07 November 2009

American Health Care : Monster Run Amok

Cartoon by RS Janes / LTSaloon.

Once the envy of the world...
The American health care disgrace


By Dr. Stephen R. Keister / The Rag Blog / November 7, 2009

Between 1910 and 1970 American medicine was the envy of the world. The giants of American culture were its physicians: William Osler. Howard Kelly, Harvey Cushing, Elliott Joslin, Charles and Will Mayo, W.W.G. Maclachlan, Jonas Salk, Alfred Sabin, to name a few. Mothers dreamed of their sons growing up to be physicians, who were considered on a par with clerics, or college professors.

From the 1970s on, many physicians ceased to be idealists who took care of the ill, regardless of ability to pay, and became content to make a decent living without idealizing money. Things have indeed changed. The physicians’ respect in the community has diminished to a point that is akin to that of the MBA, used-car salesman, or fundamentalist preacher. (My apologies to the used car salesman as I have several very honest, upright acquaintances in that area of business.)

The average American -- except those who are very well-to-do and count doctors among their golfing buddies -- think of medical care in terms of CT Scans, MRI machines, laboratories, and medical device purveyors. No longer, to most folks, is the doctor a friend and confidant.

With this surrender to the for-profit insurance industry the once proud, idealistic physician has morphed into the "provider,” paid and manipulated by the insurance executives. Happily, the current health care debate suggests that many idealistic physicians have survived -- as evidenced by the 60%-plus support among doctors for a government provided alternative to the insurance cartel's monopolistic rationing and manipulation of health care. My gratitude to Physicians for a National health Care Program and The American College of Physicians, with their thousands of dedicated members.

Currently the system of medical care in the United States is a blot on our international reputation. Most of those living in Western Europe, and many in the Third World, are baffled about how this great nation could countenance having 50 million individuals without regular medical care. And they wonder how we could allow 45,000 persons to die yearly for lack of insurance (according to a report from the American Journal of Public Health), and how we could have let 17,000 children die over the past two decades (according to a study released by the Johns Hopkins Children's Center).

They are confused why the richest country in the world needs to import physicians from the Third World to make up for the inadequacy of trained American physicians. (My thanks to the numerous very capable physicians from India that I have encountered, as well as many from Iran and other Middle Eastern nations.) Nowhere else in the world, save in the USA, do we see signs posted in malls announcing a spaghetti dinner at a fire house to help defray the costs of a child's brain tumor surgery.

And take this mind-boggling piece of information: according to The World Health Organization, only one of thirty companies producing H1N1 flue vaccine is based in the United States, that being Aviron/Wyeth/Lederle, which makes a nasal vaccine. Our main supplier is the U.S. branch of Sanofi Pasteur, a French company located in this country, Nearly all European nations have one or more companies producing the vaccine; Korea has three and China seven. When I retired in 1990 I recall that three U.S.-based companies were making influenza vaccine. I have been told that production was discontinued because of excessive unused inventory of the vaccine, which is dated, which diminished the profits of the manufacturer.

There are still many excellent if harried physicians remaining in the United States; however, getting into a physicians office on short notice has become a problem for most people. I am aware of a friend with a torn knee cartilage who was told that it would take six weeks to get an appointment with an orthopedic surgeon, while another older lady with digestive problems had to wait six weeks to have an esophagoscopy scheduled.

A third elderly acquaintance, with interstitial cystitis, has seen a urologist on three occasions, totaling approximately 20 minutes, was never examined, and on each occasion was prescribed antibiotics purely on the basis of a questionable, voided urine culture. Never did she receive an explanation of her condition, or its long term implications, or was cystoscopy suggested. I finally accessed her literature relative to the condition from the Mayo Clinic via Google.

Where I live, obtaining an appointment with a dermatologist may well take several months. Yet, the opponents of decent health care in the United States continue to spread the myth that ours is "the best system in the world" and that in other nations you can expect long waits to get an appointment -- which is most likely to be true only if you are seeking a specific physician at a major institution. Currently the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is in the forefront of the lies and deceit industry, joining the Health Insurance industry in promulgating ad after ad on television, and a large percentage of the unsophisticated American public tends to confuse this promotional material with factual information.

Last Thursday, Nov. 5, we saw a well choreographed demonstration in Washington, with thousands of the uninformed and misinformed brought in on busses and provided with placards which they frequently did not understand, and all this was paid for by institutions associated with the health insurance industry. In addition the mainstream TV programs continue to provide panels of talking heads to discuss health care, most of them provided by the conservative think tanks.

The other clever maneuver of the insurance industry is to incite the anti-abortion lobby and get them aligned against decent health care. These folks, who are interested primarily in ovocysts, and not in children once born, rail against decent health care as if the whole plan was devised as a scheme to provide abortions for the poor -- when the Hyde Amendment already makes it illegal to use federal funds to provide abortions. The opponents of decent care for all Americans are stooping to any ruse or deceit, as evidenced by the ads espousing Medicare Advantage as "good health care,” to influence the ill informed, culpable American public.

I write this on the eve of the intended House of Representatives vote on a bill for health care for all. Of course, we would hope that such bill would include the core features outlined by Health Care for America Now:
  1. A public health insurance option for all established by the federal government,
  2. One that is available to individuals and employers across the nation,
  3. Not merely a panel of private plans (such as FEHBP, the health insurance available to federal employees), and not limited to low income individuals,
  4. A government body, or independent entity established by government, sets policies and bears the risk for paying medical claims,
  5. May hire insurance companies, where efficient and appropriate, to handle administrative functions such as paying claims,
  6. Provides broad access to providers that meet defined participation standards,
  7. Consults with providers and nonpartisan experts to establish provider rates and develop and implement payment system reforms that promote quality care, prevention, and good management for chronic care,
  8. Operates separately from existing public programs such as Medicare, but may tap into their infrastructure (e.g. payment systems, claims processing, and appeals processes).
Further details cam be found here.

The next step, of course, is to try to inject some reason into the discussion in the Senate which appears at times to have abandoned any sense of logic. Take, for instance, the bizarre, suggestion that health care reform include coverage for "prayer treatment." Odd that we in the United States will even suggest the commercialization of prayer! Next, maybe we should claim airfare to Lourdes as a "medical expense" when we file our income tax deductions.

But, seriously, we keep hearing from Harry Reid that it will be difficult to get the 60 votes to pass a decent health care bill. This is undoubtedly true, if the Senate lies down and acts like a whipped dog. There is a solution under parliamentary rules and it’s called the “nuclear option.” Change to Senate Rules is discussed in detail on Wikipedia.

The key part reads as follows:
The nuclear option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the Vice President of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator/s point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing to the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately.

A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would therefore be barred by the new precedent.
The proponents of decent healthcare-for-all face the Rubicon. We the public must exert enough pressure on our elected representatives, and upon President Obama, to offset the chicanery in the House and Senate, and to try with reason and compassion to counter the bribing of our elected officials, and the misinformation and outright lies deluging the public. Time is short, but this old man would like to finish his later days with head high, once again seeing our country as a leader in health care.

We would like to see our nation respected as a leader in ethics and morality, rather than being looked upon as a Third World nation when it comes to treating the sick and disadvantaged. Ours should be a nation based on doing what is correct and not one subservient to the fringe manipulated by the big corporations, the financial elite, and those who allow their ambition to overcome our traditions of kindness and charity as expressed in the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes.

Dr. Richard Wolff, economist at The University of Massachusetts, says that our economic collapse -- which has gradually developed over the past 150 years and has accelerated since 1970 with wage stagnation, and excessive profits -- may take years to correct, if it can be corrected at all. But let us show the humanity, the sense of community, that we see in the Western European nations. Their epiphany occurred after World War II, when they moved beyond the devotion to self interest, to accumulated wealth at all costs, that is inherent in the doctrine of "private enterprise" and neoliberal economics.

Perhaps those folks who keep pretending that this is a “Christian Nation" should review the true meaning of their alleged faith. Perhaps it is time to cast out the money changers and show some compassion for our fellow man. Remember what Lyof Tolstoy wrote in 1893 in The Kingdom of God Is Within You:
The Christian churches and Christianity have nothing in common save name: they are hostile opposites. The churches are arrogance, violence, ursurpation, rigidity, death; Christianity is humility, penitence, submissiveness, progress, life.
Let good Americans stand for life and good health.

[Dr. Stephen R. Keister lives in Erie, Pennsylvania. He is a retired physician who is active in health care reform. His writing appears regularly on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

Real Unemployment Rate : Closing in on the Great Depression


Good times around the corner?
Real unemployment rate at 17.5 percent

This economic disaster was created by far too many years of Reagan-Bush-supply-side-trickle-down-union-busting-corporate-welfare-market-driven economic policy.
By Ted McLaughlin / The Rag Blog / November 7, 2009

Yes, I know the federal government says the unemployment rate is now 10.2% -- up from 9.8% after the country suffered a net loss of another 190,000 jobs in October. And that is a very scary figure in itself. After all, it shows nearly 16 million Americans are out of work.

But those are the "adjusted" figures the federal government uses to keep the American people from knowing just how bad unemployment really is in this country. When you add in the number of people who have given up trying to find a job and the people who have accepted part-time work because they can't find a full-time job, you get much closer to the REAL unemployment rate.

The sad fact is that the real unemployment rate is now at least 17.5%. That means more than one out of every six workers in this country cannot find a full-time job.

Folks, that's rapidly approaching the unemployment figures from the Great Depression, when the rate of unemployment climbed over 20%. And the government admits that the rate will continue to climb over the next several months (and probably longer). It is within the realm of possibility that we'll reach those Great Depression numbers.

What bothers me is that the government and private economic pundits are currently trying to convince Americans that better times are just around the corner. They tell us the recession is actually over (because one quarter of GDP showed some growth). Then they assure us that unemployment is just a lagging indicator and will turn around in a few months as the economy continues to grow.

I wish I could believe that, but I don't. All of the jobs were not lost due to the poor economy. Some of those jobs were cut so the companies could show a short-term gain and drive up their stocks -- making millions for executives and investors. Many other good-paying jobs have been shipped overseas where the companies can exploit low-wage workers. None of these jobs are coming back, regardless of how much the economy rebounds.


Around 70% of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) figure depends on consumer buying in this country. With the job losses continuing to rise each month in this country, fewer people each month will have money to spend. Those who still are working will also close their pocketbooks even tighter because the tanking economy scares them.

Even when the economy does start producing jobs instead of losing them, what kind of jobs will they be? Will they be good-paying jobs with benefits, or minimum wage jobs with no benefits? There is no shame in flipping burgers, but you certainly can't buy food, make house payments and pay for a car with that kind of job.

Political pundits are now saying that if the economy and jobs don't turn around before the next election, it will be blamed on the Democrats because they are in power. That's probably true, even though it may be unfair.

Lest we forget, this mess wasn't created by the Democrats. This economic disaster was created by far too many years of Reagan-Bush-supply-side-trickle-down-union-busting-corporate-welfare-market-driven economic policy. The elder Bush was right when he called it "voodoo economics" (before he sold out and went along with it).

The truth is that the recession is not over. It won't be over until the economy starts producing good jobs. But fasten your seat belts, because that's a long way down a very bumpy road.

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

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

06 November 2009

BOOKS / Caliban and the Witch : The Creation of Capitalism


Who Were the Witches?
Patriarchal Terror and the Creation of Capitalism


By Alex Knight / The Rag Blog / November 6, 2009

This Halloween season, there is no book I could recommend more highly than Silvia Federici’s brilliant Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body, and Primitive Accumulation (Autonomedia 2004), which tells the dark saga of the Witch Hunt that consumed Europe for more than 200 years.

In uncovering this forgotten history, Federici exposes the origins of capitalism in the heightened oppression of workers (represented by Shakespeare’s character Caliban), and most strikingly, in the brutal subjugation of women. She also brings to light the enormous and colorful European peasant movements that fought against the injustices of their time, connecting their defeat to the imposition of a new patriarchal order that divided male from female workers.

Today, as more and more people question the usefulness of a capitalist system that has thrown the world into crisis, Caliban and the Witch stands out as essential reading for unmasking the shocking violence and inequality that capitalism has relied upon from its very creation.

Who were the witches?

Parents putting a pointed hat on their young son or daughter before Trick-or-Treating might never pause to wonder this question, seeing witches as just another cartoonish Halloween icon like Frankenstein’s monster or Dracula. But deep within our ritual lies a hidden history that can tell us important truths about our world, as the legacy of past events continues to affect us 500 years later.

In this book, Silvia Federici takes us back in time to show how the mysterious figure of the witch is key to understanding the creation of capitalism, the profit-motivated economic system that now reigns over the entire planet.

During the 15th - 17th centuries the fear of witches was ever-present in Europe and Colonial America, so much so that if a woman was accused of witchcraft she could face the cruelest of torture until confession was given, or even be executed based on suspicion alone. There was often no evidence whatsoever.

The author recounts, “for more than two centuries, in several European countries, hundreds of thousands of women were tried, tortured, burned alive or hanged, accused of having sold body and soul to the devil and, by magical means, murdered scores of children, sucked their blood, made potions with their flesh, caused the death of their neighbors, destroyed cattle and crops, raised storms, and performed many other abominations” (169). In other words, just about anything bad that might or might not have happened was blamed on witches during that time. So where did this tidal wave of hysteria come from that took the lives so many poor women, most of whom had almost certainly never flown on broomsticks or stirred eye-of-newt into large black cauldrons?

Caliban underscores that the persecution of witches was not just some error of ignorant peasants, but in fact the deliberate policy of Church and State, the very ruling class of society. To put this in perspective, today witchcraft would be a far-fetched cause for alarm, but the fear of hidden terrorists who could strike at any moment because they “hate our freedom” is widespread. Not surprising, since politicians and the media have been drilling this frightening message into people’s heads for years, even though terrorism is a much less likely cause of death than, say, lack of health care.1

And just as the panic over terrorism has enabled today’s powers-that-be to attempt to remake the Middle East, this book makes the case that the powers-that-were of Medieval Europe exploited or invented the fear of witches to remake European society towards a social paradigm that met their interests.

Interestingly, a major component of both of these crusades was the use of so-called "shock and awe" tactics to astound the population with “spectacular displays of force,” which help to soften up resistance to drastic or unpopular reforms.2 In the case of the Witch Hunt, shock therapy was applied through the witch burnings -- spectacles of such stupefying violence that they apparently paralyzed whole villages and regions into accepting fundamental restructuring of medieval society.3

Federici describes a typical witch burning as, “an important public event, which all the members of the community had to attend, including the children of the witches, especially their daughters who, in some cases, would be whipped in front of the stake on which they could see their mother burning alive” (186).

The book argues that these gruesome executions not only punished “witches” but graphically demonstrated the repercussions for any kind of disobedience to the clergy or nobility. In particular, the witch burnings were meant to terrify women into accepting “a new patriarchal order where women’s bodies, their labor, their sexual and reproductive powers were placed under the control of the state and transformed into economic resources” (170).

Federici puts forward that up until the 16th century, though living in a sexist society, European women retained significant economic independence from men that they typically do not under capitalism, where gender roles are more distinguished. She goes on, “If we also take into account that in medieval society collective relations prevailed over familial ones, and most of the tasks that female serfs performed (washing, spinning, harvesting, and tending to animals on the commons) were done in cooperation with other women, we then realize… [this] was a source of power and protection for women. It was the basis for an intense female sociality and solidarity that enabled women to stand up to men.” But the Witch Hunt initiated a period where women were forced to become what she calls “servants of the male work force” (115) -- excluded from receiving a wage, they were confined to the unpaid labor of raising children, caring for the elderly and sick, nurturing their husbands or partners, and maintaining the home. In Federici’s words, this was the “housewifization of women,” the reduction to a second-class status where women became totally dependent on the income of men (27).

Federici goes on to show how female sexuality, which was seen as a source of women’s potential power over men, became an object of suspicion and came under sharp attack by the authorities. The assault manifested in new laws that took away women’s control over the reproductive process, such as the banning of birth control measures, the replacement of midwives with male doctors, and the outlawing of abortion and infanticide.4 Federici calls this an attempt to turn the female body into “a machine for the reproduction of labor,” such that women’s only purpose in life was supposedly to produce children (144).

But we also learn that this was just one component of a broader move by Church and State to ban all forms of sexuality that were considered “non-productive.” For example, “homosexuality, sex between young and old, sex between people of different classes, anal coitus, coitus from behind, nudity, and dances. Also proscribed was the public, collective sexuality that had prevailed in the Middle Ages, as in the Spring festivals of pagan origins that, in the 16th-century, were still celebrated all over Europe” (194). To this end, the Witch Hunt targeted not only female sexuality but homosexuality and gender non-conformity as well, helping to craft the patriarchal sexual boundaries that define our society to this day.


Capitalism: Born in flames

What separates Caliban from other works exploring the “witch” phenomenon is that this book puts the persecution of witches into the context of the development of capitalism. For Silvia Federici, it’s no accident that “the witch-hunt occurred simultaneously with the colonization and extermination of the populations of the New World, the English enclosures, [or] the beginning of the slave trade” (164).

She instructs that all of these seemingly unrelated tragedies were initiated by the same European ruling elite at the very moment that capitalism was in formation, the late 15th through 17th centuries. Contrary to “laissez-faire” orthodoxy which holds that capitalism functions best without state intervention, Federici posits that it was precisely the state violence of these campaigns that laid the foundation for capitalist economics.

Thankfully for the reader, who may not be very familiar with the history of this era, Federici outlines these events in clear and accessible language. She focuses on the Land Enclosures in particular because their significance has been largely lost in time. Many of us will not remember that during Europe’s Middle Ages even the lowliest of serfs had their own plot of land with which they could use for just about any purpose. Federici adds, “With the use of land also came the use of the ‘commons’ -- meadows, forests, lakes, wild pastures – that provided crucial resources for the peasant economy (wood for fuel, timber for building, fishponds, grazing grounds for animals) and fostered community cohesion and cooperation” (24).

This access to land acted as a buffer, providing security for peasants who otherwise were mostly subject to the whim of their “Lord.” Not only could they grow their own food, or hunt in the relatively plentiful forests which were still standing in that era, but connection to the commons also gave peasants territory with which to organize resistance movements and alternative economies outside the control of their masters.

The Enclosures were a process by which this land was taken away -- closed off by the State and typically handed over to entrepreneurs to pursue a profit in sheep or cow herding, or large-scale agriculture. Instead of being used for subsistence as it had been, the land’s bounty was sold off to fledgling national and international markets. A new class of profit-motivated landowners emerged, known as “gentry,” but the underside of this development was the trauma experienced by the evicted peasants.

In the author’s words, “As soon as they lost access to land, all workers were plunged into a dependence unknown in medieval times, as their landless condition gave employers the power to cut their pay and lengthen the working-day” (72). For Federici, then, the chief creation of the Enclosures was a property-less, landless working class, a “proletariat” who were left with little option but to work for a wage in order to survive; wage labor being one of the defining features of capitalism.

Cut off from their traditional soil, many communities scattered across the countryside to find new homesteads. But the State countered with the so-called “Bloody Laws”, which made it legal to capture wandering “vagabonds” and force them to work for a wage, or put them to death. Federici tells the result: “What followed was the absolute impoverishment of the European working class… Evidence is the change that occurred in the workers’ diets. Meat disappeared from their tables, except for a few scraps of lard, and so did beer and wine, salt and olive oil” (77).

Although European workers typically labored for longer hours under their new capitalist employers, living standards were reduced sharply throughout the 16th century, and it wasn’t until the middle of the 19th century that earnings returned to the level they had been before the Enclosures.5

According to Federici, the witch hunts played a key role in facilitating this process by driving a sexist wedge into the working class that “undermined class solidarity,” making it more difficult for communities to resist displacement (48). And while women were faced with the threat of horrific torture and death if they did not conform to new submissive gender roles, men were in effect bribed with the promise of obedient wives and new access to women’s bodies.

The author cites that “Another aspect of the divisive sexual politics to diffuse workers’ protest was the institutionalization of prostitution, implemented through the opening of municipal brothels soon proliferating throughout Europe” (49). And in addition to prostitution, a legalization of sexual violence provided further sanction for the exploitation of women’s bodies. She explains, “In France, the municipal authorities practically decriminalized rape, provided the victims were women of the lower class” (47). This initiated what Federici calls a “virtual rape movement,” making it unsafe for women to even leave their homes.

The witch trials were the final assault, which all but obliterated the integrity of peasant communities by fostering mutual suspicion and fear. Amidst deteriorating conditions, neighbors were encouraged to turn against one another, so that any insult or annoyance became grounds for an accusation of witchcraft. As the terror spread, a new era was forged in the flames of the witch burnings. Surveying the damage, Silvia Federici concludes that “the persecution of the witches, in Europe as in the New World, was as important as colonization and the expropriation of the European peasantry from its land were for the development of capitalism” (12).

A forgotten revolution

Federici maintains that it didn’t have to turn out this way. “Capitalism was not the only possible response to the crisis of feudal power. Throughout Europe, vast communalistic social movements and rebellions against feudalism had offered the promise of a new egalitarian society built on social equality and cooperation” (61).

Caliban’s most inspiring chapters make visible an enormous continent-wide series of poor people’s movements that nearly toppled Church and State at the end of the Middle Ages. These peasant movements of the 13th - 16th centuries were often labeled “heretical” for challenging the religious power of the Vatican, but as the book details they aimed for a much broader transformation of feudal society.

The so-called “heretics” often “denounced social hierarchies, private property and the accumulation of wealth, and disseminated among the people a new, revolutionary conception of society that, for the first time in the Middle Ages, redefined every aspect of daily life (work, property, sexual reproduction, and the position of women), posing the question of emancipation in truly universal terms” (33).

Silvia Federici shows us how the heretical movements took many forms, from the vegetarian and anti-war Cathars of southern France to the communistic and anti-nobility Taborites of Bohemia, but were united in the call for the elimination of social inequality. Many put forth the argument that it was anti-Christian for the clergy and nobility to live in opulence while so many suffered from lack of adequate food, housing or medical attention.

The vegetarian and anti-war Cathars were rounded up by the Crusaders.

Another common thread weaving the European peasant movements together was the leadership of women. Federici describes that, “[Heretical women] had the same rights as men, and could enjoy a social life and mobility that nowhere else was available to them in the Middle Ages… Not surprisingly, women are present in the history of heresy as in no other aspect of medieval life.” (38). Some heretical sects, like the Cathars, discouraged marriage and emphasized birth control – advocating a sexual liberation which directly challenged the Church’s moral authority.

The gender politics of peasant movements proved to be a strength, and they attracted a wide following that undercut the power of a feudal system which was already in crisis. Federici explains how the movements became increasingly revolutionary as they grew in size.

In the course of this process, the political horizon and the organizational dimensions of the peasant and artisan struggle broadened. Entire regions revolted, forming assemblies and recruiting armies. At times, the peasants organized in bands, attacking the castles of the lords, and destroying the archives where the written marks of their servitude were kept” (45).

What started as a religious movement became increasingly revolutionary. For example, in the 1420s and 30s, the Taborites fought to liberate all of Bohemia, beating back several Crusades of 100,000+ men organized by the Vatican (54-55). The uprisings became contagious, so much so that in the crucial period of 1350-1500, unprecedented concessions were made including the doubling of wages, reduction in prices and rents, and a shorter working day. In the words of Silvia Federici, “the feudal economy was doomed” (62).

The author documents that the initial reaction by elites was to institute the “Holy Inquisition,” a brutal campaign of state repression that included torturing and even burning heretics to death. But as time went on, ruling class strategy shifted from targeting heretics in general to specifically targeting female community leaders. The Inquisition morphed into the Witch Hunt.

Soon, simple meetings of peasant women were stigmatized as possible “Sabbats,” where women were supposedly seduced by the devil to become witches, but as Federici clarifies, it was the rebellious politics and non-conforming gender relations of such gatherings which were demonized (177). Strong, defiant women were murdered by the tens of thousands, and along with them the Witch Hunt also destroyed “a whole world of female practices, collective relations, and systems of knowledge that had been the foundation of women’s power in pre-capitalist Europe, and the condition for their resistance in the struggle against feudalism” (103).

For elite European nobles and clergy, the Witch Hunt succeeded in stifling a working class revolution that had increasingly threatened their rule. Even more, Silvia Federici puts forward that the Witch Hunt facilitated the rise of a new, capitalist social paradigm -- based on large-scale economic production for profit and the displacement of peasants from their lands into the burgeoning urban workforce. In time, this capitalist system would dominate all of Europe and be dispersed through conquistadors’ “guns, germs and steel” to every corner of the globe, destroying countless ancient civilizations and cultures in the process.6

Federici’s analysis is that, “Capitalism was the counter-revolution that destroyed the possibilities that had emerged from the anti-feudal struggle -- possibilities which, if realized, might have spared us the immense destruction of lives and the environment that has marked the advance of capitalist relations worldwide” (22). How might things be different if the forgotten revolution had won?

Conclusion: Rediscovering the magic of truth-telling
“Day by day, it’s worse for my people, especially for the women. And that’s why, because of all of these main reasons, we say this is the mockery of democracy and mockery of War on Terror.” – Malalai Joya, Afghan democracy activist, 2009
Caliban and the Witch is a book that challenges many important myths about the world we live in. First and foremost among these is the widely-held belief that capitalism, though perhaps flawed in its current form, started out as a “progressive” development that liberated workers and improved the conditions of women, people of color and other oppressed groups.

Silvia Federici has done impressive work to take us back to the very foundations of the capitalist system in late-medieval Europe to uncover a secret history of land dispossession and impoverishment, gender and sexual terror, and brutal colonization of non-Europeans. This terrible legacy leads her to the profound conclusion that the system is “necessarily committed to racism and sexism,” and most strongly, “It is impossible to associate capitalism with any form of liberation or attribute the longevity of the system to its capacity to satisfy human needs. If capitalism has been able to reproduce itself it is only because of the web of inequalities that it has built into the body of the world proletariat, and because of its capacity to globalize exploitation. This process is still unfolding under our eyes, as it has for the last 500 years” (17).

It’s been said that we can measure a society by how it treats its women. This book provides compelling documentation to suggest that capitalism is and has always been a male dominated system, which reduces opportunities and security for women as well as marginalizing those who don’t fit within narrow gender boundaries. In particular, it uses the story of the Witch Hunt to illuminate the inner workings of capitalism to show the restraining, silencing, and demonizing of female sexual power built into it.7

Responding to our question that started this essay, Silvia Federici writes, “The witch was not only the midwife, the woman who avoided maternity, or the beggar who eked out a living by stealing some wood or butter from her neighbors. She was also the loose, promiscuous woman -- the prostitute or adulteress, and generally, the woman who exercised her sexuality outside the bonds of marriage and procreation… The witch was also the rebel woman who talked back, argued, swore, and did not cry under torture” (184).

In other words, the witches were those women who in one way or another resisted the establishment of an unjust social order -- the mechanical exploitation of capitalism. The witches represented a whole world that Europe’s new masters were anxious to destroy: a world with strong female leadership, a world rooted in local communities and knowledge, a world alive with magical possibilities, a world in revolt.

We need not despair for the world that has been lost. Indeed, it is still with us today in the struggles of people everywhere organizing for justice. Today from Afghanistan we can hear the clarion voice of Malalai Joya, a courageous woman who was expelled from the Afghan parliament in 2007 for speaking out against the U.S.-installed warlords who now rule her country. She appeared recently on Democracy Now! saying, “Now my people are sandwiched between two powerful enemies: from the sky, occupation forces bombing and killing innocent civilians… [and] on the ground, Taliban and these warlords together continue to deliver fascism against our people.”8

Joya risks her life to make these comments, but her words carry the sparkling truth that is so necessary to end the insanity of war and occupation in the Middle East. Those who are summoned to action by her call do so in the immortal spirit of the “heretics” and “witches” who resisted capitalism and feudalism before it, carrying forward a movement that is wide as the Earth and old as time.

Notes
  1. Harvard University researchers released a study on Sept. 17, 2009, showing that approximately 45,000 Americans die unnecessarily from lack of medical coverage every year, unfortunately many times more than the number killed on September 11, 2001. See this article for more on the Harvard study.
  2. “Shock and Awe”, Wikipedia. Accessed Nov. 2, 2009.
  3. This “shock therapy” strategy is examined in detailed case studies by Naomi Klein in the excellent The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Metropolitan Books 2007. For example she offers that the US-led devastation of Iraq’s social infrastructure, including destruction of hospitals, food and water systems traumatized the Iraqi people such that they could not prevent the highly unpopular privatization of the country’s oil wealth.
  4. for more on the Witch Hunt’s effect on the male domination of reproduction and medicine, see Barbara Ehrenreich’s Witches, Midwives and Nurses: A History of Women Healers, The Feminist Press at CUNY 1972, pamphlet.
  5. “The high point of wages was immediately preceding the ‘long’ sixteenth century [roughly 1450], and the low point was at its end [roughly 1650]. The drop during the sixteenth century was immense.” Wallerstein, Immanuel. The Modern World-System. Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press, 1974. pg. 80.
  6. see Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, W.W. Norton Press 2005. Jared Diamond’s study of the rise of Europe focuses more on ecology than patriarchy, but is nonetheless useful for exposing the carnage of the colonization process.
  7. for a brilliant collection of insights into the many ways female sexuality is still under attack, see Friedman, Jaclyn & Jessica Valenti. Yes Means Yes! Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape. Seal Press 2008. My review of this book can also be found here.
  8. Democracy Now! October 28, 2009 broadcast. “A Woman Among Warlords: Afghan Democracy Activist Malalai Joya Defies Threats to Challenge US Occupation, Local Warlords.” Online here.
[Alex Knight is an organizer and writer in Philadelphia. He is currently organizing with Philly Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the People's Caravan, which recently completed a story-listening and action trip to the G20 summit in Pittsburgh. He also maintains the website endofcapitalism.com and is in the process of writing a book called The End of Capitalism. He can be reached at activistalex@gmail.com.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

Sherman DeBrosse : Pipeline Politics and the Afghanistan War


Worth all the blood?
The Trans Afghanistan Pipeline


By Sherman DeBrosse / The Rag Blog / November 6, 2009

President Barack Obama recently honored eighteen fallen American soldiers at a midnight ceremony at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. Let us hope that none of these heroes died in order to pave the way for the Trans Afghanistan Pipeline.

Advocates of the TAP -- sometimes known as TAPI -- see it as a modern-day extension of the ancient Silk Road. Congress has passed two Silk Road Strategy Acts (1999-2006) that essentially voice strong support for projecting U.S. military and economic power into the Eurasian Corridor in Central Asia. Talk about moving natural gas on the TAP does not pass the lips of our politicians or pundits, but has been a big factor in our dealings with Afghanistan since the 1990s.

Operation Enduring Freedom was about terrorism, but much more was involved. Noam Chomsky has reminded us that the pipeline would sharply reduce the region’s dependency upon Iran for energy. There is also the matter of competition with Russia. In September, Zamir Kabulov, Russian ambassador to Afghanistan, said that the “U.S. and its allies are competing with Russia for influence in the energy-rich region… Afghanistan remains a strategic prize because of its location.”

The Clinton and Bush administrations both sought stability in Afghanistan to permit California-based construction of a planned twin pipelines -- Caspian natural gas and oil -- to take Caspian fuels through Afghanistan into Pakistan and India. TAP only briefly involved oil as well as gas; it is now a natural gas venture.

A major benefit is that it would provide Caspian fuel not controlled by Russia’s Gazprom. It would begin in the Daulatabad gas field and bring gas to Pakistan and India. The line would also outflank a proposed Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) line that would probably benefit China and its China National Petroleum Corporation. India has been hedging its bets by using the second line with Iran and China, and there were some breakthroughs in the negotiations with Iran in 2008.

The United States, of course, has been actively opposing the project, in part because it would hasten economic development in Iran. The U.S. is pressuring India to withdraw from discussions of the IPI and not to agree to buy natural gas from the IPI. Iran is pressing India for a definite commitment and is threatening to go it alone, with the help of China. Recent reverses in the Afghan War have given new life to prospects for the IPI.

There is no way of knowing how important the pipeline is as a motive for the Afghan War. All we can do is review the facts.

Bridas vs. U.S. oil

The 1040 mile pipeline was the idea of Carlos A. Budgheroni of Bridas, an Argentine firm. In 1995, he thought he had a secure agreement with Afghanistan and Turkmenistan to develop the project. He invited California-based Unocal to join his consortium, but the American firm soon elbowed out Bridas and launched its own consortium. In March 1995 the governments of Turkmenistan and Pakistan signed a memorandum of agreement to cooperate on the pipeline.

Unocal created the Central Asian Gas and Pipeline Consortium in August 1996, with Unocal holding 46.5 %. The government of Turkmenistan had some involvement and by 2000, Halliburton was in Turkmenistan to provide “integrated drilling services with an estimated value of $30 million for the total package." There were firms from Russia, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, and South Korea.

Unocal, which was to be purchased by Chevron, soon began courting the Taliban faction and brought some of its leaders to its headquarters in Sugarland, Texas, in 1997. The delegation, led by Mullah Mohammed Ghaus, visited Unocal headquarters in Sugarland, toured NASA Space Center facilities, and visited the Houston Zoo. The corporation sponsored the training of Afghans in oil technology at the University of Nebraska, but soon backed off and gave the impression it was no longer interested in the Afghan venture It seemed that the desired deal was about to be signed, but the Taliban seemed to lose interest in dealing with the U.S .

The Taliban, which had been created with the help of the U.S. and Pakistan, was seen as a vehicle for providing stability in Afghanistan. It had a bad record on its treatment of women and on human rights, but the U.S. and Unocal still supported it. In 1996, the Taliban gained the upper hand in the civil war when it occupied Kabul. At that time it invited Osama bin Laden to Afghanistan as a guest.

The Taliban’s honored guest supported Bridas. His engineers had taken the trouble to sip tea with Afghan leaders, and some of the Taliban agreed with Bin Laden that the contract should go to Bridas. He also offered to let Afghanistan tap some of the gas from the line, while the Americans were not promising that. The French newspaper Le Figaro reported that U.S. intelligence people maintained contacts with Bin Laden in hopes that he could find a way to renew his ties with the United States. An agent met with him in July, 2001 but could not restore ties. Bin Laden remained angry that there were U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, which he considered holy soil.

Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai and President George W. Bush.

Unocal employed two influential Pashtuns -- Taliban backer Kalmay Khalizad, a Chicago Ph.D., and Hamid Karzai, leader of the Pashtun Durrani tribe who also had ties to the royal family. Khalizad was to be on the Bush National Security Council, and Karzai would preside over the regime that U.S. would install in Afghanistan. Patrick Martin has written, “If history had skipped over September 11 and the events of that day had never happened, it is very likely that the United States would have gone to war in Afghanistan anyway, and on much the same schedule.”

In January, 1998, the Taliban selected CentGas over the Argentine firm to build the pipelines. The Russians pulled out of the deal in June. Due to Al Qaeda’s bombing of two African embassies, the Clinton administration, in 1998, banned further negotiations with Afghanistan.

Enron and the line

Unocal suspended activities in pursuit of the pipeline, in December, 1998, but Enron quietly began to take a leadership role. Enron was facing a financial crisis, and the pipeline would make Enron lands in the Caspian Basin very valuable. Enron had just purchased enormous tracts of land in Turkmenistan and gambled that the pipeline would make the acquisitions very profitable. Construction of the TAP would also make it possible to get cheap natural gas to the Dabhol, India, power plant, which was then a huge financial liability for Enron and General Electric.

Bush policy toward Afghanistan

The Bush administration, in early 2001, lifted the Clinton ban, probably to give Enron one last chance to negotiate a successful pipeline deal and possibly reverse its fortunes. Secretary of State Colin Powell quickly gave the Taliban $43 million for “humanitarian purposes.” It is possible that the younger Bush knew nothing about the pipeline deal. Condoleezza Rice was a former member of the Chevron board, but it should be recalled that she did not see the Phoenix memo on terrorism before 9/11. It was thought essential that relations with Saudi Arabia improve if the pipeline negotiations were to be successful.

The effort to force the Taliban to accept U.S. demands was probably related to attempts to assist Enron Corporation avoid financial shipwreck. If a coalition government emerged quickly in Afghanistan, it was believed conditions would be right for the construction of gas and oil pipelines across that country, a venture in which Enron was heavily involved. The gas pipeline would also place Enron’s $3 billion power plant in Dabhol, India, on a profitable basis. In an unprecedented effort to assist a private concern, the National Security Council was then coordinating a government-wide drive to force India to make payments to the Enron power plant in Dabhol. To assist Enron and other energy wholesalers make the most of the energy crisis in California, the administration resisted calls to reinstate price caps on interstate energy sales. Enron and Ken Lay were permitted to exert great influence in fashioning the Bush energy plan.

The Bush administration sharply reversed U.S. policy with respect to Afghanistan. Whether the new approach to diplomacy with the Taliban was related to the administration’s somewhat relaxed approach to counterterrorism cannot be known. Contacts with the Taliban were reopened and a vigorous carrot and stick approach was pursued in an effort to have Bin Laden turned over and set in motion a coalition government there. A coalition government, which would open the door to the proposed twin pipeline across Afghanistan. The Afghan government would benefit from fees paid for construction rights and later for sending oil and natural gas through the lines.

Laili Helms, niece by marriage to former CIA director Richard Helms and a relative of King Zahir Shah, quickly arranged for Sayed Rahmatullah Hashami, an envoy of Mullah Omar, to visit Washington. Helms, whose two grandfathers had been Afghan officials, was working as a public relations consultant for the Taliban. Hashami brought a carpet for George W. Bush, a gift from his one-eyed leader. According to the Village Voice, he offered to detain Osama bin Laden long enough for U.S. agents to seize the terrorist, but for some reason the U.S. did not accept the offer. Not long after that, bin Laden announced in a written statement that he and Omar had sworn baya or blood brotherhood. At this time, the Voice of America’s Pashtun service broadcasted so much favorable information about Mullah Omar and the Taliban that wags called the woman heading that division “Kandahar Rose.”

Dr. Christina Rocca, who had been a CIA operative in Afghanistan from 1982 to 1997, began working on the Afghanistan problem for the State Department in May, 2001. At the same time, State maintained constant contact with the Taliban diplomatic mission in Queens and remained hostile to the Northern Alliance’s Islamic State of Afghanistan, which was recognized by the United Nations. As late as July, the CIA welcomed Qazi Hussein Ahmed, head of the pro-Bin Laden Jamiaat-i-Islami Party, at the George H. W. Bush Intelligence Center in Langley, Virginia. The policy was clearly to work out a gas deal with the Taliban.

Enron gambled that the pipeline would make their land in the Caspian Basin much more valuable.

Diplomacy rarely discussed in U.S. press

State Department representatives met with counterparts from Iran, Italy, Germany, and in Geneva to devise ways to force the Taliban to enter an oil/gas deal with the United States. The Six plus Two negotiating process was also in motion with Francesc Vendrell, personal representative of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, making five trips to Kandahar and Kabul between April 19 and August 17, 2001. There was also a stormy UN-sponsored meeting in Brussels on May 15 which the Taliban foreign minister refused to attend because Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, the Northern Alliance representative, was there. Twenty-one nations had representatives at Weston Park in England in July, where a coalition government under the oversight of former King Zahir Shah was tentatively agreed.

There was a March meeting of the UN-sponsored A group of Six plus Two in Berlin. The Six plus Two meetings were “level-2” discussions because they were attended by former government officials. These former officials tried to reflect the policies of their governments, but their lack of official positions gave their governments a large measure of desirability if something went wrong. Nevertheless, they were useful forums for exchanging ideas that clearly represented the positions of the governments involved.

The small U.S. delegation included Tom Simons, former ambassador to Pakistan, and Robert Oakley, a Unocal lobbyist and former ambassador. In a May meeting in Geneva, the U.S. unveiled plans to attack Afghanistan. Representatives of Iran, Germany, and Italy were present. In July, war with Afghanistan was again discussed at the Group of Eight meeting in Genoa. An Indian observer was also present for these discussions and even contributed plans. The U.S. was busy acquiring base rights in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan.

Another Berlin meeting was held in July. The Taliban was expected to send a spokesman, but he did not appear, probably because the Northern Alliance was represented there. It was later reported in Europe that the U.S. spokesman said that the Taliban could either “accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.'' Simons denied that a direct threat was made in these words but conceded that the subject of force may have come up in connection with a discussion of the investigation of the attack on the USS Cole. He also said, “It is possible that an American participant, acting mischievously, after some glasses, evoked the gold carpets and the carpet bombs.” Whatever Simons’ exact words were, people came away convinced that the U.S. was determined to employ force in Afghanistan if it did not get its way.

A British newspaper later reported that it was said that the bombing could begin as early as October. Niaz Naik, Pakistan’s former foreign minister, reported back to his government in mid-July that the U.S. would resort to force if Pakistan could not persuade the Taliban to come into line. Pakistan passed this information on to the Taliban. It was later reported on French television that “Islamabad and Pakistani military circles were buzzing with rumors of war.” The Indian press reported in October that "Tajikistan and Uzbekistan will lead the ground attack with a strong military back up of the U.S. and Russia. Vital Taliban installations and military assets will be targeted.”

MSNBC reported that the plan to invade Afghanistan was on Bush’s desk before 9/11 and included giving a red light to the Northern Alliance to mount a major campaign against the Taliban. On the afternoon of September 11, General Richard Myers reported at a teleconferenced NSC meeting that the Pentagon had 42 major Taliban bombing targets. After the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration immediately attributed it to Osama Bin Laden, but he repeatedly denied any involvement for several weeks. Later, a videotape turned up in Afghanistan in which Bin Laden supposedly took credit for the attack; however, some translators deny that is what he said.

Dr. Christina Rocca, represented the U.S. at its last meeting with the Taliban, which occurred on August 2 in Islamabad -- five weeks before September 11. The Taliban, at this point, was in the process of awarding the twin pipeline deal to an Argentine-led consortium. At that meeting Rocca demanded that the Taliban turn over bin Laden. In an interview, Brisard commented on the Islamabad meeting:
We believe that when [Rocca] went to Pakistan in [August] 2001 she was there to speak about oil, and unfortunately the Osama bin Laden case was just a technical part of the negotiations. He said “ I'm not sure about the pipeline specifically, but we make it clear she was there to speak about oil. There are witnesses, including the Pakistani foreign minister.
Journalists outside the United States have discussed these events in detail and raise the possibility that the threat of military action may have had a direct effect on the timing of Al Qaeda’s attack on America. The last US-Taliban meeting occurred five days before 9/11. The Taliban continued to grant hospitality to Osama bin Laden and refused to turn him over until the U.S. promised him a fair trial and submitted the proper extradition papers. Those papers were not submitted.

After the successful U.S. attack on Afghanistan, the U.S. installed a government led by a former employee of Unocal/Chevron, Hamid Karzai. His regime, on February 8, 2002, agreed with Pakistan to enter into a long-term agreement with a U.S.-led consortium to build a twin pipeline that would bring gas and oil from the Caspian Basin down through Afghanistan and to the coast of Pakistan and to India. Kevin Phillips, a Republican writer, was to note that U.S. troops in Afghanistan were to become “pipeline protection troops.” The value of Caspian oil and gas has been placed at $4 trillion. However, little progress has been made on the pipeline, and Unocal, since 1998, has claimed that it is no longer involved in the consortium.

Recent developments

In December, 2002, the leaders of Turkmenistan, Pakistan, and Afghanistan signed a new agreement to move ahead with the pipelines. Six years later, the governments of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan agreed to purchase gas coming through the pipeline. The Asian Development Bank will finance the $7.6 billion venture. In 2006, the United States assured India that the project would go ahead. In 2008, Afghanistan assured India that land mines would be cleared, making construction possible. Technical experts met in Ashgabat to deal with transit agreements and other details.

It appears that the project will be financed through the Asia Development Bank, whose largest share holders are the U.S. and Japan. The Indian Gas authority has suggested that Russia’s Gazprom be brought in as a consultant and maybe even be the eventual operator of the line. However, the project cannot move forward because southern Afghanistan is controlled by the Taliban.

If the TAP is ever built, the Afghan government will receive 8% of the revenue. It may well be that the Afghans, in their failure to resolve their problems, have frittered away the prospect of this windfall There is growing doubt in the region that stability will be restored in Afghanistan, and there is now talk of using the proposed IPI line that would not involve Afghanistan. Two problems are that using this line would benefit Iran and China, not the U.S.

[Sherman DeBrosse is a retired history teacher. Sherm spent seven years writing an analytical chronicle of what the Republicans have been up to since the 1970s. The New Republican Coalition : Its Rise and Impact, The Seventies to Present (Publish America) can be acquired by calling 301-695-1707. On line, go here.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

Alice Embree : Here's to the Soldiers of Fort Hood

Jackie Thomas at Under the Hood Coffeehouse near Ft. Hood. Photo by Cynthia Thomas / The Rag Blog.

Thoughts of Charles Whitman on the tower,
And the soldiers who come back broken from war
Bring the troops home and take care of them.
By Alice Embree / The Rag Blog / November 6, 2009

A call from Seattle alerted me to the shootings at Fort Hood. I called friends at Under the Hood Coffeehouse in Killeen and left messages. Then I drove by Monkeywrench Books to see if Bobby (an antiwar ex-Marine) knew about our mutual friends. Bobby was keeping up through Facebook.

Of course, Facebook. That’s how it is with this generation.

I headed home to cable television and Facebook, but all I could think of on the way to my house was Charles Whitman, another ex-Marine, on top of a tower shooting people under an August sun in Austin.

All afternoon, Victor Agosto posted news like staccato notes, “Post locked down.” “Thirteen dead.” On Facebook, I saw Michael’s message that he had not been shot.

I remembered how the phone lines got jammed when Whitman shot from the tower. It was 1966; the phones were landlines. Now Michael is texting from a bunker on a locked down base.

Victor finally sent a lengthy message about the site of the shootings: “SRP (Soldier Readiness Processing) is the pre-deployment process that involves medical, financial and legal paperwork/briefings. It takes all day to complete, sometimes several days. Soldiers must go through this process to deploy overseas. This is the process I was charged with refusing when I was court-martialed.”

So here’s to the soldiers who come back broken and find people to talk with. Here’s to the soldiers who come back angry and stand with red and black flags telling people why they’re angry about endless wars. Here’s to the soldiers who decide not to be deployed and go to jail instead. Here’s to Iraq Veterans Against the War and to Winter Soldier hearings where soldiers share their experiences. Here’s to Under the Hood Coffeehouse with its sign: “GI Voices; You Are Not Alone.” Here’s to the upcoming Warrior Writers event on Veterans Day where people can tell their stories.

And here’s to all the silent people who think their lives won’t be affected by these wars because they won’t be drafted and they don’t know anybody in the military. To them I can only say: Bring the troops home and take care of them.

[Alice Embree is an Austin activist and writer. She is a member of the board of the Ft. Hood Support Network and Under the Hood GI coffeehouse and was in Austin when Charles Whitman opened fire from atop the University of Texas Tower.]

Also see: The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

New Urbanism : Transportation Fantasia in Central Texas


Cloning the evil broom:
Kirk Watson and the New Urbanists


By Glenn Gaven / The Rag Blog / November 6, 2009

In the movie Fantasia, Mickey chops the evil broom into bits only to have them transform into a whole army of equally evil broom clones. Too often this happens in real life, election after election.

In Austin, we unelected New Urbanist Brewster McCracken only to have him replaced on the city council by two other New Urbanists, Chris Riley and Bill Spelman. New Urbanism for the uninitiated is neo-liberal ethnic cleansing.

Riley also replaced McCracken on the Capital Metro Transit Authority Board and will be joined by fellow New Urbanists John Langamore, Frank Fernandez, and likely a fourth yet unnamed clone appointed by the County commissioners.

The result of all this is a complete takeover by developers of transit in Austin. They have raised bus fares by over 100% in the last thirteen months, jettisoning millions of trips from the system, crippling community mobility and damaging air quality.

Pulling the puppet strings on the whole marionette malaise is transit czar Kirk Watson who heads CAMPO, the regional transportation planning authority. You may remember the diminutive Dem who almost singlehandedly ruined the Obama campaign with his appearance on MSNBC's Hardball. Watson's inburst caused the biggest polling point drop of the entire election.



As a state senator in 2009, he returned to Central Texas to flaunt his wizardry under the Pink Dome. Watson changed state law allowing for his agency to pick an additional Metro board member and removing all checks and balances from the fare setting process, greenlighting unlimited hikes for eternity. It is also well known that Watson wants to be Governor of Texas someday.

In a Union drive many years ago my mentor Helen Parsley told me, when I complained about a particularly bad manager, "Bad managers are our best organizers."

Indeed, I would likely not know any of my fellow organizers and activists had it not been for the Imperial Savant management of our world by George W. Bush.

With our understanding of the Fantasia phenomena and the Parsley principle, I propose that, instead of unelecting Watson, we draft him to be President of the United States and give him greater power.

This concept should be applied universally. Term limits should be abolished, and elections held as infrequently as possible. This accomplishes two things. It ends the revolving door that politicians and lobbyists exploit and corners the market on graft and corruption, therefore devaluing bribes and kickbacks.

The result for us will be greater organization, and if we successfully allow a long term Mobutuesque regime to blossom, maybe the advent of the revolution we all crave.

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

05 November 2009

Dahr Jamail : Ft. Hood Shootings Reflect Problems in U.S. Military

The sun sets at Ft. Hood, Texas, Thursday, Nov. 5, 2009, as the media awaits a briefing on the day's terrible events. Photo by Michael Thomas / AP.

Shootings rock massive Fort Hood
As soldiers point to grim mood at the base

'I’d say [morale is] at an all-time low -- mostly because of Afghanistan now,' he explained..
By Dahr Jamail / November 5, 2009

[This story was written the evening of the shootings at Ft. Hood. When you read it you will know facts not available at the time of this posting. But what's important here is not the details of the terrible events that took place today; it's the context in which they occurred, and about which Dahr Jamail reports. That is why this is an important report and one that we encourage you to read. -- Ed.]

At approximately 1:30 p.m. CST today, a soldier went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas, killing 11 people and wounding at least 31 others, according to base commander Lieutenant-General Bob Cone.

Truthout spoke with an Army Specialist who is an active-duty Iraq war veteran currently stationed at the base. The soldier spoke on condition of anonymity since the base is now on “lockdown,” and all “non-authorized” military personnel on the base have been ordered not to speak to the press.

“A soldier entered the ‘Soldier Readiness Center (SRC)’ with two handguns and opened fire,” the soldier, who is currently getting treatment for traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) explained. “That facility is where you go just before you deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan.”

The soldier named the gunman as Major Malik Nadal Hasan, and said he was about 40 years old. According to the soldier, Hasan was a member of the base’s Medical Evaluation Board, and worked there as a counselor.

“I can confirm Major Hasan was the gunman, and I actually saw him this morning,” the soldier explained. “I was over in the area doing some paperwork, and saw him at the facility. He seemed fine to me, and I spoke with one of my friends who had an appointment with him this morning. They said Major Hasan seemed OK to them too.”

The soldier believes that at least one Killeen Police Department officer was killed before the gunman was shot. Two other soldiers with suspected involvement in the mass shooting were also taken into custody by a SWAT team, according to the soldier.

Fort Hood, located in central Texas, is the largest US military base in the world and contains up to 50,000 soldiers. It is one of the most heavily deployed bases to both Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, the shooter himself was facing an impending deployment to Iraq.

The soldier says that the mood on the base is “very grim,” and that even before this incident, troop morale has been very low.

“I’d say it’s at an all-time low -- mostly because of Afghanistan now,” he explained. “Nobody knows why we are at either place, and I believe the troops need to know why they are there, or we should pull out, and this is a unanimous feeling, even for folks who are pro-war.”

In a strikingly similar incident on May 11, 2009, a U.S. soldier gunned down five fellow soldiers at a stress-counseling center at a U.S. base in Baghdad. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at a news conference at the Pentagon that the shootings occurred in a place where “individuals were seeking help.”

“It does speak to me, though, about the need for us to redouble our efforts, the concern in terms of dealing with the stress,” Admiral Mullen said. “It also speaks to the issue of multiple deployments.”

Commenting on the incident in nearly parallel terms, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that the Pentagon needs to redouble its efforts to relieve stress caused by repeated deployments in war zones; stress that is further exacerbated by limited time at home in between deployments.

The condition described by Mullen and Gates is what veteran health experts often refer to as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

While soldiers returning home are routinely involved in shootings, suicide and other forms of self-destructive violent behavior as a direct result of their experiences in Iraq, we have yet to see an event of this magnitude take place in Iraq.

Prior to the May incident, the last reported incident of this kind happened in 2005, when an Army captain and lieutenant were killed when an anti-personnel mine detonated in the window of their room at a US base in Tikrit. In that case, National Guard Staff Sgt. Alberto Martinez was acquitted.

The shocking story of a soldier killing five of his comrades does not come as a surprise when we consider that the military has, for years now, been sending troops with untreated PTSD back into the U.S. occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to an Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center analysis, reported in the Denver Post in August 2008, more than “43,000 service members -- two-thirds of them in the Army or Army Reserve -- were classified as nondeployable for medical reasons three months before they deployed” to Iraq.

Mark Thompson also has reported in Time magazine, “Data contained in the Army’s fifth Mental Health Advisory Team report indicate that, according to an anonymous survey of U.S. troops taken last fall, about 12 percent of combat troops in Iraq and 17 percent of those in Afghanistan are taking prescription antidepressants or sleeping pills to help them cope.”

In April 2008, the RAND Corporation released a stunning report revealing, “Nearly 20 percent of military service members who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan - 300,000 in all - report symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or major depression, yet only slightly more than half have sought treatment.”

President Barack Obama, speaking during an event at the Department of the Interior in Washington, said that the mass shooting at Fort Hood was a "horrific outburst of violence." He added, "It is horrifying that they should come under fire at an army base on American soil."

Victor Agosto, an Iraq war veteran who was discharged from the military after publicly refusing to deploy to Afghanistan, has had firsthand experience with the SRFC at Fort Hood, where he too was based.

“I knew there would be a confrontation when I was there, because the only reason to do that process is to deploy,” Agosto explained, speaking to Truthout near Fort Hood . “So the shooter clearly intended to stop people from deploying.”

Agosto was court-martialed for refusing an order to go to the SRC to prepare to deploy to Afghanistan.

“I was court-martialed for refusing the order to SRC in that very same building. I didn’t enter the building, but I didn’t go in because I was refusing the process,” Agosto continued. “It’s a pretty important place in my life, so it’s interesting to me that this happened there.”

Source / truthout

Also see:
  1. War Comes Home: Massacre at Ft. Hood by Danny Schechter / News Dissector / Nov. 6, 2009
  2. Ft. Hood tragedy: Repeat deployments take increasing toll by Sid Christenson / San Antonio Express-News / Houston Chronicle
The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

Roger Baker : Debunking the Vaccine Scare

Graphic by David Dees / deesillustration.com

Swine flu vaccine:
The facts behind the kerfuffle

By Roger Baker / The Rag Blog / November 5, 2009

Are the big pharmaceutical companies endangering our health with risky things like swine flu vaccine? Maybe vaccines are risky, but perhaps not in the same ways and for the reasons that a lot of people are thinking, if we are to judge by the Internet chatter.

Is there a risk?

Probably the biggest flu vaccine risk is produced by not providing the influenza vaccine soon enough, because the proper federal government incentives were not there. The big pharmaceutical companies are overcharging the government, sending production offshore, withholding information, and using slow and obsolete production technology.

They may be in effect killing people who can't get the safe and effective vaccines they need in time to prevent disease. We see this with both swine and seasonal flu vaccine shortages. After vaccination, about a two week delay is needed to develop a strong immune response.

From The New York Times:
...So far, the swine flu virus looks no more virulent than a normal seasonal flu. That is bad enough. It has killed roughly 4,000 Americans and sent roughly 40,000 to the hospital. The virus is active in 48 states, and even if it begins to taper off soon, another wave might hit us early next year. Those most at risk would be wise to get vaccinated when they can find a supply...
If you shop at Whole Foods, you might think that leading a healthy natural lifestyle based on their food may be all the medicine you ever need. Stores like this seem to sell a ton of herbal remedies but not much aspirin. This profitable healthy eating culture is no doubt valid, but is not enough by itself. Here is a recent recommendation for a healthy diet from the Harvard School of Public Health

One problem with current trends is that, while an increasing part of the general population might like to eat a healthy diet, more and more average folks can't afford to eat healthy fresh fruits and vegetables to go along with the staple grains, etc. Perhaps they are exhausted by work and grab a quick burger and fries and soda. Or they are conned by TV commercials into feeding their kids cheap sugary drinks and junk food snacks full of fat and sugar. The kinds of food average people eat is increasingly a function of their economic class, and this certainly affects general public health and immunity.

I agree with a lot of the healthy food thinking, but I don't believe there is much truth in the notion that just getting lots of exercise and eating a healthy diet somehow protects against contagious disease -- and that as a result we won't get sick when exposed to the various viruses to which we have no natural or vaccine-induced immunity.

The fact is that a lot of virus immunity (and many late onset chronic health problems) are actually genetic in nature and this natural immunity has often played an important role in history. The Spanish who invaded the Americas had previously suffered enough smallpox deaths to be more resistant than the Aztec Indian civilization they conquered, largely by spreading their smallpox.

Another example of natural immunity largely protected the Black slaves in Haiti where yellow fever was endemic in the early 1800s. This mosquito-spread disease then killed many of the French troops that were sent in to put down a Haitian slave revolt. This in turn helped to convince Napoleon to abandon French American colonies like Haiti, which helped lead to the Louisiana Purchase by Jefferson of a huge piece of the current United States.

However, especially since the 1930s, we have learned how to confer virus immunity using vaccines. As antibiotics lose their effectiveness -- partly through factory farming of animals such as the swine thought to have cultivated the current swine flu, and from antibiotic overuse -- the highly targeted microbe-specific vaccines will, by default, have to play an increasingly important role in medicine. Vaccines can work quite well if used properly and in advance of illness. The swine flu vaccines are thought to be about 75% effective and side effects are rare. Effective HIV and malaria vaccines may be possible in the future.

[A personal case in point: I eat a reasonably good diet at age 66, usually take a daily multivitamin supplement, and got my seasonal flu shot. However, I still got what was probably swine flu and then got a mild secondary infection, subsequently knocked out with the help of a sulfa drug. I had already gotten a pneumococcal vaccine shot to help prevent common strains of bacterial pneumonia.]


Why we dropped the ball on flu vaccine

The following, from the Council on Foreign Relations, clearly reveals that the current vaccine shortages stem from business as usual based on a bunch of fragmented business deals.
Worldwide, drug companies are scrambling to manufacture a vaccine for H1N1, also known as swine flu, which was declared a pandemic in June 2009. David Fedson, an expert in influenza vaccines and a former consultant to the World Health Organization, says the current distribution system is outmoded, and could slow or restrict the delivery of vaccines to some developing countries. "One of the reasons they're getting it late is that thus far, the distributions of vaccines from companies to countries have been handled as a series of business deals," Fedson says...
It is clear that the big international pharmaceutical corporations now have no national identity, or unifying principle other than profit. Unfortunately many conventional vaccines are labor intensive and rather unprofitable to produce. Vaccines are thus natural choices for outsourcing production, according to The New York Times.
...The current problems began years ago, experts said, when vaccine companies started abandoning the American market.

Vaccines, which involve living viruses, are much harder to make than most drugs. Profits are lower and unused flu vaccine expires after a few months. Also, vaccines are primarily intended for children, and Americans frequently sue when a child is injured.

Little was done to lure companies back until bioterrorism fears emerged after the anthrax attacks of 2001 and the H5N1 avian flu virus, which kills about 60 percent of humans infected with it, emerged in 2003, Dr. Fauci said.

In 2004, only two companies were licensed to sell flu vaccine in the United States; now there are five, but only one, Sanofi-Pasteur, has a domestic plant. The others -- GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, CSL Ltd. and Medimmune -- use plants in England, Germany and Australia.

The drawback of relying on foreign plants was made clear recently when the Australian government pressured CSL to keep its vaccine at home instead of fulfilling its contract for 36 million doses of swine flu vaccine for the United States.
A new and better vaccine technology beckons

We are still trying to produce vaccines by the old fashioned but well established way of growing the flu virus in eggs and then killing it and injecting the killed virus in the flu shots. Another way is to induce immunity with a weakened virus. The nasal vaccine has a weak live flu virus. This is similar in principle to traditional smallpox vaccination which used a weak pox virus to make one pox infection lesion on your arm, thus inducing a lifelong immunity.

But both the killed virus and the weakened virus approaches are likely obsolete in our era of sophisticated biotechnology that now allows us to make recombinant vaccines. Here is what Sen. Bob Graham has recently testified with regard to the current status of our vaccine production technology:
...The United States--unlike the European Union and China--continues to use a 60-year old production method, using chicken eggs, to make H1N1 and other important vaccines. U.S. flu vaccines are safe and effective, but manufacturing can take six months, and is vulnerable to delays. The time it takes to make the vaccine is much longer than the time it takes for a flu virus to cause a pandemic. Right now, the H1N1 vaccine is being produced as quickly as possible, but millions of people will not have the chance to be vaccinated before they are exposed to the virus. Part of the slowness is due to the fact that all six US manufacturers of flu vaccine use chicken eggs. A modern and faster method to make a safe flu vaccine uses a process called "cell culture." Cell culture does not require eggs. Vaccines for polio and the modern smallpox vaccine have been produced for decades using this technology...
Here Barbara Ehrenreich weighs in along similar lines:
...There are alternative "cell culture" methods that could produce the vaccine much faster, but in complete defiance of the conventional wisdom that private enterprise is always more innovative and resourceful than government, Big Pharma did not demand that they be made available for this year's swine flu epidemic. Just for the record, those alternative methods have been developed with government funding, which is also the source of almost all our basic knowledge of viruses.

So, thanks to the drug companies, optimism has been about as effective in warding off H1N1 as amulets or fairy dust. Both the government and Big Pharma were indeed overly optimistic about the latter's ability to supply the vaccine, leaving those of us who are involved in the care of small children with little to rely on but hope -- hope that the epidemic will fade out on its own, hope that our loved ones have the luck to survive it...
This describes how the U.S. medical bureaucracy dropped the ball on the swine flu virus by not rapidly employing the recombinant vaccine technology:
...For more than ten years, recombinant flu vaccine has been recognized as a promising means of protection, particularly at the start of a pandemic when a novel strain of influenza appears.1 This method of producing vaccine is fast, and it can be expanded quickly from laboratory to pilot plant to large-scale production in multiple locations. Research on several recombinant vaccines, including vaccines for influenza, has been well supported by the NIH, especially by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Clinical studies have confirmed the safety and effectiveness of a recombinant vaccine for seasonal influenza.

However, the success of this research did not lead quickly, as it should have, to specific plans for industrial scale production of recombinant vaccine in the event of a pandemic. Elsewhere we have described a series of governmental delays and omissions. These seem to reflect, at the very least, a lack of a sense of urgency within DHHS. Specifically, two years ago DHHS solicited proposals for the production of recombinant flu vaccine for use in a pandemic. The Request for Proposals was issued in October 2007 instead of several years earlier -- a significant and damaging delay -- and the process of awarding the contract resulted in further delays. A contract was finally awarded in June 2009...
This new recombinant technology leads to cheap safe vaccines that don't need any adjuvants (non-antigen immune response boosters) to help stretch our limited vaccine supplies. Why? Because what we are really doing is inserting a few genes into a bacterium or yeast. These bits of DNA program the microbe to produce a tiny bit of the structure of the targeted virus.

Since it is far easier to grow these special immunity-conferring microbes than to grow the live virus on living tissue, we can produce vast amounts of the pure vaccine immunizing substance fast, and thus largely avoid the traditional costs of production. This new method is fast and cheap after the up front work, but it is not business as usual for the pharmaceutical industry.

The main bottleneck in the new approach is the lab work to find which parts of the virus structure best confer immunity, followed by inserting these genes into microbes, and then testing their purified product to see if it induces immunity in ferrets, or whatever. Here is a description of the general recombinant approach, thought to be applicable to most viruses and vaccines:
Recombinant DNA technology appears to be on the verge of producing safe and effective protein vaccines for animal and human diseases. The procedure is applicable to most viruses because their isolated surface proteins generally possess immunogenic activity. Strategies used for the preparation and cloning of the appropriate genes depend on the characteristics of the viral genomes: whether DNA or RNA; their size, strandedness, and segmentation; and whether messenger RNA are monocistronic or polycistronic. Cloned surface proteins of foot-and-mouth disease and hepatitis B viruses are being tested for possible use as practical vaccines.

Two doses of the cloned foot-and-mouth disease viral protein have elicited large amounts of neutralizing antibody and have protected cattle and swine against challenge exposure with the virus. Surface proteins have also been cloned for the viruses of fowl plague, influenza, vesicular stomatitis, rabies, and herpes simplex. Cloning is in progress for surface proteins of viruses causing canine parvovirus gastroenteritis, human papillomas, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, Rift Valley fever, and paramyxovirus diseases. In addition, advances in recombinant DNA and other facilitating technologies have rekindled interest in the chemical synthesis of polypeptide vaccines for viral diseases.

The bioengineering of bacterial vaccines is also under way. Proteinaceous pili of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli are being produced in E coli K-12 strains for use as vaccines against neonatal diarrheal diseases of livestock.
Meanwhile, biotechnology is headed toward Asia

Although the biotechnology manufacturing industry was mostly invented in the USA, it is now rapidly moving to China for manufacture of the most exotic and sophisticated drugs and bio-research materials. Tomorrow expect the best vaccines to be made in China or wherever cheap highly skilled labor and the sophisticated technology can be established. Here is an amusing link to a biotech discussion site where somebody complains about bad Chinese biochemicals. The message is immediately met with a chorus of derision, probably including many Chinese posters, who point out how much of the biochemicals used for U.S. research are already being made in China.

The new genetically engineered bio-reagents are some of the most expensive substances known. If you want a bio-engineered antibody you could easily pay the equivalent of a million dollars a gram, and there may be only one source, but it might be the only source of the only drug that works. Until somebody makes a bootleg version in India, which has been ignoring the bio-patents lately.

Expect more of these exotic and costly but sometimes very effective drugs as more of the complex genomic basis for health and disease becomes better understood. A friend of mine has an eye problem which requires the injection of a special antibody to inhibit eye blood vessel growth for treatment.

The mouse version of this special antibody costs $300 per dose, but the better human antibody version costs $3000! With this kind of incentive, we can expect a lot of the biotechnology production to keep moving offshore and the U.S. biotechnology companies to become the exclusive brokers.

Increasingly, the important issue posed by these trends is whether the manufacture and distribution of these highly specific new biotechnology drugs and their development should continue to be driven by private profit for the big pharmaceutical corporations. Or should the new drugs be developed and produced more for public benefit, much like the Salk polio vaccine that eliminated the fear of polio in the USA? Much of the basic research underlying the biotechnology was publicly funded, by the NIH, etc. Who will now benefit as we move toward our new health care system?


The mercury scare

One additional issue I’d like to address is the fear, especially voiced in conversation on the internet, of potential danger from mercury content in the flu vaccines. It is true that some vaccines still have traces of mercury. When they do, they have about 25 micrograms of thimerosal per dose, but most vaccines -- like the common childhood disease vaccines -- have none. Go to this link and scroll down and you can see which vaccines still have them and in what amounts.

The fact that only some influenza vaccines have any thimerosal at all indicates that it does not have to be there, but it helps to prevent bacterial contamination -- like in multi-dose containers from which you draw fluid repeatedly. Such contamination is dangerous when compared to any threat posed by a preservative. You can't heat vaccine to sterilize it because that would denature the antigen which is the active ingredient.

Now let’s compare this with the amounts of mercury in servings of fish. Lobster, to choose one example of a food folks often consider a treat, has about .3 parts per million as we see from this link.

Thus if you eat three ounces, or about 100 grams, of lobster, you are getting about 30 micrograms of methyl mercury, said to be a form of mercury more toxic than the ethyl mercury thimerosal in vaccine. So you would get more mercury in a more dangerous form from lobster, as well as other commonly eaten fish. Coal plants also emit lots of mercury into the environment which can end up in fish.

[Roger Baker is an Austin community activist and writer -- and regular contributor to The Rag Blog -- whose scientist parents helped to cultivate his lifelong interest in science. His work has been published in Scientific American, The Microscope, The Review of Scientific Instruments, and The History of Photography Journal. He wrote a science column called "Science Hacker" for the Society for Amateur Scientists Journal.
He still likes to build scientific instruments and is currently working on perfecting an instrument useful for the early detection of insect infestation in stored wheat.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

Only a few posts now show on a page, due to Blogger pagination changes beyond our control.

Please click on 'Older Posts' to continue reading The Rag Blog.