Tomorrow (Sunday November 29), I will be attending the 31st annual Celebration of Craftswomen in San Francisco at the Fort Mason Center. It is a juried event, so I’m looking forward to some awesome arts and crafts at over 200 booths run by women! The event benefits The Women’s Building of San Francisco.
Expect a full update later this week!
Health care for women is in the news these days. But what does it all mean? Having just researched for my new book what different decisions emerge when 30% women are at the table, I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if Congress were made up of 30% women, instead of 17%. But more on that in future posts!
For today, I’m riveted by news stories that a “very prestigious independent medical panel” has recommended big changes in our health care routines. As a colon cancer survivor and former nurse, it leaves me with more questions than answers. They talked about preventing deaths from breast cancer, but then told us to cut out several key steps we have learned to take.
We have walked, done relays, worn pink ribbons and educated ourselves to take practical steps: do breast self-exams, have the mammograms we need after the age of 40 and regular doctors’ visits. Could these common-sense precautions really be unnecessary? Really?.
First I went to the American Cancer Society, to see what they say at www.cancer.org. The chief medical officer is very clear. Even looking at the same studies as the independent group did, they came up with different conclusions. Their guidelines – the ones we know well and try to follow – stay in place.
Yes, there are risks that need careful discussions between a woman and her physician. Yes, we’d like better science so there won’t be false positives on mammography that can cause anxiety. But the bottom-line is clear: we still need to check ourselves and get the tests we need for early discovery and treatment.
Then what about that flap over the House-passed health care reform package that traded a necessary part of health care away for a cynical political deal around abortion politics? Most women don’t even want to think about ending pregnancies; we concentrate on having a safe pregnancy and a healthy baby. Private insurance policies have generally treated women’s reproductive health as part of health care, not a separate political football. That’s important because none of us can know what the future will bring.
Forty special interest members of Congress weren’t thinking about women’s needs. They pushed for and won a provision to effectively prevent women from getting private insurance coverage for the full range of reproductive health options. These Members of Congress knew tax dollars cannot be used for abortion services; for 30 years, by law, no federal money can pay for the procedure. Instead, like recalcitrant children, they held up agreement on the reforms millions of Americans including my family and maybe yours need for health care.
Think about it. Every family knows someone who’s at risk with our fragmented health system. Our daughter’s employer – like many across the country – dropped health insurance coverage in this economic downturn. Individual policies cost far too much for Montessori teachers like her. Our son in the computer field was 36 years old before he had a job where the employer offered group health insurance. My aunt is only able to take the medications covered by her Medicare prescription drug plan. Every family knows what is at stake.
Health care tops the list for moms to take care of their families. Join the Moms Rising campaign. Click here, because our kids need both health care and healthy moms!
Linda Tarr-Whelan is the author of Women Lead the Way: Your Guide to Stepping Up to Leadership and Changing the World. Check out her website at www.lindatarrwhelan.com.
One thing is certain in these uncertain times. The Middle East process, as conducted until now, is dead. New alternatives must be tried to revive it and a unilateral declaration of statehood by Palestinians should be seriously considered.
Such an option wouldn’t have universal support. Hamas has rejected it and, in a rare show of agreement, the U.S. most surely would veto it if presented to the U.N. Security Council. That measure, nonetheless, has the support of some Israelis. A recent newspaper add by Gush Shalom, one of the best known peace groups in Israel reads, “We shall welcome the declaration of the Free State of Palestine.”
What could lead Palestinians to follow such a drastic course? One reason is that, on one of the more contentious issues, the building of settlements, no progress has been achieved. For the past 25 years, every US President has tried to persuade Israel to stop building settlements in Palestinian lands to no avail. And this is just one of the issues separating Israelis and Palestinians.
The position held by the Palestinians is that they have already made important concessions by accepting a state covering only the areas of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem which are significantly smaller than the territory allocated to the Arab state in UN Resolution 181.
At the time of that resolution, which recommended the division of the British Mandate of Palestine into two provisional states, one Jewish and one Arab, the UN General Assembly also recommended that the City of Jerusalem be administered by the United Nations. This could be one of the options to overcome the present impasse on the status of that city.
Israel most probably would reject a Palestinian declaration of independence as it did in 1978 during the Camp David negotiations between Israel and Egypt when Anwar Sadat, Egypt’s president, proposed the creation of a Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza.
There is also an important precedent regarding the status of Jerusalem. At the Annapolis conference of 2007, Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made an important proposal. He offered East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine and 99.3% of the West Bank to the future Palestinian State. His position, however, was strongly criticized by Israel’s right wing political parties.
Ovadia Yosef, the spiritual leader of the Shas party, threatened that his party would leave the government coalition, thus ending the coalition’s majority in the Knesset, if Olmert agreed to divide Jerusalem. Mahmoud Abbas rejected the offer due to the non-inclusion of the Gaza Strip and continuing settlement construction.
A unilateral declaration of statehood is fraught with complications, although it would follow on the steps of Israel’s unilateral declaration of independence on 1948. Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu has warned Palestinians that such a declaration would lead to Israeli counter-measures that could include annexation of more of the occupied West Bank, a move that is clearly illegal from the point of view of international law and of the UN Security Council Resolution 465.
In addition, such a move would surely be vetoed by the U.S. at the U.N. Security Council. However, as the noted Israeli journalist Gideon Levy recently stated, “Israel is so much not willing to make peace, someone has to push Israel, and the only actor who can push Israel is the United States.”
By many criteria, a unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinians is an expression of desperation. But it is also an act that can give them a much needed sense of belonging to the community of nations. As stated by the late Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish,“…we declare our presence as a wound crying in the depths of time and space in spite of the tempests which try to rend our roots from the very earth to which we gave our name.”
Cesar Chelala, a co-winner of an Overseas Press Club of America award, is the foreign correspondent for the Middle East Times International (Australia).
Bay Area filmmaker Jonathan Parker’s latest feature (Untitled) captures the art world and all the accompanying pretensions at its funniest.
