Italy, Lugano, and Couch Surfing

Lugano! You'd never expect a city in Switzerland to be a Mediterranean paradise, but the canton of Tucino is exactly that! The sun, the turquoise water, the huge, sheer, rolling green mountains! This isn't one of my photos, but seriously, the canton of Tucino took my breath away.



So beautiful! We spent the week walking the shores of its lake, exploring the windy cobblestone streets, and of course, attending briefings for class. Our study group had a hotel booked until Thursday night and a train ticket back to Nyon on Sunday morning, which meant that we had a weekend free. For weeks I had been trying to find a couch surfer who didn't already have guests and was getting increasingly frustrated and worried- Thursday morning and I still didn't have weekend plans, while other students were planning trips to Rome, Milan, or Germany. Thursday night Alessandro, a Venetian couch surfer, agreed to host me so Friday morning I hopped on the earliest train and went to Venice for the weekend! The city was absolutely beautiful, but what was more wonderful was the experience of couch surfing. I'd never couch surfed before and really didn't know what to expect... basically, it was a perfect weekend.

Alessandro, Marco, and Gianfranco were absolutely fabulous hosts- talkative, friendly, silly, smart, really interesting and nice- oh, and they had a beautiful apartment overlooking the water, lived in a really chill neighborhood minutes from the train, had a tiny kitten, and made the best italian food I've ever had. To top it off, Alessandro has worked in Venetian bars and fixed up some real Venetian Spritz- perfecto! We had two wonderful evenings of cooking, drinking, and exploring, and on the final night we celebrated Marco's birthday by staying up the whole night before I had to jump on the 6:30am train back to Lugano. Thus, I am now in love with couch surfing, and I vow to couch surf after my program as I explore Eastern Europe!

This just in...

The UN reports that the number of hungry people in the world rose from about 850 million in 2006 to 925 million in 2007. That's an increase of about 75 MILLION people. Why did this happen?
natural disasters
biofuel industry
poor economic/finance/trade policies
rising demand for meat and other complex foods
climate change that reduces growing seasons/suitability of land
and then some.

Hey Tacoma dwellers

Iraq Vets Against the War are well on their way to building a wicked coffee shop and community space near Fort Lewis, providing a comfortable and welcoming environment for soldiers to express dissent and share questions and answers. Check out this sweet event!

October 11th: Jim Page Night of Acoustic Resistance to Benefit IVAW Coffeehouse

author: Patrick Edelbacher
Sep 17, 2008 21:20

The famous, Jim Page, and the not so famous, Patrick Edelbacher, will be preforming a set of acoustic resistance on October 11th at Kings books in Tacoma. There is a $5 cover charge to benefit Iraq Veterans Against the War and GI Voice in their quest to open a GI Coffeehouse at Ft. Lewis.

Jim Page and Patrick Edelbacher night of acoustic resistance to benefit IVAW coffeehouse. There will also be a speaker from IVAW to talk about GI Resistance Today. Support the troops!

October 11 at 7pm
$5 at the door

Kings Books
218 St. Helens Ave.
Tacoma, WA

Observation Journal

I'm almost embarrassed to be posting this... for a class assignment, we have to write two journal entries in a very specific format regarding health and politics in Switzerland. These have to focus on interactive experiences, be as interactively written as possible, and basically the rules and requirements are utterly confusing and ridiculous. We also have to use the die format- first, simple description. Then, an interpretation that addresses possible meanings. And finally, an evaluation that provides my own insight. It still needs some work but anyway, here is my Swiss observation on health in la suisse. My evaluation needs some work but I don't really know what else to say at this point- i tend to like universal health care systems, but Switzerland has a tradition for doing things its own way and I respect that.


Introduction:
One morning, my colleagues and I were given a tour of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Museum in Geneva Switzerland. My experiences at the Red Cross left me feeling emotionally vulnerable; the museum's visualizations and symbolic representation of tragedies tugged painfully at my heartstrings, yet I felt impatient for my own opportunities to positively affect the world. As I sat down to a dinner with my Swiss host family that night, the day's emotions and memories continued to pluck and pull at my consciousness, distracting me from the conversation. My attention was completely diverted, however, when my host sister Justine began describing her meeting with a health insurance representative earlier in the afternoon. I was shocked when Justine shared her monthly quote for basic health insurance, even more so when she explained that she had to pay extra for “luxuries” like a private room separate from vulnerable children and elderly. Our ensuing conversation spurred a question within me that forms the basic prompt for this journal entry: Is there a contradiction between the humanitarian reputation of Switzerland and the health care system?

Description:
Initial Observations and Ensuing Dialogs
Before coming to Switzerland, I was aware that the country was internationally recognized for its neutrality and its acceptance and promotion of humanitarianism. Not only do international organizations such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organizations have seats in Geneva, but also a plethora of non-governmental humanitarian groups. I also held a firm belief that the Swiss way was the best way, and that undoubtedly the system in Switzerland was conductive to the people's kind and generous natures. I felt certain that the care and compassion represented by the organizations in Geneva would be reflected in the politics and society of the Swiss.
These preconceptions were re-enforced for me by both our conversation with representatives from the Swiss operational headquarters of Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) as well as the Red Cross tour. The presentation by a representative from MSF revealed that the humanitarian aid organization was funded almost entirely by private donations, with half of the overall budget coming from Swiss donors and another third coming from fund raising activities within the country. The speaker also pointed out that the budget for the Swiss MSF had doubled between 2004 and 2008, reflecting a huge increase in the amount and/or number of Swiss donors who contributed to the aid organization.
While we had discussed the significance of the Red Cross in terms of the overall humanitarian movement while in Paris at Médecins du Monde, I did not begin to fully appreciate its place in the international dialog regarding humanitarianism until our Red Cross tour. The Red Cross Museum uses powerful symbolic representation to present their ideas and history, which for me brought their stories to life. A small concrete cell allowed us to feel like isolated prisoners, simulated land mines in the floor reminded us how easily they could be mistaken for toys, and vast towers of index cards represented lost prisoners of war and their families' desperation. The history of the Red Cross is rooted in Switzerland, where it was founded by a Swiss businessman named Henri Dunant, and from which the Geneva Conventions were born. Due to my past experiences with Amnesty International and my interest in humanitarianism, the Geneva Conventions hold incredible importance to me. Learning about the role of the Red Cross and the Swiss in their creation further increased my satisfaction with the Swiss themselves.
The same night over dinner, my Swiss sister Justine lamented about her problems with health insurance. Neither Justine nor her sister, both teachers, she explained, have succeeded in finding a full time job, therefore each of them make only a portion of an average teacher's salary. Despite their shortage in funds, they still must pay for the mandatory health insurance, which at the most basic in Vaud costs about 280 francs per month. To get extra benefits, such as a private room or access to more diverse medications and remedies, they must pay even more per month.
Listening to Justine describe her situation- spending roughly 15-20% of her monthly salary on health insurance despite being young and healthy, I couldn't help but wonder if there was some sort of contradiction between what I had seen earlier at the Red Cross Museum and MSF and the situation with health insurance. Surely if the Swiss were so willing to donate to humanitarian causes abroad they would be willing to ensue that everyone in Switzerland had reasonable access to quality health care, I thought. Over the next few days I pursued more conversations with the Swiss of Vaud regarding health insurance and health care.
One older man I spoke with, an invalid who could no longer work for medical reasons, explained that the state provided him with a stipend of 2,000 francs per month- a little more than 2/3 of the monthly rent for his family home. While he had hoped to receive government assistance for medical insurance, which for the elderly is very high, he was turned down because he has a phone, electricity, an apartment, and other things that could be liquidated into cash if he was actually in need. He was not, according to the system, in need of any financial assistance.
An unnamed women I spoke to outside of the Migros in Nyon also had a few criticisms for the health care system in Vaud. She explained that the rich as well as the poor have the same insurance rates, and reminded me that in different cantons such as Geneva, the situation is completely different. Despite the fact that many insurance companies are private and ought to be competitive with each other and government insurance, she said, average workers who live on less than 4,000 francs per month were setting prices alongside bankers who take in over 200,000 francs per year. These high incomes, she believed, contribute to insurance companies making profits while still charging painfully high rates. Another man I spoke with regarding my second observation journal entry, Laurent, felt that the insurance rates in Vaud reflect Vaud's relatively high income, and explained that in a region with a lower income, insurance rates are also relatively low.

Interpretation:
These varied perspectives and experiences helped me form interpretations of the situations I had directly observed and indirectly learned about though conversations. The humanitarian reputation of Switzerland is undeniable- but what is questionable is the validity of this reputation. While the Swiss could be unusually compassionate and concerned with the health and wellbeing of all humans, the reputation could have also been created by the nation's simple and efficient neutrality. Neutrality, which has kept Switzerland out of wars that could have potentially destroyed the country, has also made it incredibly hospitable to international organizations of all kind, many of which focus on humanitarianism. It is possible that the reputation of the Swiss as a humanitarian nation could be created by the activities of organizations more so than the actual values of the population.
In addition, the way I perceived MSF's statement that most of their funding comes from private donors could have been incorrect. MSF admits that they limit the amount of funding they receive from institutions to less than 20%. If this is true, most of their budget would HAVE to come from donors whether the donors were usually generous or not. The doubling of the budget as well is hard to judge without considering the economic growth of the country over the last four years as well as donor trends in other MSF nations.
Health care in Switzerland is open to multiple interpretations as well. Mandatory health insurance as well as a choice between state or private insurance policies could be a sign of a population who values both the competitive marketplace as well as a minimum government standard. A concern for equality is also reflected in the requirement that insurance policies at a certain premium must cost the same for individuals of the same age group, regardless of their sex or state of health. For full time workers, this insurance may not be overly costly at all; it also may not be the responsibility of the health care system in Switzerland to react when full time work is difficult to find. We must also recognize the quality of even basic Swiss health care, which is some of the best in the world, and thus bound to be more expensive than lower quality care. While my initial observation suggested a possible contradiction between the image and reality of the Swiss in terms of health care, under closer inspection I can see that there may be no contradiction at all. In fact, I may have misinterpreted and mis-evaluated my original observation, due to both preconceptions as well as my sometimes overly sympathetic ear.

Evaluation:
Is there a contradiction between the humanitarian reputation of Switzerland and the health care system?
After a careful examination of my experiences and conversations, I feel that there is no contradiction between health care in Switzerland (Vaud specifically) and the humanitarian reputation. The health care system could be improved in some ways: subsidized insurance for low income and part time workers, requiring insurance companies to make their records public, or other strategies from neighboring cantons could be implemented to reduce costs for those without a banker's salary. In a way, however, these types of policies themselves would be contrary to the typical Swiss way, where everything has a price.
We must also keep in mind that the humanitarian reputation Switzerland carries stems mostly from Geneva and the organizations that reside in that canton, not necessarily from the people of Vaud. I take special note here of one interviewee, who explained that the health care system is more accessible in the canton of Geneva than in Vaud. Therefore, I believe the humanitarian reputation is not nearly as Swiss as I previously thought, and is in fact more specific to the canton of Geneva and the organizations present.
The idea of charity organizations and humanitarian aid that helps the poor with donations of food, money, education, etc, seems to run perfectly in line with the capitalist system in Switzerland. In Switzerland, market competition is utilized in hopes of increasing the choices and availability of insurance for the Swiss, and is complemented by state insurance. Charity donations and aid, rather than a state imposed tax or redistribution of wealth, are a free market way of dealing with the problems of poverty. Many Swiss make charitable donations to programs like MSF, which I believe shows to a certain degree that the Swiss believe in helping those who are unable to help themselves. With an average income of over $40,000/year and a history of independence, however, perhaps voters in Vaud believe that they are for the most part able to take care of themselves, and therefore not in need of strong state assistance. Curiously from a U.S. perspective, the way health insurance works is decided by Swiss voters rather than politicians and economists, and this brings up more questions that will be answered in my observation journal regarding direct democracy in Vaud.

The Red Cross

Today we took a tour of the Museum of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The museum here in Geneva is really special- absolutely everything in this museum is dripping with symbolism, from the height of the walls to the unfinished ceiling, from the way it's hidden underground to the various rooms and cells you can explore. The museum itself is a piece of art- it is incredibly stylized, and everything holds meaning.
What is so special about the Red Cross? Before coming to Europe, I would have said it was an aid organization just like any other, perhaps older. But the Red Cross is so much more than that- I feel that it is safe to say that the Red Cross pioneered modern forms of humanitarianism. It is also treated almost like an entity, with an international respect and deference that a regular NGO doesn't receive.
The battle of Solferino (Italy and France v Austria) in 1859 yielded over 20 km of horrifically maimed and injured bodies. A wealthy, industrious Swiss businessman named Henri Dunant came to the battlefront seeking permission from Napolean III to access some French resources; upon seeing the traumatic battlefront, Henri's life completely changed. He returned to Geneva a new man, sending his account of the battle to leaders around the world, calling for a meeting on the horrors of war. From his ensuing lifetime of charity, hard work, and motivation stemmed the organization of the Red Cross, and, in my opinion more importantly, the Geneva Conventions themselves. He died running from debt collectors, denying the prize money he was awarded by the Nobel Peace Prize, among others, and sending the money instead to the Red Cross.
The Geneva Conventions are one of the main reasons the Red Cross stands apart from other aid agencies. The Red Cross essentially created the Geneva conventions, triggering countries to respect medical workers, armies, navies, prisoners of war, and civilians during times of war. Today the Geneva conventions are often treated like the grand rules- perhaps the U.S. and other nations break them from time to time, but it is generally agreed that they shouldn't be broken. The international legitimacy of the Red Cross has gained it a special place in terms of the international criminal court: no Red Cross member can be forced to testify. Today the Red Cross's neutrality grants it access to prisoner camps, prisons, and other sites around the world that no other human rights organization has access to. Even Nazi Germany eventually allowed the Red Cross access to its death camps- on the condition that they could not leave until the end of the war. Gallantly, 10 Red Cross delegates went to the death camps anyway.
The Red Cross, aside from providing essential medical care, documents the conditions of POW's, sends them supplemental food, has prison conditioned improved, connects victims of war with their families and loved ones, etc etc etc. They provide medical aid, but also mental aid, repairing families and creating new ones. After Rwanda, they connected thousands of lost children with their families and with adoptive parents, and those who were still unclaimed were assisted in forming families with each other.


