Noblesse Oblige

Happy Thanksgiving! 

However you might celebrate it, this is the time of year when many Americans express their gratitude toward others who have helped them (or have at least been kind to them) in the previous year. But what is it about Western society that thinks one day a year is sufficient enough to say "thank you" to our fellow human beings? How can one big meal make up for the centuries of exploitation that colonialism brought to the Americas? And why do we think that a little bit of showy philanthropy offered by a billionaire will right all the wrongs this individual has wreaked upon both people and the planet? 

Our guest blogger considers this age-old concept, that somehow our "betters" will take care of us all...free of charge? You'd be surprised how common this bizarre belief still is in the 21^th century.

Noblesse Oblige

by Coast Watcher

In French, noblesse oblige (No-bless OBlee-je) means literally "nobility obligates." It refers to the social contract whereby those of high rank, birth or wealth are supposed to act generously and honorably to others, especially those of lower status and/or wealth.

The phrase has its roots in the feudal system that originated in Carolingian France of the 8^th century. It spread to dominate the whole continent of Europe within the next three hundred years. Something akin to feudalism existed at times in ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, but in any case it basically refers to the need of the weak and innocent for the protection of a powerful man. The powerful—read, nobility—would allow those of lower class to live on their land in exchange for providing general labor or military service. In time the structure of feudalism became rigid, with little scope for mobility between classes.

Feudalism began a slow decline in the 14^th century when the Black Death struck Eurasia and Europe. One of the most devastating pandemics in human history, the true death toll is unknown. Estimates vary, but somewhere between 75 to 200 million people died during the plague, which peaked in Europe from 1347 to 1351. The sudden scarcity of those who would labor or fight for the nobility—usually under threat of dire punishment if they defaulted on their obligations—resulted in a radical shift in favor of the lower classes. Without a military to back them up the nobility found themselves powerless in the face of demands for social reforms from the lower classes. 

The increasingly centralized power of monarchy also diminished the nobility’s scope to rule those beneath them. In time this led to a redistribution of wealth, and the middle class, or bourgeoisie, rose to occupy the ground between peasant and noble. Richer than a peasant, not as rich as a noble, the bourgeoisie lived comfortable lives and often worked in trade and industry. As a class they tended to be conservative. They also took on some aspects of noblesse oblige to those less fortunate.

So much for the history. What of the modern world?

It’s said that capitalism arose when democracy met feudalism, and I believe there’s an element of truth in that. Some members of the bourgeoisie who did well in the fields of trade and industry became wealthier than the nobility, often by a huge margin. Their enterprises grew into the multinational corporations we see today. Each and every one of those corporations had its origins in somebody’s store, shed, barn or laboratory. Over the course of decades, and perhaps centuries, those businesses merged or predated upon one another to become vast, bloated operations too powerful for the public’s good. They grew wealthy and powerful enough to control governments.

Quo plus habent, eo plus desire ~ The more they have, the more they want.

Capitalism is a greedy and demanding cuckoo in the nest of humanity. The more it feeds off the public in the shape of tax concessions and subsidies, the more it wants. It loves it when conservative-oriented governments privatize public assets and sell them to the highest bidder. Often capitalism doesn’t have to use force—just wads of lobbyist cash. The more money capitalism takes from the economy, the more ordinary people have to struggle to keep their heads above water. Money which would otherwise be in circulation is being stashed away in offshore accounts where its sole purpose is to provide purchasing power for big business’ next venture.

When poverty increases, there’s a commensurate increased need for charity to step in where government either fails to do so adequately or otherwise ignores the problem. In 1929 the Great Depression began with the infamous Wall Street Crash, lasting well into the thirties. Charities that normally provided a stop-gap solution to immediate problems found themselves having to sustain an impoverished population for far longer than funds would permit. The situation was eased by FDR’s New Deal, which provided public funds to get industry back on its feet and the public back to work.