Adam Goldberg plays Adrian, a lovably grumpy avant-garde composer who lacks a fan base. That is until he meets ridiculously affected gallery owner Madeleine (Marley Shelton). Soon she’s his number one fan and promoter. But love, like trends, can be fleeting when the illusive next “big thing” is on the horizon.
Over email, Parker and I discussed low-budget filmmaking, the unforgettable taxidermy Madeleine shows in her gallery, and what inspired his sardonic take on art collecting.
(Untitled) is currently playing in theaters.
I really enjoyed the film, but I initially found the title rather confusing. Why did you title the film (Untitled)?
(Untitled) is the title of a lot of contemporary art works. You often see it on labels in museums and galleries, accompanied by the name of the artist and the year the work was created. There were a few suggestions to change the title due to the difficulty of searching online, but we had lived with it for several years and felt it had a certain elegance. I hope it is not too confusing.
What inspired you to write and direct a film that cleverly satirizes the art world, specifically what is considered art?
We started with the idea of Adam’s character – a difficult guy whose music is difficult. I spent many years as a musician (I got into film through music and have experienced many of the live performances depicted in the film), and wanted to do a story about a classically-trained composer who very seriously pursues music that is heard by very few. What keeps him going? Thomas Mann’s “Dr. Faustus” is about a similar character (also named Adrian) whose revolutionary musical theories are based on Arnold Schoenberg’s. It’s a character type you encounter not infrequently in that world. The difficult personality may be a self-defense mechanism masking a deep insecurity about whether their work has any merit or not.
We then set about contrasting the musician’s prospects (very little money) with those of a contemporary artist working in the moneyed world of contemporary art. I grew up in an artistic house. My mother, Gertrud Parker, is an artist and founded a small museum in San Francisco (Museum of Craft and Folk Art). But it was my college-age son’s pursuit of art and interest in contemporary art that got me going to a lot of galleries and art markets. I became curious (and somewhat annoyed) as to why wealthy collectors were spending so much on certain types of art and how the mysterious gallery system worked. I noticed a striking difference in the motivations of the collectors (social connections and investment) and the artists who created the works (loftier artistic goals). It struck me as a good comic set-up.
How did your own experiences as a musician and art collector contribute to writing (Untitled) with Catherine di Napoli? Specifically the idea that creating art and music for profit, or at least to make a living, is somehow less artistic than making art and music purely as creative pursuits.
I don’t agree that creating art for profit is less artistic than making it for purely creative reasons. I don’t think specific artists or musicians have much of a choice regarding that. One does what one does, and whether it’s profitable or not depends on the nature of the work. The amount of creative people who are fortunate enough to make a living from work that they would do anyway even if they were not getting paid for it is pretty small. That has never been my circumstance. I make a living from non-artistic pursuits.
What inspired Adrian’s (Adam Goldberg) compositions and the art shown at Madeleine’s (Marley Shelton) gallery? Do you have an interest in taxidermy?
The composer, David Lang, and I were parodying certain contemporary music compositions with Adam’s performances. These were augmented by Adam’s actual playing because it was the only way to shoot those scenes. Regarding the art, all of the pieces in the film are specific parodies of certain artists or conflations of multiple artists. Taxidermy, as a material, came about somewhat by accident because the young artist Kyle Ng, who I approached to make the Vinnie Jones character’s art, happened to have a taxidermy collection and his own private taxidermist. The concepts of most of those pieces were developed by my son, Sam Parker, and then executed by Kyle.
Adam Goldberg and Marley Shelton are very well cast and have great chemistry. How did both actors become involved with the film?
We approached Adam for the part not just for his acting ability but because of photographs I saw of him at a film festival looking extremely annoyed. It was the right countenance for Adrian. Adam then suggested Marley who he knew but had never worked with. The whole cast had excellent chemistry together, which is mostly just luck.
I had read that (Untitled) was made on a relatively small budget, and yet I found the film to be rather posh, particularly Madeleine’s clothing, gallery, and apartment. How did you achieve this tone on a smaller budget?
It wasn’t easy. Our DP, Svetlana Cvetko, obtained a very favorable deal from Panavision to use the Genesis HD camera, which had never been used on a low-budget show. We then decided to shoot in a wide-screen format to make it look more expensive. Marley’s personal stylist was able to obtain some of the high-end designer clothes gratis. The gallery is a set built in a Brooklyn warehouse. The art in her loft was made for the movie, very inexpensively, as parodies of actual pieces.
What is next for (Untitled) and for you as a filmmaker?
(Untitled) is rolling out to a number of big cities. It opened last week in the SF Bay Area, Washington DC, Dallas and others, and will open this weekend in Boston, Philly, Seattle, Atlanta, and the following week in Minneapolis and Houston. I’m heading to Germany tomorrow for its foreign festival premiere in Mannheim – Heidelberg.
Catherine and I are working on our next script which is set in the California Gold Rush. It’s kind of a comic version of There Will Be Blood.
It can be considered one of the most unequal battles in the world today. It pits a group of indigenous people in Ecuador, almost totally devoid of material resources, against one of the most powerful oil corporations in the world.
From 1964 to 1992, Texaco (which later merged with Chevron and now is called Chevron-Texaco) carried oil exploration and exploitation activities in the Ecuador area of the Amazon. However, drilling for oil without adequate safeguards is one of the most destructive industrial activities both for people and for the environment. This danger has been particularly stark in the case of these activities conducted in the forested areas of the Amazon basin.
Accused of polluting significant portions of the Amazon region, Chevron-Texaco is now facing a multibillion-dollar law suit. The outcome of this battle –expected before the end of this year- may demonstrate how far U.S.-based and other multinational companies can be held accountable for their deeds.
Drilling for oil produces several substances and waste products, which are stored in special pits. If these pits are not properly lined, toxic materials can contaminate surrounding areas. Once toxic waste leaks into water basins, rivers and lakes, it kills fish and makes people and livestock ill, at times threatening their very survival.
Oil activities conducted by Chevron-Texaco in the northeast Amazon region in Ecuador have caused significant environmental damage and serious health consequences for the indigenous population. Chevron-Texaco spilled more than 70 billion liters of toxic waste into 900 unlined pits in an area of more than 5,180 square kilometers. This toxic dumping has affected an indigenous community of 30,000 and has led to the loss of 1 million hectares of rain forest. Experts believe this is the worst oil-related contamination on the planet.
The health damage incurred by the indigenous population has been documented in the village of San Carlos, which contains more than 30 oil wells constructed by Chevron-Texaco. One of the first studies on the effects of oil pollution on people's health in that village was carried out by two medical doctors in collaboration with the University of London's Department of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. The study, called the "Yana Curi" report (yana curi is the local indigenous term for "oil" or "black gold"), found that cancer rates in San Carlos exceed the average by up to 30 times.
For several years the residents of San Carlos had been exposed to more than 3.8 million liters of oil and toxic waste-water dumped by Chevron-Texaco. Exposure occurred through several routes, including absorption through the skin, ingestion of contaminated food and water, and inhalation of oil and related gases.
Additional evidence on the health effects provoked by improper oil-exploitation techniques was provided by Richard Cabrera, an expert appointed by the court. After reviewing all the data in evidence and several health studies Cabrera, along with a team of 14 technical officials concluded that 1,401 excess cancer deaths in the region were due to oil contamination.
It is estimated that the water used by local residents for drinking, bathing and laundering contains nearly 150 times the amounts considered safe for substances such as hydrocarbons. The study also found the risk of cancer of the stomach, liver, bile duct and skin for those living in San Carlos was more than double the average. Chevron-Texaco claims that these results were only preliminary and not worth analyzing.
Chevron-Texaco has used inadequate extraction techniques, in the process spilling waste products into creeks and rivers rather than pumping it back into the ground as is commonly done elsewhere. Because of pipe breakages, the amount of crude pumped into the ground was nearly double the volume spilled into Alaska's Prince William Sound by the Exxon Valdez in 1989.
In November of 1993, a class-action lawsuit on behalf of residents of the rain forest area known as Oriente was launched in a U.S. District Court in New York, close to Chevron-Texaco's world headquarters in Westchester County. Although the plaintiffs wanted the case to be tried in New York, a federal appeals court in New York ruled that it should be conducted in Ecuador. But in an important decision, the court also stated that any judgment against the oil company would be enforced in America. U.S. courts will also reassert jurisdiction if Chevron-Texaco refuses to cooperate with the litigation in Ecuador.
The suit charges that Chevron-Texaco dumped nearly 70 million liters of toxic waste into hundreds of unlined open pits, and from there it seeped into estuaries and rivers from 1964 to 1992, thus exposing residents to carcinogenic pollutants. The plaintiffs want a thorough cleanup of the area, an assessment of the long-term health effects of the contamination and damage compensation, which could total $ 27 billion.
If Chevron-Texaco is found liable in a fair trial, it will be not only a victory for the environmental movement but also for the thousands of indigenous people whose survival and quality of life have been affected by the careless exploitation of oil on their lands.
Cesar Chelala, M.D., Ph.D., is an international public-health consultant and an award winning writer on human rights issues. He is the foreign correspondent for the Middle East Times International (Australia).
The WIP is proud to present a screening of the award-winning documentary film, Tapestries of Hope, followed by a Q&A session with Zimbabwean child and human rights activist Betty Makoni and filmmaker Michealene Cristini Risley, at the Community School of Music and Arts in Mountain View, California.
Tapestries of Hope, an astounding story told through filmmaker Risley’s eyes, captures her sojourn to Africa as she investigates the longstanding myths surrounding the power of virgin blood. Produced by Freshwater Haven, a non-profit organization dedicated to addressing the dramatic social change that is required to stop the physical, sexual and emotional abuse of women, Tapestries documents the work of Betty Makoni and her organization, Girl Child Network. The film follows the journey to healing taken by the girls who arrive at GCN daily. Caught in the crossfire of a country devastated by poverty, limited medicine, and the increasing use of girls as charms to heal illness, Tapestries allows us to witness the resiliency of these girls who refuse to be defined by their abuse.
What: Free screening of the documentary film, Tapestries of Hope
When: Thursday, December 3rd at 6:30pm
Where: The Community School of Music and Arts, Finn Center, 230 San Antonio Circle, Mountain View, CA 94040
Please join The WIP, Betty Makoni and Michealene Cristini Risley for an evening of film and discussion. This event is free and open to the public. Donations are encouraged and greatly appreciated.
Please RSVP to michelle@freshwaterhaven.org
For more information on the film visit www.tapestriesofhope.com or contact The Women’s International Perspective directly at 831-644-0116.
[caption id="attachment_4852" align="alignleft" width="262" caption="Image via http://base14.com/blog by Tyler J. Kupferer."][/caption]
As I prepare to take the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) in a little less than two weeks, I have begun to think about the politics behind standardized testing. While I understand that colleges and universities need some sort of measure of how to test applicants, the standardized test continues to be sexist and racist. I can only speak from personal experience, but in browsing around the web I have found that other people have written about the problems with standardized testing. Here are some examples of blatant racism and sexism:
I have absolutely nothing to complain about the course or the materials that [test prep company name redacted] has provided me---in fact, I find everything helpful!However, I have a problem with something: I am going over the critical reading workshop before my class, learning about the author's "scope," "topic," etc. and find it sexist that [test prep company name redacted] has chosen to only use "he" in referring to "the author."
There are many great women authors who write well (i.e., in [test prep company name redacted]'s terms, have an argument, scope, topic) and you might want to consider changing some of the he's to she's. For information on great women authors, in case you were wondering, go to http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/eng384/links.htm.
I find it personally offensive because I am a woman writer myself, and to not see my gender represented on practice quizzes for a standardized test makes me that you, as a company, think that women are not capable of writing.
Furthermore, I would prefer someone to address this, as to why [test prep company name redacted] assumes that the author is a male. Let's remember that ETS* is for diversity (see here for Diversity at ETS), and [test prep company name redacted] should go for diversity as well.
Sincerely,
Emily Heroy
*For those who don't know, ETS stands for Educational Testing Services. They write the SAT, GRE, GMAT, TOEFL, PSAT, etc. tests.
Additionally, as someone who is frustrated with the whole concept of standardized testing, I find that I will not retain in the long-term all of the 500+ vocab words that I have memorized over the past two months for this test. The GRE only tests what the meanings of the words are, not how I use them in context. Additionally, many of the words on the GRE are words used in 19th century Jane Austen novels (i.e. "sextant" used above)---words that I do not use in everyday conversation and/or in my writing.
And finally, while I continue to be bothered by standardized testing, taking a GRE prep course really helped raise my score. What really helped was that the class taught me more about how to take a test and less of the content that is tested. I am fully confident that I will do well on test day. But, those test prep courses cost a butt load, and while I think that it is definitely worth it, what about the students who cannot afford to take test prep courses? How is that fair?
To read more about sexism and racism in standardized tests:
Around 1:30 p.m. Central Standard Time on November 5th, Major Nidal Malik Hasan - an army psychiatrist at the Fort Hood Army Base in Texas - opened fire at a Soldier Readiness Center where troops undergo medical screenings and complete paperwork before deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan. The incident left 13 people dead and more than 30 others wounded, including a female police officer who exchanged gunfire with him. Hasan, 39, joined the Army in 1997 and was promoted to major in May before he was transferred to Fort Hood in July.
The fact that this unfortunate incident hit so close to home prompted me to share my insight. I lived in Houston, Texas for almost 13 years where I focused my research on security issues. It is also worth mentioning that as a woman of Middle Eastern and Muslim descent, I was saddened by the media's rush to portray Hasan as a terrorist even though the case has not yet been closed.
Making sense of this deadly incident will be a complex process as investigators are still searching for a motive behind the mass shooting. Preliminary evidence suggests that the assailant acted upon his psychological disturbance rather than religious or ethnic affiliation. Hasan was described by friends and family members as a conservative Muslim, but not an extremist. Born and raised in the United States to a Palestinian family, he was among thousands of Muslims serving in the U.S. military, and had counseled wounded soldiers for several years.
As investigators have not ruled out terrorism as a motive, U.S. Muslim groups - including Muslim Americans in the U.S. armed forces - have condemned Hasan's acts of violence and argued that they were the result of a psychologically disturbed individual rather than of Islamic teachings. Sources close to Hasan’s family say the wartime horror stories he heard from his patients combined with his upcoming deployment to Afghanistan were what set him off. Hasan also experienced harassment and name-calling because of his ethnic and religious background after 9/11, according to one of his cousins.
Evidence so far suggests that Hasan does not fit the profile of a terrorist, but rather that of a mass murderer. Personal and professional accounts of his character indicate that he suffered from repeated humiliation, low self-esteem and conflicting loyalties. Hasan’s professional problems and personal reservations about the war may have led to his actions.
While investigators are still examining Hasan's religious beliefs, especially whether he embraced extremist views and collaborated with others to attack U.S. troops, it is possible that stress and depression twisted his religious beliefs, making him a mass murderer, but not necessarily a terrorist. Dr. Antoinette Zeiss, deputy chief of Mental Health Services for Veterans Affairs told TIME that “anyone who works with PTSD clients and hears their stories will be profoundly affected.”
It remains unclear whether Hasan snapped and went on a murderous rampage because of a combination of stressors in his life or religious convictions. However, it is clear that the army missed a number of red flags that Hasan was a disturbed individual within its ranks. He apparently showed signs of stress when he had asked his superiors not to be sent to Afghanistan. On one occasion, Hasan warned senior Army physicians during a presentation less than two years ago that the military should allow Muslim soldiers to be released “as conscientious objectors instead of fighting in wars against other Muslims to avoid adverse events.” There were also reports that Hasan had even hired an attorney to try to come to a settlement with the government and leave the service. But because the Army had provided him with medical training, Hasan’s requests were denied and he was obligated to continue serving the country. I can’t help but wonder whether Hasan's deadly mission could have been prevented if more attention was paid to him.
To many, the Fort Hood mass shooting came as no surprise. In a stunningly similar incident on May 11th, a U.S. soldier gunned down five fellow soldiers at a stress-counseling center at a U.S. base in Baghdad. Deadly incidents in the army are common. Suicides, for example, hit a record high in 2008, with at least 128 taking their lives, according to the National Institutes of Mental Health. Suicides are also expected to set a new high this year, exceeding the rate among the wider civilian population. Fort Hood soldiers, in particular, have accounted for more suicides than any other Army post since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. In this year alone, the base is averaging over 10 suicides each month - at least 75 have been recorded through July of this year alone. Several U.S. commanders believe long and repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan have contributed to the increasing number of suicidal cases. A report released by the RAND Corporation in April 2008 revealed that “nearly 20 percent of military service members who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan - 300,000 in all - report symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or major depression, yet only slightly more than half have sought treatment.”
The latest Fort Hood incident sheds more light on the psychological effects of war and deployment to conflict zones. In response to the incident, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said “the Pentagon needs to redouble its efforts to relieve stress caused by repeated deployments in war zones that is further exacerbated by limited time at home in between deployments.” The condition described by Gates is what veteran health experts often refer to as post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. Many war opponents have insisted that stories of a soldier killing his comrades are no longer shocking considering that the military has, for years now, been sending troops with untreated PTSD back into Iraq and Afghanistan. According to an Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center analysis reported in the Denver Post in August 2008, more than “43,000 service members - two-thirds of them in the Army or Army Reserve - were classified as non-deployable for medical reasons three months before they deployed to Iraq.”
The Fort Hood shooting investigation is far from over and conflicting reports will continue to emerge. However, one would hope that in the weeks and months to come, its aftermath will serve as a catalyst for decision and policy makers to effect significant policy reform on the recruitment and psychological scanning of the men and women serving the country. Ideally it will prompt the Obama administration to reexamine the level of pressure put on our military forces during such long and unpredictable wars, and seek better ways to diagnose early signs of stress and depression among them.
Aicha Lahlou is a native of Morocco who has resided in the United States for nearly 13 years. She attended the University of Houston and Rice University and completed her Ph.D in International Relations. She is a consultant for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Region, and a former adjunct professor in the Political Science Department at the University of Houston. Her research areas of interest include international relations, women’s studies, and the politics of developing countries.
In 2005, Aicha founded Global Liaison Consultants, Inc., which specializes in risk assessment, project management and cross-cultural consulting. She is also the developer and manager of Eye on MENA, an online resource to track key developments in the 24 nations of the MENA region, including security incidents.
It is impossible to win a war that you cannot define. That seems to be the main lesson to be drawn from Afghanistan, where a so-called victory seems ever more unreachable. It is also the conclusion of several experts on the region, who fear U.S. forces would be mired forever in that unjustly punished country.
Sometimes, people not geared for war can offer insights into a war situation that professional warriors cannot do. In 2001, U.S. writer Philip Caputo offered a unique insight into the Afghan psychology. He had spent a month in Afghanistan with the mujahedeen as a reporter, during the Afghans’ decade-long war with the Soviets.
At some point in the 1980s, he was accompanying a platoon of mujahedeen who were escorting 1,000 refugees into Pakistan. They had to cross a mountain torrent on a very primitive bridge, consisting essentially of two logs laid side by side. In front of him was a 10-year-old boy, separated from his family, his feet swollen from several days of barefoot marching.
When Caputo realized that the boy was terrified thinking that he could fall into the rapids below, he carried him to the other side. With the help of his interpreter he found the father and handed the boy to him. The father, rather than thanking him slapped the boy in the face and poked Caputo in the chest, shouting angrily at him. Caputo was obviously shocked.
He asked his interpreter about the boy father’s reaction and the interpreter explained to him, “He is angry at the boy for not crossing on his own, and angry with you for helping him. Now, he says, his son will expect somebody to help him whenever he runs into difficulties.”
Caputo concludes, “Well, that little boy probably learned. I don’t know what became of him, but in my imagination, I see our troops encountering him: now 31, inured to hardship and accustomed to combat, unafraid of death, with an army of men like him at his side.”
In a few words, Caputo magisterially captured the strength of the Afghan soldier, able to fight with the most primitive weapons against the greatest empires on earth. When these soldiers feel their land usurped by foreign forces, their strength is multiplied. And this is just one of the obstacles confronting U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.
There are increasing doubts that a plain increase in the number of soldiers fighting in Afghanistan can lead to a victory progressively more difficult to define. Matthew Hoh, a former Foreign Service officer and former Marine Corps captain who became the first U.S. official to resign in protest over the Afghan war, declared to the Washington Post, “Upon arriving in Afghanistan and serving in both the East and South (and particularly speaking with local Afghans) I found that the majority of those who were fighting us and the Afghan central government were fighting us because they felt occupied.”
Can an increase in the number of foreign forces subdue a naturally proud and nationalistic people? In an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, U.S. National Security adviser Mr. James Jones offered a sobering view. When asked whether he agreed with General Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, that a troop increase was needed he responded, “Generals always ask for more troops….You can keep on putting troops in, and you could have 200,000 troops there and Afghanistan will swallow them up as it has done in the past.”
Afghanistan has been called the graveyard of empires. It should more properly be called the graveyard of illusions.
Dr. Cesar Chelala, the foreign correspondent for the Middle East Times International (Australia), is a co-winner of an Overseas Press Club of America award.
This just in: President Obama and other world leaders have decided to postpone a legally binding international climate change agreement at next month’s Copenhagen summit. According to the New York Times, “Among the chief barriers to a comprehensive deal in Copenhagen was Congress’s inability to enact climate and energy legislation that sets binding targets on greenhouse gases in the United States. Without such a commitment, other nations are loath to make their own pledges.”
Given the reality that “later” may very well be “too late” when it comes to enacting necessary measures to protect life on earth as we know it, this delay approaches criminal negligence on the part of our government.
For this increasingly disillusioned American, it’s one more sign that “Change we can believe in” comes with fine print reading, “…someday, later, eventually…maybe.”
Tea-party fanatics on the Right are beating their chests and screeching that Democrats are trying to turn this otherwise perfect nation on its head. Over here on the left, I wonder when they’re going to get started… doing, well, just about anything. With control of both houses and the executive branch, what could they possibly be waiting for? Off the top of my head, I can provide them a nice to-do list:
What of federally guaranteed civil rights for non-heterosexuals, including marriage, health care, adoption and inheritance? Of legislation protecting our food supply from E. Coli and other potentially lethal contaminants? Or reform addressing the un-sustainability of our industrial agriculture and its dependence on petroleum? Or that seriously tackles hazardous chemicals in everyday products (as the R.E.A.C.H. legislation did in the EU)? Where is the political will to develop a national rail grid? Or to truly jump-start the green economy? We are still waiting for a sound drug policy, for a redress in the regressive tax code (especially in corporate welfare) and for better consumer protections from lead and other contaminants, particularly in products arriving from China. Speaking of products arriving from China, where is the political leadership to revamp our manufacturing sector and the quality jobs it once afforded? And speaking of getting laid off…universal health care seems to be limping along towards some kind of resolution, but this has seemed to be despite- rather than thanks to- the party leadership.
Why aren’t we seeing any discussion of the impossibility of raising a child in today’s society due to the high cost of child care, combined with long commutes and working hours? Why is maternal mortality during childbirth higher in the US than in Poland, Ireland, Bulgaria and Korea? Why are American students having to take out unimaginable sums in student loans in order to pay for college (or, just as bad, being forced to work forty + hours per week while maintaining a full course load, as my husband did a few years ago)? Why do we continue to beat the dead horse of home ownership as the only manifestation of the American dream instead of promoting much-needed quality affordable housing? Why am I getting letters from my food bank informing me that demand has skyrocketed 54% since last year, when high-risk investment banks are being given incomprehensible bail-outs with taxpayer money? (And when I’m also reading that the Eurozone has left the recession?)
Out here in Arizona, we continue to wait for meaningful immigration reform, both to secure our borders more effectively and to provide a reasonable path to citizenship for those who are already here. Under most citizens’ radar, but even more upsetting, is the fact that the Obama administration has not only not overturned many Bush-era policies on wire-tapping, infringement on privacy rights, shadowy military tribunals, and top-secret “national security evidence”, but he is careening quickly into a never-ending folly in Afghanistan. Perhaps towards North Korea and Iran as well: at first seeming to extend the olive branch to those states, he’s reverted to the old pontifications about what we will and will not “allow.”
The list goes on. The rest of the world may have cause to celebrate that the ridiculousness and base criminality of the Bush administration has ended, but stateside, the changes are starting to appear largely aesthetic.
Increasingly, I wonder whether this “Change” doesn’t need to become, in accordance with the archetypical American spirit, more self-directed. Maybe we need to stop voting, stop waiting, and simply move abroad. As Rufus Wainwright says in his song “Going to Town”: “I’m so tired of America…I’ve got a life to live, America…”
I’m ever-more doubtful that we can make that life here. And with in-demand skills, I’m not even sure that we should. In light of the climate change debacle, I don’t know that we can take the guilt.
In the news today, they stated that Michelle Obama’s popularity is slipping. They said this is mostly because many feel she is not doing anything tangible as the first lady. Aside from being the first lady, wife and mother to her two children, her focus has been promoting gardening/healthy eating, military families and Chicago’s failed bid to host the Olympics.
They said many couldn’t relate to her because they don’t have gardens, are not military families (God bless them!) or didn’t care that much if Chicago hosted the Olympics or not. Even though I’m just glad she’s the first lady, I feel sorry that this woman’s abilities are not being harnessed for the good of the country perhaps just so she doesn’t do anything that could be perceived negatively.
No one including Michelle Obama can please everyone, but the close calls she had during the campaign that the media made a field day out of has made her unwilling to take on many issues. As the saying goes, once bitten twice shy and Michelle is very shy now. Tabloid covers labeled her as an angry black woman. Many in the media branded her very negatively to the point that she didn’t want to give them more ammunition to attack her with.
Now, her carefully crafted public image is one that is very self-conscious, more like a black Barbie doll. We all know that Michelle is a very strong, educated and articulate woman who could have done a million times what she’s doing now if the media had not gone after her prematurely.
This is an extremely intelligent woman who I can only hope will go back to who she really is after her husband’s term in the white house. Though I don't know what occurs behind the white house walls, for now in the public eye Michelle is functioning below capacity and her abilities are being under utilized.
While she’s looking stunning on the front covers of magazines and on her husband’s arm at events, I mourn for what we all are missing from this lady who I have no doubt in my mind would have been willing to roll up her sleeves in more ways than she is currently doing and work hard to make the USA a better place.
In honor of Veterans Day, PBS's POV series will be broadcasting The Way We Get By. The documentary is just so good, and very thought-provoking. If you have the chance, I do recommend checking the documentary out!
The disastrous effects of the Russian invasion on Napoleon Bonaparte’s army are well known. Less widely known are the reasons for the defeat of the Grand Army. Although Russian resistance, brutal weather and the lack of food and water decimated the French army, new genetic evidence proves that Pediculus humanus, otherwise known as body lice, had a key role in the debacle.
Researchers led by Dr. Didier Raoult unearthed 2 kg of material containing bone fragments, clothing remnants, and segments of body lice from soldiers buried in a mass grave in Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania. Analysis of the material proves that almost one-third of those buried there were affected by louse-born infections such as typhus and trench fever.
Raoult and his colleagues from the University of the Mediterranean, Marseille, France, studied segments of body lice as well as the dental pulp from soldiers’ teeth. The dental pulp revealed DNA from Bartonella quintana and Rickettsia prowazekii, the agents that cause trench fever and epidemic typhus, respectively. When the DNA of such pathogens is present in teeth, the team concluded, it is very likely that the organism was the cause of death.
Typhus fever and typhoid fever are two different entities. While typhoid fever is a water-borne disease caused by a bacillus, typhus fever derives from a class of organisms that are carried by lice and are between a large bacterium and a virus in size. Under epidemic conditions, the typhus mortality rate nears 100 percent.
In 1812, Napoleon marched into Russia with 500,000 soldiers, leading what up to then had been Europe’s largest army. By the time the French army reached Moscow, only 90,000 soldiers out of a central force of more than 300,000 remained.
Conquering Moscow proved to be a Pyrrhic victory, for most of the capital’s citizens had already abandoned the city and set fire to it. There was almost no food, no shelter, and typhus raged among the soldiers. The only option was retreat.
Until recently, it had been assumed that Russia’s brutal winter was one of the main causes of the French soldiers’ deaths. This idea had been buttressed by Napoleon’s report to the Senate on Dec. 20, 1812: “My army has had some losses, but this was due to the premature rigor of the season.” He thus tried to deflect criticism of his bad decisions during the campaign.
One decision that proved particularly costly was to continue the march toward Moscow despite tremendous loss of life during the march and his own generals’ desperate pleas to halt the invasion. Undaunted, Napoleon answered his generals: “The very danger pushes us on to Moscow. The die is cast. Victory will justify and save us.”
In December 1812, the retreating army reached Vilnius with only 7,000 soldiers and 20,000 stragglers. From there they continued their retreat, leaving the sick and wounded in Vilnius. Those who died there were buried in mass graves.
Napoleon’s Grand Army was destroyed during the invasion of Russia. Of the more than 400,000 military deaths, 220,000 can probably be attributed solely to typhus. A great dream had become a great nightmare.
Although historians had assumed that disease played a big part in dooming the invasion of Russia, the investigation by Raoult and his colleagues provides the first solid evidence in support of this belief. The confirmation by a team of medical researchers that typhus transmitted by lice was one of the main reasons for Napoleon’s defeat shows the value of their technique in helping to reinterpret history.
That Europe’s most powerful army was defeated by a humble microbe should be cause for sobering reflection in these troubling times.
Dr. Cesar Chelala is an international public health consultant and the winner of an Overseas Press Club of America award for an article on human rights.
Currently, healthcare in the U.S. is a privilege, not a right. Yet currently, the United States, according to the World Health Organization and the Physicians for a National Health Program, spends twice as much per capita compared to other countries – Canada, Britain, and Germany – who have already achieved universal healthcare. Those who support the healthcare initiative believe that everyone has affordable, quality healthcare, not just a privilege. However, a barrage of opposition – rationing, government interference, economic recession, therefore, cannot afford to make universal healthcare happen – has been clouding up the ideology of the reform. The reform will continue push through until everyone has affordable, quality health insurance. I support Obama’s reform, universal healthcare, because 47 million Americans can no longer afford health insurance, the constitutional right that they deserve.
The healthcare system in the United States, a private (Health Maintenance Organizations, HMOs) system, fails to provide 47 million Americans with health insurance. Even working middle class families who have health insurance, where both parents have a stable payroll, struggle to pay for health insurance, or have to risk losing their home because their health insurance providers might bail out on them when in the time of need.
“Holly trips in a hole in the ground and falls down and screams. I whirl around and she's crying, her face gone from dead-white to crimson. ‘Something snapped,’ she sobs, ‘I heard it snap.’ I help her up, ordering Marge, who's been standing there with her mouth hanging open, to take her other arm. ‘We've got to get you to an emergency room,’ I say ‘get X-rayed right away.’ But no, all she’ll consent to is calling Ted from the next house.” - (Barbara Ehrenreich, Nickel and Dimed)
Ehrenreich’s experience displays that in order for the working class poor to “get by”, they often choose to delay the care they need. In 2001, about 1.5 million Americans families filed for bankruptcy, half of it due to the inability to pay for healthcare. The United States spends 31% of medical expenses on administrative costs, compared to Canada’s 16.7% administrative costs.
Sadly, in 2005, I passed out in the bathroom and was rushed to San Francisco General Hospital. A few days later, the hospital billed a couple thousand dollars. Luckily, Healthy Families, the state funded health program, covered my medical expenses. If Healthy Families did not cover this incident, it would create financial problems for my legal caregivers, my retired aunt and uncle. Countless others, who have similar or worse situations need universal healthcare because if not for programs like Healthy Families, Medic-Aid, etc., that provide free or reduced healthcare, more families will have to file for bankruptcy. And resulting in an even worse economic crisis.
Although in the last couple of decades, we have observed many potential solutions to this growing problem, healthcare reform did not take place. To make matters worse, premiums soared and coverage reduced. If the private system lacks the ability to cover 47 the million uninsured Americans, then the time to change to something more efficient and effective has arrived. Britain’s healthcare system – universal, tax funded system – provides everyone with free doctor visits and 24-hour helpline, where doctors can give an in-home check up. Britain spends on average, $2,992 per capita. France’s healthcare system – social insurance system – provides insurance to all legal residences. The government regulates the budget and the salaries for the hospitals. France spends on average, $3,601 per capita. Not to mention that these countries have a long life expectancy than those of us who lives in the United States.
To Americans who are unfamiliar with the healthcare system in the United States, the HMO system, this system allows healthcare providers to charge premiums for health insurance. The healthcare provider decides whether or not they should cover for your medical attention. And often times, these health insurance providers bail out on their customers. And over the last few years, insurance companies tripled their profit and the United States ends up spending $7,290 per capita. If we spend twice as much per capita than any other country, why not make universal healthcare a reality?
Everyone has a right to healthcare, especially in the respectable democracy we live in. Due to the recession, many Americans become one of 47 million uninsured Americans. These Americans need quality and affordable healthcare the most. The United States can afford everyone to have healthcare especially when we spend twice as much per capita and health providers tripled their profit in the last couple of years. By making universal healthcare happen, there would be less bankruptcy, a better economy, and everyone would be better off.
Wing Huang immigrated to the United States when he was five. He attends high school in San Francisco and lives with his legal guardians, an elderly uncle and a retired aunt. He worries about his healthcare after he graduates from high school. Wing was encouraged by his English teacher to submit this essay as part of a teen perspectives series on healthcare.
America currently spends 1/6 of its GDP on healthcare, more than any other industrialized nation in the world. Now many agree our current healthcare is broken, yet Obama's healthcare reform is stalled because of confusion: what exactly does the reform do? Obama's plan provides more affordable coverage to more citizens and eliminates profit of insurance companies. However, opponents believe the reform will introduce death panels, increased debt, and lack of options in healthcare plans. Despite so many conflicting opinions - blogs, newspapers, magazines, television - I agree with health care reform because healthcare needs to provide more efficient healthcare for everybody.
This country has always epitomized freedom and democracy, but at what point does healthcare become a privilege and not a right? America has always prided itself on maintaining a free market and capitalism, where the even most humble men and women can build wealth and accomplishment through hard work and perseverance. Yet some of the poorest Americans are trapped in a land of misfortune, of crushed dreams, endless workdays, and strained backs.
In her book Nickel and Dimed, Barbara Ehrenreich depicts the injustice befalling the working class poor. They work full time low-wage jobs just to pay for rent and necessities, let alone healthcare. The greedy employers obtain the profit for their subordinates' hard work. This characterizes the dark side of capitalism; the wealth and power concentrates in the select few. The top 1% of families in America own an astounding 34.3% of all wealth in the country. Although capitalism provides a strong incentive for the chance to improve one's self, it limits the incentive for altruism.
This is a call for conscious capitalism, where healthcare must become a universal right. Marcus Davies, a Canadian resident and official of the Saskatchewan Medical Society, remarked, "[In Canada] we keep people waiting to limit costs. But you have to understand something basic about Canadians...we don't mind waiting all that much so long as the rich Canadian and the poor Canadian have to wait about the same amount of time." In contrast, healthcare in America is rationed according to wealth, where the poor don't receive treatment until they reach emergency conditions. For the integrity of the American Dream, universal healthcare must give all the fairest chance to succeed in the land of opportunity.
Despite the cost, our national healthcare fails to adequately care for Americans. Our current healthcare program in the United States leaves 47 million uninsured. Privately owned insurance companies rake in millions through shady but lucrative business practices. We rank 37th in the world in terms of healthcare, a number belied by our huge expenditures on healthcare. Many regard health reform as long overdue; Obama said in his address "I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last". The reform bill promises to not only provide coverage to all Americans, but to do it more cheaply and comprehensively than before.
Yet some websites and blogs condemn Obama's reform as "wasteful" or worse. The author of a popular conservative blog called "Common Sense from a Common Man" claims to have deciphered the 1000+ pages of the bill, revealing that it would give healthcare to illegal immigrants, prevent choice in health plan, and set doctor's wages. A similar blog, the Foundry, claims that the new health care bill would add 9.2 trillion dollars of new debt to America's already unsustainable budget.
On the other hand, the government has set up a website dedicated to educating citizens about the new bill and debunking false claims. The new plan will require minimum coverage, but as Newsweek elegantly put it, "there are only floors, not ceilings". The plan does not cover illegal immigrants; Medicare, the closest thing to the bill, has not experienced identity fraud. The bill will not regulate salaries for doctors, even those participating in the new plan. Finally, if the bill does not substantiate savings, the government will implement tax cuts immediately.
Since I was born I have never worried about receiving treatment. My mother's employer, Safeway, provides healthcare for my entire family. They have covered necessities-flu shots, treatment for my broken arm, second degree burns. I can get a checkup for a 25 dollar deductible. I have health coverage far superior than the average American. That is unacceptable. Obama's health reform bill is our chance to offer the same coverage other nations have been offering for years, coverage many desperately need. Passage of the bill adds another fundamental right for the citizens of the home of the free.
William Zhu, an eleventh grade student, was encouraged by his English teacher to submit this essay as part of a teen perspectives series on healthcareteen perspectives series on healthcare. He enjoys playing sports and card games.
In what can be considered a sad paradox of history, an analysis of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) actions during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza shows that the IDF violated several of the Nuremberg Principles, as well as the principles of the Geneva Conventions.
The Nuremberg Principles, a set of guidelines established after World War II to try Nazi Party members, were established to determine what constitutes a war crime. The Geneva Conventions consist of four treaties and three additional protocols that establish the standards in international law for humanitarian treatment of the victims of war.
According to Nuremberg Principle I, “Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.” As detailed in the “Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict,” also known as the “Goldstone Report,” several crimes against unarmed civilians were committed by the IDF during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza.
The UN Mission investigated 11 incidents in which the IDF launched direct attacks against civilians with lethal outcome. The facts in all except one case, states the Mission, indicate no justifiable military objective. According to the report, “From the facts ascertained in all the above cases, the Mission finds that the conduct of the Israeli armed forces constitutes grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention in respect of willful killings and willfully causing great suffering to protected persons and, as such, give rise to individual criminal responsibility. It also finds that the direct targeting and arbitrary killing of Palestinian civilians is a violation of the right to life.”
Both Israeli government and military officials are responsible for the IDF actions during Operation Cast Lead. As Nuremberg Principle III states, “The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relive him from responsibility under international law.”
It has been argued that those that were following orders are not guilty of crimes, and the responsibility for those crimes falls on the superior officers. However, Nuremberg Principle IV states that, “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”
Nuremberg Principle VI establishes three kinds of crimes punishable as crimes under international law: crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Among crimes against peace are those crimes “involving planning, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances.”
Although the Government of Israel has the duty to defend its citizens, it is clear that Operation Cast Lead was a war of aggression against Gazans, out of any reasonable proportion and aimed at inflicting massive damage on Gaza’s civilian population. According to a study carried out by B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization, 1,387 Gazans were killed during operation Cast Lead, a figure that includes 773 civilians and 330 combatants.
Among the war crimes established by Nuremberg Principle VI are the, “…plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.” The UN Mission investigated several incidents involving the destruction of industrial infrastructure, food production, water installations, sewage treatment plants and housing. Among the installations destroyed by the IDF was the el-Bader flour mill, the only operating flour mill in Gaza.
As stated in the UN report, “…the Mission finds that there has been a violation of the grave breaches provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Unlawful and wanton destruction which is not justified by military necessity amounts to a war crime. The Mission also finds that the destruction of the mill was carried out to deny sustenance to the civilian population, which is a violation of customary international law and may constitute a war crime. The strike on the flour mill furthermore constitutes a violation of the right to adequate food and means of subsistence.”
The UN Mission also investigated four incidents in which the IDF coerced Palestinian civilian men at gunpoint to take part in house search operations. The men, blindfolded and handcuffed, were forced to enter houses suspected of having combatants, ahead of the Israeli soldiers. “From the facts available to it, the Mission is of the view that some of the actions of the Government of Israel might justify a competent court finding that crimes against humanity have been committed,” states the report.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that Israel will never allow its soldiers and war-time leaders to appear before an international war-crimes tribunal regarding the IDF conduct during the war on Gaza. As stated in the UN Mission report, however, “In the context of increasing unwillingness on the part of Israel to open criminal investigations that comply with international standards, the Mission supports the reliance on universal jurisdiction as an avenue for States to investigate violations of the grave breach provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, prevent impunity and promote international accountability.”
Cesar Chelala, a co-winner of an Overseas Press Club of America award, writes extensively on human rights issues.
