Public policy, corporations, and the Stockholm Syndrom

The Stockholm Syndrome is a phenomenon in which prisoners, kidnap victims, hostages, etc. begin to identify with their captors. They take on the captor's worldview, rationalize their captivity, and become submissively friendly toward those who are, in reality, their enemies. It is suggested by psychiatric professionals that this occurs because within the narrow reality of the captive/captor relationship, the captor has all of the power, and the perceived futility of active resistence leads to a mental posture that moves beyond accomodation to active -- and self-defeating -- cooperation.

Those who defend the current special immunity provided to pharmaceutical corporations appear to be suffering from some form of the Stockholm Syndrome. Consider this: "Michigan is the only state in the nation that gives pharmaceutical companies a free ride when their products harm or kill,” said State Representative Mike Simpson (D-Liberty Township), who is the lead sponsor of the bill to repeal drug immunity. "Our residents shouldn’t be treated as second-class citizens simply because they live in Michigan. We must give them the power to hold drug companies accountable." The bill the Dems are seeking to repeal goes back to King John and the GOP lege of 1996. The rationale for the law was that drugs approved by the FDA meet a reasonable level of safety, and pharmaceutical companies should be protected from the "chilling effects" of frivolous lawsuits.

What has been the result of this 1996 law? And how much of a "reasonable level of safety" does FDA approval confer? Well, let's have a look, shall we? Let's have some "fun" . . .

• Rezulin - pulled off the market in 2000 after it was linked to nearly 400 deaths and thousands of cases of liver failure; claims by 187 Michigan residents against Warner-Lambert, maker of the diabetes drug Rezulin, were dismissed by a New York federal court judge because of the Michigan law. Nice.

• Vioxx - pulled off the market in 2004, may have caused heart attacks or cardiac deaths in up to 139,000 Americans, based on its manufacturer's (Merck’s) own studies. (The legal eagles have circled "may.")

• Bextra - taken off the market in 2005 due to an increased risk of heart attack and serious skin reactions among the painkiller’s users.

Now, has the 1996 law helped keep those Big Pharma companies with their high-paying jobs in Winter/Water Wonderland? Have we been rewarded for our efforts? To quote Jack Lessenberry: "Last month, without warning, Pfizer, which bought the homegrown Upjohn company four years ago, announced it was completely closing its research facility in Ann Arbor...Nor have other pharmaceutical companies flocked to the state." [bold and italics mine] Now, I don't know how you keep score, but it looks to me like Big Pharma about a million, and Michigan zero. Not only do we lose a homegrown company, fail to keep a new company, but we do not attract any new companies in this favored industry.

Well, Michigan is an expensive place to do business, many will say. If we would have just offered the poor sould at Pfizer a tax break or two, then all would have been well. Um hm. Then how do we explain this: "Mike Shore, spokesman for the Michigan Economic Development Corp., said Pfizer didn't ask for or receive any state tax breaks to grow or stay in Michigan. The company qualified for millions of dollars in potential tax breaks four years ago, Shore said, but never made the investments necessary to qualify for them." [bold and italics mine]

Consider the following:

• The biggest issue facing the possible agreement is a tax break Pfizer has proposed to the city. The company is asking for a 50 percent abatement on the potential $800 million it said it may invest over the next six to 12 years.

• Kalamazoo may make Pfizer repay tax breaks

• In 2001, the drug giant Pfizer received a 25 million dollar state tax break to build a facility near Ann Arbor. In addition, the state agreed to invest one billion dollars over 20 years to fund research that Pfizer will have free access to and can profit from. In addition, the city of Ann Arbor also gave Pfizer 47.7 million dollars in tax breaks. [I believe this second sentence pertains to the state tax breaks Mr. shore was referring to]

The tax break give away for corporations continues, whether the corporations demand them or not. It is as if public policy makers feel they are hostages. Guess what? Even if you are nice to your captor, even if you "see his point of view," he is solely motivated by his own perceived self-interest. Do not expect mercy.

Given this reality, our state should not grant special conditions. It is said in libertarian circles that the state is the coldest of cold monsters. Big Pharma corporations are essentially states, not businesses (and certainly not "individuals"); the moniker fits them well. With these alien states, tax breaks need to be an enforceable and measurable quid pro quo, and the legal rights of our state's citizens/consumers should never be sacrificed to garner favor with these foreign governments.

Can't you see / This is a land of confusion

After enduring a colleague's rant about how the trial of Scooter Libby in the Valerie Plame case is a waste of time, that no laws were violated, and -- the back-breaker -- that Ms. Plame was not a covert agent, I feel compelled to provide some links on the case (obviously, I could not do so, except vaguely, while in conversation.)

