Friday, March 30, 2007
Remember the all-nighters you pulled in college to cram for exams? Yeah, I used to do those too. They were okay back then, because younger bodies have more resilience.
But I'm 47 now—not that that's old!—and my body really doesn't like all-nighters. Late last night, I finished a 27-hour workday to get a late project off my desk and back to my patient client. There wasn't any way around it; several projects collided.
Y'all don't do or say anything witty or interesting till I wake up this afternoon, ya hear? ;-)
sleep deprivation all-nighter deadline freelancer self-employed copyeditor copyediting editor editing publishing EditorMom
Sunday, March 25, 2007
On Tuesday, March 27, 11:30 a.m.—1:00 p.m. Eastern time, I'll do a new audio conference with Wendalyn Nichols (editor of the excellent Copy Editor newsletter) on client management and self-marketing for freelancers. This one will include access to samples: a marketing letter, a contract, and an invoice that you can adapt for your own needs. Get more info and sign up here.If you haven't participated in an audio conference before, here's how it works: After you register, you'll be given a toll-free phone number, which you'll call at conference time, and a password, which you'll give to the conference coordinator who answers the phone. You'll be listening to the presentation part of the time and asking questions when the coordinator says it's Q&A time. Each audio conference is about 90 minutes long.
Don't miss it! Good client management will keep your cash flow healthy!
freelancer self-employed clients marketing copyeditor copyediting editor editing publishing EditorMom
Friday, March 23, 2007
We would like to express our concern that the publishers of The Lancet, Reed Elsevier, are continuing to promote the use of arms by hosting arms trade fairs. The recent Shooting, Hunting, and Outdoor Trade (SHOT) Show hosted by Reed Exhibitions was devoted to the glorification of guns; shortly the company is to host an arms fair to the Middle East at a time when the region is the focus of international tension [emphasis mine—EditorMom]. In the past, manufacturers of cluster bombs have been allowed to participate in such events despite the indiscriminate effect of cluster bombs on civilian and military populations. Although we do not question the right of nations to arm themselves appropriately against potentially hostile threats, much of the trade connected with arms does not fulfil this purpose.
Global expenditure on arms is now over US$1 trillion per year, amounting to around 2.5% of global gross domestic product. It consumes limited resources which could help fund sectors such as health and education and support productive economic activities. Many arms end up in the poorest countries where they contribute to the breakdown of law and order and undermine governance. Although precise estimates of the deaths from arms are not available, it has been suggested that around 500,000 people die every year as a result of firearms [emphasis mine—EditorMom]. Most are innocent civilians caught up in conflict or crime.
In view of the major contribution of arms trading to the undermining of public health and international development, we wish to add our support to the courageous stand taken by The Lancet in asking Reed Elsevier to divest itself from these unsavoury activities. We note that the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust has recently sold all its shares in Reed Elsevier after 3 years of critical engagement on the company's role in the arms trade. We hope that other shareholders will continue to raise these concerns, and we look forward to a public response from the company.
The Lancet has a distinguished track record of drawing attention to the consequences of war and violence. Yet its publisher, Reed Elsevier, has a subsidiary that hosts one of the largest military exhibitions in the world (Defence Systems and Equipment International [DSEi]).
Reed Elsevier does not need The Lancet to highlight its inconsistencies. It is a signatory of the UN Global Compact which includes a commitment to “the rights to life, liberty and security”. Reed Elsevier's “Socially Responsible Supplier Group” includes a “comprehensive environmental survey” but I could not find any reference to the collateral damage of cluster munitions, although there were an estimated 15 cluster bomb manufacturers at the last DSEi in 2005.
The issue is not about the availability of weapons, which is a wider debate. The issue is that weapons of dubious legality are being sold in a market atmosphere to rival “the top shows worldwide” so that “the cross-fertilization of business” can take place and massive profits can be made. This is not the way to ensure the human security of any of the world's citizens.
