“Two Cheers for Anarchism: Six Easy Pieces on Autonomy, Dignity, and Meaningful Work and Play”

by James C. ScottPrinceton University Press, Oct 14, 2012Political Science200 pages

James Scott taught us what’s wrong with seeing like a state. Now, in his most accessible and personal book to date, the acclaimed social scientist makes the case for seeing like an anarchist. Inspired by the core anarchist faith in the possibilities of voluntary cooperation without hierarchy, Two Cheers for Anarchism is an engaging, high-spirited, and often very funny defense of an anarchist way of seeing–one that provides a unique and powerful perspective on everything from everyday social and political interactions to mass protests and revolutions. Through a wide-ranging series of memorable anecdotes and examples, the book describes an anarchist sensibility that celebrates the local knowledge, common sense, and creativity of ordinary people. The result is a kind of handbook on constructive anarchism that challenges us to radically reconsider the value of hierarchy in public and private life, from schools and workplaces to retirement homes and government itself.

Beginning with what Scott calls “the law of anarchist calisthenics,” an argument for law-breaking inspired by an East German pedestrian crossing, each chapter opens with a story that captures an essential anarchist truth. In the course of telling these stories, Scott touches on a wide variety of subjects: public disorder and riots, desertion, poaching, vernacular knowledge, assembly-line production, globalization, the petty bourgeoisie, school testing, playgrounds, and the practice of historical explanation.

Far from a dogmatic manifesto, Two Cheers for Anarchism celebrates the anarchist confidence in the inventiveness and judgment of people who are free to exercise their creative and moral capacities.

(Google Books)

OccupyForum presents . . . “Left of the Left: My Memories of Sam Dolgoff with Anatole Dolgoff

OccupyForum presents…

Monday, May 29th 2017 from 6 – 9 pm

at The Black and Brown Social Club

474 Valencia between 15th and 16th Streets, near 16th/Mission BART

Information, discussion & community! Monday Night Forum!!

Occupy Forum is an opportunity for open and respectful dialogue

on all sides of these critically important issues!

Left of the Left: My Memories of Sam Dolgoff

With Anatole Dolgoff

Sam Dolgoff was a prominent anarchist from New York City, raised among the Wobblies and Anarchists of the latter two thirds of the 20th century. Sam’s activist life included encounters with Emma Goldman, Vladimir Lenin, Eugene Debs, MLK Jr., and many others.

A house painter by trade, Sam Dolgoff was at the center of American anarchism for seventy years. His political voyage began in the 1920s when he joined the Industrial Workers of the World. He rode the rails as an itinerant laborer, bedding down in hobo camps and mounting soapboxes in cities across the United States. Self-educated, he translated, edited, and wrote some of the most important books and journals of twentieth-century anti-authoritarian politics, including the most widely read collection of Mikhail Bakunin’s writings in English.

His story, told with passion and humor by his son, conjures images of a lost New York City—the Lower East Side, the strong immigrant and working-class neighborhoods, the blurred lines dividing proletarian and intellectual culture, the union halls and social clubs, the brutal cops and bosses, and the solidarity that kept them at bay.

His son, Anatole, a man now in his seventies who, as a child and young man, had a front-row seat to the world of proletarian politics and the colorful characters who brought it to life, will speak to us at OccupyForum and read from his book on his father.

“The American left in its classical age used to celebrate an ideal, which was the worker-intellectual—someone who toils with his hands all his life and meanwhile develops his mind and deepens his knowledge and contributes mightily to progress and decency in the society around him. Sam Dolgoff was a mythic figure in a certain corner of the radical left … and his son, Anatole, has written a wise and beautiful book about him.” —Paul Berman, author of A Tale of Two Utopias and Power and the Idealists

If you want to read the god-honest and god-awful truth about being a radical in twentieth-century America, drop whatever you’re doing, pick up this book, and read it. Pronto! If you’re not crying within five pages, you might want to check whether you’ve got a heart and a pulse.” —Peter Cole, author of Wobblies on the Waterfront

Anatole Dolgoff is the son of Esther and Sam Dolgoff, two of the most important anarchists in the United States in the twentieth century. He has lived in New York City his entire life and teaches geology at the Pratt Institute.

If you were to attend one book talk this year this is the one.

Time will be allotted for announcements.

Donations to Occupy Forum to cover costs are encouraged; no one turned away!

“The US freed Libya. So why can’t I go there?” by Jane Stillwater

In 2001, all we ever heard about in the media was how America was going to “free Afghanistan for democracy.” Sixteen years and several trillion dollars later, Afghanistan should be as free as a bird now, right?

So I went to Expedia.com and clicked on “flight + hotel” to Kabul. Nothing came up. Afghanistan is so very free these days that American tourists can’t even go there. Hell, even war correspondents can’t get in there either. Hmmm.

But what about Iraq, the country that America spent approximately five trillion dollars freeing from that evil dictator what’s-his-name. Plus when I was a kid, I had always dreamed about being an archeologist when I grew up and going to see places like Babylon and Ur. Now was my chance!

So I went on Travelosity.com and clicked on “flight + hotel” to Baghdad. Sorry but American tourists aren’t free to travel to Iraq either.

Libya? Same old story. America spent a trillion or so dollars on liberating Libya from Qaddafi “for humanitarian reasons”. Well, things are so humane over there right now that not even CheapTickets.com can get you a “flight + hotel” to Tripoli. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9nvzs-PciE

Where else has America been liberating stuff? Ukraine? Let’s plug that one into Kayak.com and see what comes up. Nope, Nothing there either.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APR5E4d3GKQ&feature=youtu.be

Yemen? America just sold the Saudis billions and billions of dollars worth of deadly weapons in order to “liberate” Yemen’s oil. But Priceline.com wouldn’t touch Yemen with a ten-foot pole. The Saudis have already dropped 90,000 bombs on Yemen so far. Yemenis are resisting the Saudis’ offer of “freedom” just as hard as George Washington resisted the British during the American Revolution. But then King George III hadn’t dropped 90,000 bombs on Betsy Ross’s head either. No nice hotel in Sanaa for me.

How about Palestine? America is paying 30 billion bucks a year to help Israeli neo-colonialists “free” Gaza. But if you type “Gaza” into Hipmunk.com, your whole computer might just blow up. No freedom in Gaza either. They are not even letting reporters into Gaza. “Closed military zone.” Being a war correspondent sucks eggs these days — let alone being a tourist.

Syria? Let’s click on Trivago.com. The only place we can safely go there is to Damascus and Aleppo, where Syria’s so-called “evil dictator” is still in charge. But no one can go to the parts of Syria freed up by the freedom-loving USA and their allies ISIS and al Qaeda.

And now the American Deep State and its puppets in Washington are talking about “liberating” Russia, China, North Korea and Venezuela. Pretty soon American tourists will consider themselves lucky if they can even safely travel to Tijuana.

PS: According to William Engdahl’s new book, The Gods of Money, World War I and World War II were welcomed and even encouraged by the US corporatocracy in order to weaken Europe. “American leading circles around the Rockefellers and Wall Street had resolved among themselves that all potential European rivals for power would have to grind themselves down in a mutual slaughter.” https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Money-F-William-E…/…/B005Y4F4EE…

Now that same corporatocracy is currently plotting World War 3 in order to weaken Russia and China. “Hey, it worked before. Let’s try it again.” And you know what this means, don’t you? After Russia and China are finally as “free” as Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, Honduras, Somalia and Libya, there will be no more trips on the Orient Express railway for American tourists either.

PPS: I’m going to be an American tourist myself this week — going to New York City, staying at the legendary Jane Hotel, eating rice pudding at B&H Dairy on Second Avenue and attending the 2017 BEA Book Expo.https://www.bookexpoamerica.com/About-Us/

And guess who will be speaking at the Book Expo? Hillary Rodham Clinton! Yes, the darling of the Deep State herself will be telling us in her very own words about how “free” Libya became on her watch and just how much she would love to bomb Russia.http://www.globalresearch.ca/manchester-alleged-sui…/5591732

Stop Wall Street and War Street from destroying our world.

And while you’re at it, please buy my books!http://straitwellbooks.blogspot.com/…/our-top-best-seller-r…

Plus here’s a sneak preview of my latest book, a thrilling murder mystery entitled “Road Trip to Damascus,” hopefully coming out by the end of 2017: http://straitwellbooks.blogspot.com/…/new-book-by-straitwel…

(Courtesy of Mike Zint)

Homeless Action Center Executive Director Patricia E. Wall Begins Well-Deserved Sabbatical

Image may contain: 1 person, eyeglasses and closeup
Homeless Action Center

May 26, 2017

Last September, HAC’s Executive Director was selected to receive a 2016 Cal Wellness Sabbatical Award. This award makes it possible for Pattie to take a three-month sabbatical for relaxation, reflection and rejuvenation. It also provides HAC’s strong management team with the resources needed to effectively maintain its high standards in Pattie’s absence.

The 2016 Cal Wellness Sabbatical Award is funded by a grant from The California Wellness Foundation (Cal Wellness). Created in 1992 as a private independent foundation, Cal Wellness’ mission is to improve the health of the people of California by making grants for health promotion, wellness education and disease prevention.

Pattie’s sabbatical break begins on May 26 and ends on August 25. We look forward to her new ideas, creative initiatives and renewed energy on her return!

(Courtesy of Mike Zint.)

Democracy needs politeness

On Political Discussion:  Politeness Rules

From Aeon Magazine: Democracy needs politeness (May 16, 2017)

Autocrats shouted, cursed, and bullied, while American revolutionaries used politeness as a tool of radical politics“Long before current fears about incivility in public life – before anxieties about Twitter-shaming and cable-news name-calling – politeness was very much on the minds of United States leaders. In 1808, the US president Thomas Jefferson ranked the ‘qualities of mind’ he valued. Not surprisingly, he included ‘integrity’, ‘industry’, and ‘science’. These traits were particularly important to American revolutionaries seeking a society based on independent citizens, rather than harsh rulers and inherited privilege. But at the top of his list, Jefferson chose not these familiar Enlightenment values but ‘good humour’ – or what contemporaries usually called ‘politeness’….”

Link to complete article:  Politeness Rules

(Courtesy of Gwyllm Llwydd.)

Ransomware is NSA’s mess (democracy.earth)

Largest ransomware attack in history, made possible by abuse of power.

Your machine is infected and infecting others, your files have been encrypted and you have a limited period of time to get them back: if you pay.

By now everyone who’s been online or watching TV in the last few days know about #WannaCry ransomware attack, the hijacking of files and the asking for Bitcoin to decrypt stuff in computers running on Windows, which affected up to 75 countries, companies and UK’s National Healthcare Service.

Most cybersecurity experts that circulated in TV shows these days have explained very efficiently the technical aspects of the attack, somehow managing to belittle the political dimension of the event and making it an “incompetent developers, evil hackers and heroic researchers” drama.

We think it’s fundamental to highlight there’s more here than anonymous hustlers and that this wouldn’t be a global disaster without Microsoft and the NSA.

What made such a mess possible?

The attack affects particularly Windows, the closed-source operating system which vulnerabilities the virus exploited. One specific flaw that made this attack possible was a bug in Windows’ SMB file-sharing services, which had been detected by the National Security Agency of the United States and used with the purpose of peering into people’s computers. The NSA designed a tool to exploit it and extract information: Eternalblue, which got stolen and leaked months ago, so the WannaCry authors took advantage of it. The second tool used to complete the job was Doublepulsar, a backdoor also designed and installed by the NSA, also leaked by The Shadow Brokersmonths ago. This means vulnerabilities were built in intentionally or allowed by petition (well, demand) of the the National Security Agency.

The irony of a security agency making everyone more insecure; only an irony if we pretend the NSA is a security agency rather than an organism of domestic and international surveillance with the goal of accumulating power and control over citizens worldwide. Now state-funded tools for surveillance triggers a disaster in UK hospitals.

The ethical decision of using the knowledge programmers gain over systems is whether the know-how is used to expand and share public knowledge or to use it for control, to manipulate scarce information and trade secrets. So the meaning of the word “hacker” is defined pragmatically by observing what effects their actions produce. In this case it’s extremely important to point out that the authors of the malware are not the only hackers in this scene: Microsoft itself like several other tech companies -who, by the way, control most of the software we run on our computers- are also “hackers”: authors of security, exceptions and vulnerabilities.

When it comes to finding who’s responsible, the largest ransomware attack in history is more about government agencies systematically violating privacy and companies refusing to pay proper attention to security than about extortion.

What can be done?

Cyberattacks are neither inevitable nor incontestable.

Users can fight back this and future attacks taking a couple basic preventions:

  • Keep your software up to date. Updates often include patches to fix important security bugs.
  • Mind before clicking links and attachments sent by anybody. Just ask yourself how legit do the source and the link look like.
  • Encrypt your files and messages whenever possible. Even if nobody steals them, it’s clear some negligent people are after them.

Still, we insist given NSA’s big share of responsibility, more can, should and must be done to prevent future attacks. A good start:

  • The US Congress has to hold the NSA accountable, ask them about bugs they find in software and provide instruction for such cases — (since they fund the research, perhaps they could fund the fixing or at least not the development of exploitative tools).
  • Microsoft and all other companies can pay more attention to information security researchers and advisers.
  • The NSA and security agencies in general can stop demanding companies to give up user’s privacy in the name of law enforcement.
  • Tech companies can stop trading with personal data and collaborating in the installation of surveillance states around the world. One first step would be to refuse governments access to their software, like Apple has recently done.

We can work on the design of better, decentralized, more accountable systems to put an end to our dependency to these actor’s intentions and grant every citizen in the world personal sovereignty.

Democratic squabble in Sacramento – just another skirmish on the route

The new Sanders insurgents and the old Clinton regulars are really pretty much stuck with each other in the current so-called anti-Trump “resistance” and the Democratic Party is the arena where the opposition gathers. (Jessica Christian/2016 S.F. Examiner)

By on May 25, 2017 (sfexaminer.com)

Did the California Democratic Party establishment deal Bernie Sanders-oriented insurgents another devastating defeat at the party convention in Sacramento this weekend, as some would have it? I was one of those insurgents and I don’t think so.

The sense of insurgency that caused me to become a first-time California convention delegate had to do with the desire to reorient the party from reliance on corporate funding and values toward the type of profound identification with working class aspirations and interests that Sanders had brought to the presidential primaries. From that perspective, I neither thought that I had a horse in the race, nor did I think that this fact invalidated the state Democratic Party as an institution to work with.

Eric Bauman, who moved up to party chair from being the party’s male vice-chair, and Kimberly Ellis, past executive director of Emerge California, who lost the race by 62 votes out of nearly 3,000 cast, actually displayed rather similar political profiles. Both had backed Hillary Clinton, Bauman perhaps emblematic of her party-insider base and Ellis her feminist enthusiasts. Afterward both apparently got a bit of the Sanders-religion and endorsed Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison’s unsuccessful run for national party chair.

Members of my San Francisco teachers union told me Bauman had been great on education issues as head of the L.A. County party organization, and the head of a health care workers union called to urge support for him. But the fact that a company in which he is a principal took over $100,000 to work against Proposition 61, an unsuccessful 2016 effort to reduce drug prices, seemed disqualifying to me.

On the other hand, I didn’t see Ellis as a real alternative. Her organization trains women to run for political office but its two most prominent trainees in San Francisco politics, supervisors London Breed and Malia Cohen, while undoubtedly capable and honorable public servants, generally line up on the corporate, big-money side on a lot of The City’s big issues. She was also known to enjoy the support of charter school enthusiasts. So while I understood the effort of organizations like the California Nurses Association and Our Revolution to get her elected — if you form the base of an insurgency, the candidate at its head does owe you something — I was not eager to cast my vote that way either. (I ultimately opted for a third candidate, although I was prepared to vote for Ellis in the run-off that would have occurred had there been no first ballot majority.)

And the weekend showed us that there are even more important races crying out for a real alternative. Is there, for instance, a gubernatorial candidate who fits the profile I’ve described? Several devoted much time, effort and money to trying to win us over this past weekend, but I didn’t hear the sort of approach I think the situation calls for.

The two take-aways for me here are that the Sanders forces (generally lionized at the convention, actually) did not really experience a rejection of their viewpoint, as it was not really on offer; and, that even if they had, that would be no reason not to soldier on. The new Sanders insurgents and the old Clinton regulars are really pretty much stuck with each other in the current so-called anti-Trump “resistance” and the Democratic Party is the arena where the opposition gathers. So while the pushing and shoving between the two sides may feel a lot like roller derby some days, that’s OK. The divisions are real — and deep: the now-sainted former President Barack Obama’s recent decision to accept a $400,000 speaking fee from a Wall Street firm reminds us how differently the two sides approach things. Nevertheless, the real action remains in finding our candidates and putting them in front of the voters next year. If we think we’re the real, effective alternative to Trump, that’s how we prove it.

Tom Gallagher is chair of San Francisco Progressive Democrats of America. He was a Sanders delegate to the Democratic National Convention and is a past member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives.

“Corporate Lobbyist Wins Calif. Dem Chair Race After Strange Pedophilia Rumor Defense” by Michael Sainato

Eric Bauman lives up to his reputation of playing dirty politics

screenshot 2017 05 21 07 17 09 Corporate Lobbyist Wins Calif. Dem Chair Race After Strange Pedophilia Rumor Defense

Eric Bauman. Eric Bauman/Facebook

May 17, 2017 (observer.com)

The California Democratic Party chair race turned into a closely contested race between establishment candidate and corporate lobbyist Eric Bauman, who currently serves as vice chair, and Kimberly Ellis, a San Francisco activist backed by the National Nurses Union and Our Revolution. Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom endorsed both candidates ahead of the election on May 20, though Sanders supporters rallied behind Ellis, who acknowledges the Democratic Party has lost its way and focused on progressive issues like single payer health care despite supporting Clinton in the primaries.

Bauman, a Democratic Party insider whose election was initially viewed as a sure thing, has lived up to his description by the LA Weekly in 2011 as “a professional Democrat and behind-the-scenes power player who has a reputation for playing hard-ball politics and not always being a nice guy.” On May 20, his tactics paid off as he managed to fend off Ellis’ surge, capturing 60 more delegate votes out of nearly 3,000 cast. Ellis has not yet conceded and is consulting with attorneys on how to push for a recount.

On May 7, the Los Angeles Times reported Bauman sent an email to California Democrats alleging he is being falsely targeted with rumors that he engages in “inappropriate behavior with 14- and 16-year-old boys.” Bauman didn’t cite or provide evidence of the rumors. Instead, he cited that a few people within his campaign had heard them. He told the Los Angeles Times that by addressing the rumor, “I sort of in a way spread the thing.” He claimed he wasn’t accusing his opponent of being behind it.

The email sent out implies otherwise. “The members of party cannot go around acting like Donald Trump and his alt-right gang of thugs and expect voters to see us differently,” he wrote in the email. He continued:

I want to say plainly: we Democrats cannot, must not accept or tolerate the spreading of despicable lies like this. It means we are no better than Trump with his character assassination tactics. WE MUST REFUSE TO ALLOW PEOPLE WHO CLAIM TO BE DEMOCRATS TO GET AWAY WITH THIS TYPE OF HEINOUS AND OBNOXIOUS BEHAVIOR!”

His opponent’s campaign denounced the rumors shortly after the email was sent out. California State Party delegate Greg Diamond alleged in a blog post that Bauman fabricated the existence of the rumors for political gain. It’s unclear if political motives inspired the email, but it is strange that Bauman felt obligated to defend rumors that can’t be traced on the internet other than from what publications have covered in his defense against them.

As the California Democratic Party Chair race unfolded, several Bernie Sanders supporters denounced Eric Bauman for his divisive rhetoric and behavior toward progressives within the party. On May 16, Los Angeles activist Lauren Steiner reshared a video from 2015 of a dinner with several California Democratic Party organizers during which Bauman angrily confronted Steiner for asking a couple political questions. She wrote in a Facebook post after the incident occurred, “He left his seat, moved directly in front of me, jabbed his finger in my face, yelled and cursed at me, talked over me when I tried to defend myself, called me ‘honey’ twice and accused me of ‘bully tactics.’ When my friend stood in between to create some distance, he said, ‘I’m not going to hit her.’ Two men had to intervene to pull him away.”

On May 17, Sanders supporter and activist Yolanda Varela Gonzalez openly denounced Bauman in a Facebook live stream over similar altercations with him. “That was my first experience with Eric Bauman, to be told to sit down and shut up,” Gonzalez said in reference to a Democratic Party summit in Fall 2015 at which she called out a speaker for alleging that all of Sanders’ supporters are old, white men. She also noted that Clinton was repeatedly referred to as the Democratic presidential nominee at the time by party leadership. Tearing up, Gonzalez recalled that Bauman intimidatingly poked her in the chest during a conversation at the same event.

Bauman’s consulting firm has a recent record of fighting progressive causes. The San Francisco Chronicle reported in June 2016 that Bauman was receiving $12,500 a month from the pharmaceutical industry to lobby against a proposition that would “cap the price that any state agency or care program could spend on prescription drugs at what the federal Department of Veterans Affairs pays.” Bauman received these payments while earning a six figure salary as an adviser to the California Assembly Speaker, Anthony Rendon.

The Democratic establishment’s failure to fully support that proposition further inspired Sanders supporters, already enthused to get involved in politics by Sanders’ campaign, to take over a majority of the California Democratic Party’sdelegates in January 2017. The race for the State Party chair became an extension of that battle, and the party establishment is pulling the same dirty tricks and manipulations it became known for in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries.



Americans like to indulge the notion that we are exceptional, a conceit that understandably sends non-Americans up the wall. But we are indisputably exceptional in a way that must baffle the rest of the developed world: our failure – or refusal – to implement universal health care.

Even Hong Kong, often and erroneously portrayed as a laboratory experiment in hands-off government, has what amounts to universal health care. The U.S. has never had anything like universal coverage, yet even “Obamacare” – a piecemeal measure that narrows but does not close the uninsured gap – is often vilified as a kind of Bolshevik plot to collectivize medicine.

How is it that such an advanced society is so averse to an idea that’s elemental in most of the developed world? The answer has to do with the individualist and anti-intellectual political culture that Donald Trump has ridden into the White House, and with the political power of a health care industry heavily armed to protect its own interests.

Of course, that’s not the narrative you’ll hear from the sort of people who despise not just Obamacare but the whole notion of a social safety net. They explain our gap-ridden health care by way of a healthy cultural aversion to big government. It’s an interesting storyline, but it doesn’t quite square with national programs like Social Security (an 82-year-old system comparable to Hong Kong’s Mandatory Provident Fund), Medicare (universal “single-payer” health insurance for people over 65) or Medicaid (government health insurance for the poor). Or with the fact that three-fifths of Americans would prefer a universal system.

If, by cultural aversion, conservatives mean cognitive dissonance, they may be on to something. The Tea Party – a populist antecedent to Trumpism – held feverish rallies in the early Obama years where inevitably some faux live-free-or-die insurgent in a tricorn hat would hold up a placard reading, “Keep your government hands off my Medicare”.

Even today, people who are sure they hate Obamacare – essentially a system of government-sponsored exchanges where people buy private insurance – aren’t quite sure what it is. A recent survey by the polling firm Morning Consult found that 80 per cent of Republican voters strongly disapproved of “Obamacare”, while only 60 per cent strongly disapproved of the “Affordable Care Act”. The punchline: They’re one and the same. The very name “Obamacare” helps explain the confusion. It’s a term of derision ginned up by the Great Right Wing Noise Machine that tends to dominate the national conversation.

That gets us to the second problem with the cultural-aversion theory of freedom from health care: it casually omits a long history of scare tactics deployed by corporate propagandists at the mere thought of treating health care as a public good, not just a private privilege. As described by The New Yorker’s Jill Lepore in 2012, an early landmark in the annals of bought-and-paid disinformation was the 1945 defeat of a California proposal for compulsory health insurance. The propaganda provider was Campaigns, Inc – the world’s first “political consulting firm”, wrote Lepore – and the client was the California Medical Association.

By the 1990s, the art of bamboozling folks into mortal terror of accessible health care was a highly refined art. The height of the genre was surely Harry and Louise, a fictional couple despairing at the kitchen table over the Clinton proposal in a series of TV ads sponsored by the Health Insurance Association of America.

Most of the developed world no longer debates the soundness of universal health care for the same reason it doesn’t debate the roundness of the Earth. In America, though, the flat-earthers are still on the scoreboard because they figured out long ago that public opinion is a gullible beast, swayed not by the strongest argument but by the loudest noise machine, and we all know who owns that.

Originally published by South China Morning Post

healthcare, universal healthcare, single payer, Obamacare, repeal and replace, healthcare opposition, insurance industry, pharmaceutical industry, Health Insurance Association of America

Occupation update from Mike Zint

May 24, 2017

A few months ago, BPD raided, and took a senior, Barbara Brust, to the ground. Barbara has bad knees. At the time of the raid, she had limited mobility. After the raid, she had lost most of that.

She went in for surgery a couple of days ago. Knee replacement surgery, and months of rehabilitation are the price she is paying for taking a stand for those less fortunate.

Send positive, healing energy her way.