James Wagner

“first, do no harm”

I can hardly believe that in the year 2003 I had to be in the street demonstrating against the imminent privatization and evisceration of virtually the only sliver of public health care now available in this once proud nation. But there I was this morning outside the New York offices of the AARP, screaming my head off and holding a big, mean sign, condemning the largest seniors advocacy group in the country for the greedy betrayal of its members.
The AARP is supporting the Republican Medicare bill and is now spending millions of its members’ dues to pay for advertising pushing immediate passage of the legislation as proposed. The AARP has finally become just another insurance company.
We should not be dithering over the kinda, sorta medical help with which the wealthiest country on earth might deign to reward some of its citizens, some of the time. We should not have to be talking about this particular absurd bill. We should not be talking any more about how to care for the drug and insurance companies. We should instead be talking about how to care for people, with an efficient, comprehensive single-payer national healthcare system.
Working on ideas for the obverse of my “AARP SOLD OUT!” sign last night I had come up with “GET YOUR PROFITS OFF OF MY HEALTH CARE”. I almost immediately hesitated however, because of doubts that an American audience was able to digest the concept of health care divorced from profit-making. Barry reassured me by offering the analogy of the federal highway program. A government which can make roads its direct responsibility can also make the health of its people its responsibility.
The text made the cut.
If we have to deal first with the bill now on the table, can we at least insist that Congress “first, do no harm”? On Public Radio this morning Ted Kennedy recalled that famous admonition of Hippocrates while chastizing his colleagues’ haste in fiddling with Medicare.
The House and the Senate should both tear the damn thing up, and instead, do something really worthy of its charge.

[image notes: Most of the people in the crowd today would be eligible for AARP membership; almost without exception the few demonstrators there under 50 were AIDS or queer activists (where was everybody else?); one “partisan” sign survived totally unchallenged, even though there might actually have been an old-school Republican or two in the crowd; Bill Falk, who was representing SAGE today, is holding my sloppy sign in the third picture; and the last image is of a real activist burning her real AARP card (some people announced earlier that they were going to go walk straight into the organization’s offices and demand a refund of their dues)]

In the fifties the accusation which could terrorize American liberals, especially if they held or were hoping to hold office, was that of being soft on communism.
Today, the same nasty little minds are at it again, but there’s a new scary noun. The current campaign of intimidation is being waged over whether one is sufficiently hard on terrorism, whatever that means.

After months of sustained attacks against President Bush in Democratic primary debates and commercials, the Republican Party is responding this week with its first advertisement of the presidential race, portraying Mr. Bush as fighting terrorism while his potential challengers try to undermine him with their sniping.
The new commercial gives the first hint of the themes Mr. Bush’s campaign is likely to press in its early days. It shows Mr. Bush, during the last State of the Union address, warning of continued threats to the nation: “Our war against terror is a contest of will, in which perseverance is power,” he says after the screen flashes the words, “Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists.”

Can a president be president if always hidden and always hiding?
The one being protected always has the last word. For examples, look at the public behavior of every legitimate chief executive we’ve ever had.
Some people and agencies are responsible for offering a president the maximum possible degree of security. But when is it overkill? In the end the protectee decides upon the amount of protection, which today more and more means real isolation, to be tolerated at any given time or place. This is especially true since even the most extraordinary measures cannot guarantee success in the end.
The decisions a president makes about personal mobility and visiblity will rest on many factors, including his or her intelligence, awareness, familiarity with the world, democratic concept of office, both desire and ability to communicate, self-assurance, pride and yes, personal courage. I didn’t even mention popularity. Bush fails in every area, so we shouldn’t be surprised that he has been in a virtual cocoon since seizing office. Even his few public appearances are invariably before invited guests, preferably on military installations or in government spaces.
The one thing he posesses indisputably is power. Power buys a lot of reassurance, and almost enough security, but it guarantees isolation..
This week we’ve seen him locked up inside the blockhouse of Buckingham Palace and the solid steel vault of his 10 or 12 thousand pound tank, a prisoner of his public indifference, his evil policy and his cowardice, but most people on this side of the water are only vaguely aware of the extent to which he and his bloated establishment have gone to isolate him on this supposedly triumphal and celebratory trip.
Some of his handlers’ wildest schemes have been shot down by hosts otherwise far too accomodating of White House obsessions, as James Rideway reports this week in the Village Voice:

One British official told the press that preparations for the Bush visit had been “hijacked” by the U.S. Secret Service. “They wanted to make structural changes to the Queen’s home, and this was never going to happen,” said the aide. “Agents brought in structural engineers who said walls must be strengthened and the blast-proof glass replaced with something stronger. They were obsessed, and still are, by the threat of an attack from the air.”
There was even a plan for a Black Hawk helicopter to hover over the palace grounds. But the Brits said no.

They were going to re-build Buck House? ’nuff said.

No ordinary armored car. And by the way, look at the Queen’s equivalent. Where’s the hero in this story? He’s certainly not in a flight suit.
Still trying to make my point, still asking the questions.


Ms. Bush today leaving the American armored personnel carrier, the protection of which incidently puts to shame even the best of those assigned to our men and women in Iraq.

Ms. Windsor last year entering the British unarmored state vehicle, designed for maximum human visibility – good sightlines for both the occupants and the public.

Point of information: When Vladimir Putin made his own state visit to Britain this June the two heads of state rode through London in the traditional horse-drawn landau. Not all who watched supported their presence, but it was all in a day’s work for the occupants of the open carriage passing among a free people.

NOTE: In a move which significantly distinguishes their efforts from the contemporary American solution, the manufacturers of the Bentley designed it to run on LPG, or liquid petroleum gas, allowing for an increased range while reducing polluting emissions. Also, no white-wall tyres. Don’t those Yanks know there’s a war on?

[image of the Cadillac from Reuters/Jason Reed on Yahoo News, that of the Bentley from royal.gov.uk]

Lindis Percy, doing her good thing yesterday

Don’t underestimate the Brits, or the seniors. Reuters supplied the picture and the following caption:

Lindis Percy, an anti-war protestor, stands on top of the gates of Buckingham Palace with an upside-down U.S. flag with the inscription ‘Elizabeth Windsor and Co we don’t want him here,’ November 17, 2003 as a British police officer stands below. The woman, wearing a fluorescent waistcoat, dodged tight security to scale the six-meter high wrought iron gates on the eve of U.S. President’s George W. Bush’s state visit to Britain.

The BBC reports, “Mrs Percy, of Hull, who was arrested and later bailed, said she was ‘amazed’ she had been able to unfurl a banner declaring Mr Bush was not welcome in the UK.”Lindis Percy is a creative and limber 61-year-old grandmother of four. She is a career health worker and a respected activist with an impressive history.
I suspect there is one thing Lindis Percy is not, in spite of the family name. Judging from the text of her excellent sign, she may not be a monarchist, unlike so many of her countrymen, but also unlike so many of the submissive subjects of Britain’s current unwelcome guest.
Incidently, Bushie didn’t use the gates. He landed on the palace grounds in a helicopter, to save the emperor the embarassment of being confronted on the roads by thousands of outraged “allies”.

[image from REUTERS/David Bebber]

what’s wrong with this picture?

(I mean, aside from the white-wall tires.) Notice the windshield pillars. Aside from the fact that it’s clearly not a pretty sight, what does it actually mean that Bush is the first American emperor to have to travel by tank wherever he goes?
The so-called Cadillac limousine which was first used at Dubya’s inauguration is actually a tank disguised as an automobile, a very big and very, very, very heavy vehicle.
We aren’t allowed much information, even if one way or another we did pay for it, but today the BBC tells us this much about the truck/tank they have dubbed “Cadillac One”, and it’s a lot more than we’ve gotten from any other news source up until this moment:

1. The car is a special version of the Cadillac deVille, with five inch thick armour, able to withstand rocket-propelled grenades
2. The tyres are designed to function even if punctured
3. The exact dimensions and specifications of the car are kept secret, and a second decoy car is always used
4. The car is designed to withstand chemical and biological attacks
5. The underside of the car is also armour-plated
6. The car can carry six people

Two miles per gallon, tops, I’d say.
The same article explains why this particular tank doesn’t need a gun turret on the top, while reassuring us that lesser mortals, if also well-funded, may have recourse to offensive as well as defensive devices when ordering their own vehicles.

Clearly a man like President Bush travels with a huge security entourage tasked with counter-attacking assailants while his vehicle escapes.
But for those with something short of a private army, there are other counter-measures available on the market.
One of the leading companies in the field offers to create hidden weapons compartments, strengthened bumpers for ramming other vehicles off the road and, in extreme circumstances, concealed gun ports in the doors.

Gosh, it seems like just yesterday President William Jefferson Clinton was driving around in his open-top Mustang. Hey, it really was just yesterday!
By the way, the SS (Secret Service) now insists that when they are retired all presidential limousines must be destroyed rather than preserved in museums or put on used car lots – for security reasons, they maintain.
But it’s not just the car of course. Bush is just a puppet, so why does he need to be surrounded by hundreds of assistants on what is clearly only a ceremonial trip? Nobody’s even going to see the puffed-up little little warlord! And who would miss him if he were gone?
From the Guardian on Wednesday, in the account, “Laura, me and 700 friends”, comes one figure not disputed elsewhere:

Mr Bush, his wife, Laura, and a 700-strong entourage worthy of a travelling medieval monarch, flew into Heathrow airport slightly late, at 7.22pm. The couple were greeted by the Prince of Wales, then whisked to the palace by [armored] US military helicopter.

Aside from his staff, his staff’s staff, everybody’s hangers-on and members of the invited and adoring press, Bush’s personal armed security detail in England numbers in the hundreds by any account, all authorized to shoot to kill, and it’s augmented by about 14,000 local police officers in London alone.
Shouldn’t we at least be asking how we got to this point, was it inevitable, where will it end, and can we do anything to change it?

[image from the BBC]