|
|
|
|
|
|
by Lucia Wilkes Smith, W A M M
|
Senator Norm Coleman spoke in mid-April at the hospital where I’m employed, and I was invited. The senator had requested an audience with the largest possible attendance for a health-care policy forum. The forum was broadcast to hospital and clinic employees in Cambridge, Coon Rapids, New Ulm, Owatonna, River Falls, and Shakopee. I suppose it didn’t matter that I’d been arrested in Coleman’s office, just the week prior, with a small group of “Peaceful Grandmothers.” But I felt kind of subversive.
I joined 130 unfamiliar co-workers in a large room where I sat in the second row, about ten feet away from the senator. He skillfully addressed several subjects in his personable way. He mentioned his tenure as mayor of St. Paul and also named off a number of Minnesota towns, perhaps to impress the audience that he’s familiar with the entire state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An Iraqi girl who was injured during the bombing of Al Shaab neighbourhood lies at a hospital in Baghdad. (AFP photo, JT, 3/28/03). |
|
|
|
|
He said that the quality of one’s health care should not depend upon where a person lives – referring to the importance of technology and caregivers in rural areas. He talked about education for children, a primary challenge for him when he was mayor. Coleman said he firmly believes in the economic strength of the nation and the importance of employment. He said, “Access to health care should come through a job.”
I thought those ideas logically introduced the question I’d prepared. I raised my hand and was the first person he called upon. I stood to read my comment:
“Senator Coleman:
“More than nine million children under age nineteen in the United States have no health insurance and nearly 90 percent of them live within working families. I believe that one important goal of government should be to see that our nation’s children have access to comprehensive, quality health-care services. However, I’ve been assured by your Minnesota staff members, Tom Stewart and Bill Huepenbecker, that you intend to vote soon in favor of the FY2006 supplemental appropriation of $67.9 billion to fund ongoing military occupation and war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“Please clarify your priorities regarding adequate health care in our state and nation versus the devastation of the health and well-being of civilians and the U.S. military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
In his response, Coleman used the word “absurd” several times.
But first he said, “You’ve been thinking about that question for a long time.” I still had the microphone in my hand, so I replied, “I’ve been thinking about this question for years.”
(That is true. I had, however, recently gathered facts from the websites of the Children’s Defense Fund and the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress and from staff members in the Senator’s own office.)
Coleman then said our society is making strides in introducing health-care savings accounts so that a person can lose or leave a job and still carry along health coverage. (Wow! I sure was relieved to hear that. I’m certain that the families of those nine million children will get busy pouring thousands of dollars each year into their health-care savings accounts. Sarcasm is bursting out now because I was so careful about my words and tone of voice during the forum sponsored by my employer.)
Next, Coleman said it would be “absurd, absurd!” to refuse to support those men and women who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said he even knows some of them. (I did not ask him whether his son and daughter, Jacob and Sarah, would be enlisting soon.) He said that the U.S. can’t have economic security without national security. He went on about how worthy of support those troops are. Some people in the audience applauded. (I felt kind of bad.)
Coleman responded to several other questions from the audience – about crime in Minneapolis and development along Lake Street. I can’t even remember some other questions because they immediately followed mine and I was feeling very shaky.
Then the meeting closed. The senator zoomed over to me and extended his hand, which I shook because I was raised to be a good girl. He said something about my question.
I asked, “Why do you suppose you didn’t carry St. Paul voters when you ran for the Senate?”
He said, “Because I’m a Republican.”
I said, “But you used to be a Democrat.”
He said, “That’s right.”
And that was the end of my noontime with Senator Coleman. It left me wondering why I engage in these games with a pro. He knows the routine so thoroughly and took advantage of the opportunity I set up for him to state his support for the troops.
Afterwards, in the hallway, I saw a woman I worked with a few years ago. She hugged me. I hadn’t noticed her in the audience. I told her my hands shook when I stood to speak, and she said my voice sounded fine. Three other people approached me as we walked back to our work sites. Each said, “Thank you for that question.” One woman added, “It’s not about ‘support the troops.’” I felt grateful for them and for a few others who have talked with me since that day.
I realized that I’d felt awfully anxious about speaking up within the context of my workplace. I was outside of my usual activist space, which always includes people I trust to understand and encourage me. In that room with Norm Coleman, I didn’t know whether I had even a single ally. I felt alone. By the time I returned to my cubicle, I had a headache.
It’s difficult to explain why I take part in this sort of event. Even when it seems silly or fruitless, I feel compelled to participate personally and actively in this very peculiar process. I wonder, now, how many individuals in that audience thought, “At least I’m not the only one worried about the children and the war.” I also have to wonder, if I hadn’t raised these concerns, would the senator believe that nobody cared? |
|
|
W A M M ShortCut
U.S. Officials Questioned on Torture Practices
The UN Committee Against Torture questioned U.S. officials about compliance with the global ban on prisoner abuse. They asked about the Bush administration’s interpretation of the absolute ban on torture, interrogation methods in prisons in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, and allegations of prisoners being transferred by the CIA to other countries for possible torture.
The antitorture treaty has been signed by 141 countries who appear before the UN committee in rotation. This is the first appearance by the United States since September 11, 2001.
“U.S. officials from all government agencies are prohibited from engaging in torture at all times and in all places,” according to John B. Bellinger III, a State Department legal adviser.
However, U.S. officials acknowledged there had been past mistreatment. The committee expressed concern about the U.S. definition of torture and its refusal to give details about CIA interrogation techniques. The committee report, due May 19, does not impose penalties.
(StarTribune, May 5, 2006; AP: The Mercury News, May 8, 2006, http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/14529067.htm
|
|
|
|
|
© 2006 Women Against Military Madness. All rights reserved.
|
 |
|
Complete June 2006 Index - click here
|
|
 |
|
|
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
