Tuesday, November 10, 2009

BAUAW NEWSLETTER - TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2009

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

Bay Area United Against War Newsletter
Table of Contents:
A. EVENTS AND ACTIONS
B. SPECIAL APPEALS, VIDEOS AND ONGOING CAMPAIGNS
C. ARTICLES IN FULL

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

A. EVENTS AND ACTIONS

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

PROTEST! When Obama Announces Afghanistan Escalation
The World Can't Wait
Stop the Crimes of Your Government
News from the San Francisco
Bay Area Chapter

Emergency Response Plan for the SF Bay Area:

World Can't Wait is joining with other anti-war forces including the local chapters of the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, Code Pink and others [list in formation] to mobilize

On the SAME WEEKDAY** that Obama announces the escalation:

5:00 PM at Fifth & Market (Powell St. BART): San Francisco street protest including die-ins

In the East Bay, feeder rallies and a BART march:

3:30 PM Rally: Marines Recruiting Station, 64 Shattuck Square, Berkeley
4:00 PM Rally: downtown Berkeley BART station then march by BART to arrive 5:00 PM at Fifth & Market in SF

** NOTE: If the news breaks on a weekend, these protests will happen the following MONDAY

The day of the announcement, the World Can't Wait SF office [(415) 864-5153] will have a recorded message confirming the protest times and locations.

Send us info on other campus and community protests that we can also publicize.

PROTEST IN THE STREETS THE DAY AN ANNOUNCEMENT IS MADE TO SEND MORE TROOPS INTO AFGHANISTAN

President Obama will soon announce the plan to expand the occupation of Afghanistan. The immediate response - that same evening, across this country - must be STREET PROTESTS & DIE-INS that boldly oppose this outrage. More protest and resistance must follow, yet that first night is crucial, since that is when the media -- and the rest of the world -- will be looking for a response from the people.

According to some media analysts, Obama may make his announcement sometime between Nov. 7 and Nov. 11, although it could happen earlier, or perhaps later. World Can't Wait is calling on all organizations and people of conscience to get ready for this. Read Elaine Brower's passionate call for our strength in unity and our determination in our demand at: worldcantwait.org

Whether Obama chooses a huge troop increase, or the covert operations & unmanned drone option to try to "win" in Afghanistan, we should be in the streets opposing ANY escalation. The only acceptable announcement to come from the administration would be that they're withdrawing combat troops, support troops, CIA drones, covert operations, and all private contractors NOW.

The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan eight years ago was an illegitimate war of aggression predicated on lies and waged as a war of terror by the Bush Regime. This invasion was and is a war crime. Just because the war now belongs to Obama doesn't make it any less a war crime. The war upon Afghanistan, like the war upon Iraq, is a war/occupation for U.S. Empire and nothing else.

People who argue that the Taliban will take control if the U.S. leaves and Afghan women will be in a far worse position should know that, since the invasion, the situation has deteriorated and gets uglier everyday for women there. The women and the people of Afghanistan have the right to self-determination. They should not be forced into choosing to live with a suffocating U.S. occupation or an Islamic fundamentalist theocracy. This is what U.S. military presence and involvement does - it forces the people there to make this horrible choice.

People of conscience in this country must take a bold and visible stand and say, "Stop the Escalation, Out of Afghanistan Now!" "The World Can't Wait/Stop the Crimes of Your Government!" Join us in resisting these U.S. wars/occupations and ongoing torture for Empire. An escalation of the war in Afghanistan, no matter how many U.S. troops are sent or frequency with which drones are used to bomb the people, is not the change that many in this country sought when they voted for Obama. This escalation perpetuates and intensifies the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan that has been a horrifying, living nightmare for the Afghan people.

STOP THE ESCALATION - OUT OF AFGHANISTAN NOW!
STOP THE CRIMES OF YOUR GOVERNMENT - THE WORLD CAN'T WAIT!
sf@worldcantwait.org
(415) 864-5153
sfbaycantwait.org
www.myspace.com/sfbaycantwait
World Can't Wait SF
2940-16th St., Rm. 200-6
San Francisco CA 94103

Bay Area United Against War endorses this emergency action.
bauaw.org

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

A DAY OF ACTION FOR MUMIA ABU-JAMAL & MUSLIM POLITICAL PRISONERS
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2009
WASHINGTON, DC

Special Note:
This mobilization replaces the one that The Peace And Justice Foundation and FUJA had initially planned for Nov 23rd.

The November 12 mobilization will include a press conference at the National Press Club, and a demonstration at the U.S. Department of Justice. This will be a joint mobilization effort involving The Peace And Justice Foundation, Families United for Justice in America (FUJA), and some deeply committed grassroots folk connected to International Friends and Family of Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Volunteers are needed in the DC Metro area. To volunteer call (301) 762-9162 or e-mail: peacethrujustice@aol.com

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

for immediate release:
Contact: Hendrik Voss
202-234-3440, media@soaw.org

Mass Mobilization to Shut Down the School of the Americas
November 20-22, 2009, Fort Benning, Georgia:

* The SOA graduate-led military coup in Honduras and the increasing U.S. military involvement in Colombia put a renewed focus on the School of the Americas (SOA/ WHINSEC) and the policies it represents.

* Thousands from across the Americas will converge on November 20-22 at Fort Benning, GA for a vigil and civil disobedience actions to speak out against the SOA/ WHINSEC and to demand a change in U.S. foreign policy.

* The vigil will commemorate the 20th anniversary of the 1989 SOA graduate-led Jesuit massacre in San Salvador, and the many other thousands of victims of SOA/ WHINSEC violence.

The military coup led by SOA graduates in Honduras has once again exposed the destabilizing and deadly effects that the School of the Americas (SOA/ WHINSEC) has on Latin America. Torture survivors and human rights activists from across the Americas, including Bertha Oliva, the founder of the Committee of the Family Members of the Disappeared (COFADEH) from Honduras and human rights defenders from Colombia will travel to Fort Benning, Georgia to participate in the mobilization.

The campaign to close the SOA/ WHINSEC is in a crucial phase right now. Despite promising comments from President Obama during his 2008 election campaign, the SOA/ WHINSEC is still in operation, the U.S. is poring millions into failing "military solutions" to combat the drug problems in Mexico and the Pentagon is moving forward with plans to use seven Colombian military bases in Colombia for offensive U.S. military operations.

"It is up to us to hold those responsible accountable and to push for to closing of the School of the Americas and a change in US foreign policy" said Father Roy Bourgeois, the founder of SOA Watch. "Too many have died and continue to suffer at the hands of graduates of this notorious institute."

In the fall of 2009, opponents of the SOA/ WHINSEC achieved a victory when a joint House and Senate conference committee agreed to include language in the FY 2010 Defense Authorization bill that requires the Pentagon to release names of the graduates of the SOA/ WHINSEC to the public. The Pentagon had classified the names after the continued involvement of SOA/ WHINSEC attendees in human rights abuses became public.

For more information about the November vigil to close the SOA/ WHINSEC, lead-up actions and a complete schedule of events, visit www.SOAW.org

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

Four years ago activists around the world were mobilizing and organizing against the execution of Stanley Tookie Williams. We need to continue that fight today.

Fourth Annual Stanley Tookie Williams Legacy Summit
MOBILIZING THE MOVEMENT FOR JUSICE

SUNDAY, DECEMBER 13TH, 3:00-6:00 P.M.
MERRITT COLLEGE
Huey P. Newton/Bobby Seale Student Lounge
12500 Campus Drive, Oakland
For directions go to www.merritt.edu
For more information: 510-235-9780

KEVIN COOPER, TROY DAVIS, MUMIA ABU-JAMAL: THREE INNOCENT MEN ON DEATH ROW

Featuring:

Angela Davis, author and activist.
Barbara Becnel, co-author and friend of Stanley Tookie Williams
Martina Correia, sister of Troy Davis
Release of report, "What's Really Happening on California's Death Row?"
Messages from "The Three Innocent Men"
Sneak Preview, "The Justice Chronicles," dramatic presentation of prison writings
Memorial Movie, for Oscar Grant III

Sponsors:
Stanley Tookie Williams Legacy Network; Campaign to End the Death Penalty; Kevin Cooper Defense Committee, African American Studies Department, Merritt College

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

U.S. OUT OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN NOW!
FREE PALESTINE!

San Francisco March and Rally
on Saturday, March 20, 2010
11am, Civic Center Plaza

National March on Washington
on Saturday, March 20, 2010
Fri., March 19 Day of Action & Outreach in D.C.

People from all over the country are organizing to converge on Washington, D.C., to demand the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan and Iraq.

On Saturday, March 20, 2010, there will be a massive National March & Rally in D.C. A day of action and outreach in Washington, D.C., will take place on Friday, March 19, preceding the Saturday march.

There will be coinciding mass marches on March 20 in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

The national actions are initiated by a large number of organizations and prominent individuals. (see below)

Click here to become an endorser:

http://answer.pephost.org/site/Survey?SURVEY_ID=5940&ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&autologin=true&link=endorse-body-1

Click here to make a donation:

https://secure2.convio.net/pep/site/Donation?ACTION=SHOW_DONATION_OPTIONS&CAMPAIGN_ID=2302&autologin=true&donate=body-1&JServSessionIdr002=2yzk5fh8x2.app13b

We will march together to say "No Colonial-type Wars and Occupations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine!" We will march together to say "No War Against Iran!" We will march together to say "No War for Empire Anywhere!"

Instead of war, we will demand funds so that every person can have a job, free and universal health care, decent schools, and affordable housing.

March 20 is the seventh anniversary of the criminal war of aggression launched by Bush and Cheney against Iraq. One million or more Iraqis have died. Tens of thousands of U.S. troops have lost their lives or been maimed, and continue to suffer a whole host of enduring problems from this terrible war.

This is the time for united action. The slogans on banners may differ, but all those who carry them should be marching shoulder to shoulder.

Killing and dying to avoid the perception of defeat

Bush is gone, but the war and occupation in Iraq still go on. The Pentagon is demanding a widening of the war in Afghanistan. They project an endless war with shifting battlefields. And a "single-payer" war budget that only grows larger and larger each year. We must act.

Both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were predicated on the imperial fantasy that the U.S. could create stable, proxy colonial-type governments in both countries. They were to serve as an extension of "American" power in these strategic and resource-rich regions.

That fantasy has been destroyed. Now U.S. troops are being sent to kill or be killed so that the politicians in uniform ("the generals and admirals") and those in three-piece suits ("our elected officials") can avoid taking responsibility for a military setback in wars that should have never been started. Their military ambitions are now reduced to avoiding the appearance of defeat.

That is exactly what happened in Vietnam! Avoiding defeat, or the perception of defeat, was the goal Nixon and Kissinger set for themselves when they took office in 1969. For this noble cause, another 30,000 young GIs perished before the inevitable troop pullout from Vietnam in 1973. The number of Vietnamese killed between 1969 and 1973 was greater by many hundreds of thousands.

All of us can make the difference - progress and change comes from the streets and from the grassroots.

The people went to the polls in 2008, and the enthusiasm and desire for change after eight years of the Bush regime was the dominant cause that led to election of a big Democratic Party majority in both Houses of Congress and the election of Barack Obama to the White House.

But it should now be obvious to all that waiting for politicians to bring real change - on any front - is simply a prescription for passivity by progressives and an invitation to the array of corporate interests from military contractors to the banks, to big oil, to the health insurance giants that dominate the political life of the country. These corporate interests work around the clock to frustrate efforts for real change, and they are the guiding hand behind the recent street mobilizations of the ultra-right.

It is up to us to act. If people had waited for politicians to do the right thing, there would have never been a Civil Rights Act, or unions, women's rights, an end to the Vietnam war or any of the profound social achievements and basic rights that people cherish.

It is time to be back in the streets. Organizing centers are being set up in cities and towns throughout the country.

We must raise $50,000 immediately just to get started. Please make your contribution today. We need to reserve buses, which are expensive ($1,800 from NYC, $5,000 from Chicago, etc.). We have to print 100,000 leaflets, posters and stickers. There will be other substantial expenses as March 20 draws closer.

Please become an endorser and active supporter of the March 20 National March on Washington.

Please make an urgently needed tax-deductible donation today. We can't do this without your active support.

The initiators of the March 20 National March on Washington (preceded by the March 19 Day of Action and Outreach in D.C.) include: the ANSWER Coalition; Muslim American Society Freedom; National Council of Arab Americans; Cynthia McKinney; Malik Rahim, co-founder of Common Ground Collective; Ramsey Clark; Cindy Sheehan; Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CODEPINK; Deborah Sweet, Director, World Can't Wait; Mike Ferner, President, Veterans for Peace; Al-Awda, the Palestine Right to Return Coalition; Heidi Boghosian, Executive Director, National Lawyers Guild; Ron Kovic, author of "Born on the 4th of July"; Juan Jose Gutierrez, Director, Latino Movement USA; Col. Ann Wright (ret.); March Forward!; Partnership for Civil Justice; Palestinian American Women Association; Alliance for a Just and Lasting Peace in the Philippines; Alliance for Global Justice; Claudia de la Cruz, Pastor, Iglesia San Romero de Las Americas-UCC; Phil Portluck, Social Justice Ministry, Covenant Baptist Church, D.C.; Blase & Theresa Bonpane, Office of the Americas; Coalition for Peace and Democracy in Honduras; Comite Pro-Democracia en Mexico; Frente Unido de los Pueblos Americanos; Comites de Base FMLN, Los Angeles; Free Palestine Alliance; GABRIELA Network; Justice for Filipino American Veterans; KmB Pro-People Youth; Students Fight Back; Jim Lafferty, Executive Director, National Lawyers Guild - LA Chapter; LEF Foundation; National Coalition to Free the Angola 3; Community Futures Collective; Advocates for Indigenous California Language Survival; Companeros del Barrio; Barrio Unido for Full and Unconditional Amnesty, Bay Area United Against War.

A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition
http://www.answercoalition.org/
info@internationalanswer.org
National Office in Washington DC: 202-265-1948
New York City: 212-694-8720
Los Angeles: 213-251-1025
San Francisco: 415-821-6545
Chicago: 773-463-0311

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

B. SPECIAL APPEALS, VIDEOS AND ONGOING CAMPAIGNS

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

Oakland's Judge Jacobson ruled at 4:00PM Friday, October 16 to move the trial of Johannes Mehserle, killer of unarmed Oscar Grant, OUT OF OAKLAND. The location of the trial venue has not been announced.

In the case of an innocent verdict, folks are encouraged to head to Oakland City Hall ASAP to express our outrage in a massive and peaceful way! Our power is in our numbers! Oscar Grant's family and friends need our support!

For more information:
Contact BAMN at 510-502-9072
letters@bamn.com

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

Tell City Hall:
All Renters Deserve Protection from Eviction!

Supervisor Avalos has proposed legislation that would extend "just cause" eviction protections to rentals build after 1979.

Without this protection, 16,000-23,000 renters can be arbitrarily evicted, suddenly and for no reason at all.

The Land Use Committee will be voting on Monday. Please call or email the following board members and the Mayor to urge them to support the "Avalos Just Cause Bill". A Sample email is below.

justcauseimage.gif

Mayor Gavin Newsom
Telephone: (415) 554-6141
Fax: (415) 554-6160
gavin.newsom@sfgov.org

Sup. Sophie Maxwell
(415) 554-7670 - voice
(415) 554-7674 - fax
Sophie.Maxwell@sfgov.org

Sup. Bevan Dufty
(415) 554-6968- voice
(415) 554-6909 - fax
Bevan.Dufty@sfgov.org

Sup. Michela Alioto-Pier
(415) 554-7752 - voice
(415) 554-7843 - fax
Michela.Alioto-Pier@sfgov.org

Sup. Carmen Chu
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
(415) 554-7460 - voice
(415) 554-7432 - fax
Carmen.Chu@sfgov.org

Sup. Sean Elsbernd
(415) 554-6516 - voice
(415) 554-6546 - fax
Sean.Elsbrend@sfgov.org

Sample Letter/ Email

Dear Supervisor,

I am a renter in San Francisco and I am very concerned to learn that many renters here are not protected from evictions because their home was build after 1979.
There is no reason why a random group of renters could suddenly lose their housing at the drop of a hat.

Rents are still so high in this city. Getting evicted means quickly finding housing that you can afford, which is nearly impossible in this market.

Please support Supervisor Avalos's "Just Cause" ordinance. It is only fair.

Sincerely,

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

HANDS OFF JUANITA YOUNG!
Statement from the NY October 22nd Coalition to Stop Police Brutality
http://www.petitiononline.com/JYoungNY/petition.html

Soon after 6:00am on October 27th, five cops raided the house of Juanita Young, the mother of Malcolm Ferguson who was gunned down by a plainclothes cop in 2000. They threatened to break down her door, tried to climb in through her bathroom window, put a gun in Juanita's face and took away her son, Buddy. The cops justified their outrageous and illegal behavior by citing a warrant, refusing to identify who or what the warrant was for. Later it was claimed that the warrant was for Buddy failing to appear in court for a Desk Appearance Ticket on October 13th, just two weeks earlier. This made it clear that it was both an unusually quick response and out of the ordinary violence for this offense.

This is not the first time cops have run roughshod over the rights of Juanita and her family. Juanita Young has been an outspoken opponent of police brutality, fighting for justice not only for her son Malcolm, but for all victims of police brutality. This has made her a target of persistent persecution by the police:

--June 2003: During an illegal eviction carried out by the NYPD, Juanita was arrested for trespassing in her own home. She was handcuffed and aggressively pushed out of her apartment and building, falling twice and injuring her arm. In October 2007, a Bronx civil jury determined that the arresting officer used excessive force in her arrest.

--November 2005: After voicing her disapproval of a brutal arrest at a demonstration, Juanita was arrested after a commanding officer said, "Get her, too." She was refused medical attention that she needed due to an asthma attack. Young was hospitalized for three days and faced criminal charges, but before the date of her arraignment, she received notice in the mail that the charges were dropped.

--November 2006: Juanita was arrested after more than 8 cops entered her apartment during an ambulance call for her daughter. The cops jumped her, punched and kicked her. She was taken to the hospital, where she was handcuffed to the bed and tortured by police for four days, only to be handed a ticket on the last day an hour after a press conference about her attack took place. In October 2008, a Bronx jury acquitted Young of all charges.

--August 2009: During a cookout in front of Juanita's building, over a dozen cops broke down the front door, slammed her oldest son up behind the door, and beat him on the head. The cops also arrested her daughters. This was another attempt to intimidate Juanita Young - through striking out at her loved ones - in hopes of silencing this powerful voice against police brutality.

All these attacks are outrageous, illegitimate and illegal. We say: HANDS OFF JUANITA YOUNG! The NYPD must stop this intimidation and harassment of Juanita and her family. Speaking out against police brutality is no crime. But targeting someone in retaliation for speaking out is illegal.

From Juanita Young's statement to supporters:

"Not only have my rights been violated in the most blatant ways, but I feel physically and psychologically terrorized. I fear for my safety, my very life, and the lives of my children and grandchildren." (October 29, 2009)

We refuse to allow Juanita Young, this fighter against police brutality and injustice, to stand alone against this onslaught.

We demand:

1: The NYPD stop its persecution of Juanita Young!

2: Bronx DA Robert Johnson investigate the role of the 43rd Precinct in this persecution.

3: An investigation of the Warrant Squad and how they were charged, and how they went about, in serving the warrant at Juanita Young's house on October 27th.

Sign Petition Here:

http://www.petitiononline.com/JYoungNY/petition.html

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

Cleve Jones Speaks At Gay Rights Rally In Washington, DC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvC3hVXZpc4

Free the SF8: Drop the Charges!
by Bill Carpenter ( wcarpent [at] ccsf.edu )
Monday Oct 12th, 2009 11:20 AM
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/10/12/18625220.php

Sony Piece of crap (Hilarious!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I-JByPDJm0

Sick For Profit
http://sickforprofit.com/videos/

Fault Lines: Despair & Revival in Detroit - 14 May 09 - Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ7VL907Qb0&feature=related

VIDEO INTERVIEW: Dan Berger on Political Prisoners in the United States
By Angola 3 News
Angola 3 News
37 years ago in Louisiana, 3 young black men were silenced for trying to expose continued segregation, systematic corruption, and horrific abuse in the biggest prison in the US, an 18,000-acre former slave plantation called Angola. In 1972 and 1973 prison officials charged Herman Wallace, Albert Woodfox, and Robert King with murders they did not commit and threw them into 6x9 ft. cells in solitary confinement, for over 36 years. Robert was freed in 2001, but Herman and Albert remain behind bars.
http://angola3news.blogspot.com/2009/09/video-dan-berger-on-political-prisoners.html

Taking Aim Radio Program with
Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone
The Chimera of Capitalist Recovery, Parts 1 and 2
http://www.takingaimradio.com/shows/audio.html

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

JROTC MUST GO!

The San Francisco Board of Education has re-installed the Junior Reserve Officer's Training Corps in San Francisco schools -- including allowing it to count for Physical Education credits.

This is a complete reversal of the 2006 decision to end JROTC altogether in San Francisco public schools. Our children need a good physical education program, not a death education program!

With the economy in crisis; jobs and higher education for youth more unattainable; the lure, lies and false promises of military recruiters is driving more and more of our children into the military trap.

This is an economic draft and the San Francisco Board of Education is helping to snare our children to provide cannon fodder for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and for over 700 U.S. military bases around the world!

We can't depend upon "friendly politicians" who, while they are campaigning for office claim they are against the wars but when they get elected vote in favor of military recruitment--the economic draft--in our schools. We can't depend upon them. That has been proven beyond doubt!

It is up to all of us to come together to stop this NOW!

GET JROTC AND ALL MILITARY RECRUITERS OUT OF OUR SCHOOLS NOW!

Write, call, pester and ORGANIZE against the re-institution of JROTC in our San Francisco public schools NOW!

In solidarity,

Bonnie Weinstein
Bay Area United Against War Newsletter

San Francisco Board of Education
555 Franklin Street, 1st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
415/241-6427, (415) 241-6493
cascoe@sfusd.edu

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

HELP VFP PUT THIS BOOK IN YOUR HIGH SCHOOL OR PUBLIC LIBRARY

For a donation of only $18.95, we can put a copy of the book "10 Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military" into a public or high school library of your choice. [Reason number 1: You may be killed]

A letter and bookplate will let readers know that your donation helped make this possible.

Putting a book in either a public or school library ensures that students, parents, and members of the community will have this valuable information when they need it.

Don't have a library you would like us to put it in? We'll find one for you!

https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/826/t/9311/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=4906

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*


Showdown In Chicago
The Showdown in Chicago is underway! Thousands of Americans are in the midst of a series of demonstrations against Wall Street banks and their lobbyists to call for financial reform. Check out the latest news:
http://www.showdowninchicago.org/

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

EYE WITNESS REPORTS FROM GAZA Video Free Gaza News October 22,2009
http://www.youtube.com/gazafriends#p/a/1/nHa-CzNCF3c

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

ANSWER Statement on Proposed SF Parking Meter Hours

The ANSWER Coalition-SF Bay Area strongly opposes the proposal to extend parking meter hours in San Francisco. The SFMTA, the Metropolitan Transit Agency, is proposing to have parking meters in most of SF run until midnight Monday-Saturday, and from 11 am-6 pm on Sundays!

This is another attempt by the politicians to solve the city's budget crisis by squeezing every last dollar they can out of working people. They have outrageously jacked up MUNI fares, other city fees and parking fines. At the same time they have let the big banks, developers and other wealthy corporate interests-the ones who have created the current economic and budget crisis-off the hook.

The DPT (Department of Parking and Traffic) has already begun a policy of "enhanced enforcement," super-aggressively ticketing vehicles from 9:01 am to 5:59 pm, Monday-Saturday. Every day in every working class neighborhood of SF you can see the booted cars and trucks. On top of the $53, $63 and higher parking tickets, it costs over $200 just to get a boot removed! If your car gets towed, you have to pay $400 or more to get it back. This is causing many low-income people to lose their vehicles.

City officials are trying to mislead people by falsely claiming that the reason for extending meter hours is to collect more quarters and "open up more parking spaces." What they really want is to hit us with thousands more high-priced tickets, and then collect the ransom for booted and towed cars.

This is a class issue. The rich and the well-to-do don't have to worry about where to park in this small and crowded city. They have garages or can afford to pay for parking. It is overwhelmingly working class people who are being hit and who will be hit much, much harder if the new policy goes into effect. Many residents in neighborhoods with meters have no choice but to park at meters after 6 pm and move their vehicles before 9 am the next morning. There just aren't enough spaces otherwise.

As Cristina Gutierrez of Barrio Unido, an immigrant rights group opposed to the plan, asked: "What are we supposed to do, run out of our homes every hour at night to feed the meter?"

But the MTA board and some misguided individuals are trying to pose the issue as MUNI riders vs. car drivers. Some have even ignorantly asserted that if you own a car, you can't possibly be poor. Really? Tell that to the growing number of people forced to LIVE in their cars due to the depression!

The reality is that many people in SF both ride MUNI and own cars (some ride bikes, too). For a lot of people getting to work, shopping, medical appointments, etc. requires a car. That's especially true for families and for people whose jobs are outside SF or not easily accessible by mass transit. Posing the issue as bus riders vs. car riders is false and reactionary.

Does MUNI need more funding? Of course. Should MUNI fares be cut and service increased? No question about it. The issue is: Who should pay?

While taxes, fees, fines, fares, etc., etc, have been constantly increased for us, the taxes on corporate profits have been going down. Many big banks and corporations have been able to avoid paying income tax altogether. While we're told that there's no money for people's needs, $500,000,000 is spent every day on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trillions of dollars have been handed over to the biggest banks in just the last year.

It's time to say: Enough is Enough! It's time for the politicians to stop trying to make working people pay for the economic crisis that the rich created. It's time to make those who can afford it-big business-pay for the services that the people of the city, state and country need.

A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition
Act Now to Stop War & End Racism
http://www.ANSWERcoalition.org http://www.answersf.org
answer@answersf.org
2489 Mission St. Rm. 24
San Francisco: 415-821-6545

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

This is a must-see video about the life of Oscar Grant, a young man who loved his family and was loved by his family. It's important to watch to understand the tremendous loss felt by his whole family as a result of his cold-blooded murder by BART police officers--Johannes Mehserle being the shooter while the others held Oscar down and handcuffed him to aid Mehserle in the murder of Oscar Grant January 1, 2009.

The family wants to share this video here with you who support justice for Oscar Grant.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/07/21/18611878.php

WE DEMAND JUSTICE FOR OSCAR GRANT!

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

Urgent: Ahmad Sa'adat transferred to isolation in Ramon prison!
http://www.freeahmadsaadat.org/

Imprisoned Palestinian national leader Ahmad Sa'adat, the General Secretary of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, was transferred on August 11, 2009 to Ramon prison in the Naqab desert from Asqelan prison, where he had been held for a number of months. He remains in isolation; prior to his transfer from Asqelan, he had been held since August 1 in a tiny isolation cell of 140 cm x 240 cm after being penalized for communicating with another prisoner in the isolation unit.

Attorney Buthaina Duqmaq, president of the Mandela Association for prisoners' and detainees' rights, reported that this transfer is yet another continuation of the policy of repression and isolation directed at Sa'adat by the Israeli prison administration, aimed at undermining his steadfastness and weakening his health and his leadership in the prisoners' movement. Sa'adat has been moved repeatedly from prison to prison and subject to fines, harsh conditions, isolation and solitary confinement, and medical neglect. Further reports have indicated that he is being denied attorney visits upon his transfer to Ramon.

Ahmad Sa'adat undertook a nine-day hunger strike in June in order to protest the increasing use of isolation against Palestinian prisoners and the denial of prisoners' rights, won through long and hard struggle. The isolation unit at Ramon prison is reported to be one of the worst isolation units in terms of conditions and repeated violations of prisoners' rights in the Israeli prison system.

Sa'adat is serving a 30 year sentence in Israeli military prisons. He was sentenced on December 25, 2008 after a long and illegitimate military trial on political charges, which he boycotted. He was kidnapped by force in a military siege on the Palestinian Authority prison in Jericho, where he had been held since 2002 under U.S., British and PA guard.

Sa'adat is suffering from back injuries that require medical assistance and treatment. Instead of receiving the medical care he needs, the Israeli prison officials are refusing him access to specialists and engaging in medical neglect and maltreatment.

The Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa'adat demands an end to this isolation and calls upon all to protest at local Israeli embassies and consulates (the list is available at: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/ About+the+Ministry/Diplomatic+mission/Web+Sites+of+Israeli+ Missions+Abroad.htm) and to write to the International Committee of the Red Cross and other human rights organizations to exercise their responsibilities and act swiftly to demand that the Israelis ensure that Ahmad Sa'adat and all Palestinian prisoners receive needed medical care and that this punitive isolation be ended. Email the ICRC, whose humanitarian mission includes monitoring the conditions of prisoners, at jerusalem..jer@icrc.org, and inform them about the urgent situation of Ahmad Sa'adat!

Ahmad Sa'adat has been repeatedly moved in an attempt to punish him for his steadfastness and leadership and to undermine his leadership in the prisoners' movement. Of course, these tactics have done nothing of the sort. The Palestinian prisoners are daily on the front lines, confronting Israeli oppression and crimes. Today, it is urgent that we stand with Ahmad Sa'adat and all Palestinian prisoners against these abuses, and for freedom for all Palestinian prisoners and for all of Palestine!

The Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa'adat
http://www.freeahmadsaadat.org
info@freeahmadsaadat.org

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

Troy Anthony Davis is an African American man who has spent the last 18 years on death row for a murder he did not commit. There is no physical evidence tying him to the crime and seven out of nine witnesses have recanted. New evidence and new testimony have been presented to the Georgia courts, but the justice system refuses to consider this evidence, which would prove Troy Davis' innocence once and for all.

Sign the petition and join the NAACP, Amnesty International USA, and other partners in demanding justice for Troy Davis!

http://www.iamtroy.com/

For Now, High Court Punts on Troy Davis, on Death Row for 18 Years
By Ashby Jones
Wall Street Journal Law Blog
June 30, 2009
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/06/30/for-now-high-court-punts-on-troy-davis-on-death-row-for-18-years/

Take action now:
http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?c=jhKPIXPCIoE&b=2590179&aid=12361&ICID=A0906A01&tr=y&auid=5030305

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

Committee To Save Mumia Abu-Jamal
P.O. Box 2012
New York, NY 10159-2012

New videos from April 24 Oakland Mumia event
http://abu-jamal-news.com/article?name=jlboak

Donations for Mumia's Legal Defense in the U.S. Our legal effort is the front line of the battle for Mumia's freedom and life. His legal defense needs help. The costs are substantial for our litigation in the U.S. Supreme Court and at the state level. To help, please make your checks payable to the National Lawyers Guild Foundation (indicate "Mumia" on the bottom left). All donations are tax deductible under the Internal Revenue Code, section 501(c)(3), and should be mailed to:

It is outrageous and a violation of human rights that Mumia remains in prison and on death row. His life hangs in the balance. My career has been marked by successfully representing people facing death in murder cases. I will not rest until we win Mumia's case. Justice requires no less.

With best wishes,

Robert R. Bryan
Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

Short Video About Al-Awda's Work
The following link is to a short video which provides an overview of Al-Awda's work since the founding of our organization in 2000. This video was first shown on Saturday May 23, 2009 at the fundraising banquet of the 7th Annual Int'l Al-Awda Convention in Anaheim California. It was produced from footage collected over the past nine years.
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTiAkbB5uC0&eurl
Support Al-Awda, a Great Organization and Cause!

Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition, depends on your financial support to carry out its work.

To submit your tax-deductible donation to support our work, go to
http://www.al-awda.org/donate.html and follow the simple instructions.

Thank you for your generosity!

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

KEVIN COOPER IS INNOCENT!
FLASHPOINTS Interview with Innocent San Quentin Death Row Inmate
Kevin Cooper -- Aired Monday, May 18,2009
http://www.flashpoints.net/#GOOGLE_SEARCH_ENGINE
To learn more about Kevin Cooper go to:
savekevincooper.org
LINKS
San Francisco Chronicle article on the recent ruling:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/13/BAM517J8T3.DTL
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling and dissent:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/05/11/05-99004o.pdf

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

COURAGE TO RESIST!
Support the troops who refuse to fight!
http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/
Donate:
http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/21/57/

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

C. ARTICLES IN FULL

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

1) Labor, the Antiwar Movement and the Democratic Party
By Carole Seligman and Bonnie Weinstein
November 2, 2009
(Posted by authors)

2) U.S. Jobless Rate Shocking: 15.7 Million Workers Unemployed
By Tula Connell
November 6, 2009
http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/11/06/us-jobless-rate-shocking-157-million-workers-unemployed/

3) U.S. Unemployment Rate Hits 10.2%, Highest in 26 Years
By PETER S. GOODMAN
November 7, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/business/economy/07jobs.html?hp

4) Broader Measure of U.S. Unemployment Stands at 17.5%
By DAVID LEONHARDT
November 7, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/business/economy/07econ.html?hp

5) Prospect of More U.S. Troops Worries Afghan Public
By ALISSA J. RUBIN
November 7, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/world/asia/07doubts.html?hp

6) British Bankers Defend Their Pay and Bonuses
"A recent pledge by Goldman Sachs to donate $200 million to its charitable foundation did little to defuse public anger about its plan to pay $16.7 billion in compensation this year."
By JULIA WERDIGIER
November 7, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/business/global/07greed.html?hp

7) Marooned on Sea of Iraqi Oil, but Unable to Tap Its Wealth
"The area around Basra, Iraq's second largest city and main port, accounts for as much as 80 percent of the country's oil production. It has emerged as Iraq's best hope for stability and prosperity as it prepares to sell off its top undeveloped oil fields to foreign companies at an auction next month."
By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS
November 8, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/middleeast/08basra.html?ref=world

8) Adversities Await Iraqis Who Return Home
By JOHN LELAND
November 7, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/world/middleeast/07iraq.html?ref=world

9) Windfall Is Seen as Bank Bonuses Are Paid in Stock
By LOUISE STORY
November 8, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/business/08pay.html?ref=business

10) Weighing Life in Prison for Youths Who Didn't Kill
By ADAM LIPTAK
November 8, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/us/08juveniles.html?hp

11) Sweeping Health Care Plan Passes House
"The House legislation, running almost 2,000 pages, would require most Americans to obtain health insurance or face penalties - an approach Republicans compared to government oppression."
By CARL HULSE and ROBERT PEAR
November 8, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/health/policy/08health.html?hp

12) Jobless Recovery
Editorial
"...the share of the unemployed population out of work for more than six months - also continues to set records. It is now 35.6 percent."
November 8, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/opinion/08sun1.html?8dpc

13) All Afghan War Options by Obama Aides Said to Call for More Troops
By PETER BAKER and HELENE COOPER
"...The options include Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's request for roughly another 40,000 troops; a middle scenario sending about 30,000 more troops; and a lower alternative involving 20,000 to 25,000 reinforcements..."
November 8, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/asia/08troops.html?ref=world

14) NATO Airstrike Said to Kill 7 Afghan Soldiers
By ALISSA J. RUBIN
November 8, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/asia/08afghan.html?ref=world

15) Heavier Americans Push Back on Health Debate
"Congress is considering proposals in the effort to overhaul health care that would make it easier for employers to use financial rewards or penalties to promote healthy behavior by employees, like weight loss."
By SUSAN SAULNY
November 8, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/health/policy/08fat.html?ref=us

16) US Generals Flood Israel for Exercise against 'Specific Threats'
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
Cheshvan 16, 5770, 03 November 09 08:39
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/SendMail.aspx?print=print&type=0&item=134215

17) NOW Opposes Health Care Bill That Strips Millions of Women of Abortion Access
Says Bill Obliterates Women's Fundamental Right to Choose
Statement of NOW President Terry O'Neill
November 8, 2009
http://www.now.org/press/11-09/11-08.html

18) Imprisoning a Child for Life
NYT Editorial
November 9, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/opinion/09mon1.html

19) For Abortion Foes, a Victory in Health Care Vote
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and ROBERT PEAR
"The provision would apply only to insurance policies purchased with the federal subsidies that the health legislation would create to help low- and middle-income people, and to policies sold by a government-run insurance plan that would be created by the legislation." [Of course, this doesn't apply to the wealthy, bringing us back to before Roe v. Wade-outragious!...bw]
November 9, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/us/politics/09abortion.html?hp

20) Bill Would Limit Needle Exchanges
By KATIE ZEZIMA
November 9, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/health/policy/09needle.html?ref=us

21) Medical Industry Grumbles, but It Stands to Gain
By DUFF WILSON and REED ABELSON
News Analysis
November 9, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/health/policy/09industry.html?ref=business

22) Statement by California Nurses Association/NNOC Executive Director Rose Ann DeMoro on the House bill on healthcare:
November 9, 2009
http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/press-releases/2009/november/statement-by-cna-nnoc-executive-director-rose-ann-demoro-on-the-house-bill-on-healthcare.html

23) A Word, Mr. President
By BOB HERBERT
"Last Friday, a huge crowd of fans marched in a ticker-tape parade in downtown Manhattan to celebrate the Yankees' World Series championship. More than once, as the fans passed through the financial district, the crowd erupted in rhythmic, echoing chants of 'Wall Street sucks! Wall Street sucks!'"
Op-Ed Columnist
November 10, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/opinion/10herbert.html?hp

24) The Ban on Abortion Coverage
Editorial
November 10, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/opinion/10tue1.html

25) At Fort Hood, Some Violence Is Too Familiar
By MICHAEL MOSS and RAY RIVERA
November 10, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10post.html?ref=us

26) Few Can Avoid Deployment, Experts Say
By TAMAR LEWIN
November 10, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10army.html?ref=us

27) A Squeeze on Customers Ahead of New Rules
By ANDREW MARTIN and LOWELL BERGMAN
November 10, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/your-money/credit-and-debit-cards/10rates.html?ref=business

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

1) Labor, the Antiwar Movement and the Democratic Party
By Carole Seligman and Bonnie Weinstein
November 2, 2009
(Posted by authors)

On October 17th antiwar demonstrations were held across the country
marking the 9th year of Operation Enduring Freedom, the U.S. war on
Afghanistan, which began October 7, 2001. The actions also marked the
40th anniversary of the 1969 Vietnam Moratorium, a huge national
mobilization against the Vietnam War, which took place throughout the
country. The 2009 demonstrations, modest in size, opposed the U.S.
wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the acts of war against
Pakistan, the U.S. supported Israeli war against the Palestinians,
and the U.S. war threats against Iran and North Korea. One thousand
marched in Boston and San Francisco. Smaller demonstrations were held
in many other cities and towns, including Detroit; Milwaukee; New
Orleans; Newport, Kentucky; Norwich, Connecticut; Honolulu-more than
48 cites across the country.

The demonstrations were initiated by the National Assembly to End the
Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and Occupations, a national network of
peace activists attempting to forge unity in the antiwar movement.
They were endorsed by a wide array of peace organizations, including
many unions, labor councils, religious and peace groups, community
organizations, veterans groups, and others.

In San Francisco, the October 17th Coalition was formed to plan a
march and rally here. Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER),
United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ), Iraq Moratorium, Code Pink, The
World Can't Wait, Bay Area Labor Committee for Peace and Justice,
U.S. Labor Against the War, all the socialist organizations
(including this magazine) and many other groups joined the coalition
and helped publicize the demonstration. The October 17th
demonstration was eventually endorsed by the San Francisco Labor
Council.

In addition to the antiwar demands of the coalition for U.S. Out Now
and an end for U.S. support to the Israeli war and occupation against
the Palestinians; the demonstrations also demanded government funding
for jobs, pensions, education, healthcare and housing, not wars and
corporate bailouts; self-determination for all oppressed nations and
peoples; an end to war crimes including torture; and prosecution of
the war criminals.

S.F. Coalition reneges on anti-Pelosi protest

The first meeting of the S.F. October 17th Coalition, held in August,
set a good principled tone by beginning to organize the October
demonstration, as well as make a decision to protest Speaker of the
House, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi's appearance at a San Francisco
Labor Day event on September 4th. The motion to protest Pelosi for
her role in funding the wars, passed unanimously.

However, the day after the second Coalition meeting, the group's co-
coordinator, Jeff Mackler, sent out an announcement to the members of
the coalition unilaterally canceling the protest!

The reasons stated for this unusual action were that the Pelosi
breakfast was sponsored by the San Francisco Labor Council, "an
organization that has consistently endorsed and supported the antiwar
movement." And, he stated that he hadn't known at the meeting where
the vote took place "that the event was to be a protest of the San
Francisco Labor Council." He stated in the letter that although
Pelosi "continued [to] support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and
the bailout for the banks," this labor breakfast was not an
"appropriate" event at which to protest Pelosi!

In this shameful letter, Mackler wrote, "Further, I request that all
leaflets that were produced to advertise this event (approximately
200) be immediately destroyed." And, "I will not be present at this
protest. Neither will any of the leading organizations of the October
17 Antiwar Coalition."

Mackler claimed that his decision was supported by all the "leaders"
of the coalition, but that is hard to determine without a democratic
debate. While this cancellation did indeed garner the support of many
of the coalition groups, the authors of this article, both activists
in the Coalition and in the Bay Area antiwar movement, strongly
opposed this reversal. So did the original maker of the motion, Steve
Zeltzer, as well as the Code Pink organization. At the meeting held
November 1st to evaluate the October 17th action, others opposed the
cancellation too.

The Labor Council itself was never the "object of protest" as
Mackler's letter said. It was clear from the beginning of the
Coalition that the object of the protest was Nancy Pelosi because she
is a leader in the government and the majority political party
leading the country and carrying out the wars, the Democrats. What's
wrong about protesting Pelosi, when she was being honored by the San
Francisco Labor Council-or, for that matter-any organization that
would want to honor a warmonger? The other obvious question is, what
if they were honoring Republican George W. Bush, as some labor unions
have done? Would it be inappropriate to demonstrate in that case?

Shortly after the notice of cancellation of the Coalition's support
for the September 4th Pelosi protest, Tim Paulson, the Executive
Director of the San Francisco Labor Council, issued a statement to
its members which said, "We are also honored to be visited by Speaker
of the House Nancy Pelosi, who has been fighting tirelessly for real
healthcare reform and is taking time out of her busy schedule to
break bread with her friends in the labor movement before she heads
back to Washington, D.C." [In fact, she has abandoned single-payer
healthcare in favor of a very weak "public option" that amounts to
nothing more than a guaranteed income for private insurance companies
while abandoning dental, vision and hearing coverage for adults; and
all health coverage for undocumented workers and their children.]
This letter went on to assure its readers that "many progressive
antiwar activists are emailing and calling the Labor Council to
distance themselves" from the protest of Pelosi.

He wrote, "This missive is just to let our friends know that you
might be met outside the hotel by some protesters, but that almost
unilaterally the labor and antiwar movements condemn these efforts."
It also contained a strong condemnation of Steve Zeltzer, the labor
activist who brought the original motion to the Oct. 17th Coalition.

It is important to note that Tim Paulson serves on the Executive
Board of the California Democratic Party. The California Democrats
play an active role trying to co-opt the antiwar movement into the
Democratic Party fold, acting mainly through the labor bureaucrats
running most of the unions.

The demonstration took place anyway. A small but respectable-sized
group (for 7:30 A.M. on a Friday morning), including representatives
from Code Pink, picketed the Pelosi Labor Council breakfast. A flyer
was distributed which said:

"Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, is a leading policy maker in
the administration of Barack Obama and a point person for the
imperialist, profoundly anti-democratic and exploitative policies of
the Democratic Party-a principal instrument of rapacious class rule
in the United States.

"She represents the following: Escalating the war of brutal
aggression in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and beyond; sustaining the
murder of Iraq indefinitely;

"Expanding the use of torture, rendition and the implementation in
the United States of the architecture of the fascist state.

"She is a major figure in the handing over to the banksters, to date,
the sum of $23.7 trillion, as documented by Neil Barofsky in his
testimony before Congress.

"Nancy Pelosi, like the Party and administration she represents, is
an enemy of working people-of their economic survival, their right to
organize and their political independence.

"It is matter of principle to protest her public appearances. A
picket protesting the anti-working class and anti-democratic policies
that she represents is not an attack upon labor, let alone upon the
San Francisco Labor Council as an organization.

"The leadership that would foist upon the Labor Council and upon
working people the policies of the Democratic Party is a
misleadership that disarms labor and renders working people unable to
fight in their own name and in their class interests. Every defender
of the rights of working people will reject this hysteria and
recognize that it seeks to cover a bending of the knee to a labor
misleadership that undermines the future of working people in the
United States."

A letter was sent to Tim Paulson from Steve Zeltzer and signed by
several individuals-including the authors of this article, stating in
part:

"All defenders of workers' rights understand that protests against
those in government who vote for war funding are principled actions
that deserve the support of the entire antiwar and labor movements.
Your argument that it is unethical and politically 'divisive' to
protest the reactionary policies of the Speaker of the House because
she has been invited to a breakfast sponsored by the San Francisco
Labor Council is wrong. What is divisive is for the leadership of the
Council to impose a politician with a reprehensible anti-labor record
on a Labor Day event."

The letter called Paulson's actions "a smear meant to intimidate any
who oppose the policies of Pelosi, including the expansion of the
wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq."

It also reported that "One of the leaders of the San Francisco
Labor Council actually elbowed Brother Zeltzer in front of the St.
Francis Hotel and knocked flyers out of his hands as he and others
were passing them out. Zeltzer's letter to Paulson continues:

"Are these tactics that you condone, or is it your condemnation of
dissent that encourages physical attacks of those on a picket line?

"The San Francisco labor movement has a long tradition of upholding
the right of dissent, including the right to disagree with decisions
of the leadership of the San Francisco Labor Council.

"Your letter is a breach of this tradition. It constitutes a
warning to all San Francisco Labor Council delegates and to rank and
file members of the labor movement that dissent is "disloyal" and not
allowed under your regime."

The letter called on Paulson to apologize to Zeltzer and to the San
Francisco labor movement for such undemocratic and personal attacks.

Labor and the Democratic Party

At the root of this dispute is the Labor leadership's partnership
with the Democratic Party. It is the only way to explain the huge
contradiction between the San Francisco Labor Council's passing of
numerous antiwar resolutions and its breakfast honoring a major war
supporter such as Pelosi.

What message is the invitation honoring Pelosi sending to workers? At
the most basic level, it says that when push comes to shove, the
labor "leaders" will ally with the Democratic Party, in spite of the
ongoing assault it is carrying out against working people-including
the escalation of the wars responsible for rising death tolls on both
sides of the battlefields-wars that are eating up staggering amounts
of funds and resources.

From the peasants growing poppies in the fields of Afghanistan to
the economic draft of U.S. youth, it's the poor and working class who
are dying while the wealthy are profiting!

San Francisco workers are under a tremendous assault to their living
standards, as are all working people today. The Democratic Party, in
alliance with the Republicans, is leading the assault! The Democratic
Party is bailing out the banks; the Democratic Party is adding to the
Pentagon budget and to the military industrial complex. The
Democratic Party is privatizing our schools and turning public
education into military recruitment grounds or detention camps-
pushing students towards either the military or prison. Both the
Democrats and the Republicans work for the very same people and take
money from the very same people who are making trillions on Wall
Street off the backs of working people.

Any party that works for the commanders of capital and supports their
economic system of exploitation of working people is anti-labor and
should be opposed by working people.

Labor Councils and all labor organizations, in cooperation with
unorganized workers and the unemployed, should be organizing a
political party based upon satisfying the needs and human rights of
working people; a party that will put human needs before profits; a
party that will demand an immediate end to the wars; that will fight
for jobs, housing, and healthcare for all; for funding quality
education and rebuilding the country's infrastructure; and repairing
the destruction to the environment caused by the quest for profits
above all else. This party will demand, "Bail out working people, not
the corporations and banks. Tax the rich and corporate profits, not
the poor."

The antiwar movement has the obligation to protest the warmakers. Not
to do so is to give President Obama and the Democrats a long
honeymoon in which his imperial policies-a continuation of the basic
policies of the Bush administration-go unrefuted. It is futile to
expect those who profit from the U.S. war industry that supplies the
U.S. military-larger than all the militaries of the rest of the world
combined-or their paid government lackeys, to regulate themselves or
bring an end to the wars that fill their coffers.

A second opportunity to confront the warmakers was presented to the
October 17th Coalition right before the Saturday demonstration.
President Obama came to San Francisco to attend an October 15th
fundraiser dinner for the Democratic National Committee and
Organizing for America (the successor organization to Obama for
America). At the meeting of the October 17th Coalition held on
October 11th, another unanimous vote was held to protest Obama's
warmaking. When Jeff Mackler sent out the minutes of the meeting, he
neglected to include the vote and information about the Obama
protest. Coming as this did on the heels of the cancellation of the
Pelosi protest, we cannot help but conclude that Mackler, and other
leaders of the Oct. 17th Coalition did not want to confront the
Democratic Party allies of the labor bureaucrats and those in the
antiwar movement who look to the labor bureaucrats as their most
valuable allies.

Needless to say, there was no Labor Council participation in an
otherwise impressive demonstration of President Obama on October
15th. Most of the protestors were demanding a single-payer, Medicare-
for-all, national health program. Code Pink, ANSWER, and others came
out to protest the war. The October 17th Coalition was not visibly
present.

It will take a massive, working-class based antiwar movement,
independent of the war parties to bring an end to the wars and to
bring justice to the working class. Workers must take the struggles
for their interests into their own hands. In the meantime the antiwar
movement must not to allow itself to be co-opted by the Democratic
Party. That is the danger represented by the actions of the leaders
of the October 17th Coalition in San Francisco.

On the democratic process

Finally, the movements based upon the defense of working people must
be democratically run.

The regular practice of democracy in all workers' organizations-
including the antiwar movement-will help to prepare workers to run
their own struggles and organizations. Eventually, they will run the
government.

What happened in the San Francisco October 17 Coalition regarding
these two protests should be discussed in an open and democratic
manner. These same issues will confront the movement in the months
ahead and in preparations for the Spring demonstrations on the
anniversary of the Iraq war. The independence of the antiwar movement
must be jealously guarded and defended in a time when the United
States imperial machine, supported and administered by a bi-partisan
alliance of the ruling class political parties, carries out multiple,
simultaneous wars of aggression. This is a challenge we must not be
afraid to meet.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

2) U.S. Jobless Rate Shocking: 15.7 Million Workers Unemployed
By Tula Connell
November 6, 2009
http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/11/06/us-jobless-rate-shocking-157-million-workers-unemployed/

Stunningly bad news on the nation's jobless rate today: Unemployment worsened in October to 10.2 percent, a huge jump from 9.8 percent in September. That's 15.7 million jobless workers, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Worse, the unemployment and underemployment rate is a shocking 17.5 percent-more than 27 million American workers without full-time jobs.

The construction, manufacturing and retail industries had the biggest losses, with 62,000 construction jobs lost in October, 61,000 in manufacturing and 40,000 in retail. Health care and temporary employment were the only bright spots, with health care jobs increasing by 29,000 and temp jobs by 44,000.

The nation's jobs situation would be even more dire without the Obama administration's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Nearly 1 million jobs have been saved or created because of the economic stimulus plan, and the White House says the nation is on track to meet the president's goal of 3.5 million by the end of next year.

But as today's numbers show, the overall jobs situation isn't improving any time soon, according to Economic Policy Institute Director Larry Mishel, who predicts that one-third of the U.S. workforce will be unemployed or underemployed in 2010.

Long-term unemployment is the worst in 24 years, and there now are more than six workers for every available job. The U.S. Senate finally passed an extension of unemployment insurance, and President Obama is expected to sign the bill today. But far more needs to be done.

In short, the nation needs jobs.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman says although "the apocalypse has been postponed" because of the Obama administration's economic recovery package passed by Congress earlier this year, it's essential to follow up with further fiscal action-that is, spending money now to create long-term benefits, like jobs-to prevent prolonged suffering.

Economist Julianne Malveaux puts the case succinctly:

Absent public job creation, it is likely that the economy will not fully recover.

Help certainly isn't coming from Wall Street or Big Business.

Now that they have pocketed their bailout cash, Wall Streeters are impervious to the nation's ongoing jobs disaster. In fact, an annual report by Johnson Associates on financial industry payouts projected they will be up 40 percent from 2008, when they plunged in the midst of the financial crisis.

In 2008, Wall Street handed out nearly $20 billion in cash awards and billions more in stock and other incentives to employees based in New York.

Wall Street is celebrating a "recovery" based on a 3.5 percent increase in the gross domestic product (GDP) in the third quarter of this year. But America's workers know there can be no recovery unless everyone who wants to work can find a good job.

This alarming jobs report "should be a wake-up call to sleepy politicians," says AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka:

Every day, it becomes more urgent that the federal government step up to the plate with bold actions to boost job creation. Such action should include urgently needed fiscal relief to state and local governments, community jobs programs, additional investments in infrastructure and green jobs and credit relief to small and medium-sized businesses. Failing to act puts us at very real risk of a lost generation-of hard-working Americans who can't put food on the table and bright young people who never realize their potential.

The AFL-CIO and our allies are unveiling an effort this month to push for immediate job creation, among other critically needed economic aid for working families. The nation needs to act fast to stop the hemorrhage of jobs and the economic crisis among working families.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

3) U.S. Unemployment Rate Hits 10.2%, Highest in 26 Years
By PETER S. GOODMAN
November 7, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/business/economy/07jobs.html?hp

The American unemployment rate surged to 10.2 percent in October, its highest level in 26 years, as the economy lost another 190,000 jobs, the Labor Department reported Friday.

The jump into the realm of double-digit joblessness - from 9.8 percent in September - provided a sobering reminder that, despite the apparent end of the Great Recession, economic expansion has yet to translate into jobs, leaving tens of millions of people still struggling.

"The guy on the street is going to ask, 'What recovery?' " said Stuart G. Hoffman, chief economist at the PNC Financial Services Group in Pittsburgh. "The job market is still in reverse."

The sharp rise in unemployment seemed certain to inject fresh tension into the debate over economic policy in Washington.

Republicans point to elevated joblessness as proof that the Obama administration's $787 billion spending package aimed at stimulating the economy had failed. Labor unions and some Democrats are calling for another round of spending to create more jobs. And all of this comes against a backdrop of continued worries about swelling federal budget deficits.

In an interview this week, Richard L. Trumka, president of the nation's largest labor union, the A.F.L.-C.I.O., called on the government to unleash fresh spending on large-scale construction projects to put people back to work.

Absent that, "it will probably be 2012 before there starts to be real job creation," Mr. Trumka said.

Yet despite the headline-grabbing unemployment number in the government's snapshot of the October job market, economists sifting through the details found several reasons to take comfort.

The pace at which jobs are disappearing continued to taper off in October, the precursor to eventual growth.

Between November 2008 and April 2009 - amid the paralyzing fear that accompanied the collapse of prominent financial institutions like Lehman Brothers - the economy shed an average of 645,000 jobs a month. Between May and July, the pace dropped to an average monthly loss of 357,000 jobs. And over the last three reports, average monthly job losses have slipped to 188,000, after factoring in upward revisions to the data for August and September.

The number of temporary workers increased by 44,000 in October, adding to gains in the previous two months - an apparent sign that businesses have squeezed as much production as they can out of their existing workforces and feel the need to bring in more people.

"That goes the right way," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. "That's an encouraging sign."

The hope is that as the economy expands, companies will use fresh profits to add to payrolls as they reach for increased sales. As workers spend their paychecks, they will create opportunities for other businesses, generating more jobs.

Some experts see this scenario unfolding now, asserting that the economy will add jobs by late winter.

"People are hurting, but if you can get past the sticker shock of the unemployment rate and look at the guts of the report, they are still very consistent with a recovery," said Michael T. Darda, chief economist at the research and trading firm MKM Partners. "We're getting very close to the peak unemployment rate."

But some doubt whether recent trends can continue, absent another dose of government spending.

Though the economy grew at a 3.5 percent annualized rate between July and September, much business activity was stirred up by special programs aimed at encouraging consumers to spend, not least the cash-for-clunkers program that provided taxpayer-financed cash incentives to people trading in their cars.

As the effects of this and other stimulus programs fade over coming months, fundamental weakness may reemerge, with consumers - whose spending accounts for 70 percent of overall economic activity - confronting enormous debt, the loss of wealth and fears about job security.

"We just went through an unbelievable financial catastrophe in this country and it typically takes a long time to come back," said Joshua Shapiro, chief United States economist at MFR, a market research firm in New York, who envisions jobs continuing to decline until at least the middle of next year.

Beneath the dueling interpretations of future prospects, the report left little doubt that the present was still bleak in millions of American households.

In Columbia, S.C., Raymond Vaughn is still unemployed a year and a half after he lost his job installing and repairing windows. Back in April, he was training for a new career in medical billing, a growing field, through an online course he found on the Internet. But his unemployment benefits soon ran out, eliminating his $221-a-week check, and then he could no longer muster the $98 weekly payments for his course.

Mr. Vaughn, 43, is back to what has become a familiar if dreary everyday routine. He drives to the unemployment office downtown, where the crowds seem thicker than ever. He waits his turn to sit in front of a computer so he scan meager listings and send out fresh applications. Then, he returns home, to his sagging couch and his television, where cheerful news anchors tell him that the economy is looking up.

"They say it's supposed to be better, that's what I see on the news," Mr. Vaughn said. "But I sure see a lot of people down at the unemployment office. I really don't see how the job stuff is going to change. I don't see any jobs out there."

Last month, Mr. Vaughn thought he had a job, a position at a factory that makes flooring boards for $13 an hour. But two weeks before he was to go in for training, the company called him to revoke the offer.

"They said they had a hiring freeze," he said.

And so Mr. Vaughn finds himself stuck in a crowded slice of a lean economy: another unemployed man living on the largess of a woman. His fiancée's wages from her secretarial job pay the bills.

The latest job report amplified the reality that the pain has fallen particularly hard on men, who suffered a 10.7 percent unemployment rate in October, as compared to 8.1 percent among women. Among African American men, unemployment reached 17.1 percent in October.

Unemployment reached 9.5 percent among white Americans, 13.1 percent among Hispanics and 27.6 for teenagers.

Among all groups, the underemployment rate - a broader measure of the jobs shortfall which includes people whose hours have been cut, those working part-time for lack of full-time work, and those who have given up looking - is 17.5 percent.

Health care remained a rare bright spot, adding 29,000 jobs in October. For another month, construction and manufacturing led the declines, losing 62,000 and 61,000 jobs respectively.

Such were the details of a report dominated by a single fact: The official jobless rate now occupies two digits. More than a mere statistical marker, some worried that this could perpetuate anxiety, prompting a further hunkering down within the economy.

"It's a benchmark," said Mr. Baker. "It's part of a general backdrop of economic news that does affect decisions by businesses and purchases of big ticket items."

Javier C. Hernandez contributed reporting.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

4) Broader Measure of U.S. Unemployment Stands at 17.5%
By DAVID LEONHARDT
November 7, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/business/economy/07econ.html?hp

For all the pain caused by the Great Recession, the job market still was not in as bad shape as it had been during the depths of the early 1980s recession - until now.

With the release of the jobs report on Friday, the broadest measure of unemployment and underemployment tracked by the Labor Department has reached its highest level in decades. If statistics went back so far, the measure would almost certainly be at its highest level since the Great Depression.

In all, more than one out of every six workers - 17.5 percent - were unemployed or underemployed in October. The previous recorded high was 17.1 percent, in December 1982.

This includes the officially unemployed, who have looked for work in the last four weeks. It also includes discouraged workers, who have looked in the past year, as well as millions of part-time workers who want to be working full time.

The official jobless rate - 10.2 percent in October, up from 9.8 percent in September - remains lower than the early 1980s peak of 10.8 percent.

The rate is highest today, sometimes 20 percent, in states that had big housing bubbles, like California and Arizona, or that have large manufacturing sectors, like Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island and South Carolina.

The new benchmark is a sign of just how much damage financial crises tend to inflict. A recent book by Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff, two economists, found that over the last century the typical crisis had caused the jobless rate in the country where it occurred to rise for almost five years. By that standard, the jobless rate here would continue rising for two more years, through the end of 2011.

Most economists predict that the rate will in fact begin to fall next year, largely because of the federal government's aggressive response - fiscal stimulus, interest-rate cuts and a variety of creative steps by the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department. Friday's report showed that monthly job losses continued to slow recently, though the improvement has been gradual.

At the White House Friday, President Obama signed a bill to extend unemployment benefits and a tax credit for home buyers, and said that he was looking at ways to enact more stimulus. On Wednesday, the Fed announced that it expected to leave its benchmark interest at zero for "an extended period."

Nearly 16 million people are now unemployed and more than seven million jobs have been lost since late 2007.

Officially, the Labor Department's broad measure of unemployment goes back only to 1994. But early this year, with the help of economists at the department, The New York Times created a version that estimates it going back to 1970. If such a measure were available for the Depression, it probably would have exceeded 30 percent.

Compared with the early 1980s, a smaller share of workers today are officially unemployed and a smaller share are considered discouraged workers.

But there are many more people who would like to be working full time and have been able to find only part-time work, according to the government's monthly survey of workers. The rapid increase in their ranks and in the officially unemployed has caused the rate to rise much faster in this recession than in the early 1980s. Two years ago, it was only 8.2 percent.

One of the more striking aspects of the Great Recession is that most of its impact has fallen on a relatively narrow group of workers. This is evident primarily in two ways.

First, the number of people who have experienced any unemployment is surprisingly low, given the severity of the recession. The pace of layoffs has increased, but the peak layoff rate this year was the same as it was during the 2001 recession, which was a fairly mild downturn. The main reason that the unemployment rate has soared is the hiring rate has plummeted.

So fewer workers than might be expected have lost their jobs. But those without work are paying a steep price, because finding a new job is extremely difficult.

Second, wages have continued to rise for most people who still have jobs. The average hourly wage for rank-and-file workers, who make up about four-fifths of the work force, actually accelerated in October, according to the new report.

Even though some companies have cut the pay of workers, the average hourly wage has still risen 1.5 to 2.5 percent over the last year, depending on which government survey is examined. Average weekly pay has risen less - zero to 1 percent - because hours have been cut. But average prices have fallen. Altogether, the typical worker has received a 1 to 2 percent inflation-adjusted raise over the last year.

In the other two severe recessions in recent decades, workers with jobs fared considerably worse. At the same point in the mid-1970s downturn, real weekly pay had fallen 7 percent; in the early 1980s recession, it had fallen 4 percent.

It is a strange combination: workers who still have a job are doing better than in other deep recessions, but the unemployment and underemployment have risen to their highest level since the Depression.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

5) Prospect of More U.S. Troops Worries Afghan Public
By ALISSA J. RUBIN
November 7, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/world/asia/07doubts.html?hp

CHARIKAR, Afghanistan - As Americans, including President Obama's top advisers, tensely debate whether to send more American troops to Afghanistan, Afghans themselves are having a similar discussion and voicing serious doubts.

In bazaars and university corridors across the country, eight years of war have left people exhausted and impatient. They are increasingly skeptical that the Taliban can be defeated. Nearly everyone agrees that the Afghan government must negotiate with the insurgents. If more American forces do arrive, many here say, they should come to train Afghans to take over the fight, so the foreigners can leave.

"What have the Americans done in eight years?" asked Abdullah Wasay, 60, a pharmacist in Charikar, a market town about 25 miles north of Kabul, expressing a view typical of many here. "Americans are saying that with their planes they can see an egg 18 kilometers away, so why can't they see the Taliban?"

Such sentiments were repeated in conversation after conversation with more than 30 Afghans in Kabul and nearby rural areas and with local officials in outlying provinces. The comments point to the difficulties that American and Afghan officials face if they choose to add more foreign troops.

If the foreign forces are not seen so by Afghans already, they are on the cusp of being regarded as occupiers, with little to show people for their extended presence, fueling wild conspiracies about why they remain here.

The feeling is particularly acute in the Pashtun south, but it is spreading to other parts of the country. More American troops could tip the balance of opinion, particularly if they increase civilian casualties and prompt even more Taliban attacks.

The grass-roots view among Afghans is at odds with those of top Afghan officials, as well as many American military commanders, who strongly endorse a full-blown counterinsurgency strategy, including a large troop increase.

The aim of sending more troops would be to help secure Afghanistan's biggest cities and towns to make the population feel safe and in doing so to show that the foreign presence can bring benefits.

At the same time, the Americans support the idea of negotiating with moderate members of the Taliban, but would prefer to do so once the insurgency has been weakened. And, that, in turn, may also require more troops.

Interior Minister Hanif Atmar said he was in "full agreement" with Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the American commander of forces in Afghanistan, that a full-blown counterinsurgency strategy was necessary, including more forces.

"One piece of that strategy is a troop increase as a stopgap measure that will create an environment in which Afghan security forces can continue to grow and people will be protected against insurgents," he said.

The mood on the street is darker and more wary. Mr. Wasay and several friends visiting his pharmacy were discussing the Taliban's killing of a police chief in a rural part of the province. The rumor was that Taliban fighters had severed his head and delivered it to his son, according to one of Mr. Wasay's friends.

True or not, the anecdote was part of a growing mythology of Taliban power and a general perception that neither the Afghan government nor American troops were protecting Afghans.

Daily life continues to be so precarious for many people interviewed, especially those outside Kabul, that they have come to believe that the United States must want the fighting to go on.

"In the first days of the war, the Americans defeated the Taliban in just a few days," said Mohammed Shefi, a graduate student in the pharmacy school at Kabul University. "Now they have more than 60,000 forces and they cannot defeat them."

Alex Thier, an analyst at the United States Institute of Peace, who has spent years working in Afghanistan, said the country's mood was shifting. "What's changed fairly recently was the confidence of the population as to whether we can actually achieve the job, even with more resources," he said.

These doubts do not tally with some surveys, like the poll taken by the International Republican Institute, in which a majority of Afghans appeared to be positive about Americans and said they thought that the country was going in the right direction. However, the security environment in Afghanistan makes it a difficult place in which to conduct polls, and the survey by the institute, a pro-democracy group affiliated with the Republican Party and financed by the American government, was taken in July before the rampant fraud in the presidential election.

Zia Ahmet, a seller of tea kettles and pots just down the street from Mr. Wasay, was positive about the current international presence, but dubious about increasing it. "Instead of increasing foreign troops, it's better to equip the Afghan National Army and the Afghan police," he said, a view that was shared by almost everyone interviewed. "The local army are known in the villages, and they are more useful than foreign troops."

A tribal elder in Balkh Province, in the remote north, said the insurgency had disrupted life for farmers and herders, and he repeated one of a growing number of conspiracy theories about the Americans' intentions. In his version, the Americans were transporting Taliban fighters to the north and dropping them from helicopters at night, on the theory that the Americans wanted more fighting so they could stay in the country. Other versions have the British transporting the insurgents.

There is no truth to the accounts, according to American military officials in Kabul.

Graduate students at Kabul University were no less suspicious. "Those countries that are working with the U.S. and are friends of theirs are Saudi and Pakistan and those are the same countries the insurgents are coming from," said Abdullah, a graduate student in the Faculty of Islamic Law who, like many Afghans, has only one name.

While the notions may seem absurd to Americans, they have added to an increasingly volatile public mood here. A story that American forces burned a Koran in Wardak Province brought hundreds of young people into the streets last month to protest the American presence, even though the story was roundly disputed by Afghan and American officials.

With less certainty about America's continued commitment, there is a growing sense that the only sure way to peace is through negotiations with the Taliban. "They are the sons of this country, it is right to negotiate with the Taliban," said Mohammed Younnis, a shopkeeper in Charikar who sells tea, sugar and grains.

"This government is Afghan, and the Taliban are Afghan; they should build the country together," he said.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

6) British Bankers Defend Their Pay and Bonuses
"A recent pledge by Goldman Sachs to donate $200 million to its charitable foundation did little to defuse public anger about its plan to pay $16.7 billion in compensation this year."
By JULIA WERDIGIER
November 7, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/business/global/07greed.html?hp

LONDON - "Profit is not satanic," John Varley, the chief executive of Barclays, told an audience at St. Martin-in-the-Fields church here this week.

The day before, Josef Ackermann, the chief executive of Deutsche Bank, Germany's biggest bank, had insisted at a conference here, "Size is not necessarily evil."

While not exactly Gordon Gekko's "greed is good" speech from the movie "Wall Street," Brian Griffiths, an adviser to Goldman Sachs International, said during a recent panel discussion at St. Paul's Cathedral on "the place of morality in the marketplace," that bonuses would encourage charity and lift the economy.

"We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity and opportunity for all," Mr. Griffiths said.

With the Most Rev. Rowan D. Williams, archbishop of Canterbury and head of the Church of England, recently calling on those who work in finance to repent, the debate over bank reforms is becoming a modern-day morality play.

"We haven't heard people saying 'Well, actually, no, we got it wrong,' " Archbishop Williams noted, referring to the lapses that set off a financial crisis that globally caused trillions of dollars in bailouts and losses. But all the moral outrage has set off a counterreaction among a host of European bankers who are defending their industry and their paychecks, often in moral terms.

Many of the scenes are playing out in houses of worship, with executives sounding, by turns, defiant and plaintive. Sometimes their near-confessions read like attempts to reconcile, even justify, the values of religion and those of banking - not always quite convincingly.

The two sides of the Atlantic have taken markedly different paths to reform from the financial disaster. The United States has moved slowly on regulation and sought only to impose pay caps on the seven companies that received multiple multibillion-dollar bailouts. The Continental Europeans have been quicker to impose a raft of regulation on big financial firms, including strict limits on bonuses, as in France.

And even in Britain calls are gathering pace to force its bailed-out banks - the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds - to break up so that no one is "too big to fail."

Rejecting such proposals from senior Bank of England officials and Paul A. Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Ackermann said that "large firms do have a benefit for the users of financial services and for our economies at large."

At St. Martins, Mr. Varley did not dispute that banks played a role in the economic crisis, but he stressed that making money per se was not immoral. He said that banks were the "backbone" of the economy and that bonuses were necessary because "talent is highly mobile."

"If we fail to pay, or are constrained from paying, competitive rates, then that talent will move to another employer," he said, in a church that is known for its work with the homeless.

Bankers are facing the brunt of growing criticism from regulators, central bankers and ordinary citizens for continuing large compensation packages while the industry is being propped up by government funds.

A recent pledge by Goldman Sachs to donate $200 million to its charitable foundation did little to defuse public anger about its plan to pay $16.7 billion in compensation this year.

The Rev. Christopher Harrison, a member of the Nottingham city center clergy and a former adviser to Britain's Treasury, said much more was needed than just giving to charity. "There is a general feeling that the level of bonuses we've seen have been obscene," he said in a telephone conversation on Thursday. "There is a need for proportionality and more robust social responsibility."

Stephen K. Green, the chairman of HSBC, agreed. Last month, he called for a change of culture among bankers. The banking sector "owes the real world an apology," he said, as well as "a commitment to learn the lessons."

But some people in high places say that is already happening.

The bishop of London, Richard Chartres, said the economic crisis already had many in the banking industry re-examining their place in society and their contribution to the commonweal.

"I have seen firsthand in my own meetings and conversations around the capital how it has provoked deeper contemplation within the financial community of the relationship between money and society," he wrote in an e-mail message. "Profound shocks can open us to a new awareness."

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

7) Marooned on Sea of Iraqi Oil, but Unable to Tap Its Wealth
"The area around Basra, Iraq's second largest city and main port, accounts for as much as 80 percent of the country's oil production. It has emerged as Iraq's best hope for stability and prosperity as it prepares to sell off its top undeveloped oil fields to foreign companies at an auction next month."
By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS
November 8, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/middleeast/08basra.html?ref=world

BASRA, Iraq - The orange glow of the giant natural gas flares in the oil fields around Basra represents this bustling city's wealth of natural resources. But for the impoverished people who live near them, the flames only serve as a reminder of their inability to share in the riches that lie beneath their feet.

The area around Basra, Iraq's second largest city and main port, accounts for as much as 80 percent of the country's oil production. It has emerged as Iraq's best hope for stability and prosperity as it prepares to sell off its top undeveloped oil fields to foreign companies at an auction next month. Of the five largest fields that will be bid on, four are in or around Basra.

Despite the riches trapped below its oil fields, though, this city of three million is among the poorest places in a poor country.

People in neighborhoods within a few miles of fields with so much oil that it floats atop the surface in huge black pools live amid mud and feces. Carts pulled by overworked donkeys compete with cars for space on streets. Childhood cancer rates are the highest in the country. The city's salty tap water makes people ill. And there is more garbage on the streets than municipal collectors can make a dent in.

The hundreds of thousands who live in the villages around the fields all dream of finding oil work, but that is unlikely. Those who apply are almost always told they lack the education or experience for oil work. But they believe that their only real deficiency is a lack of connections and money for bribes.

"People sit here in the evenings and they watch the flames and wonder how rich they would be if they had only one hour of those oil exports," said Naeem al-Moussuawi, who lives in one of Basra's poorer villages.

Last month, after Iraq's Oil Ministry announced that it planned to hire workers for its Basra-based South Oil Company, thousands of people waited in line for applications - some for days. Among them were men in tattered clothing with bare, muddy feet. When the line got unruly, the police were called. Some applicants were beaten. More than 27,000 applications were filled out for 1,600 jobs - most of which require a college education or experience, and most Basrans have neither.

In the village of Asdika, oil pipelines run along the perimeter, and several thousand people live in ramshackle houses of gray cinder blocks and plastic sheeting for roofs.

There is no garbage collection, and household trash is thrown outside to rot in the sun. There is no sewer system, so wastewater from houses is dumped outside, attracting thousands of flies to the lakes of raw sewage that have formed outside most homes. Almost everyone is unemployed.

The village is on government property - an oil field - and its existence is illegal. Residents say the police show up occasionally and threaten to bulldoze the houses.

Hussein Flaeh, 29, an unemployed father of two, has lived in Asdika since 2003. Fifteen members of his family live in a concrete-block house with three small rooms. One recent morning, Mr. Flaeh's youngest child, Essam, born two weeks ago, was placed outside to get some fresh air. The baby's face was almost immediately covered by hungry flies.

Asked whether he had ever applied for a job at the oil refinery, Mr. Flaeh appeared perplexed and did not answer. Pressed, his gentle face turned hard.

"You can't even reach it," he said. "Don't even talk about it."

Government officials in Basra have called for a fee of $1 to be placed on each barrel of oil produced in the province that would then be dedicated to local uses instead of going to the central government. But even if Basra suddenly became awash in oil money, the construction of new housing, offices and even farmland would be prohibited because almost everything is situated atop untapped reserves of crude oil.

"Ninety percent of Basra is an oil field," said Ahmed al-Sulati, a member of the local provincial council. "We can't build anything here. We need to have more housing in some neighborhoods, but we can't because we are surrounded by oil."

In the meantime, Mr. Sulati said, "We are getting sick from breathing gas, and the streets are getting destroyed by the oil trucks."

During a recent speech, Ali Ghalib Baban, Iraq's minister of planning, said Basra was on the cusp of being "one of the world's most important economic centers."

But in the village of Shuiba, so close to the city's refinery and major fields that the air is heavy with the smell of petroleum, farmers have stopped growing tomatoes and now rent their fields to truck drivers who park their tankers there for about 80 cents a night.

It is the village's single school, however, that is the source of most of Shuiba's concerns. Some classes have more than 55 students packed inside, and boys and girls must be taught together, which has led some parents to keep their daughters at home. There are no bathrooms, and some classrooms have no electricity. The school grounds are littered with piles of garbage.

Oil workers live on the opposite side of the village.

In the poorer half of Shuiba, the workers are regarded with envy and loathing. Not a single resident from the poor side has been hired for an oil job.

"Everyone would like to work for the oil company," Mr. Moussuawi said. "We know we are poor and many of us are not well educated. The problem is they see the trucks full of oil and they wonder where the money is going."

But even in Shuiba's better-off half, adjacent to Basra's sprawling refinery, residents say they have unmet needs. The housing is neat, there is no trash and the streets are paved, but there is crowding and rising unemployment even among the college-educated sons and daughters of oil company managers, they say.

"You need to know somebody or pay a bribe to work there," said Najim Khadim, 26, the son of Shuiba's unofficial mayor, Mohammed Khadim, who has worked for 38 years at the refinery, where he is a supervisor.

The son, who has a college degree in chemistry, said not even his father had been able to help with a job. The going rate for bribes for a job, he said, is $2,000 to $5,000, which he said he refused to pay.

A visitor is brought a glass of tap water. It tastes as salty as the water in the rest of town.

Duraid Adnan and Iraqi employees of The New York Times contributed reporting.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

8) Adversities Await Iraqis Who Return Home
By JOHN LELAND
November 7, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/world/middleeast/07iraq.html?ref=world

BAGHDAD - As Iraqis who fled their homes to escape sectarian violence are returning, many face high unemployment and poor access to electricity and water, according to a new report by the International Organization of Migration, a nongovernmental group operating in more than 100 countries.

In the worst cases, families return to discover that their homes are gone or have been significantly damaged. One-third of returnees interviewed by the group said they felt unsafe some of the time.

More than half a million families have left their homes since the war began in 2003, moving to other parts of Iraq or abroad, according to the group. The displacement accelerated after sectarian bloodshed escalated in 2006.

The researchers have identified 58,110 families who have returned, though some families have probably gone home without being counted by the organization's monitors. Most returned from other parts of the country rather than from abroad.

The returnees account for less than 10 percent of those displaced. Others said they wanted to return to their homes if conditions continued to improve.

The International Organization of Migration interviewed more than 4,000 families for the report.

The group's research showed that many of those who returned faced conditions as daunting as those they had experienced in their temporary homes or shelters. Hardest hit were households headed by women, including those whose husbands were killed in the past six years. Among these families, which accounted for 12 percent of the families interviewed by the group, 70 percent of the women said they were unable to work, and 26 percent said they were able to work but could not find jobs.

In an example of the types of troubles returning families face, the police in Al Tahrir, near Baquba, the provincial capital of Diyala, reported Friday that they had been called to the house of a family who had just returned after three years in Baghdad to find a vest loaded with 22 pounds of explosives and wires sticking out.

Neighbors told the police that members of the Islamic State of Iraq - an umbrella organization associated with Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi terrorist group believed to have some foreign leadership - had used the home as a safe house for suicide bombers during the family's absence.

The researchers found that about a third of the families they interviewed returned to find that their houses had been damaged or destroyed.

The report also found that returning families went home because of improved safety in their old neighborhoods, but also because of high rents and poor conditions in the areas to which they had fled. A small fraction, 5 percent of those interviewed, said they returned to take advantage of a one-time government grant of 1 million Iraqi dinars, roughly $840.

The returning families who spoke to researchers came from a variety of ethnic and religious groups: 50 percent were Shiite, 41 percent Sunni and 9 percent Christian.

One-third of the heads of household said they were unemployed. By comparison, a January study by the United Nations estimated that unemployment in Iraq was at 18 percent.

An Iraqi employee of The New York Times contributed reporting from Diyala Province.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

9) Windfall Is Seen as Bank Bonuses Are Paid in Stock
By LOUISE STORY
November 8, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/business/08pay.html?ref=business

Even as Washington tries to rein in Wall Street pay, bankers are likely to make unusually large gains on the stock grants and options they received after shares in their companies fell sharply during the financial meltdown.

As banks cut bonuses last year, they shifted more pay into stock and options from cash. Within months, the financial system began to mend - partly with the help of billions of dollars in government aid - and that stock began surging in value. Some of it can be cashed in starting in just a few months.

And so the bonuses Wall Street received last year, billed as paltry at the time, are turning out to be among the most lucrative payouts ever.

Goldman Sachs, for instance, sharply cut nearly all bonuses it paid last year but gave some executives more options than usual.

The company gave its general counsel, for instance, 104,868 stock options and 14,117 shares in December, when the bank's stock was around $78.

Now the bank's shares have more than doubled in value, making the general counsel's stock and option award worth nearly $12 million, according to Equilar, an executive compensation research firm in California.

That executive is just one of many Wall Street workers who have seen the bonuses they received last year soar in value, even though some of the shares cannot be sold for a few years.

Goldman's bonus pool last year was $4.82 billion, according to the New York attorney general's office, but because about half of that was paid in stock, it is now worth upwards of $7.8 billion. At JPMorgan Chase, workers have seen the value of the stock awarded them last year increase at least $3 billion.

"People have to look at the sizable gains that have been made since stock and options were granted last year, and the fact is this was, in many ways, a windfall," said Jesse M. Brill, the chairman of CompensationStandards.com, a trade publication. "This had nothing to do with people's performance. These were granted at market lows."

Wall Street has long used a mix of stock and cash for bonuses. But the greater emphasis on cash before the financial crisis began meant executives could walk away rich even as their companies collapsed.

That has left many on Wall Street - and in Washington - demanding that a greater portion of pay be made in stock in hopes of rewarding long-term performance rather than short-term bets.

The Treasury's special master of pay, Kenneth R. Feinberg, has said there is "too much reliance on cash" on Wall Street and has proposed stock as an alternative.

Banks began the trend by paying more in stock last year. Then, in February, Congress required that bonuses at bailed-out banks be paid entirely in stock. Last month, the Treasury Department took the idea further by proposing that some executives' salaries be paid in stock. The result is that Wall Street workers have more of their pay at risk than ever.

Still, some compensation experts say the risk has been decreased by the government's backing of the financial system and historically low stock prices. After all, they point out, companies like JPMorgan, American Express and Capital One issued stock and options last year when their share prices had little chance of going anywhere but up.

The stock gains raise questions about the wisdom of pushing bonus pay too far in either direction, favoring either cash or stock. Normal theories about stock compensation and risk-taking may not hold true today, compensation experts say, in large part because of the government's continued financial support of the industry.

And they say the upside at many banks is far bigger than the downside, particularly for banks like Bank of America and Citigroup that have not yet seen their shares recover.

"Right now the world is set up for these people to take big gambles," said Kevin J. Murphy, a professor at the University of Southern California who advised the Treasury Department on pay. "The worst part of the asymmetry comes from the too-big-to-fail guarantee" that has been reinforced by the government aid.

Wells Fargo was one of more than a dozen major banks to award executives stock and options since the bailout. In February, the bank gave nearly three million options and roughly 528,000 shares to 11 executives. On paper, the grants have increased in value to $57.3 million from $12.1 million, according to Equilar.

Pat Callahan, one of the Wells Fargo executives to receive the grants, said the bank's board always considers equity grants in February.

"Of course in February the price was very low, but nobody knew what was going to happen," she said. "It's true that the stock price change from February to now is a mix of economic recovery and things that we've done."

The Wells Fargo options start to become available early next year, though executives there are not allowed to sell more than half of them until a year after they retire. Of course, the stock could fall rather than rise before then, as could shares of other banks like Goldman or JPMorgan.

The stock payouts strike some experts as a way to simply defer windfalls into the future.

"The stock doesn't bother me. What bothers me are the gross amounts," said Charles M. Elson, a corporate governance professor at the University of Delaware. "Most people are focused on cash payments, and they ignore the stock. When you issue stock in a period of economic distress, you've often given someone a gift."

Many financial workers, of course, do not consider their compensation a gift, despite widespread criticism of their high pay.

And some pay experts point to stock losses on Wall Street in recent years. Ira T. Kay, the head of compensation at the consulting firm Watson Wyatt, said, "No one's looking to give them sympathy, but it's not correct to say they haven't felt the pain of their shareholders."

Still, at some banks, like Goldman and JPMorgan, the stock in the bonus pools from 2006 and 2007 has almost fully recovered its value.

For upcoming compensation at Citigroup and Bank of America, the Treasury Department mandated the banks pay executives almost entirely in stock. That means if performance goals are met, 19 executives at Citigroup would split $133 million in stock this year and 12 executives at Bank of America would share in $78.6 million in stock.

But greater upside lurks. If Citigroup's stock returns to its early 2008 price of $29, from just above $4 on Friday, the executives' shares from this year alone would be worth more than $800 million. Even if the stock rose to only $12, their shares would be worth $400 million.

At Bank of America, seven executives could see their pay packages become worth more than $10 million apiece if the bank's stock increases just $10. A bank spokesman, Bob Stickler, said, "Under that scenario, executives get paid because the shareholders are being paid."

The Treasury Department declined to comment when asked if these bank executives were being set up for windfalls. Lucian A. Bebchuk, a Harvard Law School professor who advised Treasury on pay rules, said, "What should we have done differently?"

"It would be better if you could take the stock and somehow neutralize what the government did, but that's really tricky," he said. "If you have equity compensation, sometimes there are massive windfalls."

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

10) Weighing Life in Prison for Youths Who Didn't Kill
By ADAM LIPTAK
November 8, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/us/08juveniles.html?hp

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - There are just over 100 people in the world serving sentences of life without the possibility of parole for crimes they committed as juveniles in which no one was killed. All are in the United States. And 77 of them are here in Florida.

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear appeals from two such juvenile offenders: Joe Sullivan, who raped a woman when he was 13, and Terrance Graham, who committed armed burglary at 16. They claim that the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment forbids sentencing them to die in prison for crimes other than homicide.

Outside the context of the death penalty, the Supreme Court has generally allowed states to decide for themselves what punishments fit what crimes. But the court barred the execution of juvenile offenders in 2005 by a vote of 5 to 4, saying that people under 18 are immature, irresponsible, susceptible to peer pressure and often capable of change.

A ruling extending that reasoning beyond capital cases "could be the Brown v. Board of Education of juvenile law," said Paolo G. Annino, the director of the Children's Advocacy Clinic at Florida State University's law school. Judges, legislators and prosecutors in Florida agree that the state takes an exceptionally tough line on juvenile crime.

But they are deeply divided about when sentences of life without the possibility of release are warranted.

"Sometimes a 15-year-old has a tremendous appreciation for right and wrong," said State Representative William D. Snyder, a Republican who is chairman of the House's Criminal and Civil Justice Policy Council. "I think it would be wrong for the Supreme Court to say that it was patently illegal or improper to send a youthful offender to life without parole. At a certain point, juveniles cross the line, and they have to be treated as adults and punished as adults."

A retired Florida appeals court judge, John R. Blue, did not see it that way. "To lock them up forever seems a little barbaric to me," Judge Blue said. "You ought to leave them some hope."

Several factors in combination - some legal, some historical, some cultural - help account for the disproportionate number of juvenile lifers in Florida.

The state's attorney general, Bill McCollum, explained the roots of the state's approach in the first paragraph of his brief in Mr. Graham's case.

"By the 1990s, violent juvenile crime rates had reached unprecedented high levels throughout the nation," Mr. McCollum wrote. "Florida's problem was particularly dire, compromising the safety of residents, visitors and international tourists, and threatening the state's bedrock tourism industry." Nine foreign tourists were killed over 11 months in 1992 and 1993, one by a 14-year-old.

Mr. Snyder, the state legislator, put it this way: "Instead of the Sunshine State, it was the Gun-shine State."

In response, the state moved more juveniles into adult courts, increased sentences and eliminated parole for capital crimes.

Thomas K. Petersen, a semi-retired judge in Miami who spent a decade hearing cases in juvenile court, said that the state's reaction was out of proportion and that it has lately failed to take account of changed circumstances.

"Back in the 1990s, there were dire predictions about teenage super-predators, particularly in Florida," Judge Petersen said. "Florida, probably more than other places because of that rash of crimes, overreacted. It was a hysterical reaction."

"People still go around saying things have never been worse," he added. "But violent juvenile crime has gone down even as the juvenile population has grown."

The state's brief in Mr. Graham's case said juvenile crime fell 30 percent in the decade ended in 2004. It attributed the drop to its tough approach.

Shay Bilchik, who served as a state prosecutor in Miami from 1977 to 1993 and is now the director of the Center for Juvenile Justice Reform at Georgetown, said the state took a wrong turn. "We were pretty aggressive in those years in transferring kids into criminal court," he said.

He said later research convinced him that his office's approach was much too aggressive and had not served to deter crime. "My biggest regret," he said, "is that during the time I was in the prosecutor's office, we were under the false impression that we were insuring greater public safety when we were not."

Mr. Sullivan, 34, had committed a string of crimes by the time he was charged with raping a 72-year-old woman after a burglary in 1989 in Pensacola. Mr. Graham, 22, was sentenced to a year in jail and three years' probation for a 2003 robbery of a Jacksonville restaurant, during which an accomplice beat the manager with a steel bar. Mr. Graham was sentenced to life in 2005 for violating probation by committing a home invasion robbery when he was 17.

Concern about tourism continues to drive crime policy in the state, said Kathleen M. Heide, a professor of criminology at the University of South Florida. "We're at the more extreme level," she said, "because our economy is so tied up with people coming here on vacation and feeling safe. And older people want to live out their retirements here and be safe."

Florida is one of eight states with juvenile offenders serving life sentences without the possibility of parole for nonhomicide crimes, according to a report prepared by Professor Annino and two colleagues at Florida State. Louisiana has 17 such prisoners; California, Delaware, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska and South Carolina have the rest.

The number of such sentences in Florida was greater in the decade that ended in 2008 than in the decade before. The state sentenced nine juvenile offenders for nonhomicide crimes to life without parole in 2005 alone. "We're just so far out from everyone else," Professor Annino said.

Mr. Snyder said finding the right balance in addressing juvenile crime was difficult but should be left to the states. "People do things at 16 and 17 that they wouldn't do at 37, but they spend a lifetime paying for it," he said. "But we have to create an environment where our children are safe and our elderly are safe."

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

11) Sweeping Health Care Plan Passes House
"The House legislation, running almost 2,000 pages, would require most Americans to obtain health insurance or face penalties - an approach Republicans compared to government oppression."
By CARL HULSE and ROBERT PEAR
November 8, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/health/policy/08health.html?hp

WASHINGTON - Handing President Obama a hard-fought victory, the House narrowly approved a sweeping overhaul of the nation's health care system on Saturday night, advancing legislation that Democrats said could stand as their defining social policy achievement.

After a daylong clash with Republicans over what has been a Democratic goal for decades, lawmakers voted 220 to 215 to approve a plan that would cost $1.1 trillion over 10 years. Democrats said the legislation would provide overdue relief to Americans struggling to buy or hold on to health insurance.

"This is our moment to revolutionize health care in this country," said Representative George Miller, Democrat of California and one of the chief architects of the bill.

Democrats were forced to make major concessions on insurance coverage for abortions to attract the final votes to secure passage, a wrenching compromise for the numerous abortion-rights advocates in their ranks.

Many of them hope to make changes to the amendment during negotiations with the Senate, which will now become the main battleground in the health care fight as Democrats there ready their own bill for what is likely to be extensive floor debate.

Democrats say the House measure - paid for through new fees and taxes, along with cuts in Medicare - would extend coverage to 36 million people now without insurance while creating a government health insurance program. It would end insurance company practices like not covering pre-existing conditions or dropping people when they become ill.

Republicans condemned the vote and said they would oppose the measure as it proceeds on its legislative route. "This government takeover has got a long way to go before it gets to the president's desk, and I'll continue to fight it tooth and nail at every turn," said Representative Kevin Brady, Republican of Texas. "Health care is too important to get it wrong."

On the House floor, Democrats exchanged high-fives and cheered wildly - and Republicans sat quietly - when the tally display showed the 218th and decisive vote, after the leadership spent countless hours in recent days wringing commitments out of House members.

"We did what we promised the American people we would do," said Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the majority leader, who also warned, "Much work remains."

The successful vote came on a day when Mr. Obama traveled to Capitol Hill to make a personal appeal for lawmakers to "answer the call of history" and support the bill.

Only one Republican, Representative Anh Cao of Louisiana, voted for the bill, and 39 Democrats opposed it. The House also defeated the Republicans' more modest plan, whose authors said it was a more common-sense and fiscally responsible approach.

The Democrats who balked at the measure represent mainly conservative swing districts, signaling that those who could be vulnerable in next year's midterm elections viewed voting for the measure as politically risky.

"Today's may be a tough vote, but it was in 1935 when we passed Social Security," Representative John Dingell, Democrat of Michigan and the dean of the House, said as the debate drew to a close late Saturday.

Some Democrats said they voted for the legislation so they could seek improvements in it. "This bill will get better in the Senate," said Representative Jim Cooper, a Tennessee Democrat who has been outspoken in his criticism of some provisions of the bill but decided to support it. "If we kill it here, it won't have a chance to get better."

After the vote, Mr. Obama issued a statement praising the House and calling on the Senate to follow suit. "I am absolutely confident it will," he said, "and I look forward to signing comprehensive health insurance reform into law by the end of the year."

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said he would bring a bill to the floor as soon as possible.

The vote came on the third anniversary of the 2006 Democratic takeover of the House, and the passage moves the bill well beyond the health care overhaul attempted by President Bill Clinton in 1993.

Lawmakers credited Mr. Obama with converting a final few holdouts during his appearance at a closed-door meeting with Democrats just hours before the vote. Democratic officials said that Mr. Obama's conversation Saturday with Representative Michael H. Michaud, Democrat of Maine, was crucial in winning one final vote.

Many Democrats also credited Speaker Nancy Pelosi for pulling off a victory that proved tougher than many had predicted. "She really threaded the needle on this one," said Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts.

A critical turning point was the decision by Ms. Pelosi late Friday night to allow anti-abortion Democrats to try to tighten restrictions on coverage for the procedure under any insurance plan that receives federal money. That concession eased a threat by some Democrats to abandon the bill, but also left Democrats who support abortion rights facing a choice between backing a provision they bitterly opposed or scuttling the bill. The new abortion controls were added to the measure on a vote of 240 to 194.

Mr. Obama made his rare weekend appearance on Capitol Hill as part of an all-out effort to rally Democrats to support the biggest health care legislation since the creation of Medicare for the elderly four decades ago.

During the private meeting with Democrats in the Cannon Caucus Room, the president acknowledged the political difficulty of supporting major legislation in the face of unanimous Republican opposition and tough criticism from conservatives.

But, those present said, he urged them on, saying, "When I sign this in the Rose Garden, each and every one of you will be able to look back and say, 'This was my finest moment in politics.' "

Republicans said the measure was too costly and would end up burdening the nation for decades to come. Some Democrats expressed the same view in explaining their opposition.

"This bill is a wrecking ball to the entire economy," said Representative Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia. "We need targeted specific reforms to help people who have fallen through the health care cracks."

But Democrats said that Republicans were intent on protecting the status quo in health care and that the new Democratic approach would vastly improve the ability of Americans to gain affordable health insurance.

"Now is the chance to fix our health care system and improve the lives of millions of Americans," Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York and chairwoman of the Rules Committee, said as she opened the daylong proceedings.

The wall of Republican opposition gave Democrats little room to maneuver, and they worked to corral as many party members as they could. But the preliminary approval to clear the way for the debate came on a 242-to-192 vote, suggesting that Democrats had a victory within reach.

The House vote was a significant step in the long-sought Democratic goal of enacting broad changes in the way health care is delivered in the nation. But the Senate has yet to bring its own emerging measure to the floor for debate, and the two chambers will still need to negotiate and approve a final bill in the weeks ahead.

The struggle House Democrats had in lining up the minimum number of votes for the measure was a clear indication of how difficult it would be to get final legislation to the president's desk.

The House legislation, running almost 2,000 pages, would require most Americans to obtain health insurance or face penalties - an approach Republicans compared to government oppression.

Most employers would have to provide coverage or pay a tax penalty of up to 8 percent of their payroll. The bill would significantly expand Medicaid and would offer subsidies to help moderate-income people buy insurance from private companies or from a government insurance plan. It would also set up a national insurance exchange where people could shop for coverage.

Republicans forced a House vote on their much more modest plan that would expand coverage to just three million of the uninsured. But its authors said it would bring down the costs of private insurance premiums, which they argued was the chief concern of most Americans.

"More taxes, more spending and more government is not the plan for reform the people support," said Representative Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina and one of the conservatives who relentlessly criticized the Democrats' plan.

But Democrats said their proposal was long overdue, would relieve the mounting anxiety of Americans struggling to get and retain health insurance, and would ultimately improve the economy by bringing spiraling health care costs under control.

"Our plan is not perfect, but it is a good start toward providing affordable health care to all Americans," said Representative Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon.

David M. Herszenhorn contributed reporting.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

12) Jobless Recovery
Editorial
"...the share of the unemployed population out of work for more than six months - also continues to set records. It is now 35.6 percent."
November 8, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/opinion/08sun1.html?8dpc

If you are looking for an economic recovery you can believe in, the October employment report is not for you.

After contracting for a year and a half, the economy grew in the quarter that ended in September, driven largely by federal stimulus. But government spending, as large and as necessary as it has been, has not been enough to revive hiring.

Unemployment surged from 9.8 percent in September to 10.2 percent last month, its highest level since 1983. At the same time, the economy lost 190,000 more jobs. That means employers have eliminated 7.3 million positions since the recession began in December 2007.

As dreadful as they are, the headline numbers understate the severity of the problem. They also obscure an even grimmer fact: Unless there is more government support, it will take several years of robust economic growth - by no means a sure thing - to recoup the jobs that have been lost.

The unemployment rate includes only jobless people who have looked for work in the past four weeks. The underemployment rate - which also includes jobless workers who have not recently looked for work and part-timers who need full-time work - reached 17.5 percent in October. And the long-term unemployment rate - the share of the unemployed population out of work for more than six months - also continues to set records. It is now 35.6 percent.

The official job-loss data also fail to take note of 2.8 million additional jobs needed to absorb new workers who have joined the labor force during the recession. When those missing jobs are added to the official total, the economy comes up short by 10.1 million jobs.

Taken together, the numbers paint this stark picture: At no time in post-World War II America has it been more difficult to find a job, to plan for the future, or - for tens of millions of Americans - to merely get by.

At a recent meeting at the White House to discuss job creation, President Obama said that "bold, innovative action," would be needed - from the administration, Congress and the private sector - to undo the devastation in the labor market. Americans are waiting for Mr. Obama to lead the way.

There were good ideas floated at the White House meeting, including bolstered federal support for efforts to retrofit and weatherize homes and public buildings. There was also talk of using government money to establishing a so-called infrastructure bank that would issue bonds to help finance big construction projects.

The country also needs a program that would create jobs for teenagers - ages 16 to 19 - whose unemployment rate is currently a record 27.6 percent. Deep and prolonged unemployment among the young is especially worrisome. It means they do not have a chance, and may never get the chance, to acquire needed skills, permanently hobbling their earnings potential.

We know that more stimulus spending and government programs are a fraught topic. But they are exactly what the country needs. It may be the only way to prevent a renewed downturn. And the only way to create the jobs needed to put Americans back to work. Those are the essential - and missing - ingredients of a sustained recovery.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

13) All Afghan War Options by Obama Aides Said to Call for More Troops
By PETER BAKER and HELENE COOPER
"...The options include Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's request for roughly another 40,000 troops; a middle scenario sending about 30,000 more troops; and a lower alternative involving 20,000 to 25,000 reinforcements..."
November 8, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/asia/08troops.html?ref=world

WASHINGTON - Advisers to President Obama are preparing three options for escalating the war effort in Afghanistan, all of them calling for more American troops, as he moves closer to a decision on the way forward in the eight-year-old war, officials said Saturday.

The options include Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's request for roughly another 40,000 troops; a middle scenario sending about 30,000 more troops; and a lower alternative involving 20,000 to 25,000 reinforcements, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Officials hope to present the options to Mr. Obama this week before he leaves on a trip to Asia.

While some civilian and military officials believe Mr. Obama is seeking a middle ground in the debate over Afghanistan, aides denied he has made any decision or is leaning toward any of the options. Still, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates appears to be supportive of the middle option, some officials said, and his view is thought to be pivotal because of Mr. Obama's respect for him and his status as a holdover from a Republican administration.

The three options define the contours of a debate that has played out in public for more than two months. General McChrystal, the top American and allied commander in Afghanistan, and his advocates argue the war cannot be won without a major infusion of forces to protect the population and ultimately turn it against the Taliban. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and others oppose a buildup in a war they believe cannot be won through conventional means and that diverts attention from Pakistan, where Al Qaeda is primarily located. There are currently 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan.

The range of alternatives under discussion suggests that the president has rejected the extremes on either end. He appears inclined to send more troops - with the only question being how many - and seems not to be seriously considering General McChrystal's highest proposal of 80,000 more troops.

Still, any of the options on the table would generate opposition on either the political left or right. If he approves anything less than General McChrystal's 40,000-troop option, Mr. Obama could face criticism from Republicans and some moderate Democrats, while any troop increase would provoke anger among liberals and others who have increasingly soured on the war.

McClatchy Newspapers reported Saturday that Mr. Obama is nearing a decision to approve the middle option being drawn up by advisers, citing unnamed administration and military officials. White House officials denied Mr. Obama has made a decision or favors any of the options at this point, noting that they have not been formally presented to him. But administration officials confirmed that the 30,000-troop plan is under consideration.

If he were to go with that, Mr. Obama could try to make up the difference in what General McChrystal wants by pressing NATO allies to do more. Britain has already agreed to send another 500 troops, and four senior American officials flew to Brussels last week to brief representatives of other nations that have forces in Afghanistan, to solicit their views and build support for more help.

There could be variations within each of the three options as well that could increase or decrease the number of troops needed, officials said. Troop levels would hinge, for instance, on the administration's assessment of how many former Taliban fighters can be peacefully reintegrated into Afghan society and to what extent improved governance at various levels could prevent disaffected Afghans from siding with insurgents.

Officials are focusing on an approach predicated on the belief that the Taliban cannot be entirely eradicated in Afghanistan and that Al Qaeda is the real threat to American interests. The main goal for American forces, then, would be to protect the 10 most important population centers in Afghanistan and keep the Taliban isolated long enough to train Afghan security forces to take over the fight.

Mr. Obama has met with his national security advisers seven times since General McChrystal sent his assessment Aug. 31. Officials hope to schedule another meeting this week.

The president's departure for Asia was delayed a day until Thursday so that he can fly to Fort Hood on Tuesday for a service commemorating the victims of last week's mass shooting.

Elisabeth Bumiller and Eric Schmitt contributed reporting.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

14) NATO Airstrike Said to Kill 7 Afghan Soldiers
By ALISSA J. RUBIN
November 8, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/asia/08afghan.html?ref=world

KABUL, Afghanistan - The Afghan Defense Ministry and local officials in Badghis Province said on Saturday that seven members of the Afghan security forces had been killed in a NATO airstrike the day before that was part of an effort to aid a beleaguered Afghan and NATO operation against the Taliban.

A NATO spokesman confirmed that the seven Afghan officers had been killed, as well as an Afghan civilian working with the Afghan forces. The organization is investigating whether its close air support was responsible for the casualties. According to NATO, five American soldiers were wounded in the operation against the militants, along with 15 Afghan soldiers, two Afghan police officers and one Afghan civilian working with the troops.

If NATO close air support is responsible for the casualties, it would be one of the worst cases of friendly fire in the course of the eight-year war.

The troops were in rural Badghis Province in the country's far northwest, in a relatively flat area, traversed by the Morghab River. They were searching for two American soldiers who had been missing since Wednesday. The Americans had vanished while on a resupply mission.

Local officials in Badghis Province said the two soldiers, who are paratroopers from the Fourth Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, had gone to pick up food supplies from an airdrop.

There are conflicting stories about what happened to them. Some local people said that the supplies were dropped inadvertently into the river and that as the men tried to retrieve them they were swept away in the swift current. But Maulvi Ghulam Farouk, a Taliban leader in the Bala Murghab district of Badghis Province who was present during the fighting, said that the soldiers fought with the Taliban and that the Taliban had killed one of them. However, he said, a couple of the Taliban were wounded during the fight and retreated.

On both Thursday and Friday, the joint NATO and Afghan force arrived to search for the missing soldiers. On Friday, the Taliban attacked the joint force and a fierce fight ensued.

"On Friday, they came with Afghan forces, looking again for their dead soldiers. It was afternoon when they came, and there was fighting for half an hour or maybe even one hour," said Mr. Farouk, the Taliban commander.

"Then the aircraft came," he continued. "And when the aircraft came, we Taliban dispersed and they bombed where the Afghans and their NATO soldiers had been fighting. There were many casualties."

Another Taliban spokesman, Qari Yousuf Ahmadi, said that during the fighting three Taliban were killed and five were wounded.

The Bala Murghab district governor, Mohammed Amin Achik, also confirmed the NATO bombing. "Yesterday there was a clash between the Taliban and the government; there are casualties among the Afghan security forces. I do confirm there was bombardment yesterday at the site of the fighting," he said on Saturday.

"We are saddened by the loss of life and injuries sustained during this very important mission," said Capt. Jane Campbell of the United States Navy, a spokeswoman for the international forces.

A legislator from Badghis Province, Senator Mohtrama Habibi, said she was upset at the NATO bombing. "If NATO really wanted to help, they should go and bombard the Taliban hideouts and sanctuaries," she said.

"Once again, I request that they not to shed our youths' blood," Senator Habibi continued. "Those who were killed yesterday in the bombardment were poor police who were working with the government for only 5,000 Afghanis a month for their salary. They are those who had no choice to go to Iran or to work in another job."

A monthly salary of 5,000 Afghanis would be about $100.

There is no indication from NATO, the Taliban or local authorities that the bodies of the missing soldiers have been found. Initially, a story circulated that villagers had located the bodies, Mr. Achik said. Now that report is in doubt, and NATO troops are still searching for the soldiers, he said.

The Taliban commander who was there during the fight denied that the Taliban had the bodies. "The dead bodies are not with us," he said. "We think they are with the local people. We don't know who took their bodies out of the water or where. The river is very long."

Taimoor Shah and Sangar Rahimi contributed reporting.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

15) Heavier Americans Push Back on Health Debate
"Congress is considering proposals in the effort to overhaul health care that would make it easier for employers to use financial rewards or penalties to promote healthy behavior by employees, like weight loss."
By SUSAN SAULNY
November 8, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/health/policy/08fat.html?ref=us

Marilyn Wann is an author and weight diversity speaker in Northern California who has a message for anyone making judgments about her health based on her large physique. "The only thing anyone can accurately diagnose by looking at a fat person is their own level of stereotype and prejudice about fat," said Ms. Wann, a 43-year-old San Franciscan whose motto in life is also the title of her book: "Fat! So?"

Hers has been an oft-repeated message this summer and fall by members of the "fat pride" community, given that the nation is in the midst of a debate about health care. That debate has, sometimes awkwardly, focused its attention on the growing population of overweight and obese Americans with unambiguous overtones: fat people should lose weight, for the good of us all.

Heavier Americans are pushing back now with newfound vigor in the policy debate, lobbying legislators and trying to move public opinion to recognize their point of view: that thin does not necessarily equal fit, and that people can be healthy at any size.

Extra weight brings with it an increased risk of chronic disease, medical experts say, and heavier people tend to have medical costs that are substantially higher than their leaner counterparts. As a result, Congress is considering proposals in the effort to overhaul health care that would make it easier for employers to use financial rewards or penalties to promote healthy behavior by employees, like weight loss.

Other less-scientific arguments have also gained traction on blogs, chat shows and editorial pages since talk of the overhaul began in earnest, with the overweight cast as lazy or gluttonous liabilities and therefore not entitled to universal health coverage because of poor personal decision-making. As that thinking goes, a healthful eater should not have to pay for the consequences of someone else's greasy burger binges.

Either way, heavy people - characterized as over-consumers of health care or as those who should miss out on discounts because of their size - say they have been maligned throughout the debate.

"I thought, 'Health reform? Yay!' " said Lynn McAfee, the director of medical advocacy for the Council on Size and Weight Discrimination, an advocacy group for heavy people. But Ms. McAfee said it was not long before her sentiment changed to the more sober, "Oh no, we're being scapegoated again."

It is an uphill battle. But the health care debate has, unexpectedly, also provided an opportunity for new expressions of what Ms. Wann calls "fat pride," the notion that weight diversity is a good thing and that size discrimination is as offensive as any other kind.

"The stigma is so heavy a burden that it took our community 40 years before it could go to Capitol Hill and lobby for ourselves," said Ms. Wann, a member of the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance, an advocacy group that organized a lobbying trip to Washington for its members this spring. "We're kind of a popular punching bag. You can do incredibly discriminating, hurtful, hateful things to fat people in public and not only get away with it but be seen as some kind of superhero."

On Capitol Hill, the association asked legislators for a public option from which fat people could not be excluded because of weight and for coverage that did not consider excess weight a pre-existing condition.

"Basically," Ms. Wann continued, "we want to be treated with respect the same as everyone else."

Americans are more overweight and obese than they were 10 years ago, or even one year ago, according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Trust for America's Health, which published a state-by-state study in June.

It showed that the trend is up sharply.

Two-thirds of all Americans are overweight or obese. In four states - Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and West Virginia - more than 30 percent of adults are obese. In 1991, in contrast, no state had an obesity rate over 20 percent.

And, according to the American Obesity Association, a research organization, poor minority women have the greatest likelihood of being overweight.

Weight is an incendiary issue, experts said, and that may be why it had such staying power as a hot topic of conversation through the health care debate.

"All national health insurance systems are built on the idea that we're all part of a community, we all get sick and die, so we're going to take care of one another," said James Morone, a professor of political science and urban studies at Brown University. "The best philosophical way to stop national health insurance is to say we're not a community, it's 'us vs. them.' "

But what has been different about this particular issue, this year, is that "people are pushing back," Professor Morone said.

Peggy Howell, the public relations director for the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance, said she had been on the phone delivering her group's message and answering more news media calls this year than ever before.

The message is simple, she said: "We believe that fat people can eat healthy food and add movement to their lives and be healthy. And healthy should be the goal, not thin."

That idea is gaining strength and popularity among a segment of the overweight population that feels as though traditional dieting to lose weight does more harm than good, ultimately benefiting the $30 billion weight loss industry, not the public.

"I get so angry when I feel people pushing a weight-loss agenda," said Linda Bacon, a nutrition professor at City College of San Francisco and author of "Health at Every Size," a book published last year whose title has become the rallying cry of the fat pride community. "What we're doing in public health care policy is harmful. We give a direct and clear message that there's something wrong with being fat."

A federally financed study by Ms. Bacon, published in the book, found that there were many people who could be healthy in fat bodies.

Ms. Wann used some of Ms. Bacon's findings as her talking points when she visited legislators with other lobbyists for "fat acceptance" in May.

She said she felt encouraged that the health care bill the House Democratic leaders unveiled on Thursday does not allow changes in insurance pricing based on obesity. But there is still a long way to go before any bill becomes law.

"For me, the takeaway point that was heartening and historic and exhilarating is that it was the first time we started lobbying for a humane health-enhancing system," said Ms. Wann, who is self-employed and, in her own words, fat and uninsurable.

"We're all in this life raft together," she said.

Correction: November 8, 2009

A previous version of this article used incorrect punctuation in the title of a book by Marilyn Wann. The book is called "Fat! So?," not "Fat? So!"

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

16) US Generals Flood Israel for Exercise against 'Specific Threats'
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
Cheshvan 16, 5770, 03 November 09 08:39
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/SendMail.aspx?print=print&type=0&item=134215

(Israelnationalnews.com) An unprecedented number of American generals, along with 1,400 U.S. army soldiers, are participating with top IDF brass in the high-level Juniper Cobra military exercise that one U.S. Navy commander said is aimed at "specific threats." Public affairs officials interrupted the naval commander in order to divert the conversation from the scenario of Israel attacking Iran's nuclear facilities and defending itself from a counter-attack.

One senior IDF source told BBC magazine, "I've never seen so many American generals."

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, along with the commander of the U.S. force in Europe and U.S. ambassador to Israel James Cunningham attended the three-week exercise on Tuesday. It is one of the largest-ever joint training drills and is fueling speculation that the United States is preparing for the worst while hoping for the best concerning Iran's nuclear program.

Former IDF General Yitzchak Ben-Israel told BBC, "[On] one thing we are serious: We will not let Iran have a nuclear bomb." He said that the joint drill, which is held annually, "is not a bluff' but is aimed at pressuring Iran to back down from its refusal to cooperate with international authorities on its program to enrich uranium, a key element for a nuclear weapon."

"But if Iran will not be pressed, if Iran continues to insist that it has the right to go and enrich uranium as much as it wants, then someone will have to use force." he added.

"Overall, the goal is to ensure peace in the region, and maybe even farther from this region," said Prime Minister Netanyahu. "I think the IDF and the U.S. Armed Forces are creating a new path, and the goal is to defend Israel. This exercise, unique and large in scale, is an expression of the meaningful relations between Israel and the United States"

The exercise included a live-fire component and a multi-layered active defense system.

As the joint drill was taking place, German Chancellor Angela Merkel told the U.S. Congress, "Whoever threatens Israel also threatens us."

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

17) NOW Opposes Health Care Bill That Strips Millions of Women of Abortion Access
Says Bill Obliterates Women's Fundamental Right to Choose
Statement of NOW President Terry O'Neill
November 8, 2009
http://www.now.org/press/11-09/11-08.html

The House of Representatives has dealt the worst blow to women's fundamental right to self-determination in order to buy a few votes for reform of the profit-driven health insurance industry. We must protect the rights we fought for in Roe v. Wade. We cannot and will not support a health care bill that strips millions of women of their existing access to abortion.

Birth control and abortion are integral aspects of women's health care needs. Health care reform should not be a vehicle to obliterate a woman's fundamental right to choose.

The Stupak Amendment goes far beyond the abusive Hyde Amendment, which has denied federal funding of abortion since 1976. The Stupak Amendment, if incorporated into the final version of health insurance reform legislation, will:

* Prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;
* Prevent women participating in the public health insurance exchange, administered by private insurance companies, from using 100 percent of their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;
* Prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely, in many cases.

NOW calls on the Senate to pass a health care bill that respects women's constitutionally protected right to abortion and calls on President Obama to refuse to sign any health care bill that restricts women's access to affordable, quality reproductive health care.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

18) Imprisoning a Child for Life
NYT Editorial
November 9, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/opinion/09mon1.html

The United States could be the only nation in the world where a 13-year-old child can be sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole, even for crimes that do not include murder. This grim distinction should trouble Americans deeply, as should all of the barbaric sentencing policies for children that this country embraces but that most of the world has abandoned.

The Supreme Court must keep the international standard in mind when it hears arguments on Monday in Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida. The petitioners in both argue that sentencing children to life without the possibility of parole for a nonhomicide violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The court came down on the right side of this issue in 2005 when it ruled that children who commit crimes before the age of 18 should not be subject to the death penalty. The decision correctly pointed out that juveniles were less culpable because they lacked maturity, were vulnerable to peer pressure and had personalities that were still being formed.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the practice of executing 16- and 17-year-olds violated the Eighth Amendment, conflicted with "evolving standards of decency" and isolated the United States from the rest of the world.

The Roper decision took scores of juveniles off death row. It also threw a spotlight onto state policies under which young juveniles were increasingly being tried in adult courts and sentenced to adult jails, often for nonviolent crimes.

The practice is even more troubling because it is arbitrary. Children who commit nonviolent crimes like theft and burglary are just as likely to be shipped off to adult courts as children who commit serious violent crimes. And the process is racially freighted, with black and Latino children more likely to be sent to adult courts than white children who commit comparable crimes.

The rush to try more and more children as adults began in the 1980s when the country was gripped by hysteria about an adolescent crime wave that never materialized. Joe Sullivan, the petitioner in Sullivan v. Florida, was sentenced to life without parole in 1989 - when he was just 13 - after a questionable sexual battery conviction. His two older accomplices testified against the younger, mentally impaired boy. They received short sentences, one of them as a juvenile.

The case of Terrance Graham has similar contours. A learning disabled child - born to crack-addicted parents - Mr. Graham was on probation in connection with a burglary committed when he was 16 when he participated in a home invasion. He, too, had older accomplices. He was never convicted of the actual crime but was given life without parole for violating the conditions of his probation.

These were two very troubled children in need of adult supervision and perhaps even time behind bars. But it is insupportable to conclude, as the courts did, that children who committed crimes when they were so young were beyond rehabilitation. The laws under which they were convicted violate current human rights standards and the Constitution.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

19) For Abortion Foes, a Victory in Health Care Vote
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and ROBERT PEAR
"The provision would apply only to insurance policies purchased with the federal subsidies that the health legislation would create to help low- and middle-income people, and to policies sold by a government-run insurance plan that would be created by the legislation." [Of course, this doesn't apply to the wealthy, bringing us back to before Roe v. Wade-outragious!...bw]
November 9, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/us/politics/09abortion.html?hp

WASHINGTON - A restriction on abortion coverage, added late Saturday to the health care bill passed by the House, has energized abortion opponents with their biggest victory in years - emboldening them for a pitched battle in the Senate.

The provision would block the use of federal subsidies for insurance that covers elective abortions. Advocates on both sides are calling Saturday's vote the biggest turning point in the battle over the procedure since the ban on so-called partial birth abortions six years ago.

Both sides credited a forceful lobbying effort by Roman Catholic bishops with the success of the provision, inserted in the bill under pressure from conservative Democrats.

The provision would apply only to insurance policies purchased with the federal subsidies that the health legislation would create to help low- and middle-income people, and to policies sold by a government-run insurance plan that would be created by the legislation.

Abortion rights advocates charged Sunday that the provision threatened to deprive women of abortion coverage because insurers would drop the procedure from their plans in order to sell them in the newly expanded market of people receiving subsidies. The subsidized market would be large because anyone earning less than $88,000 for a family of four - four times the poverty level - would be eligible for a subsidy under the House bill. Women who received subsidies or public insurance could still pay out of pocket for the procedure. Or they could buy separate insurance riders to cover abortion, though some evidence suggests few would, in part because unwanted pregnancies are by their nature unexpected.

Not many women who undergo abortions file private insurance claims, perhaps to avoid leaving a record. A 2003 study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute found that 13 percent of abortions were billed directly to insurance companies. Only about half of those who receive insurance coverage from their employers have coverage of abortion in any event, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Abortion rights advocates, however, are grappling with a series of incremental defeats in the courts and in Congress, and are now bracing for another struggle as the health care legislation goes to the Senate.

"This is going to make it that much more challenging on the Senate side," said Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America.

The president and Democratic leaders alike have long promised that their proposed health care overhaul would not direct taxpayer money to pay for elective abortions. But the president has never spelled out his answer to the contentious question of how to apply that standard to the novel program of offering insurance subsidies or a government-run plan to millions of poor and middle-class Americans.

House Democratic leaders had sought to resolve the issue by requiring insurers to segregate their federal subsidies into separate accounts.

Insurance plans would have been permitted to use only consumer premiums or co-payments to pay for abortions, even if individuals who received federal subsidies used them to buy health plans that covered abortion. But the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, was unable to hold on to enough moderate and conservative Democratic votes to pass the health bill using that approach, forcing her to allow a vote Saturday night on the amendment containing the broader ban.

Five states go further than the amendment to the health care overhaul. The five - Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota and Oklahoma - already bar private insurance plans from covering elective abortions.

The federal employees' health insurance plan and most state Medicaid programs also ban coverage of abortion, complying with a three-decade old ban on federal abortion financing. Seventeen state Medicaid programs, however, do cover the procedure, by using only state money.

The bishops objected to the segregated funds proposal previously embraced by the House and Senate Democratic leaders in part because they argued that it amounted to nothing more than an accounting gimmick.

Advocates on both sides of the question weighed in, but the bishops' role was especially pivotal in part because many Democrats had expected them to be an ally. They had pushed for decades for universal health insurance.

"We think that providing health care is itself a pro-life thing, and we think that, by and large, providing better health coverage to women could reduce abortions," said Richard M. Doerflinger, a spokesman for the anti-abortion division of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

"But we don't make these decisions statistically, and to get to that good we cannot do something seriously evil."

Beginning in late July, the bishops began issuing a series of increasingly stern letters to lawmakers making clear that they saw the abortion-financing issue as pre-eminent, a deal-breaker.

At the funeral of Senator Edward M. Kennedy in August, Cardinal Seán O'Malley, the archbishop of Boston, stole a private moment with Mr. Obama to deliver the same warning: The bishops very much wanted to support his health care overhaul but not if it provided for abortions. The president "listened intently," the cardinal reported on his blog.

Bishops implored their priests and parishioners to call lawmakers. Conservative Democrats negotiating over the issue with party leaders often expressed their desire to meet the bishops' criteria, according to many people involved in the talks. On Oct. 8 three members of the bishops conference wrote on its behalf to lawmakers, "If the final legislation does not meet our principles, we will have no choice but to oppose the bill."

On Sunday, some abortion rights advocates lashed out at the bishops. "It was an unconscionable power play," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, accusing the bishops of "interceding to put their own ideology in the national health care plan."

Now some Senate Democrats, including Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, are pushing to incorporate the same restrictions in their own bill. Senior Senate Democratic aides said the outcome was too close to call.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

20) Bill Would Limit Needle Exchanges
By KATIE ZEZIMA
November 9, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/health/policy/09needle.html?ref=us

BANGOR, Me. - For years, the location of this city's needle exchange program, in a nondescript strip mall close to highways and bus lines, was seen as a major asset.

But now, AIDS activists say, that very location could undermine what happens inside the exchange.

A bill working its way through Congress would lift a ban of more than 20 years on using federal money for needle exchange programs. But the bill would also ban federally financed exchanges from being within 1,000 feet of a school, park, library, college, video arcade or any place children might gather - a provision that would apply to a majority of the country's approximately 200 exchanges.

"This 1,000-foot rule is simply instituting the ban in a different form," said Rebecca Haag, executive director of the AIDS Action Council, an advocacy group based in Washington. "Clearly the intent of this rule is to nullify the lifting of the ban."

Under a separate bill, all exchanges in Washington within the 1,000-foot perimeter would be barred from receiving city money as well as federal money.

"Let's protect these kids," said Representative Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia, who introduced the Washington bill. "They don't need to be playing kickball in the playground and seeing people lined up for needle exchange."

Both bills have passed the House and a Senate subcommittee and await Senate action.

Advocates and organizations including the N.A.A.C.P. are lobbying Congress to kill the 1,000-foot provisions. The promise of federal money could not come at a better time, these officials say, as states are cutting their health and human services budgets and private donations are dropping precipitously. At least four needle exchanges have closed this year because of a lack of financing.

Many exchanges are run by organizations that provide broad-based health services like testing for the AIDS virus and hepatitis C, mental health counseling, medical referrals and condom distribution. Advocates worry that if needle exchanges disappear, drug users will lose access to those other services.

The rule "is going to kill us," said Ellis Poole, executive director of the Harm Reduction Center of Southern Oregon, which is 997 feet from a high school in Roseburg. The center runs a needle exchange and offers antidrug programs to high schools in the area. With donations plummeting, it has a $374,000 budget deficit for 2009. Mr. Poole said he worried that the center's programs would be threatened if the bill passed.

"We could move a few feet down, but the building is more expensive at the other end," Mr. Poole said. "I have to beg for money for computers. I have to ask people to come clean the carpet at no charge."

Officials at exchanges in cities like Chicago, New York and Washington say there are few, if any, places that could house a needle exchange under the rule.

"I was thinking, 'A thousand feet, how much is that?' " said Raquel Algarin, executive director of the Lower East Side Harm Reduction Center in Manhattan. "And then I found myself thinking, 'We'd probably be doing syringe exchange in the middle of the East River, and any exchange on the West Side would be in the Hudson River.' How do you work that out?"

Many advocates also worry that smaller, rural exchanges, which lack the fund-raising abilities and infrastructure of many larger, urban exchanges, will be affected by the 1,000-foot rule.

In Maine, which officials say has one of the highest rates of prescription drug abuse per capita in the country and is grappling with a recent influx of heroin, AIDS activists worry that they will receive less money just as their client base is growing. The state's four exchanges - in Augusta, Bangor, Ellsworth and Portland - would be ineligible for federal money.

"The federal funding would be key for us," said Patricia A. Murphy, executive director of the Eastern Maine AIDS Network in downtown Bangor.

Upon entering the office, squeezed between a veterans center and a music store, drug users are escorted into a small room, where a trained staff member checks them in, using only first names and case numbers, and carefully counts their needles.

Under Maine law, drug users may receive one clean needle for every dirty one they turn in. The exchange offers users a variety of needle sizes, along with tourniquets, antiseptic ointment, condoms and information on safe needle use, and helps refer clients to clinics and treatment centers that deal with sexually transmitted diseases. The center also has a food bank, which clients are urged to use.

Those who have built a level of trust with Ms. Murphy and her staff send fellow drug users to the office. The number of users enrolled in the needle exchange here has doubled in the past year, while funding fell by about 15 percent.

The federal money, Ms. Murphy said, would allow the exchange to grow with the number of clients, many of whom come from rural northern and eastern Maine, and set up mobile needle exchange units in communities more than 100 miles from Bangor.

"This is a critical piece of harm reduction," Ms. Murphy said.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, intravenous drug use directly or indirectly accounts for about one-fifth of the nation's 1.1 million H.I.V. cases, and needle exchanges are an effective way to stem the spread of infection. The World Health Organization said in a 2004 report that there was "compelling evidence" that increasing needle exchanges reduced H.I.V. transmission. It cited studies showing that the rate of infection dropped up to 18 percent in cities with an exchange.

Luke, a 30-year-old Bangor resident who did not want to give his last name, said he exchanged his needles, and sometimes those of his friends, about once a week. He said he had become addicted to Suboxone, a drug intended to treat opiate addiction that officials say more people are starting to abuse.

In a black hooded sweatshirt and red sneakers, Luke said he often also picked up condoms and guides on how to inject drugs more safely. He said he came to the facility because its location made it discreet and few people knew what it was.

A 23-year-old man who is addicted to heroin and exchanges needles at the Down East AIDS Network in Ellsworth called the 1,000-foot limit "ridiculous." The man, who did not want to give his name because of his addiction, said he started using heroin eight years ago and exchanging needles four years ago. He said he often picked up needles he saw on the ground and brought them in for safe disposal.

"It's a dangerous thing to do," the man said of his heroin use, "but it's best to take every precaution you can. If you're going to do this stuff, you should do it right."

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

21) Medical Industry Grumbles, but It Stands to Gain
By DUFF WILSON and REED ABELSON
News Analysis
November 9, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/health/policy/09industry.html?ref=business

For any industry, there has to be at least some good news any time Congress votes to expand the market by tens of millions of customers.

But the business world found plenty to complain about Sunday, as it assessed the House bill that would make sweeping changes in the health care system and extend insurance coverage to millions more Americans.

Insurers do not like the provision to create a new government-run insurance program. Drug makers oppose billions of dollars in rebates they would have to give to the government over 10 years. Makers of artificial hips, heart defibrillators and other medical devices are not particularly happy about the proposed 2.5 percent tax on their products.

And employers large and small oppose rules that, for many of them, would make health care coverage - long a job benefit - become a federally mandated obligation.

That is why, as attention now shifts to the Senate, where Democratic leaders are trying to merge two bills into one, virtually every business group with a stake in the outcome will be hoping to strike at least a slightly better deal than they found in the House version.

And they may indeed get a break from the Senate, where the need for Democrats to compromise to win 60 votes may ensure a more business-moderate outcome.

And yet, many analysts said on Sunday that even the House bill was not as bad for business as many in the health care industry might have feared when the overhaul effort began many months ago.

"All industries stand to gain from this legislation," Steven D. Findlay, senior health policy analyst with Consumers Union in Washington, said in an interview. "They're going to continue to fight their narrow issues and get the best that they can get. But all of them are aware they stand to gain significant new business and new revenue streams as more Americans get health coverage and money flows into the system for them."

Of course, new revenue streams apply only to companies in the business of selling medical goods and services. To employers required to provide worker health benefits or else, in many cases, pay some sort of financial penalty, the House legislation offers little to cheer about.

Employer groups complained on Sunday that the House bill would impose insurance obligations while doing little to rein in the medical costs that help drive premiums higher year after year. In fact, those groups argue, the bill's creation of a government-run insurance program, which may pay doctors and hospitals less than private insurers do, could end up shifting even more medical costs to the private insurance system that employers use.

"This won't just hurt business, it will hurt millions of workers who have coverage through their employers," said John J. Castellani, president the Business Roundtable, a group of chief executives of some of the nation's biggest companies.

And the National Federation of Independent Business, representing many small businesses, said it was furious with the legislation. Susan Eckerly, senior vice president of the federation, attacked mandates, which she called punitive, and "atrocious new taxes." The legislation, she said, was "a failed opportunity to help small-business owners with their No. 1 problem - skyrocketing health care costs."

Another group, the Small Business Majority, praised the legislation but said the Senate needed to take more steps to lower costs.

Employers hope the final Senate legislation ends up looking more like the bill the Finance Committee passed, which does not require companies to insure their workers.

Meanwhile, the health insurance industry has been increasingly vocal about the emerging shape of the legislation, and it was sharply critical of the bill that passed on Saturday night.

"The current House legislation fails to bend the health cost curve and breaks the promise that those who like their current coverage can keep it," Karen M. Ignagni, the chief executive of America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade association, said.

The reference to a broken promise refers, in part, to people enrolled in privately offered Medicare Advantage insurance plans, which would lose federal subsidies under the House bill. Ms. Ignagni warned of cuts that would "force millions of seniors out of the program entirely."

But the promise reference also refers to the bill's provision of a new government-run insurance plan that would compete directly with the health plans offered by private insurers. The insurance industry has long opposed such a move and warns that it will eventually force many people with private insurance into the government-run program.

That "public option," as it is known, was also in the Senate health committee bill approved in July. And the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, has also signaled that he intends to include some kind of public plan in whatever Senate legislation is reached.

But some observers say the House legislation is much less of a threat than the industry had feared. While insurers were worried that the government plan would be able to piggyback on the Medicare program in being able to demand lower prices than the private insurers get from doctors and hospitals, the House legislation does not give the government plan the same bargaining power as Medicare.

"The ability of that program to gain incredible market share and have the clout to severely undermine the market is minimized," Robert Laszewski, president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consulting firm in Alexandria, Va., said in an interview.

Erik Gordon, a business professor and industry analyst at the University of Michigan, said insurers would find it difficult to price their new risks but might not be hurt too much by the competition - considering how many new customers they would have.

The drug industry expected harsh treatment from the House and got it. The bill would require drug makers to pay much more in rebates and discounts than in the $80 billion, 10-year deal that the industry struck in June with the White House and the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus. The House bill tacked on $60 billion or so in rebates over 10 years, raising the total to around $140 billion.

But the White House and Mr. Baucus have said they will stay with their deal. It remains to be seen whether it survives the melding of Senate bills being directed by Mr. Reid.

"A good critic doesn't write his review at the end of the first act of a play," Ken Johnson, senior vice president of the pharmaceutical trade group the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in an interview. "We're hoping the second act is a lot better."

And while the House legislation allows direct government negotiation of Medicare drug prices - something specifically precluded in the Senate Finance bill - it does not allow Medicare to create a formulary, or list of limited drugs. Mr. Findlay, of Consumers Union, said that largely neutered Medicare's price-negotiating power, although it would represent a first step down the price-setting path that the industry is certain to fear.

In a victory for the biotechnology drug industry, the House bill would give biotech drugs, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars a year, protection from generic competition for 12 years.

Doctors were left holding a mixed bag. The American Medical Association supported the House legislation. But the doctors' group did not get its quid pro quo - the restoration of $210 billion in cuts to physicians' Medicare fees over the next 10 years, which were already scheduled before the current effort. Attempts in the House and Senate to restore those cuts have been set aside at least temporarily because the issue has been seen as a political distraction from the main health care overhaul effort.

Barry Meier and Andrew Pollack contributed reporting.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

22) Statement by California Nurses Association/NNOC Executive Director Rose Ann DeMoro on the House bill on healthcare:
November 9, 2009
http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/press-releases/2009/november/statement-by-cna-nnoc-executive-director-rose-ann-demoro-on-the-house-bill-on-healthcare.html

Of all the torrent of words that followed House passage of its version of healthcare reform legislation in early November, perhaps the most misleading were those comparing it to enactment of Social Security and Medicare.

Sadly no. Social Security and Medicare were both federal programs guaranteeing respectively pensions and health care for our nation's seniors, paid for and administered by the federal government with public oversight and public accountability.

While the House bill, and its Senate counterpart, do have several important reform components, along with many weaknesses, neither one comes close to the guarantees and the expansion of health and income security provided by Social Security or Medicare.

By contrast, if the central premise of Social Security and Medicare was a federal guarantee of health and retirement security, the main provision of the bills in Congress is a mandate requiring most Americans without health coverage to buy private insurance.

In other words, the principle beneficiary is not Americans' health, but the bottom line of the insurance industry which stands to harvest tens of billions of dollars in additional profits ordered by the federal government. Or as Rep. Eric Massa of New York put it on the eve of the House vote, "at the highest level, this bill will enshrine in law the monopolistic powers of the private health insurance industry, period."

Further, while Social Security and Medicare, two of the most important reforms in American history, were both significant expansions of public protection, the House bill actually reduces public protection for a substantial segment of the population, women, with its unconscionable rollback of reproductive rights in the anti-abortion amendment.

Why then so much cheerleading by many progressive and liberal legislators, columnists, and activists?

1- Passage of the bill was a clear defeat for the Republican opposition and those on the right who have so mischaracterized what boils down to modest reform that looks more like a "robust" version of the Medicare prescription drug benefit or the state children's health initiative.

2- Proponents of the bill, starting in the White House and running through the Democratic leadership in Congress, with the assistance and support of many in labor and liberal and progressive constituency groups, have so lowered expectations on healthcare reform that with eyes wide shut they can call this a sweeping victory.

To be sure there are commendable provisions in the House bill that bear note. Among the most important are:

- Expansion of Medicaid to millions of low income adults.

- Reduction of the "doughnut hole" in the Medicare drug coverage law making drug costs more affordable for many seniors.

- Increased federal funding for community health programs, such as home visits for nurses and social workers to low income families.

- Additional regulation of the insurance industry, mostly targeted to people who are presently without coverage rather than those with existing health plans. Those include limits on insurers ability to drop sick enrollees or refuse to sell policies to people with prior health problems, extending the age that dependent children can be on their parents' plan, and repeal of the anti-trust exemption for insurers.

- Extending the same health benefit tax benefits available to married couples to domestic partners.

- A progressive tax to help pay the bill through a surcharge on wealthy earners and required contributions from large employers, in sharp contrast with the Senate proposal to tax health benefits on misnamed "Cadillac" plans, comprehensive coverage available to many union members, for example.

But the acclaim now flowing from some quarters would have been better deserved had these provisions been enacted on their own -- not accompanied by the many shortcomings of the legislation. To cite a few:

Healthcare will remain unaffordable for many Americans. The bill does not do nearly enough to control skyrocketing insurance, pharmaceutical, and hospital costs. Indeed, by various estimates, with no effective limits on the insurance industry's price gouging, out-of-pocket costs for premiums, deductibles and other fees by some estimates with eat up from 15 to 19 percent of family incomes by several accounts.

No meaningful reform of the rampant insurance denials of medical treatment the insurers don't want to for, for people with insurance.

Little assistance for individuals and families who presently have employer-sponsored health plans and face frequent erosion of their coverage and health security. No help for the healthcare cost-shifting from employers to employees.

Minimal expansion of consumer choice. The much debated public plan option will be available only to about 2 percent of people under age 65, mostly those now not covered who buy insurance on their own (it may or may not be expanded in 2015). Further, no additional plan options for those in the many markets dominated by one or two private plans, and no additional choice of doctor or hospital within existing plans.

The new limits on abortion extended to poor women.
Ultimately, the combination of the mandate to buy insurance, federal subsidies to low-income families to purchase private plans, failure to adequately control insurance prices or crack down on the abuse of insurance denials make the House bill -- and its Senate counterpart -- look a lot like a massive bailout for the private insurance industry.

Don't be misled by the howling from insurance industry which has been spending some $1.4 million a day to steer the direction of legislation. They would have preferred the status quo, but will be more than happy to count the increased revenues coming their way.

As Rep. Dennis Kucinich said on the House floor, "we cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem."

While some people will have improved access, the final accounting will be an even firmer private insurance grip on our healthcare system, with the U.S. remaining the only industrialized nation which barters our health for private profit.

Months ago, the Obama administration pre-determined this outcome by ruling out the most comprehensive, most cost effective, most humane reform, single payer, or an expanded and improved Medicare for all. Single payer proponents were shut out of White House forums, blocked from most hearings in the Senate, and single payer amendments stripped from the final House bill. Yet, through grassroots pressure, single-payer advocates forced consideration by the House of an improved Medicare for all until the very end.

But nurses and other single payer proponents who have heroically fought for this reform for years will continue the campaign, next in the Senate, where single payer amendments are expected to be introduced. The scene will also shift to state capitols, where vibrant single payer movements remain active and will escalate.

Proponents of comprehensive reform will never be silent, and never stop working for the real change we most desperately need.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

23) A Word, Mr. President
By BOB HERBERT
"Last Friday, a huge crowd of fans marched in a ticker-tape parade in downtown Manhattan to celebrate the Yankees' World Series championship. More than once, as the fans passed through the financial district, the crowd erupted in rhythmic, echoing chants of 'Wall Street sucks! Wall Street sucks!'"
Op-Ed Columnist
November 10, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/opinion/10herbert.html?hp

If I were a close adviser of President Obama's, I would say to him, "Mr. President, you have two urgent and overwhelming tasks in front of you: to put Americans trapped in this terrible employment crisis back to work and to put the brakes on your potentially disastrous plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan."

Reforming the chaotic and unfair health care system in the U.S. is an important issue. But in terms of pressing national priorities, the most important are the need to find solutions to a catastrophic employment environment that is devastating American families and to end the folly of an 8-year-old war that is both extremely debilitating and ultimately unwinnable.

We have spent the better part of a year locked in a tedious and unenlightening debate over health care while the jobless rate has steadily surged. It's now at 10.2 percent. Families struggling with job losses, home foreclosures and personal bankruptcies are falling out of the middle class like fruit through the bottom of a rotten basket. The jobless rate for men 16 years old and over is 11.4 percent. For blacks, it's a back-breaking 15.7 percent.

We need to readjust our focus. We're worried about Kabul when Detroit has gone down for the count.

I would tell the president that more and more Americans are questioning his priorities, including millions who went to the mat for him in last year's election. The biggest issue by far for most Americans is employment. The lack of jobs is fueling the nervousness, anxiety and full-blown anger that are becoming increasingly evident in the public at large.

Last Friday, a huge crowd of fans marched in a ticker-tape parade in downtown Manhattan to celebrate the Yankees' World Series championship. More than once, as the fans passed through the financial district, the crowd erupted in rhythmic, echoing chants of "Wall Street sucks! Wall Street sucks!"

I would tell the president that the feeling is widespread that his administration went too far with its bailouts of the financial industry, sending not just a badly needed lifeline but also unwarranted windfalls to the miscreants who nearly wrecked the entire economy. The government got very little in return. The perception now is that Wall Street is doing just fine while working people, whose taxes financed the bailouts, are walking the plank to economic oblivion.

I would also tell him that rebuilding the economy in a way that allows working Americans to flourish will require a sustained monumental effort, not just bits and pieces of legislation here and there. But such an effort will never get off the ground, will never have any chance of reaching critical mass and actually succeeding, as long as we insist on feeding young, healthy American men and women and endless American dollars into the relentless meat grinders of Afghanistan and Iraq.

We learned in the 1960s, when Lyndon Johnson's Great Society was trumped by Vietnam, that nation-building here at home is incompatible with the demands of war. We've managed to keep the worst of the carnage - and the staggering costs - of Iraq and Afghanistan well out of the sight of most Americans, so the full extent of the terrible price we are paying is not widely understood.

The ultimate financial costs will be counted in the trillions. If you were to take a walk around one of the many military medical centers, like Landstuhl in Germany or Walter Reed in Washington, your heart would break at the sight of the heroic young men and women who have lost limbs (frequently more than one) or who are blind or paralyzed or horribly burned. Hundreds of thousands have suffered psychological wounds. Many have contemplated or tried suicide, and far too many have succeeded.

"Mr. President," I would say, "we'll never be right as a nation as long as we allow this to continue."

The possibility of more troops for the war in Afghanistan was discussed Sunday on "Meet the Press." Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania noted candidly that "our troops are tired and worn out." More than 85 percent of the men and women in the Pennsylvania National Guard have already served in Iraq or Afghanistan. "Many of them have gone three or four times and they're wasted," said Mr. Rendell.

More troops? "Where are we going to find these troops?" the governor asked. "That's what I want somebody to tell me."

While we're preparing to pour more resources into Afghanistan, the Economic Policy Institute is telling us that one in five American children is living in poverty, that nearly 35 percent of African-American children are living in poverty, and that the unemployment crisis is pushing us toward a point in the coming years where more than half of all black children in this country will be poor.

"Mr. President," I would say, "we need your help."

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

24) The Ban on Abortion Coverage
Editorial
November 10, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/opinion/10tue1.html

When the House narrowly passed the health care reform bill on Saturday night, it came with a steep price for women's reproductive rights. Under pressure from anti-abortion Democrats and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, lawmakers added language that would prevent millions of Americans from buying insurance that covers abortions - even if they use their own money.

The restrictions would fall on women eligible to buy coverage on new health insurance exchanges. They are a sharp departure from current practice, an infringement of a woman's right to get a legal medical procedure and an unjustified intrusion by Congress into decisions best made by patients and doctors.

The anti-abortion Democrats behind this coup insisted that they were simply adhering to the so-called Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of federal dollars to pay for almost all abortions in a number of government programs. In fact, they reached far beyond Hyde and made it largely impossible to use a policyholder's own dollars to pay for abortion coverage.

The bill brought to the floor already included a careful compromise that should have satisfied reasonable legislators on both sides of the abortion issue. The vast majority of people expected to buy policies on the new exchanges would pay part of the premium and receive government tax credits to pay for the rest. The compromise would have prohibited the use of the tax subsidies to pay for almost all abortions, but it would have allowed the segregation and use of premium contributions and co-payments to pay for such coverage. A similar approach allows 17 state Medicaid programs to cover abortions using only state funds, not federal matching funds.

Yet neither the Roman Catholic bishops nor anti-abortion Democrats were willing to accept this compromise. They insisted on language that would ban the use of federal subsidies to pay for "any part" of a policy that includes abortion coverage.

If insurers want to attract subsidized customers, who will be the great majority on the exchange, they will have to offer them plans that don't cover abortions. It is theoretically possible that insurers could offer plans aimed only at nonsubsidized customers, but it is highly uncertain that they will find it worthwhile to do so.

In that case, some women who have coverage for abortion services through policies bought by small employers could actually lose that coverage if their employer decides to transfer its workers to the exchange. Ultimately, if larger employers are permitted to make use of the exchange, ever larger numbers of women might lose abortion coverage that they now have.

The restrictive language allows people to buy "riders" that would cover abortions. But nobody plans to have an unplanned pregnancy, so this concession is meaningless. It is not clear that insurers would even offer the riders since few people would buy them.

The highly restrictive language was easily approved by a 240-to-194 vote and incorporated into the overall bill, which squeaked through by a tally of 220 to 215. It was depressing evidence of the power of anti-abortion forces to override a reasonable compromise. They were willing to scuttle the bill if they didn't get their way. Outraged legislators who support abortion rights could also have killed the bill but sensibly chose to keep the reform process moving ahead.

The fight will resume in the Senate, where the Finance Committee has approved a bill that incorporates the compromise just rejected by the House. We urge the Senate to stand strong behind a compromise that would preserve a woman's right to abortion services.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

25) At Fort Hood, Some Violence Is Too Familiar
By MICHAEL MOSS and RAY RIVERA
November 10, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10post.html?ref=us

FORT HOOD, Tex. - Staff Sgt. Gilberto Mota, 35, and his wife, Diana, 30, an Army specialist, had returned to Fort Hood from Iraq last year when he used his gun to kill her, and then took his own life, the authorities say. In July, two members of the First Cavalry Division, also just back from the war with decorations for their service, were at a party when one killed the other.

That same month, Staff Sgt. Justin Lee Garza, 28, under stress from two deployments, killed himself in a friend's apartment outside Fort Hood, four days after he was told no therapists were available for a counseling session. "What bothers me most is this happened while he was supposed to be on suicide watch," said his mother, Teri Smith. "To this day, I don't know where he got the gun."

Fort Hood is still reeling from last week's carnage, in which an Army psychiatrist is accused of a massacre that left 13 people dead. But in the town of Killeen and other surrounding communities, the attack, one of the worst mass shootings on a military base in the United States, is also seen by many as another blow in an area that has been beset by crime and violence since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began. Reports of domestic abuse have grown by 75 percent since 2001. At the same time, violent crime in Killeen has risen 22 percent while declining 7 percent in towns of similar size in other parts of the country.

The stresses are seen in other ways, too.

Since 2003, there have been 76 suicides by personnel assigned to Fort Hood, with 10 this year, according to military officials.

A crisis center on base is averaging 60 phone calls a week from soldiers and family members seeking various help for problems from suicide to anger management, with about the same volume of walk-ins and scheduled appointments.

In recent days, Army officials have pledged to redouble their efforts to help soldiers cope with deployment. The base, which uses some of the most innovative approaches in the military, plans to expand a help center set up in September that provides a variety of assistance to soldiers, including breathing techniques for handling combat stress and goal-setting skills upon their return.

"Fort Hood is very attuned to this," said Col. William S. Rabena, who runs the help center known as the Resiliency Center Campus. "It's the only thing to do."

The Army has also sent an array of specialists to Fort Hood to help soldiers and their families, including chaplains, social workers, combat stress specialists, counselors and experts in crisis and disaster behavioral management. Army officials said more such assistance might be sent to the base.

But interviews with soldiers who have deployed one or more times to Iraq or Afghanistan, and with family members of those who died violently back here in Texas, show that the Army's efforts are still falling short. Even some alarm bells rung by the Army leadership have gone unanswered.

In July, two weeks after Sergeant Garza's death, Lt. Gen. Rick Lynch, then the base commander, told Congress he was in dire need of more mental health professionals. "That's the biggest frustration," he told a House subcommittee. "I'm short about 44 of what I am convinced I need at Fort Hood that I just don't have."

Among the medical personnel brought to Fort Hood to help deal with the growing mental health issues was Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who arrived in July. Major Hasan is accused in the attacks last week, but little is known about what might have driven him.

"Our soldiers are coming back and not getting the help they need," said Cynthia Thomas, an Army wife who runs a private assistance center for soldiers in Killeen called Under the Hood Café. "Whether it's self-medicating, anger or violence, these are the consequences of war, and you have to think about all the people affected by soldiers coming home, the parents, spouses, children, brothers, sisters, aunts and cousins."

Pfc. Michael Kern, of Riverside, Calif., said he tried unsuccessfully to obtain help for stress last year in Baghdad, but was ridiculed by an officer in front of his tanker unit. "He said he would have to impose mandatory sleeping times," said Private Kern, 22, "and that health care was for people with serious problems."

Back at Fort Hood, Private Kern said he had a breakdown that led to hospitalization and is now awaiting discharge at his request. If he had received therapy in Iraq, he said, "I might not be in this situation now."

Military officials say the crime and violence associated with Fort Hood must be viewed with the base's size in mind. With 53,000 soldiers assigned to the base, it has become the largest facility in the country, and much of the surrounding area is tied to the military through family or business.

Col. Edward McCabe, a Catholic chaplain at Fort Hood, said signs of fatigue and other strains are "rampant" on the base. "The numbers of divorces I've had to deal with are huge, the cases of physical abuse," Colonel McCabe said. "Every night in my apartment complex some soldier and his wife are screaming and shouting at each other."

The Army influences nearly every aspect of life in Killeen, a cotton town until the base moved in during World War II. About 55 miles north of Austin, the town straddles U.S. 190 and is split by a long corridor of strip malls. Most of the 102,000 residents are soldiers, their families or Army retirees. Business here and in the surrounding smaller communities like Belton and Harker Heights ebbs and flows around the first and 15th of each month - military paydays - and around deployments.

At The Killeen Daily Herald, which covers the base with a sympathetic ear to its military readers, employees see similar patterns play out with each troop rotation.

One day, it is a homecoming, with hundreds of families waving flags and homemade signs along T. J. Mills Boulevard leading into the base's main gate. The next day, crime reports increase, especially cases of domestic violence. "Unfortunately, you see the trend every time there's a homecoming, when the divisions come home," said Olga Pena, the paper's managing editor.

Nicolas Serna, the managing attorney of the local legal aid office, said requests for protective orders had steadily increased over the last several years.

He questioned whether Fort Hood was doing nearly enough for soldiers or for victims of domestic violence. A few years ago, he said, the base refused the group's offer to provide legal assistance and to help with protection orders for families on Fort Hood.

Some social workers in the area see it differently. The Army, while not perfect, has been trying to address the situation, said Suzanne Armour, the director of programs at the Families in Crisis shelter in Killeen.

Michael Sibberson, the principal of Killeen High School, which has 1,880 students, a little over half with military parents, said in one sense the wars had helped the students relate to one another. On the other side, Mr. Sibberson said, the students are not getting the parental guidance they need because so many have parents deployed. That has led to poor grades, and more behavioral problems.

"Kids are not getting the support at the dinner table they need because Mom or Dad is not there," he said, adding, "When you call the house you are likely to get Grandma, or a mom who says, 'I am so full I don't know what to do with him anymore.' "

Henry Garza, the district attorney for Bell County, which includes Killeen, said increases in crime might reflect the town's rapid growth, though the federal crime data is adjusted for population changes. But the data may be understated because it does not count crimes prosecuted by the military authorities, who sometimes handle serious felonies and misdemeanors by active-duty soldiers even when they occur off base.

Base officials declined to release crime data without a Freedom of Information Act request.

Whether civilian or military official investigate deaths, the proceedings often leave families frustrated by the lack of clear answers.

The list of medals awarded to Sergeant Garza (no relation to the district attorney) tell of a good soldier. After two tours in Iraq, he shared a tight bond with unit members and missed them greatly when the Army sent him to a base in Georgia for additional training after a second deployment. He was troubled by a breakup with a girlfriend. And though he seldom spoke with his family about his combat tours, he once confided to his mother that he had a killed a person in Iraq. "He said, 'It was him or me,' " Ms. Smith said. "But you could tell it troubled him."

His family believes he did not get the care he needed, despite signs he had fallen into despair.

In June, he left the Georgia base without permission, and the Army tracked him to a hotel room in Paris, Tex. In a suicide note he sent to a friend before leaving, he said he wanted to end it close to his friends. Among his purchases was a shotgun.

Sergeant Garza was brought back to Fort Hood and committed for psychiatric care, first to a civilian hospital because there was no room at the base hospital, said his uncle, Gary Garza, who lives in Killeen. After three days, he was transferred to the base hospital. He was released after two weeks and assigned to take outpatient counseling.

"We thought he was doing better," said his grandfather, Homer Garza, a retired command sergeant major who served in Korea and Vietnam and who himself had silently suffered for decades with post-traumatic stress.

In fact, Sergeant Garza had shared misgivings about his treatment at the base hospital with his uncle.

"He said he felt like he was getting really good treatment at the civilian hospital," his uncle said. "He said the civilian doctors seemed to care more. And for the military doctors, it was just like a job for them."

True or not, on July 7 Sergeant Garza received a message on his cellphone canceling what was to be his first outpatient appointment.

Though his family says the Army was supposed to be checking his apartment for guns and alcohol, that Sunday he put a pistol to his head and pulled the trigger. His mother later listened to the message.

"They said, 'Sorry, we don't have a counselor for you today,' " Ms. Smith said. " 'If you don't hear back from us by Monday, give us a call.' "

Clifford Krauss and Campbell Robertson contributed reporting from Killeen, Tex., and Griff Palmer from New York.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

26) Few Can Avoid Deployment, Experts Say
By TAMAR LEWIN
November 10, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10army.html?ref=us

No matter how much a member of the armed services dreads being sent to a war zone, there is no easy option for an early discharge - especially when deployment is near.

"It's very hard," said Eugene R. Fidell, who teaches military law at Yale Law School and is president of the National Institute of Military Justice. "Particularly in the case of people who have received substantial and valuable training, like health providers or aviators, the military is very loath to allow people out prematurely."

Reports that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of last week's Fort Hood shootings, had explored leaving the military, in part to avoid being sent to Iraq or Afghanistan, have spurred discussion about how much leeway was available to him.

Experts said that absent a clear mental health problem, it would have been very difficult for Major Hasan - whose active-duty obligation ran until May 2017, the Army said - to have won a discharge. Lawyers who deal with the military said the outcomes in such cases were difficult to predict, even if the client becomes desperate enough to desert.

"I know of no other officer in this pay grade who refused to comply with deployment orders," Mr. Fidell said. "The penalty for desertion with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service is five years' confinement. But it varies, and who knows, the government might not have wanted to pick a fight with a senior Muslim officer."

Military law provides several routes to voluntary discharge, including conscientious objection, physical or mental conditions, family hardship or homosexual conduct. But as a practical matter, lawyers who handle such cases say, winning a discharge often depends on the commanding officer's discretion - and how much time remains before deployment.

"There are always surprises," said James Klimaski, a Washington lawyer who handles military cases. "I recently had a doctor who said it was financially impossible for him to stay in the service, and they let him out."

"If Major Hasan had called me, and told me he was seeing a lot of PTSD, that it was getting to him, I would have argued that he had a medical reason not to go," Mr. Klimaski said. "If he had said that his religion wouldn't allow him to go to this war, I would have made the case that they should accommodate his religion. But if he was calling two weeks before deployment, I pretty much would have told him to forget it."

Others agree that timing is important.

"The closer you are to deployment, the harder it is to deal with these issues," said J. E. McNeil, executive director of the Center on Conscience & War. "The commanding officer really has a full plate at that time, and doesn't have time to figure out what's legit and what isn't."

George Wright, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said that while commanding officers' "automatic bias" is to "want to deploy to combat with 100 percent strength," they also recognize the value of each soldier, and try to protect their well-being."

"They want their units fully capable to accomplish the mission," Mr. Wright said.

Winning a conscientious-objection discharge is a long and cumbersome process, lawyers say. According to the Army, only .01 percent of the force each year is discharged for conscientious objection.

"The odds of success," said James M. Branum, co-chairman of the National Lawyer's Guild's Military Law Task Force, "are very, very slim, because you must prove that you were not a conscientious objector when you enlisted, but that something happened to crystallize your beliefs in a different direction. Your views must be religious or from a deep place of conscience, not purely sociological or political. And you have to oppose all wars, not just a particular one."

While Congress has considered legislation that would allow selective conscientious objection - that is, objection to a particular war, such legislation has never gotten very far, Ms. McNeil said.

"Had we allowed for selective conscientious objection, we might not be looking at the horror we're looking at," she added.

Over all, lawyers said, mental health is the most common motivation for those seeking discharges.

But Mr. Branum pointed out that "military mental health professionals and doctors are trained to say, 'No, you're faking.' "

Ms. McNeil, a lawyer who has worked with the G.I. Rights Hotline for a decade, said that many military officers dismiss last-minute emotional problems as stage fright.

"I've never heard of anybody who had emotional problems and then didn't get deployed," she said. "From the military point of view, it's true that there are people who panic beforehand, and do just fine once they're deployed."

Voluntary discharges may also be available for those who have long-term family hardships, with no one else available to care for, say, a mother with cancer.

And while homosexual conduct in the military is not allowed, Mr. Branum said that as a practical matter, few enlisted men or women are able to win voluntary discharge for homosexuality, even if they present their commanding officers with incriminating photographs.

Often, those who have emotional problems, and want to get out of the military, turn to fighting, drinking, drugs or desertion in a conscious or not-entirely-conscious effort to be discharged.

"Some start acting out in ways that make them not interesting to the military, like using drugs to go tox positive, some go AWOL," Ms. McNeil said. "If they go AWOL, it's not like they all get court-martialed - but the ones most likely to be court-martialed are those who go AWOL right before deployment."

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

27) A Squeeze on Customers Ahead of New Rules
By ANDREW MARTIN and LOWELL BERGMAN
November 10, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/your-money/credit-and-debit-cards/10rates.html?ref=business

Banks are struggling to make money in the credit card business these days, and consumers are paying the price. Interest rates are going up, credit lines are being cut and a variety of new fees are being imposed on even the best cardholders.

One recipient of new credit card terms is Anita Holaday, a 91-year-old in Florida, who received a letter last month from Citibank announcing that her new interest rate was 29.99 percent, an increase of 10 percentage points.

"I think it's outrageous they pursue such a policy," said Susan Holaday Schumacher, Ms. Holaday's daughter, who pays her mother's bills. "That rate is shocking under any circumstances."

While the average interest rates charged by banks are lower than Ms. Holaday's, her situation is not all that unusual. The higher rates and fees reflect the grim new realities of the credit card industry - the percentage of uncollectible balances has hit a record even as a new law may further limit the cards' profitability.

Banks began raising interest rates and pulling back credit lines about a year ago as delinquencies crept upward and regulators discussed reforms. As banks have become more aggressive in making changes, lawmakers have accused them of trying to impose rate increases before many of the new rules take effect in February.

On Monday, the Federal Reserve provided new evidence of the banks' actions. About 50 percent of the banks responding to the Fed's survey said they were increasing interest rates and reducing credit lines on borrowers with good credit scores. About 40 percent said they were imposing higher fees. The banks also said they were demanding higher minimum credit scores and tightening other requirements.

A study by the Pew Charitable Trusts, released late last month, concluded that the 12 largest banks, issuing more than 80 percent of the credit cards, were continuing to use practices that the Fed concluded were "unfair or deceptive" and that in many instances had been outlawed by Congress.

In response to voter complaints, the House of Representatives voted last week to make the law effective immediately. The bill now goes to the Senate, where a vote has not been scheduled. The Senate Banking Committee chairman, Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, meanwhile, is pushing legislation that would freeze interest rates on existing credit card balances until the law takes effect.

Whatever the starting date, the law makes it much harder for banks to change interest rates on existing balances, and requires more time and notice before a new rate can go into effect.

In their defense, banking officials say they have no choice but to raise rates and limit credit. Because of the new rules and the prolonged economic malaise, they say it is now far riskier to issue credit cards than it was just a few years ago.

"We sell credit; we don't sell sweaters," said Kenneth J. Clayton, senior vice president for card policy at the American Bankers Association. "The only way to manage your return is through the price of the product or the availability."

The nation's largest banks are scrambling to figure out a new business model that fits within the new rules and current economic conditions. Those banks made handsome profits over the last decade by charging high interest rates and penalty fees to a small group of customers who routinely paid late or exceeded their balances.

Already, banks are shifting to a model in which a smaller pool of Americans will be eligible for credit cards, and customers with cards will probably pay more for the privilege through annual fees and higher interest.

Meanwhile, the banks are in the process of shedding customers considered too risky. That means tens of thousands of Americans will no longer be able to splurge on Nike gym shoes or flat-screen televisions unless, of course, they have enough cash to pay for them.

Still, even consumer advocates have said that the banks were too quick in the past to give out credit. "You know, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you keep borrowing and borrowing in order to consume now, eventually you crash and burn," said Martin Eakes, chief executive for the Center for Responsible Lending. "That's what we're facing."

In the 12 months that ended in September, the number of Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Discover card accounts in the United States fell by 72 million, according to David Robertson, publisher of The Nilson Report, an industry newsletter. There are 555 million accounts still in the marketplace, he said.

In roughly the same time period, banks lowered credit limits by 26 percent, to $3.4 trillion, from $4.6 trillion, according to an analysis of government data by Foresight Analytics.

Interest on credit card accounts, meanwhile, has increased to an average of 13.71 percent, up from 11.94 percent a year ago, according to federal records.

As to credit card charge-offs - industry lingo for uncollectible balances - the number tracks the unemployment rate and, therefore, is hovering at around 10 percent.

For the banks, this is uncharted territory. In the modern financing era, credit cards were long a profit center, producing tens of billions in annual profits with a default rate that hovered around 4 percent until the recession.

"We know we are going to lose a lot of money next year in cards, and it could be north of $1 billion in both the first quarter and the second quarter. And that number will probably only start coming down as you see unemployment and charge-offs come down," Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, said in an earnings call last month.

Banking officials said that because the new law limits their ability to reprice credit as a customer's risk profile changes, they will instead have to price for future risk at the start, when a cardholder applies for a new card.

That means fewer applicants will be approved for new credit cards, and those who are accepted will increasingly be charged annual fees or variable interest rates, rather than fixed rates. Currently, about 20 percent of credit cards charge annual fees, a percentage that is rising, said Bill Hardekopf, chief executive of LowCards.com. Current cardholders, too, will be affected.

Asked to explain its rate increases, Citibank issued a statement saying the "actions are necessary given the losses across the industry from customers not paying back their loans and regulatory changes that eliminate repricing for that risk."

Ms. Holaday Schumacher did not accept that explanation. She said she haggled with Citibank to try to get her mother's bills forwarded to her house in Washington and, during the process, two bills were inadvertently paid late, resulting in the rate increase.

"How unbelievably unfair for an older person who might not understand what this is all about," she said. Citibank declined to comment on the account.

Still, many of the nation's banks are trying to repair their tarnished reputations with consumers.

American Express and Discover Financial, for instance, have vowed to stop charging fees when cardholders exceed their credit limits. JPMorgan has started a program that can help consumers categorize their spending and pay down their balances more quickly.

And Bank of America is promoting a line of consumer products so simple that the terms and conditions fit on one page. The BankAmericard Basic Visa, for instance, has no rewards and a single interest rate.

Andrew Rowe, Global Card Services strategy executive at Bank of America, said the new products represented a sea change in the bank's attitude toward consumer products. Instead of benefiting from consumers who displayed risky behavior by penalizing them with fees, the bank is now trying to help them break those bad habits, he said.

"We succeed if our customers succeed," he said. "That's the paradigm shift."

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, for one, said he would welcome consumer products that were simpler and less risky. But, he added in an interview with the PBS documentary program "Frontline": "It's a bit of a late conversion. It would have been nice to happen earlier."

Edmund L. Andrews contributed reporting.

*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*

No comments: