Elizabeth Edwards : Today

Elizabeth Edwards. Photo by Gerry Broome / AP.

‘We have stood with one another through (it) all…’
By Elizabeth Edwards / August 8, 2008

Our family has been through a lot. Some caused by nature, some caused by human weakness, and some – most recently – caused by the desire for sensationalism and profit without any regard for the human consequences. None of these has been easy. But we have stood with one another through them all. Although John believes he should stand alone and take the consequences of his action now, when the door closes behind him, he has his family waiting for him.

John made a terrible mistake in 2006. The fact that it is a mistake that many others have made before him did not make it any easier for me to hear when he told me what he had done. But he did tell me. And we began a long and painful process in 2006, a process oddly made somewhat easier with my diagnosis in March of 2007. This was our private matter, and I frankly wanted it to be private because as painful as it was I did not want to have to play it out on a public stage as well. Because of a recent string of hurtful and absurd lies in a tabloid publication, because of a picture falsely suggesting that John was spending time with a child it wrongly alleged he had fathered outside our marriage, our private matter could no longer be wholly private.

The pain of the long journey since 2006 was about to be renewed.

John has spoken in a long on-camera interview I hope you watch. Admitting one’s mistakes is a hard thing for anyone to do, and I am proud of the courage John showed by his honesty in the face of shame. The toll on our family of news helicopters over our house and reporters in our driveway is yet unknown. But now the truth is out, and the repair work that began in 2006 will continue. I ask that the public, who expressed concern about the harm John’s conduct has done to us, think also about the real harm that the present voyeurism does and give me and my family the privacy we need at this time.

Source / Daily Kos

Thanks to Harry Edwards / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Seeking Moral Parity in the Community of Nations


It’s the Torture, Stupid: Restoring Human Rights Must Be Next Prez’s Top Priority
by Ted Rall / August 9, 2008

Both major presidential candidates have promised to roll back the Bush Administration’s torture archipelago. Both say they’ll close Guantánamo, abolish legalized torture, and respect the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war. Obama also pledges to eliminate “extraordinary rendition,” in which the CIA kidnaps people and flies them to other countries to be tortured, and says he will investigate Bush Administration officials for possible prosecution for war crimes.

If followed by other meaningful changes in behavior–withdrawing from Afghanistan and Iraq and foreswearing preemptive warfare–restoring the rule of law and respecting the rights of “enemy combatants” can start America’s long, slow climb back to moral parity in the community of nations. But there are worrisome signs that Barack Obama and John McCain’s commitment to moral renewal is less than rock-solid.

McCain, who claimed to have been tortured as a POW in North Vietnam, says a lot of the right things. “We do not torture people,” he said in a 2007 Republican debate. “It’s not about the terrorists; it’s about us. It’s about what kind of country we are.” He used his Vietnam experience against fellow Republicans, bullying Congress into passing a law banning torture against detainees held by the military.

Bush signed McCain’s bill in late 2005, saying it “is to make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture, whether it be here at home or abroad.”

Days later, however, Bush issued a secret “signing statement” declaring that he would ignore the Detainee Treatment Act. NYU law professor David Golove, an expert on executive power, said: “The signing statement is saying ‘I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it’s important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me.”

McCain, who says as president he would veto a bill rather than issue a signing statement negating its contents, was no doubt angry about Bush’s perfidy. But, fearful of alienating Bush and the GOP leadership as he geared up for his ‘08 presidential campaign, he remained silent.

In February of this year, McCain backtracked still further from his anti-torture position, voting against legislation that would have blocked the CIA from subjecting inmates in its secret prisons to waterboarding, hooding, putting duct tape across their eyes, stripping them naked, rape, beatings, burning, subjecting them to hypothermia, mock executions, and other “harsh interrogation techniques.”

“The CIA should have the ability to use additional techniques,” he argued. He refused to explain why the CIA ought to be allowed to torture while the DOD should adhere to international standards of civilized behavior.

The U.S. continues to torture.

Unlike McCain, Obama remains a critic of officially sanctioned torture. “We’ll reject torture–without exception or equivocation,” Obama says. He would also end “the practice of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, of detaining thousands without charge or trial, of maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law.”

The trouble is, Obama isn’t laying the groundwork for stopping torture or closing Guantánamo or other U.S. gulags in his stump speeches. He talks a lot about energy policy, healthcare, jobs and the economy–and withdrawing troops from Iraq so they join the war against Afghanistan instead. If he becomes president, people will expect him to do those things. Without a sustained focus on human rights issues, however, any moves he makes will seem to come out of the blue–and face stronger pushback from Republicans anxious to bash him as weak on national security.

Why doesn’t Obama emphasize Bush’s war crimes? Maybe he’s trying to play the Great Uniter, or maybe he knows that many Americans don’t give a rat’s ass about the pain inflicted against people they’ll never meet in places they’ve never heard of. Who knows? All we know for sure is that, day after day, Obama fails to talk about what is arguably the worst crime of the corrupt Bush Administration.

Of course, renouncing torture isn’t enough. Those who authorized it must be held to account. However, it doesn’t seem likely that they will.

Asked in April whether he would prosecute Bush Administration officials for authorizing torture, Obama delivered his now-familiar duck-and-cover: say the right thing, then weasel out of it. “If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated,” he said.

But not for at least four years: “I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of the Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we’ve got too many problems to solve.”

Memo to Barack: This isn’t about prosecuting Republicans. It’s about prosecuting torturers.

“Prosecution of any officials, if it were to occur, would probably not occur during Obama’s first term,” Slate reports, citing Obama campaign insiders. “Instead, we may well see a Congressionally empowered commission that would seek testimony from witnesses in search of the truth about what occurred. Though some witnesses might be offered immunity in exchange for testimony, the question of whether anybody would be prosecuted would be deferred to a later date–meaning Obama’s second term, if such is forthcoming.”

First would come a South African-style “Truth and Reconciliation Commission,” where the truth would come out. But the torturers would get off scot-free.

“The commission would focus strictly on detention, torture and extraordinary rendition, or the practice of spiriting detainees to a third country for abusive interrogations. The panel would focus strictly on these abuses, leaving out any other allegedly illegal activities during the Bush Administration, such as domestic spying,” says Slate. Second–well, there might not be a second. Even if there is, shortsighted Americans’ appetite for justice and accountability will probably have been diluted by the time 2013 rolls around.

Mainline media liberals, in conjunction with Obama supporters, are even going so far as to suggest that Bush issue his torturers with a blanket pardon in exchange for their testimony at Obama’s toothless commission.

Regardless of who wins in November, we will get a president who’s better on torture and other human rights issues than George W. Bush. At least their words sound nice. But real change and moral redemption will only begin if we–Democrats, Republicans and everyone else–demand the next president stands by his pretty promises.

Until they start taking taking torture, Gitmo and human rights seriously, neither Obama nor McCain should be able to appear in public without facing questions and heckling about these issues.

Ted Rall is the author of the new book “Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?,” an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America’s next big foreign policy challenge.

© 2008 Ted Rall

Source / Common Dreams

Lest we forget the horror that we are talking about, here is a story related by Layla Anwar of Arab Woman Blues:

Crucified by “Freedom”
By Layla Anwar / July 30, 2008

Painting : Iraqi artist, Haidar Al-Karagholi, 2007.

The story am about to tell you is a true one. I have kept the details unchanged, but I did change the names, location and dates to protect the anonymity of the victims.

Ahmad lives in an insalubrious, run down apartment in Syria with his wife and 5 kids. Prior to his forced exile, he lived in a decent neighborhood and in a large home, large enough for his family and his parents.

After the occupation and during the usual nightly American raids, that all Iraqis have experienced, Ahmad’s life took a definite turn from which he will never recover.

His house was besieged by a horde of American barbarians, tanks and weapons…They stormed in the middle of the night, made everyone lie on the floor, face down, including his elderly parents, kicked and beat the whole family with their boots, resting them on their heads and necks…

Then they proceeded to storm each room using axes to break down the doors when the doors were not locked to start with. Then they opened the wardrobes, and said they were looking for weapons of mass destruction. They set all the wardrobes on fire.

They moved Ahmad’s family to the vicinity of his home and made Ahmad and his family watch as your brave boys blew the house up.

They arrested Ahmad and a few others, blindfolded them and took them to an American camp in Baghdad. During the ride to the detention camp, around 20 soldiers were kicking and butting with their rifles edges, Ahmad and the other detainees.

Once arrived, they placed them in a corner of a dirty cell and started pissing on their wounded bodies while hysterically laughing. Not contenting themselves with that alone, they (the Americans) brought in a basin used to collect shit from their mobile toilets and emptied it on Ahmad and the other detainees heads.

Ahmad and his mates spent several months at this American detention camp. The first few days their interrogation consisted of identifying posters on a wall. The picture was that of Saddam Hussein. Of course Ahmad was able to identify Saddam Hussein’s picture. When he and the others answered affirmatively, they were violently beaten up by the Americans because for these Americans luminaries, that was proof that they (the detainees) knew Saddam personally.

After several days the interrogation took another turn. Ahmad believes it was not even a process of getting any information which he did not have. But, according to him, the interrogations were just a form of humiliation to the prisoners and a way for the soldiers to “HAVE FUN.” – American fun.

Ahmad recalls that one of the American officers used to sit on his chair with a bottle of whisky next to him and start questions like: ” Where do you buy your vegetables from ?” ” What is the name of your barber?” Other humiliating questions were – “How many times do you have intercourse with your wife ?” “What positions do you take ?… At times, a male and female soldier would undress and mimic such acts in front of the other soldiers all the while “teasing” the detainees…

Ahmad and other prisoners were then transferred to another camp in the South. Which meant that officially there were under British custody. But the personnel inside the camp included US, Australian as well as British soldiers.

When they arrived at this other camp, the British received Ahmad and the others with the same sort of treatment — kicking and striking with their riffles butts, just like their fellow Americans did before. Ahmad’s head was injured during his first arrest and the wound in his head reopened and started bleeding.

The soldiers tried to stitch it in the prison cell but failed, since they are not trained to do so. So they were forced to transfer him to a military hospital. X rays showed that his skull was fractured and had been fractured for several days by now, from the physical blows. They had to operate on him and he was moved back to the prison camp.

Ahmad recalls that all sorts of humiliation and torture were still being inflicted on the prisoners of this camp. He said that when they wanted to take any one to the interrogation session, they’d strip him from all his clothes and put a hood on his head and make him walk naked the whole distance, around 3 km, in front of the other prisoners while the accompanying soldiers would be using their vehicles.

The interrogation still consisted of questions like – “where do you buy your vegetables from and where do you get a haircut?” All the while, with insults and all kinds of beatings being showered on the detainee.

These interrogation sessions were done in the presence of the highest ranking prison officers. Ahmad is completely convinced that these interrogations and torture sessions were done for the sake of “FUN FOR THE SOLDIERS” and not for extracting and gathering security information as the Americans like to pretend.

A whole year elapsed and Ahmad was allowed to receive one visit from some members of his family. His family had spent days and weeks in front of the prisons, begging to see him…

Food in the prison was in itself an insult and a form of torture.

The soldiers would collect the prisoners in one large open space at 8 am for “breakfast”. They would make them sit in the heat of the sun till 11 am.
They were forced to take on a “stress position”, i.e to sit in a position straining their joints with their hands crossed over their heads so they can have their “breakfast”!

In case any prisoner moved his hand to rest his body a little, the guards would directly shoot him with a rubber bullet right on the face. Some prisoners lost one of their eyes in such incidents. Other developed severe pain and blue faces for months. Those who were unable to stay in the stress position were the elderly, some older than 70 years of age.

That same procedure was repeated between 1 pm and 5 pm – during the “lunch” period The food consisted of a bag of beans with sugar for “breakfast” and a very hot peppered rice for “lunch.”

After a year or so, Ahmad and others were transferred to Abu Ghraib prison.

Ahmad recalls that what was unique to this prison were not the notorious sexual insults and torture – something he was quite familiar with and used to by now, but the presence of woman prisoners among them (the men) and the torture these brave women were subjected to in front of them.

One such technique was to tie the woman’s legs with two different ropes and pull the naked body in opposite directions. Some died from the pain of this method and others were either split in half or had their hips totally disconnected from their joints.

Another “sport” for the American brave boys, so they can have fun, was to tie
a male prisoner with the noose of a rope to his neck and the other end of the rope was tied to the waist of one soldier. The soldier would run from one end of the cell to the other dragging the suffocating prisoner on the ground and other soldiers — spectators would time the race.
Then, other soldiers were to do the same thing but in a shorter period. In other words, a race competition/a contest. The prisoner would usually end up with a dark blue face from strangulation and his whole body bruised from being dragged in a “fun” race.