I would ask that all those uncertain about what the Libby trial was about should check out this post by former CIA employee Larry Johnson. In this post, Mr. Johnson succinctly explains what covert status means according to the CIA, and demonstrates how Ms. Plame was most definitely a covert asset for the CIA, operating as a NOC, or under non official cover. He also provides links to Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), and explains why the CIA initiated the investigation concerning Ms. Plame's outing. In addition, he offers his analysis of the significance of the incident:

" ... Valerie was a covert agent. Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer, and Richard Armitage, among others, put her name in circulation with members of the press. They harmed a covert agent and in the process did serious damage to our nation's security. This may not be relevant to the charges Scooter faces, but it is relevant to our nation's security. We now know that the Bush White House was as cavalier with the identity of a CIA officer as they have been of late with the medical care for wounded Iraqi war vets at Walter Reed. And in both cases people have probably died because of their carelessness."

It seems that the mainstream media is incapable of following any story more complicated or nuanced than a missing teenager on spring break, or the break-up of a celeberity "marriage." The supporters of the administration seem incapable of seeing the truth, as the truth is so damning; the result is a willed confusion, which is supported by outright lies from right wing commentators such Victoria Toensing, Cliff May and Byron York who not only deny Ms. Plame was covert but also insist that she was not covered by the IIPA because she had not lived overseas in the five years preceding the July 2003 Robert Novak article. In the real world, however, the relevant law reads not "living" but "serving outside the United States"; although based in DC, Ms. Plame traveled overseas and conducted espionage activities during the period 1998-2002 and is most definitely a covered person under the IIPA.)

Yes, it is true that Mr. Libby is not on trial for violating the IIPA, but for lying in a cover-up. We can similarly state that the Civil War was not really about slavery, but states rights. But what was the particular "right" that was at stake? As in Mr. Libby's case, the cover-up pertains to violation of the IIPA and the compromising of US security.

Jeff Colby, RIP

Detroit lost a true star, Jeff Colby, who passed away in his sleep at age 42. Jeff was responsible for The Fabulous Ruins of Detroit [the Fabulous Ruins section is found under Tour Detroit.] The Fabulous Ruins of Detroit Tour sought to show the inherit beauty and power of the ruins of modern day Detroit. It began in 1997 and was expanded and enhanced until 1999. At this point, tours began to appear independently, and the DetroitYES forum was started. The Fabulous Ruins of Detroit provides the setting and context of the DetroitYES Project, which provides an online communtiy forum to discuss all aspects of Detroit's current situation -- What went wrong? What does it mean? and, most importantly, Can it be fixed? These are vital questions, on the sociopolitical, economic, and moral level; as Detroit goes, so goes Michigan. Mr. Colby engaged these issues in a creative manner that improved the level of discussion through aesthetics and technology. He will truly be missed.

How to lose an army

Mother Jones' has a great online accessible set of articles titled Iraq 101. One of the great aspects of online journalism is that sources can be provided for stats and quotes, and this set of articles is rich with substance and links.

From the section Breaking the Army, we read the following:

"Half of American soldiers think we are likely to succeed in Iraq; more than 1/3 say we shouldn’t have invaded in the first place. It costs $275,000 to deploy a soldier in Iraq for a year. It costs $5,840 to feed him. Army doctrine recommends deploying 20 soldiers for every 1,000 residents of an area with insurgents in it. Baghdad, a city of 6 million, would require 120,000 troops; 20,000 are there now. Nearly 1/3 of the troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan have served multiple tours. “I don’t think they can sustain the rotations the way they are right now without really starting to have severe readiness issues in the Army much more than another year,” said retired Brig. General David Grange in December. Some military equipment used in Iraq has experienced the equivalent of 27 years of use in 3 years. It costs $17 billion a year to replace worn and lost equipment." [bolding is mine]

The central front in the war on Peak Oil; or, how to lose at 4GW

From TalkingPointsMemo:

(February 19, 2007 -- 04:52 PM EST // link)
You've probably seen today's report in the Times about the al Qaida resurgence along Pakistan's lawless frontier with Afghanistan. This should hardly be a surprise not only because of the Taliban's comeback in Afghanistan but much more importantly because of the de facto ceasefire with al Qaida militants and their backers that the Pakistani government recently agreed to.
But it gives the current debate over Iraq a renewed clarity. The whole endeavor in Iraq is no more and no less than a grand national joke we are playing on ourselves. We're having a clownish debate over Iraq as the center of a war on terror while the actual people -- in many cases, it would seem, literally the same people -- who plotted the 9/11 attack are on the rebound. How can anyone credibly deny that if most of our ground forces and budget weren't tied down in Iraq we would be far better able to react to this genuine threat?
And we are unwilling to shift course because we can't come to grips with what has already happened?
-- Josh Marshall
[bold and italics in the above are mine]

In response to the last two questions: first, it is questionable whether the type of ground forces we currently possess are suited for the kind of extensive, ongoing special operations required to neutralize so-called al-Qaeda militants. (I state "so-called" because my sense is that "al-Qaeda" has become for us what "Communist" was for Cold War proxies: a catch-all that washes over important differences in various conflicts, and always underestimates the importance of regionalism and nationalism. Mr. Marshall suggests some of these militants may be the same that helped plan the 9/11 attacks, but we should emphasize "might have been.")

Second, Mr. Marshall hits the nail on the head: this nation is not able to shift directions strategically because the majority, from the elites down to major voting blocks of the electorate, cannot come to grips with the dishonesty of the war. The will of the people, their elan, came from their need for revenge, and the attack on Iraq was sold as such. The Right is currently full of self-pity that we lack the will as a nation to do "whatever it takes" and are "fighting with one hand tied behind our backs." (These threads totally misunderstand the challenge and serve as the set-up for justifying what went wrong.) Keep in mind, however, that directly after 9/11, the President did not ask for sacrifice, nor did he offer an analysis of the situation beyond "they are evil, we are good"; rather, he told the people to not worry, and to go shopping. Do not worry, daddy will take care of things. Don't worry, be happy -- at least one theme he accepted from this father.

The self-image of the elites and their supporters in the general populace--their confidence-- came from a sense that the Republicans are competent, no-nonsense tough guys directing the most fearsome military machine in the history of the world. That confidence is now, if not gone, at least shaken, and the self-image is seriously rattled, as we have witnessed an incompetent occupation and impotent attempt at pacification. Small comfort can be found in knowing the US military will win every firefight. We are reminded of the famous exchange of US Col Summers with a Vietnamese general: "You never defeated us militarily." "True," the Vietnamese general replied, "but that is also irrelevant." 4GW, my friends, does not count bodies, and tactical wins mask strategic failure.

No, Iraq is not the central front on terror, but it is significant beyond that hyped "war" (which joins the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on FILL IN THE BLANK). Iraq is the central front of the war on Peak Oil, as perceived by the current administration. Secure access to the fields of Iraq, which may contain one quarter of the world's oil, is perceived as vital to maintaining American power. Daddy should have leveled with the people.

Late Update: Check out this: New Iraq Oil Law To Open Iraq's Oil Reserves to Western Companies. (What a surprise.) You can listen here to Iraqi blogger Raed Jarrar, who has obtained a copy of the proposed oil law and has just translated it into English.

Two triggers to calamity

From the BBC's US 'Iran attack plans' revealed

"BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the trigger for such an attack reportedly includes any confirmation that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon - which it denies.

"Alternatively, our correspondent adds, a high-casualty attack on US forces in neighbouring Iraq could also trigger a bombing campaign if it were traced directly back to Tehran."

Both campaigns to give justification to the American strike are in full swing, with both receiving push back from a now skeptical media and, in the case of General Pace, a skeptical military.

While much verbage will be spilled over this issue, it is important to watch what the government does, rather than listen to what it says. In other words, keep your eyes on the carrier groups.

Snow job, or "You don't need a weatherman to tell which the wind blows"

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow was asked about [mistakes in planning the Iraq war] today at the daily briefing, following the release of military documents from 2002 that revealed that the U.S. expected that by now a token American force of 5,000 would be able to keep things under control in Iraq -- and the occupation would require only a two or three month "stabilization" period.

"What went wrong?" the reporter asked. Snow replied: "I'm not sure anything went wrong."

Since Mr. Snow has problems seeing anything that "went wrong," I would like to direct him to a way of measuring progress. We could, for instance, measure success in Iraq by reviewing the development of Iraqi security forces, electrical output and oil production. Now, how we doin'? For your answers, go to the interview of Brookings Institute scholar Michael O'Hanlon by Steve Inskeep. The measurable categories, as you will see, were selected by President Bush as areas to keep an eye on back in June of 2006.

Michigan Republican Representative from Harrison Township, Candice Miller, has some ideas of why things went wrong. She is quoted in the Detroit Free Press as stating the following: "From the very beginning of the Iraq conflict we should have allowed our troops to go in and use overwhelming force, but we were told, no, that we had enough," Miller said. "Those that suggested otherwise were dismissed, and so they micromanaged from the White House, and now I think they are doing the same with this surge" in troop strength.

Matt Millen in the White House

Political Animal reader TCD posted this in reaction to discussion about consertatives such as Elliot Abrams and John Bolton criticizing Bush's deal with North Korea:

' "And the National Review, a conservative bastion, yesterday slammed the agreement as essentially the same one negotiated by President Bill Clinton in 1994 -- "

'So, after six years of huffing and puffing and dithering, the Bushies are re-neogtiating the same Agreed Framework that Clinton and Jimmy Carter put in place in 1994? And what was accomplished by the Republican Party in those six years? Jack shit! Except allowing the North Koreans to develop a nuclear weapon. Good God are these conservatives ineffective and incompetent...'

Yep, we have Matt Millen in the White House. Detroit Lions fans will understand the reference.

Their priorities, and ours

This is rich. A leaked letter that GOP Reps. John Shadegg and Peter Hoekstra sent out to House GOP colleagues about escalation has recently been posted at House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's website. You can read it here.

Two sections of the letter stand out. The first is this: "Thanks to the liberal mainstream media, Americans fully understand the consequences of continuing our efforts in Iraq -- both in American lives and dollars." Well, actually, I would argue that Americans do not "fully understand" these consequences. Instead, their gut reaction or instinct is that this war has been extremely expensive, the overall strategy is flawed, and soldiers and innocents are dying in vain. However, most Americans are simply too busy with the daily grind of life to have any detailed knowledge of what is occurring in the Mideast. In fact, were Americans to be fully informed on the cost of the war in Iraq, I suspect support would be even lower than it is at present. For economic costs of the conflict, check here and this article by Republican Representative Ron Paul here. For detailed information on casualities, go here. And, my personal favorite, for visuals as to what war is, go here -- but not with any children present, as the pictures are very disturbing.

The second section that jumps out is this: "The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose." Now, I would argue that the details of the surge, whether it will work, and whether we can win militarily is the key issue at the present. This question on tactics and how it relates to overall strategy directly impacts the lives of tens of thousands of troops, hundreds of thousands of civilian Iraqis, and the economic stability of the entire world. But no, the GOP House leadership is not concerned about these realities. As Greg Sargent states: "...the advice here is this: GOPers shouldn't allow themselves to be lured into a 'debate' about the single most important policy question facing us right now, because they might lose. Never mind how all this might impact the troops who actually have to go to Iraq. Healthy priorities, huh?" Ah yes, the courage of their convictions. With craven leadership like this, the terrorists really have already won.

Some Spartan humor

Well, we know now which side the Wolverines are on . . .

Our North Africa Campaign

Great post that pulls on the buzz surrounding the accusations of Iranian involvement in Iraq at Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo. The specific post is dated February 12th, and you can also go there to view a copy the Pentagon's PPT that is being used to demonstrate Iranian involvement. The entire article is excellent, and Mr. Marshall closes with the following strongly worded paragraph:

"Hawk or dove, who denies that Iraq, solving the situation in Iraq is the singular issue of American foreign policy today. And who can honestly say that tangling with Iran helps us achieve that end in any meaningful way? Iran is a distraction. More specifically, this new Iran bogey is an effort to distract us or find a scapegoat for the administration's failure in Iraq. And
let's not forget that the underlying charge is likely another fraud. "

Most media ink will be spent on the last sentence and its implications (i.e. that the current administration, even more than most administrations, is staffed by what are almost pathological liars, and a game of "gotcha" will ensue as various charges are analyzed and reviewed). The real issue, however, is a strategic one, and the key sentence is this one: "Iran is a distraction."

The neo-cons love working with WWII analogies, so here is one, just for fun. In the high-tide of that conflict, for Germany, the center of gravity was the Eastern Front. Yugoslavia, Greece, North Africa -- all of these were distractions. By contemplating action against Iran, we are demonstrating confusion; should we engage Iran militarily, we will demonstrate strategic ineptitude that no level of tactical success will overcome. Like Germany of WWII, we may end up losing an army in the desert.

Lastly, as the administration positions for carte blanche authority to engage Iran militarily, much will be made of the need to "support the troops." It will be said by the worshippers of executive power that any action that contradicts the president, whether it be to hold back funding, set rules of engagement, openly debate the nation's options -- in other words, any action in which Congress will fulfill its role as mandated by the Constitution -- will be an indication of "no confidence" and evidence that one does not "support the troops." In the real world, however, the surest way to ratchet up the violence for our troops and make the stated mission of stabilizing Iraq more difficult and less likely to succeed would be to attack Iran. For the dangers of an American attack on Iran to its current forces stationed in Iraq, see William Lind here and here.

Where are the Dems?

One would expect the Dems to be better, or simply more aware of, the Peak Oil issue than GOP members. For example, some Dems are at least on board with the concept and challenge of climate change. I cannot remember exactly where I saw it, but a recent poll shows that a majority of GOP Congressman either do not believe climate change is occuring or do not believe that it is a significant issue.

With Peak Oil, both parties have their head in the sand. The only member to raise any noise on this at all is Republican Representative Roscoe Bartlett. Check out his Energy Resources and our Future from the Congressional Record of January 24. 2007. Please visit the Congressman's website at http://www.bartlett.house.gov/ for more information.

Depletion rates and Peak Oil

Kevin Drum's Political Animal has a brief but excellent post on Peak Oil in Mexico as it relates to the Cantarell mega field. He writes "The issue here isn't that Cantarell is declining. That began a couple of years ago and had been widely anticipated. What's news is that, just as many peak oil theorists have been warning, when big fields start to decline they decline faster than anyone expects." This has been, and remains, an important element of the Peak Oil argument, and those who study this from a scientific and production offer technical explanations. Two great resources for this topic are The Energy Bulletin and The Oil Drum.

Mr. Drum goes on to say that [b]y itself, [the fast decline of Canatarell] is nothing to get alarmed about ... However, if it turns out that the peak oil guys are broadly correct, and declining fields start turning into collapsing fields across the world, that would be something to get alarmed about." This is one of the major challenges of Peak Oil -- the world can expect not only difficulties posed by the decline of easy (i.e. cheap) oil availability in and of itself, but the rate of change in the decline can lead to all kinds of nastiness between nations and severely hamper the market's ability to respond effectively with viable alternatives.

More info on Cantarell is available here and here. Also please take the time to look at the comments at Mr. Drum's site. It provides a good feel for the typical ebb and flow that occurs as folks consider this issue.

Seven Republican Senators with character

Steven Clemons explains how in the last hour both Democratic and Republican leadership practiced behind-the-scenes gamesmanship that undermined a floor debate about America's options in Iraq. His post, dated February 7th and titled Seven Republican Samurai Tell Reid and McConnell: Shape Up -- Debate on Iraq Resolution Must Take Place can be found here. It is well worth a read, and also contains the actual letter sent by the seven Republican ronin to Senators Reid, McConnel, Durbin, and Lott. Although he is a long shot to run, Senator Hagel looks more and "presidential" every week.

Make us instruments of your peace

Abortion statistics. The Law. The Roe Reality Check. These are among the resources posted at The Second Look Project. Because I believe that a consistent pro-life ethic, a vision informed fully by the Gospel of Life, is the key to confronting war and violence effectively, I would encourage everyone, especially those who are pro-choice, to visit this site and reflect.

Governments move soldiers into harms way as though they were playing Risk, pundits screech for the expansion of capital punishment and defend torture, and we allow through abortion for the death of innocents with a cornucopia of shifting rationales that juggle misconstrued notions of "freedom" and "realism" like a twisted circus clown. This culture of death is truly something to behold. The struggle to reform it is as much spiritual as it is intellectual and political. In that light, I offer below a Prayer for Life from the Archdiocese of Detroit:

Loving Father, giver of all life, we praise you for the mystery and beauty of all creation, especially the way you have created us in your own image. Deepen our respect for your presence in every human person from the first moment of conception until last natural breath. According to your will, O Lord, use us as your instruments to bring about the conversion of all who do not yet share our vision or commitment to the dignity of the life of the unborn and the dying, the chronically ill, the disabled, and migrants. Make us instruments of your peace and keep us all from the evils of war and violence. We ask all this through Christ our Lord. Amen.

What this war costs

The War Tapes discusses the reality of war, from the warfront to the homefront. A trailer and clips can be viewed here. For those that gather political capital making pious statements of supporting the troops, this should be required viewing.

Our public discourse is full of those who speak endlessly of sacrifice but refuse to make sacrifices themselves. They speak in incomplete sentences, such as "We must carry on at all costs," when they mean "We must carry on at all costs to others."

Round One - Mistrial

This breaking news from Truthout: Watada Court-Martial Ends in Mistrial. The decision hinged on a stipulation agreement produced by the prosecution. Watada was charged with "missing movement" for refusing to deploy and two counts of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman for speaking to a peace rally and journalists. The later two counts were thrown out.

Additional coverage with video and background information is available here.

From the article by Scott Galindez and Geoffrey Millard:
"Last month, Watada discussed his decision to publicly oppose the war during a speech at the Church of the Crossroads in Moiliili, Hawaii. Speaking to a crowd of about 350, Watada said he struggled with leaving his fellow soldiers behind, but ultimately needed to take a stand because, as an officer, he could not consciously order soldiers under his command to die for a war he believes is wrong and illegal.
" 'I hated to leave my troops, but something had to be done to stop this insanity,' he said. 'How could I order men to die for something I believe is wrong? Wearing the uniform is not, and is never, an excuse.' "

In the article, Mr. Galindez and Mr. Millard question whether the government will proceed with another trial. It seems inconceivable that it would not: clearly, the government cannot allow members of its military to not obey orders. And yet, do we want a military that is staffed by officers who willingly follow orders that they believe to be morally wrong and illegal? Such a military could be used against the people to strip them of their rights and freedoms at home; all it would take for us to become a police state is a politician with the moxy, the money, and a spiritually-dead ambition to turn her soulless soldier-robots homeward. A military staffed by officers like Ehren Watada, however, would refuse such orders.

What to do about officer Watada is a quandry. But to avoid such embarrassing challenges to the law in the future, the course is clear: avoid unnecessary conflicts that violate just war theory.

Late Update: Watada may avoid retrial due to double jeapordy. To see video from the military's prosecution and the defense, go here.

Family values and the cost of the escalation ... er, surge

From the Economists View: "So the cost of the escalation is roughly equivalent to total spending on family support programs such as welfare." The full post, titled How Much Will the Surge Cost and posted February 6th, can be read here.

Buying the Presidency, or Hillary's hope

From the Democracy Now interview with Ralph Nader:

AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, I wanted to go back to the campaign of 2008 and campaign finance issues, because now the presidential campaign of 2008 -- we have just entered 2007 -- is in full swing. What does that mean for campaign finance and public financing of campaigns?

RALPH NADER: It’s going to blow it through the roof. I mean, where it is considered incredible that George W. Bush from his corporate buddies raised $140 million in ’04, now the press is talking about Hillary and McCain and Giuliani raising $200 million, $300 million. If Mayor Bloomberg gets in the race -- and let me tell you, they’re talking about it in his circles -- he’ll spend half-a-billion dollars from his own fortune, which means that the press not only deals largely with the horse race instead of the substantive issues and the records of the candidates, it deals with like a bar graph. You know, how much did Hillary raise this last week compared to McCain? It’s so rancid. It’s so disrespectful of the voters in this country. We’ve got to urge the press to wake up to its own responsibilities here and cover the substance, the necessities of the American people, the access to the electoral process by candidates, the participation of voters during the campaign in auditoriums around the country.

AMY GOODMAN: Hillary Clinton has pulled out of public financing?

RALPH NADER: Oh, yeah. All the majors are going to pull out. It’s not enough for them.
. . .
AMY GOODMAN: Now that you have said you could run against Hillary Rodham Clinton if she gets the nomination, have her people approached you in the last twenty-four hours?

RALPH NADER: Oh, no. No. I mean, she’s very aloof. And when it comes to me, there’s probably even a hyperbole of aloof. She wouldn't debate Jonathan Tasini in the New York run. He got 17% of the vote with no money in the primary against her. She wouldn't debate her own Republican opponent more than once, I think, and very reluctantly. She wouldn't debate Howie Hawkins. She wouldn’t let him on the debate, the Green Party out of Syracuse, a wonderful community organizer and a person who would have broadened the debate. She is not an example of democratic campaigning. She is a big business example of cash register campaigning.

[bolded italics mine]

Hating Soros

This from Steve Clemons' The Washington Note:

"There is a corruption and self-censorship that hit Washington and blinded many in responsible political positions and government roles and allowed the U.S. to launch a war that should not have been launched -- and to spend a great deal of time and resources punishing those who were speaking out against it.
"The Europeans tried to intervene and stop us from invading Iraq -- and they were right -- but still we punish them for their 'disloyalty.'
"The administration and its fans of the 'war of choice against Iraq,' as Zbigniew Brzezinski stated recently, have also spent a great deal of time trying to punish and ridicule Soros -- anything to cast attention away from their own complicity in this disaster and their own mistakes. . .and their own disloyalty to the national interests of the United States of America.
"We do need a political purge in this country. We need accountability -- and we need to face up to the terrible mistakes and -- yes -- the horror in some cases that our actions have unleashed."

The full text of Mr. Clemons February 3rd post, titled George Soros Has It Right on America's History and Accountability Problem: NeoCons Brew Storm to Distract from Their Complicity in Today's Disaster, is available here. While ranging widely about "the Soros effect," the focus of the post concerns what are considered to be controversial remarks made by Mr. Soros, specifically this statement: "America needs to follow the policies it has introduced in Germany. We have to go through a certain deNazification process." This has led to the usual indignation from the professional chatterers about "moral equivalence" and, in the case of Mr. Soros, outrage over his being involved in the American political process through campaign funding (which, by the way, I simply do not get -- I have no problem, for example, with Richard Mellon Scaife funding right-wing causes.)

What is important here is the assault on that peculiarly American notion of "exceptionalism," the conceit that America alone of the nations in history has never acted immorally, that if it sins, the sins are always minor in comparison to those of others -- so just forget about it. If we are to be true to the promise of America, however, we cannot turn a blind eye to our failings. We must take action to owe up to them and change. A conservative administration -- in other words, not the one currently in office -- would understand this.

Mafia government and its apologists

Debra Saunders' January 30th column is truly breathtaking in its obeisance to government power. In relation to the current scapegoating of former Cheney Chief of Staff Lewis Libby, she states the following:

"[I]f Wilson's husband, Joe, didn't want his wife to be outed, he should have kept a low profile.
The Washington Post got it right when it editorialized: 'The person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming — falsely, as it turned out — that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger, and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials.' "

There are two vials of poison in this brew. The first is the notion that Mr. Wilson should have just shut up, regardless of what he knew or thought he knew, no matter what he believed or felt. This would be sensible were he "calling out" a capo in the mafia, but he was instead voicing criticism of an important issue that could potentially lead the nation to war. Ms. Saunders seems to forget that the government ... up to and including the president ... works for the people and is answerable to the people, and is frustrated that he refused to remain cowed.

The second vial concerns the spin that he "falsely...debunked reports of Iraqi unranium-shopping in Niger, and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials." Now, were one not familiar with the case at hand, one might think, due to the placement of "falsely," that Iraqi's were actively engaged in acquiring uranium from Niger, and that no report was ever produced. Well, in the real world, there was no Iraq-Niger uranium connection, Joe Wilson did go to Niger, and he did produce a report stating that the uranium connection was almost certainly false. For a full timeline and discussion of this issue, and what Ms. Saunders is spinning, check out Larry Johnson's comments at the TPM Coffehouse.

Ms. Saunders goes on to state "Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has failed to charge anyone for illegally leaking CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson's identity. Instead, Fitzgerald is going after Libby for lying about leaking. This is a trial that never should have happened — about leaks that do not appear to be criminal. Fitzgerald is out of control, too."

Again, there is a pernicious angle in these sentences, all designed to conceal an obvious truth: Valerie Plame was a CIA asset who had an undercover identity. In the course of the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, her identity was exposed. Ms. Saunders wants everyone to stop thinking about this, talking about this, and writing about this --- again, just shut up.

On the contrary, I offer this: the nation is ill-served in letting human assets in our intelligence services be compromised. The public is owed an explanation. Should illegal acts be uncovered in the course of the investigation, then a trial is appropriate. Actions should have consequences, and laws should be enforced, even if they constrain the rich or powerful.

On the eve of the "surge"

There is a famous exchange between Hitler and Guderian that occurred as the Wehrmacht faced its first serious Eastern Front reverses from the combination of the Russian winter and Red Army counterattacks. Guderian pointed to the suffering of the troops, the inability to use necessary machinery and dig defensive positions due to the cold, etc. Hitler responded that Guderian was "too close" to the situation at hand, and one sees things much clearer (i.e. the "Big Picture") when one is far from the actual front. Hmmm. On this note, here are some words from our troops on the eve of the "surge":

"To be honest, it's going to be like this for a long time to come, no matter what we do," said [Army 1st Lt. Antonio] Hardy, 25, of Atlanta. "I think some people in America don't want to know about all this violence, about all the killings. The people back home are shielded from it; they get it sugar-coated."

"What is victory supposed to look like? Every time we turn around and go in a new area there's somebody new waiting to kill us," said Sgt. 1st Class Herbert Gill, 29, of Pulaski, Tenn., as his Humvee rumbled down a dark Baghdad highway one evening last week. "Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting for thousands of years, and we're not going to change that overnight."

"We can go get into a firefight and empty out ammo, but it doesn't accomplish much," said Pvt. 1st Class Zach Clouser, 19, of York, Pa. "This isn't our war - we're just in the middle."

"They can keep sending more and more troops over here, but until the people here start working with us, it's not going to change," said Sgt. Chance Oswalt, 22, of Tulsa, Okla.

All quotes are from an article by Tom Lasseter of McClatchy Newspapers. The full article is available here.

When the headline tells the story

This is from McClatchy Washington Bureau: "Mahdi Army gains strength through unwitting aid of U.S."

What to do next

In the future, I will be posting heavily on Peak Oil and its challenges to the world economy and "the American way of life" that Mr. Cheney famously stated is "non-negotiable." The Peak Oil concept is just becoming well known. Understood correctly (i.e. not purposely distorted) it is not controversial; the reactions it elicits, however, are often extreme.

Peak Oil, like climate change, is one of those issues that can leave persons feeling powerless. The popularizers of the concept are often criticized for not offering positive solutions. In his recent post, James Kunstler, author of The Long Emergency, reacts to this criticism with an excellent list of what will have to change in response to dwindling petroleum resources. Please check it out here.

Irritatingly Human

At his Informed Comment blog, Juan Cole writes about how at the Davos conference, Rupert Murdoch "admitted ...that his companies had 'tried'to propagandize for Bush's Iraq War" and that "they were critical of the execution of the war," to which Dr. Cole states the following: "He doesn't watch or read his own media if he thinks that. It is never a discouraging word and 'what were the RNC talking points today?' over there in Foxland."

The context of the remarks from Mr. Murdoch had to due with his assertion that television and print media have lost power due to the rise of the internet and new modes of information dissemination, such as blogging. To this, Dr. Cole is dismissive, stating the television is still king. He goes on to state the following:

"Murdoch's media have done more to cheapen American values and drive the country toward fascistic ways of thinking than anything since the McCarthy period in the 1950s. The airwaves belong to the public, and this man only licenses them. When will the public take them back and use them for purposes of which Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Franklin would have approved?"

While I agree with the point that American values have been cheapened, and that the country is moving dangerously toward "fascistic ways of thinking," I question the notion that Mr. Murdoch has caused this. It seems to me that this is an event that has occurred due to weaknesses in the American character, the frenetic nature of modern life, and the problematic nature of free markets.

Americans are irritatingly human, attracted to the simple, the practical, and the sensational. Dr. Cole's citing some of the Founding Fathers is illuminating, especially in relation to the early media campaigns surrounding our earliest presidential elections, which were models of dishonesty and bad behavior. For every article of The Federalist Papers running in an early American paper, one can find ten articles akin to our modern day update on Brittney Spears/K Fed or a shrill rant about Iran's doomsday weapons from Sean Hannity et. al.

Second, our current economy does not lend itself to a public that is engaged in the world. Rather than surfing the blogs to find out what is being thought and said about the current American situation in the Mideast, most Americans start their days fully engaged with the odds and ends that go into making a living, rearing children, and running a household. The time available to read and digest the myriad of reports and opinions available is simply giving over to matters closer to home.

Last, markets produce winners and losers. The winners tend to consolidate power, and all kinds of mischief can then arise. To quote Ronald Reagan, "Concentrations of power have always been the enemy of liberty." Certainly, a change in federal regulations could help deliver a more diverse market of ideas for the public. One wonders, though, what the motivation of the Republocrats and Demlicans would be in enabling a more diverse range of thought in television and print.

One last last thing ... why is it that Mr. Murdoch's comments have not been reported via FoxNews outlets? For more on how FoxNews and Mr. Murdoch operate, please visit the Outfoxed website, or better yet, rent the DVD.

The Passing of Ms. Ivins

This morning is typical for Michigan, gray and very cold, with a barely noticeable snow shower. You feel it more than see, as the wind pushes the icy flakes into your face. The first news story I heard on NPR was that Molly Ivins had passed. I had noticed fewer articles from her of late, and suspected that her breast cancer had returned; unfortunately, it had and it ultimately took her life.
Molly Ivins was one of the first political columnists that I connected with, and would look forward to The Progressive just for her column. Ivins focused on how political decisions made in Washington, DC and state capitols have real consequences for real people, and that a great deal of effort and expense is made to deceive, to deflect attention away from policy issues whose details are boring but important. She often spoke of the process as a shell game one might see at an old-time carnival. Especially in the matter of who "owns the center," the political spin game is constantly at work to deliver us candidates from both parties who are determined not to represent the interests of the majority, or enact policy that would help the majority. Consider this quote from a 2006 column with CNN on why she would not support Hillary Clinton for President:
"The majority of the American people (55 percent) think the war in Iraq is a mistake and that we should get out. The majority (65 percent) of the American people want single-payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The majority (86 percent) of the American people favor raising the minimum wage. The majority of the American people (60 percent) favor repealing Bush's tax cuts, or at least those that go only to the rich. The majority (66 percent) wants to reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending, but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.
The majority (77 percent) thinks we should do 'whatever it takes' to protect the environment. The majority (87 percent) thinks big oil companies are gouging consumers and would support a windfall profits tax. That is the center, you fools. WHO ARE YOU AFRAID OF?"
Democracy Now! has a great retrospective here.