Ted McLaughlin : The Big Lie About Tax Breaks for the Rich

Pinnochio image from Eurohero.

Corporate profits at record high:
The myth that the rich need more help

By Ted McLaughlin / The Rag Blog / November 24, 2010

There is a huge lie being spread by right-wing Republicans. They are trying to convince us that the richest Americans and corporations are taxed too heavily and are hurting. They want people to think that these rich investors and corporations need help in the form of massive tax breaks. They further say that if more money is given to the rich, it will create more jobs for ordinary Americans and help the rich to compete with foreign investors and corporations.

This is not just a lie — it is an outrageous lie. A Commerce Department report released on Tuesday shows that American businesses (especially large corporations) actually earned record profits in the third quarter of this year. For that quarter, American business show profits at an annual rate of $1.66 trillion — the highest figure since the government began keeping track over 60 years ago.

And the third quarter figures are not an anomaly. The profit figures for American businesses have grown for the last seven quarters in a row. There seems to be little doubt that this recession (which is still raging for the vast majority of Americans) is not affecting the corporations and the rich at all. They are doing better than ever.

The bad part is that the rich are getting richer on the backs of ordinary Americans. One of the major reasons for the record business profits is the elimination and outsourcing of American jobs. In other words, the rich are getting massively richer by making other Americans poorer.

This shows that the Republican claim that letting the rich have more money will create more jobs is nonsense. Even though their profits have gone up for the last seven quarters, there has not been any significant hiring. This should not surprise anyone. Businesses do not hire workers because they have a profit increase or a tax decrease. They hire workers because they need more workers to meet the demand for their goods or services.

And the opposite is also true. Businesses do not lay off workers because of higher taxes — they do it because they don’t need those workers to meet demand. To hire or fire workers for any reason other than demand would be foolish and very bad business practice.

So it would be silly to believe that giving these people, who are making record profits, a massive tax cut would create jobs. Study after study has shown that cutting taxes is a very poor job creator. The only thing that will spur job creation in the private sector is an increase in demand for products and services.

Giving the rich more money will not create that demand, since they already have enough money to buy whatever they want. The way to stimulate demand is to put more money in the hands of poor and working people, because that money must be spent and will boost the economy for everyone — both creating jobs and fattening the profits of businesses.

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

The other reason given by Republicans for cutting taxes for corporations and the super rich is that they are more heavily taxed than corporations and investors in other countries. The chart above shows that is simply not true. The effective tax rate paid by American corporations is actually less than in many other developed countries when looked at as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

As for investors, they actually pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than even middle class workers. That’s because they pay a capital gains tax instead of income tax (and capital gains are taxed at much lower rates than income received from actual work).

The rich and corporate entities are NOT being taxed at a higher rate than in other countries, and giving them even more money will not create significant job creation. To be blunt, there is only one reason the rich want further tax cuts — greed. And this greed, while it may fill Republican campaign coffers for future elections, will just further damage the economy for most Americans, by stunting job creation and increasing the vast gulf between the income and wealth of the richest Americans and the rest of America.

While it might make sense to continue taxing most Americans at a lower rate because they are still being hurt badly by the continuing recession — such a case cannot be made for the richest 2% of Americans. Giving them a further tax cut will just increase the deficit while doing nothing to help the economy.

The rich know this — most are just so greedy that they don’t care. It doesn’t matter to them that politicians are considering cutting programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and the minimum wage (programs that help Americans who really need help) as long as they can fatten their already bulging bank accounts. I say “most” because there are a few of the rich who will admit the truth.

Billionaire Warren Buffett is one of the few rich men/women who is brave enough to tell the truth. He knows that most Americans are hurting in this recession while the rich are not. He also knows that the rich owe their society and their country more, because they have been given or have been able to make more. Listen to what he told Christiane Amanpour in an interview that is to air on November 28th on ABC:

If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further. But I think that people at the high end — people like myself — should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we’ve ever had it.

The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we’ll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.

As Buffett says, the “trickle down” theory of economics has already been discredited. It should be tossed into the trashbin of history. The rich are being taxed at a lower rate than at any time since before World War II, and that would still be true if the Bush tax cuts for the rich were allowed to expire.

What this country needs is a lot of new jobs (and I don’t mean minimum wage jobs). Tax cuts for the rich will not accomplish that.

Don’t believe the Republican lies!

[Rag Blog contributor Ted McLaughlin also posts at jobsanger.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

David P. Hamilton : Parsing the Midterms: A Progressive Exodus

Political cartoon by Mike Keefe / inToon.com.

2010 Elections:
Where the votes came from
and how the Dems lost big

My hypothesis is that most of the excess decline in support for Democratic Party congressional candidates in 2010 was from political progressives of all ages, ethnicities, genders, and sexual orientations.

By David P. Hamilton / The Rag Blog / November 23, 2010

Was the performance of the Democratic Party congressional candidates uniquely bad in the 2010 midterm election? If so, why was that the case?

Composite of U.S. House of Representatives elections, 1990-2010
Year / Democratic…Republican…Independent…Libertarian…Green…Total…%
1992 / 48,550,096…43,498,015…1,255,726…848,614…134,072…97,198,316…50.8
1994 / 31,542,823…36,325,809…497,403…415,944…40,177…70,493,648…36.6
1996 / 43,393,580…43,120,872…572,746…651,448…113,773…90,233,467…45.8
1998 / 31,391,834…31,983,612…372,072…880,024…70,932…66,604,802…32.9
2000 / 46,411,559…46,750,175…683,098…1,610,292…279,158…98,799,963…46.3
2002 / 33,642,142…37,091,270…403,670…1,030,171…286,962…74,706,555…34.3
2004 / 52,745,121…55,713,412…674,202…1,040,465…331,298…113,192,286…51.4
2006 / 42,082,311…35,674,808…417,895…657,435…234,939…80,975,537…35.7
2008 / 64,888,090…51,952,981…729,798…1,083,096…570,780…122,586,293…52.3*
2010 / 35,377,756…41,128,504…79,500,000*…33.7*


% refers to the percentage of eligible voters who voted.
* estimates based on unofficial figures.

Observations based on the above

1. The percentage participation in U.S. House midterm elections has not changed significantly over the past 20 years, ranging from a low of 33.1 in 1990 to a high of 36.6 in 1994. 2010 was toward the lower end of this narrow spectrum at 33.7%.

2. The percentage drop off in total voter turnout from a presidential year to the following midterm: 1992/94 – 14.2%, 1996/98 – 12.9%, 2000/02 – 12.0%, 2004/06 – 15.7%, 2008/10 – 18.6% *(est). The average drop off in the four election cycles preceding 2008/2010 was 13.7%. Hence, the 2008/10 drop off exceeded the recent average percentage drop by 36%. On the other hand, the 2008 turnout was the highest in decades. These totals include supporters of all parties.

3. The percentage decline of total votes for Democratic congressional candidates from presidential to midterm elections in each cycle: 1992/94 – 35%, 1996/98 – 28%, 2000/02 – 27.5%, 2004/06 – 20%, 2008/10 – 45.5%. The drop off in support for Democratic Party congressional candidates in the 2010 midterm election was historically very high, reversing a trend toward less of a drop off and more than doubling the percentage drop off from the preceding cycle.

The numerical drop in votes for Democratic congressional candidates in the 2008/10 cycle was even more striking, 29.5 million votes. That compares to drops of 17 million in 1992/94, 12 million in 1996/98, 12.8 million in 2000/02, and 10.7 million in 2004/06. Considering the long term downward trend in the drop during each cycle, I estimate that 18-20 million more Democratic Party voters didn’t vote in 2010 compared to what historical trends would have predicted.

Other observations

4. According to estimates from several sources, the youth vote (under 30) dropped from 18% of voters in 2008 (.18 x 122,586,293 = 22,065,533) to 9% in 2010 (.09 x 79,500,000* = 7,115,000). That represents a decline of 68%. It is estimated that 58% of this vote went for Obama in 2008. Hence, if this percentage held constant in both 2008 and 2010, Democrats received 12.8 million youth votes in 2008 and 4.1 in the 2010 election. A more normal drop of 30% would have given the Democrats close to 9 million youth votes in 2010. Hence, Democrats lost nearly 5 million of their excess vote decline in 2010 among youth.