The marketplace is changing and business and government are gradually being held more accountable. Reed Elsevier could show true corporate responsibility by anticipating these trends and disposing of all interests that threaten human—and especially civilian—life and wellbeing. If not, we have to urge The Lancet to find another publisher, and Reed Elsevier's shareholders to examine their investments.
The Lancet, as the foremost medical journal on global health issues, engages with all threats to human longevity or mental and physical wellbeing. As a result, its editorial and scientific content frequently becomes required reading for governments, transnational companies, and the UN, in addition to its bread and butter clientele of health professionals, patients, and international news media.
It is thus shocking to hear that the publisher of The Lancet, Reed Elsevier, continues to align itself so supportively with the arms trade, the products of which directly generate massive civilian mortality and suffering and prop up regimes that commit gross violations of international human rights law. Exhibitors at an arms fair in 2006 run by the Reed Elsevier's subsidiary company, Reed Exhibitions, included manufacturers of electroshock batons, stun guns, and stun belts, which are banned by the EU because their use amounts to torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
The Lancet's traditionally progressive stance on medicine and health is a priceless global resource and its reputation must not be compromised by an association with products so manifestly harmful to mankind.
2 years ago your Editorial staff and International Advisory Board took the courageous and correct step to criticise the practices of your parent company, Reed Elsevier, in the hosting of arms trade fairs.
The arms trade industry as it stands has little good to say for itself. It encourages transgressions of the various Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war, wastes public money, catalyses conflict and war, institutionalises corruption, glorifies violence, sustains oppressive and genocidal regimes, and excuses the conduct of torture.
Reed Elsevier is undoubtedly associated with these reprehensible aspects of the arms industry, and by association, so is The Lancet. Your request to Reed Elsevier to “divest itself of all business interests that threaten human, and especially civilian, health and wellbeing” has clearly been ignored.
We therefore write to express our support of your position on this issue and to say that we will be asking Reed Elsevier directly to get out of this sordid industry and instead align itself to the values and principles espoused by The Lancet.
Medsin is a student organisation aiming to tackle local and global health inequalities. As future health-care professionals, we are alarmed that The Lancet is published by a company heavily involved in the international arms trade.
Reed Elsevier's subsidiaries are responsible for organising arms fairs in the UK (Defence Systems and Equipment International [DSEi]) and abroad (Latin American Aero and Defence). Delegates from countries perpetrating human rights abuses were invited to DSEi 2005, where weapons used to carry out torture and cluster bombs were on sale, despite these being illegal for export from the UK.
We believe that involvement in the arms trade is incompatible with the publishing of a journal committed to international public health [emphasis mine—EditorMom]. It contravenes several articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, notably the “right to life, liberty and security of person”. Reed Elsevier is a signatory of the UN Global Compact, supporting and respecting human rights. It is therefore breaking its own ethical code by continuing to organise arms fairs. Furthermore, promoting the sale of arms to developing countries undermines health systems by encouraging spending on arms rather than health sector development, education, and sanitation.
We call on Reed Elsevier to free itself of association with the arms trade. If it does not, we ask shareholders to reconsider their support for an industry incompatible with the realisation of health as a universal human right. Medsin are wholly supportive of The Lancet's ongoing work on conflict and its position on this issue. However, if the association of Reed Elsevier with this industry is not abandoned, we must ask The Lancet to find an alternative publisher.
Doctors for Iraq is a Baghdad-based non-governmental organisation (NGO) providing medical relief. We are one of the main campaigning NGOs focusing on the right to health inside Iraq. Doctors for Iraq was established in October, 2003, by Iraqi doctors who experienced first-hand the brutal impact the invasion of Iraq has had on the health system in the country. My colleagues and I have worked inside the different conflict zones of Iraq: Fallujah, Basra, Hadeetha, Al Qaim, Baghdad, and Najaf.
One of the most horrific experiences that I lived through and that still haunts my colleagues and I was the 2004 US-led attack on the city of Fallujah. I was trapped inside the city, working in the field clinics after US troops banned doctors from working in the main hospital. I remember vividly when a family of four women and three children were brought to the field clinic; their bodies were shattered, their limbs no longer attached to their bodies. The 8-year-old's brain was missing. The family house had been attacked by a special missile. I tried desperately to help the 4-year-old, who was the only survivor. Her whole body was covered in what looked like pin holes, and one of her legs had been cut in half [emphasis mine—EditorMom].
I met another child while working in Basra. She had lost 17 members of her family, and her right leg, in a cluster bomb attack on her village.
During the invasion, the wounded stood with patience in long queues, their bullet wounds gaping. Often their vascular systems were so damaged that my colleagues and I were forced to amputate, leaving them in agony. Most of those who I tried to treat were young; I still remember their faces.
Doctors for Iraq recently did some research with Oxfam for the Control Arms campaign, documenting the availability and price of unconventional bullets on the Baghdad black market. Our joint research showed that the average price of a bullet is between 10 and 40 US cents, and that taking a life in Iraq costs as little as $2.40 [emphasis mine—EditorMom].
My colleagues and I read about how The Lancet's publishing company is engaged in promoting the arms trade by hosting arms fairs. How can it be that a medical publication defending the right to health and advocating for a better quality of life has a relationship with such a company? I am very disturbed and shocked by this news and, as someone who has witnessed the misery that these immoral weapons cause, I urge The Lancet to re-examine its relationship with its publishers. I fear that as a result of this current partnership, The Lancet's position as a champion of global health, and its strong moral and ethical stance, will be compromised.
Embarrassingly, the editors of the Lancet replied by sitting on the fence:
The journal that we edit was founded in 1823 at a time of progressive scientific enlightenment and social reform. We are physicians and scientists who try to translate these traditions into the work we do now—selecting, commissioning, and writing medical science and journalism. Our overall objective is to use The Lancet as a means of protecting and advancing human health.
When the connection between Reed Elsevier and the arms trade was drawn to our attention in 2005, we joined our International Advisory Board to ask the company to divest itself of this part of its business. We argued that the arms trade was incompatible with the professional values of a health-science publisher—promoting health and wellbeing, reducing death and disability, respecting human rights, and showing concern for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged groups in society. Reed Elsevier supported our freedom to say what we did, but has so far declined to pursue our request.
Since 2005, we have been alerted to two additional arms exhibitions organised by Reed Elsevier. The 2007 SHOT Show, held in Orlando in January, claims to be “the world's premier exposition” for firearms. It attracted buyers from 75 countries. The products highlighted on the SHOT Show website foster a disturbing culture of violence. The Armalite A24 handgun, for example, is promoted as “beautiful”, a handgun for “any serious shooter”. The small arms business is responsible for 200,000 gun homicides annually, most in low-income and middle-income countries that are least able or willing to control the trade in weapons. Gun violence contributes to poverty, food insecurity, health-system disruption, and civilian deaths. Organising arms exhibitions helps to increase access to weapons and so encourage violence. This is in direct breach of recommendations from WHO in its landmark World Report on Violence and Health [emphasis mine—EditorMom].
The 2007 International Defence Exhibition and Conference (IDEX) was held in Abu Dhabi in February. This meeting was clearly an arms fair. The website of IDEX reports that, “IDEX provides the ideal venue for the defence industry to showcase new technologies and equipment to prospective buyers from the growing defence market in the Middle East, Asia, and Far East”. According to one news source, which The Lancet has independently confirmed, these technologies included 500 kg cluster bombs, one of the most deadly weapons encountered by civilians, especially children [emphasis mine—EditorMom].
Editors and contributors to other Elsevier journals have also signalled their alarm at this misalliance of interests. And the opposition to Reed Elsevier's policy has spread to prominent and respected non-Reed-Elsevier medical journals. A petition with nearly 1,000 names has been launched to object to Reed Elsevier's support for the arms trade. A call to boycott Reed Elsevier journals includes many scientists (eg, Sir Michael Atiyah, a former President of the UK's Royal Society) whose views should be of profound concern to any publisher. Editors at the BMJ have called on medical researchers to stop sending randomised clinical trials to The Lancet and other Reed Elsevier titles. One investor has recently sold its £2 million stake in the company because of Reed Elsevier's links to arms.