Of course, the New Deal really came about because the establishment was scared to death by the rise of socialism and communism, both of which are anathema to capitalism. It wanted all the anger and outrage generated by the Great Depression channeled into safer courses. Once the heat had gone out of the situation, those liberal policies gradually went away or were watered down. The 1960s resurgence of public pressure for social reforms was another scary period for the establishment, but again, come the Reagan era, the reforms wrung from government dissipated over time.

And so it is today. The 2008 crash saw poverty hit America once more. Barack Obama bailed out the banks claiming they were “too big to fail” instead of letting them perish for blatant mismanagement of their assets—this after the CEOs of those big banks flew their executive jets into Washington DC so they could plead poverty. The mortgage crisis hit millions across the country. Homelessness rose and has continued to rise. Bankruptcies—especially from unforeseen healthcare costs—are endemic. Charities are stepping into the breach once more, as they did during the Great Depression, and again these charities are struggling to cope with a high demand for their services.

What makes this situation all the uglier for those suffering economic hardship is the attitude of those more fortunate.

Noblesse oblige is noticeably absent. A callous streak infects the rich and generally better off. A pseudo-Calvanistic attitude prevails, whereby many of those more fortunate than others believe the poor and suffering deserve their fate because “God ordains it so.” They use it as justification for doing nothing. Some donate to charitable causes as a sop to their consciences, but they’d rather not have any direct contact with the poor. Another justification to deny charity is that people will become too dependent on charitable donations, and to a certain extent this is true. Much as feudalism created a serf class dependent on the nobility’s largess, so does charity become a crutch which is hard to discard even in better times. 

Even so, governments use the same philosophy to refuse assistance for the sick and struggling even though—especially in the case of the United States Constitution—it has a legal obligation to help.

Big business does indulge in a form of noblesse oblige, usually as a public relations ploy and especially if their business practices draw public and press disapproval. Some businesses such as Amazon are not interested in performing any charitable function. In fact, Amazon owner Jeff Bezos plowed over a million dollars into the recent Seattle council elections specifically to depose Socialist Alternative city councilor Kshama Sawant and pack the council with his toadies. This was after he browbeat the council into abandoning a tiny tax on businesses in the city aimed at providing funds for the homeless. Bezos’ plan failed. Only two of the seven council candidates he sponsored won their seats, and they look set to lose them at the next election.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is another example of capitalist noblesse oblige. With over $50 billion in assets the foundation’s activities are worldwide and often controversial. It drew criticism for its inoculation program in Africa when it was linked to attempts to sterilize women. Accusations have been leveled at the foundation concerning a hidden agenda.

All things considered, the nobility and rich in general take far more than they give. They rely on charities to take up the considerable slack in helping the poor and disadvantaged in society. It costs the rich far less than a tax on their wealth aimed at providing at least adequate social benefits to citizens. 

Noblesse oblige: At the end of the day, is it worth it? Does it work? Did it ever work? Or is it nothing other than gesture to soothe a rich person’s conscience?

BIO: Coast Watcher stopped believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny as a child. He certainly doesn't believe in the mythical "generous and charitable one-percent class," either. He recommends you open your ears and use your brain to think through what the billionaires are really up to whenever you see them portrayed as heroes in the mainstream media. You do realize they own all the mainstream media outlets, don't you?

This excellent short video poses an important question of morality that needs to be answered for our very survival.  https://youtu.be/axN8ppre-mU

From Bernie Sanders' Twitter Feed: 

Bernie Sanders

@BernieSanders

The wealth of the billionaire class is almost incomprehensible. The Waltons get $70,000 richer every minute. Jeff Bezos makes $2,489 a second. That is why it is not radical to say that millions of people in this country should not be paid starvation wages.

11:41 AM · Nov 25, 2019

Check out even more damning evidence of how billionaires call the shots worldwide--by starting wars and funding coups to obtain oil and other resources illegally. Excellent piece from Dirk at Beanstock's World. Here's a short excerpt:

https://beanstocksworld.wordpress.com/2019/11/25/unaccountable-u-s-government-agencies/#more-7808

"By now, a growing number of Americans have become aware of how our intended democracy has become undermined by Big Money and turned into a sham where voter participation is essentially blocked by a twin party tyranny of the R- and D-Party, both working exclusively for the rich and their corporations, think tanks, and an army of 42,000+ registered lobbyists (plus many more unregistered ones) while dangling billionaire puppets in front of us as “our” candidates, excluding true people’s representatives from our ballots or rigging the elections when one does make it on the ballots."

