National Partnership for Women & Families: Too Many 'Ignore' Oppression of Women in U.S., Washington Post Opinion Piece Says

National Partnership for Women & Families: Too Many 'Ignore' Oppression of Women in U.S., Washington Post Opinion Piece Says

Response to For Her Own Good

Having just re-read For Her Own Good written by Barbara Ehrenreich and Deierdre English in 1978 I was prompted to write the following:


Dear Barbara,

I've just finished re-reading For Her Own Good and find it as significant, if not more so due to the Ambiguous Liberation section of the Afterward which shows that we are still, over thirty-years later, still at the starting line.

Especially relevant are:

...[E]very advance in women's legal status seems to represent a further erosion of male responsibility. p. 320

...[T]oday's neo-romanticism is at best a degenerate descendant of the sexual romanticism of the nineteenth century. It makes no claims to intellectual rigor....and appeals to the ghosts of patriarchal religion. p.320

But there is a deeper level of corruption to today's neo-romanticism....it has been too thoroughly colonized, for too long. Its ideals do not come from the Bible...but from Madison Avenue. Etc. p. 320

The “neo-rationalist” program for women, then, is to break out into the marketplace, but without making any social provision for the children... p. 322

These then are the ideological poles which dominate sexual politics in the late twentieth century—the “romanticism” of the sun-belt suburbs or the “rationalism” of the paperback self-help shelf.” p.322

And where is feminism in all this—the force which reopened the Woman Question in the first place. Is it prepared to project a new ideal, a moral outlook, a way for women—and--and men (emphasis added) to live?...Feminism hesitates, unable to intervene in the dominant polarization between neo-romanticist and neo-rationalist ideologies. pp. 322-3

The reason we hang back is because there are no answers left but the most radical ones. We cannot assimilate into a masculinist society without doing violence to our own nature, which is, of course, human nature. But neither can we retreat into domestic isolation, clinging to an archaic feminine ideal. p. 323

The Woman Question in the end is not the question of women....[T]he Woman Question becomes the question of how shall we all—women and children and men—organize our lives together...And this is the only question. p.323

[I]t is not we who must change but the social order which marginalized women in the first place and with us all “human values.”...A synthesis which transcends both the rationalist and romanticist poles must necessarily change the masculinist social order itself. p.324

****
As a foremother of the current women's movement, I and others involved were about changing the masculinist social order itself. Not only to free women but men as well from their rigidly proscribed roles. And in this regard I feel, at least looking at the younger generation of men, i.e. my grandsons, I feel they have become freer from the constraints on their emotional and domestic side than many younger women have been freed from the sexual object ideal—aided and abetted by Madison Avenue and Hollywood & TV.

The role model for today's young women to emulate is either the predatory/seductive type or, as evidenced in so many contemporary films and video games, depicted as being tougher and better fighters and killers than are men.

The sixties-seventies Women's Movement left me when instead of working with other outcast groups to change the nature of this society, women were first enticed into and then co-opted by the system we sought to change and then adding insult to injury they sought to prove they were better at the male game than the men.

And, at the end of the day where are our children in this debauchle? And, Women's Studies have metamorphised into Gender Studies. And, women's right to choose is again under threat. And, women are now dying in battle alongside their male colleagues, and for men-at-war the rape of their female colleagues and those of the their combatants' women is still justified as a warranted response to battle fatigue. And, the list goes on.....

Thanks for once again getting my dander and hackles up! And my very best wishes to you where, in your latest book, I see you are still calling to task the “feel-good, don't worry, be happy” movement in face of any adversity!

Swine Flu Deja Vu

Margie Bernard

“There is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza. The producers of these vaccines know that they are worthless, but they go on selling them anyway.” Dr. J. Anthony Morris (formerly Chief Vaccine Control Officer at the Federal Drug Agency at the Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, 1976)

I met Dr. Anthony (Tony) Morris during the autumn of 1977, when he made an appointment for a consult at the Government Accountability Project (GAP), Washington, DC. GAP was a project initiated by Ralph Stavins, a Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). Stavins had hired me as GAP’s first Director in October 1977, and I was charged with setting up the first conference on Whistleblowing in National Security Agencies to be held May 19-20, 1978.

Morris had come to GAP seeking assurance of our continued support in his attempt to overturn his dismissal as Chief Vaccine Control Officer at the United States Food and Drug Administration of the then Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now the Department of Health and Human Services). GAP agreed to champion his legal battle against FDA by publicizing his case and making available the film made about this matter, The Swine Flu Caper, directed by Saul Landau, another IPS Fellow.

Nearly two-years before, the US public had been warned that a likely Swine Flu (New Jersey H1N1), pandemic was on the 1976-77 horizons. At that time, the major pharmaceutical companies raced to develop a vaccine to counter its presumed devastation. Once a vaccine was approved for use by the FDA, President Gerald Ford had his inoculation witnessed via major-time television news as encouragement for others to do the same. Based on his research Morris disagreed with the rush to vaccinate the masses.

Dr. Morris had long been a critic of all flu vaccine. Based on test results obtained in his laboratory research, he had cautioned his colleagues at the Agency that in his expert opinion these inoculations were a major factor in triggering various neurologic illnesses ranging from GBS (Guillain-Barre Syndrome) (1) to encephalitis to paralysis and in some instances death. In the case of the new Swine Flu serum, Morris felt that aside from his usual misgivings about flu vaccines in general, he felt there had not been adequate testing undertaken to justify its use in this instance. Interestingly Morris had one unlikely ally—the Federal Insurance Company. This principal underwriter for pharmaceutical companies refused coverage to the four manufacturers of the swine flu serum stating: ‘it was not convinced that there has been time enough to test the vaccine for side effects’. (2)

Furthermore, there was general speculation as to whether there was such a disease as Swine Flu. And, if there were, did the proposed deterrent present a greater danger to the public than the illness itself? When Dr. Morris reported his professional concerns about this particular serum to FDA hierarchy they were ignored. Then in the interest of public safety he went public with the information in a July 1976 article in the Washington Post. He was then summarily fired for ‘insubordination and inefficiency’ by FDA Commissioner Alexander Schmidt and government agents entered his lab, killed all the animals used in his vaccine research and confiscated all his and his lab assistants’ research papers.

At the end of the day there was no Swine Flu epidemic in 1976 and the vaccination program was ended ten-weeks after it was initiated due to increased concern as to its safety.

The current observation is that we face another potential Swine Flu (2009 H1N1 virus), pandemic and although such observation may be political/social fact, ‘whether it becomes a scientific fact and a policy fact is yet to be seen’. (3) As to the speculation of a new pandemic, MSNBC has reported:

The Center for Disease Control has found that rapid tests to diagnose the “swine flu” can be wrong as much as nine times out of ten. The “best” test was wrong half the time, the CDC found. The government study indicating that rapid tests to diagnose the “swine flu” could hardly distinguish between the “swine flu” and normal seasonal flu gives support to those medical experts who say the “swine flu” is a harmless, ordinary flu that is being hyped by the WHO and the vaccine companies to justify a pandemic level 6 declaration and mass forced vaccinations. (4)

In the past, health care workers had a choice whether or not to get inoculated against flu—whether the annual seasonal virus or a unique variation. This year, however, many medical centers, hospitals and clinics are mandating their personnel to be inoculated or face disciplinary action. This has raised concerns among health care professionals themselves as well as their unions and professional associations. During the annual flu season, only about one-half of health-care workers get the shot. As one clerical worker in Washington Hospital Center stated, “I don’t think I should be forced to take something I don’t want to take”. And, in Great Britain, a survey of 1,500 nurses disclosed that one-third would not get the vaccine due to safety concerns. (5)

During the 1976 Swine Flu scare, numerous law suits were filed by people alleging they had suffered various side effects as a direct result of being inoculated. Several of these litigations were successful and large payouts were made by the pharmaceutical companies and the US government as settlement. This month, September 2009, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius signed a document that grants legal immunity to federal officials and the vaccine producers from similar claims.

As for myself, I plan to follow Tony’s 1976 advice and forgo the Swine Flu shot this year but will get the seasonal flu jab just as I have in years past as this serum has been through more rigorous testing prior to its release.

And what happened to Morris’s efforts to overturn his 1976 FDA dismissal? After a seven-year legal battle, James S. Turner’s tireless defense of Morris successfully proved that all FDA charges against Morris were false.

NOTE: These are my citations, however, the referant numbers have been somehow eliminated in this cut-n-paste version so I've added them thus (n).

(1) There were reports of GBS affecting some people who had received swine flu immunizations in the 1976 U.S. outbreak of swine flu. Overall, there were about 500 cases of GBS—25 of which resulted in death from severe pulmonary complications— which, according to Dr. P. Haber, were probably caused by an immunopathological reaction to the 1976 swine flu vaccine. Haber P, Sejvar J, Mikaeloff Y, Destefano F (2009). Vaccines and Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
(2) Business Insurance, May 1976
(3) Spencer, D., Millar J.D., Reflections on the 1976 Swine Flu Vaccination Program. Emerging Infectious Diseases, Center for Disease Control, Vol. 12, No. 1, January 2006
(4) An Interesting Article on the Swine Flu. The Flu Review, http://theflureview.com/an-interesting-article-on-the-swine-flu/ January 29, 2009.
(5) Mandatory Flu Shots Hit Resistance, Rob Stein, The Washington Post, September 25, 2009

Everest Next! My Greatgrandson Holdin Mark Bernard

 

Joseph P. Kennedy

What follows are my comments to my long-time friend, Cari Beauchamp, after reading her latest book: Joseph P. Kennedy Presents: His Hollywood Years. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009.

Dear Cari,

How delicious the Kennedy book! Only you would have the ability to deliver the brilliant and bold bon mots-- sprinkled as they are throughout the text like sparkling jewels--they drive home a particular barb without belaboring the insight!

I needn’t comment what a bastard he was (you've done a good job of it), but I’m glad you cleared up the point about his making a large chunk of his fortune on illegally bringing in liquor during prohibition…the why of the liquor aspect of his fortune is just another example of his duplicity in business dealings, somehow even worse than just booze-running! I am also very impressed with your business acumen as I know it wasn’t easy following the twists and turns he took in ripping off nearly all his acquaintances and in the end most of his best friends and fuckees – all done under the guise of rescuing them from their respective dilemma.

The other point you clarified was my long-held assumption that he was responsible for bringing the Mafia to Hollywood; instead he brought it into Jack’s campaign and presidency and, if another rumor is taken seriously, caused Giancana to order his death (always for me the most plausible of them all).

Also, having undertaken the years of in-depth research before writing my book, Daughter of Derry: The Story of Brigid Sheils Makowski, I know what sorting through prevailing myths and misconceptions entails so I’m in awe of what you undertook and accomplished. Aside from this being an exposé of Kennedy, the book is also a basic social history of the early years of Hollywood. As such, it should be on the core reading list of all film studies curriculum. Additionally, the book's notes are a gem in and of themselves!

But more than anything, I was left with such a bad taste in my mouth about the Rosemary saga! I can understand Joe trying out this latest hyped lobotomy treatment on her, but after its failure, he literally and figuratively ‘disappeared’ her and apparently Rose never questioned the why of it or even appeared to be concerned about her absence from the family circle. So this, along with all the other family duplicity, gives a new definition of a dysfunctional family!

End.

Johann Hari: The other 9/11 returns to haunt Latin America - Johann Hari, Commentators - The Independent

Lest we forget Chile's 9/11.

Theatre of Witness

Click on 'Theatre of Witness' title above to reach an article published on the Culture Northern Ireland Webpage, about a current project of The Playhouse in Derry, N. Ireland.

The Playhouse is a community arts facility that uses the neutural venue of art in all it's manifestations as a means to give expression and to open dialogue between opposing factions in a given community.

Open Letter to President Obama and Members of Congress re U.S. Health Care Reform

I am a United States citizen currently a legal resident of Ireland. In order to achieve residency I had to live here one-year and give proof of my income (currently just under the U.S. poverty level for a single person--pension & SSI). Once residency was granted (eight-years ago), the only restriction was that I may not seek or accept employment here. However, as a resident of Ireland, I am entitled to all the benefits provided its retired citizens -- free health care, free prescriptions, free dental care, free eye exam and glasses, a travel pass that allows me to travel free all over the island by bus or rail. And, due to my low-income, I receive a rent subsidy.

Two-years ago, I needed orthopedic surgery to replace my right knee. Once diagnosed, I waited only two-months for the operation. When completed I was in hospital for ten-days then went to a resident nursing facility for one-week where I received daily physical therapy. One-year ago, I was diagnosed as having pulmonary embolisms in both lungs and was hospitalized for twelve-days. The cost to me of these hospital stays, nursing facility, therapy and administered medication, was zero.

I currently am taking several prescribed medications but have no idea what they cost as I obtain them free from my local pharmacy. Appointments at my local clinic to see the physician of my choice are also free.

Sadly, the end result of having all the benefits I receive in Ireland renders it financially impossible for me to even consider moving back to the U.S. Needless to say, I do not intend to become an economic burden on my family who, themselves, have had difficulty maintaining their own heads above the financial flood of these past few years. Therefore, unless there is resolution of the health care crisis in the U.S., including remedying the paucity of the current Medicare Program, a move back to California in 2012 when I turn eighty is near impossible.

At minimum, one would hope that the United States, which has a GNP/GDP immensely greater than that of Ireland, would at least provide its retired citizens the free medical and prescription benefits I enjoy here.

My question to you is: Why am I denied the free medical care and prescription medication in my own country that I am provided by my resident country?

Best wishes,
Margie Bernard

U.S./Iran History -- A Cautionary Tale

As the familiar adage states: Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. As so aptly stated in this article by the Editors of Black Power, so much of what former U.S. administrations did in Iran in the past is haunting our present.

What The 1953 U.S.-Backed Overthrow Has To Do With Today
"In 1953, the US overthrew Iran's democratically elected leader. Obama is proceeding more cautiously."

Link by Link - As Blogs Are Censored, It’s Kittens to the Rescue - NYTimes.com

This article about attempts by governments to censor what information its citizens send and receive via the internet provides all the fodder needed to guard and protect this invaluable source of people-to-people communication.

Link by Link - As Blogs Are Censored, It’s Kittens to the Rescue - NYTimes.com

I.F. Stone -- Izzy Remembered

The last time Izzy and I spoke was by happenstance when we were both on a bus from Bethesda, MD to Washington, DC. on our way to the Institute for Policy Studies where Izzy was to speak.

I had been an avid reader of his I.F. Stone Weekly during the 60's & 70's and realize that today, more than ever, we need journalists of his ilk---those that speak truth to power.

In an interview on the 20th anniversary of Stone's death, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! interviews D.D. Guttenplan, author of American Radical: The Life and Times of I.F. Stone, a new biography of Stone.

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

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/18/american_radical_the_life_and_times

"Twenty years ago today, I.F. Stone died at the age of eighty-one. He was the premier investigative reporter of the twentieth century, a self-described radical journalist. I.F. Stone's legacy of work spanned the New Deal, World War II, McCarthyism, the Cold War, Israel-Palestine, the civil rights movement, the Vietnam War and beyond. He scooped reporters right and left. As the FBI tracked him, he tracked down the story. He is best remembered for his self-published I.F. Stone's Weekly. At its peak in the 1960s, the one-man publication had a circulation of about 70,000. We speak to his biographer, D.D. Guttenplan, and air historic recordings of I.F. Stone at the 1965 Vietnam teach-in in Berkeley, CA, and on The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour."

The Iranian Nightmare
Roja Bandari, 16/06/09
http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/roja-bandari/2009/06/16/the-iranian-nightmare

These past days have been a nightmare. I and my fellow Iranians have been watching the small amount of democracy present in Iran erased within a day. Everything we hear from Iran is heartbreaking but more than anything, I have been anxiously watching the international media. Although some reports are accurate, many huge mainstream media sources still frame the events in a way that really feels as if they are twisting the knife in our wounds.

What media does in this situation can make a difference in saving lives in Iran. If those in power in Iran realize that the western media has become sympathetic to them, they will be as brutal as they desire. I'm asking you to please use all your resources and connections to raise awareness about a few things and spread the word.

Some media are framing the protests as "people whose candidates didn't win are now angry". This is not true. People (including myself) are not angry because Mousavi didn't win. We are angry because we feel the election was stolen. We are in the streets to defend our right to decide a president (at least out of the 4 we could choose from). We are angry because something has happened that is changing our system fundamentally.

The allegations of fraud are portrayed as only brought up by Mousavi or only the reformists. But the other conservative candidate, Mr. Rezaei, has in fact filed a complaint about this election as well, asserting that the vote counts don't make sense. So this is not a complaint among two candidates, or two sides. This is about committing electoral fraud.

Some call the peaceful protests "riots." People are not rioting. Yesterday's protest which ended in killing of innocent people was a "silent" protest. People were walking in complete silence for the majority of the march. We are not hooligans. We are citizens who are very aware of what is happening and we will not stay quiet.Protesters are portrayed as pro-western and young. While most are young, and many might be interested in improving relations with the west, this is an inaccurate generalization. In pictures of large protests you can see older people, and you see many who seem more religious. It's really not about the west.

If Iranian state media (currently completely in the hands of a certain political segment) post any news in this regard, most mainstream media regurgitate it exactly, amplifying their voice and making it resonate all around the world. Often it is propaganda that gets amplified which is carefully crafted with the aim of crushing the protests. Most Iranians have no doubt that the results are fraudulent. A president with 24 million votes, does not face such persistent protests with people, whole families even, coming out in the face of blind violence. If you cheat a whole nation people will not accept it.

Maybe there is a subconscious attitude among western spectators that thinks Iranians can not take the results of a democratic election if it's not who they liked most. But we are not savages, in fact that is exactly why people are in the streets. If the right to vote was taken away in the US or Europe, everyone would be protesting. That's why Iranian people are coming out day after day after day.

Anti-War Democrats Who Stood Firm

Below is a list of those anti-war Democrats who, to paraphrase Jeremy Scahill, didn't sell out and support the White House's request for increased funding for the Afganistan War. They need to receive our thanks and continued support. This is an excerpt from a longer article that may be found at the link at the end.

The 'Anti-War' Democrats Who Sold Out
By Jeremy Scahill June 16, 2009

Tuesday's vote was another one of those moments in Congress where heroes are made, like the day when Sen. Russ Feingold stood alone as the sole Senator to vote against the USA Patriot Act. To paraphrase Bush, it was one of those days when we truly discover who is for war and who is against it.

Below are the Democrats who stood against Obama's expanding war the day their votes mattered: Tammy Baldwin, Michael Capuano, John Conyers, Lloyd Doggett, Donna Edwards, Keith Ellison, Sam Farr, Bob Filner, Alan Grayson, Raul Grijalva, Michael Honda, Marcy Kaptur, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, Zoe Lofgren, Eric Massa, Jim McGovern, Michael Michaud, Donald Payne, Chellie Pingree, Jared Polis, Jose Serrano, Carol Shea-Porter, Jackie Speier, John Tierney, Nikki Tsongas, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson, Peter Welch, and Lynn Woolsey.

Jeremy Scahill is the author of the New York Times bestseller Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22853.htm

Reuniting Families Act ~ H.R. 2709 / S. 3514 | Democrats Abroad

Reuniting Families Act ~ H.R. 2709 / S. 3514 Democrats Abroad.

This legislation proposed by Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA) in the House and Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) in the Senate is one of the priorities of Democrats Abroad which, collectively, are considered by the DNC as the 51st State of the Union.

I am currently Vice Chair of Democrats Abroad Ireland and urge you to contact your US Congressperson and US Senator to support passage of this legislation.

Changing Obama's Mindset : Information Clearing House - ICH

Changing Obama's Mindset : Information Clearing House - ICH

Democracy and State Capitalism Exposed

This article was first published in The Irish Times and re-published by ZMagazine.

Anti-democratic nature of US capitalism is being exposed
By Noam Chomsky

THE SIMULTANEOUS unfolding of the US presidential campaign and unraveling of the financial markets presents one of those occasions where the political and economic systems starkly reveal their nature.

Passion about the campaign may not be universally shared but almost everybody can feel the anxiety from the foreclosure of a million homes, and concerns about jobs, savings and healthcare at risk.

The initial Bush proposals to deal with the crisis so reeked of totalitarianism that they were quickly modified. Under intense lobbyist pressure, they were reshaped as "a clear win for the largest institutions in the system . . . a way of dumping assets without having to fail or close", as described by James Rickards, who negotiated the federal bailout for the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management in 1998, reminding us that we are treading familiar turf.

The immediate origins of the current meltdown lie in the collapse of the housing bubble supervised by Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, which sustained the struggling economy through the Bush years by debt-based consumer spending along with borrowing from abroad. But the roots are deeper. In part they lie in the triumph of financial liberalisation in the past 30 years - that is, freeing the markets as much as possible from government regulation.

These steps predictably increased the frequency and depth of severe reversals, which now threaten to bring about the worst crisis since the Great Depression.

Also predictably, the narrow sectors that reaped enormous profits from liberalisation are calling for massive state intervention to rescue collapsing financial institutions.

Such interventionism is a regular feature of state capitalism, though the scale today is unusual. A study by international economists Winfried Ruigrok and Rob van Tulder 15 years ago found that at least 20 companies in the Fortune 100 would not have survived if they had not been saved by their respective governments, and that many of the rest gained substantially by demanding that governments "socialise their losses," as in today's taxpayer-financed bailout. Such government intervention "has been the rule rather than the exception over the past two centuries", they conclude.

In a functioning democratic society, a political campaign would address such fundamental issues, looking into root causes and cures, and proposing the means by which people suffering the consequences can take effective control.

The financial market "underprices risk" and is "systematically inefficient", as economists John Eatwell and Lance Taylor wrote a decade ago, warning of the extreme dangers of financial liberalisation and reviewing the substantial costs already incurred - and proposing solutions, which have been ignored. One factor is failure to calculate the costs to those who do not participate in transactions. These "externalities" can be huge. Ignoring systemic risk leads to more risk-taking than would take place in an efficient economy, even by the narrowest measures.

The task of financial institutions is to take risks and, if well-managed, to ensure that potential losses to themselves will be covered. The emphasis is on "to themselves". Under state capitalist rules, it is not their business to consider the cost to others - the "externalities" of decent survival - if their practices lead to financial crisis, as they regularly do.

Financial liberalization has effects well beyond the economy. It has long been understood that it is a powerful weapon against democracy. Free capital movement creates what some have called a "virtual parliament" of investors and lenders, who closely monitor government programs and "vote" against them if they are considered irrational: for the benefit of people, rather than concentrated private power.

Investors and lenders can "vote" by capital flight, attacks on currencies and other devices offered by financial liberalization. That is one reason why the Bretton Woods system established by the United States and Britain after the second World War instituted capital controls and regulated currencies.*

The Great Depression and the war had aroused powerful radical democratic currents, ranging from the anti-fascist resistance to working class organization. These pressures made it necessary to permit social democratic policies. The Bretton Woods system was designed in part to create a space for government action responding to public will - for some measure of democracy.

John Maynard Keynes, the British negotiator, considered the most important achievement of Bretton Woods to be the establishment of the right of governments to restrict capital movement.

In dramatic contrast, in the neoliberal phase after the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system in the 1970s, the US treasury now regards free capital mobility as a "fundamental right", unlike such alleged "rights" as those guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: health, education, decent employment, security and other rights that the Reagan and Bush administrations have dismissed as "letters to Santa Claus", "preposterous", mere "myths".

In earlier years, the public had not been much of a problem. The reasons are reviewed by Barry Eichengreen in his standard scholarly history of the international monetary system. He explains that in the 19th century, governments had not yet been "politicized by universal male suffrage and the rise of trade unionism and parliamentary labor parties". Therefore, the severe costs imposed by the virtual parliament could be transferred to the general population.

But with the radicalization of the general public during the Great Depression and the anti-fascist war, that luxury was no longer available to private power and wealth. Hence in the Bretton Woods system, "limits on capital mobility substituted for limits on democracy as a source of insulation from market pressures".

The obvious corollary is that after the dismantling of the postwar system, democracy is restricted. It has therefore become necessary to control and marginalize the public in some fashion, processes particularly evident in the more business-run societies like the United States. The management of electoral extravaganzas by the public relations industry is one illustration.

"Politics is the shadow cast on society by big business," concluded America's leading 20th century social philosopher John Dewey, and will remain so as long as power resides in "business for private profit through private control of banking, land, industry, reinforced by command of the press, press agents and other means of publicity and propaganda".

The United States effectively has a one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats. There are differences between them. In his study Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age, Larry Bartels shows that during the past six decades "real incomes of middle-class families have grown twice as fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans, while the real incomes of working-poor families have grown six times as fast under Democrats as they have under Republicans".

Differences can be detected in the current election as well. Voters should consider them, but without illusions about the political parties, and with the recognition that consistently over the centuries, progressive legislation and social welfare have been won by popular struggles, not gifts from above.

Those struggles follow a cycle of success and setback. They must be waged every day, not just once every four years, always with the goal of creating a genuinely responsive democratic society, from the voting booth to the workplace.

* The Bretton Woods system of global financial management was created by 730 delegates from all 44 Allied Second World War nations who attended a UN-hosted Monetary and Financial Conference at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods in New Hampshire in 1944.

Bretton Woods, which collapsed in 1971, was the system of rules, institutions, and procedures that regulated the international monetary system, under which were set up the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) (now one of five institutions in the World Bank Group) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which came into effect in 1945.

The chief feature of Bretton Woods was an obligation for each country to adopt a monetary policy that maintained the exchange rate of its currency within a fixed value.

The system collapsed when the US suspended convertibility from dollars to gold. This created the unique situation whereby the US dollar became the "reserve currency" for the other countries within Bretton Woods.

Christmas & The Economy

Washington Post Headline, October 9, 2008
Make-or-Break Holiday Season Looms Large
Each day of financial tumult is bringing more pressure to bear on the nation's retailers -- and time is growing short.

Perhaps, Gov. Sarah Palin might wish to address how she feels about end-of-year retail profits being determined by how much people spend on gifts to celebrate the birth of Jesus that she, and others, are so greatfully born-in-again in their desire for life hereafter.

Bail-Out Mortgage Holders?

This following article is from a contributor to Portside - http://www.portside.org/. To Blakley's suggestions, I add that Congress should also consider giving a tax break for those who rent. This would enable them to save for a down-payment to purchase in future.

From Sandra Blakely

Re: Wall Street Bailout

If anyone was watching The View the other day, Whoopi Goldberg made an interesting suggestion. As I heard it, she said that Wall Street may or may not need to be bailed out, but if they are, than every American with a mortgage should have their mortgage cut in half. The audience was ecstatic, and so was I. I wouldn't be
trying to sell my house if I received a government bailout. As a single women, this economy is killing me, and single women homeowners are being adversely hit
in this vile market.

Whistleblower Tried to Prevent Iraq War

The Whistleblowers of the world need our support. And, for any of you contemplating blowing the whistle on government or corporate fraud, malfeasance and illegal activities, before doing so please contact Government Accountability Project: http://www.whistleblower.org/. The following article was originally posted on http://www.truthout.org/

Story of the Whistleblower Who Tried to Prevent the Iraq War
Thursday 25 September 2008

by: Norman Solomon, t r u t h o u t Perspective


Katharine Gun worked at the British intelligence agency when she discovered an NSA memo that she used in an attempt to stop the invasion of Iraq.

Of course, Katharine Gun was free to have a conscience, as long as it didn't interfere with her work at a British intelligence agency. To the authorities, practically speaking, a conscience was apt to be less tangible than a pixel on a computer screen. But suddenly - one routine morning, while she was scrolling through email at her desk - conscience struck. It changed Katharine Gun's life, and it changed history.

Despite the nationality of this young Englishwoman, her story is profoundly American - all the more so because it has remained largely hidden from the public in the United States. When Katharine Gun chose, at great personal risk, to reveal an illicit spying operation at the United Nations in which the US government was the senior partner, she brought out of the transatlantic shadows a special relationship that could not stand the light of day.

By then, in early 2003, the president of the United States - with dogged assists from the British prime minister following close behind - had long since become transparently determined to launch an invasion of Iraq. Gun's moral concerns were not unusual; she shared, with countless other Brits and Americans, strong opposition to the impending launch of war. Yet, thanks to a simple and intricate twist of fate, she abruptly found herself in a rare position to throw a roadblock in the way of the political march to war from Washington and London. Far more extraordinary, though, was her decision to put herself in serious jeopardy on behalf of revealing salient truths to the world.

We might envy such an opportunity, and admire such courage on behalf of principle. But there are good, or at least understandable, reasons so few whistleblowers emerge from institutions that need conformity and silence to lay flagstones on the path to war. Those reasons have to do with matters of personal safety, financial security, legal jeopardy, social cohesion and default positions of obedience. They help to explain why and how people go along to get along with the warfare state even when it flagrantly rests on foundations of falsehoods.

The emailed memorandum from the US National Security Agency (NSA) that jarred Katharine Gun that fateful morning was dated less than two months before the invasion of Iraq that was to result in thousands of deaths among the occupying troops and hundreds of thousands more among Iraqi people. We're told that this is a cynical era, but there was nothing cynical about Katharine Gun's response to the memo that appeared without warning on her desktop. Reasons to shrug it off were plentiful, in keeping with bottomless rationales for prudent inaction. The basis for moral engagement and commensurate action was singular.

The import of the NSA memo was such that it shook the government of Tony Blair and caused uproars on several continents. But for the media in the United States, it was a minor story. For The New York Times, it was no story at all.

At last, a new book tells this story. "The Spy Who Tried to Stop a War" packs a powerful wallop. To understand in personal, political and historic terms - what Katharine Gun did, how the British and American governments responded, and what the US news media did and did not report - is to gain a clear-eyed picture of a military-industrial-media complex that plunged ahead with the invasion of Iraq shortly after her brave action of conscience. That complex continues to promote what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the madness of militarism."

In a time when political players and widely esteemed journalists are pleased to posture with affects of great sophistication, Katharine Gun's response was disarmingly simple. She activated her conscience when clear evidence came into her hands that war - not diplomacy seeking to prevent it - headed the priorities list of top leaders at both 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and 10 Downing Street. "At the time," she recalled, "all I could think about was that I knew they were trying really hard to legitimize an invasion, and they were willing to use this new intelligence to twist arms, perhaps blackmail delegates, so they could tell the world they had achieved a consensus for war."

She and her colleagues at the Government Communications Headquarters were, as she later put it, "being asked to participate in an illegal process with the ultimate aim of achieving an invasion in violation of international law."

The authors of "The Spy Who Tried to Stop a War," Marcia and Thomas Mitchell, describe the scenario this way: "Twisting the arms of the recalcitrant [UN Security Council] representatives in order to win approval for a new resolution could supply the universally acceptable rationale." After Katharine Gun discovered what was afoot, "she attempted to stop a war by destroying its potential trigger mechanism, the required second resolution that would make war legal."

Instead of mere accusation, the NSA memo provided substantiation. That fact explains why US intelligence agencies firmly stonewalled in response to media inquiries - and it may also help to explain why the US news media gave the story notably short shrift. To a significant degree, the scoop did not reverberate inside the American media echo chamber because it was too sharply telling to blend into the dominant orchestrated themes.

While supplying the ostensible first draft of history, US media filtered out vital information that could refute the claims of Washington's exalted war planners. "Journalists, too many of them - some quite explicitly - have said that they see their mission as helping the war effort," an American media critic warned during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. "And if you define your mission that way, you'll end up suppressing news that might be important, accurate, but maybe isn't helpful to the war effort."

Jeff Cohen (a friend and colleague of mine) spoke those words before the story uncorked by Katharine Gun's leak splashed across British front pages and then scarcely dribbled into American media. He uttered them on the MSNBC television program hosted by Phil Donahue, where he worked as a producer and occasional on-air analyst. Donahue's prime time show was canceled by NBC management three weeks before the invasion - as it happened, on almost the same day that the revelation of the NSA memo became such a big media story in the United Kingdom and such a carefully bypassed one in the United States.

Soon, a leaked NBC memo confirmed suspicions that the network had pulled the plug on Donahue's show in order to obstruct views and information that would go against the rush to war. The network memo said that the Donahue program would present a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war." And: "He seems to delight in presenting guests who are antiwar, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives." Cancellation of the show averted the danger that it could become "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."

Overall, to the editors of American mass media, the actions and revelations of Katharine Gun merited little or no reporting - especially when they mattered most. My search of the comprehensive LexisNexis database found that for nearly three months after her name was first reported in the British media, US news stories mentioning her scarcely existed.

When the prosecution of Katharine Gun finally concluded its journey through the British court system, the authors note, a surge of American news reports on the closing case "had people wondering why they hadn't heard about the NSA spy operation at the beginning." This book includes an account of journalistic evasion that is a grim counterpoint to the story of conscience and courage that just might inspire us to activate more of our own.

--------

This article was adapted from Norman Solomon's foreword to the new book by Marcia and Thomas Mitchell, "The Spy Who Tried to Stop a War: Katharine Gun and the Secret Plot to Sanction the Iraq Invasion

Open Letter to Hon. Sarah Palin

The following letter was posted by registered airmail and sent via E-mail on 20 September 2008.


Dear Governor Palin:


I strongly support your right to not use birth control, to oppose sex education for your children, to carry a Down Syndrome embryo to term, and to have a career while raising a family. I do this as a founding mother of the current feminist movement, a mother of two, grandmother of four, great-grandmother of one.

In support of our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, which grant citizens the legal means to debate and resolve fundamental disagreement within the Rule of Law, I defend your legitimate right to seek repeal or amendment of current laws and to enact new ones that would change the status quo—a status quo that once:

• Denied women the right to vote;
• Denied women access to education;
• Prohibited both men and women from access to birth control measures that would prevent unwanted pregnancies;
• Gave women no choice over whether to carry an embryo to term, even in cases of incest or rape;
• Failed to hold men accountable for children they fathered;
• Destroyed or tainted the reputation of a woman who had sex outside of marriage, but not the reputation of her male partner;
• Prohibited legal sanction of marriage between people of different races;
• Banned teaching of Darwinian evolution in elementary schools;
• Blocked civil service employment and most civil rights to homosexuals and lesbians; and
• Banned from public libraries books disapproved of by pressure groups.

Governor Palin, it is my understanding that YOU seek, or have sought, to:

• Prohibit sex education being taught in schools;
• Repeal laws that allow women the right to use birth control, including the “morning-after” pill, even in cases of incest or rape;
• Ban from public libraries books that do not conform to your religious and/or political beliefs;
• Seek to have Creationism taught alongside Darwinism in public schools.

If I have misunderstood your positions on the above, please correct me. Also, please inform me of your position regarding:

• Enforcement of equal pay to women for equal work?
• Provision of social and economic support for unwed or single mothers?
• Establishment of affordable and freely accessible child care?
• Enactment of legislation to ensure maximum Social Security retirement benefits for women who are stay-at-home mothers?
• Rigorous enforcement of a man’s responsibility to provide monetary support for any and all children he fathers?
• Provision of universal health care, including maternity care, for all U.S. citizens?
• Strengthening and expansion of public education?
• Free or low-cost tuition for higher education?
• Re-institution of inheritance taxes (currently mislabeled as “death taxes”)?
• Provision to renters of the same State and Federal tax write-offs now given to home-buyers, thus enabling renters to save down payments for homes?
• Banning excessive profiteering by manufacturers of military weapons?
• Banning arms sales by U.S. citizens to currently proclaimed terrorist organizations?
• Blocking the sale of guns without strong background checks on potential buyers?
• Rescission of the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act that abolished firewall regulations which formerly governed transactions between commercial banks, insurance companies, securities firms and investment institutions?
• Citing and fining commercial and agricultural businesses that hire illegal immigrants?
• Abolition of trade agreements that permit U.S. businesses to close facilities here and re-establish them in countries where workers’ rights and wages undercut those guaranteed in the United States?
• Sanction the right of trade unions to organize workers?
• Granting overseas professionals work permits that will greatly reduce or abolish jobs for similarly qualified U.S. citizens?

I am a U.S. citizen currently residing in the Republic of Ireland. I will be voting in the November 2008 election via absentee ballot. Therefore, Governor Palin, I respectfully await your response prior to Wednesday, October 24, 2008 to enable sufficient time to return my absentee ballot.

Sincerely,
Margie Bernard