Neutrality in an aid organization is a touchy issue for me. For the Red Cross, they focus on helping everyone regardless of their demographics or politics, and they remain more or less silent about who is right or wrong. This enables them to enter into places where no other aid agencies can go, which is important for accessing victims who are otherwise out of sight. My issue with organizations like the Red Cross, or like Doctors without Borders, is that they say they want to help without pointing out who is wrong, without substituting for what government should be doing on its own, without shooting for big changes.
Well, I would say this accomplishes very little in the big picture. Yes, they are keeping people from enduring torturous conditions they would have faced otherwise, and yes they are helping individuals find their families, and yes, they are providing proper medical care for wounded people. But they are, to me, cleaning up a mess, not asking why the mess is there in the first place.
For example, we talked to some people from the UN about malnutrition the other day. They said they like to distribute the food aid necessary to help children overcome malnutrition to keep them alive, and THATS ALL. The rest of the job- finding them jobs, finding a stable food source, etc, that's the government's role. I think that in cases where children are malnourished, where medical care is not provided for citizens, etc, it is already the case that the government cannot or will not do its job, and by keeping people on the brink of life rather than letting them die, the problem is only exasperated. It may even, in fact, compound the problem by leaving more jobless, hungry, resentful people in a country that is not functioning. I'm not saying that aid agencies should let people die, obviously, nor do I think they should attempt to tell the government how to behave to save its own people.

Instead, I feel that aid agencies should address the root causes of disease, hunger, and poverty with grassroots solutions. People are starving. Okay, well instead of asking government to form better political and economic strategies, instead of giving the worst cases just enough care to keep them from dying, why don't agencies focus on providing people with the tools, the animals, the seeds, the education, the technology to feed themselves?
There are not two ways of going about change- band aids or government restructuring. Pilot programs implemented on a small household or village basis have the ability to actually work, be manageable, be implemented without needing a government okay, and are self propagating, spreading if they are successful.
Should we let that starving child die? Well no, not if we can help it, but so many agencies seem to focus on that state of emergency at the expense of structural change rather than incorporating the two. So far, Medecins du Monde is the only organization we have explored that really addressing the short term and the long term in a way that is truly beneficial to people living in developing nations as a whole. Perhaps I am not compassionate enough about individual people? Maybe I still have more to learn.

The red cross is not a normal NGO- while others are worried about impartiality and effectiveness, about getting money without accepting association with a country, the Red Cross seems to have a status more like that of an IO like the UN or WTO: it is an entity that affects politics on a different scale than groups like Amnesty International.

traveling alone

After my program (and frequently during the program) I will be traveling alone through Europe... I'm not big on tourist attractions- for example, I wasn't really interested in seeing la Tour Eiffel up close and personal. Instead, I would like to talk to locals, make friends, go to clubs, dance, cook a breakfast in a communal kitchen with others, and just have fun. The problem is, I am so morbidly shy and awkward that I am afraid I will not be able to communicate with other people, particularly in Italy, Prague, Berlin, or Austria, and will thus spend every day wandering lost and every night be in bed by 8:30pm. I really don't know if I will be able to befriend random strangers and be invited along with them. For this, I worry. If my independent travel is a waste, I will feel terrible about my own lack of communicate skills.

swiss family structure

Switzerland, while being very progressive in terms of conservation, politics, etc, is actually significantly behind the rest of the "developed" world in terms of gender equity. Women here were among some of the last to gain the right to vote or to put it into practice, and sexism is still very rampant in the society. Societal structures, for example a break in the school day for children to return home for lunch, further work against women by requiring them to be at home monday-friday. One way I have seen this is through family dynamics. The mother in my host family works, as do her two daughters, while the father remains home due to extreme medical circumstances. The mother cooks three meals a day for her family, cleans, grocery shops, and does everyone's laundry, despite being a full time hospital worker. Having this mother cook breakfast, lunch, and dinner as well as require that I hand my laundry over to her makes me feel extremely awkward- she is so kind and giving, but to the point where she does our work for us. Her daughters never wash their own clothes despite being teachers and 24 and 26 years old, and they don't know how to cook. Because mother has always prepared the meals, their father told me, neither of the girls have ever learned to prepare food for themselves! This seems so strange to me, this traditional family setting, especially because my mom always encouraged independence so strongly.

humanitarianism and le roi lion

So I just finished reading two articles that I really enjoyed. The first, a UN report on diverging growth and development published in the 2006 World Economic and Social Survey (06). This report discussed a lot of what we cover in IPE- ie, how globalization affects development, specifically the divide between the developed and developing nations. Our classroom readings and discussions have been relatively shallow, however, when compared to this report. I have never had such an engaging and detailed description of foreign direct investment, private investments, different domestic strategies for integrating the benefits of trade, infrastructure, etc etc. It took everything we have ever covered in college and dove significantly deeper into each subject, deconstructing them to discover where exactly problems lie, and backing it up with sound evidence. It took actions that in IPE we dismiss as ineffective and counterproductive and showed me where and why they are problematic. Just have to say, it was excellent, and did a good job of presenting a well rounded viewpoint on development. If you are interested in development/econ/poverty, check it out.


Moving on to a shorter and more easily explainable article that I also found really interesting... Appearing in Foreign Affairs, David Rieff's "Humanitarianism in Crisis" discussed a recent shift in humanitarianism, as well as its implications. In the good old days of aid work, neutrality was key. Organizations were supposedly non political and tried to help everyone, everywhere, for the simple fact that they were people. This could mean assisting victims of natural disasters, victims in civil wars or conflicts, where ever. Their motivations were diverse, whether compassion or Christian duty. The focus of the aid was simply that- to aid. The only time they would pull out would be if there was a loss of funding or if they were doing more harm than good, such as making people targets by providing them with supplies.
By the end of the 90's, these humanitarians were become disheartened and disillusioned by the seeming ineffectiveness of their work, and many were swept up in new humanitarianism. This "new" humanitarianism is built on the principle of human rights; if a government is not protecting the rights of its people, the aid groups have an obligation to provide for them. To address the base causes of health problems appeared more effective than the relief of the previous century.

As governments and militias became more violent toward the aid workers, who espoused the rules of the UN and Geneva conventions, they began calling for peacekeepers like NATO forces to assure their safety and transport. By essentially militarizing aid, relief work quickly became highly political. When a nation or military force goes in, it goes in to win, which invites total violence and destruction of the enemy. This, tied into the fact that many aid agencies are unable to refuse donation contracts from organizations like the UN, makes them all the more politicized. By focusing on human rights and the contractual obligations between government and their people, aid organizations try to affect the root causes of the issues they treat, such as poverty and infrastructure. They also create a group of people who are "not worth" aiding- people who, if they were aided, would subtract from the overall political goal. This author argues passionately that humanitarianism has lost the neutrality that made it so acceptable and beautiful before- perhaps it was ineffective in the grand scheme, but it was present. Today, politicized aid workers are targets of violence. Of course, the article goes much deeper than this into a variety of issues regarding aid, but I found the dichotomy between old school neutral aid agencies and new age politicized agencies to be really interesting.

Which is better? Well it depends. Some aid agencies provide only band aids- food, medical care, education, sanitation, etc where it is needed most. This saves lives, and often helps prevent problems like disease and malnutrition from spreading through a population. Other agencies attempt to initiate plans and projects to create sustainable systems of self help with the potential to influence politics. Honestly, I believe both of these are necessary, and perhaps agency specialization is in the best interest of everyone to prevent overlap that wastes resources; we cannot forget to keep our efforts coordinated, however. The author argues that above all aid must be neutral, or else it is indeed not humanitarianism, but instead a political agenda often accompanied by guns and NATO troops. It's neutrality or nothing.
David concludes the article by saying, "So many people, including relief workers, now speak of 'mere' charity, 'mere' humanitarianism- as if coping with a dishonorable world justly, and a cruel world with kindness, were not honor enough."


And on a different subject entirely, I watched le Roi Lion tonight (the lion king) in French and was infinitely pleased, because it is my favorite movie and I was able to understand some dialogue.

sarah palin

First things first: The criticisms I make about Sarah Palin here are the same criticisms I would make about a man running for VP when he had a disabled infant at home. Also, being abroad during the Rnc, I have gained an interesting perspective on the "issue" regarding Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter. The BBC, the French news, and the international newspapers have been CONSTANTLY running stories- up to seven in one issue- about the pregnancy and what it means. Specifically, they are commending the politicians for not using the pregnancy to degrade Sarah's moral fiber, which of course, they hint, is now very controversial.
The fact that they even point this out to me is absurd. In no way should her daughter's actions and choices affect her own moral standing, and even more so, a pregnancy outside of marriage should not be considered by the world to be a terrible, morally bad thing! It is not instantly a tragedy and a sign of bad parenting. The international press is praising America so wholeheartedly for overlooking and forgiving this terrible slight- I don't see this as a slight on Sarah Palin. Her young daughter's out of wedlock pregnancy should not even be mentioned on the news because it is simply not news.

What I would point out about Sarah in terms of morals and motherhood, however, is that she has a four month old infant with down syndrome and is signing up for a job that could potentially remove her from that child's life for eight years. Is it right for anyone to abandon their infant child for eight years? Is that a sign of a good mother, or even a person who is capable of making responsible choices? Honestly if I were planning to have a baby, I would not do it when i KNEW I would not be able to raise the child or form a bond with it. I totally support working mothers, especially those who have to work to feed their children. But when a wealthy woman chooses to be famous instead of forming meaningful connections with her creations just because she feels like it- that is really sad. She could be a governor and still see her children on nights and weekends. She could be a senator and still see them for part of the year. But vice president? I think it is irresponsible and selfish to saddle children with abandonment issues in exchange for power. And if McCain is unfortunately assassinated or dies in some sort of tragedy? She would be president, and with a special needs child who requires near 24 hour care and to which she could give virtually none. Regardless of her politics, her personal choices show a clear lack of conscious and compassion for the well being of others, in my opinion.

Now let's see what others think about Palin, her "tax cutting" history, her casual admittance that she "hasn't thought much about Iraq", etc.



*
*
*
*

Opinion
Palin: Wrong Woman, Wrong Message
Thursday 04 September 200

by: Gloria Steinem, The Los Angeles Times

photo
Gloria Steinem speaks out. (Photo: www.iabolish.org)

Sarah Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Hillary Clinton. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

Here's the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing - the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party - are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president. We owe this to women - and to many men too - who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted violence at the polls so women can vote. We owe it to Shirley Chisholm, who first took the "white-male-only" sign off the White House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who hung in there through ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.

But here is even better news: It won't work. This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere. It's not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It's about baking a new pie.

Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for - and that Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."

This is not to beat up on Palin. I defend her right to be wrong, even on issues that matter most to me. I regret that people say she can't do the job because she has children in need of care, especially if they wouldn't say the same about a father. I get no pleasure from imagining her in the spotlight on national and foreign policy issues about which she has zero background, with one month to learn to compete with Sen. Joe Biden's 37 years' experience.

Palin has been honest about what she doesn't know. When asked last month about the vice presidency, she said, "I still can't answer that question until someone answers for me: What is it exactly that the VP does every day?" When asked about Iraq, she said, "I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."

She was elected governor largely because the incumbent was unpopular, and she's won over Alaskans mostly by using unprecedented oil wealth to give a $1,200 rebate to every resident. Now she is being praised by McCain's campaign as a tax cutter, despite the fact that Alaska has no state income or sales tax. Perhaps McCain has opposed affirmative action for so long that he doesn't know it's about inviting more people to meet standards, not lowering them. Or perhaps McCain is following the Bush administration habit, as in the Justice Department, of putting a job candidate's views on "God, guns and gays" ahead of competence. The difference is that McCain is filling a job one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency.

So let's be clear: The culprit is John McCain. He may have chosen Palin out of change-envy, or a belief that women can't tell the difference between form and content, but the main motive was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom. If that were not the case, McCain could have chosen a woman who knows what a vice president does and who has thought about Iraq; someone like Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. McCain could have taken a baby step away from right-wing patriarchs who determine his actions, right down to opposing the Violence Against Women Act.

Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

I don't doubt her sincerity. As a lifetime member of the National Rifle Assn., she doesn't just support killing animals from helicopters, she does it herself. She doesn't just talk about increasing the use of fossil fuels but puts a coal-burning power plant in her own small town. She doesn't just echo McCain's pledge to criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade, she says that if one of her daughters were impregnated by rape or incest, she should bear the child. She not only opposes reproductive freedom as a human right but implies that it dictates abortion, without saying that it also protects the right to have a child.

So far, the major new McCain supporter that Palin has attracted is James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Of course, for Dobson, "women are merely waiting for their husbands to assume leadership," so he may be voting for Palin's husband.

Being a hope-a-holic, however, I can see two long-term bipartisan gains from this contest.

Republicans may learn they can't appeal to right-wing patriarchs and most women at the same time. A loss in November could cause the centrist majority of Republicans to take back their party, which was the first to support the Equal Rights Amendment and should be the last to want to invite government into the wombs of women.

And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time jobs than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can't be equal outside the home until men are equal in it. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are campaigning on their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their children.

This could be huge.

sayonara first ammendment rights..

sub-media.tv

Pre-Emptive Strikes Against Protest at RNC

Tuesday 02 September 2008

by: Marjorie Cohn, t r u t h o u t | Report

In the months leading up to the Republican National Convention, the FBI-led Minneapolis Joint Terrorist Task Force actively recruited people to infiltrate vegan groups and other leftist organizations and report back about their activities. On May 21, the Minneapolis City Pages ran a recruiting story called "Moles Wanted." Law enforcement sought to pre-empt lawful protest against the policies of the Bush administration during the convention.

Since Friday, local police and sheriffs, working with the FBI, conducted pre-emptive searches, seizures and arrests. Glenn Greenwald described the targeting of protesters by "teams of 25-30 officers in riot gear, with semi-automatic weapons drawn, entering homes of those suspected of planning protests, handcuffing and forcing them to lay on the floor, while law enforcement officers searched the homes, seizing computers, journals, and political pamphlets." Journalists were detained at gunpoint and lawyers representing detainees were handcuffed at the scene.

"I was personally present and saw officers with riot gear and assault rifles, pump action shotguns," said Bruce Nestor, the president of the Minnesota chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, who is representing several of the protesters. "The neighbor of one of the houses had a gun pointed in her face when she walked out on her back porch to see what was going on. There were children in all of these houses, and children were held at gunpoint."

The raids targeted members of "Food Not Bombs," an antiwar, anti-authoritarian protest group that provides free vegetarian meals every week in hundreds of cities all over the world. They served meals to rescue workers at the World Trade Center after 9/11 and to nearly 20 communities in the Gulf region following Hurricane Katrina.

Also targeted, were members of I-Witness Video, a media watchdog group that monitors the police to protect civil liberties. The group worked with the National Lawyers Guild to gain the dismissal of charges or acquittals of about 400 of the 1,800 who were arrested during the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York. Pre-emptive policing was used at that time as well. Police infiltrated protest groups in advance of the convention.

Nestor said that no violence or illegality has taken place to justify the arrests. "Seizing boxes of political literature shows the motive of these raids was political," he said.

Further evidence of the political nature of the police action was the boarding up of the Convergence Center, where protesters had gathered, for unspecified code violations. St. Paul City Council member David Thune said, "Normally we only board up buildings that are vacant and ramshackle." Thune and fellow City Council member Elizabeth Glidden decried "actions that appear excessive and create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation for those who wish to exercise their First Amendment rights."

"So here we have a massive assault led by Federal Government law enforcement agencies on left-wing dissidents and protesters who have committed no acts of violence or illegality whatsoever, preceded by months-long espionage efforts to track what they do," Greenwald wrote on Salon.

Preventive detention violates the Fourth Amendment, which requires that warrants be supported by probable cause. protesters were charged with "conspiracy to commit riot," a rarely-used statute that is so vague, it is probably unconstitutional. Nestor said it "basically criminalizes political advocacy."

On Sunday, the National Lawyers Guild and Communities United Against Police Brutality filed an emergency motion requesting an injunction to prevent police from seizing video equipment and cellular phones used to document their conduct.

During Monday's demonstration, law enforcement officers used pepper spray, rubber bullets, concussion grenades and excessive force. At least 284 people were arrested, including Amy Goodman, the prominent host of "Democracy Now!," as well as the show's producers, Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar. "St. Paul was the most militarized I have ever seen an American city to be," Greenwald wrote, "with troops of federal, state and local law enforcement agents marching around with riot gear, machine guns, and tear gas cannisters, shouting military chants and marching in military formations."

Bruce Nestor said the timing of the arrests was intended to stop protest activity, "to make people fearful of the protests, but also to discourage people from protesting," he told Amy Goodman. Nevertheless, 10,000 people, many opposed to the Iraq war, turned out to demonstrate on Monday. A legal team from the National Lawyers Guild has been working diligently to protect the constitutional rights of protesters.

»

Marjorie Cohn is president of the National Lawyers Guild and a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law. She is the author of "Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law." Her new book, "Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent" (co-authored with Kathleen Gilberd), will be published this winter. Her articles are archived at www.marjoriecohn.com.
Comments

Aid Workers and Defense

Today we met a man named Frederick Baccaan who has spent roughly 25 years doing the logistics of aid for Medecin du Monde, a small independent NGO based in Paris. Frederick has been through countless conflict and disaster scenarios in places the DRC, Sudan, Uganda, Pakistan, Iraq, Tibet, etc, as well as just showed up to build medical facilities where there were none. As a logistics specialist, his job was basically to provide housing, transportation, and safety to the doctors and nurses working with Medecin du Monde. In places like the Congo, Indonesia after the tsunami, or Darfur, this can obviously be an extremely difficult task. After a very long, exciting, and moving discussion about his life and work, Frederick commented on a dramatic change he saw roughly around the year 2002. Previously, being white and wearing the uniform of aid workers was generally enough to ensure safe passage anywhere in the globe. Now, however, aid workers are increasingly targets of violence, rape, looting, and murders, as they are seen as proxies for government rather than neutral entities. This dramatic shift came around, interestingly, right after the beginning of the Iraq war and has presented a whole new set of problems for aid workers. Aid workers traditionally carry no weapons, and often have images on their vehicles and buildings proclaiming that they do not carry weapons. They are in a country to heal- not to hurt. As they increasingly become victims of aggressive violence, however, the idea of doctors and nurses being able to defend themselves is becoming more widely discussed. While carrying weapons would invite more hostility as well as cause the aid workers to be rejected more often by the populations they are trying to help, it may provide them the protection they need to save the life of themselves or others in a critical moment.

Frederick shared his opinion through a story of his time in Iraq. One night, the office and home of Frederick and the two doctors he worked with (one male, one female) were attacked by looters. They climbed to the roof while the looters, armed with machine guns and ranging in age from about 15-17, stole valuable medical equipment, broke into the safe, stole computers, cell phones, and drugs. Frederick called for help on the radio to the UN, but was told the situation was too dangerous to send help. If Frederick had been armed with a gun, he could have killed the looters- Iraqi teenagers- and had Medecins du Monde pulled out of Iraq. He could have fired into the air, showing that this medical hospital was really a place of violence, and perhaps invited retaliation later or invited the looters to come to the roof with their guns drawn. As it was, he had no weapon, and the fear that the female doctor would be raped and all three of them murdered. Would this be an acceptable price to pay to keep the presence of Medecins du Monde in Iraq, savings hundreds of women and children? As it was, Frederick' driver had kept his radio on all through the night, and heard his call for help. Just as two looters arrived on the roof, the driver and the Iraqi police arrived and chased them away. Non violence, in this situation, kept Frederick and his group alive as well as the Iraqi teenagers. If he had killed them, what kind of retaliation may the police and citizens have taken?

I do not think that aid workers should be armed- they are willingly going into a traumatic situation where they know they are targets, hoping that their actions and their relationships with the host population will keep them safe. To go in with guns is to forcefully impose their actions upon the population, and to represent a military power. Especially because NGO's are private organizations and can be run however their leadership sees fit, they should not show up in the gear of a humanitarian only to kill the people they're trying to help when they feel at risk. Weapons will cause more hostility and prevent them from doing their work properly by closing doors that would have been open otherwise.

Some thoughts on Paris, travel, and the program

Paris is one of the world's most famous international cities, a city of romance, fashion, culture, and history. It's also one of the last places on earth I would chose to go to. I love travel and have been to a few different countries (Ireland, Canada, Mexico, Australia, France), but have never found explorations through Western nations to be at all fulfilling. The countries that I feel drawn to lie more along the lines of Cuba, Argentina, Venezuela, Chile, Egypt, the Congo, Kosovo, India, Kenya, South Africa, Iraq, Thailand. I want to see cultures that are completely different, governments that are different, ways of life that are different. I want to learn from other cultures, explore their values, to give and take what I can. I want to see revolution alive in the hearts and minds of people.
Then why, you may ask, did I come to Switzerland? Why did I study French instead of Spanish? Well, long ago when I began taking language classes, Spanish was completely full and I was more or less “stuck” with French, which I decided to pursue in college for that easier A. For study abroad, the vast majority of programs in the countries I feel drawn to were either cultural and therefore not at all conductive to my major and graduation requirements, or required 1-2 years of Spanish. Feeling interested by Geneva as the hub of international organizations, neutrality, and one of the world's oldest and truest democracies, as well as by my own Swiss heritage, I chose this program in development studies and public health. Hopefully the connections and concepts I gain here and at UPS will allow me to, one day, travel to the places I dream of for real work and not just tourism.
Back to the subject of this post, however; Paris. What can I say? Most of the food is good, I enjoy the baguettes au fromage. The portions are extremely small, and everything- a small beverage or tiny to go crepe- costs at least 5 euro, and you can expect to spend 15-20 even on a modest meal. Knowing that the euro is worth almost twice as much as the dollar makes the high cost of food even harder to stomach. Wait staff often ignores you, whether you're trying to get a menu or trying to pay- the average French meal seems to take 2-3 hours, contrary to US restaurants where you are sent packing as quickly as possible.
The city is absolutely picturesque in appearance, however. Tall, adorable buildings with little balconies, adorned with peeling paint and colorful flower boxes. Everywhere you look, there are beautifully dressed Parisian women wearing their slim fit pants, sac-like dresses, and brand names like Channel. Stilettos are the norm, despite the uneven cobblestones. The weather has been for the most part beautiful, and the Louvre, Tour Eiffel, Notre Dame, etc are of course lovely. We met a girl from Japan the other night who had traveled extensively on her own over the last 8 years and was now living in Paris- unfortunately I have to agree with her that Parisians come off rich and snobbish, with the most friendly people being other tourists. One thing I do really appreciate about the city is the frequency with which you can find a fruit stand, which has far more variety than any typical U.S. grocery store.
The sticker shock- I return to that again. Even a bottle of water here costs about 2 euro, or almost four dollars. To order water at a restaurant is to pay closer to 5 euro. Oh yes, the Red Light District of Paris. Basically an endless row of cheap, tiny run down sex shops like that creepy one on sixth avenue, punctuated by the occasional peep show, club, or one sex museum. I was definitely not impressed- and then we tried to buy a bottle of wine, but because it was after 9pm, they wouldn't sell it to us at the nearby grocery store- very peculiar. Oh la la!


As for the group of students I am with, they all seem to be genuinely nice people who care about the world, mostly focusing their studies on international affairs and health. We all have such different backgrounds though- most are rich enough to have traveled far more extensively than I have, and many come from universities that teach strictly the dominant models of, well, everything. Needless to say, I'm having a bit of a hard time making meaningful connections with people from sororities, or who see the world ONLY in the same way the U.S government and Ivy League professors do. My roommate in Paris is absolutely wonderful; she is Indian American and has incredibly strong cultural ties, which is very excited for me because I have spent so much time recently studying India in terms of politics, economics, culture, and gender studies.
Mostly I am excited to get into the heart of our studies and spend time with my Swiss host family, which is made up of a mother and father and their two daughters who are both teachers in their mid twenties. I am really excited to settle into a home, meet Swiss friends, and begin work on our ISP projects. Our program is almost unsettlingly unstructured, but really excellent. Basically we spend every day meeting professionals, hearing their lectures, and interacting with them on a professional basis, we are immersed in French both in society as well as in our French class at the Ecole Club Migros, and we are to receive specific training in independent field research. This program was developed by Earl, who is with us nearly every day, and really seeks to make us into competent, successful adults rather than just occupying our time with class and taking our money. It turns out we have far more freedom than I expected- no curfews, no need to stay here or there, we can travel where ever we want whenever we want as long as we still attend our seminars and meetings. We receive a stipend for meals outside the home and are encouraged to dive into the culture and become as authentic as possible. I've never really been treated this way before in a similar setting- as if we're truly on the same level as the people we are meeting, like officials in the UN and Doctors without Borders. We get a UN Security Clearance Card once in Geneva to have access to their library, which is really exciting to me.
A final note on Paris. Where have all the punks gone? Certainly there are not here. And everyone has tiny little dogs and no place to walk them, so the sidewalks are covered in animal feces and cigarette butts- the city of love indeed!