***

Don't let Wall Street silence activists

Tell SEC commissioners: "Shareholder resolutions are a crucial way for shareholders to hold corporations accountable. Changing SEC Rule 14a-8 would silence shareholder activism and protect big corporations from the consequences of their actions. Withdraw changes to SEC Rule 14a-8." Add your name:

Wall Street is trying to silence the voices of progressive activists, and Trump's handpicked Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) chair is helping. Shareholder resolutions have forced Fortune 500 corporations to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, promote transparency, improve racial diversity and confront climate change. But now, after lobbying from corporate CEOs, the SEC proposed new rules that make activists jump through increasingly difficult hoops in order to introduce and pass shareholder resolutions.1,2 We can't let the SEC help Wall Street crush the shareholder activists who hold major corporations accountable. We need to speak out against this awful proposal now, while the SEC is still accepting public input. Tell the SEC: Don't help Wall Street crush activists. Click here to sign the petition. The SEC is supposed to protect people from Wall Street. It is doing the opposite. In the past, the SEC made sure shareholders – from mom-and-pop investors to the pension funds of teachers and firefighters – can propose and pass resolutions demanding changes from the company they own stock in. But under the leadership of Trump's handpicked SEC chair Jay Clayton, the SEC is helping corporations hide their actions and escape accountability from shareholders. The Sierra Club recently sued the SEC to find out how the watchdog routinely allows corporations to exclude shareholder resolutions that force them to confront climate change.3 Shareholder resolutions are a powerful tool for holding corporations accountable. Many standard practices today – including banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, allowing shareholders to hold a vote on excessive CEO pay and banning conflicts of interests among board members – began as shareholder resolutions. And shareholders continue to push corporations to do better on racial and gender diversity, climate change, environmental and labor practices, disclosure of political spending, and far, far more.4 The new SEC proposal would help corporations crack down on these shareholder resolutions by limiting who is eligible to submit new ones and rejecting previous resolutions unless they gain immense popularity over a short period of time. It would even give corporations a say in which resolutions to recommend to shareholders – akin to letting Donald Trump edit the New York Times opinion page.5 Right now, the proposal is open for public comment and the narrowly divided SEC gives us a chance to block the new rules. Trump's SEC chair wants to let Wall Street CEOs write the rules governing who can hold them accountable, and we cannot let that happen. Tell the SEC: Don't help Wall Street crush activists. Click below to sign the petition: https://act.credoaction.com/sign/sec-shareholder-resolution?t=9&akid=35055%2E9999572%2EVipUpL Thank you for speaking out, Heidi Hess, Co-Director CREDO Action from Working Assets Add your name: References: Ganesh Setty, "Shareholders would have tougher time submitting resolutions under SEC’s proposed rule," CNBC, Nov. 5, 2019. Lisa Woll, "The SEC wants to change the rules for filing shareholder motions — for no good reason," MarketWatch, Nov. 5, 2019. Hazel Bradford, "Sierra Club sues SEC over denial of climate-related shareholder resolutions," Pensions & Investments, Oct. 25, 2019. Woll, "The SEC wants to change the rules for filing shareholder motions — for no good reason." Ibid.

 ***

Tell Congress: it’s time to investigate Amazon’s surveillance empire.

 

Surveillance is at the heart of Amazon's monopolistic business model.They record our conversations, capture video footage of our lives, creep into our elections, track our faces, and partner with police to build a nationwide surveillance network. They exploit our intimate moments and sensitive personal information for their profits. ^1,2,3

 

Amazon devices don’t make us safer. Their executives recently admitted there are no safeguards in place to protect our data, privacy, or our civil liberties in their Ring doorbell cameras and surveillance police partnerships.⁴

 

In response to Amazon’s blatant disregard for our basic rights and security, a group of Senators sent letters demanding answers. But now that lawmakers in DC are asking questions, Amazon will dispatch their army of lobbyists and call in their favors with the politicians they helped elect. There’s nothing they won’t do to avoid scrutiny and accountability. 

