Health Care posters
By Lincoln Cushing
The COVID-19 pandemic hit us in the middle of a presidential election in which health care is a central issue, so it’s an opportunity to review some of the images that the labor movement has produced. In 2002 my colleague Tim Drescher and I surveyed dozens of archives and collections for the first comprehensive book on posters of the American labor movement, Agitate! Educate! Organize! American Labor Posters. Some of these are from the important Los Angeles collection of the Center for the Study of Political Graphics, the rest from my own physical and digital archives at Docs Populi (Documents for the Public).
For the current crisis, I’ve pulled some of those, and more, for this brief display of health care images.
Some of these [Photos 1, 3, 8] are the polished products of large
international unions, others [Photos 2, 4, 5, 9] are spirited local media
supporting community-based programs and labor actions. Artists and cultural workers have lent their skills to this messaging – [Photo 10] is by a
member of the decentralized artist’s cooperative Justseeds, and [Photo 6] is
admittedly a stretch for health care, but a great safety mask graphic. It’s an homage to the classic 1975 labor book Detroit: I do mind dying: a study in urban revolution, updating it to be a more inclusive “WE.” The artist explains: “It’s a portrait of myself or anyone as an industrial worker. The mask is about worker protection today, same as it was 40 years ago.”
And a huge shout-out goes to New York’s SEIU District 1199, the National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees. During the late 1970s and early 1980s they committed resources to the Bread and Roses Project, perhaps the most comprehensive labor arts program ever in the US, supporting art exhibitions, Labor Day street festivals, poster art, and theater [Photo 11].
Progressive labor unions aren’t shy about taking on broad health care policy issues, such as national health insurance (sound familiar?). Fred Wright (1907-1984) the prolific labor cartoonist pits the embattled insurance industry Kong against waves of UE pilots [Photo 3]. And when a previous virus was ravaging the world, the role of frontline healthcare workers was honored in print [Photo 7].
Posters may not make us healthy, but they certainly can help the workers and unions that do. Support our frontline staff. Support our health care institutions.
…
Letter from a London Emergency Department
By Caitlin Jones
.
This is an email I received a few days ago from London, UK. She’s working difficult hours at the moment and very front line.
.
Dear Robert,
I am a staff nurse working in the Emergency department of a large London hospital. I thought I could share some thoughts about how things have begun to change on the frontline in the past few weeks.
In the beginning we were aware of more patients arriving at the emergency department (ED) although these patients were tending to self-refer and were well. The hospital set up a hello system whereby it became much more organised. Patients presented to nurses outside the hospital and described their symptoms in a streaming service. Without banging on the doors and windows which was a little disconcerting!
As the weeks have gone on our whole department has had to evolve to try and cope with the growing number of attending patients who are presenting with covid19 symptoms and all the London Ambulances (LAS) arriving as Blue lights with symptomatic patients from their homes.
Initially our resuscitation area was designated ‘dirty’ ( = cover 19) along with our waiting area which was split in half, cold and dirty areas. Soon I think they realised it was a bit like segregating smokers on a plane and entire areas had to be designated as ‘Hot’. We had to progress to all of the waiting area being “Hot’ and now all of our ED using our paediatric areas to cope with the growing demand.
In these times our nursing duty of care really does remain the same. We have always cared for poorly patients and that is exactly who we are still seeing. If I think too hard about the sudden increase in this one symptomatic type of patient then it can become overwhelming but essentially I am still doing the same job that I have always loved.
The donning and doffing of our PPE wear was a bit challenging in the beginning but we’ve all become very quick at donning and although some times there is not all the right equipment this has improved and we have always had the correct facemasks for the areas where our patients are being ventilated. I know that our team of management really are doing their best to ensure we have all the right equipment.
When working the other night we were expecting another resuscitation blue light call. All staff were prepared and wearing our PPE, resembling a little like the scene in ET with the tents and forensic suits. We have taken to writing our names and roles on each other’s gowns (some nurses are now Lords and Ladies) importantly so we can tell who is who and give the patients a chance to know our positions. I realised as I greeted a new patient that they could not see any of us smiling. It’s terribly difficult to hear us talking through the face masks and that we couldn’t make them feel instantly better by smiling was a real low point. Of course we all do our best and talk and care but this lack of human contact is so scary.
I understand how crucial the protection equipment is and the lockdown but it has made the importance of human contact even higher in my world. I really look forward to when I can be close enough to someone in the street to rub shoulders and to be able to smile at everyone without worrying.
Many smiles!
Caitlin Jones staff nurse
…
What Should Bernie Do?
By Mike Miller
Tom Gallagher says “…We Need Him Now More Than Ever.” Need him to do what? That is the question. I don’t think Tom’s answer is the best one.
Responding to Tom
To begin with, conflating “mainstream” with “establishment” puts together in one category what are clearly two. “The establishment” is the power structure and its allies in the Democratic Party. “The mainstream” is those voters who stayed home when Bernie thought he could turn them out, and those voters who cast their ballot for Biden despite their support for most if not all of the Sanders’ program because they believe Biden is the better choice to beat Trump—which must remain our principal concern. That way of understanding the problem is different from Tom’s “the party’s ‘mainstream’ or ‘establishment,’ depending on where you stand. It doesn’t matter where you stand to see the facts of who turned out, who voted for whom, and who has how much money to continue campaigning. Bloomberg’s limitless money didn’t help him much with voters.
Nor do the litany of ills facing the country, the nature of the current power structure, or the consequences of neo-liberal policies tell us what Bernie should do. Gallagher provides us a recital of what readers of this forum already know and agree upon.
His analysis of why Bloomberg and other challengers dropped out of the race doesn’t mention that they didn’t do very well in places and with constituencies they needed for them to continue running. Thus it was not only Establishment Democrats who dropped out, it was also Warren, Steyer, Yang, Gabbard, Castro, de Blasio and Williams. Candidates drop out when a combination of money and votes necessary to gain a significant number of Convention delegates isn’t there. He says, “a principal reason for…dropping out…has generally been the inability to continue to raise money,” omitting the fact that diminished funding is in large part a function of how many votes a candidate is getting.
“The rationale of the Sanders campaign,” Tom tells us, “has always been that Donald Trump should not be allowed [to] win…by painting the Democrats as the business-in-Washington-as-usual-party.” Were the Democrats simply that, Sanders should have run as an independent—a third party candidate. But things aren’t that simple. Indeed, as Tom has persuasively written elsewhere, the nature of this system is that we are stuck with “lesser of two evils” politics. That the Democrats are lesser is daily demonstrated by the fights between the Democrat-controlled House and the Republican-controlled Senate, and by the Democrats versus Trump over how to respond to the Corona virus-caused health care and economic crisis. That’s what Black voters in South Carolina understood when they overwhelmingly voted for Biden despite their support for, to take just one example, universal health care.
The Corona Moment
The health, employment, housing, income and other crises for hundreds of millions of Americans posed by the Corona pandemic is an opportunity for qualitative leaps forward in both program and organization. Good strategists say, “never let a crisis go by without using it.” But note this: crisis encompasses both danger and opportunity. How are the causes of universal health care, living wage, workers’ right to organize, small business support, tenant and homeowner protection against eviction and foreclosure and others, and the organization that moves them forward, strengthened and expanded in this crisis moment?
The overarching strategy Sanders should pursue is uniting progressives, and joining with centrists to beat Trump. In that framework, he could negotiate substantial victories that build upon the gains his campaign has already made: the candidate for vice-president, party platform planks and their implementation, executive orders to be issued on Day One of a Democratic President’s term, appointments to Federal Courts, ambassadorships and the President’s Cabinet and sub-Cabinet positions, appropriations for massive infrastructure programs and transition to a climate-friendly economy, and others. You can’t form a united front while you’re daily attacking your major partner in that front. And that doesn’t mean you abandon your platform, principles or campaign; it simply means you are strategically and tactically wise.
The risks of a Sanders campaign based on continued attacks on Biden (which, for example, a face-to-face debate would require) and his neoliberalism are:
- decline in Sanders primary votes as more-and-more people conclude Biden is the one to beat Trump (or even someone else who might be drafted—who knows what the recent sexual abuse allegation will mean for Biden’s campaign);
- divisions (already appearing) in Sanders’ coalition;
- decisions of importance made in his absence (as Biden is now doing in his search for a VP), and;
- increased numbers of people who dismiss Sanders as a sour grapes candidate.
Sanders can negotiate a powerful united front and nominally remain in the race, “nominally” being the key word. Staying in or bowing out becomes a narrow technical/tactical question if a different strategy is adopted—one that focuses on the Corona opportunities, avoids personalizing attacks on Biden, and pushes Establishment Democrats to adopt a program that meets growing demands from everyday Americans for help in this crisis.
That strategy can be pursued by:
- deploying the powerful organization that has been built to critical races in critical states thus demonstrating a capacity to both elect progressives and make a difference in the presidential race;
- supporting emerging workplace, housing and other on-the-ground efforts as people struggle to stay alive and economically afloat, and;
- negotiating with centrist/establishment Democratic Party decision-makers (Biden and his campaign organization and the Democratic National Committee) to create the united front required to defeat Donald Trump.
The broader goals embodied in Sanders campaign will not be won this year or next. At least a ten-year timeline is required to achieve them. Defeating Trump in 2020 is a prerequisite to wider victories. Radical patience is required now; it is the long-distance runner who will win this race.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
On April 7, 2020’s Democracy Now, Amy Goodman asked AOC “What is happening with [Sanders] campaign right now?” Her response is interesting both for what it says and what it omits: “…I do know that…the senator and I have both been focusing very heavily on COVID relief…We need to make sure…there are very strong concessions and accommodations made for a progressive future in our country…we need to see very serious movement toward a single-payer healthcare system, a living wage, towards justice for incarcerated people and justice for our immigrant populations…[W]hen it comes to the specific things, ultimately, that is up to the senator. (emphasis added)…we must continue pushing to make sure, particularly on climate change, what kind of agenda is being formed right now, and not only what that agenda is, but who is going to be making those decisions and really administering and executing on that agenda in a potential administration.” (Does that look a lot like what’s above?)
It’s not only what’s said that’s important. The only question that is “ultimately up to the senator” is “running”, and she says not a word about it.
After describing her criticism of some left-wing activists, a March 30 Politico article title reads, “AOC breaks with Bernie on how to lead the left.” (Grant at the outset that media like to emphasize conflict.) It concludes, “Bernie is the first leftist politician who has received a national platform in a long time in this country, and so some people say that every leftist politician has got to be like Bernie,” [Justice Democrats spokesman Waleed Shahid] said. “But AOC is a different person with a different set of life experiences. So how she leads will be different. I don’t think it’s a difference in ideology — it may be a difference in approach.”
Sanders needs to pay attention to that “difference in approach”.
…
Note:
Today, 7 April 2020 at 9:00 p.m. EST Joe Biden will have a news conference on CNN. Had Bernie been following the strategy outlined above, he could have been part of that news conference to announce the united front to defeat Donald Trump.
Bernie Sanders in the Age of Coronavirus: We Need Him Now More Than Ever
By Tom Gallagher
Bernie Sanders threw his hat in the 2016 Democratic presidential ring in order to wage a campaign highlighting the need for a universal national health insurance system and, more broadly, a government run in the interest of the common person, rather than the melange of billionaires, mega-corporations, and their campaign donors and political action committees that currently dominate. In 2020, with the entire presidential primary process halted by a pandemic that profoundly challenges the nation’s health care system—and the entire economic system—you don’t have to like Sanders’ chances of actually winning the nomination to recognize that his campaign message has never been more to the point.
Can Sanders somehow recover from the very effective unity effort on the part of his Democratic Party opposition? Can he come from behind and catch Joe Biden? Well, we do know that in 2016 candidate Sanders famously did the unprecedented—and previously assumed impossible—many times over. He introduced the idea of democratic socialism to mainstream politics, rejected corporate backing, raised previously unimaginable amounts of money from people who—for the most part—didn’t have all that much of it. And, oh yes, he did this as the longest serving independent in congressional history.
But we also know that thus far in 2020, it has been the opposition—which you might call the party’s “mainstream” or “establishment,” depending on where you stand—rather than Sanders, that has notably accomplished the unprecedented, with a three-day unity tsunami that saw three of five major contenders withdrawing in favor of the one remaining who was not named Sanders. How badly did these folks not want Sanders to be the nominee? Enough for Michael Bloomberg—who had just spent a billion dollars on his own presidential campaign in only three months—to drop that effort and sign on to the anti-Sanders program. Granted, this was not Bloomberg’s last billion, but still you would have to say that this was definitely one billionaire who really doesn’t want to see Bernie Sanders become president.
This move proved quite successful, with Biden handily winning the March 17th primaries (with Ohio postponed and Illinois participation cut by a quarter) before the whole shebang went on hold, leaving him leading Sanders in delegates 1215-909, with another 93 pledged to candidates now supporting Biden, and 83 to Elizabeth Warren. And 1751 yet to be elected.
But so far as the unprecedented goes, it has been nature that has set the pace this time around, with the unprecedented coronavirus hiatus, which has started a race of another kind—the disaster capitalism feeding frenzy. Even before the Senate as a whole got into motion, four U.S. Senators—Republicans Kelly Loeffler (GA), James Inhofe (OK), Richard Burr (NC), and Democrat Dianne Feinstein (CA), a Biden endorser—had set personal examples for the rest of us, so far as not relying solely on government assistance, by taking the personal initiative in avoiding financial harm by selling off hundreds of thousands of dollars of their stocks following an administration briefing on the impact of coronavirus. And, by the way, we will all be assured that we can and must take comparable steps of personal responsibility. For instance, even as I wrote this article, Barron’s magazine was kind enough to post me a Facebook ad on the “18 Stocks to Buy Amid the Coronavirus Carnage, According to Barron’s Roundtable Experts,” along with the kicker: “When the going gets tough, the tough go shopping.” (And no hand sanitizer necessary for this shopping, either.) Of course, disaster capitalism’s real financial killings aren’t marketed to Sanders donors. They’ll come out of the $500 billion slated to go to American corporations in the government stimulus package. Corporate lobbyists will likely do the heavy lifting there—that is unless we can somehow thwart business as usual in D.C.
“So while it may be a logical proposition for the other candidates to throw in the towel when they decide they won’t be able to grab the ring themselves, it does not follow for Sanders“
Which brings us back to the presidential race again and the not unexpected call for Sanders too to step aside for Joe Biden. Which in turn brings us to our first question for the reader: Does anyone here seriously believe we’d be hearing a loud call for party unity if it were Bernie Sanders leading in the delegate count? Or would the story of the moment instead be the mainstream/establishment machinations to thwart him at the convention?
The logic behind the withdrawal call is clear and simple—the other candidates put aside their own ambition and united behind Super Tuesday’s big winner, so why not Sanders? The answer is also clear, although you’ll seldom find it addressed in the major news media. The candidates who dropped out did so in favor of another who shared their basic presuppositions, e.g., that we shouldn’t immediately try to extend health insurance to everyone currently uninsured, but only some portion of them; that the relationship between government and the nation’s powerful corporate interests does not require major overhaul; that our foreign policy is basically on the right track; that fracking should not be banned, etc. Sanders and his supporters are running a campaign that at its heart contests those presuppositions.
So while it may be a logical proposition for the other candidates to throw in the towel when they decide they won’t be able to grab the ring themselves, it does not follow for Sanders, particularly when 43 percent of the primary electorate has yet to vote. The primaries of New Jersey, New Mexico, District of Columbia, Montana, and South Dakota were originally scheduled for June 2, and Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island have rescheduled for that date, with others postponed to an even later time. In announcing the changes, governors have spoken of protecting their states voters’ “constitutional right to vote.” Presumably they also have some right to cast a meaningful vote. And certainly when a campaign challenges the status quo and conventional wisdom, while winning remains the main goal, it isn’t everything—as it is when the campaign aims to answer only the question of “Who?” and not also “What?”
Some will grant that, yes, the Sanders message is important and, yes, the Biden campaign should adopt some of it, but maintain that it’s no longer appropriate for Democratic candidates to argue publicly. These things should be dealt with in the party platform. Unfortunately, as a past member of the Democratic National Platform Committee, I can assure you that while contesting the content of the platform is a worthy endeavor, a candidate actively campaigning on, for instance, universal health care coverage will be immeasurably more helpful to the cause than the issue’s inclusion in the generally unread and ignored platform.
And back to that unprecedented coronavirus crisis. The rationale of the Sanders campaign has always been that Donald Trump should not be allowed win another term in the White House by painting the Democrats as the business-in-Washington-as-usual party. Which leads me to my second question for the reader: With a half trillion dollar corporate give-away in the offing, does anyone here really believe that Joe Biden is the candidate to challenge the Wall Street way of doing business—either in perception or reality?
Sanders does seem to have now sloughed off the invitation to go home and decided to carry on. Remember that a principal reason for presidential candidates dropping out of the race has generally been the inability to continue to raise money. Final question: Does anyone here not think that Sanders supporters will continue to fund the race?
If the candidate is willing, huzzah! We’re in it to the end.
…
Letter from London: The NHS in the UK 2020. What does it mean to people?
By Anthony Goodman and Sue Goodman
Margaret Thatcher famously said that there was no such thing as society. The current coronavirus and the magnificent recent response of the majority of people in the UK demonstrates that this very selfish and narrow view of society is very wrong. Indeed, on 30 March 2020 the current Prime Minister, recovering from the coronavirus, commented that “One thing the coronavirus has proved is that there really is such a thing as society.” How times change!
The NHS is an important icon for all that is best in British society and no political party would dare to try to end it. Having said that, in recent years under different conservative governments, there has been a move towards hiving off elements into the private sector. Perhaps now this will be rolled back or will not continue. With the ending of European Union membership and moves to move closer to other countries, including the United States, there has been discussion whether this would open up the NHS to competition, whether it is ‘up for sale’? This, and the importing of chlorinated washed chicken, would generate much media attention.
At 8 pm on 26 March 2020 after a tweet went viral, many members of the British public went to their front doors and windows, or to their balconies, with saucepans and spoons, or just their hands, to applaud the work being carried out by NHS staff throughout the UK. The response to a government request for recently retired and newly qualified staff to join the NHS has also been remarkable.
Both of Sue’s parents were doctors, and she can recall her mother telling her of her joy at the foundation of the NHS on 5th July 1948, less than a month before she was born. Healthcare for everyone, taking away, for example, the need for parents to choose which prescribed medication they could afford to buy for their sick children.
Every day, during the COVID 19 pandemic, there has been public praise for the work of all healthcare staff. There has been severe disruption of normal operations. Regular outpatient appointments have been cancelled, although for some, phone consultations have replaced them. Routine operations have been postponed. Concentration is being put into supporting people who are seriously ill. Anthony’s brother, recently diagnosed with non-hodgkin lymphoma has started chemotherapy, a sudden temperature spike and emergency call for an ambulance resulted in instant hospital admission and treatment. The system is under serious pressure but is functioning.
It does appear that, much as it has been felt, before this emergency, the NHS was at breaking point, with successive governments continuing to encourage outsourcing and privatisation of services, the present situation has brought the nation together to provide as much support as possible for NHS staff.
In 2019 Sue had prolonged treatment for non-hodgkin lymphoma. We are unable to think of any shortcomings in the care and professional support she received, or in the technology employed in diagnosing and treating her. We have nothing but praise for the NHS, as we watched very busy staff, at all levels, politely, professionally and passionately supporting and caring for her. In any consultation, when members of her family were present, they were always included and consulted. Sue was treated with dignity and compassion, especially when she was severely ill, and her needs, both medical and personal were met at all times: x-rays, biopsies, CAT scans, PET scans, stem cell transplant etc. all were made without heed of cost. It is free at the point of delivery.
Some ten years ago Anthony experienced some mild symptoms of chest discomfort when running and immediately after a GP visit was offered an ECG, a stress ECG and very quickly an angiogram. Two hours later he was told that an artery was completely blocked and immediately he had a stent fitted. There were no questions of cost, or waiting, it was an emergency and treated as such. That is the NHS at its best and how it has operated in the UK.
We asked a GP for their experience of working in the NHS at this time and these are her comments
I am a salaried GP (so employed by a practice) in the NHS in a big UK city. I’ve been working as a GP for about 18 months. We are currently in unprecedented times with the COVID-19 outbreak and facing problems that none of the staff at my practice have known in our lifetime.
We are a large practice so are lucky that we haven’t been as affected as some by current issues with staffing levels. Currently, any staff member who is unwell with possible CV symptoms has to be off work and self-isolate at home for 1 week but any household member has to self-isolate at home with them for 2 weeks. Many of the staff at my practice have young children with the usual coughs and colds common in this age group at this time of year, so they are having to stay off work for 2 weeks even if they feel completely well. We are able to do some things from home e.g. telephone consultations and look at blood results etc. This week we have been informed that testing is now available for some NHS staff locally – I think first for A&E, intensive care workers and paramedics. We are told that these may be available for GPs next week.
I have been lucky enough to not yet get ill and I live alone so no chance of needing to self-isolate due to a household member, so have been able to attend work on all my usual days. We are doing as many consultations as possible on the phone or on video consultations. Sometimes we are triaging patients on the phone but still needing to bring them in for physical examination. We are currently advised to wear PPE if the patient has had any cough or fever but if not, we are just advised to see them in usual clothing and not take any unusual precautions (apart from the usual hand washing and just being generally careful). The concern at the moment is that many asymptomatic patients are walking around so we are maybe seeing these patients about other issues and not realising. Unfortunately, we are not currently able to wear PPE with ALL patients as there is a worry that supplies will run out.
Most patients have been extremely understanding about the current situation and so we haven’t been overwhelmed with calls as I think many patients are postponing routine queries and problems. This is a worry as well as ‘after COVID-19’ (whenever that may be) we are expecting then a huge influx of people needing consultations about routine issues. Many of these may not actually end up being routine as they may be things that need referring urgently for suspected cancer but patients were not aware of the seriousness of symptoms or did not realise that suspected cancer referrals are still being seen at the moment. Therefore we are worried that cancers diagnoses may be delayed.
Currently we are being informed that all routine outpatient appointments and operations are being delayed locally (indefinitely) so we are getting lots of patient contacting us who are in pain and not sure what to do – difficult as we can only do so much! Referrals for suspected cancer are all running as usual as far as I am aware.
We are having meetings at work every morning to update each other on any changes to guidelines and advice and support each other. We’re a close team. In a lot of ways I feel lucky to be able to still be going in to work and having some sense of normality and contact with colleagues! I’m expecting things to be all change this week as our hospitals become saturated and there is overspill into the community. We have many elderly housebound patients who we’d usually visit regularly and we’re not really seeing at the moment – I worry about them!
I’m always proud to be part of the NHS but even more so at the current time as everyone is coming together and showing the best of themselves and their devotion to helping others. In our surgery we have all had a bit of a ‘calm before the storm’ feeling for the last few weeks and I expected the storm to hit us in the next 1-2 weeks. Everyone is keen to do whatever we can to help at the moment.
This sums up the current state of play that has seen the best and worst of the human condition. Empty shelves in supermarkets due to panic buying but overwhelmingly, a sense of altruism that we need to be thinking of each other at this time. Medical staff have come out of retirement to support the NHS and the public will be prepared to pay for its continuation as a public service. There would be a puzzled response to the question why the richest nation on earth has so many people without public health cover? The NHS may be under resourced and stretched but it holds a special place in the UK amongst its population and this will not change.
…
Another article of interest:
An often overlooked region of India is a beacon to the world for taking on the Coronavirus – The Southern Indian state of Kerala has led the way in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic enacting key public health measures as well as economic and social measures to protect the population
“Be Responsible. No More Flights to Hawaii.”
By David Bacon
James
“Jiro” Yuda holds a sign at the entrance to the access road to the
Hilo, Hawaii, airport. It reads, in part, “Be Responsible. No More
Flights to Hawaii.” Yuda, 44, is the former deputy public defender on the
Big Island, and now works in the Family Law Division of the Hawaii Department
of the Attorney General. “I’m doing this,” he tells Capital
& Main, “because someone has to. Our leaders have to accept the
reality of this situation, and what has to be done. We face an existential
threat.”
Yuda says his protest was motivated by the
inactivity of the Big Island’s political leaders in the face of the Covid-19
crisis. On March 20 Hawaii Lt. Governor Josh Green, an emergency room
physician on the Big Island, urged the state to suspend “all non-essential
travel” in and out of the islands. Some airlines have stopped or
limited their service, including Hawaiian Airlines, which suspended its nonstop
service between Maui and Las Vegas.
In the meantime, the Big Island’s County
Council urged Governor David Ige and island Mayor Harry Kim to impose a 15-day
lockdown with a mandatory “shelter-in-place” order if conditions
deteriorate, a move the mayor continues to oppose. In the meantime, another
council resolution urged a limited restriction allowing only “essential
businesses” to operate. Hawaii has a state government, and each
island is a county with a mayor and council.
Kim has argued that it is sufficient for the
island to help businesses use preventative practices and for the county to
sanitize its public areas. In a broadcast statement last Tuesday Kim
announced, “The County of Hawaii will maintain all of its services and
operators as normal.” He called a state directive on restaurant and
church closures “a guide” and declared, “Within this county,
restaurants, bars and places of worship may make their own decision as to open
or close.”
Some Big Island restaurants have begun serving take-out food only, while others still have table service. In the island’s numerous farmers’ markets, booths selling items other than food are now banned, while others selling fruit and vegetables from local farms continue. Hilo’s Farmers’ Market, normally thronged with people, has seemed virtually deserted, while other markets have closed entirely.
Yuda feels more urgent measures are necessary, like those imposed in California by Governor Gavin Newsom. “We can’t carry on like this,” he warns. “Look at what’s happened in Italy.” Hawaii’s economy is more dependent on tourism than any other state’s, and stopping travel to and from the islands would have an enormous impact, especially on workers in the tourism industry. While stringent measures will cause sacrifices, he acknowledges, “You can’t work if you’re dead. We have to put life before the economy.”
Yuda is one of 10 candidates who have filed papers to run against Kim in the next mayoral election-a primary on August 8 and general election on November 3. Yuda says his priorities are public safety and climate change.
…
All photos copyright David Bacon 2020
Fear at Work
By Kurt Stand
Worry slowly mounted over the past few weeks – but worry about what? I work at a bookstore that is part of a restaurant and event space. Since the New Year there has been – like the spread of coronavirus itself — growing concern about the disease, slight at first, then becoming deeper and more profound. For some, the danger has seemed exaggerated, for others danger signs were seen everywhere. By contrast, simultaneously a fear spread shared equally by all my co-workers – fear of loss of income, loss of job. That economic insecurity, more palpable, more familiar, easier to grasp and discuss, joined the nameless fear of illness. Taken together, we have lived a life of nervous anxiety.
All this contributed to an odd sensibility about customers, those coming in for a meal, to attend an event, to buy a book. After all, unlike a grocery store or pharmacy, no one “has to” go to a restaurant and so we wondered why folks might risk their health by going out to eat. Yet of course, we all wanted them to come, because if they didn’t our jobs would be gone. Initially, despite the looming threat, people came. Then, overnight, there was a drop off. Events were hit first, with attendance down and then cancelled. As news reports announced the virus’ arrival in the vicinity, numbers eating out fell more. And with that, so too did book purchases – even though some bought in case they should have time on their hands, others said, quite sensibly, now might be the time to read books that for too long have been sitting on a shelf at home. Servers, reliant on tips, were most impacted. Each day, more staff had shorter hours. Each day there was the hope people wouldn’t be sensible, they would come in, mixed with the fear that someone infectious might enter too and infect us. Both the reality and what we thought about that reality became unsustainable as the news worsened hour by hour.
New rules were set – groups seated at a table had to be of six or less, booths and tables where diners sat had to be separated by an empty one; people should not sit or stand at the bar. All rules that proved hard to enforce. What do you say to two couples with three children who come for a meal? With a sense of foreboding, loud, boisterous crowds drank away at the bar one evening. The next, according to the rules, no bar service. Finally, the announcement: the governor declared all restaurants closed until the public health crisis passed. The last day, our regulars who come by themselves either to work with a cup of coffee or to have breakfast alone but not alone, all showed. Then the curtain closed.
The Governor’s decision was the correct one, no doubt. Public health is another way of describing taking care of each other. But it is not an easy road. While it is true no one has to eat out, it is also true that a shared meal outside of one’s home has an intrinsic value that can’t be easily measured. So too does browsing through a bookstore before making a purchase. The loss of such, when added to all the other closures involved in a quarantine, is real. It is a loss those of us who worked at this restaurant share in our own private lives.
I began by writing that I work at a bookstore, I now have to add an “ed” to that word. At the stroke of a pen, we were unemployed. For some the loss is harder than others – one co-worker was laid off from another job, her husband’s hours were cut on a job that won’t last much longer either. I wished her luck as she left with her child, blithely unaware of what’s going on because of the brave, friendly face she wore. I have my own challenges, as do we all living within that palpable, familiar territory of unemployment, of income loss and just the sense of loss.
And meanwhile, the nameless worry about our health, the health of our family, friends, neighbors, remain. As does the unanswered question: what will we do about it?
…
If you have thoughts about “Life in a Pandemic” please let the co-editors of the Stansbury Forum hear from you by using the “Share you opinion, leave a reply” below.
Food chains for the un-housed are stressed
By Robert Gumpert and Peter Olney
The unhoused depend on a network of resources for food. CORVIN-19 has severely affected that network and it’s ability to deliver food where needed.
Below is a list current as of the 20th of March of organizations that are serving the un-housed in San Francisco. If you are one of our readers in the Bay Area we urge you to contact one of the places about helping, in whatever way possible, with food. If you aren’t in the Bay Area check around where you are for similar programs.
Thanks. Robert Gumpert/Peter Olney, co-editors of the Stansbury Forum.
.
Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing
Meals and Food Resources Update 2020-03-20
Here are a few updates on food that have been gone over during our Provider calls this week.
Please support and remind participants that getting food is an essential activity even during the shelter in place order in San Francisco. It’s important to stay as up to date as you can of all the free food options that are still in operation across the city for your participants. While many programs have adjusted how they are providing food, they are still operational. Congregate meal programs such as St. Anthony’s, Glide, and Mother Browns are still feeding people by handing out to-go meals. Participants should utilize these options.
Glide and St.Anthony’s 330 Ellis St, San Francisco
Monday – Friday
Breakfast
7:30 AM – Senior and Adults w/ Disabilities
8:00 AM – General Public
Lunch
Clients will be referred to St. Anthony’s at 150 Golden Gate Avenue for lunch
Dinner
4:00 PM – General Public
Saturday – Sunday
Breakfast
7:30 AM – Senior and Adults w/ Disabilities
8:00 AM – General Public
Lunch
Clients will receive additional to-go bag lunches to take with them as they exit the breakfast line
Clients can access lunch at St. Anthony’s
Mother Brown’s (they maybe looking for delivery persons)
Breakfast: 7:00 AM – 9:00 AM
Dinner: 5:00 PM – 7:00 PM
Martin de Porres 225 Potrero Avenue • San Francisco, CA 94103 (415) 552-0240
Tuesday to Saturday : Noon – 2pm
Sunday and Monday: 9am – 10am
Families
In addition families with school age children should be utilizing the free meal
program that SFUD is operating right now, information found here https://www.sfusd.edu/services/health-wellness/nutrition-school-meals
Food Bank
We would like all programs that were operating food pantries at
their sites to continue to do so or if you have stopped to start again.
Food distribution can be done safely by packing and handing out individual bags
of groceries.
Also — please use the Food Bank’s resources. Here is the link to where you can locate their current and expanding food pantries: https://www.sfmfoodbank.org/find-food/ or on their website use their “food locator tool”
If you already have an account with the Food Bank please reach out to your neighborhood representative to talk through your current needs and what resources they have.
Food Runners
Food Runners has been a great resource to support meal drop-offs at sites of
donations they receive, often of perishable foods. Please connect with them by
emailing dispatcher@foodrunners.org.
Finally, one more reminder to reach out to 440turk@sfgov.org with additional concerns and needs when it comes to your food resources. We also understand at this time that many programs are expanding their own food budget and resources for their participants. We greatly appreciate all that you are doing.
…
Why Sunday’s debate left me cold and angry
By Robert Gumpert
Watched as much of Sunday’s “debate” as I could stand. Bernie started well but soon both candidates were back to more of the same and I turned them off.
For Bernie to win, and perhaps for any Democrat to win in November, he needs to be big – he needs to lead, and the times have offered up the opportunity.
While viewing myself as progressive, even anti-capitalist, I have no thought-out political philosophy or clear political line of thought. I come from a mother who fled the Nazis and who was an artist of many disciplines but as a single mom couldn’t raise a kid without a “real” job. She worked for 25 years as a clerk in a grocery store. She was a member of Local 770 in LA, at the time a “business union” in all bad respects of that term. She was on every picket line. I grew up union and working class but, like her, feel split identities. I did not inherit her intellect, nor fully her courage.
Given 40 years of doing photography, and sometimes journalism, I am convinced of one thing: I get along with the segments of society that I work with because, in part, I am like them.
Why am I saying all this? Simply that is how I listen to the debates. In this time of pandemic and total shit storm in DC I am not interested in Bernie’s views on “Health care for All” and income disparity – I know them. I am not interested in hearing Biden drone on about he can get stuff down and how well Obama’s bailout worked (I remember how Not Well it worked and how so many who should have paid, did not. I remember how so many that should not have paid such a price did, and continue to).
I want to hear what YOU are going to do NOW: today, tomorrow and in the weeks coming to put food and supplies back on the shelves. To get hospitals ready for whatever is coming. To distribute nationally the supplies that some states will have in surplus and others will be short of. If those over 70 are confined to their homes, how will they survive? Who will check in on them? What will the country do if armed vigilantes – Trump cultists – begin trying to take power in local areas. What sort of economic protections will be put in place so the working class (poor and otherwise) and those quarantined. Those whose services are shut off. Those that face eviction, loose their homes, or car. And what about the homeless – how can any plan that ignores the public health risks be effective?
As the immediate problem of illness, containment and care are gotten in hand, thinking and planning for the economic effects must be openly debated. (In a sane world there would already be people working on different avenues of recovery.) If, as happened today (16 March), the market continues its decline because of the administration in DC then adults are in danger of losing their belongings and retirement. The young are in danger of losing their futures. Both candidates should be all over this.
Bernie, as a Senator, is in a position to take the lead. Biden is not. Bernie does not have to retire from the race to do this. He does have to announce that he will now be focused fulltime fon working in the Senate, working with Senators from across the board, bringing in experts to advise, and introducing measures that will effectively deal with the virus, health conditions, hospital needs, and economic issues for both caregivers and victims. He, or another Democratic Senator or expert, needs to be on-air everyday with constructive moves to deal with current and coming developments. He needs to take control of the party, to fill the vacuum, while being inclusive with other members of the Senate. He does not need to ask permission, he is one of the last two Democratic candidates, the only one with real power because he is a Senator.
He needs to run by leading, not campaigning. He needs to be the leader we all need now: a person calming the country’s fears, bringing us together so that we can all move forward.
As a member of this society I want to hear from that person – be it Bernie or Biden. Currently the loudest voice is the TV barker selling hate, distrust and disunity.
…
TWO DECADES AGO, MEXICO’S HUGE UNIVERSITY STRIKE DEFENDED FREE TUITION AND ACCESS
By David Bacon
Historic photographs of Mexico’s huge protest over the arrest of students and the invasion of its premier university – all photos David Bacon
Twenty years ago Mexico’s Federal government moved to end the huge student strike at the National Autonomous University (UNAM). The strike, which began in 1999, reverberated far beyond Mexico. Like the WTO protest in Seattle, which took place at the same time, it became a global symbol of resistance to pressure by international financial institutions for austerity policies and the privatization of public services.
Social protests erupting throughout that period adopted radical tactics of taking over public spaces and impeding business as usual. The UNAM strike, however, was not just a brief confrontation in the streets. It lasted almost a year, during which students occupied the campus and shut down the operation of one of the world’s largest universities.
The strike was organized to defend the historic principle of free tuition at Mexico’s premier institution of higher education – with 270,000 students one of the largest and most respected in Latin America. Their key demand was repeal of a newly-instituted tuition in an institution that had always been free. The International Monetary Fund was demanding economic reforms, including ending government subsidies for public services. The government claimed it intended to charge only a symbolic amount – 800 pesos a semester ($85).
But students and university unions feared layoffs and other cost-cutting measures. Even 800 pesos was hardly a symbolic amount for many in Mexico. According to Alejandro Alvarez Bejar, dean of UNAM’s economics faculty, the average 5-member family at the time had an income of 5-6000 pesos (then $625-$750) a month, based on three of the five family members working full time. Millions of families earned less.
Students also charged that tuition and other reforms were part of a larger project to begin privatizing education. And in fact, over the next two decades Mexico’s national government did try to impose corporate education reforms modeled after those in the U.S., much as the students predicted.
In the twenty years following the strike, a virtual war was fought by teachers against the national government, not just over tuition, but to reverse the neoliberal direction of Mexico’s education policies. These battles culminated in the shooting of nine people at Nochixtlan, Oaxaca during a teachers’ strike, and the disappearance of 43 students at the teacher training school in Ayotzinapa, Guerrero. Finally, the conflicts helped fuel the election of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, eighteen years after the UNAM uprising.
On taking office Lopez Obrador echoed the criticisms and demands of that seminal student strike. “Neoliberal economic policy has been a disaster, a calamity for the public life of the country,” he told the Mexican Congress. “We will put aside the neoliberal hypocrisy. Those born poor will not be condemned to die poor.” And speaking to tens of thousands of people afterwards in Mexico City’s zocalo, he promised that “the so-called educational reform will be canceled, and the right to free education will be established [as mandated by] Article 3 of the Constitution at all levels of schooling.”
The UNAM strike of 2000, therefore, was a class battle, but also one played out in the arena of electoral politics. In the year of the strike, Mexico’s national government was still controlled by its old ruling party, the Party of the Institutionalized Revolution (PRI). The PRI sought to use the uproar over the conflict to prevent a rising leftwing political tide from winning that year’s presidential election.
In two previous national elections the leftwing Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) almost succeeded in taking power. In 1988 only massive fraud prevented its candidate, Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, from becoming president. In 1994, the ruling PRI campaigned successfully to elect Ernesto Zedillo by identifying Cardenas, who was again the PRD candidate, with the armed Zapatista rising in Chiapas. A vote for the PRI was portrayed as a vote for social stability, against armed conflict and social unrest.
In 2000 the PRI nominated Francisco Labastida, and Cardenas was the PRD presidential candidate for a third time. Labastida called for arresting the students as a response to what he called growing social chaos, much as Zedillo had used the suppression of the Zapatistas. In 1998, however, the mayor of Mexico City, one of the world’s largest urban centers, became an elected position for the first time. The PRD’s Cardenas was voted into this crucial office. After a year he resigned, however, in order to run for president once again. Rosario Robles, a PRD leader, then became mayor – the most powerful woman elected to office in Mexico.
By then the strike had started, and the students had broad public support, especially from the union for the university’s workers (STUNAM – Sindicato de Trabajadores de UNAM). Nevertheless, Mexico’s national PRI government never tried to negotiate with either students or teachers. Instead, it tried to order Robles to use the city police to occupy the campus and arrest students. She refused, saying it would violate the Mexican constitution. Cooperation would also have been viewed by PRD members as a political betrayal.
Instead, after the strike had gone on for nine months, the PRI itself intervened to occupy the campus, using its new anti-drug strike force, as well as army troops in police uniforms. Armed Federal agents arrested and jailed the leaders of the General Strike Committee (CGM – Consejo General de la Huelga), which students had created to organize demonstrations and the occupation of the campus.
After the arrests, Labastida criticized Robles, but in Mexico City the massive repression backfired. People were shocked when the military and police stormed onto the campus, a reminder of the violent and bloody massacre of students in 1968. Mexico, like most Latin American countries, has a tradition of university autonomy, which prohibits presence of government armed forces on the grounds of UNAM. In response over a hundred thousand people marched through the city to protest on February 9, 2000, an event documented in these photographs. During the march, large labor union contingents were interspersed among the students, in an effort to make difficult the arrest of those the government still sought.
The move by the PRI to end the strike killed its chances of winning Mexico City for Labastida. The most popular chant in the huge march was “Not one vote for the PRI!” But the Mexican countryside outside of Mexico City is more conservative, and the government’s message wasn’t intended for chilangos (Mexico City residents) anyway. In small towns and villages, the message of maintaining social stability was intended to keep the continued loyalty of a small, wealthy elite and the votes they controlled.
In the end, Labastida lost, but not to the PRD. People disgusted with the PRI’s long corrupt reign, but manipulated by its social chaos propaganda, voted instead for Vicente Fox, candidate of the rightwing National Action Party. Students and their supporters paid the price. The charges against them were extreme. While the government admitted there was only minor damage to classrooms, 85 student leaders were charged with terrorism and denied bail. Arrest warrants were issued for another 400.
Nevertheless, the PRD’s own relations with student leaders were often very difficult, although many strike participants were sons and daughters of the leftwing party’s members. But the arrests united a very divided opposition. “While there were many disagreements on strike strategy, the government’s action brought everyone together,” said Jesus Martin del Campo, vice-chair of the PRD delegation in the Chamber of Deputies, and a founder of the radical caucus in the national teachers’ union. “We all agreed that arresting the students and occupying the campus was wrong.”
While the arrests and the police invasion of the campus were the immediate issues that brought together city residents, the underlying reason for the outpouring of support was economic. UNAM had been the place where Mexico’s elite educated its children – the one place in Mexican society where they mixed with children of the working class. That mixing was a product of the free tuition and open access, guaranteed in the Mexican constitution in the wake of the revolution at the start of the twentieth century. Beginning in the 1980s, however, the wealthy increasingly began sending their children to private universities, which grew rapidly. They often went on to postgraduate work in the U.S., a choice unavailable to those without the money to pay for it.
The situation for most UNAM students was far different, however. Explained Alvarez Bejar, head of the economy faculty at UNAM, “Young people, when they get married, still live with their parents since they can’t earn enough to live independently. This was a key argument during the UNAM strike, and the reason why it had so much support.” PRD Senator Rosalbina Garabito, an economist, called the tuition proposal part of a larger picture. “The Mexican government has been enforcing an economic policy using high unemployment and falling wages to attract foreign investment,” she said at the time. “Mexican workers have lost 70% of their buying power since 1982. For every 10 new jobs created, 6.7 have salaries below the level workers actually need to survive. We need to democratize the country, not just change political parties.”
It took another 18 years and three elections for the left to win Mexico’s national contest. And when in 2018 Lopez Obrador, himself a former Mexico City mayor, was elected president, it was still far from clear that he could implement his promised change in direction. The student strike of 2000, however, had shown long before that militant direct action could mobilize broad political support for education as a basic human right.
…