Ahmad was finally released with no charges. He moved to Syria, having lost his home in Baghdad and nowhere to go. About a year after his arrival here, Ahmad started feeling numbness and weakness in one side of his body, something which made speech and swallowing excessively difficult. At first he thought he had a stroke, but when he consulted a specialist, he was told that he had some dead brain cells due to some traumatic accident.

Today, Ahmad drags his legs and is unable to use his arm and hand. Ahmad does not only carry the physical trauma which is there for all to see but the psychological trauma from which he will never heal.

While in Syria, Ahmad met another friend who was an inmate in some Basra camp. This other friend told him that the Americans used to drop hot pepper liquid in the eyes of the prisoners as a form of torture. His friend added that the brave boys did that to him more often than not and today Ahmad’s friend is totally BLIND.

Ahmad also met the daughter of a judge, she can’t walk anymore, her hips “went loose” after being tortured in Abu Ghraib.

There are more stories, real stories to tell…Stories of “Liberation.” Stories weaved by a “civilized” West, the West of ” Human Rights and Democracy.”

Some bad faithed, dirty, corrupt, hypocrites will argue that this is the work of “a few bad apples.”

American and British “ideals” – Yes more like it.

The Western ideals of “Freedom.”

P.S: A special thank you to A. for sharing it with me.

Source / Arab Woman Blues

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , | 1 Comment

The Best Century in America Will Be the Last


U.S. Headed Toward Bankruptcy, Says Top Budget Committee Republican
By Terence P. Jeffrey / August 8, 2008

The ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee said the U.S. government is headed toward bankruptcy if it stays on its current fiscal course.

“We know that for a fact,” Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told CNSNews.com in a video interview. “All the actuaries, all the objective scorekeepers of the federal government, are predicting this.”

To back up this claim, Ryan cited an estimate by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office that says the government faces a $53-trillion shortfall to cover the costs of promised benefits in its entitlement programs.

“They say we are $53 trillion short of fulfilling the promises the government is making to the American people, in today’s dollars,” said Ryan.

“Meaning that if we want to keep the promises of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which are basically the three major entitlement programs, today we would have to set aside $53 trillion dollars and invest them at Treasury rates in order to do it,” he said.

Ryan said that to deal with this situation the government must either reform the entitlement programs or eventually impose massive tax increases on American workers.

“For the last 40 years, the federal government has had to tax every dollar made in America at 18.3 cents on that dollar to pay the bills of the federal government,” said Ryan.

“By the time my three children – who are three, five and six years old—are my age, the federal government will have to tax 40 cents out of every dollar made in America just to pay the bills for the federal government at that time,” he said.

Ryan asked the Congressional Budget Office to determine what the tax rates would need to be to cover federal spending at that level.

“What they told me was really startling,” said Ryan. “They said that the current low rate, the 10-percent bracket for low-income Americans, would have to go up to 25 percent. The middle-income tax rate for middle-income Americans would have to go up to 66 percent, and the top rate, which is what small businesses pay, would have to go to 88 percent.

“Those would be the tax rates you would have to have if you wanted to tax your way out of this problem,” he said. “And if you did that, all experts conclude, you would literally crash the American economy.”

Ryan portrayed the long-term budget crisis he believes the country is now facing as a generational challenge.

“The legacy of this country has always been that each generation confronts the challenges before it so that the next generation is better off,” said Ryan. “In the past, we brought down the Iron Curtain and won the Cold War. We got through World War I. We got through World War II. We won the war on the Great Depression.

“The problem that we have right now—putting foreign policy aside and our fight with Islamic radicalism—is that we have an economic crisis, we have a fiscal crisis, and, that is, we will bankrupt this country, and the best century in America will be the last century,” he added.

“Unless we turn our fiscal situation around and pay off this debt, and change the way these programs work to a more sustainable path, the next generation will have inferior living standards,” said Ryan.

Ryan and his Budget Committee staff have developed a comprehensive plan for reforming federal taxing-and-spending policies that they believe will restore long-term solvency to the federal government.

Entitled “A Roadmap for America’s Future: A Plan to Solve America’s Long-Term Fiscal and Economic Crisis,” the plan has been introduced as legislation (H.R. 6110) in the current Congress.

Source, with video / Information Clearing House

And then there’s this:

Our $100 Trillion National Debt
by Bill Walker / August 7, 2008

The “official” debt of the United States is only around $10 trillion dollars as of August 6, 2008. This is a manageable number; we could pay it off in a few decades if we quit buying luxuries like food and clothing, and take a few other minor economy measures. Unfortunately, the “$10 trillion” number was produced by government accounting, which among other things allows one to ignore Social Security, Medicare, and the new prescription drug benefit. This is like ignoring rent, food, and utilities in your household budget… it will lead to a few bounced checks. Our real debt is about ten times higher.

Who says so? The President of the Dallas Federal Reserve, Richard W. Fisher. In a May speech at the Commonwealth Club of California, he states that the US national debt is close to $100 trillion. You can read his whole speech at the Federal Reserve web site.

The Real Debt

Here is what he said regarding the actual US debt:

“Add together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security, and it comes to $99.2 trillion over the infinite horizon. Traditional Medicare composes about 69 percent, the new drug benefit roughly 17 percent and Social Security the remaining 14 percent.”

Interested readers will notice that the new prescription drug benefit is projected to be more fiscally crushing than all of Social Security.

Mr. Fisher points out that this $99.2 trillion will be a bit of a burden to pay off:

“Let’s say you and I and Bruce Ericson and every U.S. citizen who is alive today decided to fully address this unfunded liability through lump-sum payments from our own pocketbooks, so that all of us and all future generations could be secure in the knowledge that we and they would receive promised benefits in perpetuity. How much would we have to pay if we split the tab? Again, the math is painful. With a total population of 304 million, from infants to the elderly, the per-person payment to the federal treasury would come to $330,000. This comes to $1.3 million per family of four—over 25 times the average household’s income.”

You do have $1.3 million in your pocket, right? What, are you some kind of deadbeat?

Speaking of deadbeats, the “$99.2 trillion” estimate does not include the subprime bailout. So for those who like large round numbers, by the end of 2008 the real National Debt should be large, round, and about $100 trillion.

Other Unfunded Liabilities

The Fed’s numbers do not include some other liabilities the US has acquired over the years. One massive but unquantifiable liability is the probability of future wars. If it cost the US hundreds of billions of dollars to invade the fifth-rate kleptocracy of Iraq and the foreign-aid regime of Afghanistan, how many trillions would wars against real powers cost? Perhaps I should ask “how many US cities” such wars would cost.

Some nations could legitimately plan for peace. Sweden has not fought a foreign war since 1814 (as many Swedes have pointed out in emails regarding my Swiss article). Switzerland, not since 1815. The US record is less hopeful.

The US is rarely not in foreign wars, and the current Administration has openly announced that the “Global War On Terror” will never end. Yet our government accounting is predicated on perpetual peace, on an ever-increasing flow of money into the official pyramid schemes.

In any case, whether you are pro- or anti- Empire, real accounting demands some reserves for future war contingencies. When even a few US cities are burning radioactive pyres, the flow of funds to Social Security and Medicare will suffer some interruption.

Any fiscal plan demands amortization of the accumulated hatred our foreign adventures have accumulated. The US taxpayer has aided every evil dictator since 1945. Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, Nyerere, Idi Amin, go right down the roster and US money helped pay for the barbed wire and bullets (and the nuclear reactors, in the case of the Kim Dynasty rulers of Korea).

So far blowback has been quite mild. But in a world full of easy do-it-yourself WMD technologies, our luck can’t hold forever. If the US were a private company, the “badwill” on our books would reach into the tens of trillions.

Tearing Up The Credit Cards

Most likely, the US will simply continue into bankruptcy. This is the most common pathway for nations with fiat currencies and unchecked ruling classes. But let’s assume that somehow a Clone Army of 435 Ron Pauls gets into Congress, while genetic technology brings back Jefferson and Gallatin to their old offices. Can the US be made solvent again?

I think so. Most of the unfunded liability is medical. We know why the medical system does not work. So if we eliminate the FDA, guild restrictions on medical professions, and the ridiculous tax laws that force us into medical-insurance serfdom to employers, we could cut medical costs enough to phase out Medicare and the new “drug benefit.” In this way more than half the shadow debt can be wiped out.

The answer for the Social-Security pyramid scheme is well known. Chile fixed its Social Security disaster decades ago, by giving large IRA-style allowances and phasing out the government payments to younger recipients. The sooner we do this the easier it will be… the Boomers start retiring soon.

Most important, we have to listen to the Founder’s calls for free trade with all nations but entangling alliances with none. The US cannot stop every quarrel in the world even if we wished… and the actual record of our foreign-policy geniuses has been to send a couple of trillion dollars out to the very worst criminals in human history. Aid To Dependent Dictators must stop.

None of this will happen while Mordor-On-The-Potomac still possesses its plutonium credit card, the Fed. Just as we would for any other bankrupt relative, we must help Uncle Sam cut up his credit cards.

Bill Walker [send him mail] is a research technologist. He lives with his wife and four dogs in Grafton NH, where they are active in the Free State Project.

Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com

Source / Lew Rockwell

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

This Is Coming to the Truth in Your Home Towns

Tom Feeley, owner and editor of InformationClearingHouse.info, has endured public harassment, home invasions, death threats and threats to his family simply for running a website.

Anti-war website operator threatened by armed thugs
By Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet / August 7, 2008

The operator of a leading alternative news and strongly anti-war website has become the target of nefarious thugs apparently in the employ of the U.S. government who have continually harassed him and ordered him to shut down his website.

Tom Feeley, owner and editor of InformationClearingHouse.info, has endured public harassment, home invasions, death threats and threats to his family simply for running a website.

Counterpunch writer Mike Whitney has circulated an e mail describing what happened to Feeley in an attempt to draw attention to the matter.

Whitney writes that earlier this week Feeley’s wife was startled to suddenly discover three well dressed men standing in her kitchen who told her that Tom must “Stop what he is doing on the Internet, NOW!”

To emphasize the point, the thug pulled back his jacket to reveal a gun while barking out the warning.

Tom’s wife was hysterical and refuses to go back to the house. She contacted the FBI but was told there was nothing they could do.

According to Whitney, “The well-dressed man told Tom’s wife that he knew where her son lived, what line of work he was in, and how many children he had.”

Subsequently, two men in a parked car a block from Tom’s mother’s house were spotted using laptops and sped off when they were approached by Tom’s son.

A similar incident had happened four years previously, when Feeley was approached by a stranger in the parking lot of Long’s Drug store in Southern California, after being forced to remain in his car by an accomplice who blocked him from opening the car door. The man told him, “You need to stop what you are doing on the web”.

Tom said the man was overweight and had his shirt untucked. Tom was taken aback, but (after collecting himself said) “What the fuck? Who do you think you are telling me what I can do?”

The man answered, “Tom, I’m just giving you some good advice. You should take my advice, Tom.”

I’ll tell you this about Tom Feeley; he is no bullshitter,” writes Whitney, “He is the “real deal” and completely committed to exposing the mob that is presently running our country. He does not understand why, (as he says) “They are reaching down SO far to get someone who just runs web site”. But, the truth is, they are. Someone wants him to “shut up” and they apparently have the muscle to do it. He knows he is in danger.”

Feeley is ditching his cellphone and maintaining a low profile but to his credit, refuses to cave in to the threats and will continue to publish his website.

Drawing attention to Feeley’s situation is of paramount importance to ensure his protection and also to combat head on attempts to create a chilling atmosphere and intimidate journalists and website publishers.

Source / InfoWars

And here is additional historical information.

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Needed : Peace Movement Strategy on Afghanistan

Barack Obama with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, center foreground, and other officials at the Presidential Palace in Kabul, Sunday, July 20, 2008. Photo by AP.

‘Obama’s proposal is so ill advised that one might expect it to die on its own but for the fact that it fits neatly into current U.S. strategic doctrine’
By Morton H. Frank / August 9, 2008

Medea Benjamin of Code Pink (Portside, July 26) has called for a peace movement strategy on Afghanistan. While long overdue, this has become urgent after Barack Obama’s call for an additional 10,000 U.S. troops to be deployed there against the insurgency.

Obama’s proposal is so ill advised that one might expect it to die on its own but for the fact that it fits neatly into current U.S. strategic doctrine. The flaws are overwhelming and it goes without saying that the more quickly the peace movement brings them to public attention the less will be the damage to the people of that country. But if all we do is address the specific flaws that apply to Iraq, or Afghanistan, etc., U.S. intervention into third world countries will continue with no end in sight.

Widely understood as a recipe for failure, Obama’s support for deeper U.S. military engagement in Afghanistan has unleashed a torrent of criticism, including many who are far removed from the peace movement. Among the critics is Zbigniew Brzezinski, who, as President Carter’s advisor, had orchestrated the provocation that trapped the Soviet Union into its failed intervention in Afghanistan during the 1970s, and who now warns against the U.S. letting itself get trapped in an unwinnable war.

Additional critics are analysts William Lind and Chuck Spinney, associated with “Defense and the National Interest,” an internet site that features daily expert critiques of ongoing U.S. military policy. Spinney writes that Obama’s deployments to Afghanistan would have to come out of a military that is already overburdened and hollowed out by the Iraq war “to what is perhaps the roughest inhabited terrain in the world, and in a war zone that embodies what is surely one of the most ethnically complex, tribally-organized vendetta cultures of the world.” The tribal groups of Afghanistan have been steeled by years of intermittent warfare against Great Britain until the end of the first world war. Lind says that “The Afghan war is going the way Afghan wars do, as the Pashtun [tribal groups] slowly get their act together to push the occupier out. Spillover from the war in Afghanistan is destabilizing Pakistan, with Washington accelerating the process by putting impossible demands on the country’s leaders.” “Defense and the National Interest” can be accessed at .

Gèrard Chaliand, a French specialist on irregular wars, especially Afghanistan, states flatly that “Victory is impossible in Afghanistan” (Le Monde interview cited by Immanuel Wallerstein). Juan Cole in Salon.com also faults Obama’s ideas about Afghanistan.

A full scale U.S. involvement there would be far more challenging than the invasion of Iraq. U.S. forces have access to Iraq by sea; but Afghanistan is landlocked. Iraq is close to sea level, with most of the fighting in cities, while the Afghanistan fighting is largely in mountainous areas and countryside, posing serious logistical problems for a modern army.. Both Iraq and Afghanistan border on Iran, which supports anti-American fighters. But the Afghanistan resistance in addition has entrée to major additional support in Pakistan. The border line between the two (drawn by the British in 1893) is not recognized by the people who live there, the Pashtun ethnic group, which bears the brunt of the armed struggle. Given millions of Pashtuns on each side of the line, that makes for a very porous border.

An ominous difference between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the generous resources that are available to the Taliban insurgency. The detail here comes mainly from a stunning article in the New York Times Magazine for July 27th by Thomas Schweich, formerly a high counternarcotics official in the Bush administration. The anarchy and high profits associated with heroin have caused production in Afghanistan to increase rapidly. In 2007, nearly 750 square miles of Afghanistan were devoted to cultivation of poppies, chiefly in industrial sized farms, said to provide over 90 percent of the illegal heroin in the world.

The drug traffic supports not only the insurgency, but also corruption in Hamid Karzai’s government, sapping its effectiveness in combating the insurgency. According to Schweich, a U.S. Counternarcotics Strategy was already in being by 2007, and only awaits approval within the Bush administration. Surely this issue deserves attention from the peace movement. If the U.S. can’t attend to it, a demand from the peace movement that the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime take on the job would certainly be appropriate.

If Obama’s proposal is a disaster in the making, why does he persist with it? That question can be turned around to “Why do the experts tutoring Obama on military affairs continue to advocate policies that only make things worse, as occurred in Vietnam and Iraq?” The answer is a powerful military orthodoxy fueled ultimately by the profits in military industry that puts force ahead of negotiation. Beyond protesting intervention in Afghanistan, we in the peace movement must also challenge the ideology behind it and the military projects that make victory in Afghanistan appear plausible to some.

And behind it all, of course, are the vested interests in the unholy coalition of military contractors, Pentagon executives and members of Congress. Supporting this coalition are masses of people who depend on it for a living.

In the July/Aug. 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs Obama claims that “To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military.” “We must use this moment to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future.” We must “become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale.”

Clearly, Obama has assimilated the conventional orthodoxy of the U.S. military establishment. His language refers to two specific projects whose costs are sufficient to imperil the goal of civic reconstruction to which he has committed himself.

The projects he cites (details below) are united by a common strategic concept called Transformation, first enunciated in 1997 by the National Defense Panel, a study group. The idea of Transformation was an alleged imperative to reorient the country’s military for wars already under way and to discard weapons which had been appropriate only for the Cold War. According to its advocates, Transformation mandates that the United States prepare for wars against countries that are poorer than we and whose armed forces are weaker than ours.

Conventional doctrine holds that preparing U.S. forces for the new world situation requires one project about soldiers and another about their equipment. On January 11, 2007, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates proposed a permanent addition of 92,000 troops to the Army and Marine Corps, to be carried out over five years. He estimated that it would cost about $1.5 billion annually for each 10,000 added, not counting start-up costs and advanced equipment. The response he got was enthusiastic and fully bipartisan.

The case for the equipment needed for Transformation was best explained in an op ed piece by strategist Kori Schake in The New York Times of February 2, 2006: The military budget is huge, she wrote, but money is being spent on the wrong things. The nation needs an agile force that can quickly defend us against terrorists. Not enough is being allocated for new programs such as unmanned aerial vehicles, high speed sealift and Future Combat Systems, the latter being a package of 18 different weapons and vehicles. Instead, funds are going for unneeded weapons systems designed to combat threats that no longer exist. Schake’s experience at the National Security Council, West Point and the Hoover Institution lent weight to her article.

An editorial dated February 6, 2007 in The New York Times would seem to foretell the difficult choices that a future President Obama will face upon entering office. In that editorial the Times welcomed Bush’s huge new budget of $622 billion for the military, but recommended that “Congress should direct particular attention to the roughly $140 billion … for costs that are not part of the Iraq and Afghanistan section of the budget.” “If the new Democratic-controlled Congress is serious” said the Times “about finding the money to pay for acute domestic needs, it will have to pare back the most extravagant elements of this fantasy wish list” of weapons that were products of Cold War strategic thinking.

To roll back the Afghanistan intervention would not only be a good in itself, but would make significant money available to an Obama presidency for the “acute domestic needs,” that the Times writes about. Even achieving part of that goal would launch the U.S. on a path toward conciliation with the countries of the third world.

The $140 billion mentioned by the Times is a large part of the annual expense of producing and maintaining the military relics of the Cold War. And that is a different matter. To cut into that is far more difficult than the Times would have us think. George Bush senior tried it in 1990 at the end of the Cold War and didn’t get anywhere. The peace movement, which attempted to do it many times after World War II, never made a dent. The military-industrial complex, with its allies in Congress, is simply too powerful, not only economically, but as a political reservoir for the Right.

If the movement to put Obama in the White House is successful and continues to gain momentum, and enough progressive Democrats are elected to Congress, the momentum could go beyond getting us out of Afghanistan and defeat the project for military Transformation.

The most visionary among us might then begin to ponder how to defeat the military-industrial complex as a whole.

Widely understood as a recipe for failure, Obama’s support for deeper U.S. military engagement in Afghanistan has unleashed a torrent of criticism, including many who are far removed from the peace movement. Among the critics is Zbigniew Brzezinski, who, as President Carter’s advisor, had orchestrated the provocation that trapped the Soviet Union into its failed intervention in Afghanistan during the 1970s, and who now warns against the U.S. letting itself get trapped in an unwinnable war.

Additional critics are analysts William Lind and Chuck Spinney, associated with “Defense and the National Interest,” an internet site that features daily expert critiques of ongoing U.S. military policy. Spinney writes that Obama’s deployments to Afghanistan would have to come out of a military that is already overburdened and hollowed out by the Iraq war “to what is perhaps the roughest inhabited terrain in the world, and in a war zone that embodies what is surely one of the most ethnically complex, tribally-organized vendetta cultures of the world.” The tribal groups of Afghanistan have been steeled by years of intermittent warfare against Great Britain until the end of the first world war. Lind says that “The Afghan war is going the way Afghan wars do, as the Pashtun [tribal groups] slowly get their act together to push the occupier out. Spillover from the war in Afghanistan is destabilizing Pakistan, with Washington accelerating the process by putting impossible demands on the country’s leaders.” “Defense and the National Interest” can be accessed at .

Gèrard Chaliand, a French specialist on irregular wars, especially Afghanistan, states flatly that “Victory is impossible in Afghanistan” (Le Monde interview cited by Immanuel Wallerstein). Juan Cole in Salon.com also faults Obama’s ideas about Afghanistan.

A full scale U.S. involvement there would be far more challenging than the invasion of Iraq. U.S. forces have access to Iraq by sea; but Afghanistan is landlocked. Iraq is close to sea level, with most of the fighting in cities, while the Afghanistan fighting is largely in mountainous areas and countryside, posing serious logistical problems for a modern army.. Both Iraq and Afghanistan border on Iran, which supports anti-American fighters. But the Afghanistan resistance in addition has entrée to major additional support in Pakistan. The border line between the two (drawn by the British in 1893) is not recognized by the people who live there, the Pashtun ethnic group, which bears the brunt of the armed struggle. Given millions of Pashtuns on each side of the line, that makes for a very porous border.

An ominous difference between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the generous resources that are available to the Taliban insurgency. The detail here comes mainly from a stunning article in the New York Times Magazine for July 27th by Thomas Schweich, formerly a high counternarcotics official in the Bush administration. The anarchy and high profits associated with heroin have caused production in Afghanistan to increase rapidly. In 2007, nearly 750 square miles of Afghanistan were devoted to cultivation of poppies, chiefly in industrial sized farms, said to provide over 90 percent of the illegal heroin in the world.

The drug traffic supports not only the insurgency, but also corruption in Hamid Karzai’s government, sapping its effectiveness in combating the insurgency. According to Schweich, a U.S. Counternarcotics Strategy was already in being by 2007, and only awaits approval within the Bush administration. Surely this issue deserves attention from the peace movement. If the U.S. can’t attend to it, a demand from the peace movement that the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime take on the job would certainly be appropriate.

If Obama’s proposal is a disaster in the making, why does he persist with it? That question can be turned around to “Why do the experts tutoring Obama on military affairs continue to advocate policies that only make things worse, as occurred in Vietnam and Iraq?” The answer is a powerful military orthodoxy fueled ultimately by the profits in military industry that puts force ahead of negotiation. Beyond protesting intervention in Afghanistan, we in the peace movement must also challenge the ideology behind it and the military projects that make victory in Afghanistan appear plausible to some.

And behind it all, of course, are the vested interests in the unholy coalition of military contractors, Pentagon executives and members of Congress. Supporting this coalition are masses of people who depend on it for a living.

In the July/Aug. 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs Obama claims that “To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military.” “We must use this moment to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future.” We must “become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale.”

Clearly, Obama has assimilated the conventional orthodoxy of the U.S. military establishment. His language refers to two specific projects whose costs are sufficient to imperil the goal of civic reconstruction to which he has committed himself.

The projects he cites (details below) are united by a common strategic concept called Transformation, first enunciated in 1997 by the National Defense Panel, a study group. The idea of Transformation was an alleged imperative to reorient the country’s military for wars already under way and to discard weapons which had been appropriate only for the Cold War. According to its advocates, Transformation mandates that the United States prepare for wars against countries that are poorer than we and whose armed forces are weaker than ours.

Conventional doctrine holds that preparing U.S. forces for the new world situation requires one project about soldiers and another about their equipment. On January 11, 2007, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates proposed a permanent addition of 92,000 troops to the Army and Marine Corps, to be carried out over five years. He estimated that it would cost about $1.5 billion annually for each 10,000 added, not counting start-up costs and advanced equipment. The response he got was enthusiastic and fully bipartisan.

The case for the equipment needed for Transformation was best explained in an op ed piece by strategist Kori Schake in The New York Times of February 2, 2006: The military budget is huge, she wrote, but money is being spent on the wrong things. The nation needs an agile force that can quickly defend us against terrorists. Not enough is being allocated for new programs such as unmanned aerial vehicles, high speed sealift and Future Combat Systems, the latter being a package of 18 different weapons and vehicles. Instead, funds are going for unneeded weapons systems designed to combat threats that no longer exist. Schake’s experience at the National Security Council, West Point and the Hoover Institution lent weight to her article.

An editorial dated February 6, 2007 in The New York Times would seem to foretell the difficult choices that a future President Obama will face upon entering office. In that editorial the Times welcomed Bush’s huge new budget of $622 billion for the military, but recommended that “Congress should direct particular attention to the roughly $140 billion … for costs that are not part of the Iraq and Afghanistan section of the budget.” “If the new Democratic-controlled Congress is serious” said the Times “about finding the money to pay for acute domestic needs, it will have to pare back the most extravagant elements of this fantasy wish list” of weapons that were products of Cold War strategic thinking.

To roll back the Afghanistan intervention would not only be a good in itself, but would make significant money available to an Obama presidency for the “acute domestic needs,” that the Times writes about. Even achieving part of that goal would launch the U.S. on a path toward conciliation with the countries of the third world.

The $140 billion mentioned by the Times is a large part of the annual expense of producing and maintaining the military relics of the Cold War. And that is a different matter. To cut into that is far more difficult than the Times would have us think. George Bush senior tried it in 1990 at the end of the Cold War and didn’t get anywhere. The peace movement, which attempted to do it many times after World War II, never made a dent. The military-industrial complex, with its allies in Congress, is simply too powerful, not only economically, but as a political reservoir for the Right.

If the movement to put Obama in the White House is successful and continues to gain momentum, and enough progressive Democrats are elected to Congress, the momentum could go beyond getting us out of Afghanistan and defeat the project for military Transformation.

The most visionary among us might then begin to ponder how to defeat the military-industrial complex as a whole.

[Morton H. Frank is affiliated with Progressives for Obama.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Tape : Order to Forge Iraq-9/11 Letter on White House Stationery

In damning transcript, ex-CIA official says Cheney likely ordered letter linking Hussein to 9/11 attacks
By John Byrne / August 8, 2008

A forged letter linking Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks was ordered on White House stationery and probably came from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a new transcript of a conversation with the Central Intelligence Agency’s former Deputy Chief of Clandestine Operations Robert Richer.

The transcript was posted Friday by author Ron Suskind of an interview conducted in June. It comes on the heels of denials by both the White House and Richer of a claim Suskind made in his new book, The Way of The World. The book was leaked to Politico’s Mike Allen on Monday, and released Tuesday.

On Tuesday, the White House released a statement on Richer’s behalf. In it, Richer declared, “I never received direction from George Tenet or anyone else in my chain of command to fabricate a document … as outlined in Mr. Suskind’s book.”

The denial, however, directly contradicts Richer’s own remarks in the transcript.

“Now this is from the Vice President’s Office is how you remembered it–not from the president?” Suskind asked.

“No, no, no,” Richer replied, according to the transcript. “What I remember is George [Tenet] saying, ‘we got this from’–basically, from what George said was ‘downtown.'”

“Which is the White House?” Suskind asked.

“Yes,” Richer said. “But he did not–in my memory–never said president, vice president, or NSC. Okay? But now–he may have hinted–just by the way he said it, it would have–cause almost all that stuff came from one place only: Scooter Libby and the shop around the vice president.”

“But he didn’t say that specifically,” Richer added. “I would naturally–I would probably stand on my, basically, my reputation and say it came from the vice president.”

“But there wasn’t anything in the writing that you remember saying the vice president,” Suskind continued.

“Nope,” Richer said.

“It just had the White House stationery.”

“Exactly right.”

Later, Richer added, “You know, if you’ve ever seen the vice president’s stationery, it’s on the White House letterhead. It may have said OVP (Office of the Vice President). I don’t remember that, so I don’t want to mislead you.”

Suskind says decision to post transcript unusual

Suskind posted the transcript at his blog, saying, “This posting is contrary to my practice across 25 years as a journalist. But the issues, in this matter, are simply too important to stand as discredited in any way.” It was first picked up by ThinkProgress and Congressional Quarterly’s Jeff Stein.

Suskind’s new book asserts that senior Bush officials ordered the CIA to forge a document “proving” that Saddam Hussein had been trying to manufacture nuclear weapons and was collaborating with al Qaeda. The alleged result was a faked memorandum from then chief of Saddam’s intelligence service Tahir Jalil Habbush dated July 1, 2001, and written to Hussein.

The bogus memo claimed that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had received training in Baghdad but also discussed the arrival of a “shipment” from Niger, which the Administration claimed had supplied Iraq with yellowcake uranium — based on yet another forged document whose source remains uncertain.

The memo subsequently was treated as fact by the British Sunday Telegraph, and cited by William Safire in his New York Times column, providing fodder for Bush’s efforts to take the US to war.

The Sunday Telegraph cited the main source for its story on Iraq’s 9/11 involvement as Ayad Allawi, a former Baathist who rebelled against Saddam and was appointed a government position after the US occupation.

Nothing in the story explains how an Iraqi politician was privy to the fake memo, but the New York Times column alluded to Allawi and described him as “an Iraqi leader long considered reliable by intelligence agencies.”

“To characterize it right,” Richer also declares in the transcript, “I would say, right: it came to us, George had a raised eyebrow, and basically we passed it on–it was to–and passed this on into the organization. You know, it was: ‘Okay, we gotta do this, but make it go away.’ To be honest with you, I don’t want to make it sound–I for sure don’t want to portray this as George jumping: ‘Okay, this has gotta happen.’ As I remember it–and, again, it’s still vague, so I’ll be very straight with you on this–is it wasn’t that important. It was: ‘This is unbelievable. This is just like all the other garbage we get about . . . I mean Mohammad Atta and links to al Qaeda. ‘Rob,’ you know, ‘do something with this.’ I think it was more like that than: ‘Get this done.'”

Magazine asserts Feith created bogus document

Today, The American Conservative also published a report saying that the forgery was actually produced by then-Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith’s Office of Special Plans, citing an unnamed intelligence source. The source reportedly added that Suskind’s overall claim “is correct.”

“My source also notes that Dick Cheney, who was behind the forgery, hated and mistrusted the Agency and would not have used it for such a sensitive assignment,” the magazine wrote. “Instead, he went to Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans and asked them to do the job. … It was Feith’s office that produced the letter and then surfaced it to the media in Iraq. Unlike the [Central Intelligence] Agency, the Pentagon had no restrictions on it regarding the production of false information to mislead the public. Indeed, one might argue that Doug Feith’s office specialized in such activity.”

More of Suskind’s transcripts are available here.

Source / The Raw Story

Thanks to Roger Baker / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

John McCain Rhymes With Pain

(Copy this, make your own video, make your own mix, circulate widely, the Creative Commons applies; L. A. Piltz, originator, 08/09/08.)

John McCain rhymes with pain
4 more years of Bush Republican reign
McCain rhymes with pain
4 more years of Bush-Cheney disdain
McCain rhymes with pain
4 more years to drive our soldiers insane
McCain rhymes with pain
this time use your brain
cause John McCain rhymes with pain

John McCain rhymes with blood
4 more years another war hawk dud
McCain rhymes with blood
forever linked with the Great American Flood
McCain rhymes with blood
years more of Karl Rove’s un-American mud
and McCain rhymes with thud
yes he profits from the foreign takeover of Bud
and McCain rhymes with dud
and John McCain rhymes with blood

John McCain rhymes with taps
4 more years of Bush intelligence gaps
McCain rhymes with taps
how many more wars to send troops into traps
and McCain rhymes with craps
don’t gamble on decades of financial collapse
yes McCain rhymes with collapse
quit being played for saps
too much time has elapsed
and John McCain rhymes with taps

John McCain rhymes with rage
waiting to explode on a worldwide stage
John McCain rhymes with rage
bottled up inside stab you with a tire gauge
yes McCain rhymes with rage
too set in his ways to turn any page
and please don’t rattle his cage
he has the mind of a man from another age
we’re not dealing with a sage
cause John McCain rhymes with rage

John McCain rhymes with pain
you’d get more years of Bush-Cheney hard reign
McCain rhymes with pain
how many more years of Bush-Cheney remain
and McCain rhymes with slain
how many more troops die how many go insane
how about the ill-gotten gain
while the cronies profit and people die in vain
John McCain rhymes with pain
it couldn’t be more plain
yes McCain rhymes with pain
John McCain rhymes with pain

John McCain’s time has past
he was a good G.I.
and his honor will last
no need to ask why
but now life comes at you fast
and it’s passed him by
so we thank you John
now make room for the other guy
cause John McCain stands for pain

L. A. Piltz, 8/9/08 (Creative Commons applies)

Larry Piltz
Indian Cove / Austin, Texas


The Rag Blog / Posted July 9, 2008

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Tom Hayden : Chicago 1968 / Denver 2008

Veteran activist and former California state Sen. Tom Hayden. Photo by Chris Schneider © The Rocky Mountain News

The New Left leader from four decades ago thinks Denver should be skeptical of federal authorities’ warnings about violent protest.
By M.E. Sprengelmeyer / August 8, 2008

CULVER CITY, Calif. — On a steamy spring day, in a cramped office that hot air can’t escape, the archetypal child of the ’60s does something truly radical.

He wears a necktie.

This is not the hairy, scary leader of the New Left who had Chicago locking up its daughters for the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

It’s a clean-cut Tom Hayden, retired California state senator, prolific writer, blogger and sage to a whole new generation of street activists.

Still, he knows most people still picture him as a sort of cartoon version of himself: shirtless, shouting down authority or scuffling with cops on the streets.

“I can’t get past that,” he says of the stereotypes. “I can’t help them with their problem. They can’t see me. I can be, like, 68 years old and I’m still trouble, because they’re thinking about something in Vietnam or they’re thinking about Jane Fonda. Or they think I slept with their daughter. They think I burned my draft card. It’s like a big Rorschach of things that I did or did not do.”

If speaking out still means “trouble,” then maybe Hayden really hasn’t changed that much.

Forty years after he helped lead the anti-war protests that ended in violent confrontations outside the ’68 convention, he just put out a new book, Voices of the Chicago Eight, about the circus-like conspiracy trial for protest organizers and the consequences of attempts to come down hard on dissent.

He offers regular takes to Huffington Post readers and was an early member of the group Progressives for Obama. He lectures on college campuses and offers an updated version of the Port Huron Statement — the 1962 manifesto of the Students for a Democratic Society that challenged young people to boldly venture into “participatory democracy.”

And behind the scenes, Hayden closely monitors protest plans for the upcoming Democratic and Republican national conventions, advises organizers and warns that authorities appear to be falling into a predictable pattern of hype and overreaction.

“I think that Denver officials would be well-advised not to believe everything that the FBI warns them about,” Hayden says. “That’s how things can get out of hand, due to fabricated, exaggerated projections about violence or protest.”

As the convention approaches, federal dollars pour into the security effort and law enforcement agencies flex muscle with high-profile exercises.

“They don’t learn,” Hayden laments. “What you saw in 2000 was the claim that 75,000 anarchists were descending, the secret funding of permanent police equipment, the denial of permits for protesters. You saw the same thing in 2004. You will see the same thing in 2008.”

He thinks Big Brother posturing helps scare away peaceful protesters, gives the community a false sense of security and can, in some cases, provoke confrontations at demonstrations that would otherwise be routine and mostly peaceful.

“So they have their view,” Hayden says of security planners. “They’ve learned nothing from 1968.”

Nation, party were both divided

As demonstrators get ready for Denver 2008, 40-year-old memories are front and center. One coalition operates under the “Re-create 68” banner, conjuring images of the street clashes that overshadowed the Democratic Convention itself, galvanizing the anti-Vietnam War effort and undermining Democrats’ hopes in that long-ago fall.

But Hayden was there in 1968. And there’s really no comparison to 2008, he says.

True, there was a war then and there is a war now.

But back in 1968, the country — and the Democratic Party — were more starkly divided over the battle waging overseas.

The Tet offensive by North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces at the end of January obscured the light at the end of the tunnel in the war. Hundreds of young U.S. troops were dying every week. Facing a rising voter backlash, wartime President Lyndon B. Johnson was forced to prematurely end his re-election bid at the end of March.

Within days, the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. caused rage to explode into riots, arson and looting in 75 cities. Robert F. Kennedy calmed a shocked crowd in Indianapolis, telling them his brother, too, had been killed by a white man. But weeks later, the younger brother, too, was shot dead, fraying emotions even further. The nation was on edge heading into the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

Until then, some protest organizers held out hope of getting the needed permits to avoid confrontations at marches and park demonstrations. But Hayden says he knew trouble was inevitable.

“I planned for multiple scenarios, not knowing which one would play out,” he says, sitting in the cramped office while his research assistant continues working nearby. “But certainly, after the murder of Kennedy, coming on the murder of King, to me it was in the air that we were going to be busted and face serious harm unless we surrendered and left the city and simply went along with the plan . . . just go along with our own disappearance.”

They didn’t, even though they knew — from personal contacts — that the FBI was tracking their every move, around the clock.

One declassified FBI memo included in Hayden’s new book expresses anger that bureau officials were unaware of his involvement in a student occupation of buildings at Columbia University until after his picture appeared in Life magazine.

“In evaluating this case, you should bear in mind that your prime objectives should be to neutralize him in the new left movement,” the memo states.

Clashes played out on TV

Other organizers still held out hope of getting permits for access to streets and parks for demonstrations. But Hayden says he was pessimistic — and in the end proven correct.

The city rejected permits for the Youth International Party — the so-called “Yippies” led by the late Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman — to hold a massive “Festival of Life” concert.

Some thought permits would come through at the last minute — a way of giving a nod to free expression only after turnout had been dampened. But that didn’t happen, either.

Hayden says Chicago Mayor Richard Daley was “hoodwinked” into believing that “thousands of hairy Yippies were going to have sex in public while drinking from the LSD-laden waters of Lake Michigan. They actually believed that. And this sex in the parks on acid would occur at roughly the same moment that black revolutionaries would storm the convention with guns.”

So the stage was set for constant confrontations, games of cat and mouse between police and protesters, and then bloody clashes on television, just as Democrats also were struggling to show they could maintain order among squabbling delegates inside the convention hall.

It culminated on Aug. 28, when Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota was to accept the presidential nomination. That afternoon, while delegates waged a contentious debate over Vietnam War planks in the party’s platform, police allowed a “legal” anti-war rally at Grant Park.

Things broke loose after a shirtless teenager climbed a flagpole, ostensibly to turn the flag upside down as a distress symbol. Police swooped in to make an arrest, the crowd surged and some threw stones or dirt clods at a police car, and the scene quickly deteriorated. Thousands of police, soldiers and National Guardsmen surrounded the area. Calm was restored, but by twilight, many protesters were more determined to make unsanctioned parades to reach the convention site or the Hilton hotel, where delegates were staying.

That night, after moving through the city disguised with a fake beard, Hayden ended up in a police skirmish at the hotel’s Haymarket Lounge — “named, strangely enough, in memory of Chicago police killed by an anarchist’s bomb during a violent confrontation between police and protesters in 1886,” Hayden writes.

By the time the week’s convention ended, 668 people had been arrested, 101 people were treated at local hospitals for their injuries, and hundreds more reportedly received first aid or treatment by protest medics.

And the Democratic Party’s hopes of retaining the White House were the ultimate casualty. Republican Richard Nixon was elected with more than 100 electoral vote margin.

“It simply didn’t have to happen,” Hayden says of the Chicago chaos, 40 years later. “It takes two for a riot to occur. And if it wasn’t for the FBI advisers, Chicago ’68 would not have happened — repeat, would not have happened.”

City’s posture sparks concern

Despite the “Re-create 68” sentiment of some Denver protest organizers, Hayden saw little chance of a chaotic rerun when he sat down in April in his Culver City office to discuss the upcoming Democratic National Convention.

Back then, when the battle between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton still raged and there was talk of superdelegates throwing the nomination to Clinton, Hayden imagined there could be some sort of drama on the streets if people thought the election had been stolen. But it never came to that.

More likely, he predicted, were smaller demonstrations to keep up the pressure for Democrats in Denver to take tougher anti-war stands, with more fierce protests against the “war-makers” at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota.

By early July, however, Hayden said he was growing concerned about the city’s posture toward protesters and the worst-case scenario security exercises, with black helicopters roaring through the downtown skyline.

The ACLU and protest organizers went to court challenging the location of a so-called free-speech zone on the far edge of a parking lot. Planners of “Tent State University,” who hoped to use City Park to house tens of thousands of anti-war activists, were told they would have to clear the park at 11 each night. The ban on camping and curfew enforcement raises the specter of the nightly crackdowns at Lincoln and Grant parks in Chicago ’68.

“I do think they are playing around unnecessarily with the rights of protesters to protest,” Hayden said in a follow-up interview. “I don’t know how the negotiations will come out, but you know, naming something a protest zone but then not allowing it to be heard or seen, it’s a mockery of the First Amendment. Most importantly, it’s not necessary.

“It does seem to me there’s a legitimate right to protest at stake,” he said. “I don’t think the protests will be very large if Obama is the nominee. I don’t see the point in interfering with them . . . It’s particularly crazy because most of the delegates at the Democratic convention have been in many demonstrations themselves.”

The security exercises, with helicopters buzzing the city, reminded Hayden of something out of the movie Dr. Strangelove.

“The implication is very unsettling,” he said. “The message was that the people coming to protest deserve this kind of repression if they get out of hand . . . They’re just trying to scare the public into justifying more tax dollars for a false sense of security — more gadgets for the police department.”

He said people don’t realize that in Chicago, the initial protests were rather lightly attended, with about 1,500 people in the parks. But the numbers swelled to an estimated 10,000, in part as a reaction to the police crackdowns, Hayden says.

“If they had given us permits . . . I doubt there would have been much confrontation at all,” he says. “What caused the rioting in the streets was the lack of permits and the lack of a place to stay. Too much order creates disorder is the way I’ve always put it.”

One might think that Hayden, one of the pre-eminent social activists of the ’60s, would be disappointed with the anti-war efforts and the other movements of today.

He isn’t.

“I think it’s a remarkable peace movement,” he says. “You don’t have the draft. You have one-fifteenth of the American casualties now that you had at this point during Vietnam. The establishment is doing everything it can to keep this war from impacting the American people. And yet, people have seen through it.”

The public at large turned against the Iraq war by the end of 2004, he says, “which I think means the ghosts of ’68 are still with us. People know a quagmire when they see one.”

Source / Rocky Mountain News

Thanks to Carl Davidson / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Michael Moore : How to Blow it


It’s the most winnable presidential election in American history – but the Democrats are old hands at losing. Michael Moore offers some helpful hints on how they might gift it all to the Republicans.
By Michael Moore / August 9, 2008

The following article is an edited excerpt from Michael Moore’s upcoming book, “Mike’s Election Guide 2008.”

“Let’s snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.”
“We never met an election we’d like to win.”
“Why get elected when you can be defeated!”

These have been the mantras of the Democratic Party. Beginning with their stunning inability to defeat the most detested politician in American history, Richard Nixon, and continuing through their stunning inability to defeat the most detested politician in the world, George II, the Democrats are the masters of blowing it. And they don’t just simply “blow it” – they blow it especially when the electorate seems desperate to give it to them

After eight years of Ronald Reagan in the Oval Office, the public had seen enough. The Democrats chose Michael Dukakis as their nominee. Two months before the election, he was ahead of Bush I in the polls. Then he went to an army tank factory in Michigan, put on some kind of stupid-fitting helmet and rode around in a tank with a goofy smile on his face. Weeks later, when asked what kind of punishment he would like to see given to someone who might rape his wife, he started mumbling some sort of bleeding-heart gibberish instead of just saying what anyone would say: “I’d like to tear the bastard limb from limb!” The voters were so put off by his wimpiness, they elected an actual wimp over him, George H W Bush.

For years now, nearly every poll has shown that the American people are right in sync with the platform of the Democratic Party. They are pro-environment, pro-women’s rights, pro-choice, they don’t like war, they want the minimum wage raised, and they want a single-payer universal healthcare system. The American public agrees with the Republican Party on only one major issue: they support the death penalty.

So you would think, with more than 200 million eligible voters, the Dems would be cleaning up, election after election. Obviously not. The Democrats appear to be professional losers. They are so pathetic in their ability to win elections, they even lose when they win! Al Gore won the 2000 election, but for some strange reason he didn’t become the president of the United States.

If you are unable as a party to get the landlord to turn over the keys to a house that is yours, what the hell good are you?

Well, in 2006, the Dems had a come-to-Jesus meeting with themselves and, under the leadership of Rahm Emanuel, won so many House seats, they just waltzed in and took the place over. What a great day that was, seeing Nancy Pelosi bang the gavel down to open Congress. And what was her first act? To declare that any discussion of the impeachment of George W Bush was verboten and no one was ever to bring it up again. And that was that. It sent a clear message to Bush that he could just keep doing what he’d been doing for the first six years. The result? That’s exactly what he did, with Congress authorising every war funding bill he sent to them. How did the American people respond? Congress’s approval rating sank lower than Bush’s. How disgusting do you have to be to sink lower in the public’s eyes than a man who can’t even successfully choke himself on a pretzel?

So when you hear Democrats and liberals and Obama supporters say they are worried McCain has a good chance of winning, they ain’t a-kidding. Who would know better than the very people who have handed the Republicans one election after another on a silver platter? Yes, be afraid, be very afraid.

After the debacles of Iraq, Katrina, gas prices, home foreclosures, our standing in the world, the failure to capture Bin Laden, and revealing the identity of a CIA agent in an act of revenge, it would seem that Barack Obama should be on a cakewalk to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The man should be able to sleep his way through the rest of the campaign season.

Ha! Think again. How many Democrats does it take to lose the most easily winnable election in American history? Not many. Just a few “close advisers” to Barack Obama who tell him a bunch of asinine stuff and he ends up listening to them instead of his own heart. As the party hacks in the past two elections have proven, once they get the candidate’s ear, the rest of us might just as well order pizza and stay inside for the next four years.

In an effort to help the party doofuses and pundits – and the candidate – spare all of us another suicide-inducing election night as the results giving the election to the Republican pour in, here is the blueprint from the Democrats’ past losing campaigns. Just follow each of these steps and you, the Democratic Party establishment, can help elect John Sidney McCain III to a four-year extension of the Bush Era:

Keep saying nice things about McCain. Like how he’s been “good on global warming” and campaign finance. Keep reminding a country at war that he and he alone is a war hero. Not to mention an all-round good guy. Say that enough and what happens? The same thing that happens when you repeat over and over, “Apply directly to the forehead” – people start to believe it! You’ve sold them on the idea that McCain isn’t a bad egg, and they do not hear the rest of what you have to say: “But John McCain is four more years of George W Bush.” If you keep saying he used to be a “maverick”, our less-attention-span citizens hear only the “maverick” part, not the past tense verb included in that sentence.

This is not to say you should in any way demean John McCain as a human being or as an American. Disagreeing strongly with his policies or the direction he would lead the country is not the same as denigrating him as a person. This particular style of politics is the cesspool that the Right and the Republican Party apparatus swim in. We do not further our agenda by imitating them. Fight, fight back, and fight hard – but fight clean. It’s ultimately what I believe the majority of Americans would like to see.

There is also nothing wrong with saying nice things about McCain’s constituency, and you should. We want to hold out our hand to people who have voted for Republicans in the past. Many of them are tired, a good number are disgusted. They won’t agree with a lot of what we stand for, but they’ve had it up to here with the Republicans and we should make sure our tent is big enough to welcome them in.

So if you want to help elect McCain, keep blessing him as if he were the white knight who accidentally hopped on the wrong horse. Forget to continually point out that he is truly up to no good. Keep pulling your punches. Don’t remind people McCain wants to help the oil companies even more than Bush did. Don’t bring up that he wants to outlaw all abortion. Back away from painting McCain as the guy who thinks it’s a good idea to stay in Iraq until pigs fly. That way, if you keep praising him, you can send a mixed message to the less-informed who are simply not going to figure it out. When they walk into a voting booth, they will see two names on the ballot:

· Barack Obama
· War Hero

Trust me, this ain’t Sweden. War Hero wins every time.

Have Obama pick a vice-presidential candidate who is a conservative white guy, or a general, or a Republican. Yes, it will seem like smart politics at first. Shore up Obama’s lack of military experience with a hawk.

Be true to Obama’s message that he’ll be a president for everybody by having him run with a Republican.

Make a pitch to the purple states of Virginia and Indiana to vote Democratic this time by putting one of their own on the ticket.

Or swing for the fences and make the red state of Ohio happy by handing the vice-presidential slot to its governor.

But by doing any of this, you will upset the base that not only must come out on election day, it must also be active and work dozens of hours during the campaign. They have to personally bring 10 people each to the polls with them if we are to avoid the disasters of the past two elections. Many won’t do this extra work if Obama picks the wrong Veep. It will suck the air out of the balloon in a big way.

Obama electrified the nation on the notion of change and hope and a fresh direction in Washington. If he picks a running mate who screams “Same old same old”, it will make it harder for him to attract all the new voters he needs to bring to the polls to win. Remember there are nearly 100 million adults who choose not to vote. That is a large base from which to draw millions of new votes. Obama should not desert a strategy that has worked well for him.

There is nothing wrong with picking someone who can help him win a swing state or someone who has more experience than he does in certain areas. But when I hear pundits say, “He has to pick a Catholic”, well, John Kerry was a total Catholic and the Catholic vote went to Mr W. I mean, here’s one of the largest groups in the country – 66 million Catholics – and they/we have allowed only one Catholic to be president in 208 years. You would think they would have been flocking to Kerry in 2004. That is not the way people think. It is the way pundits think. Keep listening to them and you can help elect John McCain the next president of the United States.

Keep writing speeches for Obama like the one in front of the American Israeli lobbying group the day after the final primaries. Here’s what he said: “The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.” And: “Let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation.”

Sounds like a speech McCain would give. Sounds like he’s ready to invade Iran. He staked out an even worse position for the Palestinians vis-a-vis Jerusalem than the one held by George W Bush. Keep that up and more and more supporters will be less and less enthused. It will be harder to keep the base motivated if they continue to hear how Obama wants to expand Bush’s “faith-based” initiatives, doesn’t have a health plan that covers everyone, and wants to send more troops to Afghanistan. The implied message of this is that the Republican plan is a good plan. So why would voters want to elect the candidate imitating the Republican when they can get the real thing? Talk like this gets McCain elected.

Somehow forget that this was a historic year for women and that there is more work to do. Obama should be making a speech about gender like the brilliant one he gave on race back in March. Millions of people, especially women, had high hopes for the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. Attention must be paid. And you don’t pay attention to it by having your advisers run your wife through the makeover machine, trying to soften her up and pipe her down. Michelle Obama has been one of the most refreshing things about this election year. But within weeks of the end of the primary season, the handlers stepped in to deal with the “Michelle Problem”. What problem? She speaks her mind? She wears what she wants? She thought he was crazy to run for president and tried to put her foot down? Only a crazy person would want her husband and family to be chewed up and ground through the political grist mill.

Michelle’s biggest sin, according to the punditocracy, was to say that, as a black woman, this may be the first time in her adult life she’s been really proud of her country. Shock! Surprise! Outrage! But not from any of the black women I know.

Barack Obama, outnumbered in his household 3-1 by the female gender, has a lot at stake in making sure that women’s rights and opportunities are on a par with men’s. As one who knows what it’s like to be in a class of people who traditionally have not held power, he’s in an excellent position to speak to another group that has been left out – women – and assure them that he will be their advocate.

Plus, this is just good politics. Women vote by a larger margin than men. And if it remains true that Obama will not carry the white male vote (as most of the polls indicate he will not), then he simply cannot win without capturing a strong majority of the female vote. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both lost the white male vote but won the White House. They did so by winning an overwhelming percentage of the black, Hispanic and female vote. That has to be Obama’s strategy. Otherwise Cindy McCain will be our new First Lady.

Show up to a gunfight with a peashooter. Convince yourself that the Republicans are just going to roll over and play dead because there is simply no life left in their party. Convince yourself this one is in the bag! Convince yourself that if you play by the rules, the Republicans will, too. And when McCain and his people roll out their nuclear arsenal on you, just go all sweet and sensitive and logical. Believe that the truth shall prevail, that good people will see what the Republicans are up to. As they smear you, your family, your religious beliefs – cower, back down, go on the defensive. Heck, if they don’t like your new I’m-running-for-president logo, denounce it, apologise for it, and fire the person who designed it.

But don’t stop there. Be ready to jump and change anything at a moment’s notice. If they ask you to stand on your head and do the hokey-pokey, snap to it and do it with a smile on your face and don’t forget to apologise for not doing the hokey-pokey earlier, you meant no disrespect and please don’t take it as any indication that you do not love your country, your flag, and your Christian God.

Do all of that, and then listen for that sound – the sound of your supporters shuffling away in silence. Don’t worry, though – they won’t vote for McCain. They’ll just stop showing up at the campaign headquarters over on Maple Street. They’ll say they’re too busy to go on another three-hour door-to-door literature drop. They’ll still take a list of a hundred voters home to call and read the index card over the phone about “why you should vote for Obama” – but there won’t be much enthusiasm in their voice, and the voter on the other end of the line will hear that. After 15 or 20 calls, they’ll give up – after all, there’s dishes to do and a dog to walk. And on election day they’ll go do their duty and vote, but they will not be up at 6am driving around the city picking up strangers who need a ride to the polls.

Denounce me! The candidate Obama, at some point, might be asked this question: “Michael Moore is a supporter of yours and has endorsed you. But in his new book, Mike’s Election Guide, he says the following (go ahead and fill in the blank – I’ve provided a full list of outrageously offensive lines already taken out of context in advance to make it easy for rightwing commentators and Fox News). Will you still accept his endorsement or do you denounce him?”

And he better denounce me or they will tear him to shreds. He had better back away not only from me but from anyone and everyone who veers a bit too far to the left of where his advisers have told him is the sweet spot for all those red state voters.

We can’t take four more years of this madness. We need you to be a candidate who will fight back every time they attack you. Actually, don’t even wait till you have to fight back. Fight first! Show some vision and courage and smoke them out. Take the offensive. Keep asking why these lobbyists are McCain’s best friends. Let’s finally have a Democrat who’s got the balls to fire first.

[This is an edited extract from Mike’s Election Guide, by Michael Moore, published by Grand Central Publishing.]

Source / The Guardian, U.K.

Find Mike’s Election Guide 2008 at Amazon.com.

Thanks to Roger Baker / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

When Medicine Meets Capitalism – Crony Politics

Peter Pitts (left) and Robert Goldberg

The FDA Guerillas of Wonky DrugWonks
by Evelyn Pringle / August 8, 2008

Former Bush Administration officials have formed a pharmaceutical industry guerilla group called the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, described on its website as “a non-partisan, non-profit educational charity,” and a “new vital force in health care policy.”

However, for all intents and purposes, the mission of CMPI front group is to promote back-door efforts at tort reform, including pushing complete drug maker immunity through federal preemption, to pump out rapid-response propaganda on the internet to deflate scandals involving the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA, and to discredit anyone who would dares to criticize the industry or the FDA.

Former FDA associate commissioner, Peter Pitts, is the president. He is also the Senior Vice President of Global Health Affairs at Manning Selvage and Lee, a Public Relations firm described as “a top five healthcare communications practice with a 50-year history,” representing, “major pharmaceutical, biotech and medical device companies.”

Former FDA chief counsel, Daniel Troy, the Godfather of preemption, sits on an advisory board for CMPI. His bio brags that he “played a principal role in FDA’s generally successful assertion of preemption in selected product liability cases.” He represented drug companies before he was chief counsel and returned to the same role when he left.

In the March 8, 2008, Mother Jones magazine, Stephanie Mencimer points out that Mr Troy’s “career is an illustration of how the Bush administration’s revolving door has allowed industry lawyers to radically reshape regulatory agencies to benefit the big businesses they once represented and then profit from those changes when they return to the private sector.”

Robert Goldberg is vice president of CMPI. He was previously the Director of the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Medical Progress and Chairman of its 21st Century FDA Task Force, according to his bio.

On the CMPI website, Mr Pitts and Mr Goldberg set up the internet blog, DrugWonks, supposedly to provide a forum that offers “rigorous and compelling research on the most critical issues affecting current drug policy.”

But in truth, DrugWonks serves as a defacto media outlet to provide services offered by MS&L to pharmaceutical clients and to counteract damaging information as it comes out in the media with rapid responses on the internet.

“Media is the lifeblood of MS&L and our healthcare practice,” the firm explains on its website. “Our experts immerse themselves in the needs and changes occurring within the media,” it says.

MS&L services include: “Developing communications strategies to support or thwart issues, including outreach to key agenda-setters, coalition-building, e-fluencer campaigns and media outreach”.

Under the leadership of Mr Pitts in the Global Affairs unit, “MS&L helps clients understand and influence government thinking on key health policy issues,” according to the website. “Monitoring emerging health issues to protect clients, particularly legislative and regulatory activities,” is a service offered.

To that end, whenever the “monitoring” spots a potential problem for an industry client involving the FDA or legislation pending or investigations in Congress, Mr Pitts and Mr Goldberg automatically shift into overdrive to either deflate, deflect or defend with information released on the internet through DrugWonks.

In 2006, tax records show, CMPI spent $210,000, to influence the media through a large conference, DrugWonks, editorials in published in major newspapers, and multimedia programs and podcasts, according to Slate Magazine.

In the line of fire

DrugWonks is also used to pump out unsubstantiated, vicious and unprofessional comments aimed at destroying the reputations and credibility of anyone who dares to speak out against the pharmaceutical industry or the FDA, including doctors, researchers, lawmakers and even journalists.

Attorneys are regularly attacked, but only those who defend the little guy against the drug giants. Those who represent industry clients receive the highest praise. The same goes for expert witnesses. An medial expert who consults with attorneys for a plaintiff is referred to as “a gun for hire.” Those on the other side have only the best of intentions.

Mr Pitts and Mr Goldberg demonstrate a special “fondness” for all consumer advocacy groups and public health activists who criticize the FDA or pharmaceutical industry. They are referred to collectively with titles like “whack jobs,” or “conflict of interest capos,” or “Luddites,” whatever that means.

They attacked four medical journals in one whack in a December 10, 2005, blog on DrugWonks. “Too many people are now not taking important medicines for pain, depression and other illnesses because the NEJM, JAMA, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal have allowed their political love fest with the leftists in the media and their hatred of drug companies to pollute their ability to remain objective,” the blog said.

In June 2008, Mr Pitts and Mr Goldberg double-teamed Senator Charles Grassley (R Iowa), and reporter, Gardiner Harris, for three days when the New York Times reported on the investigation by the Senate Finance Committee into the nondisclosure of millions of dollars received by Harvard academics Joseph Biederman, Timothy Wilens and Thomas Spencer from drug companies.

Mr Pitts was especially incensed over the Mr Harris’ acknowledgment of Dr Biederman as: “A world-renowned Harvard child psychiatrist whose work has helped fuel an explosion in the use of powerful antipsychotic medicines in children.”

“How did a phrase like “fuel an explosion” make it past an editor?” he demanded to know in a June 9, 2008 blog. “This is journalism?” he asked.

“The McCarthyite Mugging of Joe Biederman,” was the June 8, 2008 headline on DrugWonks, where Mr Goldberg refers to the investigation as the, “Grassley witch-hunt,” and credits the Times’ story in large part to, “Charles Grassley’s McCarthyite machine.”

There are other agendas at play here, Mr Pitts claimed on June 9, 2008. “When it comes to Conflicts of Interest,” he says, “its COI polloi.”

“The not-so-hidden agenda,” he explains, “is that anyone who supports the use of psychiatric pharmaceuticals for any reason needs to be humiliated and destroyed.”
Mr Goldberg says the non-disclosures amount to nothing more than “bad bookkeeping” or a “bookkeeping problem.” His theory might hold water if not for the fact that the problem continued for 7 years before Senator Grassley caught the glitch. The investigation of money paid to academic included about 30 psychiatrists at 20 universities, at last count.

Conflicted DrugWonker exposed

Its seems Mr Pitts himself does always disclose that he’s sleeping with the devil. However, bloggers on Pharmalot, and other popular websites, made his bed partners widely known after a conflict of interest scandal erupted over his appearance on the radio show, Prozac Nation: Revisited, aired on The Infinite Mind, and broadcast by National Public Radio on March 26, 2008.

CMPI board member, Dr Fred Goodman, hosted the show and told the audience: “There is no credible scientific evidence linking antidepressants to suicide or violence.”

On May 6, 2008, Ed Silverman’s Pharmalot headline read: “NPR: On The Air, But Not In The Open,” for a report on “Stealth Marketers,” by Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer, in Slate Magazine with the byline: “Are doctors shilling for drug companies on public radio?” In describing the SSRI discussion on “Prozac Nation,” the authors noted:

The segment featured four prestigious medical experts discussing the controversial link between antidepressants and suicide. In their considered opinions, all four said that worries about the drugs have been overblown.

Not mentioned, Slate says, was the fact that all four experts had financial ties to the antidepressant makers. Mr Pitts was identified only as “a former FDA official.” “Also unmentioned were the ‘unrestricted grants’ that The Infinite Mind has received from drug makers, including Eli Lilly, the manufacturer of the antidepressant Prozac,” Slate wrote.

Infinite Mind spoke to Mr Pitts on the show as “a former FDA associate commissioner who was involved in the FDA’s 2004 “black box” labeling of antidepressants as carrying a risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior, and who was at the time the “go-to” guy for the FDA on that issue,” according to Bill Lichtenstein, Senior Executive Producer of Infinite Mind, in a May 9, 2008 written response to “Stealth Marketers,” posted on Pharmalot.

“What we didn’t know, because he didn’t disclose it to us,” Mr Lichtenstein says, “was that Pitts is currently working for a public relations firm whose clients include major pharmaceutical companies.”

The MS&L website shows Mr Pitts’ many drug company clients include Lilly, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline, the marketers of the SSRI antidepressants Prozac, Zoloft and Paxil.

Mr Pitts also failed to mention his PR job when he appeared on NPR’s Talk of the Nation and News Hour with Jim Lehrer, according to Mr Lichtenstein. He posted a link to “Prozac Nation,” on DrugWonks in April, 2008 without disclosing the conflicts of interests when describing the experts as well.

In their article, Ms Brownlee and Ms Lenzer noted the undisclosed affiliations of Mr Pitts and Dr Goodman with CMPI, which they described as “an industry-funded front, or “Astroturf” group, which receives a majority of its funding from drug companies.”

In a blog defending himself, Mr Pitts wrote: “I think it’s important to note that, per full disclosure, I was never asked. I would like to assume that when I am called for interviews that the producers have done their due diligence.”

“I also want to be clear that on the other programs mentioned,” he said, “I was asked by the producers about my various affiliations. I answered fully and honestly — and the decision was made not to mention it on the air.”

“When you go to http://www.cmpi.org/, one click on my name tells you everything,” Mr Pitts pointed out. Which begs the question of how would listeners to a radio program know to look for a link on this website when his association with CMPI is not even mentioned?

When the story broke, blogger, Lisa Van S, kicked off the internet slugfest on Pharmalot on May 6, 2008, by writing: “Peter Pitts, Have you no shame!!… Does anyone have the DSMIV diagnosis for habitual Lieing [sic — ed.].”

Over at DrugWonks on May 6, Mr Goldberg began a “destroy the messenger” campaign against Ms Lenzer, in a blog titled, “I Dream of Jeannie … Retracting,” and the comment, “Talk about tight Jeannes!” with a January 17, 2005, New York Times article titled, “Dispute Puts a Medical Journal Under Fire,” pasted in the blog.

The “Dispute” refers to an article by Ms Lenzer in the January 2005 BMJ, which reported that the FDA was to review confidential Eli Lilly documents that had been sent to the BMJ by an anonymous source and that these documents had gone “missing” during a 1994 product liability suit filed against Lilly. After Lilly complained, the BMJ investigated the matter and issued a retraction of the “missing” statement and explained:

The BMJ did not intend to suggest that Eli Lilly caused these documents to go missing. As a result of the investigation, it is clear that these documents did not go missing.

The BMJ accepts that Eli Lilly acted properly in relation to the disclosure of these documents in these claims. The BMJ is happy to set the record straight and to apologise to Eli Lilly for this statement, which we now retract, but which we published in good faith.

Out of Ms Lenzer’s whole article, one single statement was retracted, but on DrugWonks, Mr Goldberg wrote: “BMJ was forced to retract one of her articles.”

Later in the same blog he wrote: “Here is the BMJ retraction AND apology as it pertains to Lenzer’s unethical and sleazy behavior,” and pasted a copy of the retraction which shows that only one statement was corrected.

The Lenzer distraction idea was obviously chosen as the main talking point early because Mr Pitts pasted the exact same articles on Pharmalot. But on May 7, blogger pg, responded with a January 17, 2005 article that said the Associated Press reported that BMJ editor, Kamran Abbasi, said the apology was limited to the issue of whether the documents were missing from the court case. On May 13, Professor Jonathan Leo, a well-recognized SSRI expert, posted comments on the Slate website and quoted an e-mail to CNN from Kamram Abbasi, which stated:

The London-based BMJ, formerly called the British Medical Journal, did not retract its contention that the documents show the antidepressant is linked to increased risk of suicide or violence. All we have retracted is the statement that these documents went missing.

Pharmalot’s pg, posted quotes from Lilly documents in a May 9, blog, from exhibits in a Prozac trial presented to the jury in a timeline to show that Lilly knew Prozac caused patients to become violent or suicidal long before the drug was approved in 1988. For example, a May 1984 document states: “During the treatment with the preparation (Prozac) 16 suicide attempts were made, 2 of these with success. As patients with a risk of suicide were excluded from the studies, it is probable that this high proportion can be attributed to an action of the preparation (Prozac) …”

In a May 7, Pharmalot blog, Mr Pitts complained that the Slate article did not mention issues he raised about media coverage of the SSRI debate during an interview with one of the journalists. “A robust debate on the SSRI issue is very important,” he wrote. “Trying to stifle debate by personal attacks just shows a lack of intellectual rigor — and cowardice,” he said.

Pharmalot’s pg, responded to this charge by writing, “Personal Attacks – a Few Examples?” with links to 5 blogs on DrugWonks. In a May 8 blog, pg, posted this example: “…Where will Healy, David Graham and the rest go to wash the blood off their hands? And will the FDA do the right thing and stop handing black boxes out to protect themselves from Senator Grassley and the press?”

Attacks of this kind are posted all over DrugWonks, as part of a PR campaign to restart the mass sale of SSRIs to children obviously. The claim is that the black box suicide warning is causing all these kids to kill themselves because doctors are afraid to prescribe the drugs to depressed kids, and the persons who fought to add the warning are responsible for the deaths.

After reading the blogs written by Mr Pitts and Mr Goldberg, Pharmalot’s Eskimo wrote: “Mr. Pitts, looking at all those posts on drugwonks.com, I couldn’t tell who was making the personal attacks, the ‘kooks’ and the ‘document stealers’ or the site’s authors who label them that way.”

On May 8, in a blog with the DrugWonks headline, “Slate ‘n Slime,” Mr Goldberg wrote: “Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer did a smear job on Peter and Dr. Fred Goodwin in Slate.” He also stated:

Drugwonks rarely expects other bloggers to focus on substance . Rather, we are flogged for the source of our contributions as if others uncovered a corrupt connection instead of the truth, which is that we proactively provided information.

In the same blog, Mr Goldberg later wrote: “we will do what ever it takes, including legal action, when facts are deliberately omitted, misrepresented and distorted and then willfully repeated to set the records straight.”

“We are aware that our critics don’t have the intellectual bandwidth or the maturity to actually engage on the issues or respectfully disagree or debate,” he said. “Still we expect accuracy and for others to provide some context even as they take their shots as they are entitled to in a free society.”

The next day in a Pharmalot blog, Jane reported that: “drugwonks changed their article – it orginally was titled “Slime-alot, Slime a lttile then ignore the real issues” and threatened to sue Ed.” That would be the Ed Silverman who runs Pharmalot.

In response to DrugWonks blogs accusing critics of lacking intellectual bandwidth and being immature, several Pharmalot bloggers simply pasted more links to more blogs written by Mr Goldberg and Mr Pitts on DrugWonks. But a May 9 blog from pg stated: “Woah Mr Pitts. What a shame you sold YOUR intellectual bandwidth (and your integrity) out to the pharmaceutical industry.”

In the end, the war ignited by “Prozac Nation” would rage on for weeks. Finally, on May 27, 2008, under a heading, “Disturbing Behavior,” Mr Goldberg claimed that he and Mr Pitts had gotten a taste of what others were subjected to on a regular basis, described as:

abuse from out-of-control and obsessive hatemongers who receive succor and support — or at the very least — uncritical coverage by the media as the fail to engage on the substance of issues and instead attack motives and indulge in misleading and distorted use of selective reporting.

“Our willingness to challenge those who have been responsible for scaring people from using antidepressants have diverted attention away from the consequences of a decrease in use with blind fury,” he said, “moving from antidepressants to antipsychotics without regard to the original argument or point, harping instead on funding sources with an obsession that reveals a lack of intellectual bandwidth and genuine hatred that borders on the personal.”

“The blogs that have allowed these posting — unfiltered — know better and bear a responsibility for allowing the attacks and vitriol to become so unhinged and personal,” Mr Goldberg wrote, and specifically mentioned Pharmalot.

“These are sad, hateful people,” he said, “The problem is they often reflect and influence the thinking of people like Brownlee and Lenzer who are considered mainstream.”

“We at CMPI are simply trying to insure that people get the right medicine at the right time,” he says. “No more, no less.”

Major story gone missing

Mr Pitts never misses a change to promote preemption on DrugWonks by publishing new stories about CMPI advisory board member, and former FDA chief counsel, Daniel Troy, who kicked-off the preemption campaign by filing the first FDA brief in support of a drug maker in an SSRI suicide case while serving as chief counsel. However, notably missing in the month of July, is a story on DrugWonks bragging about Mr Troy’s new job at Glaxo. But Ed Silverman reported the news on Pharmalot on July 22, 2008, writing:

The preemption prince is joining the big drugmaker as senior vice president and general counsel on September 2. This is a coup for Glaxo, because Troy is widely known – some might say notorious – for being supportive of the pharmaceutical industry.

He also laid the groundwork for the current legal battle over preemption, which says FDA approval supercedes state law claims challenging safety, efficacy, or labeling. Drugmakers and the FDA argue preemption exists by maintaining agency actions are the final word on safety and effectiveness.

In response to the news, Pharmalot blogger, Laurie, wrote: “Wow.. GSK takes on the one person who has been the poster boy for all that’s bad with pharma and the FDA…way to help your public relations.”

The fact is, Glaxo hired the “poster boy” while facing mounting legal problems due to concealing Paxil’s suicide risk for decades. With the kinds of insider information he could bring to the table, Mr Troy was already the best man for the job. But also important was likely the fact that he knew people were dying from Paxil for years and never cared.

Glaxo has been under investigation by the Department of Justice since 2004 over Paxil. In June 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported a widening of that investigation. In February 2008, Senator Grassley started a new investigation by the Finance Committee, after an expert witness report in a Paxil-suicide case was unsealed by a court that showed Glaxo knew back 1989, that Paxil patients in clinical trials were 8 times more likely to attempt or commit suicide than patients taking a placebo.

The Committee’s investigation of the money paid to academics also includes Paxil researcher, Dr Martin Keller at Brown University, who oversaw the Glaxo-funded trials on children, and was the lead author on the fraudulent papers used to promote the off-label sale of Paxil to children with false claims that it worked and did not cause suicide.

On June 23, 2008, Mr Pitts made a feeble attempt to throw out some sort of defense for his MS&L client with the DrugWonks headline: “What’s Behind the Paxil Investigation?”

“There’s money in it, maybe for the plaintiffs attorneys,” he wrote. “But there is also the Holy Grail of overturing FDA pre-emption,” he added.

The main problem with this theory is that Mr Pitt’s buddy, Dan Troy, seems to be the only attorney moving up the pay ladder.

In Stealth Marketers, Ms Lenzer and Ms Brownlee report that CMPI took in more than $1.4 million from the pharmaceutical industry in 2006. Mr Pitts was asked to identify the companies and apparently decided against it. “I don’t want to go into that,” he told Slate.

With all that drug money rolling in, CMPI could surely afford to hire an editor to clean up the blogs of the media expert and his side kick on DrugWonks. Although allowances for errors in typing, grammar and spelling are commonly extended to internet bloggers, the daily ramblings of Mr Pitts and Mr Goldberg appear on the official CMPI website and should, at least, be legible.

Evelyn Pringle is an investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government and corporate America. She can be reached at: evelyn-pringle@sbcglobal.net.

Source / Dissident Voice

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Phoenix Reporter Details McCain’s Sordid Political Past

Former John McCain cohort Charles Keating, Jr., right, glances at the cameras as he stops outside Federal court following a hearing in Los Angeles on Feb. 5, 1998. Photo by Susan Sterner / AP.

‘He was known then for cavorting in the Bahamas with Charlie Keating, rather than for fighting for campaign finance reform and limited government spending.’
By Black Max / August 8, 2008

Amy Silverman knows her subject. She writes,

I’ve been a writer and editor at [the Phoenix] New Times for 15 years. For much of that time, I wrote about Arizona politics, which is to say that I wrote about John McCain. It’s still odd to see the guy in the spotlight, because for quite a while, I was pretty much the only one covering him. I never did fall for him in the way reporters fall for politicians, probably because he wasn’t much to fall for back in the early 1990s. In those days, McCain was still rehabilitating the image he’d later sell to the national media. He was known then for cavorting in the Bahamas with Charlie Keating, rather than for fighting for campaign finance reform and limited government spending.

Silverman has written an excellent compendium of all things McCain. Think of it as McCain 101 — a primer for pulling information about Grumpy McBush to dazzle your friends and befuddle your enemies (not to mention phone banking and such). I’ll share some material from the story below the fold, but you should definitely read the entire thing. It’s a big one; pack a lunch.

Let’s do it in timeline format, kinda like we do it at the History Commons:.

1982: McCain, recently remarried to Arizona beer heiress Cindy Hensley, moves to Phoenix and wins a seat in the US House. He quickly forges a relationship with the Democratic House eminence from Tucson, Mo Udall, who although a strong progressive, has always welcomed the opportunity to work with Republicans.

1982-88: McCain takes over $100,000 in contributions from our well-remembered buddy from Lincoln S&L, Charles Keating, and his employees. McCain and Keating are very close, with McCain frequently joining Keating on outings to the Bahamas, on Keating’s dime. Keating also has what Silverman calls a “business relationship” with Jim Hensley, Cindy Hensley’s father, and with Cindy as well.

1986: During McCain’s race for the Senate, Arizona Democrats ask the Udall staffers not to allow McCain to cling too closely to Udall, worrying that McCain is using Udall as a campaign tool. Udall aide Bob Neuman later says he tries to be subtle, but when McCain figures out what Neuman wants, he bawls Neuman out using words the aide refuses to repeat. Neuman later says McCain was so extreme in his reaction that, as Silverman writes, he thought “there was something really wrong with the guy.” McCain is running for Barry Goldwater’s seat, with Goldwater’s endorsement. But after the Keating scandal, Goldwater loses much of his respect for McCain, and, Silverman writes, “soon found he had to stop McCain from using his good name.”

1986: McCain jokes to an audience from the National League of Cities and Towns, asking if they’ve heard “the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly, and left to die?” The punch line: “When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, ‘Where is that marvelous ape?'” Neuman later says, “John McCain is the Eddie Haskell of politics. You can attribute that to me, and he’ll kill me for it.”

1987-1988: McCain battles against campaign finance reform, in part on behalf of his pal Keating.

April 12, 1988: Governor Evan Mecham (R-Lunatic) has just been impeached, and Democrat Rose Mofford, the Secretary of State, takes over the position. Mofford, a kindly lady with an astonishing snow-white beehive bouffant, is as non-partisan as one can be and still belong to a political party, gracious and well-liked by just about everyone in the state government. But not by McCain and some of his buds. (Disclaimer: Mrs. Max, who describes herself as either a Goldwater Republican or a Reagan Democrat depending on the day of the week, knows Mofford, and likes her tremendously.) McCain and his pals want to eject Mofford using the same recall process that was launched to yank Mecham. Eight days into her tenure, Mofford goes to DC to take part in what one aide later calls the “perfunctory wet kiss” meeting with the Arizona congressional delegation. The meeting is strictly ceremonial, or so most people think. Mofford is quite conversant with her duties as secretary of state, primarily the elections department. She doesn’t know a great deal about the Central Arizona Project (CAP) or the technical details of water provision in that dry state. And in eight days, she hasn’t been able to learn a hell of a lot. She speaks before the Senate Energy and Water Subcommittee on Appropriations about CAP. McCain is not a member of that committee, but his Republican buddy from Idaho, James McClure, is. McClure asks Mofford, in Silverman’s words,

a series of questions that would leave any water expert’s mouth dry. Her staff jumped in to try to answer, but even so, ultimately they had to file an addendum to the testimony.

Sandbagged. The publisher of the Arizona Republic, Pat Murphy, who considers himself a friend of McCain’s, is “crushed” by the incident. It is, Silverman writes, “the beginning of the end of his respect for and friendship with McCain.” During lunch, a “mischievously glee[ful]” McCain brags about his setup of Mofford. As Murphy recalls, “he had slipped some highly technical questions to [McClure] to ask Mofford–questions she wouldn’t be prepared to answer or expected to answer. Flabbergasted, I asked McCain why would he want to sabotage Mofford’s testimony, when in fact the CAP was the nonpartisan pet of Republicans and Democrats–such as far-left Udall and far-right Goldwater–since its inception. His reply, as near as I remember, was, ‘I’ll embarrass a Democrat any time I get the chance.'” Murphy accompanies McCain back to his office, where reporters ask about a rumor that McCain had tried to sabotage Mofford’s testimony. Murphy is floored to hear him answer, in classic straight-talk fashion, “I’d never do anything like that.” Murphy later learns that McCain had even brought in a private film crew to film the testimony for use in embarrassing Moffatt in the recall election. The Arizona Supreme Court strikes down the recall effort, so McCain’s gamesmanship did little except destroy his friendship with Murphy and embitter Mofford. While she doesn’t talk much about the McCains, having known Cindy since she was little, she will tell Silverman, the CAP hearing, “hurt me more than anything … to be set up like that.” She also says that McCain is “certainly no Barry Goldwater or Mo Udall.”

Late 1980s: McCain hosts an event ostensibly to honor Goldwater, but in reality to raise funds for his Senate campaign. Goldwater initially refuses to participate and tells McCain to give half of the proceeds to the Arizona Republican Party. McCain retools the event to honor Reagan instead. Goldwater does speak at the event, but later writes to McCain, “You will recall during my speech at the dinner for the president in Phoenix, I announced that you were going to give half of the funds you raised to the State Republican Party. I am told by the Party, that you still owe them $35,000, and unless you pay all of it, or most of it, they cannot meet their payroll next Wednesday.” McCain will continue to use Goldwater, a legend in Arizona politics, as well as Udall as a campaign touchstone for himself.

1990: Facing criticism over his relationship with Keating and an upcoming re-election battle, McCain flip-flops and becomes a proponent of campaign finance reform and reducing government spending. Silverman calls McCain’s efforts “a farce. McCain famously sponsored a law designed to control special interests’ grip on Washington, but at the same time, he took money from those interests.” She adds details and links that I won’t go into here, but her summation of his efforts: “sadly cosmetic.” What he has done is take such a shrill stance against certain types of earmarks–pork, in the vernacular–that Arizona has lost out on federal funding for, among other worthy projects, a program at a Scottsdale hospital that trains military medical personnel in trauma care. Some of that training has been used in Iraq and Afghanistan, for those who were lucky enough to receive it before the program lost much of its funding. Silverman notes:

Arizona’s political forefathers–Mo Udall, Barry Goldwater, Carl Hayden — pushed through one of the biggest pork barrel projects in the history of the United States Congress: the Central Arizona [Water] Project. If they hadn’t, there wouldn’t be much of a state to represent. As a native Arizonan, those are the politicians I grew up learning about. McCain just doesn’t compare.

1991 and After: When Udall leaves Congress, McCain, who had voted with Udall on some environmental issues, quits supporting those issues, and begins to rack up low marks from environmental groups. One of his most recent is a zero from the League of Conservation Voters. He has refused to oppose efforts to mine uranium from sites perilously near the Grand Canyon, and refuses to support proposed changes to the Mining Act of 1872, oblivious to the fact that Arizona is a testament to the environmental degradation that comes with strip mining and other practices. He is well remembered for threatening the job of a Forest Service official who disagreed with him on the topic of the endangered Mount Graham red squirrel. However, in campaign appearances, McCain regularly invokes the name and environmental passion of Udall. In April 2008, Newsweek writes, “He traces his environmental awareness to the sainted Rep. Mo Udall, an Arizona Democrat who took McCain as a young congressman under his tutelage … To environmentalists, that’s like saying you learned about civil rights by driving around Alabama with Martin Luther King Jr.” It’s doubtful that Newsweek bothered to find much on the other side of the story.

Spring 1994: Silverman begins hearing rumors of Cindy McCain’s addiction to prescription drugs. She learns of Tom Gosinski, who had been fired from his position as director of government and international affairs for Cindy McCain’s nonprofit charity, the American Voluntary Medical Team (AVMT), which provides medical relief to poor countries. Gosinski had gone to the DEA and told them that Cindy McCain was using an AVMT doctor to illegally prescribe her drugs in her employees’ names. Gosinski was one of those employees, and he was worried that he might be culpable. Cindy McCain had had numerous prescriptions written for her, some with as many as 500 pills on a single refill. Dr. John Max Johnson, her AVMT drug connection, told the DEA that she kept them in her personal luggage. Gosinski had not just ratted her out, but filed a wrongful-termination suit against the charity. That alerted John McCain’s lawyer, John Dowd, to the situation. Dowd charged Gosinski with extortion. The extortion investigation produded public records that Silverman finds and uses for her reporting. But the McCains learn of her records request, and try to inoculate themselves against her reports, acknowledging Cindy’s prescription drug addictions and blaming it on her back surgeries and the stress from the Keating scandal. They also claim, falsely, that Gosinski is trying to blackmail them. In her September 8, 1994 story, Silverman prints the following excerpt from Gosinski’s personal journal, an entry from July 1992: “I have always wondered why John McCain has done nothing to fix the problem. He must either not see that a problem exists or does not choose to do anything about it. It would seem that it would be in everyone’s best interest to come to terms with the situation. And do whatever is necessary to fix it. There is so much at risk … During my short tenure at AVMT, I have been surrounded by what on the surface appears to be the ultimate all-American family. In reality, I am working for a very sad, lonely woman whose marriage of convenience to a U.S. Senator has driven her to: distance herself from friends; cover feelings of despair with drugs; and replace lonely moments with self-indulgences.” Cindy avoids criminal charges by going into a drug rehab program.

1997: McCain is a frequent and steady visitor to Mo Udall, who is slowly dying of Parkinson’s disease. Neuman is pleased with McCain’s loyalty, but he is stunned when McCain brings reporter Michael Lewis with him to Udall’s hospital bedside. (McCain is unable to wake Udall during the visit. Udall will die in 1998.) Neuman later recalls, “That was devastating to me, that he brought in a reporter. I thought that was crossing the line, and it destroyed me.” Silverman writes, “I’m sure I would have accepted the offer to go the hospital, as well. I can’t blame Lewis, but maybe the sight of the legendary Mo Udall in his final, sad days wasn’t McCain’s to share.”

2000: As the presidential primaries heat up, Silverman flies to Washington to be interviewed by 20/20’s Sam Donaldson on McCain. After the interview, Donaldson decides he doesn’t want to report anything negative about McCain, and cans the interview. The same thing happens when she helps put together background research for 60 Minutes, when Mike Wallace decides he wants to do a positive story on McCain.

Whee doggies. And there’s plenty more in the article: this is just the highlights. Even better, there are links to other New Times stories on McCain. So get to reading, and share the wealth.

Update: Amy Silverman writes in that an entire compendium of New Times links to stories about John McCain can be found on the Vintage McCain page on the newspaper’s web site.

Source / Daily Kos

Postmodern John McCain: the presidential candidate some Arizonans know — and loathe by Amy Silverman / Phoenix New Times / August 7, 2008

Thanks to Harry Edwards / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Ruling : Texas is Failing Limited-English Schoolchildren

Judge William Wayne Justice issued landmark ruling. Photo by Kelly West / Austin American-Statesman.

State in no hurry to fix big problem
By Lisa Falkenberg / August 7, 2008

The 95-page landmark ruling issued recently by Judge William Wayne Justice on how Texas is failing limited-English schoolchildren is a deeply depressing read.

Among the U.S. district judge’s findings: Limited-English students lag in standardized test scores and soar in dropout rates. Texas’ system of educating these kids amounts to a hodgepodge of programs across districts and schools that vary widely in results.

The Texas Education Agency’s system of monitoring the hodgepodge is hopelessly dependent on paperwork and too under-funded, under-staffed and under-qualified to verify district data and conduct actual, on-site visits. That leaves the state unable to probe glaring discrepancies and evidence suggesting some schools may be coercing parents to decline their children’s participation in bilingual education and ESL programs.

Cooking the books?

And if the test scores and dropout rates aren’t dismal enough, Justice seems to suggest that the TEA’s methods of measuring them amount to cooking the books to create “gaps and masks” that distort the problem. Dropout rates are watered down by including middle school dropouts, which are inevitably lower than high school rates. Test results are distorted by comparing Limited English Proficient (LEP) students to “all students,” which of course includes the LEP kids themselves and brings down the overall comparable average.

The judge is giving the state until Jan. 31 to come up with a different plan to educate about 140,000 junior high and high school LEP students.

The only thing more depressing than these findings is the response from the state. No inspiring nose-to-grindstone talk. No promises of forming a task force to meet the judge’s order.

Instead, TEA officials are planning to appeal the ruling.

Playing the victim

The tactic could help Texas shirk responsibility or swaddle itself in a comfortable state of denial for a bit longer.

But the state can’t appeal the data.

Texas’ unique challenge of educating a growing population of English-limited students shouldn’t be understated. The number of LEP students grows by at least 30,000 a year and reached 775,432 in the school year that just ended.

It’s easy to wonder, after reading all the bad news, if Texas isn’t just the helpless victim of its geography, doomed to labor in the futile quest of educating an endless tide of largely Spanish-speaking children for whom failure is largely inevitable.

It’s even convenient to play the victim. In an interview last month with CNBC, Gov. Rick Perry was asked about the discrepancy between the network’s rating of Texas business climate — No. 1 in the nation — compared with its ranking of Texas’ education system — No. 30.

Perry reached for a politically expendable scapegoat: “Texas is, you know, a very diverse state, when you look at the border with Mexico that we share. And obviously there’s a substantial number of children that we educate in the state of Texas from parents who don’t speak English as their first language.”

So, we have “some difficulties” there, Perry said.

Where is the leadership? While the challenges of educating limited-English students are real, they aren’t the only challenges we face. These students, who make up about 15 percent of the Texas public school population, can’t be blamed for every shortcoming.

And lest anyone be tempted to tangle this issue with illegal immigration, Justice writes that 87 percent of limited-English students aren’t classified as immigrants at all. For the most part, they were born here.

Instead of grasping for excuses, our state leaders should focus on solutions. And even in Texas, they’re ripe for the finding. Texas actually has within its patchwork of bilingual education programs gems that have reported real successes in educating limited-English students.

In some ways, bilingual education experts say, Texas is among the most progressive states in the nation in embracing innovative bilingual education instructional models, many backed by research that supports allowing students to develop cognitively in their native language, rather than rushing them into English-only classes.

We still allow standardized testing assessments in English and Spanish. And dual language programs, which aim for students to be able to read, write, speak and perform academically in two languages, are flourishing, from poor border schools to the Houston suburbs.

“Just 10 years ago, there were maybe 50 dual language programs,” in Texas, said Leo Gomez, professor at the University of Texas Pan American and an executive board member of Texas Association for Bilingual Education. “Now we’re sitting on 600 schools.”

The data supporting the success of these programs is building, and lawmakers recently passed a measure requiring TEA to map achievement by the type of bilingual education program so we can identify the winners.

The answers exist. Let’s hope Judge Justice’s ruling provides the nudge our policymakers need to find them.

Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

Source / Houston Chronicle

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment