Osteoporosis : Drugs and Your Heart

Have a Heart: Be Wary of toxic pharmaceuticals
By Janet Gilles / May 6, 2008 / The Rag Blog

Noting the lastest revelation about an osteoporosis treatment being linked to a heart condition (see article below), it’s looking to me more and more like nutrients ought to be attempted before committing to pharmaceuticals.

Since by definition, pharmaceuticals are toxic, it’s only a matter of time before the side effects become known.

It has long been known that certain toxic substances could “cure” certain diseases. Laws were passed requiring that these pharmaceuticals be proven effective before they could be used, and only with the supervision of a trained professional.

All well and good.

However, now we have a governmental authority saying certain toxic substances may be used by physicians as cures, and no claims may be made for other substances which also might cure the disease, only they are non- toxic.

Also, since by definition, pharmaceuticals are toxic, then they will, also by definition, have serious and harmful long term consequences.

We just don’t know in every case just what those consequences will be.

Just read this:

Osteoporosis drug linked to heart rhythm disturbance
Risks may outweigh benefits of treatment

By Sharon Kirkey

Women who take a popular drug for osteoporosis appear to be at increased risk of atrial fibrillation, the most common heart rhythm disturbance that increases the risk of stroke.

Researchers who compared more than 700 women with atrial fibrillation to women without the heart condition found those who had used alendronate–a generic medication that’s also sold under the brand name Fosamax –had an 86% higher risk of atrial fibrillation.

“Women who had used it at any point in the past were at a nearly twofold higher risk,” says Dr. Susan Heckbert, lead author of the study published this week in Archives of Internal Medicine.

It’s the second drug in its class to be linked with unexpected effects on the hearts: A study last year reported a higher risk of atrial fibrillation (or AF) in women who received zoledronic acid, or Re-clast, another bisphosphonate.

About one in 100 people have atrial fibrillation, where the top two chambers of the heart, the atria, quiver and beat rapidly instead of rhythmically. Blood can accumulate in the atria, forming a clot.

“Occasionally, a small piece of clot will break off and travel to the brain which can result in a stroke,” says Heckbert, professor of epidemiology and scientific investigator at the cardiovascular health research unit at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“The most devastating complication of atrial fibrillation is stroke.”

It also causes symptoms such as rapid heart rate, palpitations in the chest and shortness of breath.

More than three million prescriptions for alendronate were dispensed from retail drug stores in Canada in the 12 months ending Nov. 30, 2007, according to pharmaceutical intelligence firm IMSHealth Canada.

For most women at high risk for bone fracture, the benefits of alendronate outweigh the possible risk of atrial fibrillation, Heckbert says.

Mahyar Etminan, a scientist with the Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation at the University of British Columbia and Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, says 12 to 15 high-risk women would need to be treated with a bisphosphonate for five years to prevent one fracture.

“But if you do the same thing to people with no previous fractures who may just have low bone mineral density, the number needed to treat would go to between 20 and 30. So if you treat 30 women, only one benefits, and we don’t know who that is.”

In January, American drug regulators warned of the possibility of “severe and sometimes incapacitating” bone, joint or muscle pain in patients taking bisphosphonates. The same month, Etminan’s team published a study showing the drugs increase the risk of bone necrosis, a rare condition that results from loss of blood supply to the bone. Bone tissue dies and bone collapses.

Heckbert says women who have only a modestly increased risk of fracture, as well as women who have risk factors for atrial fibrillation, such as diabetes and heart failure, need to “carefully weigh the benefits against the possible risks” of AF.

Source. / Canwest News / National Post, Canada / April 29, 2008
Also see article on
bone-building bisphosphonate medicines? by Anthony Komaroff, M.D., Harvard Medical School.

The Rag Blog

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

In Two Lines:

Why Senator Clinton stays in the race

As Hillary Rodham, she took the SAT in 1963 and mistook her score for a prophecy about entitlements. But was her SAT number, 2012 or 2008?

Dick J. Reavis
The Rag Blog / May 6, 2008

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , | Leave a comment

An Angry Young Man from the Ghetto

When America is worried about angry black people…embrace the wisdom of Elvis

Elvis and Reverend Wright: How white people can accept Barack Obama and Reverend Wright
By Kimberly Wilder

This is a message from a white woman, who has actually been known by others and herself to be in the category of “wasp.”

Dear America: Listen to the backing vocals. And, when you have connected to the place where you really, truly enjoyed them, and actually needed them to connect with some of the subliminal conflict in your culture, then listen again to a sermon by Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

This message includes campaign advice for presidential candidate Barack Obama (even though I do not support him among others, because I belong to a third party.)

Since I fear that Barack Obama might not listen to me, this message is also to try to explain to America why they, themselves, have the power to understand that Reverend Wright is right and the people attacking him are wrong. And, that Barack Obama is missing a wonderful opportunity by not embracing Reverend Wright as an informed, compassionate, African-American leader.

The problems and injustices that Revered Jermiah Wright describes are real. There is racism in this country. Blacks and whites are not equal. The police are still more likely to shoot and kill innocent black men. And, it is important for people to communicate this information and deal with this information in their own way, with their own choices of commitment and intensity.

When I heard the Reverend’s recent speech at the NAACP, I got his message: It is okay to be different. It is okay for Reverend Wright to express his anger at injustice in the bold, loud tradition of a black preacher. And, it is okay for Barack Obama to express his anger at injustice in the smooth, unifying words of a politician.

If Barack Obama could recognize this fact, he could proceed with his campaign a lot differently. Right now, Obama is trying to fight the Karl Rove style strategy of “attack your opponents strengths, and turn them into weaknesses” by running from the attack, by running from his association with Reverend Wright. But, that will not work.

Read all of it here. / On the Wilderside.net

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Ecuador: "We All Want National Sovereignty"


U.S. Base Is No Longer Welcome in Ecuador
by Jim Wyss / May 5, 2008

MANTA, Ecuador – Mayor Jorge Zambrano pulled up to the Manta City Hall in his black Ford Explorer, expecting to find a rally in support of the American military outpost that runs drug-surveillance flights from this gritty port city.

He left an hour later behind a wall of riot shields and a cloud of Mace, as police fended off banner-waving protesters who crashed the event in March.

With 18 months left on its decade-long contract, the U.S. Forward Operating Location in Manta has few friends in this South American nation — and fewer still who believe that the agreement has any hope of being extended.

Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa has vowed not to renew the base’s contract beyond its November 2009 expiration. And politicians drafting a new constitution have proposed banning the base or any other foreign military presence in the country.

If the Manta base closes, it would leave the United States shopping for a new airstrip for the radar-mounted AWAC E3s, and P-3 spy planes that ply the Eastern Pacific, looking for drug runners.

It would also be another dark turn for rapidly deteriorating U.S.-Ecuadorean relations.

The United States sees the Manta compound — with its manicured lawns and staff of about 150 pilots and crew members — as part of a multinational effort that helped block $4.2 billion worth of narcotics last year.

But in Ecuador, the Base de Manta is viewed largely as an affront to national sovereignty that threatens to drag the country into the regional drug war.

Read it here. / Common Dreams / Miami Herald

The Rag Blog

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

We Are a Nation at War with Ourselves


The Pentagon vs. America
by Scott Ritter / May 5, 2008

I recently heard from an anti-war student I met while I was speaking at a college in northern Vermont. The e-mail included the following query:

“I told you about how I wanted to build a career around social activism and making a difference. You told me that one of the most important things was to make myself reputable and give people a reason to listen to you. I think this is some of the best advice I’ve received. My issue however is that you mentioned joining the military as a way to do this and mentioned how that is how you fell into it. … We talked extensively about all of our criticisms of the military currently and our foreign policy. … What I don’t understand is, how can you [advise] someone who wants to make a difference with the flawed system, to join that flawed system?”

The question is a valid one. Throughout my travels in the United States, where I interact with people from progressive anti-war groups, I am often confronted with the seeming contradiction of my position. I rail against the war in Iraq (and the potential of war with Iran) and yet embrace, at times enthusiastically, the notion of military service. It gets even more difficult to absorb, at least on the surface, when I simultaneously advocate counter-recruitment as well as support for those who seek to join the armed services.

The notion that the military and citizens of conscience should be at odds is a critical problem for our nation. That confrontation only exacerbates the problems of the soldier and the citizen, and must be properly understood if it is to be defeated. Let us start by constructing a framework in which my positions can be better assessed.

First and foremost, I do not view military service as an obligation of citizenship. I do view military service as an act of good citizenship, but it can under no circumstance be used as a litmus test for patriotism. There are many ways in which one can serve his or her nation; the military is but one. I am a big believer in the all-volunteer military. For one thing, the professional fighting force is far more effective and efficient than any conscript force could ever be.

There are those who argue that a draft would level the playing field, spreading the burdens and responsibilities associated with a standing military force more evenly among the population. Those citizens whose lives would be impacted through war (namely those of draft age and their immediate relatives) would presumably be less inclined to support war.

Conversely, the argument goes, with an all-volunteer professional force, the burden of sacrifice is limited to that segment of society which is engaged in the fighting, real or potential. Two points emerge: First, the majority of society not immediately impacted by the sacrifices of conflict will remain distant from the reality of war. Second, even when the costs of conflict become discernable to the withdrawn population, the fact that the sacrifice is being absorbed by those who willingly volunteered somehow lessens any moral outcry.

I will submit that these are valid observations, and indeed have been borne out in America’s response to the Iraq war tragedy. However, simply because something exists doesn’t make it right. The collective response to the Iraq war on the part of the American people is not a result of there not being a draft, but rather poor citizenship. An engaged citizenry would not only find sufficient qualified volunteers to fill the ranks of our military, but would also personally identify with all those who served so that the loss of one was felt by all. The fact that many Americans today view the all-volunteer force not so much as an extension of themselves, but more along the lines of a “legion” of professionals removed from society, illustrates the yawning gap that exists between we the people and those we ask to defend us.

Narrowing this gap is not something that can be accomplished simply through legislation. Reinstating the draft is illusory in this regard. There is a more fundamental obstacle to the reunion of our society and those who take an oath in the military to uphold and defend the Constitution. Void of this bond, the inherent differences of civilian and military life will serve to drive a wedge between the two, regardless of whether the military force is drafted or volunteer.

Lacking a common understanding of the foundational principles upon which the nation was built, a citizenry will grow to view military service as an imposition, as opposed to an obligation. Simply put, one cannot willingly defend that which one does not know and understand. The fundamental ignorance that exists in America today about the Constitution creates the conditions which foster the divide between citizen and soldier that permeates society today. America must take ownership of its military, not simply by footing the bill, but by assuming a moral responsibility for every aspect of military service. The vehicle for doing this has been well established through the Constitution: the legislative branch of government, the Congress, which serves to represent the will of the people.

Congress, especially the House of Representatives, was never conceived of as separate and distinct from the people, but rather as one with the people, directly derived from their collective will via the electoral process. Unfortunately today, few Americans identify with Congress. An “us versus them” mentality pervades. This mentality creates the crack in the moral and social contract which exists regarding a citizenry and its military. Congress is responsible for maintaining the military. Congress is the branch of government mandated with the responsibility for declaring war. When the bond is strained between the people and Congress, the bond between citizen and soldier is broken. Congress, left to its own devices, will begin to view the military not as an extension of its constituents, but rather as a commodity to be traded and used in a highly politicized fashion.

This is the reality we find ourselves in today (and indeed which has existed for some time). The 2006 midterm elections highlight this reality, where a strong anti-war sentiment upon the part of the voters resulted in a Democratic majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Having assumed the mantle of legislative power, however, those who were elected on the coattails of anti-war sentiment were able to shun their anti-war constituents. They did so by taking full advantage of the reality that the anti-war movement was in fact not a movement at all, but rather a concept pushed forward by a disparate mass without much political viability.

Where anti-war sentiment did in fact cross over from the ranks of the progressive left and into the mainstream of American society, it was quickly quashed through the dishonest logic that if one truly supported the troops (as most red-blooded Americans swear they do), then one must by extension support the mission. This flawed connectivity empowered Congress to sidestep the issue of withdrawing American forces from Iraq, and enabled it to continue rubber-stamping funding for a war which long ago lost any connection, perceived or otherwise, to the general security of the American people.

Read all of it here. / TruthDig / Common Dreams

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Grand Theft Corn

The Onion.
The Rag Blog

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

Death and the D.C. Madam

Deborah Jean Palfrey aka the D.C. Madam. Photo by Nikki Kahn, The Washington Post

Call girls speak out about the suicide of Deborah Jeane Palfrey and the complicated truths it reveals about their lives.
By Susannah Breslin / May 5, 2008

May 5, 2008 On May 1, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, better known as “the D.C. Madam,” was found dead in a shed located behind her mother’s Tarpon Springs, Fla., mobile home. Apparently, Palfrey, 52, hanged herself from a metal beam with a length of nylon rope. When her 76-year-old mother, Blanche Palfrey, called 911 just before 11 a.m., the emergency operator asked if her daughter was still hanging from the rafter. “Yes,” said the madam’s weeping mother, who had regularly accompanied her daughter to court the month previous, “I can’t move her. I’m 76 years old.”

Palfrey’s was one of a recent spate of high-profile political sex scandals, from Idaho Sen. Larry Craig’s toe-tapping routine to the fall of New York Gov. Eliot “Luv Guv” Spitzer. It was also another chapter in our ongoing fascination with prostitution — that mysterious and yet still little-understood profession. (Palfrey entered the business as an escort. Later, she became a madam, claiming she was “appalled and disgusted” by the way women in the sex business were treated.) Sex may be everywhere these days — heck, adult movie star Jenna Jameson’s autobiography, “How to Make Love Like a Porn Star: A Cautionary Tale,” was a New York Times bestseller — but what life is really like inside the American sex trade remains a mystery. Mostly, Americans have been fed one of two myths about sex workers: the “Pretty Woman” story about a hooker with a heart of gold, or the Jezebel tale about a woman who leads moral men astray by virtue of her sexual wiles.

In more recent years, thanks to a growing number of call girls, strippers and other sex workers using blogs to tell their stories in their own words, we’ve seen a more complex and nuanced tale. And it’s one we don’t seem to be able to get enough of. HBO and Showtime are launching competing series focusing on working girls — “Sex and the City” creator Darren Star is turning Tracy Quan’s “Diary of a Manhattan Call Girl” (which began as a column on Salon) into a dramatic series for HBO, while Showtime will begin airing the U.K. series “Secret Diary of a Call Girl,” based on the blog turned book by Belle de Jour, next month.

Though Palfrey’s death is complicated, not to mention controversial, it does offer us some insight into the experience of sex industry workers, who bear the burden of a double life and the toll of secrecy. I contacted three women, currently chronicling online their past and present lives as sex workers, to speak to them about their reactions to Palfrey’s harrowing tale and how sharing their own stories might keep them from a similar kind of darkness.

Deborah Jeane Palfrey arrives for a hearing at a federal courthouse in Washington, April 30, 2007. Photo by Jonathan Ernst / Reuters.

Melissa Gira is a San Francisco-based sex worker and Valleywag reporter who last year co-founded Bound, Not Gagged, a group blog written by and for sex workers, because of the Palfrey case. Tired of so-called experts speaking for sex workers in the mainstream media, Gira created the site as a forum where working women could express their opinions, reactions and frustrations. The day the blog launched, Gira found Palfrey’s phone number, called her and spoke with her briefly about the project. “I was shocked she picked up the phone, she knew what a blog was, and she wasn’t immediately distrustful,” Gira says.

Upon hearing of Palfrey’s death, Gira felt a jumble of emotions: confusion, anger, sadness. “Her story represented our story,” she says.

Gira is angry about the way female sex workers are vilified when stories like these go public, while the men involved “go back to their job or they quietly leave.” From among the 15,000 names in Palfrey’s potent little black book, only three boldface names surfaced: Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, a married Republican and father of four who apologized for his “very serious sin” and kept his job; U.S. ambassador Randall L. Tobias, who as Bush’s “AIDS czar” had publicly denounced prostitution and resigned after his outing; and Harlan K. Ullman, a retired Navy commander known for developing the shock-and-awe doctrine and who told Brian Ross of ABC News that he had gotten only massages from the women involved, not had sex with them, and stated that the experience was “like ordering pizza.”

“If I was in her position I would have papered the walls of that shed with the sheets of my client list,” says Gira.

Although Gira is frustrated by the media’s relentless representation of sex workers as victims, she is also suspicious of the circumstances surrounding Palfrey’s death. It has been a question circulating since: Did Palfrey actually kill herself? In fact, Palfrey had stated in numerous interviews with members of the press that she would rather commit suicide than return to prison. Washington, D.C., writer Dan Moldea, who got to know Palfrey while considering writing a book about her, told reporters that Palfrey had told him, “I am not going back to prison. I will commit suicide first.” At the time of her death, she was awaiting her July 24 sentencing, and authorities in Florida have reported that several suicide notes were found at the scene. Either way, Gira says, Palfrey’s death has had a “chilling effect” on at least some sex workers, who, now fearing for their own lives, are more reluctant than ever to reveal themselves.

Another sex worker I spoke with, who writes online about her call girl experiences but requested anonymity for this story, was pained by the news of Palfrey’s death as well as the related older news of the death of University of Maryland professor turned call girl Brandy Britton, 43, who killed herself in January 2007 while awaiting trial on prostitution charges. Britton was a one-time employee of Palfrey’s; after Britton was found hanging in her living room, Palfrey pronounced, ironically: “I guess I’m made of something that Brandy Britton wasn’t made of.”

The call girl I interviewed was struck by the emotional stories behind these public deaths. “The first thing I thought about was the incredible isolation that both of them probably felt,” she said. “Because you’re doing something that’s perceived to be so morally wrong that you’re immediately outside society, as a prostitute or a madam. You’ve got this secret life or a compartmentalized life, and then to be pushed out there and villainized — I can only imagine the incredible isolation they must have felt.”

As a sex worker, she went on, you live a “double life.” A madam whom she worked for before she went freelance was intensely paranoid, “crazy,” prone to anxious late-night phone calls. “It got to her. She would call me up and panic, thinking they were out to get her. It was the psychology of sex work, the fear of being outed.”

When the call girl I spoke with worked at an agency, she says, she was kept isolated from other women. Then, when she started writing online about sex work, all that changed. “I know the moment I started blogging about it at length, I started connecting to other women online. It made a huge difference. I stopped feeling alone. I stopped feeling like I had to hide everything from anybody. It felt as though I had a connection to the outside world that I didn’t have before.” After all, sex work is not easy. “You have these very intimate connections, but you’re totally disposable with clients. You’re a ghost moving through their world.”

Read all of it here. / salon.com
See Palfrey Suicide Notes Released. / Washington Post
And see the suicide notes. / The Smoking Gun
Also see Bloggers discussThe D.C. Madam’s Suicide. / Slate

The Rag Blog

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

Freedom and the Internet


Why The ‘Right’ Gets Net Neutrality Wrong
By Art Brodsky / May 5, 2008

Just in time for the House Telecommunications Subcommittee’s hearing tomorrow (May 6) on Net Neutrality legislation, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) and the American Spectator are out with new attacks on the simple idea that people should not have their Internet experiences subject to the whims of telephone and cable companies.

My day-job employer, Public Knowledge, even achieved a new level of notoriety when we were prominently mentioned in a blog post on the American Spectator, the publication best known for funneling millions of dollars to investigations of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

The April 28 blog post, cleverly headlined, “Public Know Nothings,” — a play on Public Knowledge — read like a basic corporate hit job on Net Neutrality of the kind one might read at any number of blogs or by any columnists in the thrall of the corporate world. But the story, combined with Armey’s April 22 Washington Times headlined “Spare The Net,” raise the inevitable question — what is it about individual freedom that “conservatives” like the Spectator and Armey don’t like?

To be fair, the debate is larger than the Spectator and Armey. Most congressional Republicans oppose the idea of giving consumers freedom on the Internet. They take shelter in their anti-government, anti-regulation rhetoric, preferring to allow Internet freedom to apply to the corporations which own the networks connecting the Internet to consumers, rather than to consumers themselves. There could, of course, be a larger discussion about the meaning of “conservative” and Republican, and whether the two are synonymous.

(To be fairer still, it’s not only Republicans. Many a Democrat also speaks out against Internet freedom. They don’t have the fig-leaf of misbegotten ideology to hide behind, as they largely back worthwhile government action in many other areas. They are simply servants of corporate and/or union interests. The question applies equally: What about freedom don’t they like?)

The clues to discovering how the opposition to individual freedom came about are in the two recently published pieces. Each them, in their own way, shows a tragic misunderstanding of how telecommunications policy, markets and technology worked in the past and how they work today. As a result, their interpretations of Net Neutrality, and the role of government, are also wrong.

At the heart of the opposition is the “mythology of the market,” that once government “got out of the way,” as Armey put it, new technologies emerged. “Telecom became a text-book case demonstrating that markets work and are good for consumers,” as the Internet developed and dial-up modems yielded to broadband connections, Armey wrote.

Similarly, Peter Suderman, writing on the Spectator site, misses his telecom history. He criticized the testimony of actor and Internet entrepreneur Justine Bateman, who spoke to the Senate Commerce Committee about the need for a free and open Internet. Bateman asked whether Google and eBay would have been as successful as they are “without the freedoms we enjoy on the Internet today.”

Suderman’s analysis: “In fact, not only were all of these companies [eBay and Google] born in an era with no mandated net neutrality, it’s utterly unclear that a lack of neutrality would’ve impeded them in any way whatsoever.”


Government Helped Create The Internet

Let us review the history. Even setting aside the very basic fact that the underlying technology for the Internet was created under a government program, and was set free for commercial purposes by Congress, it’s still hard to get away from the reality that the Internet as we know it was started, and flourished, in a regulated environment. While the content that went online, through bulletin boards, America Online, CompuServe, Prodigy and the rest, wasn’t regulated, the telecommunications carriers to a large extent were.

Before the advent of the cable modem, the telephone companies that carried the online traffic not only were under tight rate-of-return regulation, but they were also subject to the sections of the Communications Act barring unreasonable discrimination (Sec. 202). They also had to sell their services wholesale. Amazingly, with all of that regulation, the first iteration of the online world grew, with thousands of local Internet Service Providers able to afford access to the network so they could offer their services to the public.

The new and fancy equipment came because the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1968 broke through the tariff of then Bell System and allowed outside, customer-owned devices to be connected to the network. That decision brought competition in long distance as well as setting the stage for the fax, modem and other gadgets.

For the record, eBay was founded in 1995. Google came along three years later. It wasn’t until 2002 that the FCC under Chairman Michael Powell started the process of classifying nascent cable-modem service as an “information service” under the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Both cable and DSL were taken out from under most regulations by the FCC in 2005, when today’s Internet took shape. That decision, combined with some archaic, in-the-weeds technical matters, combined to wipe out the hundreds of local online and Internet Service Providers along with most of the competition for the telephone companies. One of the rules swept away was the prohibition against unreasonable discrimination — the part of the law that enforced what we now know as Net Neutrality. That’s what the proponents of a free and open Internet are trying to reclaim. It’s very simple — those companies carrying traffic can’t play favorites.

Google’s founders have said repeatedly they wouldn’t have been able to get off the ground if they had been required to pay extra fees for telecommunications services to get onto a “fast lane” of service.

Market-Based Myths Abound

The argument against Net Neutrality really goes off-track when it gets into the nature of private property, the state of competition, and the effect of regulation. That’s more than one track to be thrown off of, so it’s quite the disaster scene. We may need CSI: Telecom to sort it all out.

Public Knowledge earned its headline in the Spectator because of the petition we filed with the FCC asking that companies like Verizon which offer text messaging not be able to decide which groups should be deemed worthy of service and which shouldn’t be.

Read the rest of it here. / The Huffington Post
Also see Net Neutrality by Christopher Kuttruff / truthout

The Rag Blog

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

D. Reavis : A Bridge to Earlier Times in Texas

Bridge at Eagle Pass, Texas / Piedras Negras, Coah., Mexico

Postcards and Border Walls
By Dick J. Reavis
/ The Rag Blog / May 5, 2008

In 1986 I drove every mile of every road on the official highway map of Texas: federal, state and interstate highways, Farm-to-Market roads, too. The venture, underwritten by Texas Monthly and billed as “The National Tour of Texas,” covered some 70,000 miles, though because of necessary doubling-back, I had to drive 37,000 more to get the job done. Chevrolet provided advertising and a Suburban, and I spent a year on the road, mostly not on urban loops or thoroughfares, but coursing through the countryside. Nobody before, and nobody since, has seen Texas in quite the same way.

I kept a long, fat book of lined paper, covered in green canvas, that carried instructions from the Houston office of the American Automobile Association. Its pages told me, for example, “SH 78 S to FM 271 appx. 3 mi./ FM271 SE to FM 68 at Gaber 9 mi.”

Each morning I tossed the book onto the car seat and drove until sundown, usually stopping at noontime for a chopped beef sandwich; my ambition, never realized, was to become an authority on Texas barbecue. I stopped and took pictures of every county courthouse, all 254 of them, but my photos were too murky for commercial use. In almost every settlement, I went to a post office and cajoled a clerk into stamping his date-and-place seal onto a page of my book, to prove I’d been to the town.


Odessa Jack Rabbit—copyright 1979 SWC Wholesale, Alamogordo, NM

The journey took me to Big Sandy, Big Spring, and Big Wells, to Cross Cut, Cross Plains and Cross Roads (also Crossroads), to Athens, Boston, Detroit, Moscow, New York, Paris, Notrees, Uncertain, Nada, China and even Nigton, whose name is patently offensive.

Everywhere I stopped, I looked for postcards. I bought whatever was available, a collection that fills two shoe boxes. When I look at these cards today, I am overcome with longing, and in regard to one feature of the Texas landscape, with rage.

Postcards were popular before long distance telephone calls became cheap. By 1986, that era was gone. Often those I found on the shelves of cafes and drug stores were ten, even 20, years old; a few were older than that. The cars in their scenes were from bygone days.

The postcards depicted county courthouses and First Methodist churches and places that the locals believed were tourist attractions: monuments, lakes, stadiums and playgrounds.

A few of the cards were fanciful—a cowboy riding a giant jack rabbit, for example—and some were plainly funny, either mistakes or honest-to-goodness fakes, showing trout fishing, mountains and pines, from Stratford-on- the-Panhandle, or birch trees in the environs of Hillsboro.

When I look at them today, some of those cards call forth nostalgia. They show buildings or attractions that have since disappeared from the life of Texas: the Aquarena in San Marcos, the Bon Ton restaurant in La Grange, once a traditional stopover on a Houston-Austin drive.

But one set of the cards turns my geezer’s sentimentality to bile. International bridges are a unique feature of Texas architecture—no other American state has them—and border towns were proud of their crossing points. Regulations were lax, life was friendly, and safe and slow atop those spans. Even the River was placid: as a boy in Del Rio during the ‘Fifties, I sometimes rode my bicycle to the bank of the Rio Grande, just to watch shepherds and their flocks on the southern side. Nobody bothered me.

My postcard collection makes it evident that nothing still extant in Texas has changed so much as our borderland doorways. Today’s scene—spying towers, gas-guzzling behemoths, Border Patrol and DEA stickers on their doors, vertical concrete slabs — is not worthy of a postcard. It is entirely cheerless.

Texas was born of Mexico. Like a headstrong adolescent, it went its own way. But when it reached adulthood, parent and child were frequent, unregistered guests in each other’s homes.

Texas was a striver from infancy, burning to rise above its parentage. As if to legitimize itself by finding father figures, it placed itself under the “protection” of the Union, then the Confederacy, then the Union again. None of these stepfathers showed any respect for Mexico. Now our national government, with mean-spirited logic from afar, has put a wall between us and our mother, keeping her at a distance, under surveillance and the point of a gun.

[Dick J. Reavis, a contributor to The Rag Blog, is an award-winning journalist and author. A native Texan, Reavis teaches journalism at North Carolina State University. He was a civil rights worker in the South in the sixties and then was active with Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) at the University of Texas in Austin. He was a frequent contributor to Austin’s iconic underground newspaper, The Rag, and wrote feature articles for Texas Monthly magazine for 12 years, serving as a senior editor at that publication. Dick Reavis’ book, The Ashes of Waco, about the siege and burning of the Branch Davidian compound, was published by Simon and Schuster and may be the definitive work on the subject.]


Magnolia beach—Phillip Thomae Photographer, Port Lavaca

To see more of Dick’s postcards, click here.

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Bill Moyers : A Texan’s Take on the Journalist’s Job

Bill Moyers with Lyndon Johnson

Journalists as Truth Tellers
By Bill Moyers / May 4, 2008

[Texan Bill Moyers delivered these remarks on April 3 in Washington, DC at the fifth annual Ridenhour Prize awards ceremony, sponsored by The Nation Institute and the Fertel Foundation, at which Moyers received the Courage Prize. Moyers, who began his carreer in journalism at 16 as a cub reporter for the Marshall (Texas) News Messenger, served as press secretary to President Lyndon Johnson. In 2006 he was awarded a Lifetime Emmy award for his commentary on public television.

Moyers was introduced by Texas liberal legend Sissy Farenthold.]

Thank you very much, Sissy Farenthold, for those very generous words, spoken like one Texan to another–extravagantly. Thank you for the spirit of kinship. I could swear that I sensed our good Molly Ivins standing there beside you.

I am as surprised to be here as I am grateful. I never thought of myself as courageous, and still don’t. Ron Ridenhour was courageous. To get the story out, he had to defy the whole might and power of the United States government, including its war machine. I was then publisher of Newsday, having left the White House some two years earlier. Our editor Bill McIlwain played the My Lai story big, as he should, much to the chagrin of the owner who couldn’t believe Americans were capable of such atrocities. Our readers couldn’t believe it either. Some of them picketed outside my office for days, their signs accusing the paper of being anti-American for publishing repugnant news about our troops. Some things never change.

A few years later, I gave the commencement at a nearby university, and when I finished the speech, a woman who had just been graduated came up to me and said, “Mr. Moyers, you’ve been in both government and journalism; that makes everything you say twice as hard to believe.” She was on to something.

After my government experience, it took me a while to get my footing back in journalism. I had to learn all over again that what is important for the journalist is not how close you are to power, but how close you are to reality. Over the last forty years, I would find that reality in assignment after assignment, from covering famine in Africa and war in Central America to inner-city families trapped in urban ghettos and middle-class families struggling to survive in an era of downsizing across the heartland. I also had to learn one of journalism’s basic lessons. The job of trying to tell the truth about people whose job it is to hide the truth is almost as complicated and difficult as trying to hide it in the first place. We journalists are of course obliged to cover the news, but our deeper mission is to uncover the news that powerful people would prefer to keep hidden.

Unless you are willing to fight and re-fight the same battles until you go blue in the face, drive the people you work with nuts going over every last detail to make certain you’ve got it right, and then take all of the slings and arrows directed at you by the powers that be–corporate and political and sometimes journalistic–there is no use even trying. You have to love it and I do. I.F. Stone once said, after years of catching the government’s lies and contradictions, “I have so much fun, I ought to be arrested.” Journalism 101.

So it wasn’t courage I counted on; it was exhilaration and good luck. When the road forked, I somehow stumbled into the right path, thanks to mentors like Eric Sevareid, Fred Friendly, Walter Cronkite and scores of producers, researchers and editors who lifted me to see further than one can see unless one is standing on the shoulders of others.


The quintessential lesson of my life came from another Texan named John Henry Faulk. He was a graduate, as am I, of the University of Texas. He served in the Merchant Marines, the American Red Cross and the U.S. Army during World War II, and came home to become a celebrated raconteur and popular national radio host whose career was shattered when right-wingers inspired by Joseph McCarthy smeared him as a communist. He lost his sponsors and was fired. But he fought back with a lawsuit that lasted five years and cost him every penny he owned. Financial help from Edward R. Murrow and a few others helped him to hang on. In the end, John Henry Faulk won, and his courage helped to end the Hollywood era of blacklisting. You should read his book, Fear on Trial, and see the movie starring George C. Scott. John Henry’s courage was contagious.

Before his death I produced a documentary about him, and during our interview he told me the story of how he and his friend, Boots Cooper, were playing in the chicken house there in central Texas when they were about twelve years old. They spotted a chicken snake in the top tier of the nest, so close it looked like a boa constrictor. As John Henry told it, “All of our frontier courage drained out of our heels. Actually, it trickled down our overall legs. And Boots and I made a new door through the hen house.” His momma came out to see what all of the fuss was about, and she said to Boots and John Henry, “Don’t you know chicken snakes are harmless? They can’t hurt you.” Rubbing his forehead and his behind at the same time, Boots said, “Yes, Mrs. Faulk, I know, but they can scare you so bad you’ll hurt yourself.”

John Henry Faulk never forgot that lesson. I’m always ashamed when I do. Temptation to co-option is the original sin of journalism, and we’re always finding fig leaves to cover it: economics, ideology, awe of authority, secrecy, the claims of empire. In the buildup to the invasion of Iraq we were reminded of what the late great reporter A.J. Liebling meant when he said the press is “the weak slat under the bed of democracy.” The slat broke after the invasion and some strange bedfellows fell to the floor: establishment journalists, neo-con polemicists, beltway pundits, right-wing warmongers flying the skull and bones of the “balanced and fair brigade,” administration flacks whose classified leaks were manufactured lies–all romping on the same mattress in the foreplay to disaster.

Five years, thousands of casualties, and hundreds of billion dollars later, most of the media co-conspirators caught in flagrante delicto are still prominent, still celebrated, and still holding forth with no more contrition than a weathercaster who made a wrong prediction as to the next day’s temperature. The biblical injunction, “Go and sin no more,” is the one we most frequently forget in the press. Collectively, we don’t seem to learn that all it takes to transform an ordinary politician and a braying ass into the modern incarnation of Zeus and the oracle of Delphi is an oath on the Bible, a flag in the lapel, and the invocation of national security.

There are, fortunately, always exceptions to whatever our latest dismal collective performance yields. America produces some world-class journalism, including coverage of the Iraq War by men and women as brave as Ernie Pyle. But I still wish we had a professional Hippocratic Oath of our own that might stir us in the night when we stray from our mission. And yes, I believe journalism has a mission.

Walter Lippman was prescient on this long before most of you were born. Lippman, who became the ultimate Washington insider–someone to whom I regularly leaked–acknowledged that while the press may be a weak reed to lean on, it is the indispensable support for freedom. He wrote, “The present crisis of Western democracy is a crisis of journalism. Everywhere men and women are conscious that somehow they must deal with questions more intricate than any that church or school had prepared them to understand. Increasingly, they know that they cannot understand them if the facts are not quickly and steadily available. All the sharpest critics of democracy have alleged is true if there is no steady supply of trustworthy and relevant news. Incompetence and aimlessness, corruption and disloyalty, panic and ultimate disaster must come to any people denied an assured access to the facts.”

So for all the blunders for which we are culpable; for all the disillusionment that has set in among journalists with every fresh report of job cuts and disappearing news space; for all the barons and buccaneers turning the press into a karaoke of power; for all the desecration visited on broadcast journalism by the corporate networks; for all the nonsense to which so many aspiring young journalists are consigned; and for all the fears about the eroding quality of the craft, I still answer emphatically when young people ask me, “Should I go into journalism today?” Sometimes it is difficult to urge them on, especially when serious questions are being asked about how loyal our society is to the reality as well as to the idea of an independent and free press. But I almost always answer, “Yes, if you have a fire in your belly, you can still make a difference.”

I remind them of how often investigative reporting has played a crucial role in making the crooked straight. I remind them how news bureaus abroad are a form of national security that can tell us what our government won’t. I remind them that as America grows more diverse, it’s essential to have reporters, editors, producers and writers who reflect these new rising voices and concerns. And I remind them that facts can still drive the argument and tug us in the direction of greater equality and a more democratic society. Journalism still matters.

But I also tell them there is something more important than journalism, and that is the truth. They aren’t necessarily one and the same because the truth is often obscured in the news. In his new novel, The Appeal, John Grisham tells us more about corporate, political and legal jihads than most newspapers or network news ever will; more about Wall Street shenanigans than all the cable business channels combined; more about Manchurian candidates than you will ever hear on the Sunday morning talk shows.

For that matter, you will learn more about who wins and who loses in the real business of politics, which is governance, from the public interest truth-tellers of Washington than you will from an established press tethered to official sources. The Government Accountability Project, POGO, the Sunlight Foundation, Citizens Against Government Waste, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Center for Responsible Politics, the National Security Archive, CREW, the Center for Public Integrity, just to name a few–and from whistleblowers of all sorts who never went to journalism school, never flashed a press pass, and never attended a gridiron dinner.

Ron Ridenhour was not a journalist when he came upon the truth of My Lai. He was in the Army. He later became a pioneering investigative reporter and–this is the irony–had trouble making a living in a calling where truth-telling can be a liability to the bottom line. Matthew Diaz and James Scurlock, whom you honored today, are truth-tellers without a license, reminding us that the most important credential of all is a conscience that cannot be purchased or silenced.

So I tell inquisitive and inquiring young people: “Journalism still makes a difference, but the truth matters more. And if you can’t get to the truth through journalism, there are other ways to go.”

To The Nation Institute and the Fertel Foundation, to the Ridenhour judges and to all of you, thank you again for this moment and, above all, for the courage of your own convictions.

Source. / The Nation

The Rag Blog

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

Bomb Bomb Iran, Surgical Strike Dept.


United States is drawing up plans to strike on Iranian insurgency camp
By Michael Smith / May 4, 2008

The US military is drawing up plans for a “surgical strike” against an insurgent training camp inside Iran if Republican Guards continue with attempts to destabilise Iraq, western intelligence sources said last week. One source said the Americans were growing increasingly angry at the involvement of the Guards’ special-operations Quds force inside Iraq, training Shi’ite militias and smuggling weapons into the country.

Despite a belligerent stance by Vice-President Dick Cheney, the administration has put plans for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities on the back burner since Robert Gates replaced Donald Rumsfeld as defence secretary in 2006, the sources said.

However, US commanders are increasingly concerned by Iranian interference in Iraq and are determined that recent successes by joint Iraqi and US forces in the southern port city of Basra should not be reversed by the Quds Force.

“If the situation in Basra goes back to what it was like before, America is likely to blame Iran and carry out a surgical strike on a militant training camp across the border in Khuzestan,” said one source, referring to a frontier province.

They acknowledged Iran was unlikely to cease involvement in Iraq and that, however limited a US attack might be, the fighting could escalate.

Although American defence chiefs are firmly opposed to any attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, they believe a raid on one of the camps training Shi’ite militiamen would deliver a powerful message to Tehran.

British officials believe the US military tends to overestimate the effect of the Iranian involvement in Iraq.

But they say there is little doubt that the Revolutionary Guard exercises significant influence over splinter groups of the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, who were the main targets of recent operations in Basra.

The CBS television network reported last week that plans were being drawn up for an attack on Iran, citing an officer who blamed the “increasingly hostile role” Iran was playing in Iraq.

The American news reports were unclear about the precise target of such an action and referred to Iran’s nuclear facilities as the likely objective.

According to the intelligence sources there will not be an attack on Iran’s nuclear capacity. “The Pentagon is not keen on that at all. If an attack happens it will be on a training camp to send a clear message to Iran not to interfere.”

President George W Bush is known to be determined that he should not hand over what he sees as “the Iran problem” to his successor. A limited attack on a training camp may give an impression of tough action, while at the same time being something that both Gates and the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, could accept.

Source. / The Sunday Times, U.K.
See Mick Smith’s defence blog.

Thanks to Roger Baker / The Rag Blog

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

The Modus Operandi of Our Establishment Press


The Media, The Right and 1988: Endless Deja Vu
by Glenn Greenwald / May 4, 2008

A large bulk of the political and pundit class are forever stuck in 1972, reflexively viewing every political conflict through its myopic prism (any war-opponent-candidate = George McGovern = loser). But as a New York Times article by Robin Toner this morning illustrates, the far more relevant precedent for this year’s election is 1988. Toner quotes something I wrote after Barack Obama’s Philadelphia race speech to define the critical question:

Sometimes, as Senator Barack Obama seemed to argue earlier this year, a flag pin is just a flag pin. But it can never be that simple for anyone with direct experience of the 1988 presidential campaign. That year, the Republicans used the symbols of nationhood (notably, whether schoolchildren should be required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance) to bludgeon the Democrats, challenge their patriotism and utterly redefine their nominee, Gov. Michael S. Dukakis of Massachusetts.

The memory of that campaign — reinforced, for many, by the attacks on Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam war record in the 2004 election — haunts Democrats of a certain generation. . . .

Mr. Obama, of Illinois, has promised a different politics, one that rises above the fray and the distractions of wedge issues. As Glenn Greenwald, a columnist for Salon, recently put it, “The entire Obama campaign is predicated on the belief that it is no longer 1988.”

But is that true?

That is the central question in 2008. For exactly that reason, I devote a substantial portion of Great American Hypocrites to analyzing the twisted, petty personality-based themes that dominated that election — and that led to the victory of an extremely unpopular and distrusted political figure: George Bush the First — because that is when the GOP pioneered the manipulative playbook that they have been using ever since to destroy the “character” and personality of Democratic candidates. And the circumstances that prevailed in the 1988 election make it an almost perfect parallel to this year’s election. Just as is true now, Americans heading into the 1988 election had endured almost two full terms of Republican rule under a President who — contrary to the Myth of the Canonized Ronald Reagan — they had come to distrust and disapprove of. That’s why 1987 and early 1988 polls continuously showed George Bush the First running far behind prospective Democratic challengers — because the GOP brand, like now, was profoundly discredited among the citizenry (though to a lesser extent than it is now). From a March 3, 1987 NYT article by then-reporter E.J. Dionne:

President Reagan’s approval rating has plunged to its lowest level in more than four years, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll. The survey, taken Saturday and Sunday after the release of the report of a Presidential commission on the Iran arms deal, found that 42 percent of those surveyed approved of the way Mr. Reagan was handling his job and 46 percent disapproved.

It was his lowest rating since January 1983, when 41 percent approved of his performance. . . . About half the 1,174 adults interviewed by telephone said Mr. Reagan was lying about key aspects of the Iran arms affair. Only a quarter said he was in charge of what went on in his Administration, down significantly from earlier surveys. . . .

Vice President Bush has also suffered a significant drop in his popularity. This time 32 percent of those surveyed said they had a favorable opinion of him and 19 percent a negative view; in January 43 percent were favorable and 23 percent unfavorable ….

Still, the erosion has clearly hurt Mr. Bush politically. Asked how they would vote if the 1988 election were held now, 47 percent of registered voters said they would back former Senator Gary Hart, the Democrat with the most support in surveys of his party, and only 34 percent chose Mr. Bush ….

But almost every other measure in the survey indicated a deep erosion in Mr. Reagan’s popularity.

Approval of Mr. Reagan’s handling of foreign policy was at the lowest level of his Presidency: only 29 percent of those surveyed approved; 58 percent disapproved.

And, in a response that was tougher on Mr. Reagan than the commission was, a majority of those surveyed said they did not believe Mr. Reagan’s statement that he forgot when he approved the arms sales to Iran. They were asked: “Ronald Reagan has said he does not remember when he approved the arms sales to Iran. Do you think he really does not remember, or is he lying about that?” Thirty-five percent said they believed Mr. Reagan; 51 percent said he was lying. . . .

Half those surveyed thought the affair was at least as serious as Watergate, and about as many said it was of “great importance” to the country, as against a third who thought it had some importance and a sixth who thought it was of little importance.

For those reasons, just as is true now, the GOP operatives running Bush the First’s campaign — Lee Atwater and Roger Ailes — realized that they could never win the election if Americas voted on the basis of substance, policy positions and issues. They thus resolved to shift the playing field away from issues to manipulative, adolescent questions of patriotism, manliness, and personal likability. Hence: Dukakis is an effete elitist who doesn’t believe in the Pledge of Allegiance; he looks dorky bowling wearing a helmet; he proved he wasn’t a man when he failed to show primal rage when asked in a debate about his wife being hypothetically raped, etc. etc. With the help of a media enthralled to such shallow, easy-to-chatter-about attacks, they succeeded in electing a highly unpopular figure from a scandal-plagued, discredited party. And Republicans, with their media partners, have been using that depraved playbook ever since, and will continue to do so this year. For the 1988 election, Reagan’s severe economic mismanagement, his disastrous foreign policy filled with savage covert wars, and widespread perceptions that top Reagan officials had blatantly lied about breaking the law were all just disappeared. Actual issues played virtually no role in George Bush the First’s 40-state triumph.

Read all of it here. / Common Dreams

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | Leave a comment