5. African-American vote. One estimate was that it dropped from 13% of the total vote in 2008 (15,868,500) to 10% in 2010 (7,950,000), a numerical drop of nearly 8 million and a percentage drop of roughly 50%. But 2008 represented a historic high in African American voter turnout. They represent roughly 10% of eligible voters. Hence, their turnout was more normal than in 2008. Still, if their turnout decline had been more like 30%, the Democrats would have received nearly 3 million more votes.

6. Latino vote. Commentaries so far indicate that the Latino vote was larger than expected and underestimated by pre-election polls. Democrats won this vote in congressional races by almost two to one, but Latino Republicans won governorships in Nevada, New Mexico, and Florida. Still, while it doubtless did decline numerically from 2008, it is reasonable to say that the Latino vote did not contribute to the excess Democratic decline.

7. Gay/lesbian vote. According to the Huffington Post, “Democrats’ share of the gay vote rose from 75 percent in 2006 to 80 percent in 2008 and then dropped to 68 percent in 2010. Each year, approximately 3 percent of voters identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual.” Assuming that this is a very conservative estimate of the gay/lesbian vote, there were at least 2.5 million gay/lesbian voters in 2010 and 3.75 million in 2008. Hence, in 2008, the Democrats received about 3 million gay/lesbian votes and in 2010 they received just over 1.6 million, a decline of 48%. A more normal drop off of 30% would have given the Democrats more than a half million more gay/lesbian votes.

8. Women’s vote. I can’t find a source on percentages and numbers for women’s turnout in 2010. Democrats generally enjoy a “gender gap” among women voters of 7-8% on average. One commentary had independent white women voters switching markedly from Democrat to Republican in 2010. If women represented 55% of the voters and the Democrats enjoyed the normal advantage, they would have received nearly 24 million women’s votes in 2010. The actual total was more like 19 million, an excess decline of nearly 5 million.

Who were the 18-20 million who voted for Democrats in 2008 and given historical trends were expected to vote for them in 2010, but didn’t show up? We have seen that roughly 5 million of them were among youth, another 5 million were women voters, 3 million were African Americans voters, and at most a million were gay/lesbian voters. Since all those groups overlap, we have probably only accounted for 10-12 million missing voters. Where are the rest?

My hypothesis is that most of the excess decline in support for Democratic Party congressional candidates in 2010 was from political progressives of all ages, ethnicities, genders, and sexual orientations. Most of the Left came out for Obama and the related Democrats in 2008 and most stayed home in 2010.

I know at least a dozen people within a block of my house who worked hard for Obama and the Democrats in 2008 and didn’t vote in 2010, often purposefully. They stayed home as a result of dissatisfaction with Obama’s leadership, his concessions to the corporate capitalist class, and the inadequacies of Democratic Party accomplishments since 2008. I would further speculate that many also stayed home out of sheer disgust with the whole American political system.

In brief, the nexus of the excess drop in votes for Democrats was the Left. They provided legions of foot soldiers in 2008 and in 2010 they pulled out of the system altogether, often consciously. A comment on my recent Rag Blog article [“‘Citizens United’ and the Corruption of American Politics“] said, “Not voting is voting.” I agree. As the Tea Party is the energy driving the Republicans, it is the Left in all its permutations that propels the Democrats. This time, their message was that they wouldn’t support Democrats who too much resemble Bush-lite.

Another major factor operating in this election is the Rovian strategy, which emphasizes base mobilization and recognizes that the middle is largely a myth, especially in off-year elections. It has been validated by the overall results of the 2010 elections, despite the fact that the most inept Tea Party candidates exceeded the strategy’s potential. This is more and more the principal electoral strategy of Republicans.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are still following the old strategy of moving to the middle, based on the false assumption that the electorate is some kind of bell curve with most people grouped in the middle. In this manner, they loose touch with their own base. The only solution for the Democrats is to also adopt a more Rovian strategy, becoming actually progressive, i.e. more class conscious, to better mobilize their base.

Unfortunately, the paradox for the Democrats is that their source of funds pushes them in directions that alienate them from their base. And every indication is that Barack Obama, having spent most of his life trying not to look like an angry black man, is fundamentally unable to make such a transition.

[David P. Hamilton has been a political activist in Austin since the late 1960s when he worked with SDS and wrote for The Rag, Austin’s underground newspaper.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

All the political polls show that the American public is deeply unhappy. This was reflected in the broadly anti-government sentiment that threw out many moderate incumbents during the recent mid-term elections. The onset of hard times commonly favors new and stronger political medicine in search of restoring the previous prosperity, whether this be right, left, or radical center.

Such popular discontent is now global, but is rather more concentrated in the mature and established capitalist economies accustomed to high living standards. The USA sees increasing political dissatisfaction with growing support for the Tea Party Movement and almost half thinking that America’s best days are past. However we also see growing economic unrest in France, Britain, and Ireland, and echoed in much of the rest of the world.

The root cause of this dissatisfaction is a globally overextended, indebted market economy, unable to grow enough to pay back its debts without cheap energy. The end of cheap oil, with its current plateau and peaking in global production, means that the global economy will never recover its previous scale of material production and level of material profitability. The global lack of market demand needed to generate the previous profit is being fitfully met by increases of sovereign debt, via the issuing of fiat currency by the world’s major central banks. This is reflected in a retreat to investment in gold to preserve wealth.

Like a pack of hungry dogs fighting over scraps of meat, we now see the G20 nations trying to gain trade advantage for their national business interests and banking groups. This is threatening a global trade war leading to a contraction of total trade, probably leading to the creation of new regional trading blocks and alliances. Yesterday Greece, today Ireland — tomorrow Spain?

In the USA, as grassroots political and economic anxiety increases, the corporate media is actively promoting right wing political gurus like Glen Beck and Sarah Palin. They campaign against Washington, deny global warming, offer easy solutions mostly in line with corporate profitability, and blame liberal establishment scapegoats like Obama for a steadily increasing level of economic pain, joblessness, and political gridlock. Even with effective Republican control of Congress, there are deep internal divisions in the making.

One way to understand the core political problem is to understand that the public is economically stressed, and unwilling to tolerate much economic sacrifice. In some ways this makes sense, given that an obviously dysfunctional and unstable political coalition is in charge of managing the US economy, even while the independent Federal Reserve is struggling to be seen as nonpolitical.

Facing severe problems, any government needs to convince its public to tolerate temporary economic pain for long term benefit. It is as if we badly need an operation to restore our national health, but we cannot tolerate the pain of surgery, so we listen to the medical quacks as our health deteriorates. The problem now is that US voters no longer trust the US government to operate fairly. This is especially so after the bank bailouts, but with little banking reform.

The reality of course, is that to really actually solve our problems, we first need to somehow break through our denial of the true nature of our problem. Then we need to rekindle a national spirit of political and economic cooperation such as the US public willingly offered during WWII, and more recently the level of national unity seen under President GWBush just after the 9/11 attacks.

Our immediate prospects seem gloomy. Because of a combination of economic decline and political paralysis, we seem to be headed for a political and economic crisis of some sort, perhaps our greatest depression, with peak oil as the icing on that cake.

Yet there is hope. Sometimes a crisis is the only way to disrupt business as usual enough to make the system receptive to fundamental change, even if wiser policies are only adopted as a last resort after the other possibilities have been exhausted. There are still voices of reason to be found, in fact all over the Internet. One policy analyst I follow and recommend is Tom Whipple, an expert on energy economics and a fellow of the Post Carbon Institute. [The Post Carbon Institute is essentially a progressive environmental think tank, a coalition of about thirty leading environmental policy experts in different areas with a good grip on the big picture and reasonable and appropriate policy options.]

In the brief essay below, Whipple does a remarkable job of tying everything together; explaining how the end of cheap energy, the depressed US economy, and the current political gridlock in Washington are tied together in terms of cause and effect. One can scarcely over-emphasize the need to accurately understand what is really going on, as we collectively engage in the “downsizing of civilization”.

The peak oil crisis: Did we vote ourselves to extinction?
by Tom Whipple
4.714285
Average: 4.7 (7 votes)

Please Log in or register to rate this article.

The disconnect between the American body politic and reality grows larger every day.

In reviewing hundreds of pages of commentary on the election, one searches in vain for analysis that even come close to describing what is happening to the nation – i.e. we are in the midst of a massive deflating credit bubble and running short of affordable liquid fuels at the same time. There seems to be general agreement that the new balance of power in Washington means two years of gridlock. Despite an occasional bow in the direction of bi-partisanship, the new majority in the house is saying quite openly that it will work to lower taxes, cut spending, will stop any efforts to deal with climate change, and will spend the next two years investigating everything it can about the Obama administration in hopes it will be so discredited in two years that the President can’t possibly win another term. Whether this agenda is what the voters thought they would get on November 2 when they voted yet again for change is another question.

