Health care reform and Brave New Films
“I spend 40 percent of my time away from my patients doing paperwork and getting prior authorizations,” said Jim King, MD, a family physician in Selmer, Tenn. “We need to start taking the barriers that are between me and my patients away.”
At the same time American people were unwittingly forced to ‘bail out’ banks and insurance companies to the tune of 11 trillion dollars, those same companies were giving themselves a reported $33 Billion dollars in bonuses.
These catastrophically corrupt financial and medical systems are broken and apparently those who represent the common good are not going to fix it alone.
Activist and hero Robert Greenwald is doing something about it and you can too. His company Brave New Films, is affording Americans a way to gather forces and expose toxic tumors in what we wrongly term (in our oh so accepted double speak) the ‘health care’ system. It is in fact a sick care system. It doesn’t work for the majority of Americans. As countries go for health care, we are very near the bottom of the pile.
Can 450,000 doctors who are dealing with the medical and insurance system every day, be wrong? The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and Herndon Alliance (a nonpartisan coalition of more than 200 health-care provider organizations including the AARP, Mayo Clinic and Families USA) want health care reform.
The two groups are natural and historical allies. But the Feminist Majority has now endorsed President Obama’s decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan — arguing that the administration’s new strategy is necessary to prevent the return of the brutal oppression of women by the Taliban regime.
The Afghan Women’s Mission, along with an associated Afghan feminist group, contends that more troops and more fighting will only result in further casualties on both sides and fuel the already-flourishing insurgency.
[C]oalition troops are combat forces and are there to fight a war, not to preserve peace… Women always disproportionately suffer the effects of war, and to think that women’s rights can be won with bullets and bloodshed is a position dangerous in its naïveté.
Kolhatkar, in a subsequent interview with the Huffington Post, added that the withdrawal of U.S. troops would actually “take away the rationale of the Taliban: the foreign occupiers.”
Feminist Majority founder Ellie Smeal and board member Helen Cho responded in turn, writing that “recently these terrorists have destroyed hundreds of girls schools, killed journalists, local women’s leaders and killed women teachers in front of their students.”
“If the U.S. was to pull out of Afghanistan,” they warned, “the United States would be once again breaking its promise to the Afghan people, and the country would likely fall under Taliban control.”
By Sarah Jaffe at The Nation
George W. Bush used the plight of the women of Afghanistan as justification for invasion, and afterward trumpeted their freedom as a major success. But day-to-day life for Afghan women has not improved much, despite nominal representation in government. Domestic violence, self-harm, and the US-backed president Hamid Karzai signed into law a repressive act that effectively legalized marital rape. Afghanistan’s Chief Justice has said that women have two rights: the right to obey their husbands, and the right to pray–though they do not have the right to pray in a mosque with men.
In this video, the fifth in the Rethink Afghanistan series, Afghan women speak out against a buildup of US troops, noting that the militarization only legitimizes the Taliban as an opposition force. Rather than supporting military escalation, the women of Afghanistan can use your donations to help themselves. As Orzala Ashraf of the Afghan Women’s Network says in the film, “If I cannot liberate myself, no one from outside can liberate me.”
Check out earlier videos on Afghanistan from The Nation and Brave New Films
By Andy Bromage at NH
With the bodies stacking up and the national treasury being sucked dry, U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy took a powerful stand against the war on terror in 2007.
The freshman congressman from northwestern Connecticut joined 70 of his colleagues in a letter to President Bush pledging to vote against any war funding bill that didn’t include a strategy and timetable for pulling American troops out of Iraq. He was the only Connecticut representative to do so.
Many Murphy supporters back home assumed he would apply the same standards to funding the war in Afghanistan.
They assumed wrong.
Last week, Murphy and the other members of the state’s all-Democrat congressional delegation all but rubber-stamped President Obama’s request for $80 billion more to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The money for Iraq comes with strict benchmarks for progress and follows Obama’s timeline for withdrawing all troops by the end of 2011. The money for Afghanistan amounts to a blank check, anti-war activists say, just the kind Murphy and his Democratic colleagues opposed when George W. Bush was commander-in-chief.
By Radio Islam
Listen to full interview here:
l hombre del turbante salió de la mesquita después de la primera oración del día. Era miércoles en el centro de Bagdad e ideal para que el equipo de espionaje del Ejército de Estados Unidos pasara desapercibido entre la multitud. Se trataba del jeque Abd al-Rahman, pieza clave para dar con el paradero de Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, líder en Irak de la red terrorista de al-Qaeda.
“Cuando se baje del automóvil blanco y se suba a uno azul, es que va a encontrarse con al-Zarqawi”, fue la pista que les dio un militante del grupo terrorista que había sido detenido por las tropas estadounidenses seis semanas antes de ese 7 de junio de 2006.
De manera discreta lo siguieron por más de 50 kilómetros hacia el norte, hasta una pequeña aldea a las afueras de Baquba, donde al-Rahman se bajó del vehículo y se introdujo a la casa que resultó ser el escondite del jefe máximo de al-Qaeda en Irak y por quien el gobierno estadounidense ofrecía 25 millones de dólares como recompensa, lo mismo que se ofrece por Osama Bin Laden.
Los espías estadounidenses lo habían confirmado, ahí estaba al-Zarqawi hablando con al-Rahman. Era el momento idóneo para capturarlo, pero las fuerzas especiales de combate estaban a media hora de distancia en helicóptero. El comandante a cargo no quiso correr riesgo de fuga y ordenó que los dos jets F-16 Fighting Falcons que se aproximaban soltaran sobre la vivienda las 500 libras de explosivos que llevaban.
La EXPLOSIÓN formó una cruz de polvo y escombro. Ahí murió al-Zarqawi y su consejero espiritual al-Rahman, además de una mujer y un niño.
Cuando llegaron los soldados, minutos después del bombardeo, al-Zarqawi era sacado de entre los escombros por policías iraquís. Un soldado estadounidense se le acercó y fue entonces cuando al verlo a los ojos, el terrorista soltó el último respiro.
La historia la cuenta Matthew Alexander, de 39 años de edad y líder de ese equipo de inteligencia del U.S. Army que interrogó a Abu Haydar, un hombre cercano al jeque al-Rahman.
“Abu Haydar es un hombre muy inteligente, es como Hannibal Lecter de la película Silence of the lambs, muy elegante e inteligente, manipulaba a los interrogadores y después de tres semanas de interrogatorios no obteníamos nada”, comentó Matthew Alexander, nombre que adoptó por seguridad de su familia.
Starbucks signed a settlement with the National Labor Relations Board last week agreeing to let Minneapolis-area employees post union materials in their break areas and discuss union issues while on the job, as long as it doesn’t interfere with their performance.
The settlement does not include financial payment, and it will not be final until the NLRB decides whether to address objections to the settlement by union organizers at the Industrial Workers of the World, according to Marlin Osthus, acting director of the NLRB’s upper midwest region office.
The IWW initiated the complaints that led to the settlement and, according to a press release, considers it a victory at this point.
It’s Starbucks’ sixth labor settlement in three years and its second in Minneapolis. In December, the coffee chain also lost a battle in administrative-law court when a judge determined that Starbucks had unfairly imposed work rules on employees who supported the IWW.
The company is appealing the court’s decision and has not acknowledged wrongdoing in any of the settlements.