To stop Amazon, we need to build grassroots pressure on lawmakers to launch a full Congressional investigation of Amazon. Click here to demand Congress take action now.

TAKE ACTION

Amazon is going to continue to expand their surveillance network. They will take advantage of the holiday season to sell more devices that listen to us and watch us. 

We need lawmakers to intervene. A Congressional hearing is the only way to expose Amazon’s invasive data harvesting practices, and lay the foundation for laws that will rein in their for-profit surveillance practices. 

If you want to protect your rights and privacy, tell Congress to investigate Amazon.

 

Together, we can shutdown Amazon’s surveillance dragnet.

Ayele at Fight for the Future

---

Footnotes:

1. Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2019/05/16/why-amazon-alexa-is-always-listening-to-your-conversations-analysis/

2. Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-elections-amazon-com-insight/how-amazon-com-moved-into-the-business-of-u-s-elections-idUSKBN1WU173

3. Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/11/19/police-can-keep-ring-camera-video-forever-share-with-whomever-theyd-like-company-tells-senator/

4. Fight for the Future: https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2019-11-20-amazon-admits-it-has-enacted-zero-civil-liberties/

What Have We Become? (The Collapse of the Big Tent)

What have we become? Do we like what we see when we look in the mirror, America? Why don't we like what we see? Our guest blogger takes a look at the history behind why our country hates looking in the mirror nowadays. Perhaps there's a way out of this collapsing big tent?

The Collapse of the Big Tent

by Coast Watcher

The term big tent, first used in 1975 refers to “a widely inclusive composition or character that allows people of differing backgrounds, opinions, and interests to be members of a group or organization (such as a political party).” (Source: Merriam-Webster)

The Democratic Party is fond of using the term. Although it may stem from 1975, the concept of an all-inclusive party harks back to the glory days of the 32nd President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

After the disastrous Republican administrations of the 1920s, feelings ran strong against the selfish, greedy, generally corrupt or plain inept mainstream parties. The Republican government caused the Wall Street Crash of 1929 following years of corrupt practices which led to economic depression, mass unemployment and penury for millions of Americans. The Democrats were still viewed with suspicion after Woodrow Wilson broke his solemn promise not to involve the United States in WWI. All told, the burgeoning Socialist movement that had made great strides in the United States during the first three decades of the twentieth century promised a better way of doing things.

This frankly terrified the patrician class and Big Businessmen such as the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts who could see the prospect of a Soviet-style revolution on the horizon if they didn’t act quickly enough.

Roosevelt’s canny promise and shaping of a New Deal coalition united various

unions, minorities, left-leaning voting blocs and interest groups that effectively made the Democratic Party the majority party for thirty years. Even the brief interregnum of Eisenhower’s presidency doesn’t count against this record since Eisenhower himself was pro-New Deal. The coalition effectively channeled the Socialist movement into a safer, more manageable course. What most people seem to forget is the fact that Roosevelt, although a progressive by the standards of his time, was also a patrician–one of those with the most to lose in the event of a Socialist government taking power.

The New Deal coalition began to fall apart in 1968 due to bitter factionalism engendered by the election of that year. Following Carter’s troubled single term in office, Reagan’s presidency took more steam out of the Democratic Party’s engine.

In the 1980s, after a period of navel-gazing spent during their time in the political wilderness, the Democratic Party decided it liked the old adage "if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em" –only they went a step further. The party motto became "if you can’t beat ‘em, become like ‘em." The neoliberal Third Way policies eventually bore fruit in Clinton’s two terms in office, a presidency that showed few progressive values.

The same applies to the Obama administration. Although he put forward a piece of legislation of genuine use to the American people in the shape of the Affordable Care Act, Obama did little to force it through against the reactionary Republicans. He allowed the GOP to include the clause requiring citizens to buy health insurance or face a fine, something introduced with the specific intent of making the ACA toxic to the American voter. (The GOP knew they could rely on the typical short memory of voters to forget they were responsible for the clause, so a future Republican government could repeal the hated piece of legislation – and gain kudos for doing so). Obama also failed to introduce much else in the way of progressive policies beyond a few token environmental protections.

Democratic talk of a big tent was becoming alarmingly familiar as the party dealt with what amounted to a case of “values” shock—the post-election impression that Democrats keep losing because they have lost touch with mainstream American values.  Peter J. Boyer, New Yorker, November 14, 2005

Thrilled as they may still be with their victory, many Democrats are now realizing that … their future depends on a tricky proposition: actually becoming the centrist, big-tent party they've spent two years claiming to be.  Jonathan Darman, et al., Newsweek, November 20, 2006

We have big arguments within the party because we got a big tent…    Barack Obama, quoted in Rolling Stone, October 14, 2010

So, it seems the Democratic Party persists in claiming it has a big tent capable of including many other political-Left viewpoints, but it’s manifestly obvious the DNC is doing little, if anything, to prove it. They actually are the centrist, big-tent party steered by a neoliberal faction. The Democrats recently removed all the progressives on DNC committees. We see their frequent attempts to promote candidates for the 2020 election they think will be acceptable to progressives, yet even a cursory analysis exposes the candidates’ deep corporate neoliberal ties. The New Deal coalition remains the model that party activists seek to replicate, yet the neoliberal faction wants to retain the total control over the course such a coalition will steer as it has done for the past

thirty-plus years.

It’s now obvious the big tent has rotted and is falling over. The three-ring-circus show that is the Democratic Party is winding down as the acts fall out with the neoliberal management and each other. The left-leaning groups, the progressives, even stalwart Democrats who’ve supported their party through thick and thin for decades, are leaving the show. They see little – if any – difference to the rival show put on by the GOP.

There are some, like Senator Bernie Sanders, who think the big tent may be saved. They cling to the idea of a New Deal coalition and seek to replicate the successes of the original. Perhaps they may succeed, but it looks increasingly likely that the coalition will never reform. Few on the political Left want anything to do with the Democrats after what transpired during the 2016 primaries. Perhaps another coalition of the Left will form without the Democrats, and the steady progress toward a Socialist state on the Scandinavian pattern that was interrupted in the 1930s will resume. The Democratic Party’s big tent will be allowed to fall down, leaving only ghostly applause for what once was.

 
Jimmy Dore points out the how the big tent is fighting against progressives.
https://youtu.be/ynug4CLOTp0

BIO: Coast Watcher studies American history and tries to spot the good patterns repeating themselves, but he's a realist. He's hoping America will turn around and make a future to believe in soon.

***

The first national health care town hall (over 1 million views and counting) was not broadcast by mainstream media but on three digital outlets. Here's the video in case you missed it or want to share it with a friend. Lots of good information.

 ***

From Friends of the Earth:

Tell your Senators: Kick Clovis out of the USDA!

Good news! Michael Dourson -- a Monsanto hack -- just stepped down from his job at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Last year, Donald Trump nominated Dourson to run the Office of Chemical Safety Prevention and Pollution. Pressure from people like you forced Dourson to withdraw his nomination. But EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt hired him as a senior advisor anyway. Now, months later, he’s leaving that position.

But Dourson wasn’t the only failed Trump nominee to be given a job in the Trump administration. Sam Clovis -- a conservative talk radio host with no scientific background -- is currently serving as a senior advisor at the USDA. Clovis was forced to withdraw his nomination to lead the agency’s science program in November.

This is the second time Trump has gone around the nomination process and given his Big Ag friends jobs that they’re completely unqualified for. Congress could hold Trump accountable -- but we need your help to push it to act!
Tell your Senators: Stop Trump from filling his government with Big Ag cronies!

Clovis says the science on climate change is “junk science” and has made it clear that he will not prioritize climate science at the USDA. But farmers and the agriculture industry are on the front lines of both the effects and causes of climate change. We need science-based leadership to help farmers respond to climate threats.

What’s more, Clovis has a well-documented record of homophobic, racist, misogynistic and anti-science rants as a former radio show host. He called progressives “race traders and race traitors." He’s vocally against fair wages for working people. And he vehemently opposes civil rights protections for the LGBT community.

This is someone who shouldn’t be in any sort of leadership position -- let alone serving as a key advisor on federal programs to protect our food system! Trump likely gave him the job as a reward for his role on his campaign.
Tell your Senators: Kick Sam Clovis out of the USDA!

Thanks to a groundswell of public pressure -- including more than half a million comments from Friends of the Earth members like you -- we stopped Clovis from getting a Senate-confirmed job at the USDA.

This shows that when you speak up, you can push the Senate to act and hold the Trump administration accountable.

We can’t let Trump undermine our critical food programs by staffing his government with anti-science extremists. We need your help to get Sam Clovis out of the USDA once and for all.

Tell Congress: No anti-science extremists leading key USDA programs!

Standing with you,
Lisa Archer,
Food and technology program director,
Friends of the Earth


Also from Friends of the Earth:

Big Ag and the Trump administration are attacking organic farming.
In an outrageous assault on organic agriculture, Trump’s USDA is moving fast to kill protections for livestock on organic farms.

This attempt to roll back the standard is the biggest attack on organic agriculture in almost twenty years.  

Congress could step up and stop the USDA’s attack on organic standards. But we need your help to push it to act!

Call now! Tell your Senators you OPPOSE the USDA’s attempt to kill the organic animal welfare rule!

The Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices rule provides animals on organic farms with real outdoor access, ample space to move around, and protection from unnecessary physical alterations. 

Most organic farmers already meet these standards. The rule would ensure that everyone using the organic label lives up to the humane conditions that consumers expect from organic. The rule is overwhelmingly supported by organic farmers, consumers, and animal advocates.

Tell your Senators: Don’t let the USDA eliminate protections for organic livestock!

The organic label was born out of a public outcry for a healthier, safer and more transparent food system. The Senate needs to hear loud and clear that the American people want healthy, organic food from animals who were treated with dignity and respect -- not more giveaways to Big Ag.

Call your Senators and ask them to stop Trump’s attack on organic agriculture!

Standing with you,
Dr. Kendra Klein,
Staff Scientist,
Friends of the Earth

***

From the Sierra Club:

We can't let this happen on our watch.

This month, the Trump administration proposed opening 90% of US waters to offshore drilling between 2019 and 2024. That's right -- if this plan becomes law, the Atlantic, Pacific, Arctic, and Eastern Gulf coasts will all be in the hands of Big Oil. That means oil rigs from Maine to Louisiana, and from Alaska down to California. 

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is collecting comments on this catastrophic new five-year plan. We have until March 9 to tell them how unpopular and short-sighted this plan is.
 
While they attempt to hand our coasts over to oil companies, Trump and his buddies are also rushing to dismantle safety regulations that were enacted after the Deepwater Horizon spill.¹ And on New Year's Day, Congress also failed to renew a longstanding oil tax that funds cleanup efforts for oil spills.²
It almost sounds too sinister to be true -- they want to open 90% of our coasts to drilling but won't enforce basic safety standards or fund programs to clean up the inevitable spills. 

Tell BOEM that the people have spoken -- no drilling off our coasts!
 
Thanks for all you do to protect our coasts,
Lena Moffitt
Senior Director, Our Wild America Campaign
Sierra Club 

1. Eilperin, Juliet and Grandoni, Dino. "Trump administration to overhaul safety-monitoring rules for offshore drilling" The Washington Post. 12/28/18.
2. Eilperin, Juliet and Grandoni, Dino. "Without fanfare, oil companies just received a tax break on New Year's Day" The Washington Post. 1/5/18.

***

Before you keep reading: This one is sickening.

Okay. Ready for this?

The Pentagon funded forces engaged in child sexual assault and other “gross violations of human rights” in Afghanistan — to the tune of 71 billion dollars.
Appalling doesn’t begin to describe it. But in the deafening chaos of the Trump era, even a story as awful as this might slip through the cracks if we don’t speak up. So it’s up to us make this story huge.

Tell Congress: Immediately halt appropriations to Afghan security forces until the Pentagon proves that no American tax dollars will fund human rights violations.

But wait — it gets worse. The Pentagon knew, this whole time. They also knew that a highly specific law prohibits exactly this situation: Congress has made it illegal for the Department of Defense to assist foreign security forces if they have credible evidence that human rights are being violated. But instead of stepping in, the Pentagon dug up a shady legal loophole to dodge accountability and claim they are in the clear.

Let that one sink in for a minute. The Pentagon’s response to clear evidence of human rights violations was: How can we cover our behinds?

The muck and mire of America’s failed war in Afghanistan just keep getting deeper. And it's clear that the Pentagon isn't about to solve their own fiasco. But Congress created the watchdog agency that dug up this story, and Congress passed the laws that should make this behavior 100% illegal. Now, we need to make Congress shut the loophole and shut down American support for these human rights abuses. 

Sign now: Congress must not send another penny to Afghan security forces while these gross human rights violations continue.

Thank you for working for peace,
Cassandra, Stephen, Amy, and the Win Without War team

***

Happy birthday in Palestinian Arabic is “kul sana wa inti salmeh,” which literally translates something like, “May you be safe this year and every year.” 
We’re hoping Ahed Tamimi’s next year, and every year after, is safer than this one. Her birthday is January 31st, and this year, her 17th, she’ll be celebrating it in prison. 

Click here to send Ahed a message of support and solidarity on her birthday.

Ahed’s story of slapping an armed soldier after the IDF tried to enter her family’s home on December 15 is but one small incident during an entire young life controlled by military occupation. 

Earlier that day, a soldier shot Ahed’s 14-year-old cousin Mohammed in the head with a rubber-coated steel bullet, which required risky surgery to remove. Three years ago, soldiers shot her mother Nariman in the leg. Two years before that, soldiers shot and killed her uncle Rushdi. The year before that it was another cousin, Mustafa, who died from a high-velocity tear gas canister to the face point-blank. This is an incomplete list.

So who is on trial? Ahed. A young girl the same age as my daughter, who is sitting behind bars facing a sentence of 10 years for defending herself and her family. 

Let her know that you won’t let Israel put yet another child behind bars and make her disappear. That you’ll be thinking about her on Wednesday— and next week when her trial begins.

Send Ahed a birthday card that honors her life and her brave act of resistance.

 "Kul sana wa inti salmeh ya Ahed!
Sending you love and solidarity on your 17th birthday, Ahed.
We stand with you and with all Palestinian prisoners.
Thank you for your bravery and steadfastness, and happy birthday!"

Ahed isn’t the first child to be locked up in Israeli military detention and she won’t be the last—until we pressure Israel to change. 

By standing up for Ahed, we are standing up for the approximately 350 reported children currently in Israel’s military detention— for the approximately 700 Palestinian children Israel arrests and prosecutes every year. Ahed herself, when she had a chance to talk with her father, told him “to make a campaign for all the women and children in prison.”

Ahed, her family, and all the nonviolent resisters in her village of Nabi Salih, are heroes in my book. They endure tear gas, rubber-coated steel bullets, home invasions, arrests, and tragedy after tragedy. 

To ensure a safer year— a safer world— for Ahed and all Palestinian children, we must continue to work towards ending these many decades of military occupation. And we will continue to push for the legislation introduced by Rep. Betty McCollum, the Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Detention of Palestinian Children Act, to prevent the use of U.S. tax dollars for the Israeli military’s ongoing mistreatment of Palestinian children. 

Today, please join me in saluting Ahed and wishing her a happy birthday, and a safer, happier, more peaceful future.
I know it’s getting closer.

Granate
Communications Strategist