Upon assuming office, the Obama administration faced the biggest choice of any American President since Lincoln — either face up to the fact that the industrial age, with its mantra of endless economic growth, was over and start making preparations for a new era, or try to revive the economy. Apparently the new President, unwilling to grapple with the downsizing of civilization, chose to prolong the deteriorating industrial economy for a few more years by increasing deficit spending, attempting to reform health care, and resorting to various monetary tactics that may or may not keep the financial system from ultimately collapsing. The basis of the problem is that without steadily increasing amounts of cheap energy, reviving economic growth as we know it is simply not sustainable for long. Borrowing and printing trillions of dollars may briefly slow the decline, but little more.

The trillions spent on bailouts and stimulation kept the illusion of recovery going for some months, but did little to increase employment or reverse the disintegration of the inflated housing market. Some polls show nearly half of US households have been seriously affected in some manner by the adverse economic conditions, yet the administration continued to express optimism rather than realism. In November of 2009 and 2010, the people spoke and the Congress and many statehouses were populated with many new faces. In most cases these newly elected officials had even less idea how the situation could be fixed, but they were new and that gave the voters a ray of hope.

The one policy area where the Obama administration tried to make major changes was in dealing with global warming by controlling carbon emissions. It is interesting that an issue on which there should be universal agreement – saving life on the planet – managed to degenerate into an imbroglio which approaches religious fanaticism. The reason of course is that controlling emissions is now thought by many as synonymous with further job losses.

Although a stream of studies conclude that global temperatures are rising, ice is melting everywhere, and people who study such things say increasing amounts of carbon in the atmosphere are to blame, over half of America believes man-made global warming is a giant hoax. A recent Pew poll says that only 37 percent of Americans and 41 percent of the Chinese believe global warming is a serious problem. Only in Pakistan, which ironically is on the cusp of being done in by global warming, and Poland of all places, are people said to be less worried than here in the U.S.

So where is all this leading? The new House majority can’t cut the interest on the national debt, will be viscerally reluctant to make serious cuts in defense spending, and is unlike to have the stomach to make serious cuts in entitlements. Therefore, it will likely content itself with chopping a few marquis spending programs such as earmarks, declare victory, and go back to preparing for the 2012 elections. There is even a good chance that they will still be preparing when the next oil price spike occurs. If the spike is high enough and lasts long enough it could enter into the political debates in the 2012 election. But it really doesn’t matter; very high oil prices are going to do serious harm to the economy one of these days, and when they come, the realistic discussions can begin as to what we can do.

Unfortunately the most serious of all issues facing us in the long run could turn out to be the failure of the United States to exercise any sort of leadership on emissions controls. As matters stand right now the new majority in the House of Representatives seems dead set on any kind of controls and says it will do its utmost to prevent the administration from controlling emissions administratively.

Now a few years or even a few decades of unchecked carbon emissions may not be of consequence. The problem, however, is: what if, as many believe, we are nearing a carbon tipping point. Some climate scientists say that an average global increase of 6o C will leave the earth uninhabitable. Long before we get there, rising sea levels, droughts, floods, storms and what have you will make life very unpleasant for those of us still around or our descendants. Someday, those who are left will wonder just what we were thinking about when we let all this happen.

Tom Whipple is a retired government analyst and has been following the peak oil issue for several years.

Source


Type rest of the post here

Source /

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Joan Wile : Gray Panthers Fight Social Security Cuts on Capitol Hill

Image from People’s World.

Gray Panthers to Deficit Commission:
Don’t mess with our social security

By Joan Wile / The Rag Blog / November 23, 2010

Representatives of the national Gray Panthers went to Capitol Hill in November to present their position regarding Social Security. They spoke with members of the Deficit Commission and presented their counter proposals against anticipated recommendations by the Commission to cut Social Security benefits.

Susan Murany, Executive Director of the national Gray Panthers, told the Commission:

For 75 years, Social Security has remained a promise of economic protection and stability for the Americans who have paid into this program. As we now celebrate three-quarters of a century of accomplishments for this program, we must also do our part to ensure that Social Security is not weakened by those who wish to balance bailouts on the backs of Americans.

Problem:

Social Security is America’s most successful anti-poverty program and remains the most fiscally responsible part of our federal budget. In fact, recent polls from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare indicate that 85% of adult Americans are opposed to cuts to Social Security to decrease the deficit. However, while many Americans remain united on this issue, Social Security continues to face threats from increased polarization in Congress and those with anti-entitlement agendas.

The 2010 Social Security Trustees report shows that Social Security is not facing an immediate threat. The surplus within the Social Security trust fund is estimated to grow to $4.3 trillion by 2023 and remain able to pay benefits in full through 2037, and 76% of benefits thereafter. Yet, the opposition continues to project “doomsday” crisis reports and myths to the American public in their efforts to garner support for cuts to the Social Security program.

Proponents of these cuts, such as House Republican Leader John Boehner, would rather cut Social Security in order to pay for the war in Afghanistan. Outrageously, Boehner stated that, “Ensuring there’s enough money to pay for the war will require reforming the country’s entitlement system.” Boehner also calls for increasing the Social Security eligibility age. However, a raise in the Social Security eligibility age would result in about a 20% benefit cut for recipients, hurting lower income beneficiaries working in manual labor and those with shorter life expectancy the most.

While it is evident that our government must make tough decisions to revive our down-turned economy, it is important to remember that cuts to Social Security would not only hurt seniors, but will also detrimentally affect people with disabilities, people who are unemployed, and women and children of deceased spouses/parents. Cuts to this program stand to unfairly burden the most vulnerable populations of Americans.

While Former Senator Alan Simpson, the Co-chair of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, declares that the “Gray Panthers… don’t care a whit about their grandchildren,” we adamantly refute his comment and we vow to continue working to ensure that Social Security remains there for them in their future.

Solution:

Gray Panthers oppose any efforts to cut benefits! Instead of balancing the budget on the backs of Social Security recipients, especially those most dependent on its benefits, here are some of the proposals we support:

  • Eliminate the annual cap on taxable income and raise that cap so that wealthier people are paying more to Social Security. Under current law, wages over a certain yearly total ($106,800 in 2010) are exempted from Social Security payroll taxes. This means that a worker earning $106,800 a year pays the same amount of FICA taxes as a CEO who makes millions of dollars a year.
  • Let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire. The revenues gained from these expirations are far more than enough to fill current state budget deficits for the next 10 years while still leaving an additional $2.76 trillion dollars left over to promote further economic recovery. There is no place for tax cuts in a deficit reduction proposal as was suggested by the Chairmen of the Deficit committee last week!
  • End the wars. Funds saved from Social Security should not be used to pay for wars; rather, we should cut funds for wars to finance Social Security. The Gray Panthers support the Chairmen’s proposed cuts to Defense spending, but more cuts can and should be made!
  • Extend outreach and enrollment. Gray Panthers believes that not only should Social Security be kept intact, but that outreach should be increased and enrollment expanded to get a greater number of older adults in poverty into the program.

The retirement age increase proposed by the Commission is just a particularly cruel way of cutting benefits. The age at which the elderly can retire on full Social Security benefits is already increasing to 67 by 2027. The Chairmen’s plan would “index” the retirement age to increase in longevity, meaning it would hit 68 in about 2050 and 69 in about 2075.

New York Times opinion columnist Paul Krugman has pointed out, that “the people who really depend on Social Security, those in the bottom half of the distribution, aren’t living much longer. So you’re going to tell janitors to work until they’re 70 because lawyers are living longer than ever.”

Is this how a humane society proposes to care for its less fortunate? Not if the Gray Panthers have anything to say about it!

[Joan Wile is the author of Grandmothers Against the War: Getting Off Our Fannies and Standing Up for Peace (Citadel Press, May, 2008).]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Clare Bayard : Veterans and the Healing Process

AWOL soldier Jeff Hanks speaks about the effects of PTSD on his family, Nov. 11, near Ft. Campbell in Oak Grove, Ky. Photo by Robert Smith / AP.

Healing from empire:
Anti-war veterans redefine Veterans Day

By Clare Bayard / The Rag Blog / November 22, 2010

“Today we are asking for more than a moment of silence. We are demanding justice.”

This statement, published in a Veterans’ Day open letter from the Central Illinois chapter of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), reflects the spark lit in cities across the country for Veterans Day this year.

Last Thursday, anti-war veterans and their supporters marked Veterans Day with a range of coordinated events around the country. Until the 1950s, November 11th was known as Armistice Day to commemorate the end of World War I. This year, members of IVAW and their civilian allies evoked the original meaning of this holiday through building up Operation Recovery, a campaign to transition this country out of our declared “endless war” and heal some of its wounds.

Operation Recovery: End the Deployment of Traumatized Troops was launched this past October 7th, on the tenth anniversary of the Afghanistan War. It seeks to end the military’s abusive practices of deploying soldiers suffering from trauma, including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and Military Sexual Trauma (MST).

IVAW’s research estimates that approximately 20% of active duty troops are suffering from untreated trauma; many servicemembers have shared stories of being denied treatment as well as being punished and mocked for seeking it, even as military suicides continue to rise.

This campaign is one step towards IVAW’s broader goals to not only ensure the right of servicemembers to heal, but also to end the wars and occupations, deliver reparations to Iraq, and hold accountable the people who are responsible.

Operation Recovery events included an art opening and Warrior Writers workshop in Chicago; street outreach in New York, Philadelphia, Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, and Manhattan, Kansas; outreach on bases to active duty soldiers at Fort Riley, Kansas, and Fort Lewis, Washington; teach-ins and organizing meetings in Savannah, Georgia and San Francisco; and the public surrender of an injured AWOL soldier at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky.

Picture this when you think of Veterans Day

Among this year’s Veterans Day events for Operation Recovery, Army Specialist Jeff Hanks publicly surrendered during a press conference across from Ft. Campbell, Kentucky. Spc. Hanks went AWOL to resist redeployment to Afghanistan this fall after the military refused to treat him for severe PTSD. Supported by military and civilian allies alike, Hanks and other veterans testified about the military’s negligent and often abusive treatment of even severely traumatized soldiers seeking care.

Spc. Hanks decided he wanted to turn himself in publicly to draw attention to these widespread practices. Hanks, his wife Christina, and their two young daughters are still awaiting the Army’s verdict, trying to keep up hope despite their anxiety. If he is court-martialed, he could face up to two years in prison, and a lifetime felony conviction on his record. At worst, the Army could attempt to forcibly deploy him again.

At the gates of Ft. Campbell, 25 supporters from across the Southeast stood with Jeff Hanks as he told his story to 15 news cameras. Another AWOL soldier from his unit traveled to join the rally, disclosing similar experiences. One supporter explained that her husband, who is currently deployed, was sent against medical advice. Over the last week, a number of other soldiers gone AWOL from the 101st due to mental health struggles have reached out to Operation Recovery for support.

Visibility and support are important factors that can influence the morale of traumatized troops and their families, and can also impact the military’s treatment of people who go public. Aaron Hughes of IVAW shared with supporters the fact that “Jeff’s command was extremely hostile when he turned himself in on Veterans Day, but after [Jeff was interviewed by Katie Couric in a] CBS story aired on Friday, they changed their tune.”

At the same time, Operation Rescue unfolded in other forms around the country. On the University of Illinois campus in Champaign-Urbana, IVAW members and civilian antiwar organizers publicly mounted a large display board that counted Army suicides during the past year, with 334 bold tally marks. The striking art drew veterans, students (including Iraqi-Americans), professors, and workers into conversations with the organizers.

“It felt like an important presence to have because there were so many pro-military groups, including the military themselves, who were there using the day to drum up support for the wars. We effectively inserted a different understanding of what it means to support the troops, which is to bring them home,” said Sarah Lazare from the Civilian-Soldier Alliance that helped organize the event.

In San Francisco, 50 people — from a range of veterans’ and civilian organizations — gathered to launch Operation Recovery on the West Coast. IVAW members traveled from four states across the West. Leaders visited from Coffee Strong, the G.I. Coffeehouse at Ft. Lewis, Washington, that provides critical support and community to questioning soldiers.

IVAW members explained the campaign and discussed local strategy with people from over 15 organizations and at least five cities. Thursday’s event built on the momentum of the previous Sunday’s annual Veterans Day march in San Francisco. This year kicked off a multi-year set of healing ceremonies and events led by veteran and non-veteran members of the Ohlone Nation, working alongside Veterans for Peace.

Veterans breaking the silence

The November elections revealed a striking wall of silence around war as a campaign issue. Politicians across the spectrum seem to be finding it expedient to keep people from thinking about or discussing the wars. At the same time mainstream coverage of PTSD and other health issues for veterans has increased.

The various forms of violence that people experience in the military — and how bringing the war home effects them — have long been taboo subjects in this country. But veterans and their loved ones are refusing to stay quiet about these important issues. And the increasing visibility of this campaign is not only raising public awareness, but it is also helping to break through the isolation that so often effects traumatized servicemembers and their families.

“We’re excited to help Jeff get the help he needs, but this is not over. We intend to hold the people responsible for this accountable,” says Chantelle Bateman, a field organizer with Iraq Veterans Against the War who accompanied Spc. Hanks into Ft. Campbell as he surrendered himself.

Nobody is a bystander

This moment calls for the mass participation of veterans, their families and friends, and everyone who is looking for ways to actively reclaim this country from war. Operation Recovery offers concrete and powerful ways to involve a real grassroots movement in turning the tide. IVAW encourages veterans and their communities to contact them directly. The rest of us have a number of ways to support war resisters who are pushing back from inside the military.

Here are some ways to get involved:

  • Sign the Pledge and learn more about IVAW’s work and the campaign.
  • Support Operation Recovery and Spc. Jeff Hanks financially.
  • Raise funds through raising awareness in your own circles, and bringing your community into the loop: Hold a house party for Operation Recovery (contact IVAW field organizer Joe Callan at zkjcallan@ivaw.org).
  • Write a supportive letter to Spc. Jeff Hanks and his family, as his wife Christina has requested. Even a quick note makes a difference. Email to: CMH1more30@yahoo.com.
  • Help us build networks of skilled people who can provide health services and other basic needs to support veterans transitioning to civilian life. The campaign team is plugging in lawyers, therapists, doctors, acupuncturists, and others who are donating their talents to this cause.

It’s time to turn away from war and towards healing and rebuilding.

[Clare Bayard organizes with the Catalyst Project and War Resisters League, building a G.I. resistance movement that challenges U.S. empire, and connecting domestic racial and economic justice organizing with international movements against militarism.]

  • Those in the Austin area can also support Under the Hood, the GI Coffeehouse at Ft. Hood in Killeen.

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bill Fletcher, Jr. : Rediscovering ‘The Souls of White Folk’

Mural in Great Barrington, Mass., honoring African American author W.E.B. Dubois. Image from Progressive America Rising.

90 years later in the era of the Tea Party:
Rediscovering ‘The Souls of White Folk’

By Bill Fletcher, Jr. / November 22, 2010

“But what on earth is whiteness that one should so desire it?” Then always, somehow, some way, silently but clearly, I am given to understand that whiteness is the ownership of the earth forever and ever, Amen!

–W.E.B. Dubois, from “The Souls of White Folk”

I am not sure what led me back to it. I had read W.E.B. Dubois’s “The Souls of White Folk” (originally published in Darkwater: Voices from Within the Veil, 1920) years ago. At the time I was moved by this often ignored essay but simply filed it away in the recesses of my memory.

Yet I returned to it. I had been thinking about right-wing populism and white nationalism in the USA and at some point I found myself Googling this piece. There were three things that immediately struck me: (1) by coincidence, it was published exactly 90 years ago; (2) it read, in many respects, as if it had been written yesterday; and (3) it was both passionate and poetic in its style, but equally biting in its critique of white supremacy and imperialism.

“The Souls of White Folk” was an essay written in the aftermath of World War I and the despicable Versailles Treaty of 1919 which formally ended the war. Mainstream historians often focus on the mean-spirited punishment that the Allied Powers brought upon Germany, thereby laying the foundation for World War II. Little attention is given, however, to the hypocritical attitude of the Allied Powers with respect to the colonial world, the “darker races,” to borrow from the title of Vijay Prashad’s excellent book.

Representatives of the colonial world (including from Black America) gathered in Versailles to ascertain whether the Allied Powers (USA, Britain, France, Italy) would be true to their commitment to support the right of national self-determination. The future leader of the Vietnamese Revolution, Ho Chi Minh, was one such person who made the trek to Versailles, hoping that Vietnam, and the rest of Indochina, would secure self-determination.

