Tuesday, May 07, 2024

 

Why the media have failed Gaza


The media’s job is to create the impression of uncertainty, doubt and confusion. Our job is to explode that lie, denying them and the political class they protect an alibi

[This is a transcript of my full speech for the Bristol Palestine Alliance’s March Against Media Bias at College Green, Bristol, on Saturday May 4.]

Yesterday was World Press Freedom Day, and it is fitting we mark it by highlighting two things.

First, we should honour the brave journalists of Gaza who have paid a horrifying price for making the Palestinian experience of genocide visible to western audiences over the past seven months.

Israel has killed a tenth of their number – some 100 journalists – as it tries to prevent the truth of its atrocities from getting out. Israel’s has been most deadly eruption of violence against journalists ever recorded.

Second, we must shame the western media – not least the BBC – who have so utterly betrayed their Palestinian colleagues by failing to properly report the destruction of Gaza, or name it as a genocide.

The BBC aired only the briefest coverage of South Africa’s devastating case against Israel at the International Court of Justice in January – a case so powerful the court has put Israel on trial for genocide. A fact you would barely know from the BBC’s reporting.

By contrast, the corporation cleared the schedules to present in full Israel’s hollow legal response.

The BBC’s double standards are all the more glaring if we recall how it reported Ukraine, also invaded by a hostile army – Russia’s.

Only two years ago the BBC dedicated its main news headlines to Kyiv’s citizens mass-producing molotov cocktails with which to greet Russian soldiers closing in on their city.

BBC Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen felt emboldened to post – apparently approvingly – a diagram showing weak points where the improvised explosives would do most damage to Russian tanks, and the soldiers inside.

Two years later, in its coverage of Israel’s assault on Gaza, the same BBC has performed a 180-degree turn.

It is quite impossible to imagine Bowen or any other British journalist posting instructions on how Palestinians might burn alive Israeli soldiers in their tanks – even though those soldiers, unlike Russia’s, have been occupying and stealing Palestinian lands for decades, not two years.

Israeli soldiers, unlike Russian soldiers, are now actively enforcing a genocidal policy of starvation.

But the double standards of establishment media like the BBC aren’t directed only towards the people of Gaza. They are directed at us, the public, too.

The same media that celebrated families taking in Ukrainian refugees has willingly conspired in the smearing of those whose only crime is that they wish to stop the slaughter of 15,000-plus Palestinian children in Gaza.

There is apparently nothing heroic about opposing Israel’s genocide, even if opposing Russia’s invasion is still treated as a badge of honour.

The media give politicians a free pass to vilify as an antisemite anyone outraged that UK weapons are being used to help kill, maim and orphan many, many tens of thousands of Palestinian children. That accusation assumes that every Jew supports this slaughter, and erases all those Jews standing alongside us today at this protest.

In the US, police forces are beating and arresting students who have peacefully called on their universities to stop investing in the arming of Israel’s genocide. When the police pulled back at UCLA, it was only to allow pro-Israel thugs to assault the students – again many of them Jews.

A clear war is being waged against the right to protest against a genocide. And in tandem, the media has declared a war on the English language.

The roles of aggressor and victim have been reversed. The BBC accused the students, encamped on university grounds, of “clashing” with pro-Israel groups that invaded the campus to violently attack them.

What explains these glaring inconsistencies, this gigantic failure by a media that’s supposed to act as a watchdog on the abuse of power.

Part of the answer is old-school racism. Ukrainains look like us, as some reporters let slip, and therefore deserve our solidarity. Palestinians, it seems, do not.

But there is another, more important answer. The establishment media isn’t really a watchdog on the abuse of power. It never was. It is a narrative factory, there to create stories that make those abuses of power possible.

State and billionaire-owned media achieve this goal through various sleights of hand.

First, they omit stories that might disrupt the core narrative.

The media’s script is a simple one:

What the West and its allies do is always well-meant, however horrific the outcomes.

And what the West does, however provocative or foolhardy, can never be cited as an explanation for what our “enemies” do.

No cause and no effect. They, whoever we select, are simply savage. They are evil. Theyare out to destroy civilisation. They must be stopped.

Nightly for weeks, I have watched the BBC news. If it were all I relied on, I would barely know that Israel is daily bombing the refugee camps of Rafah that are supposedly a “safe zone”.

Or that Israel continues to engineer a famine by blocking aid, and that Palestinians continue to die of hunger.

Or that the UK has actively assisted the creation of that famine by denying UNRWA funding.

Or that the protests to end the Gaza genocide – painted as terror-supporting and antisemitic – are backed by many, many Jews, some of them here today.

And of course, I would have little idea that Israel’s imprisonment and slaughter of Palestinians did not begin on October 7 with Hamas’ attack.

That’s because the BBC continues to ignore the siege of Gaza as the context for October 7 – just as it and the rest of the media largely ignored the 17-year siege throughout the years Israel was enforcing it.

If I relied on the BBC, I would not understand that what Israel is doing can be neither “retaliation”, nor a “war”. You can’t go to war, or retaliate, against a people whose territory you have been belligerently occupying and stealing for decades.

And when the media can no longer omit, it distracts – through strategies of deflection, misdirection and minimisation.

So when Gaza makes the news, as it rarely does now, it is invariably filtered through other lenses.

The focus is on interminable negotiations, on Israel’s plans for the “day after”, on the agonies of the hostages’ families, on the fears evoked by protest chants, on where to draw the line on free speech.

Anything to avoid addressing a genocide that’s been carried out in broad daylight for seven months.

In their defence, establishment journalists tell us that they have a duty to be impartial. Their critics, they say, do not understand how news operations work.

As a journalist who spent years working in major newsrooms, I can assure you this is a self-serving lie.

Just this week, an interview went viral of the Norway Broadcasting Corporation interviewing Israeli government spokesman David Mencer. Unlike on the BBC, Mencer’s lies did not pass unchallenged.

The Norwegian journalist spent 25 minutes unpicking his falsehoods and deceptions, one by one. It was revelatory to see an Israeli spokesperson’s claims stripped away, layer by layer, until he stood there naked, his lies exposed.

It can be done – if there is a will to do it.

Journalists at the BBC and the rest of the establishment media understand, however implicitly, that their job is to fail. It is to fail to investigate the genocide in Gaza. It is to fail to give voice to the powerless. It is to fail to provide context and aid understanding. It is to fail to show solidarity with their colleagues in Gaza being killed for their journalism.

Rather, the BBC’s role is to protect the political establishment from ever being held to account for their complicity in genocide.

The establishment media’s job is to create the impression of uncertainty, of doubt, of confusion – even when what is happening is crystal clear.

When one day, the World Court finally gets round to issuing a ruling on Israel’s genocide, our politicians and media will claim they could not have known, that they were misled, that they could not see clearly because events were shrouded by the “fog of war”.

Our job is to explode that lie, to deny them an alibi. It is to keep pointing out that the information was there from the start. They knew, if only because we told them.

And one day, if there is any justice, they will stand in the dock – at the Hague – their excuses stripped away.


Jonathan Cook, based in Nazareth, Israel is a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). Read other articles by Jonathan, or visit Jonathan's website.

 

If This Is 1968 over Again, More Popular Upheaval Is on the Way


Mass graves, the criminalization of dissent, systematic slaughter glorified as self-defense, resisting students making history. Yes, the current nightmare does seem reminiscent of 1968, the year kaleidoscopic change burst forth seemingly everywhere at once.

On January 31, the beginning of Tet, eighty-thousand Vietnamese troops issued Washington a formal eviction notice, attacking all the major cities and towns of colonial South Vietnam. Blasting through the walls of the U.S. Embassy compound, they killed two military police and holding off a helicopter assault for seven hours. Government employees arrived at work to find corpses twisted over the ornamental shrubbery and pools of blood in the white gravel rocks of the embassy garden.

They shelled the U.S. naval base at Camrahn Bay and threw open the jails in Quang Ngai city, setting thousands free. They marched nearly unresisted into the ancient capital of Hue and raised the Vietcong flag from its Citadel. They forced the U.S. to raze half the city to the ground at Ben Tre, which an American officer infamously justified on the grounds that, “We had to destroy the town to save it.”

After endless boasts of imminent victory, U.S. troops being home by Christmas, and the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel, the Vietnamese Tet Offensive proved beyond all doubt that a U.S. military victory in Vietnam was not in the cards.

Wall Street turned against the war.

In March, LBJ discovered his Vietnam policy had left him no path to a second term. Though elected in a landslide in 1964, four years later his “Great Society” had turned to riot and left him a lonely prisoner of the White House. Wherever he went he was besieged by throngs of outraged students taunting him with “that horrible song” – “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” No matter how many speeches he canceled or how abruptly he changed his travel plans he could not avoid being “chased on all sides by a giant stampede.” The people were firing the president.

Support for escalation in Vietnam had evaporated. Worried that fulfilling General Westmoreland’s request for 206,000 more troops would leave Washington insufficiently protected against the threat of insurrection at home, a Council of Wise Men told a shocked Johnson to cut his losses and withdraw from the war before it tore the U.S. apart.

By then 150,000 Americans were dead or injured and much of Southeast Asia had been annihilated by a U.S. military machine that could do everything but stop. On March 31 Johnson went on nationwide TV to announce his forced retirement: “I shall not seek, and will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your President.”

Four days later Dr. King was assassinated for having publicly connected the dots between domestic racism and imperial war. A year to the day before he was shot he was widely condemned for a speech he gave before a crowd of three thousand at Riverside Church in New York City, where he did not mince words about the war:

“The peasants watched as we supported a ruthless dictatorship in South Vietnam which aligned itself with extortionist landlords and executed its political opponents. The peasants watched as we poisoned their water, bombed and machine-gunned their huts, annihilated their crops, and sent them wandering into the towns, where thousands of homeless children wandered the streets like animals, begging for food and selling their mothers and sisters to American soldiers. What do the peasants think as we test our weapons on them, as the Germans tested new medicines and tortures in Europe’s concentration camps? . . . .We have destroyed their land and crushed their only non-Communist revolutionary political force – the Unified Buddhist Church. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men. What liberators!”

A year later he was in Memphis to help striking Memphis garbage workers. The night of April 3 an exhausted and dispirited King was already in his pajamas and ready for bed when he received a call from Reverend Ralph Abernathy at Mason Temple, informing him that two thousand people had braved tornado warnings and a driving rain to hear him speak. “I really think you should come down,” pleaded Abernathy. “The people want to hear you, not me. This is your crowd.”

Dr. King got dressed and went out into the stormy night.

In the blaze of lights at the podium, he appeared nervous. He told his audience that if he were at God’s side on the dawn of creation he would ask to see Moses liberating his people, Plato and Aristotle debating philosophy, Renaissance Europe, Luther tacking his ninety-five theses on the church door, Lincoln emancipating the slaves, and Roosevelt charting a path to the New Deal. But he would not dally in those times or places, he said, preferring to move on and experience just a few years in the second half of the twentieth century, when masses around the world rose up to say: “We want to be free.”

Dr. King, abandoned by militants, vilified by the press, stalked by death and the FBI, felt deeply grateful to share in the freedom struggles that heaped his life with hardship.

With the crowd shouting its approval, he bellowed that he had been to the mountaintop and seen the Promised Land. Brushing aside prospects of premature death, he said that longevity had its place, but that on that night he was not worried about any thing, not fearing any man.

A burning passion in his eyes, his voice rising to a shattering crescendo, he declared his last will and testament: “Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!”

The next day as he was preparing to go out to dinner with friends a bullet exploded into his face, severed his spine, and brought him crashing abruptly down on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel.

Reverend Abernathy bolted to his side, crying out to those in the parking lot below: “Oh my God, Martin’s been shot!”

Dr. King, a look of terror in his eyes, clutched uselessly at his throat. His head lay in an expanding pool of blood. Abernathy tried to comfort him. “This is Ralph, this is Ralph, don’t be afraid.” Reverend King, still conscious, his magnificent voice silenced forever, couldn’t answer. But Abernathy felt he was communicating through his eyes.

In King’s motel room, Reverend Billy Kyle repeatedly banged his head against the wall as he screamed into the phone for an operator. Dashing up sobbing from the parking lot, Andrew Young groped for a pulse, then screamed: “Oh my God, my God, it’s all over!”

Everywhere at once riots erupted and cities burned.

Three weeks after King’s assassination Columbia exploded in protest. President Grayson Kirk, alarmed at the growing youth rebellion, announced that in disturbing numbers young people rejected all forms of authority, which was just another way of saying that all forms of authority were increasingly recognized to have discredited themselves.

Hundreds of students promptly took over the university, hoisting red flags, establishing community government, and barricading themselves inside campus buildings.

They purloined documents from Kirk’s office showing that the university was secretly promoting classified war research and working to “clean up” the neighborhood by moving out its Black and Puerto Rican residents. Resurrecting the spirit of the Paris Commune, the students debated meaning and tactics, relaxed to Dylan and the Beatles, and celebrated romance. Two students even got married, escorted to the center of an applauding circle by a candlelight procession of fellow protestors.

Eight days into deadlocked negotiations a thousand blue collar police were turned loose on the defecting sons and daughters of the Ivy League. Attacking with clubs and brass knuckles, they rioted for three hours, smashing up furniture and beating everyone in sight while carrying out a bloody mass arrest.

One hundred and twenty charges of police brutality were filed against the police department, the most in its history. Echoing the recently assassinated Che Guevara, Tom Hayden called for “one, two, many Columbias” in romantic hopes of bringing the racist imperial state tumbling down.

Days after the start of the Columbia revolt, student radicals in Paris surged into the streets chorusing “all power to the imagination,” propelling France to the brink of cultural revolution and setting the mighty franc to trembling.

Spontaneously embracing and kissing in the streets, tens of thousands of students and workers marched joyously together through the capital, waving red flags and singing the Internationale. Demanding workers’ power, peasants’ power, and students’ power, they announced the end of cooperation with soulless mechanization and bureaucratic arrogance.

On The Night Of The Barricades the fiercest street fighting since Liberation (WWII) shook the Latin Quarter as thousands of students marched in protest, overturning cars and trucks. The police attacked, beating them with clubs and rifle butts, kicking the rebels unconscious and dragging them through tear-gas clotted streets by the hair.  The students fought back with Molotov cocktails, filling them with siphoned gas and pushing vehicles into the middle of the street to serve as barricades. When the police charged, the protesters torched the cars and retreated behind sturdier lines while building residents tossed down water and wet cloths to aid their youthful comrades fighting with cobblestones.

A veteran of the clash reported, “I never felt the gas. I was never more alive.”

In 1968, even Catholic pacifists were moved to a more aggressive style of protest. On May 17, what became known as the Catonsville Nine entered the Catonsville, Maryland draft board office and doused a pile of draft records with their blood, then set them on fire with soap chips and gasoline, a homemade napalm recipe gleaned from a Green Beret handbook. While waiting to be arrested, they prayed and watched the records burn.

At their trial they spoke of United Fruit Company keeping Central American land fallow while the campesinos starved. They told of the CIA overthrowing the elected government of Guatemala and replacing it with a reign of butchers worthy of Hitler. Father Daniel Berrigan told of his visit to Hanoi, of the merciless U.S. bombings, of the weaponry certified improved through tests on Vietnamese flesh and bone. He read a statement explaining how simple humanity required the destruction of the draft files:

“Our apologies good friends . . . for the fracture of good order . . . the burning of paper instead of children . . . the angering of the orderlies in the front parlor of the charnel house . . . We could not so help us God do otherwise for we are sick at heart . . . our hearts give us no rest for thinking of the Land of Burning Children.”

In early June U.S. support for Israeli savagery caused Sirhan Sirhan to temporarily lose his mind. He had been just three years old when a series of violent episodes near his Jerusalem home scarred him for life. A dynamite bomb hurled by Zionists blew up a line of Arab passengers waiting for a bus at the Damascus Gate; a sudden burst of gunfire caused an army truck to swerve around a barrier and kill his older brother before his eyes; a British soldier blown up almost on his doorstep left behind a severed leg in a church tower and a finger in Sirhan’s back yard.

Nineteen years later Sirhan was living in Pasadena when Israel bombed and napalmed Palestinian refugee camps, subjugating what remained of historic Palestine in the Six Day Land Grab (1967), a sequel to the driving out of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in 1948, among them Sirhan and his family.

With his people tasting another round of bitter injustice, Sirhan watched Senator Robert Kennedy wearing a yarmulke on television and promising to cut off U.S. aid to Arab states while sending fifty new Phantom jets to Israel. Shocked, angry, horrified, he fled the television set in tears, covering his ears with his hands.

He scribbled in his notebook: RFK must die.

At his trial for the assassination of Senator Kennedy, Sirhan testified to the assassination of an entire nation:

“Well, sir, when you move – when you move a whole country, sir, a whole people, bodily from their own homes, from their own land, from their own businesses, sir, outside their country, and introduce an alien people, sir, into Palestine – the Jews and the Zionists – that is completely wrong, sir, and it is unjust and the Palestinian Arabs didn’t do a thing, sir, to justify the way they were treated by the West.

“It affected me, sir, very deeply. I didn’t like it. Where is the justice involved, sir? Where is the love, sir, for fighting for the underdog? Israel is no underdog in the Middle East, sir. It’s those refugees that are underdogs. And because they have no way of fighting back, sir, the Jews, sir, the Zionists, just keep beating away at them. That burned the hell out of me.”

Nobody paid him the slightest attention.  In spite of Israel’s constant provocations and attacks, Jews were everywhere portrayed as heroic, avenging victims, Arabs as congenital terrorists, and Israel’s Six Day Land Grab as a glorious warding off of a second Holocaust. Facts were entirely irrelevant.

With hopes of a peace candidate now definitively crushed, all eyes turned to Chicago as the Democratic Party prepared to nominate Hubert Humphrey there as its candidate for the presidency. Eighty percent of Democratic voters had chosen to support either RFK or Eugene McCarthy in hopes of negotiating an end to the Vietnam slaughter. Faced with LBJ’s vice-president heading up the ticket, anti-war protesters vowed to lay siege to the city as a prelude to what they somehow imagined might become a revolution.

Protest was out of favor in the Windy City. In response to the nationwide riots that followed Dr. King’s assassination, the Chicago Tribune opined that “Here in Chicago we are not dealing with the colored population, but with a minority of criminal scum,” and urged Mayor Richard Daley not to be like the “spineless and indecisive mayors who muffed early riot control” in Newark (1967) and Los Angeles (1965). Daley obliged, ordering his police officers to “shoot to kill.”

Loathing “longhairs,” Daley refused to issue permits for protest marches, rallies, or sleeping in the parks. He ordered the city Ampitheatre fenced off with barbed wire, put all twelve thousand Chicago police on 12-hour shifts, and mobilized six thousand National Guard troops. He posted a thousand FBI agents around the city and placed six thousand U.S. Army troops outfitted with flamethrowers, bazookas, and bayonets around the suburbs. With police outnumbering protesters three or four to one, Tom Hayden told members of a New York audience to come to Chicago prepared to shed their blood.

As summer waned the Convention convened, and following days of dangerous cat-and-mouse games in the streets between police and protesters, a brownshirt riot ensued.

Shouting kill, kill, kill, a squadron of red-faced, blue-helmeted, club-wielding police charged out of a bus at full-speed and attacked a jeering crowd of onlookers outside the Conrad Hilton Hotel, beating, choking, kicking and macing everyone in their path, including medics sporting Red Cross armbands. Like maddened Samurai they mowed their victims down, charging again and again, leaving the battered bodies bleeding in the street. Loading them onto the ambulances, they beat them once more.

Eyes bulging with hate, they drove the crowd through the window of the Haymarket Lounge, jumping through the glass shards to upend tables and smash everything inside. They screamed “get the fuck out of here,” and “move your fucking ass,” beating even the startled patrons of the bar. Undeterred by the presence of live TV cameras, they rioted in clouds of tear gas for seventeen long minutes while the surrounding crowd chanted, “The whole world is watching, the whole world is watching.”

Across the street in his hotel shower Hubert Humphrey was briefly overcome from the effects of the gas, which he never was from the horrors of Vietnam.

When televised images of the bloodshed reached the floor of the Democratic Convention, Connecticut Senator Abraham Ribicoff stepped to the rostrum to denounce the “Gestapo tactics” of the police. In an instant Chicago Mayor Daley was on his feet, waving his arms and screaming in protest: “Fuck you, you Jew son of a bitch, you lousy motherfucker go home.”

As the ballots were being cast, footage of the police riot was beamed across the nation. Viewers saw Hubert Humphrey, irrepressible advocate of the politics of joy, nominated for president in a sea of blood.

Of course, all this was but child’s play compared to the unrestrained violence being inflicted on the slopes and dinks and zipperheads – otherwise known as the Vietnamese people – by the U.S. war machine in Vietnam. Two years later in Detroit, Vietnam Veterans gave chilling testimony as to the type of crimes being committed:

“ . . . they didn’t believe our body counts. So we had to cut off the right ear of everybody we killed to prove our body count.”

“ . . . we threw full C-ration cans at kids at the side of the road. Well, just for a joke, these guys would take a full can, and throw it as hard as they could at a kid’s head. I saw several kids’ heads split wide open.”

“The philosophy was that anybody running must be a Viet Cong; he must have something to hide or else he would stick around for the Americans, not taking into consideration that he was running from the Americans because they were continually shooting at him. So they shot down anybody who was running.”

“This was common policy. Kill anything you want to kill, any time you want to kill it – just don’t get caught.”

“ . . . the heads of the bodies were cut off and they were placed on stakes, jammed down on stakes, and were placed in the middle of the trails and a Cav patch was hammered into the top of his head, with Bravo Company’s ‘B’ written right on the patch.”

“I saw during my tour 20 deformed infants under the age of one . . . I thought it was congenital or something, from venereal disease, because they had flippers and things . . . it was common knowledge that Agent Orange was sprayed in the area.”

“Fugas is a jelly-like substance. It’s flammable . . . they explode the barrel over an area and this flaming, jelly-like substance lands on everything . . . people or animals or whatever.”

“You could take the wires of a jeep battery put it almost any place on their body, and you’re going to shock the hell out of the guy. The basic place you put it was the genitals.”

In other words, the conduct of the United States in Southeast Asia during the war years was nothing short of a complete disgrace. Washington dropped eight million tons of bombs and nearly four hundred thousand tons of napalm, leaving behind twenty-one million bomb craters. It killed over two million Cambodians, Vietnamese, and Laotians, wounded over three million more, and scattered fourteen million traumatized refugees throughout Indochina. It rained down eighteen million gallons of Agent Orange and other defoliants, creating forests bereft of trees, animals or birds, and cursing the war’s survivors with extraordinary rates of liver cancer, miscarriages, stillbirths, and birth defects. It left in its wake eighty-three thousand amputees, forty thousand people blinded or deaf, and hundreds of thousands of orphans, prostitutes, disabled, mentally ill, and drug addicts.

The total effect was nearly permanent, as journalist Donovan Webster discovered on a visit to Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon) in the mid-1990s.  There he saw a storage room stacked from floor to ceiling on all four sides with deformed fetuses, the final result of the Pentagon’s defoliation program begun three decades before. Some were double bodies fused together on a single torso, others had malformed faces, many had excess heads, fingers, and toes.

Donovan walked out of the storage room in shock.

In a nursery down the hall, a roomful of genetically-damaged orphans was overjoyed to meet the U.S. reporter come to visit them from overseas.

Sources:

 On Vietnam and the Tet Offensive:

Godfrey Hodgson, America In Our Time, (Vintage, 1976) p. 353-4; Frances Fitzgerald, Fire In The Lake – The Vietnamese and The Americans in Vietnam, (Vintage, 1972) p. 518-34; George McTurnan and John W. Lewis, The United States In Vietnam, (Delta, 1969) p. 371-3; Douglas Dowd, Blues For America, (Monthly Review, 1997) p. 153; Lawrence Wittner, Cold War America: From Hiroshima to Watergate, (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1978) p. 289; David Harris, Our War (Random House, 1996) p. 89; Gabriel Kolko, Anatomy of a War, (Pantheon, 1985) p. 308-9; Edward Abbey, Confessions of a Barbarian, (Little, Brown, 1994) p. 214

On MLK and his assassination:

Steven B. Oates, Let The Trumpet Sound – The Life of Martin Luther King, Jr. (Harper and Row, 1982) p. 435, 483-6; PBS Documentary, 1968 – The Year That Shaped A Generation.

On the Columbia protests:

Todd Gitlin, The Sixties, (Bantam, 1987) p. 306-8; Lawrence S. Wittner, Cold War America: From Hiroshima To Watergate, (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1978) p. 304-5; Barbara and John Ehrenreich, Long March, Short Spring, The Student Uprising At Home and Abroad, (Monthly Review, 1969) p. 125-7, 145; Tom Hayden, Reunion, A Memoir, (Random House, 1978) p. 276-82

On the French student-worker protests:

Barbara and John Ehrenreich, Long March, Short Spring, The Student Uprising At Home and Abroad, (Monthly Review, 1969 p. 73-102 passim; PBS Documentary, 1968: The Year That Shaped A Generation

 On the Berrigan brothers and The Catonsville Nine:

Phillip Berrigan with Fred. A Wilcox, Fighting The Lamb’s War: Skirmishes With The American Empire, (Common Courage, 1996) p. 80, 93, 96, 101-5; Daniel Berrigan, The Trial of the Catonsville Nine (Beacon, 1970) p. vii; William M. Kunstler with Sheila Isenberg, My Life As A Radical Lawyer, (Carol Publishing Group, 1994) p. 190.

On Sirhan Sirhan and RFK:

Alfred M. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection – What Price Peace? (Dodd, Mead & Co., 1978) p. 242-3

Note: A slightly different version of Sirhan’s mental collapse comes from the late Alexander Cockburn, who says Sirhan was driven over the edge from reading an account of the Phantom jets to Israel written by Andrew Kopkind in the Nation. See Jeffrey St. Clair, “Roaming Charges: the Return of Assassination Politics, Counterpunch, August 12, 2016

On Sirhan Sirhan directly quoted from his trial:

Godfrey Jansen, Why Robert Kennedy Was Killed, (Third Press, 1970) frontispiece.

For an honest account of the Six Day War:

Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (Verso, 1995).

On Mayor Daley and protest at the 1968 Democratic Convention:

Todd Gitlin, The Sixties, (Bantam, 1987) p. 320-6, Tom Hayden, Reunion: A Memoir, (Random House, 1988) p. 297

On the Chicago police riots:

Todd Gitlin, The Sixties, p. 332-4; David Farber, Chicago, (University of Chicago, 1988) p. 200-1, 249; Daniel Walker, Rights In Conflict, (E. P. Dutton,  1968) p. 255-65; Mike Royko, Boss, (Signet, 1971) p. 188-9; Mark L. Levine et al, eds. The Tales of Hoffman (Bantam, 1970); p. 124; Lawrence S. Wittner, Cold War America: From Hiroshima To Watergate, (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1978) p. 297

On Vietnam Veterans’ testimony about war atrocities:

Vietnam Veterans Against The War, The Winter Soldier Investigation (Beacon, 1972) p. 5-114 passim

On statistics of the overall damage done by the Vietnam War:

Michael Parenti, The Sword and the Dollar – Imperialism, Revolution and the Arms Race, (St. Martin’s 1989) p. 44; Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, After the Cataclysm – Postwar Indochina & The Reconstruction of Imperial Ideology (South End, 1979), p. 7-9

On the long-lasting effects of the defoliation campaign in Vietnam:

Donovan Webster, Aftermath – The Remnants of War (Pantheon, 1996) p. 214-17


Michael Smith is the author of "Portraits of Empire." He co-blogs with Frank Scott at www.legalienate.blogspot.com He co-blogs with Frank Scott at www.legalienate.blogspot.com. Read other articles by Michael.




 

Empathy or Anthropomorphism


Words don’t mean anything, people do.

Much of the conflict we experience, observe or imagine arises from the problem every human and arguably most other mammals confront from the moment they become distinct beings—animals. While I never studied classical languages, I believe the very term “animal” designates a being, an entity, endowed with a soul. The literalists among the species Homo sapiens may in fact justify their attitudes toward each other and toward other animals by their underlying response to the soul at the core of animal being. Depending on the degree of self-value or self-effacement the humans adopt, a wide range of behaviours, i.e. responses to the world in which they live, may be elicited. Centuries of recorded Western thought have yet to establish any uniform pattern of response to the confrontation with life forms, whether animated or not—more precisely whether or not deemed animated—since there is no evidence of universal agreement as to what constitutes even the basis of such an assertion or category of response.

If after millennia there have only been contested responses, it may be assumed that such universal consensus will continue to elude us. That leaves us with the permanent interim solutions and the daily work of controlling behaviour, our own and that of others, in what for purposes of simplicity, we can call life itself. The fact that I am even writing this essay can be understood as an example of the many ways humans can attempt to respond to the world and ourselves in some manner judged appropriate. If the category of deity means anything, then perhaps it is best defined as the status in which all these responses are perfectly controlled – always appropriate and never incoherent or inadequate. Of course the stories we can find in all religions, whether Buddhism or Western monotheism, if we read the texts attributed to the divine command as authoritative, are full of conflicts and incoherencies. The gods or the one true god is also incapable of establishing stability of response and meaning (appropriate response). Creation is simply ungovernable. There is also no extant example of divine perfection — unless by that we mean unlimited indifference, sometimes called “fate” or “destiny”.

This uncertainty may arise ultimately from an error of scale. Humans are but one group of the living on this planet we call Earth. Despite the ambitions of our scientific clergy, explicitly religious or merely implicitly devoted, to imagine a universal scale of life and action, we are unable to demonstrate a view of the world which does not assume we are the middle of it. What Pluto or Jupiter might teach us about the significance of human life remains bound by the fact of our own animal existence.

In the past decade, there has been an increasing and perverse obsession with transhumanism and the creation of social and material organisations benignly anointed as “smart”. While very little of this rhetoric is actually new, the attention generated and the style of propaganda devoted to concepts like the Fourth Industrial Revolution, since 2020 the “great reset”, and many other subroutines best captured by the slogan “you will own nothing and be happy” have together enhanced the general insecurity fostered by those ecumenical fascists who constitute the World Economic Forum. As I have argued elsewhere, repeatedly, the most recent manifestations in Davos are based on the institutional environment that emerged one thousand years ago in the rabbinical-Latin absolutism of Pope Innocent III. Feudalism as conceived by the Latin Church was an order in which no one owned anything except by papal license.

The religious foundation of Latin Christendom — we can leave aside any discussion of Jesus of Nazareth or teaching attributed to this person as irrelevant — was and remains the salvation of the soul through ecclesiastically ordered and secularly performed torture and execution. The wealthy were entitled to live and the poor required to work and die. They did not even own their lives, but in heaven they would be happy.

When Marx argued that capitalism was automatic, i.e., it did not rely on the individual capitalist, he was identifying at the same time the spirit of Judeo-Christendom. Max Weber’s misguided attempt to justify capitalism by faith alone only confused the genealogical analysis, obscuring the continuity between the Reformation and the financial derivative system at the core of Latin political-economy. The West is still essentially — one hesitates to use the word “civilization” — a mass of people ruled by primitive superstition and piratical-barbarian violence exercised by a robust death cult. It makes no difference whether that superstition is reified at Lourdes, Fatima or Wall Street. The automatic violence of capitalism is maintained by constant revolution in the technology of production. Thus it should be no surprise that its current doctrinal manifestation, neo-liberalism/conservatism, is championed by members of the death cult who claim to have been Trotskyists. Since the Portuguese dismembered and disfigured the merchants and artisans whose trade relations they wished to dominate in the Indian Ocean basin and the British East India Company raped, pillaged and plundered India, every significant Western technological advancement has been directed to eliminating labourers and enhancing lethality.

The same underlying religious confusion has also shaped the opposition to all the consequences of this system’s automatism. The terms of condemnation include the deadly sins and some vulgar accusations of racism, sexism, or basically unfair conduct. On one hand there are plenty who want sin punished and prevented if possible. On the other there are those who imagine there is some unique great revolution or technological rationality that will neutralize the impact of individual bad conduct or evil. With regard to Marxism, the dominant form of socialist ideology by the end of the 19th century, pseudo-debates continue as to what Marx did or did not anticipate or adequately theorize. Such debates are structurally no different from those that persist in the Latin Church as to what Jesus really meant and what the Church – he never founded — ought to do.

Now that there appears to be a critical mass of articulate people who assert that they have transcended the primitive superstitions with which Western mass culture is fuelled, the debates are focussed on the capacity of humans to grasp and act in accordance with something called Science. That Science subsumes a vast industrial complex. Perversely — say I — but naturally if viewed as proposed here — we find in this mass of the articulate those who argue that the Science shows (Simon says) that the political-economy upon which the past five hundred years of Western history has been based is suddenly a hindrance to the continuation of the Planet (by which they mean themselves as inhabitants of same) and that the same Science dictates all sorts of measures which will save the Planet (by which they mean them). They are struck by the epiphany that Western culture is a system of enhanced lethality. However they turn to those who have had their hands on the trigger for five centuries as the not so “lone rangers” (together with their “Sloane Rangers” in the City or Wall Street) to save them.

The other order of mendicants imagine that once the arsenal has been liberated from the “old and greedy” and programmed with the “right” rules and computational procedures, we will be able to march to the Holy Land where life is free of the unreliable and messy humans who previously managed all that mischief. Their defence is that the technology is not defective — the people are. Change the people or liberate the technology from their cold, dead hands and salvation will dawn.

This is nothing more or less than the argument raised by the Great Reformer before he pled for the slaughter of rebellious peasants and their leader Thomas Müntzer at Bad Frankenhausen in 1525. The Church, once freed from papal autocracy, was still the door through which faith would lead man to salvation, even if reading Scripture was to be allowed. My point is not that overthrowing the Papacy in some form was not a good idea. It has been convincingly argued that Martin Luther did what was possible at the time. He could not have rejected the entire world in which he had been raised, could he? The clergy continued to serve as a source of oppression and instrument of imperial expansion — after all that is what mission is. He could not abandon the value of salvation either. Instead he tried to change or expand the terms upon which it could be attained.

If we return to the question with which this essay began — the problem of human souls and the souls of other animals — then we ought to ask ourselves seriously: when we seek salvation of our souls, do we actually consider the souls of other animals? Do we take soul seriously or is it just another manifestation of the malignant narcissism in which the West luxuriously bathes? The animal rights fanatics — and I consider this a kind of cult fanaticism—would have us wear petrochemical products instead of leather but have no serious response to the bipeds killed for oil needed to cloth them. The vegetarian and even worse the “veganese” — when they are not addressing the problem of industrial slaughterhouses and poisoned foodstuffs — seem quite silent about the nutritional sources of other animals. (I have a neighbour whose pedigree dog is actually allergic to meat.)

Many of the incoherencies I could list have been mentioned elsewhere. I have also elaborated on the legal and socio-political consequences of the inversion of “rights” doctrines to eliminate the very distinguishing characteristics of humans upon which human rights are based. However, here I am concerned with fundamental question, one which I would call moral for want of a better term. What is the difference between empathy and anthropomorphism?

If we are so bold to admit that Homo sapiens is a distinct mammalian species of animal then the soul/psyche we attribute to the members of this species joins us to other animals, other inhabitants of this miniscule planet. It is something we share. It is something a wolf and a rabbit share as do a whale or dolphin. We might ask ourselves if sharks or spiders have a soul. There are certainly religious attitudes which affirm this. However I have just as often asked myself if we are too deaf to hear the scream of a grain of wheat? If we are so bold to admit that other beings are endowed with attributes so unfathomable as the soul we attribute to ourselves and other mammals (in descending order), then we should also be sensible not only to what we presume to know but also to the vast universe of ignorance in which we wallow. Anthropomorphism is another manifestation of anthropocentrism. If we turn everything into a mirror of us we deny not only our own unique qualities—both positive and negative — but also the very existence and potential value of the world we inhabit. The jargon of sustainability or the religious fervour with which Science fanatics preach our salvation through technology are both symptoms of the Western religious pathology embedded in our modern mass culture and capitalism itself. Marx has been read as a latent technocrat. He was a political activist as well as a scholar. Obviously he could only make politics under the conditions of the world in which he lived — fighting the fights as the fronts were formed during his animal lifetime. Yet his explanation of where value is added is essentially humanist. It is a model analysis of empathy not automatism—which he explicitly criticized. He refused the formulation that prevails despite his argument that labour creates value and not things in themselves. Hence it was constantly necessary to ask what humans were actually doing? The machine, no matter how sophisticated, was not the creative force.

Anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism — both essential drivers of the current crusades and wars — turn the entire world into the human and thus abolish the very conditions for human qualities. When the pontificate and ecumenical fascists whether in Davos, Rome, Washington, New York or the City of London assemble they do what their patron saint, Adam Smith, wrote that they always do — meet to fix prices and restrain trade. That is the least harmful of their malevolence. For the last decade, with the benefit of nearly a century of mass destruction weaponry, e.g. atomic weapons, genetic engineering and virtual monopoly of mass media and medicine, they have committed themselves to our salvation. They have recruited from the generations of indoctrinated and alienated youth. Like the court who joined the pope behind the walls in Avignon this ecclesiastical oligarchy would drive those outside to their joyful deaths. Like the papacy that preached the Fourth Crusade, they would drive those outside with the promise that death and mortification, after killing the infidels and heretics, will save the Planet and leave a society of the saints managed by the benevolent computers and other EDP devices they have created for the survivors.

Empathy is not identification. It does not mean usurping the other. Rather it includes the limits of cognition soothed by the capacity to love — even someone or something one does not even know. Empathy is not wanton or gratuitous. Nor is it based on gluttony or lust. At the same time, it does not demand that a wolf eat bread or a sheep ground cattle bones. We eat and with time we too are eaten. If we had true empathy we would be concerned about enhancing the nutritional value of our lives for all those around us. We would nurture our spirit and not just our egos.

Dr T.P. Wilkinson writes, teaches History and English, directs theatre and coaches cricket between the cradles of Heine and Saramago. He is author of Unbecoming American: A War Memoir and also Church Clothes, Land, Mission and the End of Apartheid in South Africa. Read other articles by T.P..

 

Forces of Impunity: The US Threatens the International Criminal Court


The International Criminal Court is a dusty jewel, a creation of heat, tension and manufacture in the international community.  Various elements have gone into its creation.  As with any international institution which draws its legitimacy from nation states and the like, its detractors are many, the invective against it frequent.  Some 124 countries have signed the Rome Charter of 1998 that gives the body its authority and jurisdictional force, but no one is foolish enough to think that its reach can ever be anything but tempered by political consideration and self-interest.

Be it issuing a problematic arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, attempting to investigate alleged US war crimes in Afghanistan, or busying itself with some nasty examples of African despotism, the scope of the body is potentially extensive.  At present, ICC prosecutor Karim Khan is sniffing out the prospect of issuing arrest warrants against senior Israeli officials in the context of the war in Gaza.  The sniff, however, has come with a rebuking blast from Israel, joined by various politicians in the United States champing at the bit to take a swipe at the body.

Such attacks have only been emboldened by the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, an instrument from 2002 that prohibits federal, state and local governments from furnishing the ICC with assistance in any way while authorising the US president “to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release” of any “US person” or “allied persons” detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request,” of the ICC.

In what is expedient and legally anomalous, Washington has chosen not only to avoid signing the Rome Statute but reject ICC jurisdiction over the Palestinian territories.  The ICC begs to differ, noting the acceptance of the court’s jurisdiction on the part of “the Government of Palestine” and its accession to the Rome Statute in January 2015.

In late October 2023, Israel announced that it would not be permitting Khan to enter Israel, signalling its intention to frustrate, as far as possible, his investigative functions.  In April this year, Axios revealed that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had requested US President Joe Biden to prevent the ICC from issuing arrest warrants against senior Israeli officials.  A broader lobbying effort of the US Congress by the Netanyahu government is also taking place.

On May 1, a bipartisan group of US senators held a virtual meeting with members of seniority from the ICC, worried about the prospect that arrest warrants for top Israel might issue from the prosecutorial pipeline.  In a threatening letter to Khan from a dozen Republican senators led by Tom Cotton, the promise for retaliation was unequivocal: “Target Israel, and we will target you.”  Issuing such warrants would be “illegitimate and lack legal basis, and, if carried out, will result in severe actions against you and your institution.”  They would “not only be a threat to Israel’s sovereignty but to the sovereignty of the United States.”

This was hardly novel and was unlikely to have phased Khan or his staff.  In June 2020, President Donald Trump implemented an executive order directed at the ICC.  The order authorised the blocking of assets and imposed family entry bans into the US in response to the court’s efforts to investigate the alleged commission of war crimes in Afghanistan by US personnel.  In September that year, pursuant to the executive order, targeted sanctions were imposed on then ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and senior prosecution official Phakiso Mochochoko.

Since 2021, the ICC has been vested in examining alleged war crimes committed by both the Israeli Defense Forces and Palestinian militants stretching back to the 2014 Israel-Hamas war.  “Upon the commencement of my mandate in June 2021,” Khan states, “I put in place for the first time a dedicated team to advance the investigation in relation to the Situation in the State of Palestine.”  Its mission is to collect, preserve and analyse “information and communications from key stakeholders in relation to relevant incidents.”

In November 2023, the office of the prosecutor received a referral from South Africa, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Comoros and Djibouti to investigate “the Situation in the State of Palestine.”  The referral requests the prosecutor “to vigorously investigate crimes under the jurisdiction of the Court allegedly committed” on various grounds, including, among others, the unlawful appropriation and destruction of private and public properties, the forcible transfer of Palestinians, the unlawful transfer of Israel’s population into Occupied Palestinian Territory and a discriminatory system amounting to apartheid.

The spectacularly brutal Israeli campaign in Gaza following the October 7 attacks by Hamas also enlivened interest in using the ICC’s jurisdiction to investigate allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity and relevant war crimes.  But the notable catch, and bound to be threatening to its intended targets, was the request that culprits be found, and perpetrators be outed and held accountable.  South Africa, more specifically, requested that the prosecutor “investigate the Situation for the purpose of determining whether one or more specific persons should be charged with the commission of such crimes.”

On May 3, officials from the ICC openly reproached efforts to tamper and modify any opinions on the part of the body regarding its activities.  The ICC welcomed, according to Khan, “open communication” with government officials and non-governmental entities, and would only engage in discussions so long as they were “consistent with its mandate under the Rome Statute to act independently and impartially”.

As he continued to explain in his statement, Khan argued “That independence and impartiality are undermined … when individuals threaten to retaliate … should the office, in fulfilment of its mandate, make decisions about investigations or cases falling within its jurisdiction”.  He demanded that “all attempts to impede, intimidate or improperly influence its officials cease immediately.”

Netanyahu had previously promised that, under his leadership, “Israel will never accept any attempt by the ICC to undermine its inherent right of self-defense.”  He regarded any “threat to seize the soldiers and officials of the Middle East’s only democracy and the world’s only Jewish state” as “outrageous.”  Going heavy on the forces of light battling those of darkness – a favourite theme of his – the Israeli PM went on to claim that such actions “would set a dangerous precedent that threatens the soldiers and officials of all democracies fighting savage terrorism and wanton aggression”.

Far from threatening democracies of whatever flavour, the actions of the ICC can serve the opposite purpose, holding individuals in high office accountable for egregious crimes in international law.  In doing so, it can contribute, in no small part, to efforts in defeating impunity and rebutting brutal and often callous assertions of self-defence.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com. Read other articles by Binoy.

 

New survey finds 75% of Americans feel mental health takes back seat to physical health within US healthcare system



West Health-Gallup survey uncovers perceived deficiencies in addressing mental health conditions




WEST HEALTH INSTITUTE

Cost Is Top Barrier for American in Seeking Mental Health Treatment 

IMAGE: 

OVER HALF OF AMERICANS SEE PSYCHOLOGICAL COUNSELING (53%) AS AN EFFECTIVE TREATMENT AND 35% SAY THE SAME OF PRESCRIPTION MEDICATION. BUT TWO POTENTIAL BARRIERS INCLUDING LACK OF AFFORDABILITY (52%) AND DIFFICULTY IN ACCESSING A PROVIDER (42%) MAY BE PREVENTING PEOPLE FROM SEEKING CARE. OTHER BARRIERS OR REASONS INCLUDE A BELIEF THAT THE INDIVIDUAL CAN DEAL WITH THEIR CONDITION ON THEIR OWN (28%), SHAME OR EMBARRASSMENT (27%) OR NOT THINKING TREATMENT WOULD HELP (24%).

view more 

CREDIT: WEST HEALTH-GALLUP




WASHINGTON, DC – May 1, 2024 – Three-quarters of Americans feel mental health conditions are identified and treated much worse than physical health issues within the U.S. healthcare system, even as more than 80% perceive a dramatic rise in prevalence of mental health issues in the last five years, according to a new survey from West Health and Gallup released at the start of Mental Health Awareness Month and Older Americans Month.

Nearly identical percentages believe mental health is handled either “much” (38%) or “somewhat” worse (37%) than physical health ailments, while 15% say they are dealt with “about the same.” Just 5% think mental health is treated “somewhat” (4%) or “much” better (1%). This negative assessment of mental healthcare comes as 4 in 5 Americans perceive an increase in conditions such as depression or anxiety over the past five years, including 42% who think they have increased a lot.

These latest findings may explain why 57% of Americans give poor to failing grades to the nation’s healthcare system for its handling of mental health conditions -- 32% give it a “D” and 25% give it an “F.” Only 1% awarded the top grade of “A”, with 8% giving it a “B” and 27% a “C.”

“Many Americans struggle with mental and behavioral health conditions that often go unaddressed in the context of treating and managing other medical conditions,” said Timothy Lash, President, West Health, a nonprofit focused on aging and healthcare in America. “Health systems, providers, caregivers and patients themselves need to pay just as much attention to mental health as they grow older as they do their physical health. The two are inextricably linked and critical to overall health, aging successfully and quality of life.”

According to the CDC, depression is more common in people who have other illnesses. About 80% of older adults have at least one chronic health condition, and 50% have two or more. Notably, the West Health-Gallup survey finds a higher percentage of older adults than the general population (82% vs. 75%) feel mental health issues are not treated as they should. This is a particularly important finding in that come 2030, people 65 and older will outnumber children for the first time in the U.S. and increase the demand for mental health services.

The survey finds 51% of Americans say they have experienced depression, anxiety or some other mental or emotional condition in the past 12 months. This group includes 22% who say their condition was so significant that it disrupted their normal activities, such as going to work or taking care of their household.   

Over half of Americans see psychological counseling (53%) as an effective treatment and 35% say the same of prescription medication. But two potential barriers including lack of affordability (52%) and difficulty in accessing a provider (42%) may be preventing people from seeking care. Other barriers or reasons include a belief that the individual can deal with their condition on their own (28%), shame or embarrassment (27%) or not thinking treatment would help (24%).

Seven in 10 Americans report societal stigma around mental illness, which also played a role in keeping people from getting professional help. The belief is strongest among those who say they have dealt with a mental health condition in the past year (74%) and older adults (75%).

“Effectively meeting the behavioral health needs of Americans and their families throughout the different stages of life requires providers, caregivers, policymakers, payers and patients themselves work together to reduce barriers to care,” said Lash. “There are still sizable numbers of people not getting the treatment they need – a situation that may only worsen as the population ages. Effective approaches, including integrated and person-centered models of behavioral health that deliver services through clinics or community-based organizations, should be more fully leveraged to ensure people are able to get the care they need when and where they need it.”

Since 2008, the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) called for health plans to cover mental health benefits to the same level they cover general healthcare. But according to the White House, “too many Americans still struggle to find and afford the care they need.” In 2020, the government reported less than half of those with a mental illness received care for it.

Last year, the Biden administration highlighted mental health as a priority with a “comprehensive national strategy to transform how mental health is understood, accessed, treated, and integrated in and out of health care settings,” which includes expanding access to mental health services from Medicare.

Methodology
Results for this Gallup poll are based on self-administered web surveys conducted Feb. 2-14, 2024 with a random sample of 2,266 adults, aged 18 and older, and are members of the Gallup Panel. Gallup uses probability-based, random sampling methods to recruit its Panel members. For results based on the sample of U.S. adults, the margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.

About Gallup
Gallup delivers analytics and advice to help leaders and organizations solve their most pressing problems. Combining more than 80 years of experience with its global reach, Gallup knows more about the attitudes and behaviors of employees, customers, students and citizens than any other organization in the world.

About West Health
Solely funded by philanthropists Gary and Mary West, West Health is a family of nonprofit and nonpartisan organizations that include the Gary and Mary West Foundation and West Health Institute in San Diego, and the West Health Policy Center in Washington, D.C. West Health is dedicated to lowering healthcare costs to enable seniors to successfully age in place with access to high-quality, affordable health and support services that preserve and protect their dignity, quality of life and independence. Learn more at westhealth.org and follow @westhealth.

###

Disclaimer: AA