Protest Near West Point Tuesday Dec. 1
as Obama Announces a wider Afghan war
As President Obama announces his plans to escalate the Afghan war in a speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point Tuesday, Dec. 1, the Hudson Valley peace movement will be conducting a nearby protest against his decision to send additional American troops to the battlefield.
The antiwar action will start in the Main St. park in the town of Highland Falls in Orange County, which is adjacent to the grounds of the Military Academy. People will begin gathering at 5:30 p.m. for a rally at 6:30 p.m. featuring several speakers. After about a half hour, participants will join a quarter-mile candlelight march to the gates of West Point, then return to the park.
This demonstration is a rain or shine event. Bring candles or a flashlight. It is sponsored by Orange County Democratic Alliance, WESPAC, Peace Action of New York State, World Can’t Wait, Peace and Social Progress Now, and the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter.
The organizers are urging activists from throughout the region to take part in this important event. The world will be watching Obama's speech that evening and it is important to show that representatives of the majority of the American people who oppose the Afghan war are making their views known.
Contact the Activist Newsletter, jacdon@earthlink.net, for information about possible car pools from Ulster and Dutchess counties. For information about the rally contact Bennett Weiss at (845) 569-8662, benweiss@aol.com, and Nick Mottern (914) 806-6179, nickmottern@earthlink.net. For carpooling from Westchester County coordinated by WESPAC, (914) 449-6514.
Highland Falls is about 32 miles south of New Paltz and 16 miles south of Newburgh. Driving from the north, Rt. 9W is your best bet. There are two entrances to the town from 9W. The first one is where Rt. 218 cuts into Highland Falls and it will take you into Main St. in 1.1 miles. The second, about mile and a half further south on 9W connects directly with Main St. (Rt. 218) and you go north a mile or so. (If you are coming from Albany, its quicker to take the Thruway to exit 17 Newburgh, and switch to 9W south.)
AND DON'T FORGET:
There will be another demonstration against Washington's expansion of the Afghan War that will take place Saturday, Dec. 5, in New Paltz between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. on Main St. (Rt. 299) on the sidewalk in front of New Paltz Plaza shopping center (with Stop 'n' Shop). It is sponsored by Peace and Social Progress Now, the H.V. Activist Newsletter and New Paltz Women in Black. For information or for a group to enlist as a co-sponsor, contact jacdon@earthlink.net, (845) 255-5779.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
11-25-09 Protest
Protest Wider Afghan War!
It's not yet official but on December 1 President Obama will announce he is sending 25,000 to 30,000 more U.S. troops to fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This will bring the American troop commitment to about 100,000, along with 50,000 NATO troops. A New York Times article today about the troop increase, plus an AP article on the Obama Administration's refusal to to sign an international convention banning land mines, follows below.Join us the Saturday after the wider war announcement — probably Saturday Dec. 5 — in an antiwar picket line in New Paltz village. It will take place 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. on the sidewalk in front of New Paltz Plaza shopping center (the one with the movie theater) on Main St. (Rt. 299). Bring your own sign or use ours.
Organized by Peace and Social Progress Now and endorsed by New Paltz Women in Black and the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter.
Information: jacdon@earthlink.net
11-25-09 Obama Widens War
Obama May Add 30,000 Troops in Afghanistan
By Helene Cooper and Eric Schmitt
New York Times, Nov. 25, 2009
WASHINGTON — President Obama said Tuesday that he was determined to “finish the job” in Afghanistan, and his aides signaled to allies that he would send as many as 25,000 to 30,000 additional American troops there even as they cautioned that the final number remained in flux.
The White House said Mr. Obama had completed his consultations with his war council on Monday night and would formally announce his decision in a national address in the next week, probably on Tuesday.
At a news conference in the East Room with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India, Mr. Obama suggested that his approach would break from the policies he had inherited from the Bush administration and said that the goals would be to keep Al Qaeda from using the region to launch more attacks against the United States and to bring more stability to Afghanistan.
“After eight years — some of those years in which we did not have, I think, either the resources or the strategy to get the job done — it is my intention to finish the job,” he said.
He said that he would outline his Afghanistan strategy after Thanksgiving, adding, “I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear rationale for what we’re doing there and how we intend to achieve our goals, that they will be supportive.”
Though he and his advisers have drawn up benchmarks to measure progress and put pressure on the Afghan government to do its part, Mr. Obama offered no details in his public remarks on Tuesday. He was also silent on precisely what would constitute finishing the job in Afghanistan or how soon he envisioned being able to begin extricating the United States from the war there.
While the troop levels he orders will go a long way toward defining his position, the White House has stressed that Mr. Obama’s review has gone far beyond the numbers to better define the military and civilian-aid components of the effort in Afghanistan, how they fit into efforts to combat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and how to ensure that the American commitment in the region is not open-ended.
At the meeting on Monday night, Mr. Obama went around the table in the White House Situation Room asking his senior advisers for summations of their individual assessments and to voice any concerns they still had, said an administration official who was briefed on the two-hour meeting.
“There was a lot of back and forth,” said the official, with Mr. Obama interjecting questions and top aides cutting each other off at times. When the meeting finished shortly after 10 p.m., some of the senior advisers lingered in small groups to continue their discussions, said the official, who like others interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the meeting’s confidentiality.
The meeting covered a wide variety of issues, including benchmarks to measure progress by Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as the specific number of additional American troops to send.
Although his aides told some allies that the troop increase would most likely be slightly below 30,000 — there are currently 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan — several officials said Mr. Obama did not appear completely settled on a final number.
“He’s still not happy,” one official said.
One reason for Mr. Obama’s disquiet might be discontent among the members of his own party on Capitol Hill over the prospect of escalating the war and paying for it. Among those present at Monday night’s session was Peter R. Orszag, the White House budget director.
Before a meeting with Mr. Obama on Tuesday afternoon, Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, said during a conference call of economists and bloggers that there was “serious unrest in our caucus about can we afford this war.”
Ms. Pelosi said she did not want to sacrifice the party’s domestic agenda to the cost of the troop buildup. “The American people believe that if something is in our national security interest, we have to be able to afford it,” she said. “That doesn’t mean that we hold everything else” hostage to that.
Administration officials said that during the Monday meeting, officials discussed a proposal to deploy the American troops in waves, the first of which would go early next year to be in place in southern or eastern Afghanistan by spring. They said the American military should be able to deploy one brigade per quarter.
One administration official involved in Afghanistan policy said the president and his top advisers were thinking in terms of “exit strategies” and not necessarily “exit timetables.” He compared the current thinking to the “conditional engagement” that President George W. Bush used in Iraq.
As Afghan security forces are trained and deployed, the official said, American officials and commanders would watch closely to determine when operational control of a given area could be turned over to them. That is what happened in Iraq, as American forces gradually turned over control of territory to Iraqis once they had proved their ability.
“As you go along, you might have some target dates,” the administration official said, noting as an example the proposal by Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who leads the Armed Services Committee, that by 2012, the Afghan Army should be increased to 240,000 soldiers from 92,000, and police forces to 160,000 officers from 84,000.
Mr. Obama declined to say what day he would make his announcement, but officials said the Congressional leadership had been invited to the White House for a briefing next Tuesday.
Administration officials said that as part of his Afghanistan strategy, Mr. Obama would also announce strict benchmarks, or “performance” targets, which the United States will expect the Afghan government to meet. Mr. Obama will be tying both military and economic aid to Afghanistan to those targets, the officials said.
As the debate over the size of the troop increasehas played out over the last few months, an increase of about 30,000 reinforcements has won the support of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
That number would fall between the 40,000 additional troops requested by the American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, and the far smaller number favored by some Obama advisers, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. Mr. Obama will also be making a broader appeal for Afghanistan’s neighbors and regional actors to play a role, the officials said.
“We have to do it as part of a broader international community,” Mr. Obama said at the news conference. “So one of the things I’m going to be discussing is the obligations of our international partners in this process.”
After Mr. Obama announces his Afghanistan strategy, Mrs. Clinton will brief NATO allies at a meeting of foreign ministers in Brussels on Dec. 3 and 4. There, Mrs. Clinton is expected to solicit specific contributions from them, including as many as 10,000 additional soldiers, bringing the total number of allied troops in line with General McChrystal’s request. Administration officials cautioned that they did not expect contributions to be nailed down until January.
By Helene Cooper and Eric Schmitt
New York Times, Nov. 25, 2009
WASHINGTON — President Obama said Tuesday that he was determined to “finish the job” in Afghanistan, and his aides signaled to allies that he would send as many as 25,000 to 30,000 additional American troops there even as they cautioned that the final number remained in flux.
The White House said Mr. Obama had completed his consultations with his war council on Monday night and would formally announce his decision in a national address in the next week, probably on Tuesday.
At a news conference in the East Room with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India, Mr. Obama suggested that his approach would break from the policies he had inherited from the Bush administration and said that the goals would be to keep Al Qaeda from using the region to launch more attacks against the United States and to bring more stability to Afghanistan.
“After eight years — some of those years in which we did not have, I think, either the resources or the strategy to get the job done — it is my intention to finish the job,” he said.
He said that he would outline his Afghanistan strategy after Thanksgiving, adding, “I feel very confident that when the American people hear a clear rationale for what we’re doing there and how we intend to achieve our goals, that they will be supportive.”
Though he and his advisers have drawn up benchmarks to measure progress and put pressure on the Afghan government to do its part, Mr. Obama offered no details in his public remarks on Tuesday. He was also silent on precisely what would constitute finishing the job in Afghanistan or how soon he envisioned being able to begin extricating the United States from the war there.
While the troop levels he orders will go a long way toward defining his position, the White House has stressed that Mr. Obama’s review has gone far beyond the numbers to better define the military and civilian-aid components of the effort in Afghanistan, how they fit into efforts to combat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and how to ensure that the American commitment in the region is not open-ended.
At the meeting on Monday night, Mr. Obama went around the table in the White House Situation Room asking his senior advisers for summations of their individual assessments and to voice any concerns they still had, said an administration official who was briefed on the two-hour meeting.
“There was a lot of back and forth,” said the official, with Mr. Obama interjecting questions and top aides cutting each other off at times. When the meeting finished shortly after 10 p.m., some of the senior advisers lingered in small groups to continue their discussions, said the official, who like others interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the meeting’s confidentiality.
The meeting covered a wide variety of issues, including benchmarks to measure progress by Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as the specific number of additional American troops to send.
Although his aides told some allies that the troop increase would most likely be slightly below 30,000 — there are currently 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan — several officials said Mr. Obama did not appear completely settled on a final number.
“He’s still not happy,” one official said.
One reason for Mr. Obama’s disquiet might be discontent among the members of his own party on Capitol Hill over the prospect of escalating the war and paying for it. Among those present at Monday night’s session was Peter R. Orszag, the White House budget director.
Before a meeting with Mr. Obama on Tuesday afternoon, Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, said during a conference call of economists and bloggers that there was “serious unrest in our caucus about can we afford this war.”
Ms. Pelosi said she did not want to sacrifice the party’s domestic agenda to the cost of the troop buildup. “The American people believe that if something is in our national security interest, we have to be able to afford it,” she said. “That doesn’t mean that we hold everything else” hostage to that.
Administration officials said that during the Monday meeting, officials discussed a proposal to deploy the American troops in waves, the first of which would go early next year to be in place in southern or eastern Afghanistan by spring. They said the American military should be able to deploy one brigade per quarter.
One administration official involved in Afghanistan policy said the president and his top advisers were thinking in terms of “exit strategies” and not necessarily “exit timetables.” He compared the current thinking to the “conditional engagement” that President George W. Bush used in Iraq.
As Afghan security forces are trained and deployed, the official said, American officials and commanders would watch closely to determine when operational control of a given area could be turned over to them. That is what happened in Iraq, as American forces gradually turned over control of territory to Iraqis once they had proved their ability.
“As you go along, you might have some target dates,” the administration official said, noting as an example the proposal by Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who leads the Armed Services Committee, that by 2012, the Afghan Army should be increased to 240,000 soldiers from 92,000, and police forces to 160,000 officers from 84,000.
Mr. Obama declined to say what day he would make his announcement, but officials said the Congressional leadership had been invited to the White House for a briefing next Tuesday.
Administration officials said that as part of his Afghanistan strategy, Mr. Obama would also announce strict benchmarks, or “performance” targets, which the United States will expect the Afghan government to meet. Mr. Obama will be tying both military and economic aid to Afghanistan to those targets, the officials said.
As the debate over the size of the troop increasehas played out over the last few months, an increase of about 30,000 reinforcements has won the support of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
That number would fall between the 40,000 additional troops requested by the American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, and the far smaller number favored by some Obama advisers, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. Mr. Obama will also be making a broader appeal for Afghanistan’s neighbors and regional actors to play a role, the officials said.
“We have to do it as part of a broader international community,” Mr. Obama said at the news conference. “So one of the things I’m going to be discussing is the obligations of our international partners in this process.”
After Mr. Obama announces his Afghanistan strategy, Mrs. Clinton will brief NATO allies at a meeting of foreign ministers in Brussels on Dec. 3 and 4. There, Mrs. Clinton is expected to solicit specific contributions from them, including as many as 10,000 additional soldiers, bringing the total number of allied troops in line with General McChrystal’s request. Administration officials cautioned that they did not expect contributions to be nailed down until January.
11-25-09 US rejects landmine ban
Obama administration will not sign land mine ban
By Desmond Butler
WASHINGTON (AP, Nov. 24) — The Obama administration has decided not to sign an international convention banning land mines.
State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Tuesday that the administration recently completed a review and decided not to change the Bush-era policy.
"We decided that our land mine policy remains in effect," he said.
More than 150 countries have agreed to the Mine Ban Treaty's provisions to end the production, use, stockpiling and trade in mines. Besides the United States, holdouts include: China, India, Pakistan, Myanmar and Russia.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., criticized the State Department's review of the land mine policy as "cursory and halfhearted."
The senator described the decision to stand fast on the current policy as "a lost opportunity .... The United States took some of the earliest and most effective steps to restrict the use of land mines. We should be leading this effort, not sitting on the sidelines."
Human rights groups had expressed hopes that the Obama administration would sign the treaty.
Stephen Goose, the director of Human Rights Watch's arms division, said he was surprised by the announcement and called it disappointing. He said that his group had been pushing the administration to conduct a review of its policy but that the administration had given no indication that one was under way.
"If one was already completed, it was not very extensive," he said.
Kelly said that the United States would send an observer group of mine experts to a review conference on the treaty in Cartegena, Colombia, next week.
A report this month by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines found that mines remain planted in the earth in more than 70 countries and killed at least 1,266 people and wounded 3,891 last year. More than 2.2 million anti-personnel mines, 250,000 anti-vehicle mines and 17 million other explosives left over from wars have been removed since 1999, the report said.
By Desmond Butler
WASHINGTON (AP, Nov. 24) — The Obama administration has decided not to sign an international convention banning land mines.
State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Tuesday that the administration recently completed a review and decided not to change the Bush-era policy.
"We decided that our land mine policy remains in effect," he said.
More than 150 countries have agreed to the Mine Ban Treaty's provisions to end the production, use, stockpiling and trade in mines. Besides the United States, holdouts include: China, India, Pakistan, Myanmar and Russia.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., criticized the State Department's review of the land mine policy as "cursory and halfhearted."
The senator described the decision to stand fast on the current policy as "a lost opportunity .... The United States took some of the earliest and most effective steps to restrict the use of land mines. We should be leading this effort, not sitting on the sidelines."
Human rights groups had expressed hopes that the Obama administration would sign the treaty.
Stephen Goose, the director of Human Rights Watch's arms division, said he was surprised by the announcement and called it disappointing. He said that his group had been pushing the administration to conduct a review of its policy but that the administration had given no indication that one was under way.
"If one was already completed, it was not very extensive," he said.
Kelly said that the United States would send an observer group of mine experts to a review conference on the treaty in Cartegena, Colombia, next week.
A report this month by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines found that mines remain planted in the earth in more than 70 countries and killed at least 1,266 people and wounded 3,891 last year. More than 2.2 million anti-personnel mines, 250,000 anti-vehicle mines and 17 million other explosives left over from wars have been removed since 1999, the report said.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
11-14-09 Peace Groups Call for Action
From the Activist Newsletter, Nov. 14, 2009
U.S. PEACE GROUPS UNITE FOR
CALL TO ACTION WHEN THE
AFGHAN WAR IS ESCALATED
Seven American antiwar coalitions and organizations are calling for various local actions before and after President Obama decides to widen the Afghanistan war. The decision is expected in a matter of days or a couple of weeks. The groups include A.N.S.W.E.R Coalition, United for Peace and Justice, World Can’t Wait, Veterans For Peace, National Assembly, Military Families Speak Out, and National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance. Their call to action is below.
MID-HUDSON RESIDENTS: Join us in New Paltz the Saturday after the announcement for a 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. picket line on Main St. in front of New Paltz Plaza shopping center (the one with the movie theater). We have lots of signs calling for an end to the Afghan war, or bring your own. The protest is being organized by Peace and Social Progress Now and the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter. We invite other groups to join us as co-sponsors, and rely on our readers to spread the world. For information or to co-sponsor, contact jacdon@earthlink.net.
TEXT OF CALL TO ACTION BY SEVEN GROUPS
Any day will likely come the sickening news that President Obama has decided to escalate the war in Afghanistan.
Here in the U.S. and no doubt around the world people will react in pain, anger and sorrow, knowing what tragedy and suffering will follow.
It will mean at a very minimum that the U.S. will occupy Afghanistan for several more years, sending home dead and wounded soldiers while killing and wounding many times more Afghani people. The suffering in Afghanistan today will grow by orders of magnitude and the U.S. will be that much less secure in direct proportion.
As tragic as it was to see Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" crash and burn on the rocks of the Vietnam war, the stakes are much higher now. The U.S. economy today still teeters at the abyss. Escalating the Afghanistan war will not just be the ruin of desperately needed domestic programs but may very possibly destroy the entire economy.
For those reasons and many more we call upon our members and every U.S. citizen with a love of humanity in their heart to pledge to at least the following actions:
1) Within the next few days, ideally prior to any decision from President Obama, conduct any of a wide range of local activities — from calling Members of Congress to nonviolent civil resistance and everything in between — demonstrating our opposition to and disgust with any decision to widen the war in Afghanistan. To show unity of purpose, we suggest local “March of the Dead” to Federal Buildings, local Congressional offices and government buildings of any sort.
2) On the day immediately following an announcement to escalate the war in Afghanistan, respond again in a variety of ways. To show unity of purpose, we suggest:
a) Making an appointment that day with at least one group that you're not already a member of — a church, union, civic group, etc. — to go and speak with them about the war
b) Return to the streets and again conduct any of a wide range of local activities — from calling Members of Congress to nonviolent civil resistance and everything in between — and be prepared to comment to the news media about the escalation of the war.
U.S. PEACE GROUPS UNITE FOR
CALL TO ACTION WHEN THE
AFGHAN WAR IS ESCALATED
Seven American antiwar coalitions and organizations are calling for various local actions before and after President Obama decides to widen the Afghanistan war. The decision is expected in a matter of days or a couple of weeks. The groups include A.N.S.W.E.R Coalition, United for Peace and Justice, World Can’t Wait, Veterans For Peace, National Assembly, Military Families Speak Out, and National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance. Their call to action is below.
MID-HUDSON RESIDENTS: Join us in New Paltz the Saturday after the announcement for a 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. picket line on Main St. in front of New Paltz Plaza shopping center (the one with the movie theater). We have lots of signs calling for an end to the Afghan war, or bring your own. The protest is being organized by Peace and Social Progress Now and the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter. We invite other groups to join us as co-sponsors, and rely on our readers to spread the world. For information or to co-sponsor, contact jacdon@earthlink.net.
TEXT OF CALL TO ACTION BY SEVEN GROUPS
Any day will likely come the sickening news that President Obama has decided to escalate the war in Afghanistan.
Here in the U.S. and no doubt around the world people will react in pain, anger and sorrow, knowing what tragedy and suffering will follow.
It will mean at a very minimum that the U.S. will occupy Afghanistan for several more years, sending home dead and wounded soldiers while killing and wounding many times more Afghani people. The suffering in Afghanistan today will grow by orders of magnitude and the U.S. will be that much less secure in direct proportion.
As tragic as it was to see Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" crash and burn on the rocks of the Vietnam war, the stakes are much higher now. The U.S. economy today still teeters at the abyss. Escalating the Afghanistan war will not just be the ruin of desperately needed domestic programs but may very possibly destroy the entire economy.
For those reasons and many more we call upon our members and every U.S. citizen with a love of humanity in their heart to pledge to at least the following actions:
1) Within the next few days, ideally prior to any decision from President Obama, conduct any of a wide range of local activities — from calling Members of Congress to nonviolent civil resistance and everything in between — demonstrating our opposition to and disgust with any decision to widen the war in Afghanistan. To show unity of purpose, we suggest local “March of the Dead” to Federal Buildings, local Congressional offices and government buildings of any sort.
2) On the day immediately following an announcement to escalate the war in Afghanistan, respond again in a variety of ways. To show unity of purpose, we suggest:
a) Making an appointment that day with at least one group that you're not already a member of — a church, union, civic group, etc. — to go and speak with them about the war
b) Return to the streets and again conduct any of a wide range of local activities — from calling Members of Congress to nonviolent civil resistance and everything in between — and be prepared to comment to the news media about the escalation of the war.
Friday, November 13, 2009
11-13-09 Activist Calendar
ACTIVIST CALENDAR, Nov. 13, 2009, Issue #152A
Of the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter
Send event announcements to jacdon@earthlink.net
[Editor's Note: 1. We obtained these items just after posting our Nov. 12 Activist Calendar. See this previous calendar below for the rest of the November-early December events. 2. If clicking on email addresses doesn't work, copy and paste (we're trying to work this out). The web addresses should be okay.]
Sunday, Nov. 15, UPPER NYACK: "Poems For Peace From The World Of War" is the title of an interesting 2-4 p.m. public meeting to hear antiwar military veterans reading from their own poetic works. The soldier-poets are Jan Berry, Thomas Brinson, Michael Gillen, Gerry McCarthy, Jim Murphy, Walt Nygard, Dan Wilcox, Larry Winters and Dayl Wise. We're told: "As men of peace, all nine voices come from the direct experience of the military, more specifically, the intense experience of war." An open discussion will follow the readings. The event takes place at the Fellowship of Reconciliation, 521 N. Broadway. Information, Mary Heckler (845) 358-4601, mheckler@forusa.org.
Sunday, Nov. 15, NEW ROCHELLE: Women in Black will conduct a 2-3 p.m. Palestine Solidarity Vigil at Main St. and Memorial Highway, demanding an end the occupation of Palestine, an investigation of war crimes in Gaza, and a stop to the siege of Gaza. We're told: "Women and men are welcome. Wear black if you like." The sponsors are WESPAC and CodePink/Westchester. Information, ceilie@aol.com, (914) 654-8990.
Tuesday, Nov. 17, NEW PALTZ (SUNY campus): The New Paltz Feminist Collective and the college Women's Studies Program are sponsoring a 6 p.m. public meeting on the topic "Women Speak Out: Breaking the Silence about Abortion." This "celebration of female voices" will be held in room 409 of the Student Union Building. We're told: "Various speakers from different generational periods will be sharing their experiences with abortion. This is also a time for anyone to share their own experiences but it is not required. Food and drink will be provided. Please join in this important event to help break the silence about abortion. Feel free to bring a friend." Information, newpaltzfeministcollective@gmail.com. Campus map: http://www.newpaltz.edu/map/.
Saturday, Dec. 5, WOODSTOCK: A craft sale to raise funds for the Haitian People's Support Project will be held at the Dutch Reformed Church, 16 Tinker St., at the Village Green in the center of Woodstock. The hours are 11:30 a.m.-5 p.m. "There will be crafts from Haiti, and wares from Peru, such as alpaca gloves, hats, scarves, capes, etc., and kids sweaters." Information, prizantfanny77@hotmail.com.
Of the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter
Send event announcements to jacdon@earthlink.net
[Editor's Note: 1. We obtained these items just after posting our Nov. 12 Activist Calendar. See this previous calendar below for the rest of the November-early December events. 2. If clicking on email addresses doesn't work, copy and paste (we're trying to work this out). The web addresses should be okay.]
Sunday, Nov. 15, UPPER NYACK: "Poems For Peace From The World Of War" is the title of an interesting 2-4 p.m. public meeting to hear antiwar military veterans reading from their own poetic works. The soldier-poets are Jan Berry, Thomas Brinson, Michael Gillen, Gerry McCarthy, Jim Murphy, Walt Nygard, Dan Wilcox, Larry Winters and Dayl Wise. We're told: "As men of peace, all nine voices come from the direct experience of the military, more specifically, the intense experience of war." An open discussion will follow the readings. The event takes place at the Fellowship of Reconciliation, 521 N. Broadway. Information, Mary Heckler (845) 358-4601, mheckler@forusa.org.
Sunday, Nov. 15, NEW ROCHELLE: Women in Black will conduct a 2-3 p.m. Palestine Solidarity Vigil at Main St. and Memorial Highway, demanding an end the occupation of Palestine, an investigation of war crimes in Gaza, and a stop to the siege of Gaza. We're told: "Women and men are welcome. Wear black if you like." The sponsors are WESPAC and CodePink/Westchester. Information, ceilie@aol.com, (914) 654-8990.
Tuesday, Nov. 17, NEW PALTZ (SUNY campus): The New Paltz Feminist Collective and the college Women's Studies Program are sponsoring a 6 p.m. public meeting on the topic "Women Speak Out: Breaking the Silence about Abortion." This "celebration of female voices" will be held in room 409 of the Student Union Building. We're told: "Various speakers from different generational periods will be sharing their experiences with abortion. This is also a time for anyone to share their own experiences but it is not required. Food and drink will be provided. Please join in this important event to help break the silence about abortion. Feel free to bring a friend." Information, newpaltzfeministcollective@gmail.com. Campus map: http://www.newpaltz.edu/map/.
Saturday, Dec. 5, WOODSTOCK: A craft sale to raise funds for the Haitian People's Support Project will be held at the Dutch Reformed Church, 16 Tinker St., at the Village Green in the center of Woodstock. The hours are 11:30 a.m.-5 p.m. "There will be crafts from Haiti, and wares from Peru, such as alpaca gloves, hats, scarves, capes, etc., and kids sweaters." Information, prizantfanny77@hotmail.com.
11-13-09 Progressives Hit Health Bill
Six Smart Progressive Complaints About House Health Bill
By John Nichols, The Nation, Nov. 9, 2009
The Affordable Health Care for America Act was approved by the U.S. House Nov. 7 with overwhelming support from progressive Democrats who serve in the chamber and from a president who was nominated and elected with the enthusiastic support of progressive voters.
But that does not mean that informed and engaged progressives are entirely enthusiastic about the measure. In fact, some are openly and explicitly opposed to it — among them former Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), and CPC member Rep. Eric Massa (D-New York), both of whom broke with the majority of their fellow Democrats to vote "no" when the House approved the measure by a narrow 220-215 vote. \
How can this be? Isn't this a fight between Democrats and Republicans? Between reforming liberals and tea-party conservatives? How can there possibly be any subtlety or nuance to this debate? Well, of course, the debate over this 1,900-page behemoth of a bill is more complicated than the easy spin of political insiders — and media cheering sections — would have Americans believe.
Key interest groups, such as the National Organization for Women, and key congressmen who have been long-term supporters of reform, such as single-payer backers Massa and Kucinich, argue that the bill is not the cure for what ails the U.S. health care system. Indeed, they suggest, the bill as it is currently constructed could make a bad situation worse.
Many sincere progressives in the House, and outside of it, chose to back the bill as the best that could be gotten. Others supported it on the theory that flaws could be fixed in the Senate and in the reconciliation of the House and Senate bills. But those repairs will only be made if activists are conscious of what ails this bill. For that reason, even supporters of the House legislation would be wise to consider the criticisms of it by groups that advocate for the rights of women, patient advocates, unions, and some of the most progressive members of the House.
Here are six smart progressive complaints about the House bill:
1. FROM CONGRESSMAN ERIC MASSA: "This Bill Will Enshrine in Law the Monopolistic Powers of the Private Health Insurance Industry"
At the highest level, this bill will enshrine in law the monopolistic powers of the private health insurance industry, period. There's really no other way to look at it. I believe the private health insurance industry is part of the problem.
This bill also, I believe, fails to address the fundamental question before the American people, and that is how do we control the costs of health care. It does not address interstate portability, as Medicare does. It does not address real medical malpractice insurance reform. It does not address the incredible waste and fraud that are currently in the system.
2. FROM THE CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION: "This Bill Fails to Control Costs."
While the current bills will provide limited assistance for some, the inconvenient truth is they fall far short in effective controls on skyrocketing insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital costs, do little to stop insurance companies from denying needed medical care recommended by doctors, and provide little relief for Americans with employer-sponsored insurance worried about health security for themselves and their families.
3. FROM THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN: [3] "This Bill Obliterates Women's Fundamental Right to Choose"
The House of Representatives has dealt the worst blow to women's fundamental right to self-determination in order to buy a few votes for reform of the profit-driven health insurance industry. We must protect the rights we fought for in Roe v. Wade. We cannot and will not support a health care bill that strips millions of women of their existing access to abortion.
Birth control and abortion are integral aspects of women's health care needs. Health care reform should not be a vehicle to obliterate a woman's fundamental right to choose.
The Stupak Amendment (to the House bill, which was approved and attached on Saturday) goes far beyond the abusive Hyde Amendment, which has denied federal funding of abortion since 1976. The Stupak Amendment, if incorporated into the final version of health insurance reform legislation, will:
• Prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;
• Prevent women participating in the public health insurance exchange, administered by private insurance companies, from using 100% of their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;
• Prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely, in many cases.
NOW calls on the Senate to pass a health care bill that respects women's constitutionally protected right to abortion and calls on President Obama to refuse to sign any health care bill that restricts women's access to affordable, quality reproductive health care.
4. FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S CECILE RICHARDS: "This Bill Embraces Religious-Right Extremes."
It is extremely unfortunate that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and anti-choice opponents were able to hijack the health care reform bill in their dedicated attempt to ban all legal abortion In the United States.
Most telling is the fact that the vast majority of members of the House who supported the Stupak/Pitts amendment in today's vote do not support HR 3962, revealing their true motive, which is to kill the health care reform bill.
These single-issue advocates simply used health care reform to advance their extreme, ideological agenda at the expense of tens of millions of women.
5. FROM REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: "This Bill Worries About the Health of Wall Street, Not America."
We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.
Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.
But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies - a bailout under a blue cross.
By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress' blog, Think Progress, states, 'since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.' Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that 'money will start flowing in again' to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy.
During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The 'robust public option' which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.
Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks' hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy - in which most Americans live - the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street.
This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America's manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care.
Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America's businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals.
6. FROM "SICKO'S" DONNA SMITH: "The Bill Does Not Cure What Ails Us."
Passing a healthcare reform bill that does not provide me with better access to care or protection from bankruptcy and financial ruin is not what I asked you all to do. Stripping away all reference to a progressively financed, single standard of high quality healthcare for all - also known as single-payer -- is done only to more deeply ensconce the deep pocketed interests in healthcare: the private, for-profit insurance giants, the big pharmaceuticals, the medical equipment companies, the hospital corporations and all the other making huge profits as thousands die needless deaths.
Healthcare is a basic human right. Granting that right is not something to be calculated differently in swing Congressional districts, off-year election strategy or second-Presidential term planning. It is your (members of Congress') duty to me, to my fellow citizens and to your nation.
And (members of Congress) are marching away from reality when you think all the hard-working people who counted on you to make this a better healthcare system will not notice when you deliver insurance purchase mandates and a corporate bail-out that will dwarf the Wall Street trillions you've already justified.
— John Nichols is Washington correspondent for The Nation and associate editor of The Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin.
— http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/09-10
By John Nichols, The Nation, Nov. 9, 2009
The Affordable Health Care for America Act was approved by the U.S. House Nov. 7 with overwhelming support from progressive Democrats who serve in the chamber and from a president who was nominated and elected with the enthusiastic support of progressive voters.
But that does not mean that informed and engaged progressives are entirely enthusiastic about the measure. In fact, some are openly and explicitly opposed to it — among them former Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), and CPC member Rep. Eric Massa (D-New York), both of whom broke with the majority of their fellow Democrats to vote "no" when the House approved the measure by a narrow 220-215 vote. \
How can this be? Isn't this a fight between Democrats and Republicans? Between reforming liberals and tea-party conservatives? How can there possibly be any subtlety or nuance to this debate? Well, of course, the debate over this 1,900-page behemoth of a bill is more complicated than the easy spin of political insiders — and media cheering sections — would have Americans believe.
Key interest groups, such as the National Organization for Women, and key congressmen who have been long-term supporters of reform, such as single-payer backers Massa and Kucinich, argue that the bill is not the cure for what ails the U.S. health care system. Indeed, they suggest, the bill as it is currently constructed could make a bad situation worse.
Many sincere progressives in the House, and outside of it, chose to back the bill as the best that could be gotten. Others supported it on the theory that flaws could be fixed in the Senate and in the reconciliation of the House and Senate bills. But those repairs will only be made if activists are conscious of what ails this bill. For that reason, even supporters of the House legislation would be wise to consider the criticisms of it by groups that advocate for the rights of women, patient advocates, unions, and some of the most progressive members of the House.
Here are six smart progressive complaints about the House bill:
1. FROM CONGRESSMAN ERIC MASSA: "This Bill Will Enshrine in Law the Monopolistic Powers of the Private Health Insurance Industry"
At the highest level, this bill will enshrine in law the monopolistic powers of the private health insurance industry, period. There's really no other way to look at it. I believe the private health insurance industry is part of the problem.
This bill also, I believe, fails to address the fundamental question before the American people, and that is how do we control the costs of health care. It does not address interstate portability, as Medicare does. It does not address real medical malpractice insurance reform. It does not address the incredible waste and fraud that are currently in the system.
2. FROM THE CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION: "This Bill Fails to Control Costs."
While the current bills will provide limited assistance for some, the inconvenient truth is they fall far short in effective controls on skyrocketing insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital costs, do little to stop insurance companies from denying needed medical care recommended by doctors, and provide little relief for Americans with employer-sponsored insurance worried about health security for themselves and their families.
3. FROM THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN: [3] "This Bill Obliterates Women's Fundamental Right to Choose"
The House of Representatives has dealt the worst blow to women's fundamental right to self-determination in order to buy a few votes for reform of the profit-driven health insurance industry. We must protect the rights we fought for in Roe v. Wade. We cannot and will not support a health care bill that strips millions of women of their existing access to abortion.
Birth control and abortion are integral aspects of women's health care needs. Health care reform should not be a vehicle to obliterate a woman's fundamental right to choose.
The Stupak Amendment (to the House bill, which was approved and attached on Saturday) goes far beyond the abusive Hyde Amendment, which has denied federal funding of abortion since 1976. The Stupak Amendment, if incorporated into the final version of health insurance reform legislation, will:
• Prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;
• Prevent women participating in the public health insurance exchange, administered by private insurance companies, from using 100% of their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;
• Prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely, in many cases.
NOW calls on the Senate to pass a health care bill that respects women's constitutionally protected right to abortion and calls on President Obama to refuse to sign any health care bill that restricts women's access to affordable, quality reproductive health care.
4. FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S CECILE RICHARDS: "This Bill Embraces Religious-Right Extremes."
It is extremely unfortunate that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and anti-choice opponents were able to hijack the health care reform bill in their dedicated attempt to ban all legal abortion In the United States.
Most telling is the fact that the vast majority of members of the House who supported the Stupak/Pitts amendment in today's vote do not support HR 3962, revealing their true motive, which is to kill the health care reform bill.
These single-issue advocates simply used health care reform to advance their extreme, ideological agenda at the expense of tens of millions of women.
5. FROM REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: "This Bill Worries About the Health of Wall Street, Not America."
We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.
Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.
But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies - a bailout under a blue cross.
By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress' blog, Think Progress, states, 'since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.' Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that 'money will start flowing in again' to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy.
During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The 'robust public option' which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.
Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks' hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy - in which most Americans live - the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street.
This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America's manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care.
Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America's businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals.
6. FROM "SICKO'S" DONNA SMITH: "The Bill Does Not Cure What Ails Us."
Passing a healthcare reform bill that does not provide me with better access to care or protection from bankruptcy and financial ruin is not what I asked you all to do. Stripping away all reference to a progressively financed, single standard of high quality healthcare for all - also known as single-payer -- is done only to more deeply ensconce the deep pocketed interests in healthcare: the private, for-profit insurance giants, the big pharmaceuticals, the medical equipment companies, the hospital corporations and all the other making huge profits as thousands die needless deaths.
Healthcare is a basic human right. Granting that right is not something to be calculated differently in swing Congressional districts, off-year election strategy or second-Presidential term planning. It is your (members of Congress') duty to me, to my fellow citizens and to your nation.
And (members of Congress) are marching away from reality when you think all the hard-working people who counted on you to make this a better healthcare system will not notice when you deliver insurance purchase mandates and a corporate bail-out that will dwarf the Wall Street trillions you've already justified.
— John Nichols is Washington correspondent for The Nation and associate editor of The Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin.
— http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/09-10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