Instead of receiving justice, the colored peoples of the world were ignored. The former colonies of Germany were either handed over outright to other colonial powers or they were placed into a League of Nations trusteeship, but in neither case were they able to secure independence.

Dubois observed this first hand, having attended the Versailles conference. He subsequently helped to convene a Pan African Congress in order to address the fact that the African world had been so overlooked.

“The Souls of White Folk” takes as its starting point an analysis of the origins of World War I. Rather than accepting the established notion that it was a war for democracy and self-determination, Dubois embraces the assessment that it was an imperialist war focused on the objective of gaining greater portions of the colonial world for this or that imperialist power. This was an analysis advanced by Russia’s V.I. Lenin at the start of World War I and for much of the Left it has subsequently become a basic truism.

“The Souls of White Folk” would be a powerful document if it simply stopped there, but Dubois goes further and in doing so makes this document one that cannot be read simply as an historical piece, but one that remains critically important today.

Dubois turns to the question of race and, in fact, white privilege, and demonstrates the linkages between race and imperialism. Dubois notes, for example: “Behold little Belgium and her pitiable plight, but has the world forgotten Congo?”

For those not up on their World War I history (and no criticism is implied), much was made of the German subjugation of Belgium. Yet Dubois asks about the Congo, and this is not simply a throw-away line. Belgium, through King Leopold, controlled the Congo during which time it put to death 10 to 12 million people.

Dubois, of course, could not know what was soon to be facing European Jews and the annihilation of 6 million of them at the hands of the Nazis (who in 1920 were just getting organized), but that Holocaust received international attention, whereas the holocaust inflicted on the Congolese people was all but ignored at the time that it happened, in the aftermath of World War I, and, indeed, in the aftermath of World War II. For Dubois, imperialism was not racially blind.

Dubois situates the matter of race directly with modern imperialism. He makes the point that the degrading of this or that part of humanity has been with us for thousands of years, but that it is with the rise of modern Europe that we see the rise of what he terms “the eternal world-wide mark of meanness,–color!”

Race (or racist oppression) becomes a process of dehumanizing the targets of colonial oppression, turning them into something less than men and women and thereby making it easier to overlook their suffering.

This is what was powerful in his example of Belgium. It was not that Dubois was ignoring the suffering of the people of Belgium. Rather he was focusing on the fact that the so-called civilized world could so easily ignore the suffering and murder of so many millions of people in the Congo and elsewhere, people who happened to be black, brown, yellow, and red.

There is another piece to race that Dubois suggests, i.e., that it also dehumanizes so-called whites. Over the years this concept has gained greater scholarly attention, though for the “darker races” of the world it was a piece of common sense. We grew up with our parents suggesting “…in order to keep someone in the sewer you have to stay there with them…” and other such aphorisms.

As part of his critique of imperialism and racism, Dubois holds a mirror to the USA and says, much as Dr. M. L. King would say slightly more than 40 years later: “It is curious to see America, the United States, looking on herself, first, as a sort of natural peacemaker, then as a moral protagonist in this terrible time. No nation is less fitted for this role.”

In reading this I found myself thinking about the role of the USA in the talks between the Israeli government and the Palestine National Authority, claiming to be the honest broker while ignoring Israel’s further aggression, most recently in the form of the expansion of the illegal settlements. But it is more fundamental than that: the actions of the Israelis represent a replication of those taken by U.S. settlers as they expanded West, taking lands from the Native Americans and the Mexicans.

“The Souls of White Folk” riveted me because of its continued relevance. At a moment, in the aftermath of the November 2010 elections and the victories (albeit complicated) by the political Right, I found myself thinking about the “souls” that inhabit so many white folk in the USA, souls that have been shaped by a perception of their own alleged superiority and infallibility as white Americans in comparison to the entirety of humanity.

These souls, however, resemble ghouls rather than angels as they haunt not only the victims of centuries of white supremacist terror, but also haunt the owners themselves, disfiguring them and, as Dubois so poetically puts it, rendering them less than human.

[Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum and the co-author of Solidarity Divided: The Crisis in Organized Labor and A New Path Toward Social Justice. He can be reached at papaq54@hotmail.com. Fletcher is a member of the editorial board of The Black Commentator, and this article appears in the Nov. 18, 2010 issue of that publication. It was also posted to Progressive America Rising.]

Thanks to Carl Davidson / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Paul Beckett : Reprising Ford’s ‘Radical’ Tune

Fiddlin’ Henry Ford doubled workers’ wages. Image from FiddlingAround.

Henry Ford on why there
isn’t going to be a recovery


By Paul Beckett / The Rag Blog / November 22, 2010

Nicholas Kristof is concerned. The United States, he says, “now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana.” Kristof speaks for many of us. Even Alan Greenspan (who helped so mightily to make it so) is concerned about America’s rampant level of income and wealth inequality.

But Wall Street and most of the Republicans don’t care. No doubt — for them — it’s good the U.S. is still Number One in something! They place no value on equality itself. There seems to be no concern for fairness. And they have convinced themselves that inequality — even extreme, exaggerated inequality — is good for the economy.

Wrong! What they are not seeing is that rampant, out-of-control growth in inequality is bad for the economy. What they have forgotten is something Henry Ford (another unlikely preacher against extreme inequality) told us.

In 1914 Ford astonished most of his American fellow capitalists by abruptly doubling the wage level of his workers. He announced a $5.00 a day wage policy, when going market wages (what he COULD have got workers for) were about half as much. Applying the Consumer Price Index, that $5 would be more than $100 a day now.

In his famous memoir, on the subject of wages, Ford wrote:

No manufacturer in his right mind would contend that buying only the cheapest materials is the way to make certain of manufacturing the best article. Then why do we hear so much talk about the “liquidation of labour” and the benefits that will flow to the country from cutting wages — market? What good is industry if it be so unskillfully managed as to not to return a living to everyone concerned? No question is more important than that of wages — most of the people of the country live on wages. The scale of their living – the rate of their wages — determines the prosperity of the country. [Emphasis added.] — Henry Ford, My Life and Work, Garden City, New York: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1923, p. 116]

This was “Fordism.” Workers should not only be worker-producers, but simultaneously be consumers of the goods produced (very much including Henry Ford’s automobiles).

It was a powerful idea. Marx’s progressive impoverishment of the working classes leading to the end of capitalism didn’t occur. Capitalism got new wind instead.

Aldous Huxley, publishing Brave New World in 1932, jokingly located his vision of the World State in the year 632 A.F.: “After Ford.” (1 A.F. is the year 1908 when the Model T first appeared.) In 632 A.F. people swear oaths “By Ford,” and the Christian cross has been converted to a T.

Good fun. But Ford and Fordism were almost that important. American post-World War II prosperity, and the enormous advances of Western Europe, were based on always-growing consumption by the masses whose incomes and standards of living also grew constantly. The Consumer Economy had been invented, and it flourished.

How amazing that the political-economic managers of our society seem to have completely forgotten this basis of the American prosperity they love to celebrate! First, our industrialists have been permitted — in many ways encouraged — to seek the absolutely lowest market wages elsewhere in the world to build their products.

American workers suffer and, in the longer run, the country suffers; but owners and managers greatly benefit since their profits are easier than ever. They pay labor there; they sell the product here. Good business. (And, let us admit that in the short run, as consumers, we all benefit and are all, in a measure, complicit.)

The real level of wages has been stagnant, not improving, for several decades. Virtually all the income (and wealth) growth since 1965 has been within the top 20%. In fact, per Kristof, “from 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent.”

Timothy Noah has presented a wonderfully comprehensive review of inequality data in Slate. (Don’t miss the excellent set of slides accompanying the first article!)

But wait. This process has been going on since Reagan, yet our consumption has continued to grow in the face of stagnation in income for two-thirds of the population. Was Henry Ford wrong? Is “Fordism” contradicted?

No. There was a huge boost in family income and consumption as more women joined the work force. But that’s a one-time thing. After that, we’ve been living on borrowed time. Literally borrowed: the development of credit cards put deficit finance at the disposal of us all. And easy mortgages and home equity loans fueled a housing price bubble, and gave us more to spend with. It seemed too good to be true. It was.

So these bullets are now fired; the gun is pretty well empty.

Everyone agrees that recovery from the Great Recession depends on returning to (if possible, surpassing) the consumption rates of the 1980s and 1990s. But where is that supposed to come from?

We still find our Captains of Industry crowing (and adding to their personal fortunes) every time they can further “liquidate” their labor forces. (Maybe they should read My Life and Work!)

We keep our minimum wage set to absurdly low rates, far too low to support a family’s consumption.

I spend a lot of time in Denmark where I have close family, and find that our U.S. median wage falls about where their lowest new-worker entry wages are set. Our conservative economists would tell us that such high wages must produce high unemployment and economic stagnation. Sorry: not so. Denmark is weathering the Great Recession better than we are. And their unemployment is put at under 5%!

The U.S., meanwhile, tolerates an unemployment rate of almost 10%. But surveys put under-employment at 20%.

Finally, thanks to decades of hard work by corporate forces and their political allies trade union membership within the private sector labor force is under 8%. We are back to 1901 levels. (We always knew the right is out to abolish the 20th Century!)

America’s economic future clearly is at a tipping point. Our economy is not going to expand again unless we remember Henry Ford’s lesson: the prosperity of the country depends not on the how well the few at the top are doing, but how well most of the people are doing. The “scale of their living… determines the prosperity of the country.”

For those of us on the left, it’s a matter of fairness, of equality, of equal rights, of humanity. The right doesn’t see that. OK. But they had better see that it’s a matter of preserving the economic vitality and shared prosperity that we once were famous for.

Here are three ideas that could get our country moving again. First, a national minimum wage of at least $12 (indexed for inflation!). Second, let’s reverse the tax and other incentives that have encouraged our industrialists to export our productive capacity. Let’s bring good jobs home.

Third, we must push back hard on the levels of inequality that give even conservatives pause. We must restore tax progressivity in general and, in particular, distinguish more intelligently between the large numbers who are wealthy and the small numbers who make super incomes (the ones most of us call “obscene”).

We are fortunate: the U.S., among developed countries, is not at all an over-taxed country. Relatively modest tax increases can rebalance government revenues and expenditures, while beginning a return to a more “American” balance between economic equality and inequality.

If these obvious and common sense ideas sound “radical” — well, it shows how much we have lost as a nation in recent decades, and how successful the extreme right has been.

But — by Ford! — there is time, in this year 102 A.F., time to make the American dream real again!

[Dr. Paul Beckett lives in Madison, Wisconsin. He can be reached at beckettpa@gmail.com.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Joshua Brown : Life During Wartime: Dubya’s New Digs

Political cartoon by Joshua Brown / Historians Against the War / The Rag Blog

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Ansel Herz : Behind the Barricades in Haiti

Coffins used as street barricades in Cap-Haiten, Haiti. Photo by Ansel Herz / Mediahacker / The Rag Blog.

Streets barricaded in Cap-Haitien:
Protests in Haiti have popular support

By Ansel Herz / November 19, 2010

CAP-HAITIEN, Haiti — The first barricade looked harmless enough. Foot-long rocks piled next to each other in a line.

But as the bus driver slowed down, flying rocks landed in the street — thrown by youths crouching in the bushes up the hill.

“We don’t really have a country! The police don’t do anything!” a nun sitting across from me complained after the bus driver negotiated, with a little cash, our way past.

The man next to her said the country will always be mired in problems until a leader like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro takes power.

We must have passed a dozen more barricades, most unmanned.

After Limbe, where cholera has killed at least 100 people, we came to the biggest “barikad” yet in the highway. Thick trees lay across the road and hundreds of people, a few holding machetes, blocked the way.

The bus driver once again descended to negotiate, but didn’t appear to be making any progress. Most passengers grabbed their belongings and got out.

I decided to go too. As I gathered my things, there was a debate among the remaining passengers:

“He’s a blan (foreigner), he’s going to get hurt.”

“No no no, he speaks Creole, he’ll be fine.”

“They’re going to think he’s MINUSTAH. They’re not logical.”

MINUSTAH is the acronym for the UN peacekeeping mission. As I stepped off the bus, people standing at the road called me over and urged me not to go. It was the third day of so-called “cholera riots” against foreign troops blamed for introducing the disease into the country.

Someone said the protesters are violent “chimere,” a word for political gangs. I explained that it’s my job as a journalist to go talk to them.

Then two Haitian journalists who were on the bus pushed their way through the crowd and wrapped their arms around me. Everyone agreed, finally, that together with the two guys I could get through the barricades.

Elizer and Duval were coming back home to Cap-Haitien. They were scared for me, saying under no circumstances should I talk with protesters or take photos. I reluctantly agreed to follow their instructions.

I wondered if perhaps the UN peacekeeping mission was right in saying these protests were organized by a politician or gang. “Enemies of stability and democracy,” MINUSTAH mission head Edmond Mulet called them. So far, I’d only seen young men in the street.

But as we passed through each barricade, everyone — young girls and rotund market women mingling with demonstrators — yelled out, “MINUSTAH ou ye?”

I yelled back, “Non, mwen se yon journalis Amerikan.” The suspicious stares softened into smiles and understanding looks. After passing the third barricade that way, we started laughing.

One teenager who threw a rock at us as we approached on motorcycle said, “pa gen pwoblem” — no problem — after I held out my press badge.

As we arrived on the outskirts of Cap-Haitien proper, the streets were deserted except for people gathered around barricades. One was still flaming. At another, dozens of men milled around a burnt out car.

“Press! Press!” I called out, and they beckoned me through the crowd, many hands pushing me forward until I was through.

I was glad when an elderly man walking in the street stopped me. I finally had a chance to do an interview, against the advice of my companions. I whipped out my audio recorder. He was Amos Ordena, the local section’s elected Kazek — an official dispute mediator.

“The population has information that MINUSTAH introduced cholera,” he told me. “So many people have died. They’re obligated to hold fast, to demonstrate, so that the authorities will take responsibility. They’re asking MINUSTAH to leave the country.”

Haitian street demonstrators want the UN’s MINUSTUH troops to leave. Photo by Ansel Herz / Mediahacker / The Rag Blog.

Asked if the protests are by a single group or the general population, he said all elements of society are participating in “the movement.” He said MINUSTAH are not firing weapons in self-defense, in the air to disperse protesters, but firing at people. He heard that at least one person had died earlier in the day.

We finally turned off the main road and walked into an alleyway. Elizer’s modest home was at the end (he lost his wife, children, and house in the capital in the earthquake). One of his brothers, blind and handicapped, lay on the floor beneath a television showing a soccer match. He smiled and introduced himself when I walked in.

Elizer reminded me to use hand sanitizer. Then his frail mother, beaming at us, served us fresh mais moule (corn) and papaya juice.

A neighbor of Elizer called up TV reporter Johnny Joseph, who came to meet me and help me get to the house where I was planning to stay. Elizer refused to accept any money for all his trouble.

Before leaving with Johnny, I spoke to Aristil Frito, a 24-year-old student standing outside talking with his neighbors. “The objective of the movement is clear: they’re asking for the departure of MINUSTAH.”

He said irresponsibility by the leaders of the country had led to this situation. In a more developed country, without so many young unemployed people in the street, the protests might have been more peaceful, he said.

“But the real solution is for people to live in a climate of peace, in dialogue. Today all Haitians should work together finish with hunger and poverty,” he said. “The best solution is the promotion of social dialogue.”

Johnny and I hopped on a motorcycle taxi, taking backstreets to bypass the barricades. We passed a five-foot deep trench dug in a narrow dirt road. Johnny said a MINUSTAH vehicle fell into the trench Wednesday and people threw bottles at them. The troops opened fire, killing an innocent bystander whose body was taken downtown, he said.

MINUSTAH blamed the death on local gangs.

At one junction, a young man in a purple shirt and black cap blocked our path and stuck out a knife as his friends looked on. I realized my press badge was tucked into my shirt. I pulled it out as Johnny talked the man down.

“You need to have your badge out,” the young man told me, glaring. “It’s a principle.” That’s been the only instance of serious hostility directed at me since I arrived in Cap Haitien.

So it’s bewildering to read the reporting of CNN’s Ivan Watson, who claimed that armed rioters control the city. He told viewers while being filmed on the back of a fast-moving motorcycle that it’s only way to move about the city amidst “violent protests.”

He doesn’t use that adjective to describe the actions of UN troops, accused of killing at least three demonstrators since Monday.