The editors of The Lancet face a difficult situation. We value greatly our close relationships with the Royal Colleges and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. We very much respect the work of the human rights organisations that have written to us. The collective support of these groups and individuals is vital to the journal. If they withdrew that support, our future would be materially harmed and the credibility of our work on issues such as child survival would be severely compromised. We cannot imagine that Reed Elsevier seeks such an outcome for The Lancet or any of the thousands of journals it publishes. Yet the company's present stance is leading us in that direction.
Faced with the impasse we find ourselves in, what should we do? Our International Advisory Board advises us that “the current situation is bizarre and untenable”; “a company involved in health journals cannot be associated with the organisation of arms exhibitions as the current owners of The Lancet are”; “it is hard to believe that the company will continue for long with this dreadful association”; “the genuine danger [is] that if they [Reed Elsevier] continue in the present way the sale and quality of their scientific journals may be seriously threatened”; “the journal needs to take a firm stand on this issue”; “my main concern is for the independence of The Lancet”; we must try “to break these strong financial ties in the interest of health”; and “an organised campaign” should be seriously considered.
After a great deal of reflection, including consultation within Elsevier and Reed Elsevier, we wish to emphasise the following points:
(1) The Lancet reaffirms its view that arms exhibitions have no legitimate place within the portfolio of a company whose core business concerns are health and science. This part of Reed Elsevier's operation should be divested as soon as possible.
(2) The Lancet is given complete editorial freedom by Reed Elsevier, a rare asset. Reed Elsevier—and specifically its science and medical publishing division, Elsevier—not only supports but also encourages our independence. This is a tremendous strength and should give scientists and physicians confidence in the publishing integrity of The Lancet and Elsevier.
(3) Although we do not speak officially for the company, we know that, as one of four divisions of Reed Elsevier, Elsevier operates with the highest standards of scientific, medical, and publishing ethics.
(4) Reed Elsevier can change. For example, at Reed Elsevier's Defence Systems and Equipment International (DSEi) exhibition in 2005, there was no explicit ban on cluster bombs. For DSEi 2007, cluster bombs are explicitly prohibited. Dialogue can move hearts and minds. Debate, as opposed to a boycott of The Lancet and other Elsevier journals, should continue [emphasis mine—EditorMom]. [This latter stance is not courage; it's fear. The journal's editors are selling out so that they can continue to get Elsevier's financial support.]
(5) Reed Elsevier is not a monolithic structure. We meet people across the organisation with a diversity of views and perspectives. On the question of arms exhibitions, we have found that a growing number of our Elsevier colleagues, who have long standing relationships with scientific societies and authors, are questioning Reed Elsevier's decision to continue in this business. At a time of fierce debate over author-pays open access journals and open archiving, Reed Elsevier, many of them say, needs to be making strong alliances, not creating new enemies.
There is an emerging view both outside and inside Elsevier that operating a key link in the arms trade is contrary to the values inherent in health and health science publishing. Recent events show that this view is strengthening. What effect this common attitude will have on Reed Elsevier is hard to tell. We are certain that further change is possible.
Is Reed Elsevier running scared yet? Doesn't sound like it:
I call on other editors and editorial professionals out there to have more courage than the editors of the Lancet: Boycott Elsevier journals until Reed Elsevier directs its subsidiaries to drop arms fairs. I'm doing it, and it's not an empty gesture—it's costing me income.
boycott 1 boycott 2 boycott 3
6/1/07: Reed Elsevier to stop hosting weapons fairs
Reed Elsevier Reed Exhibitions Spearhead Exhibitions Elsevier Lancet weapons medicine boycott copyeditor copyediting editor editing publishing EditorMom
Thursday, March 22, 2007
The chat was moderated by Peter Fallon, PhD, assistant professor of journalism and experienced journalist. The students in his course on alternative media had plenty of questions for me and fellow blogger Aine MacDermot (also at Silent Lucidity and The Citizen Journalist).
Look at what they’re blogging about:
- Child Market: News about child prostitution and trafficking. It takes courage to cover this issue, because it’s sordid and tragic. Now, my degree is in journalism and I spent 2 years in the early ’80s as a newspaper reporter with dreams of being the next Woodward or Bernstein, but given my personal history as an abused child, I couldn’t handle doing regular coverage of this student's topic. That’s why I’m so impressed at this blogger’s fortitude.
- Healthy Bodies: The fight for universal health care. This topic is one I’m obsessed with, being a full-time freelance copyeditor who has several times come close to not being able to afford health insurance for her family. I’ll be watching this blog.
- Mama Nature: Global warming. Reading entries here, I spotted a fascinating—and frightening—one about how in the United States, more members of ethnic minorities are exposed to pollution than whites are.
- Media Future Universe: How bloggers affect the media and how we’ll get our news in the future. There’s news about electronic media, copyright law, bloggers as members of the media, and citizen journalism.
- News Snobbery: Newsworthy issues, as opposed to celebrities’ doings. Good stuff about what the media should be reporting on.
- Newsworthy 02: News analysis. I especially liked the entry about who decides what’s interesting news.
- Regulating Regulators: Federal Communications Commission news. I haven’t thought much about the FCC since my J-school days, but what this agency does affects us all, journalists or not.
- Render Unto Caesar: The disappearing separation between church and state in the United States. Great writing and analysis here.
journalism social justice reporter news news media new media alternative media blogging Roosevelt University EditorMom
But I've also wondered how people from India, black Africans, Americans of African heritage, and people of other ethnic groups feel about "outsiders" wearing their traditional clothing. Are "outsiders" seen as appropriating something that they shouldn't, something that symbolizes pride in or identification with a particular culture?
I realize that no ethnic group as a whole has one opinion. If you're a reader who identifies strongly with an ethnic group, this very pale U.S. woman of mostly Irish, French, and Scots ancestry wants to know what you think about this subject.
ethnic identity traditional clothing sari pharoah caftan India Africa black EditorMom
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
I know that the U.S. government is a huge, complex wheel that moves ever so slowly, but I expected the new folks in charge to feel their power and use it—right away—to end the tragic farce in Iraq. Instead, they've merely crept along at developing legislation that doesn't really stop King George the Incompetent in his tracks. What in hell does that man and his cronies have on the Dems that keeps them fearful of standing up to him? There has to be something.
Can't they see the urgency of stopping the killing? Of rebuilding the United States' reputation in the world? Is everything just politics—no overriding task to be done immediately?
Look, Congress: Bush's machine is starting to implode. Even though it's over the firings of U.S. attorneys, take advantage and strike now. Find your courage. Do what you know is right. Craft straightforward legislation that will end the war within 6 months. Don't fund the “surge.” Then impeach the lying, incompetent jerk.
And then I'll believe you next time you make promises.
Iraq war withdrawal Bush impeach Congress EditorMom
Lutheran churches have pastors. Episcopal churches have rectors.
And online churches have e-rectors?
Oh, don't go on about rectitude.
And they make new ones with e-rector sets.
If the e-rector is at the center of a scandal, does he suffer from e-rectile dysfunction?
If he does, maybe someone can curate?
That would likely turn him into a loose canon.
Or a primate.
Besides, the only person who can cure something like that is the organist.
There's a cardinal sin here somewhere in this pope-ourri.
This is getting pastor joke. Perhaps we all need to go back to checking our reverences.
We may be rechoired to at any moment; it's holy up to Bill. Still, I wouldn't altar a thing.
Or is he our elder statesman? Or nun of the above?
Should we ask hymn?
Yes, because he's our organ-izer.
Now, that's an en-chanting thought.
Nunsense. Jane may also answer our invocation, if she's not spirited away by the urge to throw a pi[at]ous.
copyeditor editor editing publishing puns EditorMom
Monday, March 19, 2007
Iraq war withdrawal Iran Bush impeach Congress MoveOn.org EditorMom
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Front of lazy Susan cabinet with drawers closed
Lazy Susan cabinet with drawers open
Cool chevron-shaped drawers! In this shot, the drawer
fronts hadn't yet been installed.
cabinetmaker chevron lazy Susan husband Ed EditorMom
Friday, March 16, 2007
In 2005, the Lancet told the medical world about Reed Exhibition's links with the arms trade. Then earlier this month, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine called for a boycott of Elsevier, publisher of more than 2,000 scientific and medical journals (including the Lancet), because it is a sister company to Reed Exhibitions, under the umbrella of Reed Elsevier. Now the British Medical Journal has taken up the cry:
Reed Elsevier's purpose in publishing the Lancet and other health related journals is not to covertly support arms trade revenues. Reed Elsevier, like any other company, aims to make money through business activities that have diversified over time. But its activities in organising exhibitions for the arms trade are only a small part (we believe about 1%) of its turnover. Why would Reed Elsevier risk alienating the essential part of its money making business—the health, science, and education sector—to allow a continued association with a much smaller asset—the arms trade?
For alienation is what's happening. In the short term, the publicity surrounding this controversy may be good for Reed Elsevier, if all publicity really is good publicity. In the long term, however, the consequences of the debate could be disastrous for the company's reputation and profits, and, if journals do more good than harm, for world health.
In September 2005, when the Lancet first highlighted Reed Elsevier's links with the arms trade, there was an appropriate outcry from the journal's international advisory board and global opinion leaders. More recently, condemnation of Reed Elsevier has come in a letter to the Times signed by 140 prominent academics, in rapid responses to a BMJ news article, and via an online petition that has collected approaching 1000 signatures (http://idiolect.org.uk/elsevier/petition.php). ...
The scientific and health communities with which Reed Elsevier is linked in a symbiotic relationship have a clear opportunity to exert their influence. As a group, these communities have the power to influence corporate strategy. They must sign petitions such as the one identified here, the societies for which Reed Elsevier publishes journals must look for alternative publishers, and editors of journals must express their disgust at the company's arms trade activities through collectives such as the World Association of Medical Editors (http://www.wame.org/). Furthermore, academic and industry funded researchers should now agree not to submit their high profile randomised control trials to Reed Elsevier journals until links with the arms trade are ended. They should make these decisions public, thus ending their tacit support for the company's links with the arms trade. Direct loss of revenue in this way would quickly identify to Reed Elsevier that the scientific world will no longer tolerate its warmongering and health damaging business activities.
Next, I want to see U.S. medical journals—both Elsevier and non-Elsevier journals—support the boycott. And I want to see U.S. medical copyeditors, journal production editors, journal managing editors, and all editorial support professionals examine their consciences and join the boycott.
There is no morality in teaching how to save lives with one hand and providing access to weapons of death and torture on the other.
boycott 1 boycott 2 boycott 3
6/1/07: Reed Elsevier to stop hosting weapons fairs
Reed Elsevier Elsevier Lancet British Medical Journal weapons medicine copyeditor copyediting editor editing publishing EditorMom
Thursday, March 15, 2007
march Pentagon protest Iraq war genocide withdrawal Bush impeach EditorMom
Monday, March 12, 2007
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Why the 17th? It's the fortieth anniversary of the historic 1967 march on the Pentagon by protesters against the Vietnam War, and it's the fourth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war. Here is part of the statement of the organizer of the march, ANSWER Coalition, about why the march is necessary:
Watch this video about the march:
The people of the United States want an end to the war in Iraq. The elections in November were a clear repudiation of the Bush administration's war of aggression. The new Congress, however, has no intention of ending the war. Bush and the Pentagon generals are determined to prolong the war. Tens of thousands of more troops will be sent to Iraq. We are building a massive antiwar movement on the national and local level. Only the action of the people will stop the war.
We are returning to the Pentagon because the Iraq war has resulted in more than 655,000 Iraqi deaths (Lancet), on top of more than 1 million killed by sanctions between 1990 [and] 2003. This is genocide.
We are returning to the Pentagon because U.S. military deaths has exceeded 3,000. But that doesn't begin to tell the story. There have been 21,921 wounded as of [November] 30 and another 17,835 evacuated [because of] serious injury or illness as of [September] 30, 2005, when the Pentagon stopped releasing these statistics.
We are returning to the Pentagon because it is U.S. missiles and bombs, including hundreds of thousands of cluster bombs that have been sent to Israel to kill and maim the people of Palestine and Lebanon. These weapons are a war crime. The estimate is that between 2 million and 3 million cluster bomblets were dropped on Lebanon, and more than a million remain unexploded—posing a danger to civilians for years to come. The war in Iraq is one front in the U.S. plan for domination of the Middle East. Colonial occupation is a crime whether it be in Iraq or Palestine or Lebanon.
We are returning to the Pentagon because it maintains 714 military bases in 130 countries to extend the influence of U.S. transnational corporations, oil giants, and banks. The slogan of national security and the war on terror stands exposed as a pretext for a global empire enforced by military might and limitless violence.
While the focus of the recent years has been to use military power and violence against the Arab people, the Pentagon has been targeting peoples and nations all over the world. U.S. troops occupy South Korea. U.S. nuclear weapons target North Korea. Interventionist actions are already taking place in the Philippines and are planned against Cuba, Venezuela, and throughout South and Central Asia.
We are returning to the Pentagon to demand the immediate closure of Guantánamo and all other torture facilities. The grotesque revelations of torture and abuse in Abu Ghraib were the tip of the iceberg. Punishing a few rank-and-file soldiers and counting on the mass media to tire of the story, the Pentagon has tried to conceal the reality that it engages in arbitrary detention and torture of those it identifies as “enemies.”
We are returning to the Pentagon to demand an end to the surveillance and other spy programs conducted against the people of this country by the Pentagon and other agencies.
We are returning to the Pentagon because the military budget of this country is a dagger in the heart of programs that meet people's needs. More than 47 million people in the U.S. are without health care coverage, and one out of every four children is born into extreme poverty. Fifty percent of all bankruptcies in the last year were filed by people who couldn't pay their hospital and doctor bills. Factories are closing and whole communities and neighborhoods are being turned into ghost towns. Skyrocketing tuition is and will continue to make the dream of a college education harder to realize for working-class youth. In the last year, Bush and Congress cut money for education, food aid, and veterans' benefits while the Senate voted almost unanimously to rubber-stamp the new “war” budget of $590 billion (the official budget number of $443 billion conceals at least $150 billion in expenditures).
We are returning to the Pentagon to challenge the system that is addicted to war and global domination. The Iraq war is a criminal endeavor based on lies. It was always about conquering the entire Middle East with its vast repositories of oil. While the Iraq war has been an absolute catastrophe for the entire people of Iraq and for tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers, it must be remembered that many U.S. corporations are benefiting. They are the recipients of new Pentagon orders for weapons, supplies and contracts. The Iraq war costs approximately $279 million each day. That breaks down to more than $11 million every hour of every day of the year. The total cost of the Iraq war will be $2 trillion, according to the Iraq Study Group report.
Unless the people act now, the human and economic costs of the war will only increase. Let's unite and stand together at the Pentagon on March 17.
Updated 7:26 p.m., 3/17/07: I wasn't able to make it to D.C. for the protest; a freak winter storm iced me in. But here are plenty of great photos of that protest march and others all over the world.
march Pentagon protest Iraq war genocide withdrawal Afghanistan Iran Korea Congress Bush impeach EditorMom
Monday, March 05, 2007
You may find it painful reading, especially when there are posts about children killed by U.S. bombs or children who have lost family members to the war. But the Iraqis find it much more painful to live through. Life in Iraq is just one explosion after another, not something that the U.S. media are inclined to show us.
Send your family, your friends, and your congressional representatives to Gorilla's Guides. And write and call your representatives over and over to say that you want American troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan now—and not to be deployed to Iran, Korea, or any other "enemy" that Bush can dream up.
Iraq war withdrawal Afghanistan Iran Korea Bush impeach Congress EditorMom