Responsible mainly for intelligence collection and covert operations, including paramilitary activities, it is one of the three institutions in the Israeli Intelligence Community. The other two are known as Aman and Shin Bet tasked for military intelligence and internal security respectively. Together, these three agencies are responsible for a long string of covert operations including assassinations of opponents, spying on friends and foes alike and tracking down and killing the Nazis of the yore.

On January 19, 2010, life was snuffed out of one Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in his hotel room in Dubai. Traveling without bodyguards, he was en route to Bangkok. Allegedly, Mossad was on his spoor from Damascus, tracking him finally to his hotel room in Dubai. A team of at least 27 suspects, carrying fake or fraudulently obtained passports from various nations, seven of which assumed the names of Israeli dual citizens, worked in tandem to carry out the hit. So professional was the hit that for days Mabhouh's death was ascribed to natural causes.

According to a detailed report in The Daily Mail on Sunday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had personally congratulated members of the Mossad team that allegedly killed Mabhouh ahead of their departure to Dubai.

The Mossad normally conducts its tasks flawlessly. Traces of its involvement usually do not surface for years. Not this time, however. The whole exercise, though successful, started stinking to high heavens within days.

UAE, a tiny oil rich emirate in whose city Dubai the hit was carried out, broke the news of the assassination and that forged Irish, British, German, Australian and French passports were used by some of the suspects in the slaying of the Hamas commander. The UAE, an otherwise pacifist country, has bared its teeth at Israel and continues to pull layers off the ugly deed with each passing day.

Israel neither confirms nor denies the killing. Mossad chief Meir Dagan, in the meanwhile, sees no reason to resign over assassination in Dubai, and Prime Minister Netanyahu is unlikely to ask him to, according to a close associate of the Israeli spymaster. World embassies, however, continue to reverberate from the incidence.

The British Embassy in Israel says a special police investigator has been flown in to meet with the dual British-Israeli nationals whose British passports were used in the assassination. Israeli ambassador to London Ron Prosor met the head of Britain's diplomatic service, Peter Ricketts, after being called to a meeting at the Foreign Office. Britain has publicly urged Israel to cooperate fully with its investigation into the apparent use of counterfeit British passports by suspected Israeli assassins.

Ireland followed Britain in summoning its Israeli ambassador to explain how passport details of three Irish citizens were used by an Israeli group of suspected assassins. French Prime Minister Francois Fillon has condemned the assassination of Mabhouh and called for the truth about the killing to be established.

The suspected 27-person hit team also includes three individuals using allegedly fake Australian passports sparking an outrage among Australians. The Israeli ambassador to Australia was promptly sent for and reportedly warned that the Australian government expects Israel's full cooperation in the investigation. The Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith was quoted saying by The Australian newspaper, "I made it crystal clear to the [Israeli ambassador] that if the results of that investigation cause us to come to the conclusion that the abuse of Australian passports was in any way sponsored or condoned by Israeli officials, then Australia would not regard that as the act of a friend."

The Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd went a notch higher according to the local news media. He warned, "We will not be silent on this matter.....Any state that has been complicit in use or abuse of the Australian passport system, let alone for the conduct of an assassination, is treating Australia with contempt, and there will therefore be action by the Australian government in response."

With the assured backing of its time tested patron, the United States of America that shoots down UN resolutions even on bad wording for its protégé and for the moment stands silently by, whether or not Israel will heed these warnings is anybody's guess. According to anofficially acknowledged list, despite similar warnings in the past, Mossad's list of accomplished assassinations is rather long. Here are just a few prominent names on that list;

Abdel Wael Zwaiter, a Libyan embassy employee and a PLO representative was killed in Rome on Oct 16, 1972. Ghassan Kanafani a Palestinian writer was killed in Beirut that same year. Wadie Haddad, a PFLP (Polpular Front for Liberation of Israel) commander, was killed in Germany in 1978. Ali Hassan Salameh, a high-ranked PLO leader, was killed in 1979 by a car bomb in Beirut. Zuheir Mohsen, leader of the pro-Syria faction of the PLO, was shot in front of a casino in Cannes in 1979. Yehia El-Mashad , an Egyptian nuclear scientist, was killed by Mossad agents in his room at the Méridien Hotel in Paris in 1980. Mamoun Meraish, a senior PLO official, was shot in his car by Mossad agents from their motorcycle in Athens in 1983. Atef Bseiso, a Palestinian official, was shot several times in the head at point blank range by two Mossad gunmen in his hotel room in Paris in 1992.

Hatikva, Israel's national anthem, inspires millions of Jewish people the world over. Its first four lines read:

As long as deep in the heart, The soul of a Jew yearns, And forward to the East To Zion, an eye looks

Many eyes, some dead some still alive, now look to Zion and its patron to explain how one country can act as an international thug, take another people's land, kill them when they struggle to get a piece of it back, stop at virtually nothing, and, this time, draw five other countries into the bloody games of espionage that it plays and gets not a rap on the knuckles where a sledge hammer is long due.

Professor Zinn dared to challenge the way history was told and written. In fact he went as far as to defy the conventional construction of historical discourses through the pen of victor or of elites who earned the right of narration though their might, power and affluence.

This kind of history might be considered accurate insofar as it reflects a self-seeking and self-righteous interpretation of the world by a very small number of people. But it is also highly inaccurate when taking into account the vast majority of peoples everywhere.

The oppressor is the one who often articulates his relationship to the oppressed, the colonialist to the colonized, and the slave-master to the slave. The readings of such relationships are fairly predictable.

Even valiant histories that most of us embrace and welcome, such as those celebrating the legacy of human rights, equality and freedom left behind by Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and Nelson Mandela still tend to be selective at times. Martin Luther King's vision might have prevailed, but some tend to limit their admiration to his 'I have a dream' speech. The civil rights hero was an ardent anti-war champion as well, but that is often relegated as non-essential history. Malcolm X is often dismissed altogether, despite the fact that his self-assertive words have reached the hearts and minds of millions of black people throughout the United States, and many more millions around the world. His speech was in fact so radical that it could not be 'sanitized' or reinterpreted in any controllable way. Mandela, the freedom fighter, is celebrated with endless accolades by the very foes that branded him a terrorist. Of course, his insistence on his people's rights to armed struggle is not to be discussed. It is too flammable a subject to even mention at a time when anyone who dares wield a gun against the self-designated champions of 'democracy' gets automatically classified a terrorist.

Therefore, Zinn's peoples' histories of the United States and of the world have represented a milestone in historical narration.

As a Palestinian writer who is fond with such luminaries, I too felt the need to provide an alternative reading of history, in this case, Palestinian history. I envisioned, with much hesitation, a book that serves as a people's history of Palestine. I felt that I have earned the right to present such a possible version of history, being the son of Palestinian refugees, who lost everything and were exiled to live dismal lives in a Gaza refugee camp. I am the descendant of 'peasants' - Fellahin - whose odyssey of pain, struggle, but also heroic resistance is constantly misrepresented, distorted, and at times overlooked altogether.

It was the death of my father (while under siege in Gaza) that finally compelled me to translate my yearning into a book. My Father was a Freedom Fighter, Gaza's Untold Story offered a version of Palestinian history was not told by an Israeli narrator - sympathetic or otherwise - and neither was it an elitist account, as often presented by Palestinian writers. The idea was to give a human face to all the statistics, maps and figures.

History cannot be classified by good vs. bad, heroes vs. villains, moderates vs. extremists. No matter how wicked, bloody or despicable, history also tends to follow rational patterns, predictable courses. By understanding the rationale behind historical dialectics, one can achieve more than a simple understanding of what took place in the past; it also becomes possible to chart fairly reasonable understanding of what lies ahead.

Perhaps one of the worse aspects of today's detached and alienating media is its production of history - and thus characterization of the present - as based on simple terminology. This gives the illusion of being informative, but actually manages to contribute very little to our understanding of the world at large.

Such oversimplifications are dangerous because they produce an erroneous understanding of the world, which in turn compels misguided actions.

For these reasons, it is incumbent upon us to try to discover alternative meanings and readings of history. To start, we could try offering historical perspectives which try to see the world from the viewpoint of the oppressed - the refugees, the fellahin who have been denied, amongst many rights, the right to tell their own story.

This view is not a sentimental one. Far from it. An elitist historical narrative is maybe the dominant one, but it is not always the elites who influence the course of history. History is also shaped by collective movements, actions and popular struggles. By denying this fact, one denies the ability of the collective to affect change. In the case of Palestinians, they are often presented as hapless multitudes, passive victims without a will of their own. This is of course a mistaken perception; the Palestinians' conflict with Israel has lasted this long only because of their unwillingness to accept injustice, and their refusal to submit to oppression. Israel's lethal weapons might have changed the landscape of Gaza and Palestine, but the will of Gazans and Palestinians are what have shaped the landscape of Palestine's history.

Touring with My Father was a Freedom Fighter in South Africa, in a recent visit, was a most intense experience. It was in this country that freedom fighters once rose to fight oppression, challenging and eventually defeating Apartheid. My father, the refugee of Gaza has suddenly been accepted unconditionally by a people of a land thousands of miles away. The notion of 'people's history' can be powerful because it extends beyond boundaries, and expands beyond ideologies and prejudices. In that narrative, Palestinians, South Africans, Native Americans and many others find themselves the sons and daughters of one collective history, one oppressive legacy, but also part of an active community of numerous freedom fighters, who dared to challenge and sometimes even change the face of history.

South Africa has; Palestine will.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

Economic inequality and the myth of Reagan trickle down logic are shown by new data from the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston. The report noted: "What has been missing from the public debate over the labor market crisis is an honest and detailed analysis of which American workers have been most adversely affected by the deep deterioration in labor markets." The researchers found a correlation between household income and unemployment rate in the last quarter of 2009: Look carefully at these numbers and see how unemployment rises as income drops:

$150,000 or more, 3.2 percent

$100,000 to 149,999, 8 percent

$75,000 to $99,999, 5 percent

$60,000 to $75,000, 6.4 percent

$50,000 to $59,000, 7.8 percent

$40,000 to $49,000, 9 percent

$30,000 to $39,999, 12.2 percent

$20,000 to $29,999, 19.7 percent

$12,500 to $20,000, 19.1 percent

$12,499 or less, 30.8 percent

Ten times worse unemployment in the lowest class than in the highest class! Truly amazing and disheartening, don't you think? And you can also infer that in some hard hit geographical areas the poorest people and people of color are being even more adversely impacted. And don't think for a minute that things have really improved in 2010.

The report summed up the situation: "A true labor market depression faced those in the bottom...of the income distribution; a deep labor market recession prevailed among those in the middle of the distribution, and close to a full employment environment prevailed at the top." People at the top remain winners no matter how bad the whole economy. Why? The wealthy Upper Class controls so much of the political system and benefit from countless government policies. They may lose something in an economic meltdown but not enough to suffer significantly.

Conversely, those at the bottom of the economic system with no political power are experiencing something as bad as the Great Depression, with no end in sight.

What pundits don't emphasize is that government policies that do not target lower income groups are a failure and disgrace. Worse than destroying the middle class, we are creating a Lower Class like that found in third world countries. Indeed, compared to places like China and European nations, America's poor are suffering about as badly as anyone on the planet, except for a few dismal places like Haiti. Needing food handouts, losing homes, missing health insurance, and lacking jobs mock the American Dream.

Wait; there is even more bad news. When underemployment is factored in -- part time workers that want to work full time, and those who have stopped looking but want a job -- the picture gets even worse. In the lowest group, the underemployment rate was 20.6 percent, compared with just 1.6 percent in the highest group. So the total in the lowest class is 51.4 percent (3.7 million people) compared to 4.8 percent in the wealthy class (530,000 people). Also consider that last November nearly 20 percent of all men between 25 and 54 did not have jobs, the highest figure since the labor bureau began counting in 1948.

Now you know why the constantly noted official jobless rate for the nation of 10 percent and 17 percent when underemployment is counted are a joke, or is it a purposeful deception, like a truth bubble?

How can jobs be created for the lower economic classes? You hear very, very few new ideas from politicians. It comes down to federal spending that better targets job creation to the lower income groups, and waiting for more general consumer spending, especially by the more affluent, to create more low level jobs, mostly in service areas. But we need specifics and better legislation.

Consider this green energy fiasco. A huge amount of federal stimulus money provided for building wind farms. It is creating jobs in Chine to build wind turbines, not in America. In fact, 80 percent of such federal funding is going overseas. All because Congress and the White House did not ensure a made-in-America requirement. Was a backroom deal made to keep China happy so that they would keep loaning us money?

When the poorest people suffer so disproportionately as compared to the wealthiest, perhaps only violent revolution will fix America's dysfunctional, broken and delusional democracy. Will President Obama cite the above frightening data in any public forum to make the case for stronger federal efforts? What do you think?

The high numbers for the lower income people mean that no amount of government action, in even five years or more, will solve jobless problem, because no amount of economic growth can possibly create enough new jobs. The US would have to produce 10 million new jobs just to get back to the unemployment levels of 2007 - impossible for many years. So, politicians will keep making things look better by citing the national average.

[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through delusionaldemocracy.com.]

President Barack Obama has done nothing to reverse decades of wage stagnation, mounting poverty, and attacks on the social welfare system. On the contrary, following George W. Bush, he has seized on the crisis to redistribute wealth to a tiny financial elite through the ongoing bailout of the finance industry.

This demonstrates a fundamental political reality: no reform that benefits the broad masses can come from a government and two-party system so openly in the clutches of Wall Street. The financial aristocracy's grip over all the levers of state power must be broken by the working class, independently mobilized behind a socialist program.

The impoverishment of the working masses amidst the current economic crisis is documented by a recent report from Northeastern University analyzing unemployment in 2009, based on income data for the previous year.

Unemployment in the fourth quarter of 2009 for those in the bottom 10 percent of household earnings was at the Depression level of 31 percent. A broader measure of unemployment, the labor market underutilization rate--which combines unemployment, underemployment, and those who have fallen out of the workforce because they have ceased actively searching for work--was over 50 percent among the bottom decile of earners, for the second decile, 37.6 percent, and for the third and fourth lowest income deciles, 17.1 percent and 15 percent, respectively. For the top 10 percent of earners, the underutilization rate was 6.1 percent.

The data is indicative of "a true Great Depression," according to the report, yet "there was no labor market recession for America's affluent."

The sharp polarization that reveals itself in fabulous wealth for a handful, on the one hand, and unemployment, wage cuts, homelessness and hunger for broad layers of working people on the other, marks an intensification of longer-term trends.

According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), "While many middle-income families have lost jobs, homes, and retirement savings during the latest recession, their economic woes date back much further." In the 30 years before 2008--the onset of the current crisis--nearly 35 percent of total income growth in the US was cornered by the top one-tenth of 1 percent of income earners. The bottom 90 percent shared only 15.9 percent of income growth in the same period.

According to the United Nation's Gini coefficient, which measures the national distribution of family income, the US had the highest level of inequality of the highly industrialized countries, based on the data available in 2008. It was ranked as slightly more unequal than Sri Lanka, and on a par with Ghana and Turkmenistan. In the Central Intelligence Agency World Fact Book's Gini ranking for 2008, the US fell just behind Cameroon.

The apologists for US capitalism have long claimed that, though inequality may be great, America is a land where anyone can go "from rags to riches" by "pulling themselves up by their boot straps."

Not so, according to a new report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which concludes that in the US "mobility in earnings, wages and education across generations" is at or near the lowest of the advanced economies. The US joined Italy and Britain as the countries where a worker's father's earnings are most determinant of his or her own wages. Moreover, in the US the role of parents' educational level on the educational achievement of their children was more pronounced than any other country, the report reveals.

The vast polarization of wealth in the US will only intensify. According to the Obama administration's rosy economic estimates, unemployment will not return to its pre-crash levels before the end of the decade. More realistic observers, however, acknowledge that mass unemployment will be a fixture of US life, and higher-paying jobs destroyed in the recession will never return. Combined with declining home values, skyrocketing health care and higher education costs, chronically high unemployment will result in steadily rising poverty.

But for the CEOs and bankers perched at the pinnacle of US society, the economic crisis has proven an out-and-out bonanza, a recent New York Times report reveals. John G. Stumpf, the head of the bank Wells Fargo, took home $18.7 million in 2009. Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan was number two in banker pay with $17.6 million in compensation. Lloyd Blankfein, whose Goldman Sachs has reaped windfall profits in the financial collapse, was awarded "only" $10 million.

These big name bankers are only the tip of the iceberg. "There are probably thousands of people that are in the Millionaire Club--or even the Ten Millionaire Club--that have gotten no heat," Wall Street compensation expert Alan Johnson told the Times.

Obama defends these obscene pay packages. "I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people success or wealth," he said of the eight-figure rewards for the same financial executives whose firms have benefited from trillions in taxpayer support. "That is part of the free-market system."

In fact "most of the American people" not only begrudge these ill-gotten gains. They wonder why they have yet to see news footage of bankers and traders arrested and hauled from their plush offices. Now working class anger is becoming increasingly trained on the political system, which, as a year's experience with the Obama administration has taught, does the bidding of Wall Street regardless of which party controls the White House and Congress.

The antidote to the plundering of society that has gone unchecked for decades is the nationalization of the banks and their transformation into public institutions, democratically controlled by working people. The ill-gotten gains of the lords of finance must be expropriated and used to put in place a program of full employment, free universal health care, free higher education, and infrastructure development.

The fight for this program requires the mobilization of the working class in the US and internationally, independent of the Democrats and Republicans and all the political formations that defend the existing capitalist set-up.

I am not exactly sure why we like round numbers. Is it because they make valuations easy, even when the particular number is irrelevant? Some philosophers, Plato included, believed that order and symmetry are innate values in the human psyche. Perhaps. Or, perhaps, in the case of the media, numbers give us the sense, deceptively, that we have a grasp over certain truths. We determine the order in which legacies such as Obama's should be dissected. After a decided date, the subject can be ignored until the next round number arrives, bringing with it more useless chatter.

Of course, this is a delusion. Like much of the media's behaviour, it has no connection to reality. It's all a mind game. A lie, even. For victims of US policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, and elsewhere, the attention given to round numbers is wholly illogical. The drones flying over Afghanistan and Pakistan, loaded with killing technology, care little for numbers, including the number of lives they destroy daily.

Did Gazans starve less when we 'examined' Obama's (pro-Israel) legacy after 100 days of his presidency? Where they better off one year from his election victory or one year from his inauguration?

How about 273 days from his ascendancy to the White House? Was that a particularly chaotic day in Baghdad's streets? Do soldiers take a break from killing on even days, and resume the slaughter on odd ones?

But why should this discussion matter at all? It matters because we often buy into this folly, allowing the media to determine what is important and when a discussion is pertinent. Those involved in this charade express their views, agreeing politely and disagreeing loudly. The next day, the media returns to a state of complacency, as if the detrimental policies of Obama's government ceased to exist; as if war was eradicated, and there was nothing left to talk about.

But truly, do Palestinians in Gaza care much for round numbers? I doubt it. Nor do Iraqis, Afghanis, and, now, Yemenis. Misery is misery, any day, every day; war is an inferno. The smell of death, the scenes of blood in Kabul and Baghdad and Gaza, will remain the same on a Friday, or a Tuesday, 100 day into Obama's presidency or 514 days later.

Every minute in a victim's or potential victim's life counts. Those who have lived in war zones can comprehend this truth. That's why Gaza wants to see the end of its misery now, instead of waiting for CNN's next roundtable discussion assessing the next round number in Obama's presidency. Iraqis and Afghanis similarly listen to words and judge deeds, caring little for numbers.

Remember when Obama spoke to the "Muslim world" from Cairo on June 4th? That's the date that Muslims - many still victimized, directly or otherwise, by the Obama administration's policies - remember and recount. On that day, Obama made promises, speaking with 'audacity', and much hubris. Muslims listened. Some clapped and even cheered; others hesitated or expressed cynicism, but still hoped for change. Alas, none of those hopes have been fulfilled, as instead of change, there is only a continuation of the policies of his predecessor.

"I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect," said Obama in Cairo. His deeds since then have reaped the opposite results: mistrust and disrespect.

"Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan," he said. Since then, he has ordered the surge of 30,000 additional soldiers to that already distraught country. The US, its allies and their drones have killed and maimed hundreds of innocent civilians since that statement was made.

"Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future - and to leave Iraq to Iraqis," he said. One fails to see evidence of a better future based on his administration's conduct in Iraq in the last year or so. Little progress has been made in leaving Iraq to the Iraqis.

Even in Cairo, he had the audacity to lecture Palestinians, the very victims of Israel's brutal occupation, which is armed and funded by US money. "Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build." We must note that the US government continues to make these demands of Palestinians, ignoring the fact that Israel's reign of terror has never ceased, including Israeli violence against Palestinian non-violent resistance in the West Bank.

Still, Obama did state that "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society."

Alas, the Obama administration faltered on its demand of a complete Israeli freeze, and is now harassing the ineffective leadership of Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank to return to the negotiation table without conditions.

In addition, the hope of ensuring that "Palestinians can live, and work and develop their society," is nothing but a pipedream, considering that Palestinians in Gaza teeter between chronic malnutrition and starvation. We cannot forget the fact that the siege on Gaza would not have been possible without US support.

So before we giddily gather to discuss Obama's legacy the next time another round number is celebrated on our television screens, let's remember that for an Iraqi father, frantically searching for his son's remains in a Baghdad street, numbers matter little, whether even, odd, round or in any combination. A massacre is a massacre, and a war of choice is a crime, any day, any time.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

In Tipu Sultan's lineage, a child by the name of Inayat Khan was born in the year 1882 in a noble Indian family. Inayat Khan's mother was a descendent from the immediate family of Tipu Sultan. He was introduced to the Suhrawardiyya, Qadiriyya and Naqshbandi orders of Sufism but his primary initiation was into the Nizamiyya sub-branch of the Chishti Order. He was also indebted to the philosophical Vedanta/Shankara spirituality of Hinduism.

With his mentor's encouragement Inayat Khan, later to be known as Hazrat Inayat Khan, left India in 1910 to come to the West, travelling first as a touring musician and then as a teacher of Sufism, visiting three continents. Eventually he married Ora Ray Baker from Albuquerque, New Mexico. She was later known as Pirani Ameena Begum. Ora Baker was the half-sister of American yogi and scholar, Pierre Bernard, her guardian at the time she met Hazrat Inayat Khan.

Inayat Khan had four children with Pirani Ameena Begum-two sons and two daughters-with the eldest being Noor-un-Nisa. Noor-un-Nisa, later known as Noor-un-Nisa Inayat Khan, was born in the Kremlin in 1913 where her father was received as guest of the Czar Nicholas II. The Czar, his country troubled by internal unrest and looming war, was seeking spiritual solutions to the problems facing his regime. Therefore, the influential Gregory Rasputin invited Inayat Khan to visit Russia in order to share with the Emperor's family and court his Sufistic doctrines of peace and love.

In 1914, shortly before the outbreak of the First World War, the Khan family left Russia for London and lived in Bloomsbury, while Noor attended kindergarten at Notting Hill. In 1920, they settled in France, moving into a house in Suresnes near Paris, a gift from a supporter of the Sufi movement. After the death of her father in 1927, Noor had to take additional responsibility for her grief-stricken mother and her younger siblings. The young girl, variously described as calm, timid, astute, and pensive, studied child psychology at the Sorbonne and music at Paris conservatory under the famous Nadia Boulanger, composing for harp and piano. She started a career of writing poetry and children's stories and became a regular contributor to children's magazines and French radio. In 1939 her book, Twenty Jataka Tales, inspired by the Jātaka tales of Buddhist tradition, was published in London.

After the outbreak of World War II, when France was overrun by the Wehrmacht in 1940, the family fled from Paris to Bordeaux and from there by sea to London, landing in Falmouth, Cornwall in June 1940. Although Noor Inayat Khan was deeply influenced by the pacifist teachings of her father, she and her brother Vilayat Inayat Khan decided to help defeat Nazi tyranny. (Vilayat Inayat Khan later became head of the Sufi Order International.) So on November 19, 1940 she joined the Women's Auxiliary Air Force (WAAF), and as an Aircraftwoman 2nd Class, she was sent to be trained as a wireless operator. Later she was recruited to join F (France) Section of the Special Operations Executive (SOE) and in early February 1943 she was posted to the Air Ministry, Directorate of Air Intelligence. During her training she adopted the name Nora Baker.

Her fluency in French and her competency in wireless operation--coupled with a shortage of experienced agents--made her a desirable candidate for service in Nazi-occupied France. On the night between 16/17 June 1943, cryptonymed 'Madeleine' and under the cover identity of Jeanne-Marie Regnier, Noor Inayat Khan was dropped behind enemy lines in occupied France.

Together with two other women SOE agents, Noor joined the Physician network led by Francis Suttill, code named Prosper. Over the next month and a half, all the other Physician network radio operators were arrested by the Sicherheitsdienst (SD). In spite of the danger, Noor rejected an offer to return to Britain and continued transmitting as the last essential link between London and Paris. Moving from place to place, she managed to escape capture while maintaining wireless communications with London. Finally, Noor Inayat Khan was betrayed to the Germans allegedly by a French Air Force pilot who worked as a double agent for the Nazis.

On or around 13 October 1943 Inayat Khan was arrested and interrogated at the SD Headquarters in Paris. Though SOE trainers had expressed doubts about Inayat Khan's gentle and innocent character, on her arrest she fought like a tigress. Thereafter, the SD officers were afraid of her and she was treated as an extremely dangerous prisoner. Hans Kieffer, the former head of Gestapo in Paris, testified after the war that she didn't give the Gestapo a single piece of information despite continuous grilling.

On 25 November 1943, Inayat Khan escaped from the SD Headquarters, along with two other SOE Agents but was captured in the immediate vicinity. There was an air raid alert as they escaped across the roof and regulations required a count of prisoners at such times. Their escape was discovered before they could get away. Consequently, Inayat Khan was taken to Germany on 27 November 1943 "for safe custody" and imprisoned at Pforzheim in solitary confinement, without any contact with the outside world and in complete secrecy.

She was classified as "highly dangerous" and shackled in chains most of the time. As the prison director testified after the war, Noor Inayat Khan remained uncooperative and continued to refuse to give any information on her work or her fellow operatives. On 11 September 1944 Noor Inayat Khan and three other SOE agents from Karlsruhe prison, Yolande Beekman, Eliane Plewman and Madeleine Damerment, were moved to the Dachau Concentration Camp.

It was a crisp Munich morning on September 13, 1944 when the four shackled women were led to the execution grounds. All were made to kneel. Friedrich Wilhelm Ruppert, the SS trooper in charge of executions, gave the orders to shoot. By eyewitness account, one by one the troopers shot Madeleine Damerment, Eliane Plewman, and Yolande Beekman.

Come the turn of the fourth prisoner, Wilhelm stopped the executioners. He stepped forward and hit the fourth prisoner with his gun butt. When she fell to the ground, he kicked her till she was reduced to a bloody mess. She was raised to her knees forcibly. Wilhelm then shot her in the back of her head thus bringing to an abrupt end the short life of Princess, spy, heroine, martyr Noor-un-Nisa Inayat Khan, a great great granddaughter of Tipu Sultan, the last Muslim sovereign of South India. One died fighting British imperialism. The other died for Britain fighting Nazi imperialism. Her last word was "Liberté". She was 30 years old.

Noor Inayat Khan was posthumously awarded a British Mention in Dispatches and a French Croix de Guerre with Gold Star. Noor Inayat Khan was the third of three World War II FANY members to be awarded the George Cross, Britain's highest award for gallantry not on the battle field.

So what do we do dear readers? Be happy that she lived or sad because she died? Or salute her cherished memory and move on with a mournful heart?

In a recent article entitled "Israel Must Get Used to the New Turkey," Suat Kiniklioğlu, Deputy Chairman of External Affairs for Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) wrote, "Israel appears to be yearning for the golden 1990s, which were the product of a very specific situation in the region. Those days are over and are unlikely to come back even if the Justice and Development Party (AKP) ends up no longer being in government."

This assessment seems more consistent with reality.

One would agree with Avnery's optimistic reading of events if the recent row was caused by just a couple of isolated incidents, for example, the gutsy public exchange over Gaza between Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and Israel's President Shimon Peres at the World Economic Forum in late January 2009, or the recent premeditated humiliation of Oguz Celikkol, Turkish Ambassador to Israel, by Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon.

However, these incidents are anything but isolated. They reflect a clear and probably irreversible shift in Turkish foreign policy towards Israel, the US and the Middle East as a whole.

For decades Turkey was torn between its historical ties to Muslim and Arab countries on the one hand, and the unstoppable drive towards Westernization on the other. The latter seemed much more influential in forming the new Turkish identity in its individual, collective, and thus foreign policy manifestation and outlook.

But even during the push and pull, Turkey grew in import as a political and economic player. It also grew into a nation with a decisive sense of sovereignty, a growing sense of pride and a daring capacity for asserting itself as a regional power.

In the 1970s, when 'political Islam' was on the rise throughout the region, Turkey was experiencing its own rethink, and various politicians and groups began grappling with the idea of taking political Islam to a whole new level.

In fact, it was Dr. Necmettin Erbakan, the Prime Minister of Turkey between 1996 and 1997 who began pushing against the conventional notion of Turkey as a second-class NATO member desperate to identify with everything Western.

In the late 1980s Erbakan's Rafah Party (the Welfare Party) took Turkey by storm. The party was hardly apologetic about its Islamic roots and attitude. Its rise to power as a result of the 1995 general elections raised alarm, as the securely 'pro-Western' Turkey was deviating from the very the rigid script that wrote off the country's regional role as that of a "lackey of NATO." According to Salama A Salama, who coined the phrase in a recent article in Al-Ahram Weekly, Turkey is no longer this 'lackey'. And according to Kiniklioğlu, that's something "Israel must get used to".

The days of Erbakan might be long gone. But the man's legacy registered something that never departed Turkish national consciousness. He pushed the boundary, dared to champion pro-Palestinian policies, defied Western dictates and even pressed for economic repositioning of his country with the creation of the Developing Eight (D-8), uniting the most politically significant Arab and Muslim countries. When Erbakan was forced to step down in a 'postmodernist' military coup, it was understood as the end of short-lived political experiment which ended up proving that even a benign form of political Islam was not to be tolerated in Turkey. The army emerged, once again, all powerful.

But things have changed drastically since then. The Justice and Development Party (AKP) was elected to power in 2002. The AK Party leadership was composed of savvy, yet principled politicians who aimed for change and even a geopolitical shift in their country's regional political outlook.

The AK Party began to lead a self-assertive Turkey which was neither pleading for European acceptance nor American validation. By rejecting the use of Turkish territories as a launchpad of a US strike against Iraq in 2003, Turkey was acquiring a voice, and a strong one at that - with wide democratic representation and growing popular support.

The trend continued, and in recent years Turkey dared translate its political power and prowess into action, without immediately severing the political and military balances that took years to build. So, for example, while it continued to honor past military deals with Israel, it also made many successful overtures to Syria and Iran. And, in being willing to be seen as a unifier in the age of Muslim and Arab disunity, it refused to take part in the conveniently set up camps of 'moderates' and 'extremists'. Instead it maintained good ties with all its neighbors, and its Arab allies.

Starting in 2007, the US began seeing the emergence of the "New Turkey". US President Barack Obama's visit to the country soon after his inauguration was one of many signs that the West was taking notice of Turkey's 'special' status. Turkey is not to be bullied, threatened, or intimidated. Even Israel, which has for long defied the norms of diplomacy, is now becoming more aware of its limits, thanks to Turkish President Abdullah Gül. Following Israel's belligerent insult of the Turkish Ambassador, he said, "Unless there is a formal apology from Israel, we're going to put Celikkol on the first plane back to Ankara." Israel, of course, apologized, and humbly so.

It took Turkey many years to reach this level of confidence and the country is hardly eager to be anyone's 'lackey' now. More, Turkey's united and constant stance in support of Gaza, and its outspokenness against the threats against Lebanon, Iran and Syria show clearly that the old days of "warmth" are well behind us.

Turkey, of course, will find a very receptive audience among Arabs and Muslims all over the world who are desperate for a powerful and sensible leadership to defend and champion their causes. Needless to say, for the besieged Palestinians in Gaza, Erdogan is becoming a household name, a folk hero, a new Nasser in fact. The same sentiment is shared throughout the region.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

The conference offered nothing concrete in terms of new assistance, instead scheduling a donors meeting at the United Nations in March. Much of the rhetoric coming out of the gathering seemed to bear little relationship to the situation on the ground in Haiti, where 150,000 people have been confirmed dead, hundreds of thousands more are wounded and over 1.5 million are homeless.

Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive, representing what remains of the Haitian government, together with foreign ministers from Europe and the Americas spoke of respect for Haitian sovereignty, subordination of foreign military forces to humanitarian efforts, and allowing Haitians to determine and lead their own reconstruction efforts.

Some leading officials, including International Monetary Fund Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn, have gone so far as to speak in terms of a "Marshall Plan" for Haiti.

In reality, Haiti is now being run by the US military, which has deployed over 13,000 troops and unilaterally taken control of the country's airport and port facilities. The Pentagon has dominated the provision of relief, which it has subordinated to the number one priority of deploying combat-equipped US soldiers and Marines, much to the detriment of injured and hungry Haitians waiting for life-saving medical supplies and food.

The US newsweekly Time gave expression to the real situation, referring to the top US military commander in the country, US Lt. Gen. Ken Keen, as "the de facto king of Haiti." Meanwhile, the Haitian people have seen or heard nothing of Haitian President René Préval.

Behind the talk of Haitians determining their own future and the country's government leading the way, what is being discussed is a plan worked out in the months before the earthquake that is dictated by the profit interests of US banks and corporations, together with those of Haiti's wealthy elite.

Speaking to reporters en route from Washington to Montreal, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referred to this plan, while praising the work of her husband, former President Bill Clinton, in seeking to implement it in his position as United Nations envoy to Haiti.

"He had just had a conference with 500 businesspeople," she said. "They were signing contracts, they were making investments."

She continued: "So we have a plan. It was a legitimate plan, it was done in conjunction with other international donors, with the United Nations. And I don't want to start from scratch, but we have to recognize the changed challenges we are now confronting."

The plan, worked up at the behest of the UN last year, is aimed at expanding the Haitian economy through the development of free trade zones based on garment sweatshops in which Haitian workers would be paid near-starvation wages.

The initiative was based on a report prepared for the UN last year by Oxford University economics professor Paul Collier. The report perversely cast Haiti's poverty--the deepest in the Western Hemisphere--as its number one asset in the global capitalist economy.

"Due to its poverty and relatively unregulated labor market, Haiti has labor costs that are fully competitive with China, which is the global benchmark," Collier wrote.

This "asset" is something that both Washington and Haiti's parasitical ruling elite have jealously guarded. Former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was overthrown twice--in 1991 and 2004--in bloody coups orchestrated by the CIA in conjunction with Haitian factory owners, in large measure for proposing to raise the country's minimum wage.

After his election for a second term in 2000, Aristide doubled the minimum wage and banned piece work in the garment factories, provoking fierce opposition from the owners of these enterprises. Andy Apaid, the Haitian-American owner of the largest sweatshops in Haiti and one of the Clintons' key allies in the new "development" plan, was a key figure in the 2004 coup, which saw Aristide abducted and bundled out of the country by US troops and thousands of Haitians massacred by right-wing death squads.

Last year, following mass demonstrations by students and workers in which several people were killed and wounded, President Préval was forced to accept an increase in the minimum wage that had been passed by the Haitian legislature. However, he enacted a sub-minimum wage for the garment assembly industry of $2.98 a day--approximately one-twentieth of the minimum wage in the US.

While such a system will make super-profits for garment manufacturers and further enrich Haiti's native oligarchy, it will do nothing to alleviate the country's grinding poverty and will only deepen its pervasive social inequality, the worst in the hemisphere. Garment assembly involves importing pieces of clothing that are put together in free trade zones and then exported out again, with virtually no impact on the local economy.

While Secretary Clinton indicated that this slave labor blueprint is the one Washington is still working off of in the wake of the January 12 earthquake, she allowed that the catastrophe would require making some modifications.

Clinton praised Bellerive for talking about "decentralizing" the Haitian economy. "As part of our multilateral efforts to assist Haiti, we should look at how we decentralize economic opportunity and work with the Haitian government and people to support resettlement, which they are doing on their own as people leave Port-au-Prince and return to the countryside from which most of them came," she said.

The Haitian authorities, backed by Washington and the UN, have begun implementing a plan to move hundreds of thousands of predominantly poor people out of Port-au-Prince and into resettlement camps. Ground has been cleared for one of these at Croix-des-Bouquets, eight miles from the capital, which would house 10,000 people. Other sites are being chosen, with the idea that those evacuated from the capital will be permanently housed there.

In a society in which social divisions are so stark, the so-called reconstruction plan for Haiti is inevitably developing along class lines. It may well emerge that the new resettlement camps will serve as captive labor for free trade zones erected in close proximity.

Meanwhile, Port-au-Prince will be reconstructed as a smaller city, geared to the interests of the country's wealthy. This was hinted at in a statement by the Haiti's ambassador to Washington, Raymond Joseph. Speaking on a C-SPAN television broadcast about the tragedy that has been inflicted upon the Haitian people, he said, "There is a silver lining. What was not politically possible was done by the earthquake. We will rebuild differently."

Such social re-engineering in the interests of a native ruling class and foreign capital, and at the expense of the broad masses of Haitian workers and poor, will inevitably provoke social upheavals and resistance. This is why Washington has placed getting "boots on the ground" ahead of saving the lives of the earthquake's victims.

It helps to know that three current constitutional amendments resulted because of Supreme Court decisions that needed remedial action: the Eleventh Amendment (shoring up states' legal immunity), the Sixteenth Amendment (authorizing a federal income tax), and the Twenty-sixth Amendment (assuring eighteen-year-olds the right to vote).

Among the current efforts MoveToAmend.org has already received nearly 50,000 signatories to support is plan, particularly: Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.

Another active group is ReclaimDemocracy.org advocating: Corporations and other for-profit institutions are prohibited from attempting to influence the outcome of elections, legislation or government policy through the use of aggregate resources or by rewarding or repaying employees or directors to exert such influence.

Ultimate Civics, a project of Earth Island Institute, wants this: This amendment affirms that constitutional rights extend only to human persons. Corporations, partnerships, and other organization entities are not human persons and, therefore, are not entitled to constitutional protections.

Largely missing from all this attention to the need for a new constitutional amendment, however, is the recognition that Congress, already corrupted by corporate and other special interest money, is very unlikely - no, make that will surely never propose any such amendment. Nor will any congressional attempts at fixing the Supreme Court problem with legislation do what is needed. In fact, there has been an older movement to take all private money out of federal elections and go to total public financing, which would offer the benefit of opening up the US political system to competitive third party candidates. But this too has never received strong support.

What merits far more attention and support is the use of the alternative path to amending the US Constitution offered in Article V. However, the convention of state delegates option has never been used because Congress has stubbornly refused to obey this part of the Constitution, as if they have a right to pick and choose what to obey, despite the one and only requirement for an Article V convention being satisfied. Indeed, there have been some 750 applications for a convention from all 50 states, more than the two-thirds requirement. A major reason Congress has gotten away with this illegal behavior is that nearly all organized political interests on the left and right have opposed a convention. Why? Because they like their current ability to corrupt Congress through lobbying and other forms of spending and fear true reforms of our political and government system through amendments proposed by a convention, which still must be ratified by three-quarters of the states. Both ratification and the exact words in Article V prevent any wholesale rewriting of the entire Constitution.

If Americans want to fix the recent, awful Supreme Court decision, then they should rally behind the effort of the nonpartisan Friends of the Article V Convention at foavc.org. They only advocate for making Congress obey the Constitution and call the first convention, but not specific amendments.

All those campaigning for a new constitutional amendment to accomplish any type of reform to improve the US should recognize that voting in new members of Congress or a President has proven to be totally ineffective in achieving necessary reforms to make government work better. The two-party plutocracy is far too corrupted by business and other special interests. The Founders gave us the Article V convention option because they anticipated the failure of the federal government to honestly serve public interests. Now, more than ever, is the time to use what they gave us. Now is the time for Americans to stop being constitutional hypocrites, saying they love and honor the US Constitution but refusing to make Congress obey every part of it, especially Article V.

How about President Obama who used to teach constitutional law getting behind this, especially because he reacted to the recent Supreme Court decision this way: "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." Wouldn't it be logical for the president to demand that Congress obey the Constitution?

Finally, when corporations are given more freedoms as if they are persons the inevitable result is that citizens lose freedoms and liberties, something that conservatives and libertarians in particular should recognize.

[Joel S. Hirschhorn is a co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention; contact him through delusionaldemocracy.com]

A brief article published on the inside pages of the business section of the January 1 New York Times ("With Bigger Bonuses, An Upside for Banks") notes in passing that the three top Wall Street banks will pay out an estimated $49.5 billion in cash bonuses and stock awards.

Those banks--Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley--received a combined $45 billion in cash under the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) passed by Congress in October of 2008. Along with the rest of the banks, they have benefited from trillions of dollars in nearly interest-free loans, debt guarantees, securities purchases and other subsidies from the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board.

The government has further underwritten bank profits and surging bonuses by keeping interest rates at near-zero and pumping trillions of dollars of cheap credit into the financial markets, while placing no restrictions on the ability of the banks to resume the speculative practices that precipitated the financial crash of 2008.

Meanwhile, the American people have lost $11 trillion in wealth, primarily through the collapse of home values. For their part, the banks have sharply curtailed lending over the past 15 months, draining more than $3 trillion of credit from the economy.

In the fall of 2008, the Bush administration, with the support of then-presidential candidate Barack Obama and congressional Democrats, sought to sell the bailout to the public on the grounds that it would enable the banks to resume lending. However, the TARP law imposed no strings on the bailed out banks, allowing them to do with the money what they wanted, without even requiring that they tell the government how they were using their cash windfalls.

The curtailment of lending by the banks has played a major role in deepening and prolonging the recession. Instead of increasing credit to businesses and consumers, the banks have made large--in some cases, record--profits through speculative trading in stocks, bonds, currencies and commodities.

The same article in the Times cites Robert Willens, an accounting and tax analyst in New York, who estimates that US banks will hand out $200 billion in total compensation, a figure that does not take into account the hedge fund industry.

To place this sum in perspective, it is roughly equal to the annual median salary of 4 million American workers.

All of the major banks have been allowed by the Obama administration to repay their TARP cash injections, thereby freeing them from minor restrictions on executive pay imposed on banks that continue to hold TARP money.

According to Willens, the banks will reap $80 billion in tax savings from the $200 billion in compensation, since most employee compensation is a tax deductible expense under existing tax laws. The biggest tax break will go to Goldman Sachs, which expects to award its employees a record $23 billion in bonuses. Goldman will save about $9 billion in federal income taxes on the bonuses it pays out for 2009.

Altogether, Goldman, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley will gain nearly $20 billion in tax breaks from their employee compensation this year.

Indicative of the year-end bonanza for bankers, the Times reported in a separate article on January 1 that Wells Fargo, the fourth largest US bank by assets, which received $25 billion in TARP cash, plans to pay its top four executives a combined $25 million in bonuses. These are to be paid entirely in stock options, rather than cash.

In awarding the bonuses in stock rather than cash, Wells Fargo is following the example of other big banks, including Goldman Sachs. Under prodding from the administration, banks are paying a greater portion of executive compensation in deferred stock, supposedly to tie pay awards to long-term growth rather than short-term gains. However, as the Times points out, "If banks... continue to rebound from the financial crisis, their shares--and the executive payouts--could surge."

Since the government has made clear that it will impose no genuine reforms or restrictions on the banking industry, and will spend unlimited sums to protect the wealth of the Wall Street elite, the bankers have every reason to believe that stock bonuses will prove more lucrative than cash.

The government's undiminished commitment to rescuing Wall Street was underscored on Christmas eve, when the Treasury announced that it was removing a $400 billion cap on government aid to the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and approving cash pay packages of $6 million each to the CEOs of the government-controlled firms.

Surging bank profits and bonuses go hand in hand with a dizzying rally on the US stock market. In a year that saw the permanent destruction of millions of jobs, all three major US stock indexes recorded massive increases. The Dow Jones Industrial Average ended 2009 up 18.8 percent for the year. The broader Standard & Poor's 500 stock index surged 23.5 percent, and the technology-heavy Nasdaq rose 43.9 percent.

From their lows in early March, the stock indexes recorded even more staggering gains in a "rally many investors had not seen in their lifetime," according to the January 1 Washington Post. The Dow rose 59 percent, the S&P 500 soared 65 percent and the Nasdaq was up 79 percent.

Financial stocks were up 15 percent for the year, including Bank of America, whose share price quadrupled from its March low. Ford stock increased 532 percent from its low point in March.

In all, the value of US stocks increased by $5.6 trillion from the market's nadir, the resulting windfall going disproportionately to the wealthiest investors.

A major factor in the stunning rebound in the financial markets was the refusal of the government to impose any serious reforms in the wake of the worst financial crash since the Great Depression. As the Wall Street Journal noted in a year-end review on January 4: "But more than a year after Lehman Brothers, American International Group Inc., Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Washington Mutual collapsed or were saved by the government and financial markets swooned, it is striking how little on Wall Street has changed."

The scale and character of the government bailout was summed up aptly by Simon Johnson, the former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, in a review of recent books on the financial crash. Writing in the December 27 Washington Post, Johnson said, "The Wall Street executives kept their jobs, their bonuses and their pensions; they benefited from unprecedented rule changes and unlimited monetary and fiscal support; and their firms became even bigger and more dangerous to the economic health of society...

"The executives of our largest banks ran their firms into the ground, taking excessive risks that even now they fail to understand fully. But, as these individuals saw it, unless they personally were saved on incredibly generous terms, the world's economy would grind to a halt."

The Obama administration and the Democrats, no less than Bush and the Republicans, agreed that their chief mission was to rescue the personal fortunes of these executives and the financial oligarchy they represent.

But unlike in the Great Depression, when limited reforms were put in place in response to the crisis, the Obama administration, Congress, and state and local governments are taking no serious measures to provide relief. On the contrary, the two parties of big business are exacerbating the crisis through budget cuts at the state and local level and the federal government is preparing new austerity measures.

Unemployment: At over 10 percent, the official US jobless rate reached in October and November was the highest since June of 1983. A broader measure of unemployment, taking into account those who have fallen out of the official workforce, reveals that something approaching one in five workers is unemployed or underemployed.

The economy has not added jobs since December 2007, and in that same time span has lost 7.2 million jobs overall. Coupling these losses with population growth--the economy must add about 150,000 jobs per month to break even--the net jobs deficit in the period is well over 10.5 million.

It is widely acknowledged that most of the jobs lost will not return for years, if ever. Even by the optimistic forecast of the Federal Reserve Board, the jobless rate will remain above 7 percent through 2011. Those without jobs face long periods of unemployment, the most recent figures showing that 38.3 percent of the unemployed have been without work for 27 weeks or longer.

Data for November show that all 50 states have witnessed an increase in unemployment since the end of 2008. Michigan continued to have the highest official jobless rate at 14.7 percent. Detroit, its principal city and the longtime hub of US auto production, had an official unemployment rate of 27 percent. The real rate approaches 50 percent, a number in line with the worst levels of big city unemployment during the Great Depression.

In California, 12.3 percent of the official workforce was unemployed in November. The most populous US state had by itself shed 617,000 jobs over the previous year.

What remains of the US social safety net is woefully unprepared to meet this crisis, with jobless benefits reaching well under half of unemployed workers. In December nearly ten million workers in the US were receiving jobless benefits, not quite half of these in the form of extended or emergency relief. There were some 5.6 million workers who had both exhausted their unemployment benefits and given up looking up for work.

Those fortunate enough to keep their jobs in 2009 saw their hours, wages and benefits cut, even as employers drove up their productivity. In real terms, average weekly wages fell by 1 percent last year, while worker productivity was ratcheted up by 8.1 percent in the third quarter and 6.4 percent in the second.

Foreclosures and bankruptcies: Increasing numbers of unemployed and financially stressed workers have been unable to meet their mortgage payments. During the third quarter, the number of US homes in foreclosure surpassed one million. In October, a survey by the Mortgage Bankers Association found that about one in ten mortgages was at least one payment behind, while 4.47 percent were in the process of foreclosure.

Most of the recent increase in foreclosures has occurred outside of the subprime loan market, among households that had previously qualified for loans based on stable employment and income.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that filings for personal bankruptcy rose to 1.41 million in 2009, up by almost one third. The newspaper called the increase "a surge largely driven by foreclosures and job losses."

Poverty and hunger: Poverty and hunger, already on the rise in 2008 before the brunt of the economic crisis hit, have intensified.

Analysis of the 2008 US census using criteria favored by the National Academy of Sciences shows that 47.4 million Americans, 15.8 percent of the population, were living below the official poverty line. The official government tally recorded 39.8 million people in poverty in 2008, or 13.2 percent of the population. One in five US children was living in poverty in 2008, according to the official data.

The real poverty rate is far higher, since the income threshold set by the government--$22,000 for a family of four--is absurdly low.

Judy Putnam, a spokesperson for the Michigan League for Human Services, discussed with the World Socialist Web Site her organization's new study "Michigan by the Numbers: Hard Times Continue." According to Putnam, 22 percent of the state's children under five are growing up in poverty. For African American children, the figure is 45 percent, with half the children in Detroit growing up poor.

"Many of those who would have received cash assistance in past recessions are not getting it now," Putnam said. "Only a third are getting cash assistance compared with two-thirds before 'welfare reform' in 1996. All of these folks who need assistance have been squeezed off the safety net. People in Michigan are heavily dependent on food stamps and, if they qualify, for unemployment benefits. But unlike previous recessions only the very, very poor qualify for cash assistance."

The evidence of widespread hunger in the US is unmistakable. In December, the National Conference of Mayors released a study of 27 major cities conducted between October 2008 and September 2009. The report revealed the largest increase in those seeking food assistance since 1991.

In November, the United States Department of Agriculture reported that a record 49.1 million Americans, one sixth of the population, lacked dependable access to adequate food in 2008.

Also in November, Feeding America, a national food assistance organization, released details of an economic impact survey of some of its 63,000 member food charities. It found that between summer 2008 and summer 2009, demand for food charity rose by over 30 percent nationally.

Many of those reliant on food assistance have no other source of income, a new analysis of state data by the New York Times reveals. Six million Americans, or 1 in 50, report no income beyond what they receive in food stamps through the joint federal-state Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

According to a recent study published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, about half of US children will rely on food stamps at some point during their childhood. The figure is 90 percent for black children.

Homelessness and utility cutoffs: With a bitter cold snap settling over much of the nation last week, those suffering homelessness and utility cutoffs found themselves in dangerous conditions.

The caseload of the government's Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) increased by 25 percent in 2009, and is projected to increase by another 20 percent in 2010.

Among the 27 major cities surveyed by the US Conference of Mayors report, 19 reported an increase in family homelessness between the autumns of 2008 and 2009. The largest increases were in Dallas (20 percent), Boston and Kansas City (22 percent each), and Charleston (41 percent).

Across the US, shantytowns reminiscent of the "Hoovervilles" of the 1930s have emerged. People in these encampments live in tents or shacks built of old wood, scrap metal, cardboard and other waste, with no running water, electricity, plumbing, or garbage removal.

An indelible scene took place in Detroit on October 5, when an estimated 50,000 city residents formed a long line stretching around the Cobo Hall convention center after hearing rumors that the city was dispensing assistance for utility bills and housing payments. City officials said only a tiny fraction of those seeking assistance would receive help.

Conditions of the youth: The economic crisis has exacted perhaps its greatest toll on the youth. All of the data related to hunger, homelessness and unemployment show that young people are disproportionately affected.

A study by the Pew Research Center published in November shows that one in ten adults under the age of 35 has moved back to his parents' home as a result of the recession. Overall, half of those aged 18 to 24 now live with their parents. Only about half of young people have jobs, the lowest figure on record dating back to 1948.

A recent study showed that less than half of students graduate on schedule after signing up for a two- or four-year college program, and that most who quit or delay their studies do so on account of economic hardship.

Those who do graduate enter the worst market for degree holders in 30 years, and with record levels of student debt. The average college graduate in 2008 carried a burden of $23,000 in student loan debt, while the unemployment rate for college graduates aged 20 to 24 reached 10.6 percent in the third quarter.

Meanwhile, one in ten male high school dropouts, ages 16 to 24, is currently either in prison or juvenile detention. Among black male high school dropouts, more than a fifth are incarcerated, a study by researchers at Northeastern University shows. For the population as a whole, the Justice Department recently reported that 1 in 31 US adults is behind bars or on probation or parole.

The response of the government: The response of state and local governments to this social catastrophe is drastic reductions in social services and job cuts, under conditions where the Obama administration refuses to provide emergency aid to help cover budget deficits.

The total deficit of the states from 2009 to 2012 is now estimated at $460 billion, a figure that is likely to grow as more state capitals adjust estimates for rapidly declining tax revenue.

"Anything and everything's on the table," said Todd Haggerty, a policy associate with the National Conference of State Legislators. States have "cut the fat, cut the muscle and are now cutting bone. The easy decisions have already been made."

The fiscal situation confronting the states is expected to deteriorate sharply next year when funds from the federal economic stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, are exhausted.

Like the states, the federal government faces a fiscal catastrophe, with cumulative US budget deficits expected to top $10 trillion by the end of the new decade, according to the Obama administration's rather optimistic forecast. Cuts in spending must be put in place, in part, to convince creditors, especially China, that the US "can get its finances back in order," the Wall Street Journal wrote Monday in a feature on the annual gathering of the American Economic Association.

The response of the Obama administration is to call for an unprecedented program of fiscal austerity and sharp cuts in social spending, to be announced in his State of the Union address early next month and outlined in the new federal budget proposal shortly thereafter. Obama's repeated insistence on the need for Americans to reduce their consumption--even as trillions more are allocated for the banks and for ever-expanding wars in Central Asia and the Middle East--is code language for a deepening of the assault on the working class.

The discussion of possible deficit reduction measures includes regressive taxes such as a national sales tax and sweeping cuts in entitlement programs on which millions of people rely, such as Medicare and Social Security.

Such measures are on top of the administration's health care overhaul, which will reduce costs for corporations and the government while slashing benefits and increasing out-of-pocket expenses for millions of working people.

Living under Israeli occupation, in refugee camps or in exile, we Palestinians have endured having everything callously taken from us - our homes, our heritage, our history, our families, livelihoods, freedom, farms, olive groves, water, security, and freedom. In the 1990s, we supported the Oslo Accords two-state solution even though it would have returned to us only 22% of our historic homeland. But Israel repeatedly squandered our generosity, confiscating more Palestinian land to increase illegal Jewish-only colonies and Jewish-only roads. What remains to us now is less than 14% of Historic Palestine, all of it as isolated Bantustans, shrinking ghettos, walls, fences, checkpoints with surly soldiers,and the perpetual encroachment of expanding illegal Israeli colonies.

While the Palestine Authority has led us into a shrinking land mass, less water, more restrictions, ominous walls and merciless slaughter, notable individuals and popular movements have mobilized for Palestine as once happened for South Africa. Moral authorities like former President Jimmy Carter, Nobel Laureates Desmond Tutu and Mairead Maguire, and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson have condemned Israeli Apartheid. Organizations supporting the Divestment and Boycott Campaign against Israel include religious institutions such as the Presbyterian Church, The World Council of Churches, United Church of Christ, Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Anglican Church, the Federation of European Jews for a Just Peace, among many others. It includes civil and professional organizations such as the National Lawyers Guild, the Irish Municipal, Public and Civil Trade Union in Ireland, as well as labor unions in Canada, Britain, and other nations. An academic boycott of Israel has spread throughout the UK and other parts of Europe and taken root in US universities across the country. The International Solidarity Movement has seen thousands of individuals come to the Occupied Territories to protect Palestinians from the violence of settlers during the olive harvest; to protect children on their daring daily journeys to school; and to bear witness to the inhumanity of military occupation. The Free Gaza movement has transported by boat hundreds of people willing to risk their lives to bring greatly needed supplies to the besieged people of Gaza. This Christmas, internationals will march to the Egypt/Gaza border to break this siege. These are but a few examples of growing popular support for the Palestinian struggle.