“They shot many people. We took them to the hospital. We’re asking MINUSTAH to leave the country,” a middle-aged man who declined to give his name told me.

He stopped bicycling past an intersection barricaded with coffins to stop and share his anger. “We have bottles, we don’t have guns to shoot them, but they’re shooting us. We have to defend our rights, MINUSTAH is a thing that doesn’t work in this country.”

Another of Watson’s reports claimed that Christian missionaries were forced to speed on a bus away from out-of-control-mobs, like in a Hollywood-style chase scene.

High drama = high ratings.

As I walked towards the downtown’s central public square on Wednesday, finally nearing the house, I saw several dozen people facing Haitian police in full riot gear standing in their way.

They said they had no beef with foreigners generally — only MINUSTAH.

Theodore Joel said they respected the Haitian police, because they’re brothers and family — though two police stations were reportedly set on fire during the first day of protests.

“Those soldiers are tourists! The money that’s invested in MINUSTAH — they could invest that money in education. They could invest in constructing hospitals, in cleaning up the country. but they’re paying those soldiers instead. We don’t have guns like in 1803… but each time we put our heads together, we’re marked in history.”

Thursday marked 203 years since the Battle of Vertières, where Jean-Jacques Dessalines led the final major assault on French armies to drive them off Haitian soil. They renamed the city: from Cap Francois to Cap-Haitien.

While many expected demonstrations to continue in commemoration of Haiti’s independence struggle, the streets were quiet. No further confrontations were reported. I walked around downtown Cap on my own, trying to find an Internet connection to send out a radio story.

I’m asking everyone I meet here — from local journalists, vendors, men at the barricades, to a local magistrate — if these protests were organized by a gang or political group.

The unanimous answer is no — people are fed up with UN peacekeepers and the cholera outbreak is the straw that broke the camel’s back. The magistrate said he understands and respects the people demonstrating, but he wishes the barricades weren’t impeding the transportation of medical supplies to fight cholera in his commune, where people are dying in the street.

As the head of MINUSTAH warned that “every second lost” because of protests means more suffering and death from cholera, the anti-UN demonstrations continued in Port-au-Prince on Thursday.

CNN’s Watson led his report this way: “Like cholera itself, Haiti’s protests against the United Nations spread Thursday to the capital, Port-au-Prince, as angry people took to the streets demanding the global body get out of their country.”

Seems that for Watson, these protests are like a disease. It continues: “a planned protest began peacefully in the center of the city but turned violent as it moved toward the presidential palace, with one woman overcome by tear gas, witnesses said.”

Again, the protesters are the ones implicated in the violence. But a timeline report released by International Action Ties, an independent human rights monitoring group, said the demonstrations were largely peaceful after returning to Champs de Mars plaza.

UN troops and Haitian police fired at least 30 tear gas canisters into the Faculty of Ethnologie and surrounding tent camps, the report said, sending children and old women fleeing into the streets. Police ignored the group’s pleas to stop firing.

Are protests against the UN meant to destabilize the country? Are Haitians who’ve taken to the streets being used, like puppets, by powerful politicians for their own ends? Are the protests violent?

The foreigners I’ve talked to say yes. A few American liberals living in Haiti tell me they fear the protests are violent and meant to cause chaos, echoing the statements of MINUSTAH and reporters like Watson. Some Haitians in the professional middle class don’t want to participate.

But most Haitians I’ve spoken with say no. They say this is the inevitable outcome when troops who operate in Haiti with seeming impunity may have introduced a deadly, misery-multiplying disease into the country. It’s an angry, popular movement — protesting however they can, emotions running high — against a five-year-old foreign occupation.

What do you think? We’ll see how this plays out in the next nine days, ahead of the Nov. 28 election. Stay tuned.

[Ansel Herz, a former Austin activist, is a multimedia journalist and web designer based in Port-Au-Prince, Haiti. This article first appeared on Ansel’s blog, Mediahacker.]

Source / Mediahacker


Video posted by Pierre Durohito De Venchy of the first three days of protests:

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

Join us today! Rag Blog Happy Hour, 5-7:30, at Maria’s, 2520 S. Lamar. Informal gathering. All are welcome! Special guests: Sarito Carol Neiman, author and original co-editor of The Rag (1966); Philip Russell, author of the newly released “History of Mexico: From Pre-Conquest to Present.” No charge. Maria’s bar and menu available. Leeann Atherton performs at 7 p.m.

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Medea Benjamin : Death Marchers Haunt New Bush Library Digs

Demonstrators from March of the Dead protest in front of Dallas SWAT officers during groundbreaking at new George W. Bush Presidential Center at SMU, Nov. 16, 2010. Photo by G.J. McCarthy / AP.

Breaking new ground:
Protests at the future site
of the George W. Bush Library

By Medea Benjamin / November 19, 2010

DALLAS — Several thousand people lined up to see George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice shovel dirt into a hole at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, the site slated to become the George Bush Presidential Center housing a museum, library, and archives.

Over 100 peace activists showed up to protest, including New York City artist Laurie Arbiter, who helped organize a March of the Dead and carried a sign asking “Does America Have a Conscience?” “Rather than build a library, we should leave the broken ground and just fill it with a big pile of rubble,” said Arbiter. “That would truly represent the catastrophic results of the Bush Administration.”

As part of the March of the Dead, protesters dressed in black, wore white death masks and had signs around their necks representing dead Iraqis, Afghans, and U.S. soldiers. The dramatic march stopped traffic and provoked strong emotions in passers-by, participants and even the police.

Renee Schultz, who drove from Indianapolis to join the protest, wore the death mask and a sign representing a 23-year-old female U.S. soldier killed in Iraq. “When I first put on the mask, I just stood there and cried. I kept thinking, ‘I am 23 years old and had my whole life ahead of me. Why did I die?'” Schultz looked over at the riot police and noticed that one of them also had tears streaming down his eyes.

When the marchers attempted to reach the public viewing area, the police forced them back to the designated “protest pen” far from the ceremony. One of the protesters, a wheelchair-bound veteran of the Korean War and World War II, angrily told the police that he did not fight in two wars to be told that his freedom of speech would be confined to a “protest zone.”

The gathering was part of a three-day People’s Response, filled with rallies, marches, teach-ins, and exhibits of crosses and soldiers’ boots to represent the war dead. Organized by Texans for Peace, The Dallas Peace Center, CODEPINK, and Veterans for Peace, among others, the speakers included former FBI agent Colleen Rowley, former CIA agent Ray McGovern, retired Colonel Ann Wright, professor Robert Jensen, and Texas State Representative Lon Burnam.

Also among the protesters was Cindy Sheehan, the Gold Star mother who led a prolonged protest outside Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas in 2005. “Bush should not be allowed to profit from war crimes, crimes that he has even admitted to,” said Sheehan. “It’s not right that he will make millions from his book and speaking engagements, while millions have been killed, displaced, tortured and had their lives ruined because of him.”

The whole dang crew: Digging in at groundbreaking ceremony for George W. Bush Presidential Center in Dallas, Nov. 16, 2010. Photo by L.M. Otero / AP.

The protesters focused on the lies Bush told the American public to justify invading Iraq, his authorization of torture and the need for accountability. “Accountability is the sign of a true democracy,” said former CIA agent Ray McGovern. “No one should be above the law and the truth must not be buried or rewritten.”

Protesters were also concerned about the policies the new Bush Center will promote. President Bush said the Center would include an “action-oriented institute” to advance the principles his administration stood for, including the “benefits of limiting the role of government in people’s lives.”

According to local organizer Leslie Harris of CodePink, “this really means promoting the same kinds of disastrous policies that brought us preemptive war, economic crisis, environmental disaster, unprecedented presidential power, and diminished civil and human rights. We can’t let one of America’s worst presidents shape our future policies.”

The peace activists who came to protest Bush also discussed their disappointment with the Obama administration and the difficulties they anticipate in pushing the new, more conservative Congress to stop funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Among the actions they encouraged were:

  • supporting the January 15 FBI protest in Washington DC;
  • promoting local campaigns, including citywide resolutions, to bring our war dollars home;
  • reaching out to allies, particularly groups victimized by the economic crisis, but also reaching out to members of the Tea Party who want to see cuts in Pentagon spending;
  • pressuring the State Department to stop using private security contractors;
  • supporting the December 16 veteran-led civilian disobedience in Washington DC;
  • organizing a delegation to Iraq to take testimony from Iraqis about George Bush and the legacy of the US invasion;
  • stopping John Yoo, author of the “torture memos,” from teaching law at the UC Berkeley law school.

For some light entertainment after long days of protest, a group stopped by local Barnes and Noble to reshelve — and photograph — Bush’s Decision Points in a more appropriate place in the store. These included placing the book next to The Murder Business in the True Crimes section, Wing Nuts in the Fantasy Section, When Law Fails: Making Sense of Miscarriages of Justice in the Legal Section, and our favorite in the Children’s Section, Dr. Seuss’ Will You Please Go Now?” With the renewed media attention on George Bush, including his sanctioning of torture, Bush might do well to take Dr. Seuss’ advice.

[Medea Benjamin was a founder of CodePink. Follow her on Twitter: www.twitter.com/medeabenjamin.]

Source / Huffington Post


Where Bush’s book belongs. Images from Waging Nonviolence.

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Dr. Stephen R. Keister : Physician, Heal Thyself

Graphic by Daniel Marsula / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Physician, heal thyself:
The sad demise of medical ethics

By Dr. Stephen R. Keister / The Rag Blog / November 17, 2010

Recently I awoke to a front page article in The Erie Times-News headlined “Doctors’ hawking products raises concerns. Critics say plugging goods is unethical.” It was an excellent survey on the local level of the the deteriorating ethics of the medical profession, naming doctors’ names, and quoting the payoffs to physicians by the pharmaceutical companies involved for “providing educational services.”

My hat is off to the Times-News for showing courage to raise this specter locally, as Pro Publica has done recently on a larger scale in its “Dollars for Docs” series, and especially an article entitled, “Payments to Doctors by Most Pharma Companies Still Remain Secret.”

In this series, Pro Publica tells the story of the total deterioration of medical ethics in the United States. How did we get to this point? Where did these practices originate? Let us step back a few years and look at the ethical/historical implications of this aberration, noting the blame that must be borne by the doctors, but also taking into account the larger societal picture.

I graduated from medical school in 1945. At that time we had a peculiar idea that the role of a physician — as a professional instructed in the healing arts and sciences — was to provide care for his/her patients. The Hippocratic Oath was somehow still in vogue, and, oddly enough, most graduates of that time took it seriously. Making a decent but not lavish living was a side issue.

After internship and residency I opened a then unique practice in rheumatology in Erie, Pennsylvania. At that time the hospital I was affiliated with required all physicians — before we were permitted to admit patients — to serve two months, averaging 2-3 hours a day, caring for the hospital’s 20-30 charity inpatients, with the aid of an intern. We were also expected to put in one morning a week working in one of the various charity specialty clinics in the hospital. As time went on, and “hospitalization insurance” evolved, these demands lessened, and by the 1970s were nonexistent.

In our private office practice it was customary to spend a full hour with a new patient, provide 15-20 minutes for follow-up visits, and depend on the good will of the patient to either pay the charges on departure or make arrangements with the receptionist to pay as he/she could at a later date.

If an urgent situation arose while we were off-duty, the telephone answering service would gave the caller our home phone numbers and the problem would be resolved by telephone, a house call, or meeting the individual at the emergency room.

Sometime in the 1970s-1980s changes started happening. I had a dermatologist friend who organized “future physicians” programs at several local high schools. He enjoyed the interest of the students, the give-and-take, the feeling of accomplishment — but around 1970 he became disillusioned and dissolved the program. Why? The students were becoming more interested in making money than in dedicating themselves to the profession. Just a small example of our evolution into a society primarily concerned about accumulating individual wealth and not about the well-being of our fellow man or the broader interest of the community.

Thus we have witnessed the ongoing evolution of social Darwinism in our society, of the current American attitude that wealth is God’s way of rewarding the individual. The coup de grace was the well-calculated takeover of the medical establishment by the health insurance cartel. Since that time the physician has devolved from a professional to a businessman, essentially owned by the insurance industry and assuming the ethics and morality of that industry.

In my final years of practice roving physicians, prostituted to the pharmaceutical companies, began providing dinner/educational programs at the more posh local hotels, to “educate” the local practitioners on the advantages of different medications. At times the invitees were provided a stipend for attending the gathering.

The ultimate illustration of this financial pandering occurred in my last year of practice, 1989, when I received a special delivery letter requesting my presence at a three-day “educational” meeting at a luxury hotel in Phoenix, Arizona, all expenses paid, to be accompanied by a “companion of my choice.”

I had never availed myself of such an opportunity in my years of practice and felt that perhaps I should have some first-hand knowledge of what the world was all about. Thus, in view of the fact that my wife had settled “the companion of choice issue,” I signed on. We were provided a round-trip airplane ticket, three nights in a luxury hotel with meals and entertainment, in return for my attending lectures for three hours each morning.

There were some 200 physicians in attendance, and a repeat performance was scheduled for the next week. I pointed out to my wife that some of the physicians had brought their daughters rather than their spouses, and her response was “do not be naïve.” I was cursed by a sense of shame for being there but, in retrospect it was indeed an “educational” experience — not for what I learned about the pharmaceutical product being touted, but for what it taught me about the drift in our culture and morals.

Our current system of medical care and delivery ranks anywhere from 24th to 36th in the industrialized world, depending on the agency doing the evaluating. Yet, there is no overwhelming public anger about this fact. Instead, the public was taken in by absurd claims about “government death panels” and the advent of “socialized medicine.”

This gullibility on the part of the public, aided and abetted by the corporate-owned mainstream media, does not bode well for the future. The people in their ignorance confuse legitimate, compassionate hospice care, with “death panels” and reasonably priced medical care provided by a nonprofit insurance company and administered by public representatives and medical doctors, with “socialized medicine.”

Most of our citizens haven’t the slightest idea what is happening with our health care system. Costs here are 2-3 times those in other developed countries. Canada and the United Kingdom have what you might call socialist systems, but polling in both countries shows that the public is happy with the care they receive; in Canada, more than 90% respond positively, and the only major complaint in the UK concerns slow service in some areas.

Most European nations, and Japan and Taiwan, have government-subsidized private insurance plans, with funds going to provide patient services, not absurdly high executive salaries and stockholder dividends — at something like $500 per month for a family of four, with insurance co-payments of 10-20% for outpatient services and pharmaceuticals.

This varies a bit from country to country, but they provide all basic health services, often including house calls. Supplemental insurance may be purchased for private rooms and other special care. And those additional services are much less expensive; where one pays $1,500 for a MRI in the USA, it may cost something like $200 in Europe. And we pay 2-3 times more for pharmaceuticals here.

No other country, save New Zealand, has the endless TV commercials for prescription drugs that we must endure in this country. (Is it still necessary to advertise Viagra?) Nowhere else is there such collusion between researchers and pharmaceutical companies, although the latest AARP Bulletin contends that only a very small percentage of physicians allow these ads to color their judgment in writing prescriptions. In no other country do we find ads for physicians in the yellow pages, in newspapers, or on roadside sign boards. Nowhere else do hospitals advertise on TV or in local newspapers.

I can look at the current world as both a physician and a patient, having had some recent reactivation of my prostatic cancer, which was irradiated 10 years ago. And I cannot complain, since — between Medicare and my supplementary insurance — my care has been excellent, allowing me free choice of doctors and hospitals.

Happily I learned early to avoid Medicare Advantage plans which limit choice and in the long run were designed to create income for the insurance company managing the plan. I am happy that the community where I live provides excellent hospice services so, when I face the inevitable end, I can look forward to humane, compassionate care and not prolonged misery in a hospital setting. (Switzerland provides an even better option, but it involves a lot of administrative problems.)

I see no hope for first class medical care for all in the United States in the foreseeable future. The insurance cartel and the pharmaceutical companies dominate our media, while the public accepts or has no understanding of the problem (in France the streets would be filled with demonstrators). The Republicans would do away with Medicare and would privatize Social Security. And the Democrats, starting with the president, seem lacking in idealism and ecourage little community activism.

The health care legislation passed this year is essentially a farce — created in coordination with the insurance cartel and PhARMA — and provides only minimal additional benefits to the consumer while lacking in cost controls. Most of the good work being done in the medical profession comes from Physicians for A National Health Program, the American College of Physicians, and the Academies of Pediatrics and General Practice. One cannot count on significant support for change from the overpaid surgical specialities and those physicians already acting on behalf of the megacorporations.

[Dr. Stephen R. Keister lives in Erie, Pennsylvania. He is a retired physician who is active in health care reform.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments