the development of Afghanistan or Iraq . Their only immediate aim is to turn a hefty superprofit as quickly as possible, with as much skim and double billing as possible. For a fee they will provide everything from hired guns, such as Blackwater mercenaries, to food service workers, mechanics, maintenance workers and long-distance truck drivers.
These hired hands also do jobs not connected to servicing the occupation. All reconstruction and infrastructure projects of water purification, sewage treatment, electrical generation, health clinics and road clearance are parceled out piecemeal. Whether these projects ever open or function properly is of little interest or concern. Billing is all that counts.
In past wars, most of these jobs were carried out by the U.S. military. The ratio of contractors to active-duty troops is now more than 1-to-1 in both Iraq and Afghanistan . During the Vietnam War it was 1-to-6.
In 2007 the Associated Press put the number in Iraq alone at 180,000: “The United States has assembled an imposing industrial army in Iraq that’s larger than its uniformed fighting force and is responsible for such a broad swath of responsibilities that the military might not be able to operate without its private-sector partners.” (Sept. 20, 2007)
The total was 190,000 by August 2008. (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 18, 2008)
Some corporations have become synonymous with war profiteering, such as Halliburton, Bechtel and Blackwater in Iraq , and Louis Berger Group, BearingPoint and DynCorp International in Afghanistan .
Every part of the U.S. occupation has been contracted out at the highest rate of profit, with no coordination, no oversight, almost no public bids. Few of the desperately needed supplies reach the dislocated population traumatized by the occupation.
There are now so many pigs at the trough that U.S. forces are no longer able to carry out the broader policy objectives of the U.S. ruling class. The U.S military has even lost count, by tens of thousands, of the numbers of contractors, where they are or what they are doing—except being paid.
Losing count of the mercenaries
The danger of an empire becoming dependent on mercenary forces to fight unpopular wars has been understood since the days of the Roman Empire 2,000 years ago.
A bipartisan Congressional Commission on Wartime Contracting was created last year to examine government contracting for reconstruction, logistics and security operations and to recommend reforms. However, Michael Thibault, co-chair of the commission, explained at a Nov. 2 hearing that “there is no single source for a clear, complete and accurate picture of contractor numbers, locations, contracts and cost.” (AFP, Nov. 2)
“[Thibault said] the Pentagon in April counted about 160,000 contractors mainly in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait, but Central Command recorded more than 242,000 contractors a month earlier.” The stunning difference of 82,000 contractors was based on very different counts in Afghanistan . The difference alone is far greater than the 60,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan .
Thibault continued: “How can contractors be properly managed if we aren’t sure how many there are, where they are and what are they doing?” The lack of an accurate count “invites waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer money and undermines the achievement of U.S. mission objectives.” The Nov. 2 Federal Times reported that Tibault also asked: “How can we assure taxpayers that they aren’t paying for ‘ghost’ employees?”
This has become an unsolvable contradiction in imperialist wars for profit, markets and imperialist domination. Bourgeois academics, think tanks and policy analysts are becoming increasingly concerned.
Thomas Friedman, syndicated columnist and multimillionaire who is deeply committed to the long-term interests of U.S. imperialism, describes the dangers of a “contractor-industrial-complex in Washington that has an economic interest in foreign expeditions.” (New York Times, Nov. 3)
Outsourcing war
Friedman hastens to explain that he is not against outsourcing. His concern is the pattern of outsourcing key tasks, with money and instructions changing hands multiple times in a foreign country. That only invites abuse and corruption. Friedman quoted Allison Stanger, author of “One Nation Under Contract: The Outsourcing of American Power and the Future of Foreign Policy,” who told him: “Contractors provide security for key personnel and sites, including our embassies; feed, clothe and house our troops; train army and police units; and even oversee other contractors. Without a multinational contractor force to fill the gap, we would need a draft to execute these twin interventions.”
That is the real reason for the contracted military forces. The Pentagon does not have enough soldiers, and they don’t have enough collaborators or “allies” to fight their wars.
According to the Congressional Research Service, contractors in 2009 account for 48 percent of the Department of Defense workforce in Iraq and 57 percent in Afghanistan . Thousands of other contractors work for corporate-funded “charities” and numerous government agencies. The U.S. State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development make even more extensive use of them; 80 percent of the State Department budget is for contractors and grants.
Contractors are supposedly not combat troops, although almost 1,800 U.S. contractors have been killed since 9/11. (U.S. News & World Report, Oct. 30) Of course there are no records on the thousands of Afghans and Iraqis killed working for U.S. corporate contractors, or the many thousands of peoples from other oppressed nations who are shipped in to handle the most dangerous jobs.
Contracting is a way of hiding not only the casualties, but also the actual size of the U.S. occupation force. Fearful of domestic opposition, the government intentionally lists the figures for the total number of forces in Afghanistan and Iraq as far less than the real numbers.
A system run on cost overruns
Cost overruns and war profiteering are hardly limited to Iraq , Afghanistan or active theaters of war. They are the very fabric of the U.S. war machine and the underpinning of the U.S. economy.
When President Obama signed the largest military budget in history Oct. 28 he stated: “The Government Accountability Office, the GAO, has looked into 96 major defense projects from the last year, and found cost overruns that totaled $296 billion.” This was on a total 2009 military budget of $651 billion. So almost half of the billions of dollars handed over to military corporations are cost overruns!
This is at a time when millions of workers face long-term systemic unemployment and massive foreclosures.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have now cost more than $1 trillion. The feeble health care reform bill that squeaked through the House, and might not survive Senate revisions next year, is scheduled to cost $1.1 trillion over a 10-year period.
The bloated, increasingly dysfunctional, for-profit U.S. military machine is unable to solve the problems or rebuild the infrastructure in Afghanistan or Iraq , and it is unable to rebuild the crumbling infrastructure in the U.S. It is unable to meet the needs of people anywhere.
It is absorbing the greatest share of the planet’s resources and a majority of the U.S. national budget. This unsustainable combination will sooner or later give rise to new resistance here and around the world.
Global Research Articles by Sara Flounders
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16354
Global Research, December 2, 2009
Workers World - 2009-11-15
Just how powerful is the U.S. military today?
Why is the largest military machine on the planet unable to defeat the resistance in Afghanistan , in a war that has lasted longer than World War II or Vietnam ?
Afghanistan ranks among the poorest and most underdeveloped countries in the world today. It has one of the shortest life expectancy rates, highest infant mortality rates and lowest rates of literacy.
The total U.S. military budget has more than doubled from the beginning of this war in 2001 to the $680 billion budget signed by President Barack Obama Oct. 28. The U.S. military budget today is larger than the military budgets of the rest of the world combined. The U.S. arsenal has the most advanced high-tech weapons.
The funds and troop commitment to Afghanistan have grown with every year of occupation. Last January another 20,000 troops were sent; now there is intense pressure on President Obama to add an additional 40,000 troops. But that is only the tip of the iceberg. More than three times as many forces are currently in Afghanistan when NATO forces and military contractors are counted.
Eight years ago, after an initial massive air bombardment and a quick, brutal invasion, every voice in the media was effusive with assurances that Afghanistan would be quickly transformed and modernized, and the women of Afghanistan liberated. There were assurances of schools, roads, potable water, health care, thriving industry and Western-style “democracy.” A new Marshall Plan was in store.
Was it only due to racist and callous disregard that none of this happened?
In Iraq , how could conditions be worse than during the 13 years of starvation sanctions the U.S. imposed after the 1991 war? Today more than a third of the population has died, is disabled, internally displaced and/or refugees. Fear, violence against women and sectarian divisions have shredded the fabric of society.
Previously a broad current in Pakistan looked to the West for development funds and modernization. Now they are embittered and outraged at U.S. arrogance after whole provinces were forcibly evacuated and bombarded in the hunt for Al Qaeda.
U.S. occupation forces are actually incapable of carrying out a modernization program. They are capable only of massive destruction, daily insults and atrocities. That is why the U.S. is unable to win “hearts and minds” in Afghanistan or Iraq . That is what fuels the resistance.
Today every effort meant to demonstrate the power and strength of U.S. imperialism instead confirms its growing weakness and its systemic inability to be a force for human progress on any level.
Collaborators and warlords
Part of U.S. imperialism’s problem is that its occupation forces are required to rely on the most corrupt, venal and discredited warlords. The only interest these competing military thugs have is in pocketing funds for reconstruction and development. Entire government ministries, their payrolls and their projects have been found to be total fiction. Billions allocated for schools, water and road construction have gone directly into the warlords’ pockets. Hundreds of news articles, congressional inquiries and U.N. reports have exposed just how all-pervasive corruption is.
In Iraq the U.S. occupation depends on the same type of corrupt collaborators. For example, a BBC investigation reported that $23 billion had been lost, stolen or “not properly accounted for” in Iraq . A U.S. gag order prevented discussion of the allegations. (June 10, 2008)
Part of the BBC search for the missing billions focused on Hazem Shalaan, who lived in London until he was appointed minister of defense in 2004. He and his associates siphoned an estimated $1.2 billion out of the Iraqi defense ministry.
But the deeper and more intractable problem is not the local corrupt collaborators. It is the very structure of the Pentagon and the U.S. government. It is a problem that Stanley McChrystal, the commanding general in Afghanistan , or President Obama cannot change or solve.
It is the problem of an imperialist military built solely to serve the profit system.
Contractor industrial complex
All U.S. aid, both military and what is labeled “civilian,” is funneled through thousands and thousands of contractors, subcontractors and sub-subcontractors. None of these U.S. corporate middlemen are even slightly interested in the development of Afghanistan or Iraq . Their only immediate aim is to turn a hefty superprofit as quickly as possible, with as much skim and double billing as possible. For a fee they will provide everything from hired guns, such as Blackwater mercenaries, to food service workers, mechanics, maintenance workers and long-distance truck drivers.
These hired hands also do jobs not connected to servicing the occupation. All reconstruction and infrastructure projects of water purification, sewage treatment, electrical generation, health clinics and road clearance are parceled out piecemeal. Whether these projects ever open or function properly is of little interest or concern. Billing is all that counts.
In past wars, most of these jobs were carried out by the U.S. military. The ratio of contractors to active-duty troops is now more than 1-to-1 in both Iraq and Afghanistan . During the Vietnam War it was 1-to-6.
In 2007 the Associated Press put the number in Iraq alone at 180,000: “The United States has assembled an imposing industrial army in Iraq that’s larger than its uniformed fighting force and is responsible for such a broad swath of responsibilities that the military might not be able to operate without its private-sector partners.” (Sept. 20, 2007)
The total was 190,000 by August 2008. (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 18, 2008)
Some corporations have become synonymous with war profiteering, such as Halliburton, Bechtel and Blackwater in Iraq , and Louis Berger Group, BearingPoint and DynCorp International in Afghanistan .
Every part of the U.S. occupation has been contracted out at the highest rate of profit, with no coordination, no oversight, almost no public bids. Few of the desperately needed supplies reach the dislocated population traumatized by the occupation.
There are now so many pigs at the trough that U.S. forces are no longer able to carry out the broader policy objectives of the U.S. ruling class. The U.S military has even lost count, by tens of thousands, of the numbers of contractors, where they are or what they are doing—except being paid.
Losing count of the mercenaries
The danger of an empire becoming dependent on mercenary forces to fight unpopular wars has been understood since the days of the Roman Empire 2,000 years ago.
A bipartisan Congressional Commission on Wartime Contracting was created last year to examine government contracting for reconstruction, logistics and security operations and to recommend reforms. However, Michael Thibault, co-chair of the commission, explained at a Nov. 2 hearing that “there is no single source for a clear, complete and accurate picture of contractor numbers, locations, contracts and cost.” (AFP, Nov. 2)
“[Thibault said] the Pentagon in April counted about 160,000 contractors mainly in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait, but Central Command recorded more than 242,000 contractors a month earlier.” The stunning difference of 82,000 contractors was based on very different counts in Afghanistan . The difference alone is far greater than the 60,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan .
Thibault continued: “How can contractors be properly managed if we aren’t sure how many there are, where they are and what are they doing?” The lack of an accurate count “invites waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer money and undermines the achievement of U.S. mission objectives.” The Nov. 2 Federal Times reported that Tibault also asked: “How can we assure taxpayers that they aren’t paying for ‘ghost’ employees?”
This has become an unsolvable contradiction in imperialist wars for profit, markets and imperialist domination. Bourgeois academics, think tanks and policy analysts are becoming increasingly concerned.
Thomas Friedman, syndicated columnist and multimillionaire who is deeply committed to the long-term interests of U.S. imperialism, describes the dangers of a “contractor-industrial-complex in Washington that has an economic interest in foreign expeditions.” (New York Times, Nov. 3)
Outsourcing war
Friedman hastens to explain that he is not against outsourcing. His concern is the pattern of outsourcing key tasks, with money and instructions changing hands multiple times in a foreign country. That only invites abuse and corruption. Friedman quoted Allison Stanger, author of “One Nation Under Contract: The Outsourcing of American Power and the Future of Foreign Policy,” who told him: “Contractors provide security for key personnel and sites, including our embassies; feed, clothe and house our troops; train army and police units; and even oversee other contractors. Without a multinational contractor force to fill the gap, we would need a draft to execute these twin interventions.”
That is the real reason for the contracted military forces. The Pentagon does not have enough soldiers, and they don’t have enough collaborators or “allies” to fight their wars.
According to the Congressional Research Service, contractors in 2009 account for 48 percent of the Department of Defense workforce in Iraq and 57 percent in Afghanistan . Thousands of other contractors work for corporate-funded “charities” and numerous government agencies. The U.S. State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development make even more extensive use of them; 80 percent of the State Department budget is for contractors and grants.
Contractors are supposedly not combat troops, although almost 1,800 U.S. contractors have been killed since 9/11. (U.S. News & World Report, Oct. 30) Of course there are no records on the thousands of Afghans and Iraqis killed working for U.S. corporate contractors, or the many thousands of peoples from other oppressed nations who are shipped in to handle the most dangerous jobs.
Contracting is a way of hiding not only the casualties, but also the actual size of the U.S. occupation force. Fearful of domestic opposition, the government intentionally lists the figures for the total number of forces in Afghanistan and Iraq as far less than the real numbers.
A system run on cost overruns
Cost overruns and war profiteering are hardly limited to Iraq , Afghanistan or active theaters of war. They are the very fabric of the U.S. war machine and the underpinning of the U.S. economy.
When President Obama signed the largest military budget in history Oct. 28 he stated: “The Government Accountability Office, the GAO, has looked into 96 major defense projects from the last year, and found cost overruns that totaled $296 billion.” This was on a total 2009 military budget of $651 billion. So almost half of the billions of dollars handed over to military corporations are cost overruns!
This is at a time when millions of workers face long-term systemic unemployment and massive foreclosures.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have now cost more than $1 trillion. The feeble health care reform bill that squeaked through the House, and might not survive Senate revisions next year, is scheduled to cost $1.1 trillion over a 10-year period.
The bloated, increasingly dysfunctional, for-profit U.S. military machine is unable to solve the problems or rebuild the infrastructure in Afghanistan or Iraq , and it is unable to rebuild the crumbling infrastructure in the U.S. It is unable to meet the needs of people anywhere.
It is absorbing the greatest share of the planet’s resources and a majority of the U.S. national budget. This unsustainable combination will sooner or later give rise to new resistance here and around the world.
Global Research Articles by Sara Flounders
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16354
NEW WAR SURTAX PLANNED
THE POPULIST VIEW about working class Americans being forced to pay the bills and bleed in the wars rings true today.With the country fighting two costly, unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Democrats in the White House and Congress are debating how many more Americans to send into battle and just who is going to pay for it all.
In contrasting legislation, legislators are proposing increasing the cannon fodder in Afghanistan. At the same time, senior House Democrats want to impose a new tax on Americans to pay for the rising cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The House is expected to take up the issue of the White House plan to send more American soldiers to Afghanistan. But in a strange twist, the Democrat Party remains deeply divided over the issue so theWhite House is using support among Republicans to muscle through its agenda.
Despite Barack Obama’s campaign pledges not to escalate the two wars, Obama appears to be in the clutches of the military-industrial-banking complex. But populists in the Democrat Party are pushing hard to end the war and bring the troops home. As a result, the White House has had to turn to the neoconservative wing of both parties to push through support and funding for sending tens of thousands more Americans into that no win
war.
In mid November, Democrat Rep. David R. Obey (Wisc.), the current chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee, along with Democrat Reps. John P. Murtha (Pa.), the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and John B. Larson (Conn.), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, unveiled the measure which creates a new “surtax,” or an extra tax on income, that the president will be able to set annually so that it pays for the previous year’s war costs.
“The president is being asked to consider an enlarged counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan, which proponents tell us will take at least a decade and would also cost about a trillion dollars. But unlike the healthcare bill, that would not be paid for.We believe that’s wrong,” the three congressmen said in a joint statement.
“The only people who’ve paid any price for our military involvement in
Iraq and Afghanistan are our military families. We believe that if this war is to be fought, it’s only fair that everyone share the burden.”
It’s laudable that some in Congress recognize the insane costs in men and treasure associated with these two unnecessary wars. But the suggestion that tax increases will help anyone but the banks and the weapons makers would be laughable were it not so deadly serious. Much as it is false to suggest that a draft would force the wealthiest of Americans to send their own sons and daughters into battle, it is misguided to say that increasing
taxes will “share the burden” across the spectrum of wealth in this country.
By definition, surtaxes disproportionately hurt small businesses and average Americans, because large multinational corporations and the elites—the loudest cheerleaders for wars—will always use their money and power to figure out how to game the system and avoid paying the bills or bleeding in the wars.
A far better solution to end these needless costs and the bloodshed would be to exit Iraq and Afghanistan and leave the cleanup to leaders in Iran and Pakistan, who have a vested and legitimate interest in providing stability in that part of the world.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/new_tax_203.html
In contrasting legislation, legislators are proposing increasing the cannon fodder in Afghanistan. At the same time, senior House Democrats want to impose a new tax on Americans to pay for the rising cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The House is expected to take up the issue of the White House plan to send more American soldiers to Afghanistan. But in a strange twist, the Democrat Party remains deeply divided over the issue so theWhite House is using support among Republicans to muscle through its agenda.
Despite Barack Obama’s campaign pledges not to escalate the two wars, Obama appears to be in the clutches of the military-industrial-banking complex. But populists in the Democrat Party are pushing hard to end the war and bring the troops home. As a result, the White House has had to turn to the neoconservative wing of both parties to push through support and funding for sending tens of thousands more Americans into that no win
war.
In mid November, Democrat Rep. David R. Obey (Wisc.), the current chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee, along with Democrat Reps. John P. Murtha (Pa.), the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and John B. Larson (Conn.), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, unveiled the measure which creates a new “surtax,” or an extra tax on income, that the president will be able to set annually so that it pays for the previous year’s war costs.
“The president is being asked to consider an enlarged counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan, which proponents tell us will take at least a decade and would also cost about a trillion dollars. But unlike the healthcare bill, that would not be paid for.We believe that’s wrong,” the three congressmen said in a joint statement.
“The only people who’ve paid any price for our military involvement in
Iraq and Afghanistan are our military families. We believe that if this war is to be fought, it’s only fair that everyone share the burden.”
It’s laudable that some in Congress recognize the insane costs in men and treasure associated with these two unnecessary wars. But the suggestion that tax increases will help anyone but the banks and the weapons makers would be laughable were it not so deadly serious. Much as it is false to suggest that a draft would force the wealthiest of Americans to send their own sons and daughters into battle, it is misguided to say that increasing
taxes will “share the burden” across the spectrum of wealth in this country.
By definition, surtaxes disproportionately hurt small businesses and average Americans, because large multinational corporations and the elites—the loudest cheerleaders for wars—will always use their money and power to figure out how to game the system and avoid paying the bills or bleeding in the wars.
A far better solution to end these needless costs and the bloodshed would be to exit Iraq and Afghanistan and leave the cleanup to leaders in Iran and Pakistan, who have a vested and legitimate interest in providing stability in that part of the world.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/new_tax_203.html
What Is Obama Getting Us into in Afghanistan?
By Jim Hightower, Creators Syndicate
Posted on December 2, 2009, Printed on December 5, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/144319/
Hi-ho, hi-ho, it's off to war we go! Pound the drums loudly, stand with your country proudly!
Wait, wait, wait — hold it right there. Cut the music, slow the rush, and let's all ponder what Barack Obama, Roberts Gates, Stanley McChrystal and Co. are getting us into ... and whether we really want to go there. After all, just because the White House and the Pentagon brass are waving the flag and insisting that a major escalation of America's military mission in Afghanistan is a "necessity" doesn't mean it is ... or that We the People must accept it.
Remember the wisdom of Mark Twain about war-whooping generals and politicians: "Loyalty to the country, always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."
How many more dead and mangled American soldiers does the government's "new" Afghan policy deserve? How many more tens of billions of dollars should we let them siphon from our public treasury to fuel their war policy? How much more of our country's good name will they squander on what is essentially a civil war?
We've been lied to for nearly a decade about "success" in Iraq and Afghanistan — why do the hawks deserve our trust that this time will be different?
Their rationales for escalation are hardly confidence boosters. The goal, we're told, is to defeat the al-Qaida terrorist network that threatens our national security. Yes, but al-Qaida is not in Afghanistan! Nor is it one network. It has metastasized, with strongholds now in Pakistan, Indonesia, Morocco, Yemen and Somalia, plus even having enclaves in England and France.
Well, claims Obama himself, we must protect the democratic process in Afghanistan. Does he think we have suckerwrappers around our heads? America's chosen leader over there is President Hamid Karzai — a preening incompetent who was "elected" this year only through flagrant fraud and whose government is controlled by warlords, rife with corruption and opposed by the great majority of Afghans.
During the election campaign from July through October, 195 Americans were killed and more than 1,000 wounded to protect this guy's "democratic process." Why should even one more American die for Karzai?
Finally, Washington's war establishment asserts that adding some 30,000 more troops will let us greatly expand and train the Afghan army and police force during the next couple of years so they can secure their own country and we can leave.
Mission accomplished!
Nearly every independent military analyst, however, says this assertion is not just fantasy, it's delusional — it'll take at least 10 years to raise Afghanistan's largely illiterate and corrupt security forces to a level of barely adequate, costing us taxpayers more than $4 billion a year to train and support them.
Obama has been taken over by the military industrial hawks and national security theorists who play war games with other people's lives and money. I had hoped Obama might be a more forceful leader who would reject the same old interventionist mindset of those who profit from permanent war. But his newly announced Afghan policy shows he is not that leader.
So, we must look elsewhere, starting with ourselves. The first job of a citizen is to keep your mouth open. Obama is wrong on his policy — deadly wrong — and those of you who see this have both a moral and patriotic duty to reach out to others to inform, organize and mobilize our grassroots objections, taking common sense to high places.
Also, look to leaders in Congress who are standing up against Obama's war and finally beginning to reassert the legislative branch's constitutional responsibility to oversee and direct military policy. For example, Rep. Jim McGovern is pushing for a specific, congressionally mandated exit strategy; Rep. Barbara Lee wants to use Congress' control of the public purse strings to stop Obama's escalation; and Rep. David Obey is calling for a war tax on the richest Americans to put any escalation on-budget, rather than on a credit card for China to finance and future generations to pay.
This is no time to be deferential to executive authority. Stand up. Speak out. It's our country, not theirs. We are America — ultimately, we have the power and the responsibility.
Jim Hightower is a national radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of the new book, "Swim Against the Current: Even a Dead Fish Can Go With the Flow." (Wiley, March 2008) He publishes the monthly "Hightower Lowdown," co-edited by Phillip Frazer.
© 2009 Creators Syndicate All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/144319/
Posted on December 2, 2009, Printed on December 5, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/144319/
Hi-ho, hi-ho, it's off to war we go! Pound the drums loudly, stand with your country proudly!
Wait, wait, wait — hold it right there. Cut the music, slow the rush, and let's all ponder what Barack Obama, Roberts Gates, Stanley McChrystal and Co. are getting us into ... and whether we really want to go there. After all, just because the White House and the Pentagon brass are waving the flag and insisting that a major escalation of America's military mission in Afghanistan is a "necessity" doesn't mean it is ... or that We the People must accept it.
Remember the wisdom of Mark Twain about war-whooping generals and politicians: "Loyalty to the country, always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."
How many more dead and mangled American soldiers does the government's "new" Afghan policy deserve? How many more tens of billions of dollars should we let them siphon from our public treasury to fuel their war policy? How much more of our country's good name will they squander on what is essentially a civil war?
We've been lied to for nearly a decade about "success" in Iraq and Afghanistan — why do the hawks deserve our trust that this time will be different?
Their rationales for escalation are hardly confidence boosters. The goal, we're told, is to defeat the al-Qaida terrorist network that threatens our national security. Yes, but al-Qaida is not in Afghanistan! Nor is it one network. It has metastasized, with strongholds now in Pakistan, Indonesia, Morocco, Yemen and Somalia, plus even having enclaves in England and France.
Well, claims Obama himself, we must protect the democratic process in Afghanistan. Does he think we have suckerwrappers around our heads? America's chosen leader over there is President Hamid Karzai — a preening incompetent who was "elected" this year only through flagrant fraud and whose government is controlled by warlords, rife with corruption and opposed by the great majority of Afghans.
During the election campaign from July through October, 195 Americans were killed and more than 1,000 wounded to protect this guy's "democratic process." Why should even one more American die for Karzai?
Finally, Washington's war establishment asserts that adding some 30,000 more troops will let us greatly expand and train the Afghan army and police force during the next couple of years so they can secure their own country and we can leave.
Mission accomplished!
Nearly every independent military analyst, however, says this assertion is not just fantasy, it's delusional — it'll take at least 10 years to raise Afghanistan's largely illiterate and corrupt security forces to a level of barely adequate, costing us taxpayers more than $4 billion a year to train and support them.
Obama has been taken over by the military industrial hawks and national security theorists who play war games with other people's lives and money. I had hoped Obama might be a more forceful leader who would reject the same old interventionist mindset of those who profit from permanent war. But his newly announced Afghan policy shows he is not that leader.
So, we must look elsewhere, starting with ourselves. The first job of a citizen is to keep your mouth open. Obama is wrong on his policy — deadly wrong — and those of you who see this have both a moral and patriotic duty to reach out to others to inform, organize and mobilize our grassroots objections, taking common sense to high places.
Also, look to leaders in Congress who are standing up against Obama's war and finally beginning to reassert the legislative branch's constitutional responsibility to oversee and direct military policy. For example, Rep. Jim McGovern is pushing for a specific, congressionally mandated exit strategy; Rep. Barbara Lee wants to use Congress' control of the public purse strings to stop Obama's escalation; and Rep. David Obey is calling for a war tax on the richest Americans to put any escalation on-budget, rather than on a credit card for China to finance and future generations to pay.
This is no time to be deferential to executive authority. Stand up. Speak out. It's our country, not theirs. We are America — ultimately, we have the power and the responsibility.
Jim Hightower is a national radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of the new book, "Swim Against the Current: Even a Dead Fish Can Go With the Flow." (Wiley, March 2008) He publishes the monthly "Hightower Lowdown," co-edited by Phillip Frazer.
© 2009 Creators Syndicate All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/144319/
Obama's War Speech Woke the Sleeping Giant -- Anger Over Afghan Surge Fuels Country-Wide Protests
By Jodie Evans, AlterNet
Posted on December 4, 2009, Printed on December 5, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/144386/
CODEPINK issued an alert on Thursday, December 3, about the President's West Point speech on Afghanistan and his failure to respond to the many voices calling for peace. We asked people to email the White House to voice their concerns.
The alert had been out for three minutes when the phone rang. My assistant Mark answered, then turned to me and said, "The White House is calling."
I picked up the phone, and discovered it was Jayne in the President's Office of Public Engagement. "How did you feel about the President's speech?" she asked thoughtfully.
I told her I was feeling horrible, that I disagreed with almost everything he said. I said he didn't have the courage to be in his own body as he delivered the words that would cause the deaths of so many and that if he was willing to couch his position in so many untruths then I couldn't believe anything he said--even about why we were there. Really, we are going to send 100,000 troops, over 100,000 contractors and 100 billion dollars to deal with 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? It reminds me of an Afghan woman's tirade to me when I was there, "You want me to believe that the most powerful nation in the world is being held hostage by those skinny, lice covered, illiterate, dirty men in those craggy hills of this broken country?"
Jayne said, "I totally hear what you are saying." She indicated that the President has told them to stay open to all opinions and she understood I might feel that way. And then she came to the purpose of her call. "I want to keep our lines of communication open, but I can't do it if I can't work. I have an email from your list hitting my box every second and can't get any work done. Can you do something about that so our communication can be more productive? Can you send out another alert with a better address?"
I quickly looked at my computer to see how many emails had been sent out from our list and read the most recent:
You have failed the critical test of both a Commander-in-Chief, and of a man: In escalating our eight-year-long military effort to subdue or occupy Afghanistan you have demonstrated neither judgment and integrity nor courage. You have sentenced to death countless Afghans, Americans and others, on our side all duped over and over again by the cynical, high-powered sales pitch attached to our disastrous misadventures in the Middle East, a war which may well be fatal to the republic itself, all to save your political image. -- Arthur Wagner
I was transfixed and couldn't help reading more and more of the heartfelt messages.
Obama. There's such a thing as being "too late," as MLK warned. Be now. Be courage. Be for us. Be not for corporate oil/gas/coal and defense machines. Be a father. Be for children, schools and universities. Be for parks and swimming pools. Be for jobs and living wages and food on the table. Be for roofs overhead and safe streets. Be for renewable energy and clean air. Be for fish and frogs, not poisoned by acid rain and pesticides. Be for children in dirt villages where U.S. tanks roam. Be for stopping cluster bombs. Be for returning Iraqi refugees to their homes. Be not for dominion. Be a peacemaker. -- Sharon Rose
It was working! Impassioned CODEPINKers all over the globe were being heard inside the White House!
"There is nothing I can do," I told Jayne, "but maybe in your email program you could create a folder they all go to. I assume your system is that sophisticated." I kept reading the messages that continued to fly onto the web page.
We need this money at home. My husband has been unemployed for over a year and we'd have no health insurance except I have it through a job as a university professor, even though I'm retired and lost over a third of my retirement money in the last year. Still we are far better off than most of my fellow citizens. Take care of our own children, elderly, incapacitated, and the soldiers already wounded in these appalling wars--and don't get any other U.S. boys and girls hurt! -- (Dr.) Sandra E. Drake
Jayne thanked me and says next time she will consult with us to make our communications work better.
Instead of sending 30,000 troops, how about sending 30,000 Peace Corps workers? That would employ some of our own, work on building up the Afghanistan infrastructure (helping create jobs, building schools and hospitals), and maybe the culture would move toward self-sufficiency and have less hatred of us. Fight hate and terrorism with love and constructive help! -- Karen Snyder
I thanked her and said I hoped she would pass the passion of the CODEPINK members on to Obama.
Our war in the border regions is being fought by drone assassinations. A man at the control sits in front of a screen in Las Vegas, and fires when he has a certain shot. To a primitive mind (but not only to a primitive mind), this experiment on a country not our own has the trappings a video game played in hell. But the procedure was here embraced by the president in the antiseptic idiom of a practiced technocrat. He gave no sign of the effects of such killings by a foreign power out of reach in the sky. To assassinate one major operative, Baitullah Mehsud, as Jane Mayer showed in a recent article in the New Yorker, 16 strikes were necessary, over 14 months, killing a total of as many as 538 persons, of whom 200-300 were by-standers. The total number of Muslims killed by Americans in revenge for the attacks of September 11th now numbers more than a hundred thousand. Of those, few were members of Al Qaeda, and few harbored any intention, for good or ill, toward the United States before we crossed the ocean as an occupying power. -- Brad Martin
There were more people protesting in the streets this week than we have seen in a long time: at least 80 communities rose up. I asked Jayne to thank the President for waking the sleeping giant and assured her that we will do all we can to make sure he does not get the money from Congress to escalate this senseless war.
Please do not send our children off to die. Would you ever do the same to yours? -- Catron Booker
In October, Jodie Evans hand-delivered a petition to Obama from Afghan women against the surge. To read more of the letters to Obama and to send your own, click here.
More info: Check out the coverage on some of the local protests from this week: In Lansing, Michigan, Bozeman, Montana, and Hackensack, NJ
Jodie Evans is a co-founder of Codepink: Women For Peace.
© 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/144386/
Posted on December 4, 2009, Printed on December 5, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/144386/
CODEPINK issued an alert on Thursday, December 3, about the President's West Point speech on Afghanistan and his failure to respond to the many voices calling for peace. We asked people to email the White House to voice their concerns.
The alert had been out for three minutes when the phone rang. My assistant Mark answered, then turned to me and said, "The White House is calling."
I picked up the phone, and discovered it was Jayne in the President's Office of Public Engagement. "How did you feel about the President's speech?" she asked thoughtfully.
I told her I was feeling horrible, that I disagreed with almost everything he said. I said he didn't have the courage to be in his own body as he delivered the words that would cause the deaths of so many and that if he was willing to couch his position in so many untruths then I couldn't believe anything he said--even about why we were there. Really, we are going to send 100,000 troops, over 100,000 contractors and 100 billion dollars to deal with 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? It reminds me of an Afghan woman's tirade to me when I was there, "You want me to believe that the most powerful nation in the world is being held hostage by those skinny, lice covered, illiterate, dirty men in those craggy hills of this broken country?"
Jayne said, "I totally hear what you are saying." She indicated that the President has told them to stay open to all opinions and she understood I might feel that way. And then she came to the purpose of her call. "I want to keep our lines of communication open, but I can't do it if I can't work. I have an email from your list hitting my box every second and can't get any work done. Can you do something about that so our communication can be more productive? Can you send out another alert with a better address?"
I quickly looked at my computer to see how many emails had been sent out from our list and read the most recent:
You have failed the critical test of both a Commander-in-Chief, and of a man: In escalating our eight-year-long military effort to subdue or occupy Afghanistan you have demonstrated neither judgment and integrity nor courage. You have sentenced to death countless Afghans, Americans and others, on our side all duped over and over again by the cynical, high-powered sales pitch attached to our disastrous misadventures in the Middle East, a war which may well be fatal to the republic itself, all to save your political image. -- Arthur Wagner
I was transfixed and couldn't help reading more and more of the heartfelt messages.
Obama. There's such a thing as being "too late," as MLK warned. Be now. Be courage. Be for us. Be not for corporate oil/gas/coal and defense machines. Be a father. Be for children, schools and universities. Be for parks and swimming pools. Be for jobs and living wages and food on the table. Be for roofs overhead and safe streets. Be for renewable energy and clean air. Be for fish and frogs, not poisoned by acid rain and pesticides. Be for children in dirt villages where U.S. tanks roam. Be for stopping cluster bombs. Be for returning Iraqi refugees to their homes. Be not for dominion. Be a peacemaker. -- Sharon Rose
It was working! Impassioned CODEPINKers all over the globe were being heard inside the White House!
"There is nothing I can do," I told Jayne, "but maybe in your email program you could create a folder they all go to. I assume your system is that sophisticated." I kept reading the messages that continued to fly onto the web page.
We need this money at home. My husband has been unemployed for over a year and we'd have no health insurance except I have it through a job as a university professor, even though I'm retired and lost over a third of my retirement money in the last year. Still we are far better off than most of my fellow citizens. Take care of our own children, elderly, incapacitated, and the soldiers already wounded in these appalling wars--and don't get any other U.S. boys and girls hurt! -- (Dr.) Sandra E. Drake
Jayne thanked me and says next time she will consult with us to make our communications work better.
Instead of sending 30,000 troops, how about sending 30,000 Peace Corps workers? That would employ some of our own, work on building up the Afghanistan infrastructure (helping create jobs, building schools and hospitals), and maybe the culture would move toward self-sufficiency and have less hatred of us. Fight hate and terrorism with love and constructive help! -- Karen Snyder
I thanked her and said I hoped she would pass the passion of the CODEPINK members on to Obama.
Our war in the border regions is being fought by drone assassinations. A man at the control sits in front of a screen in Las Vegas, and fires when he has a certain shot. To a primitive mind (but not only to a primitive mind), this experiment on a country not our own has the trappings a video game played in hell. But the procedure was here embraced by the president in the antiseptic idiom of a practiced technocrat. He gave no sign of the effects of such killings by a foreign power out of reach in the sky. To assassinate one major operative, Baitullah Mehsud, as Jane Mayer showed in a recent article in the New Yorker, 16 strikes were necessary, over 14 months, killing a total of as many as 538 persons, of whom 200-300 were by-standers. The total number of Muslims killed by Americans in revenge for the attacks of September 11th now numbers more than a hundred thousand. Of those, few were members of Al Qaeda, and few harbored any intention, for good or ill, toward the United States before we crossed the ocean as an occupying power. -- Brad Martin
There were more people protesting in the streets this week than we have seen in a long time: at least 80 communities rose up. I asked Jayne to thank the President for waking the sleeping giant and assured her that we will do all we can to make sure he does not get the money from Congress to escalate this senseless war.
Please do not send our children off to die. Would you ever do the same to yours? -- Catron Booker
In October, Jodie Evans hand-delivered a petition to Obama from Afghan women against the surge. To read more of the letters to Obama and to send your own, click here.
More info: Check out the coverage on some of the local protests from this week: In Lansing, Michigan, Bozeman, Montana, and Hackensack, NJ
Jodie Evans is a co-founder of Codepink: Women For Peace.
© 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/144386/
Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn on Democracy Now - 2007-04-16
to get right to the interview, skip ahead to the 10minute point
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