When compared with the accomplishments of these grassroots movements, the futility of "negotiations" becomes painfully apparent. It is clear that we cannot look to our leaders (elected or imposed) to achieve justice. Just as only the masses could bring South Africa's Apartheid to its knees, it will be the masses who will also bring Israel's Apartheid crashing. The continued expansion of international action demanding the implementation of Palestinian basic human rights is inevitable.

The notion of religious-ethnocentric entitlement and exclusivity for one people at the expense of another has been rejected the world over. Palestinians reject it and we assert that we are human beings worthy of the same human rights accorded to the rest of humanity; that we are worthy of our homes and farms, our heritage, our churches and mosques, and our history; and that we should not be expected to negotiate with our oppressors for such basic dignities. The two-state solution was and remains an instrument to circumvent the basic human rights of Palestinians in order to accommodate Israel's desire to be Jewish. Polls show that Palestinians refuse to be the enemies of our Jewish brothers and sisters anywhere, just as we refuse to be oppressed by them.

It is time for our shared land to be the inclusive and diverse country it had been. It is time for leaders to follow the people's determined movement toward a single democratic state, with liberty and justice for all, regardless of religion.

Susan Abulhawa is the author of Mornings in Jenin (Bloomsbury, 2010); and Ramzy Baroud is the author of My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, 2009).

Unfortunately, France is not alone; it merely highlights the most obvious manifestation of growing anti-Muslim sentiments throughout Europe. Unearthing the reasons behind the disturbing phenomena is hardly an easy task, for it arguably requires a greater examination of the political, economic and social woes of European states than it does of the 'shortcomings' of Islam.

Islam is a great religion in many respects; it has endured for over 1400 years. Its membership is never confined by skin color, culture, political ideology or geographic boundaries. Its views of antiquity, on equality, women rights and peace are considered progressive even by today's standards.

The detractors of Islam fail to see all this. If Islam is dissected politically or 'academically', the investigation is done for the sake of destroying its repute, and discrediting or humiliating its followers.

The Swiss People's Party (SVP) may claim that their commitment is to keep Switzerland secular, devoid of symbols of oppression (as in a mosque's minaret), but this only sounds like incoherent blabber and reflects nothing but a growing tendency towards racism, intolerance and ethnocentrism. These trends are glaring violations of the liberal philosophies associated with European countries, which guarantee individual and collective rights, including those of self-expression and freedom of speech.

In France, the phenomenon is protracted and more dangerous. Considering that France is the home of five million French Muslims, rightwing tendencies threaten future discord in the country.

The Washington Post reported on December 19 that Bilal Mosque, in the tranquil French town of Castres was desecrated by unknown assailants. "Two pig's ears and a poster of the French flag stapled to the door; a pig's snout dangled from the doorknob. 'White power' and 'Sieg heil' were spray-painted on one side...and 'France for the French' on the other."

Here, one must recall the alarming words of Britain's first Muslim minister, Shahid Malik. Himself a victim of hate crimes, Malik lamented a year and a half ago that many Muslims feel targeted like the "Jews of Europe", and that many British Muslims feel like "aliens in their own country".

While Many Muslims share the same feeling of nationalism and patriotism in their homelands in Europe, rightwing racists - who are unfortunately becoming a dominant force in shaping public views in various European states - insist on a very narrow definition of what makes a French, a British, a German or a Swiss.

There is indeed an identity crisis that is real and frightening. And it's one that is not engulfing Europe alone, but also affects and in some instances has devastated many cultures all over the world. While it is a byproduct of misguided and unchecked globalization, in the case of Europe itself the issue is very national and very personal. The European Union, which started as a purely economic body has morphed into a political and pan-nationalist organization that is attempting, by accident or design, to define a united Europe and a prototypical European. This has raised fears of the loss of national identities or whatever remains of it. Expectedly, it is the politically underrepresented, socially marginalized and economically disadvantaged groups that often pay the price of this sort of national resurgence.

Targeting Muslims is a common denominator that now unifies a great proportion of European political elites and media. The reasons are numerous and obvious. Some European countries are at war (which they have chosen) in various Muslim countries; desperate and failed politicians are in need for constant distractions from their own failures and mishaps; associating Islam with terrorism is more than an acceptable intellectual diatribe, a topic of discussion that has occupied more radio and television airtime than any other; also, pushing Muslims around seems to have few political repercussions - unlike the subjugation of targeting of other groups with political or economic clout.

But is their more to this? A 2007-08 Gallup poll asked the following question: does religion occupy an important place in your life? The vast majority in Western European countries answered with a resounding "no". Only 9 percent of Turkish citizens - a country with a Muslim majority - shared the popular view. Most European Muslims strongly identify with their religion, which has preserved their sense of community, and helped maintain a degree of cultural cohesion and a semblance of collective identity at a time when many in Europe are losing theirs. Muslims must not be blamed for this loss, and nor should they be punished, derided or targeted for daring to hold onto their beliefs.

Returning again to France, what is most alarming about the anti-Muslim measures is that they are largely led by the government itself, rather than a fanatical group of disenchanted ideologues. Eric Besson, the country's Immigration Minister, stated on December 16 that Muslim veils will be grounds of denying citizenships and long-term residence. Besson was only echoing the disquieting policies of conservative president Nicolas Sarkozy who has started a 'national identity campaign' for ensuring an exclusive identity of France - one that is occupied with the targeting of immigrants, particularly Muslims.

Sarkozy, Besson, and Europe's rightwing and far right politicians must understand the possible ramifications if they continue to press with their reckless and alienating policies.

Radicalization is an unavoidable offshoot of group alienation, which is sadly being used to further fuel the anti-immigrant fervor throughout the continent. It is a vicious cycle, the blame for which lies squarely with the savvy politicians and their obvious agendas. As for those who insist on blaming Islam for Europe's woes, they should really find another pastime; the self-indulgent game is too hazardous and must stop.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

While millions are facing the loss of their jobs and their homes, corporate profits have reached their highest levels in five years.

The number of prime-rate mortgage borrowers in default doubled from a year earlier, according to figures released Monday by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The portion of such "prime" mortgages in serious delinquency reached 3.6 percent in the third quarter, up 19 percent from three months before.

The report surveyed the 34 million home loans made by banks under the purview of the OTS and OCC, which amount to about 65 percent of all mortgages issued in the US. Given that the figures only covered this share of US mortgages, the real number of foreclosures is undoubtedly well over 1 million.

The total percentage of "nonperforming" mortgage loans climbed for the sixth straight quarter, reaching 13 percent of all mortgages in the survey. The percentage of mortgages that are "seriously delinquent" reached 6.2 percent, while 3.2 percent of all mortgages were in foreclosure.

Extrapolating from the survey of all US mortgages, 6.8 million of US households were behind on their mortgage payments in the third quarter. These figures do not count those families who have already lost their homes. A loss rate of 3.2 percent on the $6 trillion in loans measured by the report would represent write-downs of some $192 billion.

Meanwhile, the study found that despite mortgage modification programs promoted by the US government, homeowners whose banks modified their mortgage terms continued to default at extremely high rates. Nearly half of all participants in such programs still went on to default on their mortgages.

This is partly due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of such modifications have been temporary. The Obama administration reported this month that while 700,000 three-month trial modifications were issued as part of its "Home Affordable Modification Program," only 31,382 had been made permanent as of November.

The report followed findings by First American CoreLogic, a real estate information firm, that the number of foreclosed homes about to go on the market has reached 1.7 million. The backlog of such homes has grown by 55 percent in the year to September, according to a report issued last week by the California-based company.

The flood of foreclosed homes has pushed down home prices, with the average selling price of a previously occupied home falling to $172,600 last month, a 4.3 percent decrease from a year ago, according to the CoreLogic report. In separate figures, the Federal Housing Finance Agency said its index of housing prices was down 10.8 percent from its peak in April 2007.

Plummeting home prices, together with extensive government tax incentives, helped push up the number of existing home sales by 7.4 percent last month, to a three-year high, according to a survey released Tuesday by the National Association of Realtors. Lawrence Yun, the vessociation's chief economist, said that the jump was due to "a rush of first-time buyers" who wanted to take advantage of the Obama administration's tax credit before it was set to expire last month.

On November 7, the White House extended the program that provides new homebuyers with up to $8,000 in tax credits, to April of next year. Economists warn that home sales will likely plunge following the program's expiration.

Meanwhile, the employment situation, which has become the principal cause of the housing crisis, remains dire. The Washington Post reported Tuesday that in 25 states unemployment benefit programs have already run out of money due to record numbers of people losing their jobs. The state's unemployment insurance programs have had to borrow $24 billion from the federal government to continue functioning.

By 2011, according to government figures, 40 states will have exhausted their benefit pools and will need to borrow an additional $90 billion from the federal government to keep afloat.

The Obama administration has explicitly denied states' requests for further aid, forcing them to consider cuts to benefit payments that are already too low to cover essential needs. The shortfall has brought calls for cuts to unemployment benefits, with a state panel in Kentucky recommending last week that the state reduce its benefits for the jobless by about 9 percent.

Virginia has borrowed $89 million from the US government to cover benefit payments, and Maryland owes the government $85 million. South Carolina, which has a 12 percent unemployment rate, owes the federal government $649 million for unemployment payments.

Meanwhile, the rate of US economic growth in the third quarter was once again revised downward this week, to 2.2 percent. The figure was originally reported as 3.5 percent by the US Commerce Department, but was lowered to 2.8 percent last month. The US economy shrank at a rate of 0.7 percent in the second quarter.

Corporations, however, are reaping the benefits of the so-called recovery. In its latest report, the Commerce Department revised third-quarter corporate profits upward, from 10.6 percent to 10.8 percent, representing the largest gain in over five years.

Far from signaling any amelioration of the economic conditions confronting the broad mass of working people, the rise in profits has been driven by reduced labor costs stemming from layoffs and increased productivity. During the last quarter, labor costs fell at a rate of 2.5 percent, the steepest 12-month decline in seven years.

This decline is a function of stagnant and declining wages, along with the threat of unemployment being used to intensify the exploitation of those still on the job. Productivity has risen by 8.1 percent, the highest rate in six years.

Global stratification can be traced back as far as the 1750s when Great Britain and other countries in Western Europe began sailing around the world, conquering weaker countries and colonizing them. After invading the country, they would subdue the people and leave a "governing force" in place who would exploit the indigenous people and the resources for their own economic benefit.

This global stratification process is still going on today but the Western European countries have been replaced by multinational corporations. These corporations "sail" around the world and find the least expensive labor they can, set up shop (just as the colonists did), and begin exploiting the indigenous people and their resources. Third world countries are a particularly easy target because the people there live in extreme poverty. Any offer, no matter how meager, is usually better than what they currently have available to them.

Many people defend multinational corporations, and "globalization" saying they create jobs, transfer technology, and help a countries economic development. This can be true, but what we are finding today is that the main goal of the huge multinational corporations is to maximize profits, not to try and help the local population in their plight for a better life. These multinational corporations operate without any respect for the people, the environment, or even the government of the country in which they operate. They continuously break laws with no consequence. They exploit workers with no consequence. They pollute the land with no consequence. And they do all this to earn bigger profits for Wall Street.

Some of the biggest multinational corporations are oil companies. These corporations have had a long history of bad behavior in which they exploit the local population for their own economic gain. One example of this is ExxonMobil. This is an American company based in Irving, Texas. They were operating a liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant in Lhokseumawe, Ache (A special territory of Indonesia located on the northern tip of Sumatra). MobilExxon paid the Indonesian government (a centralized, military-dominated government) 30% of its total oil and gas revenues in order to operate there; however, the local population did not receive any benefits from this arrangement. (Collingsworth) When the natural gas was discovered there in the 1970s the local villagers were immediately displaced and forced to move from their land without any compensation.

After beginning operations, ExxonMobil separated themselves from the local population by building their own "compounds" that were fenced off from the local villagers. These compounds included luxurious living quarters for their corporate staff. The ExxonMobil elite even had their own paved road (the only paved one in the area) which the locals were not allowed to drive on. The locals had to constantly put up with natural gas flair ups and chemical spills. These spills caused many health problems in the nearby villages. The industrial waste from the plant polluted rice paddies (their main source of food) and fishing ponds. The villagers who organized themselves and tried to speak out against MobilExxon were routinely raped, tortured, and even murdered by Indonesian Military soldiers who were hired by ExxonMobil Corporation to provide security for them. These atrocities were reported by human rights groups, international human rights organizations, and the U.S. Department of State, to no avail. Many of the people were tortured by the security forces inside the ExxonMobil compound itself. The facilities had special areas built inside the compound to accommodate the military forces needs, such as barracks and holding rooms. Additionally, ExxonMobil provided these security forces with heavy equipment to cover mass burials after a conflict with locals who were protesting against conditions there.

Even though ExxonMobil knew of these human rights violations, they kept providing the Indonesian military with money and resources. Clearly, ExxonMobil believed the people of Ache were a separate underclass that did not deserve to be treated the same as their corporate "elite" who were mostly American. The ExxonMobil officers and management did not care about the land, environment, or the people of Ache, they just wanted to extract natural gas and make very large profits even if it was at the expense of the locals and the environment.

Another multinational corporation who definitely stratifies the country they operate in and the local people is Coca-Cola. In the late 1990s, Coca-Cola (Nestle Corporation participated in this too) was accused of bringing in paramilitaries to intimidate, kidnap, torture and then ultimately murder union leaders who were trying to improve working conditions at the bottling plant in Columbia. Coca-Cola wanted to keep wages low and orchestrated these events to keep the unions from gaining power. In fact, the multinational corporations have so much power in Columbia, that more union leaders are murdered there than anywhere else in the word.

In India, Coca-Cola is accused of polluting groundwater and soil, causing water shortages and having high levels of pesticide in its soft drinks. Amit Srivastava, of the India Resource Centre stated, "We are profiling a series of community struggles against Coca-Cola in India, all of which point to a pattern in the company's operations. The communities are left thirsting as Coca-Cola draws water from the common water resources. . ."

Additionally, Coca-Cola has illegally occupied some private property that belonged to local villages and has not even paid for it. The villagers took Coca-Cola to court and the company was ordered to pay the villagers for the property, but they were never paid. When they protested the Coca-Cola plant hoping to get their money, they were met by 200 law enforcement officers who were sent to the plant to protect Coca-Cola. The demonstrators were then badly beaten by the police and sent away. (Srivastava, 2003) Furthermore, when Coca-Cola set up bottling plants in India, they agreed to divest a forty-nine percent stake in the company to Indian entities within five years of operation. Coca-Cola no longer wants to do this, and the government of India became worried that Coca-Cola may leave India, so they will accommodate Coca-Cola by accepting a new arrangement which includes some ownership without any voting rights.

I personally know several people who have worked for Coca-Cola in America. The workers there were treated like numbers, not people. The employees were never happy and had many quotas set on them. I can only imagine how the employees in other countries are treated without the protections that are afforded workers in the United States. It is evident that the Coca-Cola Corporation thinks they can do what they please to laborers in other countries. They feel the people in third world countries are beneath them and they will continue to exploit them in order to keep soft drinks cheap, and earn Coca Cola large profits.

Another example of multinational corporations exploiting a country and the people is Chiquita Brands. They are headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. They produce fresh fruits, vegetables and juices which are sold all over the world. Chiquita's exploitation of workers began in the 1950s when it used it political power to convince the U.S. government to overthrow the government of Guatemala. Over 100,000 people we killed or went missing as a result of this action. Additionally, they used a pesticide called Nemagon that is so toxic it had been banned in the United States since the 1970s. They would spray Nemagon on their crops without any type of protection for the field workers. Sometimes the workers were still in the fields picking bananas when the spraying occurred. Nemagon has been proven to cause many medical problems including migraines, vision loss, liver and kidney damage, infertility, cancer, miscarriage and birth defects. Additionally, Chiquita brands admitted in Federal Court that it had for years paid terrorists to protect its banana fields in Columbia. According to U.S. Officials familiar with the case, the terrorists that had been paid were involved in torture, kidnapping, rape, beatings, extortion, drug trafficking, and the killing of thousands of rural Columbians.

Lastly, is the Gap which is headquartered in San Francisco, California. The Gap has manufacturing facilities all over the world, including some that are in American territories. All the countries where the Gap operates have reported human rights abuses. In October 2007, Indian authorities raided manufacturing facilities in New Delhi and found children as young as 10 years old who had been sold to the factory by their parents working there as slaves - they were not even earning a salary. Another factory reported three deaths in 2007 because management refused to allow the employees to leave when they became seriously ill at work.

Just like the early European colonists, these corporations have no regard for the people, or the government of the country where they operate. They move in to these countries in order to exploit the people and get valuable resources to benefit only themselves. They do not build infrastructure, offer medical plans, or try to enhance the indigenous people's life in any way. They are arrogant, powerful, and many times can be more powerful than the governments where they operate. If multinational corporations are going to continue to expand around the world, perhaps we should consider a "world minimum wage" and world "working conditions" reforms that all the companies must abide by. The wages do not have to be as high as they are in the United States, but they should be high enough that the people can work a normal workday and live comfortably. If these multinational companies had these types of regulations put on them, they may even think twice about moving into another country and interfering with their culture and traditions. Maybe it will slow down the pace of their expansion around the world and their exploitation of the people, their resources, and governments to get what they want - corporate profits at the expense of everyone.
Works Cited:

1. Henslin, James M. 2009. Essentials of Sociology A down-to-Earth Approach. Allyn and Bacon: Boston MA

2. Collingsworth, Terry. "Using the Alien Tort Claims to Act to Introduce the Rule of Law to the Global Economy"
http://wwwlaborrights.org

3. Leech, Gay M. "Coca-Cola Accused of Using Death Squads to Target Union Leaders" 2001
http://www6.svsu.edu/~boles/index/coca-coladeath.htm

4. Srivastava, Amit "Communities Reject Coca-Cola in India" India Resource Center. 2003
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=7508/

5. Krebs, A.V. "Chiquita, Dole, & Del Monte Sued for Poisoning Banana Workers in Costa Rica" The
http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/chiquita100804.cfm

6. Staff, "Chiquita pleads guilty in terrorism probe" The Associated Press 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17688439/

7. Staff, "Nicaragua: International Action Day in Support of Banana Workers!" Report from Nicaragua Network. 2003
http://www.labournet.net/world/0311/nicarag1.html

8. Cisneros, Noel "Gap Sweatshop Videos Cause Uproar" ABC7. 2007
http://www. abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=business&id=5732845

9. McVeigh, Karen "Third death in a year at Indian factory that supplies Gap" Guardian. 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,,2191399,00.html

The politics of social stratification with its relationship to race, culture, and social class are very much alive and ongoing in the United States today. Most Americans don't want to believe that any type of oppression is still happening here in the United States. They want to believe that we are a country in which there are opportunities for all, and moving up the social ladder, or social mobility, is something that is an inherit right and available to everybody. However, sociologists know this is not true. There are many different ways people in power use their positions to "seize greater rewards for themselves," while oppressing others. (Henslin 2009) What I will be discussing in this paper is the struggle of migrant and "guestworkers" in the United States, and how they are socially oppressed, exploited and abused. Additionally, I will describe how politicians and corporations have influenced American ideologies and have reinforced the belief that hiring guestworkers is good because they do jobs that Americans don't want to do.

Let us begin with the notion that unattractive jobs must be filled by foreign workers. Employers who state that Americans will not do certain jobs because they are beneath them imply that the foreign workers who take them are a separate underclass. Having our government back these employers by issuing policies that allow them to hire guestworkers internalizes this ideology in our society - that guestworkers are a separate underclass and deserve to be treated as such. This idea is in conflict with what we are outwardly taught that America is a society that believes in equality of opportunity and that we should avoid ethnic and racial discrimination of any kind.

This internalized ideology is prevalent among employers who seek to hire guestworkers for low wages. An example of just how prevalent this ideology is among employers comes from a company, Professional Grounds, Inc., which is a landscaping company located in Springfield, Virginia. In 2006, they ran a help wanted ad in the local newspaper for landscaper help. The company stated in their ad that the starting wage was $7.74 per hour - which is $8.32 in comparable 2009 wages. (In researching these figures, I found that one of the lowest paid positions in Springfield at the time was a car wash attendant who made $11.00 per hour in 2006 wages and $11.83 per hour in 2009 wages). The company always placed ads like this, and they hoped that nobody would respond, because if they did, Professional Grounds would by law, have to offer the jobs to United States citizens. Professional Grounds actually recruits its real labor force from Mexico and Central America through the United States Department of Labor's H-2A Program. This is a program that allows employers who cannot find enough American workers at the market's "prevailing wages" to hire foreign migrant workers on temporary work visas. By advertising for these jobs at such low wages, Professional Grounds is assured of being able to hire "guest workers" and pay them very low wages because they know that American citizens will not apply. The low wages offered for these jobs support the ideology that "Immigrants fill the jobs native workers won't do." The President of Professional Grounds buys into the ideology wholeheartedly. When he was asked if "native-born Americans" would apply if the wages were doubled he said, "I don't think it's a wage situation. It's the type of work and the nature of the work. It's hard, backbreaking work." (Jaynes, p. 6)

Additionally, the idea that the guestworker policy is good because it helps keep prices low and does not affect American jobs is not true. History has showed us time and again that guestworkers are exploited and abused. In fact, we should ask ourselves, "How can a program, which permanently isolates a class of workers and treats them as a separate and unequal social class, not lead to exploitation?" According to Henslin, conflict theorists believe that there are two main ways to keep laborers under control. "The first tactic is to keep workers insecure. Fear of unemployment works especially well," and the second tactic is "encouraging and exploiting racial - ethnic divisions" by pitting worker against worker". (Henslin 2009) One of the main problems guestworkers face is that fact that they cannot freely change jobs, because their H-2 contract stipulates that they can only work for the employer who hired them. Moreover, they do not complain if they are exploited or abused because they are afraid that they will be deported. Furthermore, they face many civil rights abuses. Some of these abuses are that they are cheated out of wages, held captive by employers who confiscate their documents, forced to live in unsanitary and overcrowded conditions, denied medical coverage if they are injured on the job, and many are forced to pay large sums of money for the privilege of coming to the United States to work. (Bauer 2007)

The first occurrence of guestworkers being exploited and socially oppressed began in 1942, when the United States negotiated with the Mexican government to import low-skilled labor, creating the Bracero Program. This program began as a way to help American farmers because there was a labor shortage as the United States had just entered World War II. The Bracero Program was supposed to bring in a few hundred experienced farm laborers to harvest sugar beets in California, but by the time the program was abolished in 1964, more than 4,500,000 Mexican laborers filled jobs of the Braceros. Although this program had many legal protections written in it, including contracts with workers, housing that would comply with minimum standards, wage guarantees, minimum of 30 days of work, and shared transportation costs, none of these protections stopped American employers from exploiting the Braceros.

As is the case today, due to deportation threats, the Braceros were afraid to complain; they were technically held captive because they did not work consistently and were unable to earn enough money to even pay their way back home. When they did work, they had to work long hours - sometimes 12 a day, and their earnings barely covered their expenses. They constantly had unauthorized deductions taken out of their pay, were given little or no food and they had to live in run-down, unsanitary and overcrowded housing. In addition, they encountered unsafe working conditions that sometimes led to disabling or fatal accidents, and they even tolerated physical abuse, as well as severe racial discrimination. In fact, the exploitation and mistreatment of the Braceros was so severe in Texas, that the Mexican government barred Texas from participating in the program from 1942 to 1947. This first guestworker program was so abused and the people were so badly exploited that the Labor Officer in charge of it, Lee G. Williams said that it was a system of "legalized slavery." (Bauer 2007) Conflict theorists term this type of treatment of one social class exploiting the other, "internal colonialism." Internal colonialism is similar to colonialism, but instead of an industrialized nation taking advantage of a less industrialized nation, a country's dominate group exploits minority groups for their economic advantage. They manipulate social and governmental institutions to control minorities and deny them full access to their society's benefits. (Henslin 2009)

Just like the employers of today, the farmers' main purpose in recruiting foreign workers was to be able to exercise control over who worked, dictate how much they earned, and to be able to control under what conditions they worked and lived. Like any other classification based on immigration status, guestworker programs segregate the workforce, which allows employers to exploit immigrant workers which in turn, drives all workers' wages down.

Stratification of the guestworkers become even more pervasive when, in addition to abuse in the work place, Braceros had to contend with discrimination in the communities where they worked. Many of the establishments in these communities posted "No Mexicans, White Trade Only" signs in an effort to keep Braceros away. Furthermore, many Braceros reported that they often received verbal abuses, false arrests, and physical attacks. (Hines 2006)

After the Bracero Program was terminated in 1964, another phase of exploitation began when foreign workers were imported for agricultural work under the H-2 sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This program was set up in 1943 because Florida's sugar cane industry requested and was given permission to hire Caribbean workers to cut sugar cane on temporary visas. This program too, was badly flawed, and the Caribbean laborers were often exploited, abused, and paid a lower rate than originally promised. Then, in 1986, a well-publicized labor dispute occurred where 300 sugar cane cutters refused to work unless they were paid their stated contract amount. The company involved called the police, and they used guns and dogs to gain control over the laborers, round them up, put them on busses and send them back to the Caribbean. This incident demonstrates the opportunity for extreme abuse in a guestworker program, because it permits the employers to have absolute control of the workers, which includes their right to remain in the United States. (Bauer 2007)

This H-2 program was revised in 1986 as part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which divided it into two sections, the H-2A agricultural program and the H-2B non-agricultural program. Both these programs have protections written in them, but these protections exist only on paper. As was stated earlier, one of the fundamental problems with these guestworker programs is that it gives the employer absolute control over their guestworkers, not just in their wages and working conditions, but also in their legal status. This creates a huge imbalance of power, which is dangerous and leads to extreme abuses.

The exploitation of guestworkers normally begins in their home countries when the agencies that represent the United States employers recruit the workers. Lured by these recruiters and promised jobs that pay high wages, they are required to pay large fees, sometimes thousands of dollars, to cover the cost of travel, fees, visas and profit for the recruiters. Most of the workers who want to come to the United States to work are doing so because they have little or no economic opportunities available to them, and they usually are living in poverty. To pay these huge fees, they borrow from friends, or may mortgage a family home. If they don't have anything to mortgage, or have friends to borrow from they must take out loans at very high interest rates, making it impossible for them to ever pay the loan off during the term of their contract.

For example, in her article "Close to Slavery, Mary Bauer of The Southern Poverty Law Center writes how Guatemalan guestworkers paid an average of $2,000 in travel, visa, and hiring fees to obtain forestry jobs in the United States. She states, "Guatemalans are recruited from Huehuetenango, an extremely poor region where many indigenous people live. . . They generally work as subsistence farmers and have virtually no opportunity to earn wages in rural Guatemala.

Thus, their only realistic option for raising the funds needed to secure H-2 jobs in the United States is to visit a loan shark, who will likely charge exorbitant interest rates. Many of these workers report having been charged 20 percent each month. Given that the pine tree planting season is three months long and workers often earn less than $1,000 per month, they have little hope of repaying the debt doing the work for which they were hired." In her report, she tells the story of Alvaro Hernandez-Lopez who came to the United States to work for Express Forestry Inc. He states, "What I earned planting trees in the States was hardly enough to pay my debt . . . it was really hard for us to fight to get to the States legally and then not earn any money. We were told we had to leave our deeds to get the job. On a blank paper, we had to sign our names and hand over our deeds. They said that if we didn't sign this paper they wouldn't bring us to the states to work." (Bauer 2007)

Then, there is the story of Nelson Ramirez. He signed up to work with Eller and Sons Trees Inc. The agency who recruited him required his wife to sign a paper agreeing to be responsible for his debt if he did not honor his contract. Again, as the conflict theorists believe, this is a tactic of keeping the workers insecure, and therefore, under control.

This type of extortion is not limited to Latin America. There are recruiters in Thailand who charged $5,000 - $10,000 or more for the privilege of being employed in short-term agricultural jobs that pay less than $10.00 per hour. In actually, the workers were not even paid that.

Additionally, in an effort to keep wages low, many employers will seek long visa periods, claiming to have many more months of work than they actually have. When the guestworkers have completed their contract, the employer "allows" them to go work somewhere else. The guestworkers call this period "tiempo libre," or their "free period." This is violation of the immigration laws, but the workers think this is legal because their employer gave them permission. By allowing this period of "tiempo libre", the employers are able to continue to attract a low paid workforce. (Bauer 2007) This policy of allowing a worker to "work off" their contract, then being released to work somewhere else closely resembles the definition of an indentured servant.

Another tactic of ensuring that the guestworkers remain insecure and vulnerable is that the employers "hold all the cards" relating to the employment of the guestworker. The worker basically has no rights because the employer can send them home for any reason whatsoever. A forestry worker from Guatemala reported that when a supervisor noticed that a guestworker was getting fed up because the pay was too low, the employer would take the workers papers away. The forestry worker said the employers would rip up their visas and threaten them with deportation. This has been one of the most common complaints from guestworkers - the seizure of their papers. Some employers say they are holding the documents for safekeeping, while there are others who will admit that they are taking the papers so the guestworkers will not leave in the middle of the contract. The employers believe that if the workers have their paperwork, they will leave. (Bauer 2007)

Discrimination is another form of stratification guestworkers must endure. Many of the workers who want to come and work in the United States are told by recruiters that they are too old. One guestworker was told that it was the policy of the North Carolina Growers Association that they don't accept employees over the age of 40. The United States claims they have no jurisdiction over this type discrimination because it does not happen on United States soil. Moreover, guestworkers often times receive different pay based on their national origin, and women are frequently put into H-2B jobs (non-agricultural) because they pay less than H-2A jobs. (Bauer 2007)

In addition to discrimination, women guestworkers report being continuously sexually harassed. After meeting with farm workers in Fresno, California, William R. Tamayo, a regional attorney for the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), stated that, "We were told that hundreds, if not thousands, of women had to have sex with supervisors to get or keep jobs and/or put up with a constant barrage of grabbing and touching and propositions for sex by supervisors." Additionally, Tamayo was told that there is a field in California that the guestworkers refer to as "fil de calzon," or "field of panties," because so many women had been raped by there by their supervisors. (Bauer 2007)

Another requirement set by the H-2 guestworker program is that employees of the H-2A program (the agricultural workers) are to receive free housing that is in good condition for the period of the contract. The housing is often times inadequate, and some workers have reported that as many as 20 workers must share a "house" and many more report having to live in accommodations such as old school busses. Guestworkers who are hired on the H-2B program are not required to receive free housing, but many employers still offer it purely out of necessity - the workers are paid so little they cannot find housing on their own. The employers who offer housing to the H-2B workers are allowed to charge them rent which, of course they do. The rent, which is often excessive, is deducted from the workers' paycheck, and the workers end up earning much less than they expected; it often works out to be less than the minimum wage.

Moreover, employers often locate guestworker's housing in isolated rural areas. This causes the workers to be extremely dependent on their employer since they usually don't have cars and there is insufficient public transportation available to them in these rural areas. In addition to being exploited by their employers, the workers must also rely on them for transportation for trips to the grocery store and banks. Having the guestworkers so dependent on the employer gives the employer absolute power over their workers. Furthermore, many guestworkers report that the housing given to them lacks electricity, bathrooms, and even windows. For example, some of the guestworkers who were hired to help clean up after Hurricane Katrina actually had to live in the hotels that had been damaged by the hurricane. These hotels were dirty, moldy, and filled with garbage. The water was not safe to drink, but the workers had no choice but to use it to cook their food. (Bauer 2007)

Due to the fact there is so much illegal immigration in the United States, there is much debate in congress about what we should do with our H-2 guestworker program. President Bush implemented changes to it before he left office that President Obama and our new representatives do not agree with, so the debate continues. However, what congress really needs to consider is whether or not we can really fix a broken program that has had allowed such terrible abuses to migrant workers. Moreover, since these abuses have been ongoing since the 1940s, maybe we should consider a completely new approach to the guestworker dilemma. While researching what might work to fix the H-2 program I discovered what seems like a promising alternative to our current program. A Futurist and an International Affairs Student, named King Taj, suggests that a possible solution would be to allow the migrant workers to move freely from the United States to their home country. He calls this a "Circular Pattern." This would allow the migrant workers to maintain a relationship with their families, and maintain social ties with their home country. He states, "This can lead to eventual permanent repatriation for many reasons. First, it may help migrants maintain a sense of belonging to their original communities. It may also encourage migrants to develop business relationships and look for financial opportunities in their home countries. For immigrants in the United States, a circular pattern means being able to return home without the risk of being shut out when trying to return to the United States. Daniel Griswold argues that most Mexicans who come to the United States do not have plans to stay permanently, and that the goal is typically to return home and rejoin families and communities. The implication here is that migrant workers are afraid to return home for fear they will not be able to easily return to the United States." (Taj, 2007)

This seems like a promising idea since we have a history about this too. Before the introduction of the Border Patrol in 1924, and before the introduction Bracero Program in 1942, Mexican laborers were free to cross the border, work, and return home. Most laborers did not stay in the United States. They just wanted and needed to work and then would return home to their families, friends, and their own familiar culture. The United States created the problem of illegal immigrants by making it hard for the laborers to reenter the United States after they returned home. Perhaps our representatives in Washington D.C. should look at what has worked in the past before making decisions about what we should do in the future.

Clearly, the H-2 guestworker program contains many flaws in it that allow employers to exploit migrant workers who want to work in the United States. Although changes to the policy could offer more protections to the guestworkers, I do not believe this program should be expanded, or even used at all in the United States. Moreover, when immigrants come to America, they become part of our society and culture. Even the immigrants who are here illegally can become part of our society; if not them, their children who are born here can. Unless we can change the ideology that the politicians and the corporations have engrained into our culture, a guestworker and their family will have no opportunity to become part of our American society. They will be slotted into a "caste," with no real hope of ever rising above it. They will never be viewed by Americans as equals. They will never be immigrants or future Americans; they will merely be janitors, construction workers, and housekeepers. (The New Republic, 2006)

Works Cited

1. Henslin, James M. 2009. Essentials of Sociology A down-to-Earth Approach. Allyn and Bacon:
Boston MA

2. Hines, Sarah 2006. "America's Last Guest Worker Program: A System Designed for Maximum Exploitation"
http://www.counterpunch.org/hines04212006.htm

3. Bauer, Mary 2008. "Close to Slavery: Guestworker Programs in the United States"
http://www.uncommonthought.net/global/SPLCguestworker.pdf

4. Coleman, David A. 2007. "To the Contrary" PBS TV show transcript
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageNavigator/facts/quotes_library/#coleman

5. Taj, King 2007 Guest Worker Programs: Establishing a Circular Pattern.
http://kingtaj.newsvine.com/_news/2007/04/30/694137-guest-worker-programs-establishing-a-circular-pattern

6. "That's Hospitality" 2006 The New Republic
http://www.tnr.com/article/thats-hospitality

7. Jaynes, Gerald D. "Migration and Social Stratification: Bipluralism and the Western Democratic State"
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FDBR%2FDBR4_01%2FS1742058X07070026a.pdf&code=ec0f02a071a588220244640216120c97

After researching the history of the development of Portland, I now understand that "up and up" is code word for where young white professionals are buying up houses and remodeling the neighborhoods to reflect aspects of affluent white culture -yoga studios, art galleries, trendy hole-in-the-wall fine dining establishments, hipster coffee shops, and baby boutiques. This paper is an outsider's view on the history of gentrification in Portland's Northeast neighborhoods and the impacts on the longtime residents of the black community.

The ITS Geography Dictionary & Glossary defines gentrification as "the renovation of the housing fabric in an old, usually inner-city area, when more affluent groups displace lower income groups en masse over a relatively short period of time. May be triggered by a clear event such as the improvement or provision of a better transport link, or by something less tangible such as a fashion trend taking off in the housing market" (ITS, 2009.) Elizabeth Kirkland writes "in urban lore, the pre-gentrified neighborhood is inhabited mostly by African Americans or other people of color when the rumblings of change begin, and the rumblers are typically white--white, upper middle-class, professional homebuyers, displacing the original residents" in her article 'What's Race Got to Do With it? Looking for the Racial Dimensions of Gentrification' (Kirkland, 2008).

Through these processes, it is no far leap to surmises how gentrification could in fact re-enforce segregation as housing prices escalate and trendy consumer culture drives away cornerstone community businesses. Unable to afford rising costs, families move farther out to cheaper areas, which in effect dissolves the core of all neighborhoods- community. "As black residents leave the central areas of Portland and Seattle for the suburbs -- either because they have sold their homes or been forced out by higher rents -- their community is being splintered by geographic dispersal and racial integration" (Harden, 2006).

In class discussions we learned the importance of social structure on the maintenance of culture and how social institutions re-enforce our connection to culture. So if the social institution of Economy drives families and communities apart to different geographical areas, the culture as was defined prior will be in risk of losing power over identity of not just the culture at large, but of the individual as well. The loss of identity sparks depression, low self esteem, and isolation. In many ways, this can be seen as a means of controlling a specific population by stripping away aspects of power. Isolation in itself defies organization, which is a fundamental pillar of social change.

Last winter I took a job as a holiday delivery helper for UPS. The Mississippi/Emanuel Legacy Hospital is Curtis's (the driver) route. Curtis is a tall, thin, black man whose family moved to Portland in the mid-50's from the "deep south." He grew up in the neighborhoods where we were delivering packages and I was amazed at how many people he knew on a personal level. He called the elderly by their formal last names, who in turn greeted him with lifelong familiarity and called out greetings to pass to his family members. He pointed out cousins, childhood friends, teachers, old neighbors, old sweethearts, and congregation leaders of his past. And it was through Curtis that I learned Oregon was still segregated until 1964.

He told me about how he couldn't go into stores, movie houses, or restaurants when he was a young man and how it made him feel frustrated and angry, and yet it was perceived as normal at the time. He told me how the neighborhoods had changed and how many people had moved to other areas of Portland, including himself due to inflating housing costs. He embodied what I now recognize as a communal story of black displacement in Northeast Portland. As more white people move into these neighborhoods, that web of community is littered with gaps of connection and replaced with suspicion, doubt, and even a lack of introduction.

I have since moved into Northeast Portland over the last month and have literally not met a single neighbor on my street. And as I grow to understand the history on how parts of Portland became black communities, there is a deep sadness attached to my time with Curtis because I understand now that these communities were forced into these specific places, however, in these areas there was a vast network of family and extended family to serve as culture informers and a framework of support. And these communities had been thriving.

When Oregon became a state of the Union in 1859, the state constitution excluded the right of admittance and establishment of black Americans. This remained state law for more than 60 years (Yardley, 2008). In 1943, the "first influx of African American families moved into cramped quarters in the Guild's Lake district and... into the new wartime housing project at Vanport" to work in the shipping yards (Robbins, 2002). In the flood in 1948, Vanport- which had been the second largest city in all of Oregon- was under 15 feet of water and thousands of low income dock workers, both white and black, were suddenly homeless (McGregor, 2003).

Portland had restrictions on who could rent what and where. Ridiculously enough, this was written in what was called the real estate industry's "Code of Ethics," which forced black people into the Albina area of Portland (McGregor, 2003). If you were black, you could not rent or buy a home in any other area of the city aside from the Albina district. This was built into law and re-enforced by deed restrictions, bank loans, and policing. Even once the "Code of Ethics" had been amended to repeal these restrictions, in "1960, when over 10,000 African Americans lived in the city, 73 percent of them were still huddled together in Albina. Because of this concentration, Portland's schools were as segregated as Alabama's" (McGregor, 2003).

It wasn't too long until the city of Portland began increasing the density of residents to smaller neighborhoods by reclaiming areas for urban renewal, beginning with the construction of the coliseum of the Rose Quarter in 1956 (Hyatt-Evenson and Griffith, 2002). The city claimed the housing in this area was substandard, and presumably the people living there too. If the norms of a culture, in this instance white elite Portland developers, is to regard the black community as insignificant, than the range of acceptable behavior is to ignore or possibly even fail to acknowledge the impact of literally wiping out neighborhoods for the sake of a sports arena. It is highly possible that the attitude atmosphere at the time was one of complete ignorance and lack of caring towards the displacement of black residents. William Toll outlines the city's continual moves against the black community over the next twenty years of development:

"Between 1956 and the early 1970s a series of massive construction projects decimated the Albina district. In 1956 voters approved bonds to build the Memorial Coliseum, which was located on the oldest portion of the neighborhood. In the 1960s the interstate highway to Seattle was routed away from downtown Portland to the east bank of the Willamette River through central Albina. In the 1970s Emanuel Hospital expanded to absorb still more housing, and construction began on the Fremont Bridge. Its ramps to Interstate-5 shredded the southern end of Albina, pushing still more black families to the northeast (Toll, 2003)."

And Portland isn't the only city to take such actions against the black community. Birmingham, between 1926 and the mid 1970's, zoned and constructed highways directly through the center of black neighborhoods to perpetuate racial segregation (Connerly, 2009). This was happening to black communities all over the nation- it was purposeful and damaging to the integrity of the established neighborhoods.

So it is no wonder why in the 1980's so much of the inner Northeast of Portland was falling into disrepair and abandonment with empty lots and boarded up houses. The people who had been living here had been forced to relocate multiple times! With so many empty houses, the property values of the neighborhoods fell which attracted many developer's eyes. "In the mid to late 1980's, it was possible to buy houses in Portland that were in sound condition for under $30,000" (Howe, 2004: 187). However, the unwritten policy of banks financing mortgages set the loan minimum to $25,000, as such, "someone who could qualify to buy a $25,000 car could not obtain a loan for a $16,000 house. It was a system of red lining without the red lines (Lane, 1990)" (Howe, 2004:193).

The 1990's brought more of the me's (that is Californians) to Portland in the form of Dot-Commer's (not me) who were young, 20-34, with pockets full of fast made money. This influx of population drove prices higher, and moderate to low income families weren't able to participate in the property purchasing. "Between 1990 and 1996 housing prices rose so rapidly that north and northeast neighborhoods saw prices double and in some places triple" (Gibson and Abbott, 2002) (Seltzer, 2004:69). With African American homeownership growing only 1.6% compared with white homeownership's 6.9% increase in the 1990's, it is clear that the accumulation of equity in the form of property was slanted toward white favor (Howe, 2004:190-191). This directly affects the social class and social stratification placement of the large group of black families that could not afford to purchase a home, and as we discussed in class, the access to control over resources is closely tied to power and prestige. These neighborhoods were primed for the reverse of white flight in the form of white flood. And as I write this from my apartment just off of Mississippi Ave, I know I am part of the problem facing the black community in Portland.

So what is to be done regarding gentrification in Portland? There are many currently working on this issue. The Restorative Listening Project is designed to provide the opportunity for those affected by gentrification to engage in dialogue with the "gentrifiers" in an effort to establish an understanding of the experienced impact. How much will this help? I can't imagine it will stop gentrification or black displacement but it may provide an awareness to the white people moving into these historically black neighborhoods. As for me, when the time comes to buy a house, I think I will look into other areas of Portland. Until then, it's about time I meet the neighbors and find a way to engage in the community around me. While I will always be considered "white," although it wasn't too long ago that my Hungarian ancestors were not, I can be considered a good neighbor and a part of the community.

Works Cited:
Connerly, Charles E. 2009. "From Racial Zoning to Community Empowerment: The Interstate Highway System and the African American Community in Birmingham, Alabama." Portland State University Urban Planning Department class notes.

Curtis, the UPS driver. 2008.

Harden, Blaine. 2006. "In Parts of U.S. Northwest, a Changing Face: Economics Drive White Gentrification of Core Black Neighborhoods of Seattle and Portland." The Washington Post. Monday, June 19.

Howe, Deborah. 2004. "The Reality of Portland's Housing Market." The Portland Edge: Challenges and Successes in Growing Communities. Edited by Connie P. Ozawa. Pages 184-205. Island Press: Washington, DC.

Hyatt-Evenson, Tania and Sarah Griffith. 2002. "Albina Residents Picket Emanuel Hospital." Oregon Historical Socitey. http://www.ohs.org/education/oregonhistory/historical_records/dspDocument.cfm?doc_ID=0004CBF8-16F2-1ECD-A42A80B05272006C

ITS Tutorial School. 2009. " 'G' , Geography Dictionary." http://www.tuition.com.hk/geography/g.htm

Kirkland, Elizabeth. 2008. "What's Race Got to Do With it? Looking for the Racial Dimensions of Gentrification." The Western Journal of Black Studies. 32(2):18-30.

McGregor, Michael. 2003. "The Vanport Flood & Racial Change in Portland." Oregon Historical Society. http://www.ohs.org/education/oregonhistory/learning_center/dspResource.cfm?resource_ID=000BC26B-EE5A-1E47-AE5A80B05272FE9F

Robbins, William G. 2002. "Cramped Quarters." Oregon Historical Society. http://www.ohs.org/the-oregon-history-project/narratives/this-land-oregon/oregon-depression-war/cramped-quarters.cfm

Seltzer, Ethan. 2004. "It's Not an Experiment: Regional Planning at Metro, 1990 to the Present." The Portland Edge: Challenges and Successes in Growing Communities. Edited by Connie P. Ozawa. Pages 184-205. Island Press: Washington, DC.

Toll, William. 2003. "Subtopic : Portland Neighborhoods, 1960s-Present: Race and Progressive Resistance." Oregon Historical Society. http://www.ohs.org/education/oregonhistory/narratives/subtopic.cfm?subtopic_ID=220

Wolf, Rowan. 2009. SOC 204 class discussions and notes.

Yardley, William. 2008. "Racial Shift in a Progressive City Spurs Talks", New York Times. http://www.srwolf.com/wolfsoc/articlearchives/2008/06/racial_shift_in_a_progressive.html

The meeting was prompted by the open emergence of differences within the governing coalition during the new regime's first two weeks in office--over tax policy, public health policy and other issues. The disputes arose between the coalition partners--the CDU, the Christian Social Union (CSU) and the Free Democratic Party (FDP).

The direction in which the government is now heading is much clearer after the meeting at Schloss Merseburg. Financial policy decisions were taken that will lead to an unparalleled level of social devastation, beginning at the latest two years from now.

The government is still keeping most of its intentions under wraps, giving out no information about forthcoming budget cuts and delegating the issue of health "reforms" to an inter-ministerial working group, which is to present its proposals next year. The controversial issue of extending the life of Germany's atomic power plants was also postponed to next year, primarily for tactical reasons.

On the one hand, the government fears the public reaction if it puts all its cards on the table. Above all, it does not want to place in jeopardy next year's state elections in North Rhine Westphalia. If the CDU/CSU-FDP coalition loses power in the country's most densely populated state, it will lose its present majority in the Bundesrat (the upper house of parliament).

On the other hand, the chancellor wants to secure support for the impending social attacks from the trade unions and the opposition parties. In order to gain "the consent of all social forces for more employment," she invited the union leaders, together with the employers' associations and banks, to a crisis summit in Berlin in early December.

In pro-business circles, "more employment" is a codeword for the dismantling of workers' rights and the slashing of wages. Since the election, union leaders have demonstrated their readiness to cooperate closely with the new government on these questions.

Among the nominal opposition parties, the Greens are the pioneers when it comes to cutting public expenditure, and Merkel can count on their support. Since they have already joined CDU-led state governments in Hamburg and Saarland, discussions have begun in North Rhine Westphalia as to whether the Greens will help ensure that the CDU remains in power in that state legislature.

As for the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Left Party, they recently signed a coalition agreement in Brandenburg, at the centre of which is the dismantling of 20 percent of public service jobs. State Premier Matthias Platzeck (SPD) justified this by saying that by 2019 Brandenburg's budget will decline by 25 percent from its current level. In this respect, he is to a certain extent anticipating the policies of the federal government. His finance minister, responsible for proposing the cuts, is a member of the Left Party.

It is in this context that the central message emanating from Schloss Merseburg should be seen. Federal Minister of Finance Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU) and Economics Minister Rainer Brüderle (FDP) made a demonstrative show of unity before the press, announcing that taxes would be lowered, the European Union deficit criteria would be upheld, and the brake applied to federal debt, as enshrined last summer in the federal constitution. In 2011, taxes are to be reduced by around 20 billion euros and new graduated rates will replace the present progressive taxation system. In the same year, the budget deficit will be substantially reduced in order to reduce the federal debt.

It is clear what this means. Pointing to the exploding deficit, the government will cut public expenditure to an extent that has never before been witnessed, hitting government subsidies to both the pension fund and education spending. New and even greater gaps will arise in the coffers of the state legislatures and municipalities, which are already strapped for cash, leading to higher charges for services.

Economist Peter Bofinger commented in the Passaue Neue Presse: "I fear that a narrow gauge federal government is intentionally being brought about here. The first step was to agree to put the brake on the federal debt. Now taxes are to be massively lowered. The result will be to force a brutal cut in expenditure starting from 2011. Then the crowbar will be taken to all government spending."

Bofinger is member of the Council of Economic Experts. According to his calculations, the annual budgetary deficit will rise to 100 billion euros if the announced tax reductions come into force. However, the federal deficit must be lowered to 10 billion euros by 2016 in order to meet the legal requirement for reining in the federal debt. "Nobody in the federal government is saying how cuts of 30, 40, 50 billion euros can be implemented. But this is what is threatened in the coming years," Bofinger concluded.

One item will surely remain exempt from cuts--the defence budget. The cabinet conference broke off its deliberations for one hour in order to agree to the extension of Armed Forces missions in Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa and off the Lebanese coast. The upper limit for Germany's troop deployment in Afghanistan remains 4,500, but this may be raised following the international conference on Afghanistan at the beginning of next year.

The meeting in Schloss Merseburg has set the stage for a sweeping redistribution of income and wealth from those at the bottom of society to those at the top. The social divisions that have been growing for years will be widened. While the government is striving might and main to conceal this from the public, those occupying the executive suites at banks and corporations have long since gotten the message.

According to a report in the business daily Handelsblatt, the thirty largest German companies listed on the DAX exchange plan to disburse 20.3 billion euros in dividends to their shareholders this year, despite falling profits. This amounts to approximately 71 percent of their net profits. In the previous record year of 2007, they paid out 45 percent of their profits.

While the government is lowering taxes, saying business needs more capital to invest, the large corporations are doling out these funds to their shareholders. The planned dividend payout by the DAX-registered corporations corresponds almost exactly to the planned tax reduction of 20 billion euros.

The basic idea is to force state governments to compete for $4.35 billion in federal assistance, with the money going to those states which do the most to promote charter schools, utilize standardized testing, and weaken workplace rules for teachers. Essentially, the scheme sets up a bidding war among the states for desperately needed funds on the basis of an anti-public education agenda that has been promoted for decades by the right wing.

Pairing the Democratic Party demagogue Sharpton with Gingrich is aimed at suggesting that a broad coalition has formed behind Obama's education agenda.

Sharpton's role is to defuse opposition in largely African-American urban schools that will be particularly devastated by Obama's policies. Citing the "achievement gap" that remains between black and white students, Sharpton now champions the same policies he opposed when they were put forward by the Bush administration.

The teachers unions are also on board. The American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association now support essentially the same policies they opposed under the previous administration. The difference is that they were shut out of education "reform" by the Bush administration, while Obama and the Democrats are eager to utilize their services in attacking teachers and undermining the foundations of public education.

Further underscoring the true nature of the "reforms" being put in place is the support offered by Gingrich, a diehard opponent of government social programs and partisan of school privatization.

As for Obama's education secretary, while CEO of the Chicago public education system Duncan forced the shutdown of dozens of schools, the tearing up of rules for teachers relating to seniority and academic freedom, and the creation of a wave of charter schools, including military-style academies.

What are the results of Duncan's years in Chicago? The graduation rate from the city's high schools is little better than 50 percent, and dozens of high schoolers have been killed, many as a result of traversing hostile gang territory en route to distant schools, their neighborhood schools having been closed.

Presented by Duncan as an enormous amount of money, the $4.35 billion fund is a tiny fraction of Obama's outlays for the military and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and about 2 hundredths of 1 percent of the $23 trillion Washington has made available to the finance industry. The grand total allotted for education is less than the individual personal fortunes of about 60 Americans, and a fraction of the Christmas bonuses that Wall Street will pay its executives and traders next month.

By 2011, the combined state-level funding gap for schools will be $20 billion. This does not include local revenue shortfalls, much of it resulting from collapsing real estate tax assessments. Scores of school districts will be bankrupt by the end of the year. The state of Hawaii has gone so far as to cut the school week to four days.

Only a handful of states will receive any "Race to the Top" money, possibly fewer than 15, according to the Wall Street Journal. "This is going to be highly competitive, and there are going to be a lot more losers than winners," Duncan bluntly declared in announcing the 30-plus criteria that will be used to judge the states.

These blackmail tactics are already having the desired effect. A number of states have in recent months passed legislation promoting charter schools, expanding testing and other metrics, and channeling funding to those schools whose students perform well. These policies will starve the very schools that need funding the most.

Obama's policies encourage the development of an openly class-based system of education. Wealthy districts will prosper, while the great majority of schools--in the cities, rural areas and even the suburbs--will suffer or vanish.

Many teachers, students and parents oppose Obama's education policies. After Duncan outlined the plan in July, "1,200 public comments poured into the Department of Education" condemning the plan, the New York Times noted.

The Obama administration responded with its usual contempt for popular opinion. "Even after all the comments, the rules are as comprehensive and demanding as before, they haven't changed," said Rahm Emanuel, the president's chief of staff. "We're seeking reforms, so we haven't backed off anything."

As it becomes clear what Obama's education policies mean and as the public school system continues to collapse, teachers, students and parents will move to defend public education, which has for nearly two centuries been bound up with egalitarian and democratic principles.

This opposition will require an independent political perspective, in opposition to both parties of big business and based on a socialist program.

Three national police units responsible for combating domestic extremism are run by the 'terrorism and allied matters' committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo). In total, it receives £9m in public funding, from police forces and the Home Office, and employs a staff of 100. (Paul Lewis, Rob Evans and Matthew Taylor, "Police in £9m scheme to log 'domestic extremists'," The Guardian, October 25, 2009)

• Vehicles associated with protesters are being tracked via a nationwide system of automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras.

• Police surveillance units known as Forward Intelligence Teams (FIT) and Evidence Gatherers, record footage and take photographs of campaigners as they enter and leave openly advertised public meetings. These images are entered on force-wide databases so that police can chronicle the campaigners' political activities. The information is added to the central NPOIU.

• Surveillance officers are provided with "spotter cards" used to identify the faces of target individuals who police believe are at risk of becoming involved in domestic extremism. Targets include high-profile activists regularly seen taking part in protests. One spotter card, produced by the Met to monitor campaigners against an arms fair, includes a mugshot of the comedian Mark Thomas.

• NPOIU works in tandem with two other little-known Acpo branches, the National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit (Netcu), which advises thousands of companies on how to manage political campaigns, and the National Domestic Extremism Team, which pools intelligence gathered by investigations into protesters across the country. (The Guardian, op. cit.)

Research of the Johns Hopkins Children's Center, published October 30 in the Journal of Public Health, indicates that uninsured children were far more likely to die in the hospital than those with insurance. The study took in over 23 million hospital records from 37 states from 1988 through 2005 and accounted for a number of factors. When researchers compared death rates by underlying illnesses, the uninsured seemed to have an increased risk of dying, regardless of their medical condition.

Johns Hopkins researchers cautioned that because the study considered only deaths during hospitalization, not deaths after discharge or children who might have died without ever being hospitalized, the death toll is likely a conservative estimate.

Fizan Abdullah, the lead author and a pediatric surgeon at Johns Hopkins, said in a press statement about the study, "If you are a child without insurance, if you're seriously ill and end up in the hospital, you are 60 percent more likely to die than the sick child in the next town who has insurance."

The study revealed 104,520 patient deaths out of 22.2 million insured hospitalized children, a mortality rate of 0.47 percent. In comparison, out of 1.2 million uninsured children, 9,468 died in the hospital, a rate of 0.75 percent. In order to find out how many of these deaths would have been prevented by health insurance, researchers applied a statistical simulation to the uninsured group by projecting the expected number of insured patient deaths based on the severity of their medical conditions.

Among the uninsured, 3,535 more children died than was accountable by disease severity. After applying this rate of excess deaths to the total number of child hospitalizations in the US over the study period--117 million--researchers found there were more than 16,787 deaths among some 6 million uninsured children who were hospitalized.

Insured children were found to be charged more for treatment, which the Johns Hopkins Children's Center noted was "most likely explained by the fact that uninsured children tend to present to the hospital at more advanced stages of their disease, which in turn gives doctors less chance for intervention and treatment, especially in terminal cases."

Parents of uninsured children were also "more likely to seek treatment through the Emergency Room, rather than through a referral by a doctor," the researchers noted, "likely markers of more advanced disease stage and/or delays in seeking medical attention."

Some 7.3 million children in the US lack health insurance, a substantial segment of the estimated 47 million uninsured Americans. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average cost of insuring a family is over $13,000--more than double the costs of a decade ago and far out of reach for most working class families.

At the same time that insurance and medical costs have spiked, budgets have been slashed for public health clinics, preventive care programs, and other services comprising the social safety net for the poor and uninsured.

The Johns Hopkins study follows a Harvard study on health insurance and adult mortality in the US, released last month, which found that nearly 45,000 deaths each year were associated with the absence of insurance among working-age Americans. This figure translates into an average of one death every 12 minutes.

Researchers arrived at this figure after a 13-year study of more than 9,000 people and accounting for a multitude of factors, including education, income, smoking, drinking, and obesity. After accounting for all of these factors, the uninsured group still had a 40 percent higher risk of death than those with insurance. Reflecting the enormous increase in medical costs over the past two decades, the report notes that in 1993, the uninsured were considered to have a 25 percent higher risk.

According to the Harvard study, "The increased risk of death attributable to uninsurance suggests that alternative measures of access to medical care for the uninsured, such as community health centers, do not provide the protection of private health insurance." The researchers add, "Despite widespread acknowledgement that enacting universal coverage would be life saving, doing so remains politically thorny."

A supplemental study from the Harvard team, released October 20, suggested that uninsured people with chronic illnesses often go undiagnosed and undertreated. Based on medical data of some 16,000 non-elderly adults, researchers found that of those who were uninsured and suffering from diabetes, fully 46 percent did not know they had the disease. Fifty-two percent of uninsured patients were not aware of their high cholesterol conditions.

Researchers stressed that along with the dearth of care for the uninsured, the large underinsured population also confronted a lack of access due to unaffordably high co-payments and deductibles.

By banning journalists from the area, the U.S. Navy was able to perpetrate this with virtually no press coverage, says David Vine, an assistant professor of anthropology at American University and author of "Island of Shame: the Secret History of the U.S. Military on Diego Garcia (Princeton University Press)."

"The Chagossians were put on a boat and taken to Mauritius and the Seychelles, 1,200 miles away, where they were left on the docks, with no money and no housing, to fend for themselves," Vine said on the interview show "Books Of Our Time," sponsored by the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover.

"They were promised jobs that never materialized. They had been living on an island with schools, hospitals, and full employment, sort of like a French coastal village, and they were consigned to a life of abject poverty in exile, unemployment, health problems, and were the poorest of the poor," Vine told interview host Lawrence Velvel, dean of the law school.

Their pet dogs were rounded up and gassed, and their bodies burned, before the very eyes of their traumatized owners, Vine said.

"They were moved because they were few in number and not white," Vine added. The U.S. government circulated the fiction the Chagossians were transient contract workers that had taken up residence only recently but, in fact, they had been living on Diego Garcia since about the time of the American Revolution. Merchants had imported them to work on the coconut and copra plantations. Vine said the U.S. government induced The Washington Post not to break a story spelling out events on the island.

"Through Diego Garcia," Vine pointed out, "the U.S. can project its power throughout the Middle East, and from East Africa to India, Australia and Indonesia. With Guam, the island is the most important American base outside the U.S." He said U.S. bases now number around 1,000, including 287 in Germany, 130 in Japan and Okinawa, and 57 in Italy.

"Bases have been essential tools of U.S. military and economic power since not long after independence," Vine pointed out. "We had bases all the way to the Pacific. After the Civil War, the U.S. began to acquire coaling bases in the Pacific."

Although the Chagossians were forcibly removed in 1971, they still hope to return, Vine says, and refer to their period of exile as one of "profound sorrow." Vine says they would be happy to live on the unused eastern portion of the island and work at the base but the U.S. instead "imports contract labor from other areas so they can send them home when the job is done." The island's exiled survivors and their descendants today number about 5,000.

Long off limits to reporters, the Red Cross, and all other international observers and far more secretive than Guantánamo Bay, many long suspected the island was a clandestine CIA "black site" for high-profile detainees, Vine wrote in a related article. Journalist Stephen Grey's 2006 book "Ghost Plane" documented the presence on the island of a CIA-chartered plane used for rendition flights. On two occasions former U.S. Army General Barry McCaffrey publicly named Diego Garcia as a detention facility. And a Council of Europe report named the atoll, along with those in Poland and Romania, as a secret prison.

The island became "a major launch pad" for the U.S. attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, Vine said. In addition to its capacious harbor, the island readily supports some of the largest U.S. warplanes, including Air Force B-52s, B-1Bs and B-2s. Two years ago, the Pentagon awarded a $32 million contract to add a submarine base to the island's arsenal.

Diego Garcia had been a British possession until 1966, when London allowed the U.S. to use it as a military base in exchange for cancelling a $14-million British debt for a military hardware purchase. Some idea of the size of the base may be conveyed by the fact it is said by the Pentagon to contain 654 buildings.

In a related article about Diego Garcia, Vine has written: "With support for the Chagossians' struggle growing in both the United States and Britain at the same time that revelations about a secret CIA prison are spreading, the United States must finally act to remedy the damage done by another Guantánamo damaging too many lives and undermining its international legitimacy. The United States must allow the Chagossians to return and assist Britain in paying them proper compensation; the United States must close the detention facilities and open Diego Garcia to international investigators; the United States must end the painful irony that is a base the military calls the 'Footprint of Freedom.'"

(Sherwood Ross is a media consultant to the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover. Reach him at sherwoodross10@gmail.com.)

Even before this collapse/implosion, the United States was in a shaky position. We have an economy recrafted on consumerism and a service economy. Productive capacity has been hamstrung since the 1980s as increasingly manufacturing - even infrastructure and security critical activities - were relocated to "cheaper" places in the world. The question raised early in this movement was "Can a nation that produces nothing survive?" Unfortunately, the United States may soon be able to answer that question in the negative.

The globalization/corporatization movement pushed by Republican neo-conservatives, and Democratic neo-liberals have auctioned the economic and political sovereignty of the United States by chasing the grail of making money out of nothing. Now we are in a situation where the dollar may be replaced as the standard currency and for oil. We may be waving goodbye to the petrodollar, and that is bad news for the country that prints those dollars - the United States.

Hocked to the ears and beyond to Dubai banks, China and Japan, the United States has it's butt blowing in the wind and survives at the pleasure of those creditors. If any of them choose to call the loans, or sell off the their dollar reserves, then what is a now dire situation in the United States may take on the hue of the "good old days."

Therefore, we (and the economists) can well say "the world has changed," and that change means ongoing higher levels of unemployment and underemployment, and falling wages - for most of the population.

Speaking from a different perspective, the Goldman Sachs International Vice President stated at a panel in Britain: People should "tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity for all"... "we should not ... be ashamed of offering compensation in an internationally competitive market which ensures the bank businesses here and employs British people."

One has to wonder if this is the world that those at Goldman Sachs and other profiteering finance firms have always had in mind - extracting the the wealth of the global population and returning to their perceived "natural" order of the royalty and the serfs. Perhaps, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach sees no real issue with stagnant wages and high unemployment for the masses. After all, it leaves more for the "deserving" at the top. However, it seems unlikely that he can truly believe that extreme inequality somehow creates "prosperity." The pronouncement itself makes absolutely no sense. However, being one of the big winners in the monopoly economy, perhaps he is only concerned about the prosperity of those with extreme wealth.

This two class society where the few get bonuses, compensation, and investment windfalls in the millions of dollars, while the majority of the population (here and globally) scrabble for leftovers, is possible only if we accept the constraints of the current system. It is only inevitable if we accept Lord Griffiths world view that extreme inequality somehow increases prosperity. However, I do not think that the population of the planet will share the inevitability of this skewed world view.

10/19/09. Raum. Associated Press. Higher unemployment might become the norm as result of recession

10/21/09 Quinn & Hall, Times/UK, Goldman Sachs vice-chairman says: 'Learn to tolerate inequality'

However, the current crisis is hitting Portland, and the rest of Oregon, particularly hard, with state-wide unemployment levels competing with hard-pressed California for fourth place nationally.

Just released September figures show a 0.5 percentage point drop in unemployment from Augusts' adjusted figure of 12 percent. The decline is attributed to discouraged workers departing the job market. The economy's continuing weakness was shown with the loss of 10,300 jobs. This crisis of unemployment is exacerbated by cuts in social services, as well as inflated housing prices, despite a glut of housing in the area.

The official Oregon unemployment rate now stands at 11.5 percent, not far below last May's 12.2 percent, the highest level since statistics were kept in 1947. This statistic does not include either the underemployed (those who previously had full-time jobs last year and currently work part-time) or so-called "discouraged workers" (those workers who, it is claimed, have given up looking for employment).

Despite having the fifth highest rate of economic growth for the period of 2005-2006, a mere four years ago, Oregon is now one of many states with negative growth. Manufacturing employment is at its lowest since statistics have been kept, losing over 27,000 jobs, 14.1 percent, in the last year, while construction, despite a gain of 1,000 jobs last month, has still dropped 13,700 jobs, 14.8 percent, from a year ago.

The high point of manufacturing in Oregon was October of 1997 when nearly 230,000 workers were employed in that field. Currently, the number employed is 165,400, a decline of 28 percent.

While Portland has been hit hard, urban areas outside of Portland have been hit even harder, and their economic situation can be regarded as dismal. For the month of August 2009, the cities of Salem, Eugene, Medford and Bend had unemployment rates equal to or greater than that of Portland-Vancouver metro area. Bend, located in Central Oregon, had an unemployment rate of 15.8 percent.

According to an analysis by the New York Times published in July, a broader measure of unemployment reached 23.5 percent in the spring.

Further out, from where the busy interstates of I-5 and I-84 intersect in Portland, these communities have been torn apart earlier, faster, and more severely. Drives through Medford or Salem reveal empty storefronts and foreclosed houses that are difficult to ignore.

The drive to increase the exploitation of workers finds clear and sharp expression in agriculture and construction. At any time during the day in Portland, scores of workers can be seen lining up at day labor hire sites, or even just sitting around in large groups waiting for employers to come by with a truck. A representative of the Oregon Department of Agriculture commented that the recent downturn has "turned a lot of construction workers back into agricultural workers" and remarked sardonically that "there was no shortage of labor in agriculture" this year.

Statistics on day laborers, agricultural workers, and migrant workers is hard to collect due to both the ephemeral and transient nature of such employment, and because many workers in this field are undocumented and subject to constant harassment by the state. Official censuses are performed only once every five years and pressure exists on employers to not divulge their undocumented employees.

Oregon also suffers from a lack of affordable housing, despite massive overbuilding of condos during the recent real estate bubble. Thousands of units, intended for sale as condos, lay empty, particularly near the waterfront and Peal District sections of Portland, and are now, with the collapse of the housing market, being offered as rental properties. Working class neighborhoods in North Portland, St. John's, and the Belmont/Hawthorne area are sure to be next in the sights of developers who seek to drive out workers and replace them with higher rent tenants.

Not even rudimentary cots are available for many of the city's poor, who live in tent cities near the Burnside Bridge and other places along the waterfront and in the vacant-lot remnants of Portland's Chinatown. A recent report shows that about 1,500 homeless are forced to sleep outdoors on any given night. The homeless population in Oregon has exploded in recent years, a shameful fact considering the high number of homeless workers in the years of alleged economic prosperity.

A Housing and Urban Development 2008 analysis released this past summer identifies Oregon as having the highest proportion of homeless in the nation. Homelessness was 0.54 percent in Oregon, followed by Nevada with 0.48 percent.

The official figures of homelessness paint a grim picture: 16,221 homeless individuals on a one-night head count of shelters. This figure is likely only half of the total picture, as according to state statistics, less than half of the state's homeless are sheltered on any given night. While slightly more than half of the homeless are on their own, a significant minority consist of families with children, the overwhelming majority of whom are under age 11.

Further, the curtailment of vast portions of the city's mass transportation system, TriMet, will make it harder for working people. TriMet, which serves not just Portland proper, but several surrounding communities of considerable size (such as Hillsboro which will largely be inaccessible from Portland on weekends), plans to slash service, cutting entire lines, re-routing buses, and reducing the number of buses on the road, making Portland's famously quick and efficient public transportation set to become an overcrowded and unwieldy mess.

Twelve bus lines have been eliminated entirely, weekend or Sunday service was eliminated on an additional twelve, and hours or frequency were cut on no fewer than twenty-nine bus lines. Most telling is the elimination of free access for buses in Portland's famous Fareless Square, a significant area of downtown and certain adjoining areas, where riders have never been required to pay fares. Bus stops along Burnside, one of the main roads that split the city in half between North and South, bear signs reading "Service Temporarily Discontinued," and one wonders for how long.

The cutting of bus lines will heavily impact the poorest workers in the city who cannot afford loans for motorized transportation, nor the extortionist insurance payments which accompany this ownership. Many workers move to Portland precisely because of its mass transit system and rely upon it to get to work. They will be forced to either spend more unpaid time traveling to and from work, or search for new jobs where little are to be found.

In such a climate, demand for social services is rising while the ability of capitalism to cope is dwindling. Oregon, like so many other states, is seeing a decline in tax revenues and a related budget deficit. Oregon is looking at a deficit of between $850 million and $1 billion dollars for the current budget.

Democratic Governor Kulongoski went on record in a public statement calling this "sobering news for Oregon" and speaking of "difficult decisions" for the legislature which will "prioritize the core services performed by government" by "putting partisan politics aside." He ended his thinly-veiled plan of attack on Oregon's working class by saying "[t]oday is truly when the hard work begins."

Kulongowski's statement is filled with poorly concealed euphemisms referring to his impending plan to cut social services throughout the state. State Economist Tom Potiowsky indicated more attacks on social services than Kulongowski, telling the Salem Gazette-Times, "We're falling, basically, into a pit."

Kulongowski and the legislature responded by closing government agencies for ten days over the two-year budget period, with 26,500 workers forced to stay home. An estimated $2 to $2.5 million for each furlough day will be wrung from the pockets of workers who can ill-afford such a cut. The Service Employees International Union spokesman Ed Hershey signaled the union's support for this attack on public workers, saying, "I think the state wisely negotiated over these. If there have to be furloughs, these seem to be days that would least impact services."

These attacks on the living standards of working people include $65 million dollars cut from K-12 education, and $19 million in social services, including day care for the children of low-income workers. While the state has millions of dollars in a reserve fund, Kulongowski has made clear he will veto any attempt by the legislature to tap into that fund.

Food stamp enrollment is up 25 percent (and is 25 percent greater than the national average). Housing foreclosures are the 14th highest in the state, but this statistic is highly misleading, as masses of working people in Oregon choose to rent, due to the relatively lower cost of rentals in the state.

Using the combined metrics of housing foreclosure, unemployment, and food stamp participation, the non-profit Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation ranked Oregon third on its state economic distress scale, underscoring how deeply Oregon is affected by the sum total of high unemployment, foreclosure rates, and underfunded social services.

However, while the real income of Oregon's lowest 20 percent of population has declined by 17 percent since 1979, that of the wealthiest 1 percent has skyrocketed by 210 percent.

Oregon is one clear example of the inability of capitalism to solve the problems of working people. Condos, built by speculators in hopes of reselling in a Ponzi-like scheme to other speculators, lay empty throughout Portland, while homeless workers huddle in tent cities. The unemployment rate has skyrocketed, even though any attentive person could find dozens of things--in infrastructure repair, social services, and health services to name only the most glaringly obvious--that need doing, and that the workers of Oregon would no doubt be happy to do.

The large urban centers are known to lean heavily Democratic. Salem, the state capital, is dominated by the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party holds all major statewide executive offices (Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Commissioner of Labor and Industries, Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the State Land Board). As well, both houses of the Oregon Legislative Assembly are firmly in the hands of the Democrats. This is the party that leads the current attacks on workers.

Mahmoud Habbash, the PA Minister of Social Affairs is but one of those individuals. His appearances on Aljazeera, during those fateful days were many. On one half of the screen would be screaming, disfigured children, mutilated women, and search parties digging in the dark for dead bodies, at times entire families. On the other, was Habbash, spewing political insults at his Hamas rivals in Gaza, repeating the same message so tirelessly parroted by his Israeli colleagues. Every time his face appeared on the screen, I cringed. Every unruly shriek of his, reinforced my sense of shame. Shame, perhaps, but never confusion. Those who understand how the Oslo agreement of September 1993 morphed into a culture that destroyed the very fabric of Palestinian society can fully appreciate the behavior of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank during the Gaza war, before it and today.

But especially today.

Those who hoped that the Israeli atrocities in Gaza would rekindled a sense of remorse among the egotistical elites in Ramallah, were surely disappointed when the PA withdrew its draft resolution supporting recommendations made by South African Judge Richard Goldstone. The Goldstone report is the most comprehensive, and transparent investigation as of yet into what happened in Gaza during the 23-day war. It decried Israeli terror, and chastised Palestinians as well. But the focus on Israel undoubtedly and deservingly occupied much of the nearly 600-page report. The next step was for the Human Rights Council to send the report for consideration to the United Nations Security Council, which was to study the findings for a possible referral of the case to the International Criminal Court e in the Hague. Such a move would have been historic. Knowing the full implications of such a possibility, Hamas accepted the report's recommendations in full. Israel, backed by its traditional US ally, rejected it, leveling all sorts of accusations and insults on the world-renowned Jewish judge.

The draft resolution - condemning Israel and calling for the transfer of the report to the UNSC - was due for a vote at the Council on October 2. Alas, it was withdrawn at the behest of the Palestinian Authority and its president Mahmoud Abbas himself. Palestinian friends and allies at UNHRC were shocked, but obliged. They were equally disappointed when they watched PA envoys discussing the matter, not with the Asian, African or other traditional allies at the Council, but with US and European diplomats, who seemed to have a greater sway over Palestinian political action than those who have for decades supported Palestinian rights at every turn.

Something went horribly wrong. How could a leader of an occupied and suffering nation commit such a 'mistake', deferring an urgent vote and discussion on a report pertaining to the death of over 1,400 people, the maiming and wounding of thousands more, to a later date, six months from today?

Theories flared. Israeli and other media argued that US pressure on PA president Mahmoud Abbas was the main reason behind the supposedly unanticipated move. A positive vote on the resolution would jeopardize the 'peace process', therefore any action must be stifled for the sake of giving the 'peace process' a chance, was the rationale.

Amira Hass of Haaretz opined, "The chronic submissiveness is always explained by a desire to 'make progress.' But for the PLO and Fatah, progress is the very continued existence of the Palestinian Authority, which is now functioning more than ever before as a subcontractor for the IDF, the Shin Bet security service and the Civil Administration."

Jonathan Cook, however, offered another view: "Israel warned it would renege on a commitment to allot radio frequencies to allow Wataniya, a mobile phone provider, to begin operations this month in the West Bank. The telecommunications industry is the bedrock of the Palestinian economy, with the current monopoly company, PalTel, accounting for half the worth of the Palestinian stock exchange."

"No blood for mobile phones," should perhaps be the new chant in Palestine. But it's that sad fact that held the Palestinian will hostage for too many years. However, it's not just mobile companies whose interests triumph over Gaza's agony. Indeed, the post-Oslo culture has espoused a class of contractors. These are businessmen who are either high-ranking officials in the PA and the Fatah party, or both, or closely affiliated with them. Much of the billions of dollars of international aid that poured into Palestine following the signing of Oslo found its way into private bank accounts. Wealth generated more wealth and "export and import" companies sprung up like poison ivy amidst the poor dwelling of refugees throughout the occupied territories. The class of businessmen, still posing as revolutionaries, encroached over every aspect of Palestinian society, used it, controlled it, and eventually suffocated it. It espoused untold corruption, and, naturally, found an ally in Israel, whose reign in the occupied territories never ceased.

The PA became submissive not out of fear of Israeli wrath per se, but out of fear that such wrath would disrupt business, the flow of aid thus contracts. And since corruption is not confined by geographical borders, PA officials abroad took Palestinian shame to international levels. Millions marched in the US, in Europe, in Asia, South America and the rest of the world, chanting for Gaza and its victims, while some PA ambassadors failed to even turn out to participate. When some of these diplomats made it to public forums, it was for the very purpose of brazenly attacking fellow Palestinians in Hamas, not to garner international solidarity with their own people.

Readily blaming 'American pressure' to explain Abbas' decision at the UNHRC no longer suffices. Even the call on the 74-year-old Palestinian leader to quit is equally hollow. Abbas represents a culture, and that culture is self-seeking, self-serving and utterly corrupt. If Abbas exits, and considering his age, he soon will, Mohammed Dahlan could be the next leader, or even Mahmoud Habbash, who called on Gaza to rebel against Hamas as Israel was blowing up Palestinian homes and schools left and right.

Palestinians who are now calling for change following the UN episode, must consider the Oslo culture in its entirety, its 'revolutionary' millionaires, its elites and contractors. A practical alternative to those corrupt must be quickly devised. The Israeli wall is encroaching on Palestinian towns and villages in the West Bank, and a new war might be awaiting besieged Gaza. Time is running out, and our collective shame is nearly complete.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

There are some interesting points beyond the stunning number of applicants - namely the wage and benefit package. I have bolded part of the quote below.

In the latest sign of weakness in Louisville-area employment, about 10,000 people applied over three days for 90 jobs building washing machines at General Electric for about $27,000 per year and hefty benefits.

The jobs dangle medical, eye care, prescription and dental benefit packages, as well as pension, disability, tuition assistance and more, said GE spokeswoman Kim Freeman. And despite the recession, no union workers have been laid off from Appliance Park since the company negotiated lower wages with workers in 2005.

"There are no jobs out there paying these kinds of wages that also offer these kind of benefits," said Jerry Carney, president of IUE-CWA Local 761 at Appliance Park.

Just four years ago, the same jobs paid $19 per hour. But that was before Local 761 approved wage cuts for new workers aimed at preventing the closure of Appliance Park.

To his credit, GE CEO Jeffrey Inmelt, declined to take his $12 million bonus in 2008 and his base salary was $3.3 million (USA Today, 2/18/09). Of course $3.3 million looks pretty good to someone making $13 an hour.

According to the United Nations, more than 100 million people in the world today are homeless. Millions more face a severe housing problem living without adequate sanitation, with irregular or no electricity supply and without adequate security.

Worldwide, more than 2 million housing units per year are needed for the next 50 years to solve the present worldwide housing crisis. With our global population expanding, however, at the end of those 50 years, there would still be a need for another 1 billion houses. (UN-HABITAT: 2005)

Raising awareness and advocating for change are the first steps toward transforming systems that perpetuate the global plague of poverty housing. World Habitat Day serves as an important reminder that everyone must unite to ensure that everyone has a safe, decent place to call home.

The U.N. further states that both developed and developing countries, cities and towns are increasingly feeling the effects of climate change, resource depletion, food insecurity, population growth and economic instability.

Rapid rates of urbanization cause serious negative consequences - overcrowding, poverty, slums with many poorly equipped to meet the service demands of ever growing urban populations.

With over half of the world's population currently living in urban areas the U.N. believes there is no doubt that the "urban agenda" will increasingly become a priority for governments, local authorities and their non-governmental partners everywhere.

U.S. Housing Facts

• About 95 million people, one third of the nation, have housing problems including a high-cost burden, overcrowding, poor quality shelter and homelessness. (National Low Income Housing Coalition: 2004)
• One in three American households spend more than 30 percent of income on housing, and one in seven spends more than 50 percent. (Joint Center for Housing Studies: 2006)
• The number of low-income families that lack safe and affordable housing is related to the number of children that suffer from asthma, viral infections, anemia, stunted growth and other health problems. About 21,000 children have stunted growth attributable to the lack of stable housing; 10,000 children between the ages of 4 and 9 are hospitalized for asthma attacks each year because of cockroach infestation at home; and more than 180 children die each year in house fires attributable to faulty electrical heating and electrical equipment. (Sandel, et al: 1999)

• By the year 2030, an additional 3 billion people, about 40 percent of the world's population, will need access to housing. This translates into a demand for 96,150 new affordable units every day and 4,000 every hour. (UN-HABITAT: 2005)
• One out of every three city dwellers - nearly a billion people - lives in a slum. (Slum indicators include: lack of water, lack of sanitation, overcrowding, non-durable structures and insecure tenure.) (UN-HABITAT: 2006)
• UN-Habitat has reported that because of poor living conditions, women living in slums are more likely to contract HIV/AIDS than their rural counterparts, and children in slums are more likely to die from water-borne and respiratory illness. (UN-HABITAT: 2006)
• Housing formation generates non-housing related expenditures that help drive the economy. (Kissick, et al: 2006)
• Investing in housing expands the local tax base. (Kissick, et al: 2006)

The theme for World Habitat Day 2009 is "Planning our Urban Future"

Celebrations of World Habitat Day in Washington, D.C. will be an excellent opportunity to foster global discussion and raise the profile of shelter and urban issues at the national and international level. Events in the United States and around the world include policy forums, award presentations, luncheons, dinners, house-building and exhibitions.

What can you do for World Habitat Day?

Advocate - Educate - Donate

ADVOCATE Photo by photo, Habitat for Humanity advocates have created this mosaic that has already been sent to the White House. Now it is time to deliver a strong message to Congress: Make housing a priority. Pass legislation that would prioritize adequate and affordable housing. Ask Congress to Make Housing A Priority on World Habitat Day!

EDUCATE your community with Habitat for Humanity's World Habitat Day handbook to learn more about the importance of secure tenure and neighborhood revitalization. Get even more information about the issue of insecure tenure by reading Habitat's Shelter Report: building a secure future through effective land policies.

Brainstorm ways to get more people involved. Learn from the successes of last year's campaign, and come up with brand-new ways to celebrate and publicize the important work of Habitat for Humanity.

Take a virtual tour of the Capotillo informal settlement in the Dominican Republic and put yourself in the shoes of those who live in a broken community of violence, poverty and danger.

Link to Habitat for Humanity's World Habitat Day 2009 resources page on your social media pages, personal web site or blog to spread the word and raise awareness.

DONATE to be a part of making the world a better place and support Habitat's efforts. Donate online today!

According to the article:

1 Bill Gates, $50bn, down $7bn 2 Warren Buffett, $40bn, down $10bn 3 Lawrence Ellison, $27bn, unchanged 4 Christy Walton and family, Wal-Mart, $21.5bn, down $1.7bn 5 Jim Walton, Wal-Mart, $19.6bn, down $3.8bn

So after losses the five richest folks still had a combined wealth of $158.1 billion.

In trying to put such wealth and loss of wealth in perspective, I tried to find a comparison point. I decided to look at the budget of my state of residence - Oregon. The 2009-2011 budget for the state of Oregon is roughly $132 billion - or $66 billion a year. So the state of Oregon could run for about 4.5 YEARS on the losses from those folks. Or looked at somewhat differently, The state of Oregon could run for over 2 years on the wealth of the 5 richest folks alone. All of the schools, the roads, the courts, parks, fisheries, social services and Oregon Health Plan - for 4.5 years on the wealth of FIVE people.

According to Forbes "Fun Billionaire Statistics," the combined net worth of the richest 400 Americans is $1.27 trillion. The per capita of the U.S. in 2008 was $26,964 according to the U.S. Census Bureau Table P-1. Of course that includes those richest 400 people (and their near neighbours).

There is a difference between losing a few billion and what is happening to millions of people in the country. The graphs below appeared in the NY Times

One of the interesting things in the graphs - aside from the fact we have 6 unemployed people for every job opening - is that for the entire period the number of unemployed exceeded the number of jobs.

An interesting read at Forbes is the 9/30/09 article by Keren Blankfeld "How Billionaires Control Our Lives."

But Hijab was not the only one who expressed optimism. Others did, encouraged perhaps, by the report's use of terminology unfamiliar in a conflict where empirical experience has shown that Israeli actions, no matter how outrageously violent, will have no meaningful legal repercussions whatsoever.

Goldstone's report, released on September 15, made some important recommendations, following a most thorough investigation that was carefully compiled by the mission - which was organized by the UN Human Rights Council last April.

One is that the UN Security Council should set up a team of experts to monitor Israel's investigations of the war crimes committed in Gaza. If Israel fails to do so, then the situation should be referred to the Prosecutor in the International Criminal Court (ICC).

This raises many questions, lead amongst them is: did Israel commit war crimes in Gaza, and, second, is Israel capable of conducting an honest investigation into those crimes, considering the state's bloody legacy and lack of any serious legal accountability.

Goldstone answers both questions.

"The mission concluded that actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly in some respects crimes against humanity, were committed by the Israel Defense Force," Goldstone told reporters on September 16. He also said that the Israeli government has carried out no credible investigation.

Despite his recommendations that UN experts follow the progress of the internal investigation by Israel, and the Palestinians (since they too were accused of violating international law by lobbing home-made rockets into Israel, without taking into account the possible harm to civilians) it's puzzling why Goldstone would think that any genuine investigation is possible in the first place.

Goldstone knows, as many of us already do, that the events in Gaza, which resulted in the deaths of 1,387 (other estimates put the number at 1,417, mostly civilians, including over 300 children), the wounding of thousands more, the targeting of an already dilapidating infrastructure (hospitals, police stations, factories, schools, and even chicken farms) of a deprived and besieged society was very much a political decision made at the highest levels by the likes of Olmert, Livni, Barak and other serial criminals who have tormented Palestinians for too long.

Palestinians were also chastised for rockets fired from besieged Gaza. Of course, Goldstone was not expected to justify or applaud the homemade rockets, or even underline their lack of effectiveness, as four Israelis were killed by rocket fire, during the period of the war. Out of the nine Israeli soldiers killed in the fighting, four were killed in friendly fire.

While both Hamas and the PA fully cooperated with Goldstone and his colleagues, Israel fully rejected the mission, refusing entry into Israel or Gaza, forcing the use of alternative routes into the besieged strip, through Egypt.

Israeli officials claim that the report was pre-written, rendering it biased from the start. They used the same predictable pattern of smears, redundant diatribes and predictable language.

Israel's Foreign Ministry spokesman said the report created unjust "equivalence of a democratic state with a terror organization," in reference to Hamas.

Following the good old democracy reference, racism kicks in. "We have nothing to be ashamed of, and don't need lessons in morality from a committee established by Syria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Somalia," Levy said. Apparently dark-skinned people of the South are both incapable of being democratic or moral. Only Israel and her allies are capable of those qualities.

"The Goldstone report has set a new standard for equating the behavior of democratic nations and terrorists," wrote Richard Sideman, President of the New York-based American Jewish Committee in a letter published in the New York Times on September 18.

The same disingenuous sentiment utilized by Levy and Sideman (how curious that both seemed to be using the same script) echoed by many Israeli officials and their lobbyists abroad, who went into crisis management mode following the release of the report.

But why should they care?

Could it be because Goldstone called on the 192-member General Assembly to establish an escrow fund so that Israel can compensate Palestinians in Gaza? Israel would never spend its hard-earned US tax payers money on such frivolous matters.

Could it be because the Human Rights Council is convening on September 29 in Geneva to discuss the report, and could call for its transfer to the Security Council, and even the ICC?

Could it be because the report's findings might empower an already growing boycott movement world-wide?

Could it be because it's much harder to doubt the credibility of Goldstone, to smear him as anti-Semite or a self-hating Jew?

Could it be because all these factors are escalating Israeli fears that the "era of impunity" is indeed over?

"Perhaps next time we set out to wage another vain and miserable war, we will take into account not only the number of fatalities we are likely to sustain, but also the heavy political damage such wars cause," wrote Israeli columnist Gideon Levy.

One would have to wait for the next miserable war, the next massacre to find out whether Israel has learned its lesson. Until then, thousands of starved, desperate yet resilient Palestinians in Gaza continue to live in their makeshift tents, atop the rubble, which was once called home, awaiting food, cement and international justice.

Women are less likely than men to qualify for their employer's insurance program, because they are more likely to work part-time and to have lower-wage jobs. Instead, since they are more likely to depend on their spouse's policy than men, they are more susceptible to losing insurance because of divorce or widowhood.

In 38 states, it is legal to discriminate on the basis of gender when selling insurance. Policies sold to women or their employers can cost 40 percent more than insurance for men -- even when maternity benefits are excluded. Currently permissible practices, such as denying coverage for pre-existing conditions or charging more for those with a history of health problems, disproportionately affect women, who are more likely to seek help from a doctor and to need ongoing care. One of the most egregious current practices allows insurance companies in eight states and the District of Columbia to deem domestic violence a ``pre-existing condition'' and deny coverage to its victims.

For women, healthcare reform must embrace principles and practices that will end gender discrimination and provide affordable quality healthcare for all, including access to the full range of reproductive health options. Tinkering around the edges and adding stopgaps won't be enough. Relying on the insurance industry alone to accomplish what it has been unable or unwilling to do for the last 50 years will only prolong an untenable situation.

New solutions must involve innovation and imagination, including creation of a public health insurance plan option to lower costs and ensure universal affordable coverage. Such an innovation has the support of three-quarters of Americans according to a recent SurveyUSA report -- a result that hasn't changed since 2003. A new poll published in the New England Journal of Medicine finds that 73 percent of all doctors favor a public option. Yet the public option is repeatedly dismissed out of hand in the back rooms on Capitol Hill, even by supposed moderates.

It's up to us to ensure that our elected representatives understand that half-measures won't do. The dire consequences of our patchwork healthcare system are both morally and fiscally indefensible. The 2006 estimate of ``excess deaths'' attributed to being uninsured was between 22,000 and 27,000 among all adults age 25-64. Our system's failures earned us a ranking of 35th among countries with a national healthcare system, while we pay the most for poorer results.

Discrimination against women must be rooted out, and we must insist on a public option. Only then will all of us enjoy a standard of health care that Congress itself takes for granted."

*******

I would add to those points Ms. Ratzan made that health care concerns for women are not only questions of accessibility and cost, but also the quality of care provided once inside the examining room and/or hospital door.

So engrained is the prejudicial, and therefore dangerous Freudian idea that women are "hysterical" that all of us could list dozens of instances in which -- regardless of ethnic or educational background -- the health issues of women were dismissed as psychosomatic. Conditions which later proved to be, among other things, herniated discs, a heart attack and fatal ovarian, bladder and kidney cancers.

But the gender bias does not stop there. Treatments, as well as observations made during them, can reflect engrained prejudices and therefore become abusive. Many of these abuses are definitely gender-specific in that they are age and appearance related. The elderly neighbor I cited with herniated discs -- the who had been telling her neighbors and friends that she was in so much pain she had not been able to sit or stand or lie down comfortably for days -- was actually accused by the male resident on duty in the ER as being nothing more than "an addict seeking painkillers." She was sent home without a proper diagnosis and without any pain relief; she alleged, later, that the resident had " alerted the authorities" (I don't know what authorities) that her name should be added to a list (I don't know what list) of potential drug abusers. When taken to task for his behavior by my neighbor's daughter, his initial response was: "Well, sorry. But we all know that women of that generation are prone to be pill poppers."

At the opposite end of the age spectrum, another neighbor -- a young, attractive woman -- learned, much later, that she had suffered nerve damage during uterine surgery for fibroids -- damage that was so severe that it created permanent red/ purple patches on her inner thighs. Nonetheless, she was told by her surgeon in a follow-up exam that "it must be an outbreak of Herpes." Despite the fact that the young woman swore she did not have, nor had she ever had Herpes and invited the surgeon to check with her Ob/Gyn, the surgeon insisted he was correct. So one is left to surmise that either the surgeon was attempting to cover his tracks, in the literal sense, or he made snap judgments based on her age and appearance.

Gender bias is an important point that has not been part of the healthcare reform discussion. For reform to be meaningful to women, it must include reforms in attitude as well as in accessibility and cost.

We keep hearing that we are recovering, but job losses continue, people losing their homes continues to rise, as does the number of people who are now homeless. So who exactly is recovering? Or what part of the economic sector is recovering? The financial sector (which has been the beneficiary of over $14 trillion between TARP and the Federal Reserve) seems to be doing well.- or at least the top management is. According to Andersen and Pizzigati, ten of the top 20 beneficiaries of the bailout bonanza have reported on bonuses. Adding up the bonuses of the top five managers from each of these firms comes to the tidy sum of $90 million in stock options alone.

Access to healthcare has been in the news a lot lately. Anyone who pays for health insurance is all too well aware premiums continue to rise as do co-pays and deductibles. Most people would acknowledge that we have both an insurance and healthcare access crisis on our hands. So one might think that the industry would be somewhat sensitive to the issue and try to control costs. And they are - by driving them upwards. In 2008, the CEOs of two major insurance corporations (Cigna and UNF) made a combined salary of $20.4 million. Insurance corporations had record profits for 2006, and again for 2007 - and as the economy crashed - remained strong for 2008. In fact, between 2000 and 2007 the top ten insurers saw profits rise by 428%.

Job losses and cutbacks continue to rise. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics August 2009 report, the numbers are grim:

Jobs lost in August: 216,000
Total unemployed: 14.9 million
No. working part-time because hours cut: 9.1 million
Marginally attached to labour force: 2.3 million (up 630,000 from August 2008)
Current unemployment rate: 9.7%
Total unemployment and marginal employment rate: 16.8% (Series LNS13327709 seasonally adjusted).

However, given that grim news, productivity is up. In fact, "Productivity Makes Biggest Leap Since 2003." Productivity grew at an annual rate of 6.6%. So those who are left in the labor force are not only taking up the slack, but actually producing 6.6% more than when their co-workers were with them. Why would any employer want to hire people back when they can get this kind of fear driven productivity out of their remaining employees?

Of course, productivity may be somewhat skewed because workers are getting screwed. A new study was released this week - "Broken Laws, Unprotected Workers - Violations of Employment and Labor Laws in America's Cities". The study looked at labor law violations in three cities (Chicago, LA, and New York), and interviewed 4,387 low wage workers. The commonness of violations was the big surprise of the study. It was common for workers to not get paid, not get paid over time, and be dissuaded from filing for worker's compensation. In fact, only 8% of workers eligible to file for worker's compensation did so. In a summation of the study written up in The Nation , there was this startling information (emphases mine):

... we and our colleagues found severe and widespread violations of employment and labor laws. One in four workers were paid below the minimum wage in a given work week. Fully 76 percent of those who worked overtime were not paid the required time and a half. More than two-thirds did not get the meal breaks they were entitled to. And of those who came in early or stayed late, 70 percent did not get any pay at all for the work they performed outside their regular shift.

As a result, the average worker in our survey lost $51 per week, or more than $2,600 per year for a full-time worker. We estimate that 1.1 million workers across the three cities are robbed of $56.4 million every week because of employment and labour law violations.

$56.4 million a week for workers in three cities! What might the total be across the nation? In the trillions a week? What if we expanded this study beyond the low wage workforce? What if we expanded it to include these super-productive workers who set a productivity records with a 16.7% unemployment rate? We know where that money is going. It is on an express packet to the top of the earnings spectrum. It is in the pockets of the financiers, and it is part of the monopoly money that fueled the collapse - and keeps any real recovery from happening. Further, the architects of the collapse are building new empires - at our expense.

However, those at the top want more than our hard work and willingness to be abused and bilked. Apparently, an economic recovery requires lots of individuals to go into debt. Not surprisingly, people have cut back on their spending. Job insecurity (for those with jobs) is high. For those lucky enough to get unemployment, budgets are tight. In a short article by Kathryn Harris discussing the personal debt situation in the UK she notes:"If everyone pays off their debts and cuts back on spending at the same time it could lead the UK economy into an even darker downturn than the one we are currently in." In other words, the consumer economy is based on debt, and we have structured (as have the Brits) an economy dependent on consumption.

However, unlike the drop in interest rates in the UK, US credit companies and banks have raised (or are raising) the interest rate on personal credit. I know that it ticks me off when a corporation that has received a ton of TARP funds tells me that "economic conditions require we raise interest rates and fees." I read that as "We got $150 million in TARP and 0% interest from the Federal Reserve, and so we need to raise your rate by 8% and charge you an annual fee of $35 to make an increased profit."

So folks are ticked off. There is public pressure to control these out of control profiteers, and THAT is called "class warfare?" However, the everyday abuse, exploitation, and gouging of the people, is what? Just the way things work? No, I think it is well past time to talk about the real class warfare that is waged by those at the top on the rest of the population.

Resources of Note
9/03/09 Conaway, NPR. New Job-Loss Claims Fall, Rise At Same Time. The Big Number Comes Tomorrow.

The double-edged sword of falling debt. Kathryn Hopkins. Guardian. 9/02/09.

Productivity Makes Biggest Leap Since 2003. (Yes, You're Working Harder.). Laura Conaway. NPR. 9/02/09.

There's a Bubble That Still Threatens the Entire American Economy ... and Few Are Talking About It. Sarah Anderson and Sam Pizzigati, AlterNet, 9/02/09.

Is Health Care the Next 'Bonusgate'?. Jennifer Liberto. CNN. 9/02/09.

So You Just Squandered Billions . . . Take Another Whack at It. Steven Pearlstein. Wa. Post. 9/02/09.

Low-Wage Workers Are Often Cheated, Study Says. Steve Greenhouse. NY Times. 9/01/09.

Broken Laws, Unprotected Workers - Violations of Employment and Labor Laws in America's Cities. 9/03/2009.

Working Without Laws. Bernhardt & Theodore, Nation, 9/04/2009.

A senior official spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity on August 27. "It was more important that the scope of a settlement freeze was acceptable to the Israelis and the Palestinians than to the United States," Reuters reported, citing the senior official. This means that peace negotiations can resume while Israeli bulldozers are carving up Palestinian land, demolishing homes and cutting down trees.

It also means that the Israeli rejection of the only US demand, which has thus far defined President Barack Obama's relations to the Middle East conflict, has prevailed over the supposed American persistence. In other words, the US has officially succumbed to Israeli and pro-Israeli pressures, in Tel Aviv and Washington.

Those not familiar with the connotation of certain terminology in this conflict may not appreciate what it truly means that the US will no longer demand an Israeli halt of the 'natural growth' of its settlements, especially in the occupied Jerusalem area where tens of thousands of Palestinians are vulnerable to Israeli ethnic cleansing. Families like the Hanoun and Ghawi family have been evicted from their homes and thrown out on the street before sunrise. "The police came for them at dawn on a Sunday, heavily armed, wearing helmets and riot shields as they broke down the metal doors of the houses and dragged the two Palestinian families out onto the streets," reported the Guardian on August 24.

The heart-wrenching episodes of innocent people being thrown into the street for no fault of their own, only for the need to make room for more Jewish inhabitants took place before TV cameras and barely required more than a few words of bashful disapproval. That was in fact a political message, sent by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the US administration and anyone else who dares to question US settlement policy. It took place when Obama's call for settlement freeze was at its pinnacle. Now, just imagine how Israel will behave, now that the US's lonely demand is officially retracted. The rightwing Israeli government will likely expedite its settlement program to preclude any future demands for freeze. Many more Hanouns and Ghawis, and their children, will find themselves on the pavement for simply not being Jews, even if they are the rightful owners of the land.

The Israeli logic, however, is uncompromisingly clear. Two weeks before the evictions took place, Netanyahu addressed his cabinet, saying that Jerusalem (including occupied East Jerusalem) is "the capital of the Jewish people and of the state of Israel" and that "our sovereignty over it cannot be challenged." He continued, "We cannot accept the idea that Jews will not have the right to live and purchase in all parts of Jerusalem."

Aside from her unusually 'harsh' statement that the evictions were "deeply regrettable", US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton had no answer to the Jerusalemite families pleading for their stolen homes. And now this, more American flexibility.

While Palestinians, and those who support and sympathize with their rightful struggle, are accustomed to Israel's belligerent violations of international and humanitarian law, and direct and indirect US support of Israeli behavior, many had the 'audacity' to hope that things might change under the new US presidency. Obama's speech in Cairo, despite its many flaws, was seen as a promising sign that the US will play a more conducive role in finding a just solution to the conflict and the ongoing tragedy of the Palestinians. It was thought that Obama was planning to start simple, by merely demanding a freeze of the settlement expansion. It's anything but demanding full rights for Palestinians, or even allowing cement, food and medicine to starving Gaza, but it's a start, nonetheless.

And as Palestinians, Israelis, the entire region and world media awaited the outcome of the Obama-Netanyahu battle of wills, Israel carried out all sorts of harms, that also went unnoticed.

Externally, Israel capitalized on the supposed US pressure, to place counter pressure on the US to impose dilapidating sanctions on Iran, provide a timeline for the end of diplomacy aimed at diffusing the hyped tension over Iran's nuclear program, and more. That too was the message that Netanyahu carried with him to the meeting with US Middle East envoy George Mitchell in London, last week.

Still, Israel expected more, demanding - with the blessing of the US - Arab normalization with Israel, in reciprocation for the never actualized willingness to temporarily halt the expansion of settlements. Mitchell was too of the opinion that "Arab states (should) offer some gestures toward normalization of ties with Israel," according to Reuters.

Internally, things took a dramatic turn for the worse. It started with a bill in the Israeli Knesset (parliament) that would jail Arabs who would commemorate the Palestinian Nakba or Catastrophe of 1948, which saw the expulsion of nearly 800,000 Palestinians from their land. Then, there was the new law that enforces the replacement of Arabic lettering on road signs referring to various locations with their Hebrew equivalent, even if these locations have been known by their Arabic names for millennia. These are neither the first nor the last of such fascist roles aimed at denying any trace of a Palestinian (Muslim or Christian) identity to co-exist along with the exclusively 'Jewish character' of Israel.

But that, and much more, was taking place as Palestinians and hopeful others held their breath, waiting for Obama to deliver, until the most recent expression of American flexibility. Now, Palestinians are left with one of two options: to continue to subscribe to the illusion that the US is capable, or even willing to rein in Israel's transgression and exact justice and human rights on their behalf, or to cleanse their midst of self-seeking and corrupt leaders, unify their ranks and continue their struggle for an uncompromisingly free and independent Palestine.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

But nothing could be further from the truth. Since the conclusion of Israel's war last year, the Palestinian Ministry of Health declared that 344 Gaza patients have reportedly been added to the swelling number of casualties.

Khaled Abed Rabbu, once a young father of four is a precise living example, such an eloquent paradigm of what no human being ought to endure in this world laden with international human rights organizations, mediators, advocates and diplomats.

His house was completely destroyed, as were two of his little girls. He buried 7 year old Soad and Amal, just two, soon after burying any hope that Samar his 4 year old daughter's future would be any less bleak.

According to an IslamOnline report, Khaled's wife, Kawthar lined up the children in front of their house in the Jabaliya refugee camp, holding a white flag. But their internationally recognized gesture was disregarded by Israeli forces and the shelling of their home and family commenced. These miserable events unfolded at Christmastime last year, when the Rabbu family was reduced by nearly half.

But since then, they, and a disgracefully large number of other such families, have somehow slipped our minds. Completely surrounded still, and prevented from ever advancing back to point zero, the Israeli siege on Gaza is what one must certainly brand the quintessence of barbarism.

Like in December of 2008, the Israeli blockade means that almost nothing enters or exits Gaza; injured in need of treatment are not allowed exit nor entrance, as is the case with medical supplies, medicine, food and almost anything in-between.

With entire neighborhoods pulverized in the attack, concrete is desperately needed to rebuild the many homes, mosques, hospitals and other structures that were destroyed. That too, is forbidden. And so Khaled, like so many others, has little hope that his home, which has now lain in shambles for the better part of a year, will be restored any time soon.

From September 14 to October 2, 2009, the Human Rights Council will conduct a session where the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights will present its report based on the fact finding mission, headed by Justice Richard Goldstone, conducted after the Israeli attacks.

Nearly eight months after the bloodletting of Operation Cast Lead, a 34 page report by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights was released on August 13, pressing for a lifting of the Gaza blockade. The new report, which will be presented along with Goldstone's report in September, lays out the many incomprehensible details of how the Israelis battered the Strip, one of the most impoverished and the most densely populated piece of Planet Earth. The details were laid out, chastising Israel for snubbing the most basic norms of human decency:

"Under the Universal Declaration of Human rights, everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country...and everyone has the right to seek asylum. Such calls were ignored, and the borders of the Gaza Strip remained closed throughout the conflict."

"The right to health of children, set out in article 24 of CRC, is of particular concern in Gaza. United Nations agencies, Ministry of Health officials and health NGOs report that rising poverty, unemployment and food insecurity, compounded by the conflict, have increased the threat of child malnutrition. In January, UNICEF said that 10.3 per cent of Gazan children under five were stunted."

The report continued on, expressing concern that the only export allowed out of Gaza in nearly two years was 13 large truckloads of cut flowers, fully recognizing that the siege was in direct response to the Gazan people exercising their right to elect the Hamas government.

From the denial of food to medical supplies to housing to clean water to education to any basic sense of what is called the "highest attainable standard of physical and mental health" according to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Israel managed, as the report concluded, to deny pretty much every last one.

One has to wonder, and even after so many years of witnessing such amazing ingenuity when it comes to tormenting the Palestinians, does the Israeli government, and further, does the Israeli public feel any sense of shame, remorse or even the slightest embarrassment when the most basic norms of human behavior must be laid out in so elementary a fashion, reminding, and then re-reminding them that it is a fundamental human right to have access to something as basic as food and clean water?

This is a thought that Khaled must ponder from time to time. It is sure that life has been no cake-walk for Khaled, but perhaps this last year has been the most trying of all. Two little ones lost, homeless, and his third of four children struggling to walk in a Belgium hospital.

Sana, his four year old, was supposedly one of the lucky ones on that day, for she survived, and was one of very few that escaped to safety through Egypt's sealed border. But she has two bullets lodged in her tiny spine, so deeply embedded that Belgian surgeons cannot remove them. So now she is paralyzed, her body propped up and supported by a vibrant pink and purple back brace, like a fairy's suit of armor. Chances of ever walking again are grim. Just two or three short years after graduating from a crawl, and now she will most likely be in a wheelchair for the rest of her life, even though her doctors and her mother say that she is desperate to walk again.

And so it seems to be the sad case that this exhaustive 34 page report failed to mention, or perhaps it may be until this point that a clause has never been drafted, declaring the universal right for every little girl and boy to walk.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

This is hardly a cliché. People living under oppressive rules take every opportunity to express defiance, even through such symbolic ways.

Born and raised in Nuseirat Refugee Camp in the Gaza Strip, I remember my first kite. It, like most kites, carried the colors of the flag. The kite was the work of my older brother, now a successful medic in the West Bank. He obliged before my incessant cries for a kite despite my father's objections. But why should a father object to something so seemingly harmless? Simple.

A notorious Israeli military camp and detention center was stationed on the outskirts of our refugee camp, between Nuseirat and Buraij. The military camp served multiple purposes. It was to immediately dispatch troops into our refugee camp at the first sign of protest. Further, the men stationed there guarded a nearby Jewish settlement. Finally, it also served as a temporarily prison where Palestinian activists suffered torture before being hauled off to Gaza's central prison, or worse, Al-Nakab.

The military camp however, hardly enjoyed a moment of peace. Students and other refugees from adjacent refugee camps would descend into the Israeli military grounds, almost daily with marches; carrying flags, throwing stones and demanding that the soldiers' depart. Of course, the soldiers didn't oblige, and my refugee camp paid a heavy price in blood with every confrontation.

In the summer, in Gaza's scorching heat and humidity, we had two escapes, swimming in the sea and flying kites. The first option was interminably blocked by the Israeli military under various guises. During the Intifada of 1987-93, the sea fell under Israeli siege. My house was very short walk from the beach, yet somehow, we spent over seven years without visiting it once. Not once. And so kite running became the most favored pastime.

Gaza's children don't buy ready-made-kites. There was no such thing. They construct them by hand and with unparalleled craftsmanship. To be entirely honest, I was terrible at making kites, as I am at anything that requires manual skills. The kite maker in the family was my older brother Anwar. His skill was both impressive and troubling. The source of trouble lied in the fact that children made kites carrying the colors of the flags and other symbols of resistance at the time, such as the initials: P.L.O. They often flew them to be visible from the Israeli military camp, and if the wind was right, right on top of it. The cleverest amongst the kite runners were those who managed to drop the kite, in an unprecedented moment of sacrifice, to fall right into the military camp.

During the Uprising's summers, there would be dozens of kites, all red, black, green and white wavering atop the Israeli military camp and temporary detention center. The soldiers would often fly into a rage, storm the camp, seeking their target: children with kites. We could determine the location of the raid when all the kites from a particular location would fall from the sky in unison.

One afternoon, I sat upon the staircase of our home in the camp, a white cinderblock home, adorned with patriotic graffiti. It was safe to fly my kite as my father was in Israel, joining tens of thousands of Palestinians who negotiated a living wage under the harshest of circumstances. Out of nowhere, Israeli jeeps leapt into the open area, separating my house from the Martyrs Graveyard. Children ran in panic. Teargas grenades were lobbed in frenzy. Kites fell all around like wounded eagles. I too ran, in circles, without letting go of my kite.

It was not bravery. Far from it. I was frightened beyond comprehension. But it took me months to finally have a kite, and when I finally had one, and an amazingly beautiful one at that, I was not ready to let go. A jeep sped towards me, as my hand trembled. "You, jackass," a soldier yield in a loudspeaker. "Let go of the kite." And so I did. When I was asked why I was crying, many hours later, I told my brothers that my eyes were still irritated from the tear gas. But that was a lie.

It was because of this bittersweet memory, perhaps, that the news reports of Gaza's children aiming for the world record on the number of kites flown stimulatingly in the same place, captured my attention. John Ging, the director of operations for the UN Relief and Works Agency assured reporters that the 5,000 children who gathered by the beach in northern Gaza, on July 30, have indeed broken the record. The previous record was set in Germany in 2008, and if the new feat is verified by Guinness, Gaza's kids will have taken the lead with "flying colors".

UN officials in Gaza, media reporters and others saw the kite flying event as an expression of innocence in a time when Gaza lives its harshest periods yet: suffocating siege, massacres, and collective humiliation. But the message was, of course, neither about kites, nor about world records. It was about the children of Gaza, in fact, Gaza itself, that tiny, subjugated, yet ever resilient, defiant, proud and somehow still hopeful place.

As for me, I never knew of the whereabouts of my old kite when I so reluctantly let it go. I was comforted by the thought that it might have fallen into the detention center, but I was never sure. It was my first kite ever, and I never asked for another one despite my older brother's repeated offers.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT President Barack Obama has done some serious back-pedalling on the issue of health care reform during his journey to the White House. It's a well-worn path trod by, among others, Hillary Clinton during the 1990s and by Ronald Reagan during the 1980s.

The wind at their backs comes from the medical, pharmaceutical, hospital and insurance industries which together have spent more than US$4.2 billion on lobbying during the last 10 years. A recent report in the Washington Post [1] says that, in the current battle against a government insurance plan, the health industry is spending $1.4 million a day lobbying key figures in the capital.

The fight over universal health care in the United States is being fought on three broad fronts reflecting three different positions: those for, those against, and those who are calling for a "private-public option" that would provide American consumers with "choice." Canadians are probably most familiar with the divide between those on the first front who support a public, universal, national health insurance (single payer) scheme, and those on the second who are against any public involvement in the health sector.

Everybody in, nobody out

Advocates [2] of a public single payer include Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers, the latter of whom brought a bill [3] before the House of Representatives that would provide U.S. residents access to "all medically necessary care, such as primary care and prevention, prescription drugs, emergency care, and mental health services."

The Conyers bill, taking a page out of Canada's health care legislation, would prohibit private insurers from selling coverage for services already included in the public insurance plan. The bill, which now has 93 co-sponsors [4] (20 per cent of House members), goes significantly further than Canadian legislation in prohibiting private, for-profit facilities from participating in a national, expanded and improved Medicare scheme. The plan would be financed with existing health care funds, as well as increased taxes on the top 5 per cent of income earners, a modest tax on stock and bond transactions and payroll and self-employment taxes.

In another departure from Canada, the Conyers bill would stream Native Americans in to the national health program. Support for the single payer option outlined in the bill is coming from the United Steelworkers [5], U.S. Physicians for a National Health Plan [6], the California Nurses Association [7] and, according to polls [8] conducted between October 2003 and February 2009, between 59 per cent and 75 per cent of the American public.

Public support for single payer was also strong when Hillary Clinton attempted to introduce modest reforms to the U.S. health system. What advocates learned then is being applied now. During the past several years, advocates have raised awareness about the benefits of a national, public health program -- in spite of the heavy-handed propaganda from the health industry. Between December 15 and 31, 2008, for example, more than 4200 "house parties" were held across the United States largely at the encouragement of Obama's legion of organizers. Ironically, while Obama has jumped off the single payer bandwagon, he has inspired a groundswell of support for "everybody in/nobody out" that is not only determined but knowledgeable as well.

The second front
The people campaigning for the U.S. status quo -- private, high-priced, employer-controlled health insurance -- include some notable Canadians, including Brian Day [9] and David Gratzer [10], whose views we have seen reflected within the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) in recent years.

Among the significant voices opposing [11] single payer are the American Association of Retired Persons, the Business Roundtable, The Lewin Group, Families USA, PhRMA and the American Medical Association [12], which argues that services should be "provided through private markets, as they are currently." The AMA's Principles for Health System Reform [13] include a "robust private insurance market" and "sustainable public programs for vulnerable populations."

That position, an echo of the one taken by the CMA nearly half a century ago, was rejected by the 1964 Royal Commission on Health Care [14]as being too costly and too short of the goal post. But the corporate media is also doing what it can to support the status quo, sweeping any discussion of single payer under the rug (a repeat performance of 1993 efforts at health care reform). A March 2009 study by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) [15] found a virtual blackout in the mainstream media of any reporting about the single payer option, despite support among a large majority of Americans.

The take-forever option
The third front -- those in favour of incremental progress -- appears to be a tactical alliance between the health and insurance industries, on the one hand, and those with financial links to the health and insurance industries on the other. Senator Max Baucus, chair of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, is described as the Senate's "point man" on health care reform and a leading opponent of a universal public program.

In June, the Standard [16], a leading newspaper in Baucus' home state of Montana, reported that Baucus had received "$1,500 a day, every day, from January 2003 through 2008″ from the health and insurance industries, more money than any other elected member. During the last two elections Baucus has also attracted almost $230,000 from the pharmaceutical industry, another strong opponent of a single payer system.

On June 2, Baucus announced that "everything is on the table" -- everything, that is, except for single payer. "It cannot pass," he told reporters, and could endanger any meaningful reform. During Senate Committee hearings on health care reform last month, single payer supporters showed up at a Finance Committee hearing to protest against their exclusion from hearings. They were arrested. But after hearing from angry, pro-single payer voters back home, Baucus softened his position -- he has drifted to the incremental middle.

This is probably not surprising since one of the senator's key paymasters, the insurance industry, has now decided that a pubic-private partnership might save its place in the health care pocketbook. On May 5, Karen Ignagni, head of America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), announced that the lobby group had issued "a transparent call for a full-scale renovation and a complete overhaul of the existing regulatory mechanism" that governs the industry.

AHIP, representing some 1300 health insurers, has promised -- not for the first time -- to end its long-standing practice of claim denials, discrimination and premium-gouging. Industry observers are not holding their breath, but the "middle ground" is becoming crowded with health industry representatives, politicians on their payroll and the White House. Ironically, government funding to cover the 47 million uninsured, if channeled through subsidies to the private insurance industry, could significantly increase its revenues. What the industry does not want, however, is further government regulation. The goal of industry advocates of this so called 'middle way' is new public money without strings. Depending on the content of future legislation, it could be a bonanza for industry investors.

Sidelined in the entire debate is the AFL-CIO, which has remained mum on the single payer option supported by some of its affiliates. The labour movement's key speaker on national issues, the AFL-CIO seems to have adopted the view that anything is better than nothing. Its website [17] asks "What's Wrong with America's Health Care?" -- but clearly "everybody in/nobody out" is not one of the solutions to the myriad of problems listed.

The Federation is a member of the Health Care For America Now [18] coalition that supports a private insurance option. At a June 25 demonstration [19] in front of the US Congress, an unidentified AFL-CIO representative argued that single payer was "a kind of thing that throws everybody off the track," articulating fears that even modest reforms like affordable premiums and coverage for the uninsured might be sacrificed to an unobtainable goal. "We feel that health care reform is the way to go," she said, "because something has to be done NOW!"

So what does this have to do with us who live above the 49th parallel? The answer, for better or worse is "plenty."

The Canadian and U.S. insurance markets are almost entirely integrated, thanks in part to the North American Free Trade Agreement. A quick look at the list of members of the Canadian Life & Health Insurance Association (CLHIA) shows some important overlaps with AHIP in the United States, including Manulife (through its subsidiary, John Hancock Financial Services), Aetna, Cigna (which purchased Great-West's US subsidiary last year for US$2B), MetLife, New York Life Insurance, Prudential, State Farm, Transamerica and Zurich.

The CLHIA's June 2009 report contains a number of recommendations to strengthen the industry's role in the provision of insurance, including tax and financial incentives to enable Canadians to purchase of private insurance. The industry has already secured significant subsidies for private insurance coverage amounting to $5 billion in 2004, according to health economist, Robert Evans. The industry's submission to the post-Chaoulli consultation in Quebec cautioned the province, "It is not enough to lift the prohibition on private insurance in the sectors financed by public plans in order for private complementary insurance products to spring into existence. Privates insurance must also be allowed to provide added value." An example of "added value" would be queue-jumping.

But more to the point, Canadian governments are staging an assault on health care at the urging and with the support of insurers, employers, private providers, the media and right wing ideologues. Since 1995, for example, when Alberta became the first province to remove outpatient physiotherapy from the pubic insurance plan, a whole section of the health sector -- outpatient rehab services -- was privatized and delisted, reducing patient access but boosting insurance industry profits.

That was a short 10 years, and the privatization "train" is still going full steam ahead. But, like the ever-growing number of uninsured Americans, the number of people with private benefits in Canada is also falling and, of those who are covered, high deductibles, co-pays and claim denials are the order of the day.

Whatever happens in the U.S. it will have an impact on our ability to not only protect medicare in Canada, but to expand it as well -- an issue that is becoming more and more urgent.

We share a continent with Americans, and soon, if economic integration continues, we may share a health care system with them as well. It is in our interest to see Americans get what they have needed for so long: a national health system that provides universal coverage based on need, not on ability to pay.

Colleen Fuller is a health care activist with the B.C. and Canadian health coalitions. She is the author of Caring for Profit: How Corporations Are Taking Over Canada's Health Care System (Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives/New Star Books, 1998) and, with Diana Gibson, The Bottom Line: The Truth Behind Private Health Insurance in Canada (NuWest Press/Parkland Institute, 2006).

Source URL (retrieved on Jul 15 2009 - 7:40pm): http://www.rabble.ca/news/2009/07/whats-stake-us-health-care-debate [2]

Links:

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/05/AR2009070502770.html?wprss=rss_print&sid=ST2009http://www.http://www.washingtonpost.com:80/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/registration/register

[2] http://www.singlepayeraction.org/blog/?p=489

[3] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR00676:@@@D&summ2=m&

[4] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR00676:@@@P

[5] http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3961

[6] http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php

[7] http://www.calnurses.org/

[8] http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html

[9] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBzie4kq6MA

[10] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DII7v8yeRjs

[11] http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/07/health-cheat-sheet-moneyinpoli.html

[12] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/11health.html?_r=1

[13] http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/advocacy/current-topics-advocacy/health-system-reform/ama-hsr-principles.shtml

[14] http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/com/fed/hall-eng.php

[15] http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3733

[16] http://www.mtstandard.com/articles/2009/06/14/state/hjjajdifjijigd.txt

[17] http://www.aflcio.org/issues/healthcare/whatswrong/

[18] http://healthcareforamericanow.org/site/content/statement_of_common_purpose

[19] http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3937

[20] http://www.rabble.ca/podcasts/shows/i-read-news-today-oh-boy/2009/06/will-get-fooled-again-iran-public-health-care-and-fa

[21] http://www.rabble.ca/babble/national-news/public-health-care-under-attack-bc

[22] http://www.rabble.ca/user

[23] http://www.rabble.ca/user/register

Let me say that the basic philosophy of the discussions is rooted in the fact that we are generally not talking about healthcare, but INSURANCE.

The "government option" has been morphing in front of our eyes. It has moved from being a mechanism for reintroducing competition in the insurance pricing market, to being a program to cover the currently (probably 50 million people) uninsured, while forcing those with existing healthcare insurance through private or government employment to stay with their existing plans. As framed in a Kaiser Health News article:

Jonathan Oberlander, an associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said, "The rhetoric is that Americans will gain new alternatives, but the reality is that they are putting up firewalls that are going to restrict the access of people with employer-sponsored insurance to the exchange."

Indeed, the "alternative" being offered is primarily for those already uninsured to get insurance. It is not an alternative for the majority of the insured to change to the government plan. Therefore, it poses little "competitive" challenge to private health insurance.

Senator Ron Wyden (OR) has been pushing his plan which while essentially taxing insurance benefits, is aimed at providing health insurance to everyone in the country. In other words, an "option" which people currently insured could select, and which would challenge the stranglehold of private insurance corporations. However, Obama considers the plan "too radical". In Obama's opinion, it is too radical in terms of changes to the existing system, and too radical in term of providing universal coverage. That opinion speaks volumes about where President Obama plans for healthcare are likely to go - virtually nowhere.

Discussion of the "serious" plans bring up issues such as:

- focused on covering only a portion of the currently uninsured;
- requiring business coverage of employees in PRIVATE plans;
- not allowing people with employer or government-based plans to change to the government plan;
- taxation to pay for the government plan;
- requiring people to have insurance.

The hand of corporate insurance is clearly being shown in the plans. What will likely benefit them the most is an isolated government plan that covers part of those without access while requiring that everyone be insured (enacting penalties on individuals who do not purchase insurance). The first poses little price competition to private insurance, and the second guarantees a forced market for PRIVATE health insurance companies.

MCJoan has a nice article about the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPA) which has stayed firm on requirements for a "robust" public option which they summarised in a letter from the CPA to Senator Nancy Pelosi. In summary form, their requirements include a plan not conditioned on private industry, that is available to all and preserves choice of provider. Further, it needs to be affordable, and include access to populations often left without adequate coverage, and should maintain transparency and bargaining power. there should be one government plan that covers all, not a number of different plans that cover only targeted groups. They summarise their requirements as:

In conclusion, the public plan, like all other qualified plans, must redress historical disparities in underrepresented communities. It must provide a standard package of comprehensive benefits including dental, vision, mental health and prescription drug coverage with no pre-existing condition exclusions. It must limit cost-sharing so that there are no barriers to care, and incorporate up-to-date best practice models to improve quality and lower costs. All plans, including the public plan, must include coverage for evidence-based preventive health services at minimal or no co-pay. All plans, including the public plan, should be at least as transparent as traditional Medicare.

MCJoan also provides a list of members of Congress who will not vote for a plan that does not meet the "robustness" criteria, and those who are leaning that way. It would be a good idea to encourage your representatives to support the CPA plan.

I am sure that most of you are on the mailing lists of many groups encouraging you to contact your legislators. We all know that the pressure is on and the timeline is short. Certainly the industry wants this to go through quickly and with as little review as possible. However, healthcare is a huge issue and it is critical that the "first swing" at this be fundamentally strong. If not, it will erode support for necessary change. Our elected representatives need to know that we are watching and that we WILL hold them accountable for their votes.

Here is the link to the House Bill currently under discussion in the House of Representatives.

Here is a clip of a portion of that interview (and here is the link at MSNBC to the full interview):

Partial transcription (emphases mine):

Frank: Look, we have banking regulators and their primary job is to protect the banking institutions - I understand that. We have historically given them the right to protect consumers, but that's not their primary role.

The Federal Reserve, control of the currency, the FDIC, they just have a primary focus on protecting the banks and the bank system. We think the time has come to have a separate institution that protects the individual customer - on credit cards, on bank overdrafts, on truth in lending, on all of those things. And the administration proposed it. It had been originally proposed by Professor Elizabeth Warner at Harvard Law School. We are going to put that into place so that individuals dealing with financial institutions, it will cover pay day loans. It will cover a lot of things where we have seen consumer abuse, and have an institution whose focus will be on the consumer protection rather than doing consumer protection as kind of an after thought to more important (as they see it) jobs.

Mitchell: Now speaking of Elizabeth Warren and the Harvard law professor who's also leading the Congressional oversight panel, that panel issued a report today. Saying that the Treasury is selling its stakes in banks for one-third less than they're worth. We're talking about billions of dollars here. Does that raise concerns for you?

Frank: It does. I would have to look at them. There is this point that we do want to have the banks to have some funding to be able to do their job. But I have to tell you that the banks have disappointed me some. There was a recent very good study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston about national issues which said that the banks are not really doing what they should be in helping us avoid foreclosure in rewriting mortgages, and again we're expecting the banks that got money from the federal government under the TARP program (as we call it) to do that. So yeah I will be looking at that because the federal government was there when the banks needed it very badly, and I haven't seen the report. I've been in that hearing all day that you mentioned until literally five minutes ago, but I will be looking at that report.

Frank tells us that the purpose of these various federal institutions and agencies is to protect the "banks." Protect them from what and for what? When did the financial institution's health get redefined as disconnected from the needs of the nation and the needs of the people? Clearly, what has been interpreted as "good" for them has been (and continues to be) disastrous for "the people." Now Frank recommends setting up an agency to protect the "customer." What kind of leverage is it going to have against the Federal Reserve, Treasury Department, SEC, etc.? Likely not much. At best, people's needs might be weighed and balanced against financial/corporate needs. Why is "what's good for monied interests" even in the equation?

We have bailed (and continue to bail) out the financial industry. Virtually no money is going to people. Instead, the foreclosure crisis continues, and the banks are not doing ... anything. So Frank is SOMEWHAT disappointed! I am totally outraged. Across the country people are losing their homes - including apartments and rentals. The banks are foreclosing like crazy. In losing those homes what little wealth the majority of people have is being stolen from them. Their life savings and dreams and stability are being stolen from them. This "crisis" and the response to it, is a massive transfer of wealth from the people to big investors.

Let's take one example. The situation in Detroit, Michigan was captured in this article - The city of $10,000 homes: Outside buyers drawn to Detroit's foreclosures:

Welcome to Landlord Nation, where foreclosure notices are plentiful and for-sale signs offer at least 1,800 homes for under $10,000 that once were worth at least 10 times more.

In extreme cases, homes are on sale for $1 or less, which has enticed investors to Detroit from as far away as the United Kingdom and Australia.

"In the past few months, I've picked up 10 new clients from out of state that are buying in bulk," said Mike Shannon, a suburban Detroit real-estate agent. His office specializes in foreclosures in a city that's among the national leaders.

"They're coming to us saying, 'Look, I want to buy 50, 100, 1,000.' They want to own every decent and cheap house they can find."

Despite a stagnant retail housing market, real-estate sales of foreclosed homes are booming.

This same phenomenon is happening across the country. Here we have homes worth over $100,000 that have been taken away from those who owned them (foreclosed), and are now being sold for ten cents on the dollar (or less) to groups doing a land grab. Now if the banks and mortgage companies are going to sell these homes at a 90% loss, wouldn't it have been a better idea to work with those people in their homes? Wouldn't it have been more "profitable" to renegotiate loans and terms - even if it meant a 50-80% decrease in the principal? Logic would say "yes," but finance would say "no."

How can this be? Well, if you change the mark-to-market rules (which was done) it allows the banks to value the homes at whatever they want (incentive is to value high). So if you take a $100,000 home that will only sell on the open market for $70,000, you give it full value on your books because that makes your assets and loan ratios look good. On the other hand, you can foreclose that property and sell it for a $90,000 loss and this is made up by the federal government because clearly this is a "toxic asset". So you can lower your tax burden and continue to qualify for federal bailout. However, making deals with home owners really gets you nothing on either side of the books. So what has been incentivized (and facilitated) by TARP and the Federal Reserve is a land grab and a massive transfer of wealth.

Those "investors" are buying up huge numbers of homes (1,000 at a time) in ONE city. Meanwhile, 1,000 families have lost everything.

I had a mortgage with Washington Mutual. Chase was bankrolled (by us) to buy WAMU. The mortgages went to Chase for pennies on the dollar. No one asked me (nor any other WAMU mortgagee) if we wanted to buy our own loans at this fire sale rate. But Chase got something for nothing. Likewise, those folks around the country who are losing their homes are not being offered "deals" that would make sense. They are being offered 40 and 50 year loans. The banks won't negotiate the principal, but by god they will take everything and sell it for pennies on the dollar to big monied firms.

Barney Frank is disappointed, but the system is doing just what Frank (and virtually everyone else in Washington and on Wall Street) wanted - increase their coffers and increase their death grip on valuable assets and the money supply.

This is not disappointing. IT IS DEVASTATING!

Such an order would embrace claims by former President George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that bypassing Congress could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.

After months of internal debate over how to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, White House officials are growing increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may prove impossible. Several officials said there is concern in the White House that the administration may not be able to close the facility by the president's January 2010 deadline.

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt did not directly respond to questions about an executive order but said the administration would address the cases of Guantanamo detainees in a manner "consistent with the national security interests of the United States and the interests of justice."

One administration official suggested the White House was already trying to build support for an executive order.

"Civil liberties groups have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order," the official said. Such an order can be rescinded and would not block later efforts to write legislation, but civil liberties groups generally oppose long-term detention, arguing that detainees should either be prosecuted or released.

The Justice Department has declined comment on the prospects for a long-term detention system while internal reviews of Guantanamo detainees are underway. The reviews are expected to be completed by July 21.

In a May speech, President Obama broached the need for a system of long-term detention and suggested that it would include congressional and judicial oversight. "We must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can't be based simply on what I or the Executive Branch decide alone," the president said.

Some of Obama's top legal advisers, along with a handful of influential Republican and Democratic lawmakers, have pushed for the creation of a "national security court" to supervise the incarceration of detainees deemed too dangerous to release but who cannot be charged or tried.

But the three senior government officials said the White House has turned away from that option, at least for now, because legislation establishing a special court would be both difficult to pass and likely to fracture Obama's own party. These officials, as well as others interviewed for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about internal deliberations.

On the day Obama took office, 242 men were imprisoned at Guantanamo. In his May speech, the president outlined five strategies the administration would use to deal with them: criminal trials, revamped military tribunals, transfers to other countries, releases and continued detention. (Read our sidebar: "Review of Gitmo Detainees Has Been Slow and Complex.")

Since the inauguration, 11 detainees have been released or transferred, one prisoner committed suicide and one was moved to New York to face terrorism charges in federal court.

Administration officials said the cases of about half of the remaining 229 detainees have been reviewed for prosecution or release. Two officials involved in a Justice Department review of possible prosecutions said the administration is strongly considering criminal charges in federal court for Khaled Sheik Mohammed and three other detainees accused of involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

The other half, the officials said, present the greatest difficulty because these detainees cannot be prosecuted either in federal court or military commissions. In many cases, the evidence against them is classified, has been provided by foreign intelligence services, or has been tainted by the Bush administration's use of harsh interrogation techniques.

Attorney General Eric Holder agreed with an assessment offered during congressional testimony this month that fewer than 25 percent of the detainees would be charged in criminal courts and that 50 others have been approved for transfer or release. One official said the administration is still hoping that as many as 70 Yemeni citizens will be moved, in stages, into a rehabilitation program in Saudi Arabia.

Three months into the Justice Department's reviews, several officials involved said they have found themselves agreeing with conclusions reached years earlier by the Bush administration: As many as 90 detainees can not be charged or released.

The White House has spent months meeting with key congressional leaders in the hopes of reaching agreement on long-term detention, even as public support for such a plan has wavered as lawmakers have sought to prevent detainees from being transferred to their home states.

Lawyers for the administration are now in negotiations with Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., over separate legislation that would revamp military commissions. A senior Republican staff member said that senators have yet to see "a comprehensive, detailed policy" on long-term detention from the administration.

"They can do it without congressional backing, but I think there would be very strong concerns," the staff member said, adding that "Congress could cut off funding" for any detention system established in the United States.

Concerns are growing among Obama's advisers that Congress may try to assert too much control over the process. Earlier this week, Obama signed an appropriations bill that forces the administration to report to Congress before moving any detainee out of Guantanamo and prevents the White House from using available funds to move detainees onto U.S. soil.

"Legislation could kill Obama's plans," said one government official involved. The official said an executive order could be the best option for the president at this juncture.

Under one White House draft that was being discussed earlier this month, according to administration officials, detainees would be imprisoned at a military facility on U.S. soil, but their ongoing detention would be subject to annual presidential review. U.S. citizens would not be held in the system. (Last month, ProPublica explored the key issues around preventive detention.)

Such detainees -- those at Guantanamo and those who may be captured in the future -- would also have the right to legal representation during confinement and access to some of the information that is being used to keep them behind bars. Anyone detained under this order would have a right to challenge his detention before a judge.

Officials argue that the plan would give detainees more rights and allow them a better chance to one day end their indefinite incarceration than they have now at Guantanamo.

But some senior Democrats see long-term detention as tantamount to reestablishing the Guantanamo system on U.S. soil. "I think this could be a very big mistake, because of how such a system could be perceived throughout the world," Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., told Holder.

One administration official said future transfers to the United States for long-term detention would be rare. Al-Qaida operatives captured on the battlefield, which the official defined as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and possibly the Horn of Africa, would be held in battlefield facilities. Suspects captured elsewhere in the world could be transferred to the United States for federal prosecution, turned over to local authorities, or returned to their home country.

"Going forward, unless it's an extraordinary case, you will not see new transfers to the U.S. for indefinite detention," the official said.

Instituting long-term detention through an executive order would leave Obama vulnerable to charges that he is willing to forsake the legislative branch of government, as his predecessor often did. Bush's detention policies suffered successive defeats in the courts in part because they lacked congressional approval and tried to exclude judicial oversight.

"There is no statute prohibiting the president from doing this through executive order and so far courts have not ruled in ways that would bar him from doing so," said Matthew Waxman, who worked on detainee issues at the Defense Department during Bush's first term. But Waxman, who waged an internal battle inside the Bush administration for more congressional cooperation, said the "courts are more likely to defer to the president and legislative branch when they speak with one voice on these issues."

Walid bin Attash, who is accused of involvement in the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 and who was held at a secret CIA prison, could be among those subject to long-term detention, according to one senior official.

Little information on bin Attash's case has been made public, but officials who have reviewed his file said the Justice Department has concluded that none of the three witnesses against him can be brought to testify in court. One witness, who was jailed in Yemen, escaped several years ago. A second witness remains incarcerated, but the government of Yemen will not allow him to testify.

Administration officials believe that testimony from the only witness in U.S. custody, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, may be inadmissible because he was subjected to harsh interrogation while in CIA custody.

"These issues haven't morphed simply because the administration changed," said Juan Zarate, who served as Bush's deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

"The challenge for the new administration is how to solve these legal question of preventive detention in a way that is consistent with the Constitution, legitimate in the eyes of the world and doesn't create security loopholes that causes Congress to worry," Zarate said.

We have gone from a discussion of UNIVERSAL healthcare, to single-payer health care, to no "public option." This shift is not just ominous - it is wrong. Further, the discussion of the "costs" of providing public healthcare has become a major debating point. It is a point I do not understand.

Theoretically, a universal, single payer system should be considerably LESS expensive - even if nothing else changed. Why? Because in insurance terms, the larger the "pool," the less the "risk" and therefore the less the "cost." This makes certain "conservative" plans non-starters for dealing with the issues with our healthcare system. Why? because they shrink or constrain the "pool."

An apparent compromise position is to establish health insurance "cooperatives." This, at best, would create multiple pools with fewer insured and therefore have limited effect at decreasing costs.

Another compromise is to do a "public option" that extends Medicare/Medicaid to part of the uninsured population - the SCHIP program for children (for example).

If one creates a plan where a significant portion of the population can totally opt-out of, then you undermine pool, increase cost, and decrease income.

There is no good compromise position that I can see if we are going to address both access and cost issues. We either have a universal system that everyone pays into (including employers), or we fill the pockets of private insurers while increasing the public costs of healthcare.

The second part of the problem is that healthcare provision is private. We have virtually no public healthcare system. Therefore, if we do not start the creation of a public healthcare system, and place controls on private healthcare (and pharmaceuticals), then even if we have a public insurance system, it will potentially bankrupt us on the provision end. This was the problem with the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan which barred any efforts to negotiate drug costs.

If we need public insurance to create price competition with private insurance, then we also need public healthcare to compete with private healthcare. This is not to mention that the efforts of private medicine are already heavily subsidised by public dollars (drug, therapy, and treatment research) which is turned over gratis to the for-profit sector.

One bogus argument on the provision side is that medical malpractice suits drive the cost of healthcare provision. This is patently not true. To the best of my knowledge, there have been no positive impact on costs of either insurance or care provision in those states that have enacted malpractice limits. Further, this is a public check on healthcare facilities and providers. Does this mean that there are not bogus or misdirected suits? No, it does not. However, it provides accountability in an arena where the individual is the underdog - not the providers or insurers.

What has successfully been allowed to happen in the United States is to make healthcare a commodity which is kept artificially short. This combination grows higher and higher costs. To fix the problem, we must make healthcare a right - not a commodity - and decrease the scarcity.

One place to start the prototypes of public healthcare provision would be in rural America. For all the access problems in urban areas, rural areas have a growing crisis. Public facilities with publicly paid practitioners could be easily instituted in rural areas. If the model works there, it can (and should) be expanded to urban areas.

The short version of all of this is that healthcare reform should dramatically reduce healthcare costs and SAVE us money - not cost us more. If the projection is that a plan will cost us more money, then we can rest assured that private industry is getting its pockets lined at public expense, and that the system created is not truly serving the needs of the people.

One could also question the US government's own moral legitimacy; classifying the world into watch lists, congratulating some and reprimanding and sanctioning others, while the US itself has thus far (and for nine consecutive reports starting 2000) been immune to self-criticism.

Undoubtedly, the political hubris and self- righteous underpinnings of the report are disturbing, but that hardly represents an end to the argument. The fact remains that the report's rating of over 170 countries is thorough and largely consistent with facts as observed, reported by the media and examined in other comprehensive reports on the same issue. Indeed, the UN's own Global Report on Trafficking in Persons, launched by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in February 2009, affirms much of the State Departments' findings regarding patterns of abuse reported around the world, most notably in Africa, the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region.

The report examined governmental responses to the exploitation of people, including children, for the purposes of forced labour, sex and stolen organs. At least 12.3 million adults and children are used to sustain the thriving business of modern-day slavery, though the real number is probably much higher given that human traffickers have little interest in divulging exact data.

The global financial crisis has fuelled the demand for cheap labour, making the exploitation of the most vulnerable people part and parcel of the economic recovery plans of many companies, and even countries. Under these circumstances, there should be little doubt that the UN's once promising campaign to eradicate much of the world's hunger by 2015 is already a pipedream.

One of the testimonies cited in the State Department's report was that of Mohamed Selim Khan, who "woke up in a strange house and felt an excruciating pain in his abdomen. Unsure of where he was, Khan asked a man wearing a surgical mask what had happened. 'We have taken your kidney,' the stranger said. 'If you tell anyone, we'll kill you.'"

Khan's experience epitomizes the nightmare of millions of people around the world, as they struggle to provide for hungry families. Their plight is no secret. It can be seen on the streets of many cities around the world, from Europe to Asia and Central America to the Gulf, where worn out, haggard looking men in dirty uniforms are working long hours for little pay, trapped between pressing needs at home and the merciless demands of their "recruitment agencies".

But cheap or forced labor is not the only form of human trafficking. According to the UN's Global Report on Trafficking in Persons, based on data collected in 155 countries, "the most common form of human trafficking [79 per cent] is sexual exploitation".

IRIN News, affiliated with the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, reported on 18 June that "women from the former Soviet Union and China are still being trafficked across the border with Egypt into Israel for forced prostitution by organized criminal groups". Israel has been identified as a "prime destination for trafficking by both the State Department and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime". One Israeli gang alone, according to the report, has trafficked over 2,000 women into Israel and Cyprus in the last six years.

One has to wonder the wisdom of international conferences and global efforts aimed at cracking down on Gazans smuggling food and medicine across the same Egyptian border to survive the Israeli siege when almost no efforts have been dedicated to ending the stark exploitation and abuse of thousands of women enriching Israel's sex industry.

Dare I say that while human trafficking is itself an apolitical issue, recognizing and combating, or failing to combat, the problem is very much political. Think of the banking crisis, which fuelled a global recession, and the way astronomical amounts of money have been dedicated to solving it, trillions of dollars in global bailouts ultimately rewarding those who caused the crisis in the first place. Compare these efforts to the pathetic attempts at halting the disgraceful commercialization of humans, their organs, their sexuality, their very humanity.

The problem is now compounded. UN food officials declared on 19 June that hunger around the world has passed the unprecedented threshold of one billion, that is one in six people. The alarming increase of 100 million hungry children, women and men from last year's estimates is blamed on the economic recession. While international institutions are efficient at recognizing such problems, proposed solutions often lack sincerity, or any sense of urgency.

"A hungry world is a dangerous world," said Josette Sheeran of the World Food Programme. "Without food, people have only three options: they riot, they emigrate or they die." They also become products in markets ready to exploit those whose very survival is at stake.

When Julia, from the Balkans, was eight years old, she was taken along with her sisters to a neighboring country, where she was sold to beg. She was beaten every time she failed to return with her fixed quota of money. Once she became a teenager she was forced into prostitution. After escaping she was placed in a government orphanage from which she also escaped, returning to the streets. According to the State Department report, eventually "Julia was arrested on narcotics charges".

Can this injustice be any more obvious?

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

If you need solid information to believe this view, then consider these facts.

On the cost side, what is the problem? The current private health insurance system is the most costly, wasteful, complicated, and bureaucratic in the world. Its main function is not to provide quality health care for all people but to make huge profits for companies. Private health insurance companies spend an incredible 30 percent of each health care dollar on administration and billing. Thirty cents of every dollar is not going to doctors, nurses, medicine, medical personnel; it is going to bureaucracy and administration plus exorbitant CEO compensation packages, advertising, lobbying, and campaign contributions. More efficient public programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA are administered for far less money, less than 10 percent.

From 2003 to 2007, the combined profits of the nation's major health insurance companies increased by 170 percent. William McGuire, the former head of United Health, several years ago, accumulated stock options worth an estimated $1.6 billion; CIGNA CEO Edward Hanway made more than $120 million in the last 5 years. CEO compensation for the top seven health insurance companies now averages $14.2 million. Over the last three decades, the number of insurance administrative personnel has grown by 25 times the number of physicians.

The double whammy is that we get so little for so much spending. The US spends far more per capita on health care than any other nation, and health care costs continue to soar unsustainably, now at $2.4 trillion and 18 percent of our GDP. Our per capita spending is 40 percent more than the second most costly national system. The insanity is that we get poor value for what we spend. According to the World Health Organization, the US ranks 37th in terms of health system performance; we are far behind many other countries in terms of such important indices as infant mortality, life expectancy, and preventable deaths. Even the latest federal National Health Quality Report concluded: "health care quality in America is suboptimal...the health care system is not achieving the more substantial strides needed to close the gap or 'quality chasm' that persists."

If Congress and the Obama administration believed in true, necessary health reform, then they should favor a government run single payer system. But they do not because they are corrupted by the money from the private health insurance industry. If the public was not delusional and brainwashed, then they would be screaming for a single payer system, but the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll posed this question to respondents: What if having the government create a new health insurance plan made many private health insurers go out of business because they could not compete? In that case would you support or oppose creating a government-run health insurance plan? Remarkably, 33 percent were opposed and 25 percent were opposed if private health insurers could not compete. Only 37 percent support the government run option regardless of any impact on the private insurers.

Considering the predominantly negative experiences most Americans have had with their private health insurance companies, these results are depressing. The only rational explanation is that Americans have been successfully brainwashed by years of propaganda and disinformation from the health insurance industry. As I and other Medicare users can attest to, a government run plan has provided me total freedom in choosing any physician and hospital I want to use. There is no sound reason to believe that a larger version of Medicare offered to all Americans would in any way reduce the quality of health care received.

The simple fact is that a huge amount of money can be saved by shifting from private to government health insurance, $4 trillion over ten years, more than enough to pay for universal health care coverage for absolutely all Americans.

What we are now witnessing in Congress and the White House is a total, ugly capitulation to the money and power of the private health insurance industry. If the private health insurance industry maintains its stranglehold on the national system, then taxpayers will pay even more money for the worst national health care system in the world, if Congress makes that costly insurance available to more Americans by using government money.

There were some other recent poll results. The New York Times/CBS News poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector. In fact, 85 percent of respondents said the health care system needed to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt, nearly 60 percent said they would be willing to pay higher taxes to make sure that all were insured, and 72 percent supported a government-administered insurance plan -- something like Medicare for those under 65 -- that would compete for customers with private insurers, versus 20 percent that said they were opposed.

Part of the disinformation campaign is that people are being manipulated to think that a government insurance plan equates to government run health care itself, which is shear nonsense. Medicare users access exactly the same private health care system as those with private health insurance. Of course, private health insurers charge so much money that they pay physicians and hospitals more money than Medicare, which is primarily a tactic to keep much of those parts of the health care system supportive of maintaining the private insurance system.

Dr. David Himmelstein is a founder and spokesperson for Physicians for a National Health Program. He believes President Obama is caving to the insurance industry: "The President once acknowledged that single payer reform was the best option, but now he's caving in to corporate healthcare interests and completely shutting out advocates of single payer reform."

[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through Delusional Democracy]

In the complaint (Padilla v Yoo amended complaint 23 pages pdf), Padilla is suing John Yoo for being directly responsible for his detention, the violation of his Constitutional rights, and being subjected to torture and abuse. The basis of the case was to determine if Padilla was within his rights to pursue his complain against Yoo. In most regards, Judge White states in his opinion (Opinion in Padilla v Yoo  - alternate link - 42pages pdf) that Padilla has basis to pursue his suit.

Here are a few notable excerpts from Judge White's opinion.

"Padilla also alleges that he has suffered gross physical and psychological abuse upon the orders of high-ranking government officials as part of a systematic program of abusive interrogation which mirror the abuses committed at Guantanamo Bay." p2-3

What is notable here, is the admission within the Judge's opinion that the interrogation methods experienced by Padilla in his three years and eight month detention at the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, South Carolina were the same "abuses committed at Guantánamo Bay." This is notable on two counts. First, that Padilla was subjected to these techniques (detailed on pages 4-5 of the opinion, with associated Constitutional violations on 9-10). Second, because of the specious argument that no such "techniques" were used at Guantánamo (and were therefore not "exported" to other facilities - notably Abu Ghraib).

Yoo also advocates that this Court should abstain from adjudication because the Court should leave review of his legal memoranda and the conduct which followed to the coordinate branches of government based on substantive areas of law raised by the memoranda. The Court notes the irony of this position: essentially, the allegations of the complaint are that Yoo drafted legal cover to shield review of the conduct of federal officials who allegedly deprived Padilla of his constitutional rights. Now, Yoo argues that the very drafting itself should be shielded from judicial review." p 21-22

Here, Judge White is responding to Yoo's request to place not only his direct (and self-admitted) actions regarding torture and Padilla's case in particular, but that the very work that he did, under the shield of immunity. Judge White offers his opinion that such a shield does not exist.

ii. Eighth Amended Prohibition Against Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Yoo contends that because Padilla was not convicted of a criminal offense at the time of his military detention, the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment does not apply to him." p35

I believe that the quote above is exemplary of the convoluted "logic" of both Yoo and the Bush administration. First, they create a new "category" of detainee to get around both U.S. law and international agreements. He then argues that because Padilla was not "convicted" that the guarantees against "cruel and unusual punishment" do not apply.

A lot is being written elsewhere about the opinion, and it is not my goal to repeat those pieces here. I believe that there is much to be gained by taking a half hour and reading the Judge's opinion. It not only details this specific case, but goes into the legal arguments of other cases, and pertinent memos which have been released.

Related Articles and Documents
Padilla v. Yoo - Judge denies motion to dismiss "torture memos" case. Constitutional Law Prof Blog. 6/13/2009.

Padilla v Yoo suit (1/04/2008)

Obama administration backs immunity for author of Bush torture memos. Patrick Martin. WSWS. 6/09/09.

San Francisco judge rules convicted terrorist Padilla can sue Bush aide over torture memos. Don Thompson. AP. 6/13/09.

Judge Presses Government on Torture Memo Liability. Dan Levine. Law Journal. 6/09/09.

Judge: Ex-Bush lawyer can be sued over torture. Bob Egelko. SF Chronicle. 6/13/09.

Judge rules Padilla can sue over torture memos. USA Today/AP. 6/13/09.

Judge Allows Civil Lawsuit Over Claims of Torture. John Schwartz. NY Times. 6/13/09.

Two weeks ago, my family, after months of anticipation, were scheduled to be the host family for a very special and unusual exchange program for kids from Gaza to visit the US. Our host child, Sobhi was schedule to arrive on May 30th.

My family was excited and a little nervous, I noticed my wife taking every opportunity to share the news of the arrival of our special visitor. We call Sobhi's family from time to time, realizing that sending a child off to a foreign land to live with a strange family can be unsettling for a parent. But I think our occasional conversations are putting everyone at ease.

As time has progressed, we have learned more news of Sobhi's life and family in Gaza, and through the weeks, news has changed and altered. We first thought he was 11 years old, and then learned that he is actually fifteen. We originally thought his family lived in the town of Khan Yunis, but then learned that he is from the northern town of Beit Lahia. We thought that he was maimed when his house was demolished in the Israeli attack of January 2009, but then later learned that his leg was actually blown off by an Israeli tank shell when the army opened fire on his family while they were farming their land. So, day by day, we are learning more about this fine young boy's tragic lot.

Like Sobhi, disgracefully growing numbers of children forever maimed, dismembered and killed by Israel are not only somehow disregarded by the world media and therefore the world's conscience - but to add insult to injury - they are even denied access to healthcare.

Sobhi is one of many Gazan children that have been taken under the wing of the Palestinian Children's Relief Fund, a non-profit, US based organization that organizes medical exchange programs, sending injured children abroad for treatment when it is inaccessible in Palestine, as well as sending medical teams to Palestine for short-term medical missions.

While I cannot express my admiration and gratefulness for the tireless work of the staff of PCRF, in anticipation of Sobhi's arrival, the irony fails to escape me, that of this innocent and unassuming son of a Gazan farmer, whose life is forever altered by a tank shell propelled by Israel and subsidized by the US, to venture alone across the world to be the recipient of another US manufactured implement; a plastic leg.

And now, as if things could get any worse, even the possibility of getting Sobhi here seems grim.

Coming from Gaza, Sobhi must cross the Rafah border to begin his journey from Cairo. But Egypt is refusing to grant Sobhi entry. It is the predicament that so many Gazans face following the January massacres: hospitals lay in ruins, medicine scarce, embargos on everything from medical equipment to medical teams that have flocked to Rafah's border in droves from all over the world.

When Obama spoke in Cairo on January 4, the closest major city was Gaza, where children flooded the border, imploring the US leader to exert some pressure on Israel to open the border and end the blockade that has imprisoned the entire population for nearly two years. Children held banners with slogans like, "a light of hope for Gaza children", and "Gaza children appeal for help". Sahar Abu Foul, a nine-year-old girl who attended the rally, said that the children in Gaza want Obama's help "to secure a life like all other children." But considering his rigorous schedule, Obama couldn't pencil in a visit to the border to address this young crowd. However, just before his arrival, Congress invested further money into fortifying the border area, allocating an addition 50 million dollars to secure the Rafah border, making Sobhi's crossing all the more unlikely.

So the days pass. I telephone Sobhi, who speaks with such maturity and courtesy on the phone, inquiring about my health, the health of my family, and asking that God will grant us lives of good health and other mercies. His medical charts say that he is overcoming his depression and simply wants to join his father in the fields again. He has uncomplicated aspirations and a seemingly simple request; an artificial leg. His father, soft-spoken and a bit shy seems to be resigned to the unfortunate possibility of his son not coming to the US after all. I continue to encourage him, but I myself also feel that this special and unusual exchange may have been too good to be true. Sobhi says that he hopes that he will be able to help with the olive harvest this year. But sometimes having hope in a place like Gaza becomes more of a liability than a lifeline.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London), and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London)

Now, at the age of 23, Chris is a college graduate on his way up the corporate ladder, and Taylor sits in an 8' X 12' cell, his home for the next 5 years.
What happened? What went wrong for Taylor in the years between kindergarten and adulthood? Who is responsible?

From the time each child left the house on that first day of school and reached beyond the boundaries of the family, their lives followed different paths.
On the first day of school, Chris' mom had a meeting, but Chris' dad, who was an executive with a locally-based, national insurance firm, took the morning off and drove Chris to school. Chris arrived with fresh haircut, and new outfit and backpack.

The classroom was well equipped with audio-visual aids including three computers, a wide variety of supplies, and unmarred desks and chairs. The piano sat behind a new area rug in bright colors that depicted the alphabet. Outside the large windows Chris could see a sprawling, multi-activity, play structure. Chris' school had a cafeteria, a gym, and a small auditorium that would be part of school life from 1st grade on. The grade school staff included two counselors, and a nurse and psychologist that were shared with one other school.

Taylor woke the first day of school full of enthusiasm. Best jeans and tee shirt were topped by new shoes bought on payday and stared at for subsequent days in anticipation of wearing them for the first time. The used backpack belonged to Taylor's older brother, James, and a prize possession since it sported the colors and logo of the state college basketball champs.

James fixed Taylor's breakfast as their father had already left for work and their mother was asleep after her night job. They walked the three blocks to school hand in hand.

Taylor's classroom was in a two story brick building. At the front door a man greeted the two and nodded to James to pass. They entered through the framework of a metal detector down a dimly light hall. Ahead Taylor could see the shine on the linoleum emanating from double glass doors chained at the other end. Taylor's classroom had no piano, no computer, no rug, limited supplies, and mismatched, but serviceable, desks and chairs. The grade school staff included one counselor and a nurse that was shared with the six grade schools in the district. The playground consisted of a basketball court, several marked off games on the blacktop and a set of six metal, strapped-seated swings.

Throughout their school years, Chris and Taylor experienced very different lives. Taylor's dad had worked at a box-making plant while going to night school at the local community college. Taylor's mom had worked full time and cleaned houses on the weekends during this time to make ends meet. Both of them worked hard toward becoming a part of the American Dream, an upper middle class, homeowner with comparable social life and economic stability.
After Taylor was born, his mother went to work nights in order to take care of him during the day. His father had completed his schooling and, now, worked days.

As a black accountant in an insurance firm, Taylor's dad was passed over several times for promotions in the following years. His mom, still, cleaned a few "regular's" houses on weekends. They had applied for a house loan but could only qualify for a subprime loan with monthly payments they couldn't afford while raising a family. They like many others were caught in the middle, earning too much to qualify for government programs that might have helped, directly or indirectly, through healthcare or childcare, and too little to put back, to save or invest on their own.

Chris was from a white, upper middle class home. Living in a school district with high property values and, therefore, a substantial tax base, afforded Chris a commendatory secondary education. And, with hard work and good grades, an Ivy League college followed.

Taylor's mother went to work in an upscale dress boutique once Taylor was in school full days. Not wanting to buy in an area where property values continued to fall and not being able to afford a house in a better neighborhood, the new job enabled them to put money aside to build a larger down payment for a house. That is, until a boutique patron found money missing from her purse and accused Taylor's mom, who lost her job on the patron's suspicions.

When Taylor was 8, his mother went back to work cleaning houses, leaving James, age 12, in charge. Over the years James' much-older, social group became Taylor's. By the time Taylor's parents realized they had a problem with James, his influence over Taylor was strong. Taylor had looked up to his brother all his life. James was cool, James had the answers. The "gang" of friends was not violent and, mostly, ran the neighborhood, sometimes shoplifting from the neighborhood convenience store or writing graffiti on street signs or sides of buildings. As long as Taylor kept his grades up, his parents looked no further for signs of trouble. And, Taylor himself saw his activities as "normal" compared to the activities of other youth in his neighborhood.

As Taylor's awareness of the outside world developed throughout high school, his awareness of the injustices of being black and poor began to grow bringing with it an anger and resentment for those more privileged. He saw how badly society had treated his parents and he saw other sons and daughters of white, affluent families driving nice cars, having nice clothes, the newest electronics or going on graduation cruises and obtaining admittance to prestigious colleges and universities. He was resentful and jealous and that fueled his anger. His personal examples of people "doing well" were pimps and drug dealers who sported fancy cars, expensive jewelry, and an air of success and confidence.

Taylor wasn't the only one at his school whose eyes smoldered from the inequalities they had suffered. Violence erupted in the halls and students formed tight groups after school either for safety in numbers or to intimidate. The school, and the system it functions within, had failed Taylor. As the institution that has the most affect on each child's life outside of the family during formative years, Taylor's time at school and the social structure that it reinforced created a hostile, depressing and, often, hopeless atmosphere. His family, loving and caring though they were, worked long hours and had many pressures. The seeds for bigger trouble were blowing in the wind.

So how did Chris and Taylor come to their individual circumstances at 23?

At 22, Taylor had moved to an apartment with his pregnant girlfriend and brother, James, and two friends. The economy was in a slump and many labor jobs were being eliminated. Taylor was laid off from this job at the local food processing plant. He worked, for a while, at a local fast food restaurant, but his peers felt he was selling out and lost respect for him. James and the other roommates were into petty crimes and drug dealing to pay their bills, and they always seemed to have money in their pockets. Taylor started selling marijuana. He refused to traffic in the crack cocaine of his neighborhood, feeling it was the scourge of his black brothers.

At this same time, Chris was just graduating college and a grand celebration was being planned. Marijuana was not unfamiliar to Chris either. There was an accepted attitude that partaking during last night study sessions and philosophical discussions was cool and part of being amongst the intellectuals.

The day of the party, one of Chris' friends suggested that they purchase marijuana for the celebration. Striking out with their usual connections, they headed for the seedier part of town to try their luck. After several inquiries, they were directed to Taylor who sold them 1 ounce.

Upon the exchange, all parties were arrested by the police who had been observing from nearby. Chris' dad hired a private attorney that was recommended by his employer; and as a first offense, Chris was allowed to enter a diversions program of drug-awareness classes. The result of completing the program was a complete expunging of the offender's record. The maximum sentence for his offense would have been 10 years.

Taylor had served 6 months for a first offense possession of marijuana at age 19. Although he qualified, there was no diversion offered to him. As his second offense, his public defender was not able to keep Chris out of prison and he was sentenced to 5 years. The maximum sentence for his offense would, also, have been 10 years.

Chris has put the unfortunate experience in the past, an indiscretion of youth. His biggest regret was missing his graduating party, a reward for his years of hard work. Taylor will live with his "unfortunate" experience every day for the next 5 years and beyond. In a three strike state, Taylor now has two strikes and one more could put him in prison for the rest of his life.

Black students are more likely to attend schools in areas with high concentrations of poverty. Because most of our school's revenues come from property taxes, school districts with the most poverty also have the poorest schools, with less qualified teachers, lower expectations and a less challenging curriculum. At the time of college admittance, these schools are not considered to have proper educational foundations for higher education. Even children who graduate from these schools with good grades have a hard time finding a college who wants them.

To make matters worse for the young adults who manage to graduate and are willing to take on the responsibilities of adulthood, the employment situation for labor jobs is dyer. With the passing of legislation and the implementation of policies that encouraged U.S. companies to move their labor production outside the country, unemployment rates for those in poverty, many of whom were African Americans, have been considerable. Recently the practice of doing credit checks for prospective employees has, also, hurt employment opportunities for the poor. And, with our recent economic woes that situation has deteriorated even further.

Add this to the fact that our justice system is biased towards blacks, and one can see why blacks made up 41 percent of the nation's prison and jail inmates in 2006. In the area of drug offenses alone, blacks make up 36.8% of those arrested for drug offenses, 42% of those in federal prisons for drug felonies, and 58% of those in state prisons for drug felonies. This despite the fact that there are estimated to be 5 times more white drug users than black. And of the persons convicted of drug felonies, blacks are more likely to go to prison (51%) than their white counterparts (38%).

Often targeted with racial profiling, a study from Maryland showed that, although comprising only 17.5% percent of the traffic and speeders on Interstate 95, African Americans comprised 70% of the traffic stops.

In states where the "three strikes" law exists, blacks are also unfairly targeted. Studies in Los Angeles and San Francisco showed that the three strikes law was applied to blacks at a rate 17 times higher than whites and 13 times higher than whites, respectively.

The answer to this inequality is not to increase prison incarceration for whites but to reduce the rate of incarceration for non-violent drug offenders in lieu of drug treatment and job training.

The results of the current policies are:

• 1,559,200 children has a father in prison at midyear 2007; nearly half (46%) were children of black fathers.

• A majority of parents in both State (62%) and Federal (84%) prison were held more than 100 miles from their last place of residence."

• Because census data includes an inmate's residence as the state in which they are incarcerated, every dollar transferred to a 'prison community' due to the county's population, is a dollar that is not given to the home community of a prisoner. These communities are among the most disadvantaged urban areas and the most in need of aid. For example, in New York State, 2/3 of the inmate population comes from New York City but 91% are housed in prison in upstate New York.

• Throughout the 80's and 90s, the number of prisons grew from 600 to over 1,000. Ten states had more than 20 new prisons with Texas topping the list at 120. And even with the increase, the currently prison system is operating at 32% over capacity. This, in part, is due to mandatory minimum sentencing for non-violent drug users.

• The nonviolent prisoner population in America is larger than the combined populations of Wyoming and Alaska.

• There are three times as many black people who live in prison cells as in college dorms

• Overcrowding and unchecked health issues have resulted in an AIDS rate 3 times higher than the general population, and positive or latent tuberculosis cases 50-100% higher

• The average cost of housing an inmate at a state prison is $67.55/day or $24,000/year. Per day states spend over $17million to house non-violent drug offenders, over $6trillion per year. For every dollar spent on incarceration, one less dollars is available for education, or health care. Federal spending is estimated to be $3billion.

• Department of corrections data show that about a fourth of those initially imprisoned for nonviolent crimes are sentenced a second time for committing a violent offense. Even if the current system doesn't cultivate violence, it can be seen that it doesn't help to reduce violent habits.

• As the Hispanic population becomes significant enough to warrant studies, the same pattern of judicial bias is emerging.

Marc Morial, former New Orleans mayor, feels that "conservatives blame a lack of family values while liberals blame a lack of government programs, with neither side seeing the whole picture." He believes that minority students need more early children education, longer school days and years, and meaningful summer jobs. "We need to get serious about true investment on the front end."
U.S. Representative Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) points out that we are sending huge numbers of blacks to prison only to have them return to society with no jobs or job skills, no quality of life, and a growing environment of unrest and crime. "It warns us that we are risking an entire generation of African-American young men."

Maybe Chris will feel differently after trying to buy a first home and finding that her sex is working against her in a way that can't be ignored. Until now socialization has blinded Chris to any disadvantages to her male counterparts that she may have experienced.

Reflecting on Taylor and Chris and their paths to adulthood, is the future any brighter for Taylor with a strike two, felony conviction and limited education? Will Chris ever be enlightened to the inequalities that her privilege manifests? And more importantly, will she act upon whatever insight she does gain?

Although each of us is an individual with freedom to make choices concerning our paths in life, the playing field is not equal for all. We must always try to be aware of our circumstances in relation to others, and we must act upon the inequalities that are revealed to us throughout life.

---

1 Common Sense for Drug Policy: Race and Prison. http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/64. Copyright 2000-2008.

2 Associated Press: More blacks Latinos in jail than college dorms, "Civil right advocates say Census Bureau figures are startling, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21001543/. September 2007.

3 Racial fairness questioned "4 in 10 young black men caught in justice system? " http://www.casaplumeria.com/rapsheet/race.htm . Prensa Pacifica: Ocean Park, Ca. Copyright 1996.

There is a battle in Peru and people are dying. The indigenous people of Peru have been trying to peacefully block the opening of a massive tract of their territory to natural gas exploration and exploitation. The peace has been broken. Police have died, and many of the demonstrators have been shot, with 40 or more killed - including several children. This article discusses these issues and asks that you take action. This is not just some Peruvian conflict that has nothing to do with the United States (or South Korea, or Britain, or the Netherlands). It has everything to do with all of us. I believe we must speak out. I hope that after reading this you will agree.

Camisea Natural Gas Project
The Camisea project is the largest natural gas project ever undertaken in Peru. According to
Technology.com:

The project first became operational in August 2004 to make Peru a gas-rich nation with royalties of $34 billion expected over the 30 year duration of the project. The Camisea gas field is situated in the San Martín reservoir in the Amazon Rainforest and is connected to the Port of Pisco via the Camisea pipeline (discovered in 1983-1987).
...
In addition a second pipeline runs from Malvinas 715km along the coast to Lima and Callao for distribution of gas to residents and industry.

Roughly 75% of this project is located within "Block 88" which is the home of over 20 indigenous tribes who live largely in isolation from outsiders, and are dependent on the natural resources of the area which will be destroyed by the project. There are also numerous farming communities which will be impacted by the toxic fallout of the exploration and exploitation of the Camisea.

The peoples of the Amazon, including those in Peru, have had plenty of experience with the destruction and health consequences of natural resource exploitation by transnational corporations. They are taking a stand to block the Camisea Natural Gas Project.

More than 10,000 indigenous people have been engaging in roadblocks since April. Recently, the attempts at creating a human barricade have become violent with President Alan Garcia has overruled the regional presidents who have argued against the privatization of this vast tract of Constitutionally protected reserve.

President Alan Garcia has proposed privatising large areas of the rainforest, but local officials say the government in Lima does not understand the impact this would have.

The regional president of Loreto, Ivan Vasquez, says the Amazon needs to preserve its diversity at all costs. "The ecosystem is the genetic bank of the Amazon, as it brings together genetic matrices which don't exist anywhere else - thousands of interconnected genetic bases. ( BBC )

Coordinating resistance to the project is AIDESEP which is a member of Oxfam America. However, it is the peoples of the Amazon who are putting their bodies on the line - and paying a devastating toll for doing so.

Behind this big privatization push by President Garcia is the Peru Trade Promotion Agreement negotiated and signed into law by President George W. Bush. This is a sweeping "free trade" agreement between Peru and the United States, and has certainly forwarded the ambitions of U.S. and transnational corporations. This interest is clearly reflected in the companies that are involved in the Camisea project.

The Companies

";The gas production consortia was composed of: Pluspetrol (36%); Hunt Oil (36%); SK Corporation (18%); Tecpetrol (10%). The gas pipeline consortia named TGP is operated by Techint (23%) and includes: Pluspetrol and Hunt Oil (22% each); SK Corporation and Sonatrach (11%); Belgium's Tractebel (8%); Gra-a y Montero (2%). Belgium';s Tractebel was due to carry out gas distribution in Lima potentially financed by a Belgian export credit agency." ( AmazonWatch)

Hunt Oil (from SourceWatch): "The privately-held Hunt Oil Company --"one of the big money Texas donors behind the Bush family political empire."
From AmazonWatch:

The Camisea Project is owned by two consortia of small companies with poor environmental records led by Hunt Oil - a Dallas-based company with close ties to the Bush administration. Chief Executive Ray L. Hunt contributed to President Bush's presidential campaign and also sits on the board of Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Pluspetrol private oil and gas company given lead contract in the Camisea project (see also this company link

Techint Group (infrastructure engineering also owns Tecpetrol (products for metals and mining)

SK Corporation "SK Corporation is a South Korean global organization and one of the country's largest businesses with widespread interests worldwide." oil and gas focus (Oxfam America)

Sonatrach may be one of three companies, or three companies that are one. One Sonatach link goes directly to the company information for Pluspetrol, another goes to an Algerian company, and one goes to a UK company

So here we have what has become a classic tale of devastation and exploitation. A government throws out their own constitution in the interests of free trade controlled by t