Congressman Joe Barton, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, is so concerned about the issue of global warming that he has written to three of the world's leading experts on global warming and demanded that they reveal all financial support they have ever received, the sources of funding for every study they have ever conducted, and all data archives for every study they have ever published.
Congressman Barton has never held one hearing on global warming in the eleven years he has chaired this all-important committee.
Here is a letter from Congressman Henry Waxman addressed to Congressman Joe Barton on this issue.
This bullying tactic of threat and menace is one more sign that the Republicans are beginning to run scared on this issue. When confronted with the ignorance of their science-denying corporate positions, they flail about in petulant, schoolyard behavior as a last ditch attempt to maintain their discredited lies.
Waxman's letter challenges Barton to invite these experts to actually testify. But I have a feeling Barton really doesn't want to be confused with the facts on global warming.
July 08, 2005
July 07, 2005
The Silence of the Men
Public television's show "The New Heroes" broadcast a segment on July 5 about the sex trade in Thailand and the efforts of one man to help the young girls who are the victims. The International Labor Organization has indicated that the Thai sex industry has become so large, employing so many people, it is now defined as an official "commercial sector" of the country.
From a report available here:
"In Thailand, trafficking is a 500 billion Bahts annual business (equivalent to approximately 124 million U.S. dollars), which represents a value equal to around 60 per cent of the government budget (CATW). In 1998, the International Labor Organization (ILO) estimated that prostitution represented between two and 14 per cent of the economic activities of Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Philippines (Jeffreys). According to a study conducted by Ryan Bishop and Lilian Robinson, the tourist industry brings four billion dollars a year to Thailand. It is not without reason, then, that in 1987 the Thai government promoted sexual tourism through advertising "The one fruit of Thailand more delicious than durian [a local fruit], its young women" (Hechler). "
The problem is not Thailand's alone. Brazil, the Phillippines, Cuba, India, Bangladesh, Hong Kong, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Russia, Kenya, Sri Lanka -- all have large sex trade industries, thriving in a globalized world economy that has sparked the largest growth in slave trading in centuries. But were it not for the men from the United States, Canada, the UK, Australia, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Germany, and other countries with men who have lots of money and too much time on their hands, this sex trade would not exist.
Of course, this is not the only way women and girls (and young boys) are victimized.
In the United States alone, 1 million women are beaten by their spouses every year. Worldwide, the battering of women is prevalent.
The abuse and killing of women takes many forms. Marital and date rape, sexual abuse and incest, sexual harrassment in the workplace, the killing of female infants simply because they are female, domestic violence in the form of wife battery and murder. In some countries there are culture-specific forms of violence against women like female genital mutilation, and, in India, for instance, dowry murder.
Violence against women and girls is a much, much larger problem than global terrorism. Terrorism shrinks into insignificance when compared to the abuse, exploitation and murder of women and girls around the world.
Where are the voices of the three great religions addressing this worldwide epidemic of violence? Silent. I don't hear from the men of the Christian evangelical world about it. I don't hear from the leaders (all men) of the Catholic Church about it. Where are the voices of the Imams, and the rabbis? Where are the male religious leaders in all this?
Talking about terrorism is so much more palliative. Inciting to war against the heathen is a simple message. Supporting war for democracy and against tyranny is an easier sell. Talking about male violence against women and girls takes courage. It means taking responsibility. It means men talking about the proclivity of men to violence. It is a conversation that is not perceived as profitable by men. Patriotism is the last refuge of these scoundrels.
From a report available here:
"In Thailand, trafficking is a 500 billion Bahts annual business (equivalent to approximately 124 million U.S. dollars), which represents a value equal to around 60 per cent of the government budget (CATW). In 1998, the International Labor Organization (ILO) estimated that prostitution represented between two and 14 per cent of the economic activities of Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Philippines (Jeffreys). According to a study conducted by Ryan Bishop and Lilian Robinson, the tourist industry brings four billion dollars a year to Thailand. It is not without reason, then, that in 1987 the Thai government promoted sexual tourism through advertising "The one fruit of Thailand more delicious than durian [a local fruit], its young women" (Hechler). "
The problem is not Thailand's alone. Brazil, the Phillippines, Cuba, India, Bangladesh, Hong Kong, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Russia, Kenya, Sri Lanka -- all have large sex trade industries, thriving in a globalized world economy that has sparked the largest growth in slave trading in centuries. But were it not for the men from the United States, Canada, the UK, Australia, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Germany, and other countries with men who have lots of money and too much time on their hands, this sex trade would not exist.
Of course, this is not the only way women and girls (and young boys) are victimized.
In the United States alone, 1 million women are beaten by their spouses every year. Worldwide, the battering of women is prevalent.
The abuse and killing of women takes many forms. Marital and date rape, sexual abuse and incest, sexual harrassment in the workplace, the killing of female infants simply because they are female, domestic violence in the form of wife battery and murder. In some countries there are culture-specific forms of violence against women like female genital mutilation, and, in India, for instance, dowry murder.
Violence against women and girls is a much, much larger problem than global terrorism. Terrorism shrinks into insignificance when compared to the abuse, exploitation and murder of women and girls around the world.
Where are the voices of the three great religions addressing this worldwide epidemic of violence? Silent. I don't hear from the men of the Christian evangelical world about it. I don't hear from the leaders (all men) of the Catholic Church about it. Where are the voices of the Imams, and the rabbis? Where are the male religious leaders in all this?
Talking about terrorism is so much more palliative. Inciting to war against the heathen is a simple message. Supporting war for democracy and against tyranny is an easier sell. Talking about male violence against women and girls takes courage. It means taking responsibility. It means men talking about the proclivity of men to violence. It is a conversation that is not perceived as profitable by men. Patriotism is the last refuge of these scoundrels.
July 05, 2005
American Consumers Shafted Again by Congress
Our representatives in Congress can't help themselves. It's not enough to oppose minimum wage increases. It's not enough to attempt to privatize social security. It's not enough to limit jury awards against corporate wrongdoing. It's not enough to restrict people who have suffered from business losses, huge medical bills, family deaths, or other catastrophic events from seeking the protection of bankruptcy. The US Congress now has repealed a law which has been in place since 1935 designed to protect Americans against public utility abuses which were a major cause of the financial collapses of that era.
The repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) by both the House and the Senate is just another in a long line of reactionary, corporate-sponsored votes by the US Congress, ignoring history, destroying consumer protections, and undoing controls on corporate greed. The press has its head buried so far in the muck of its ignorance and irresponsibility, it doesn't notice this, or it doesn't care, or it willingly looks the other way. In a short piece by Lynn Hargis for Truthout, using the Chinese attempt to buy Unocal as context, she explains the consequences of its repeal, and describes the links to America's biggest utilities investors, men like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates.
A superb background piece on the PUHCA is available at the site of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) by both the House and the Senate is just another in a long line of reactionary, corporate-sponsored votes by the US Congress, ignoring history, destroying consumer protections, and undoing controls on corporate greed. The press has its head buried so far in the muck of its ignorance and irresponsibility, it doesn't notice this, or it doesn't care, or it willingly looks the other way. In a short piece by Lynn Hargis for Truthout, using the Chinese attempt to buy Unocal as context, she explains the consequences of its repeal, and describes the links to America's biggest utilities investors, men like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates.
A superb background piece on the PUHCA is available at the site of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Email Me
I have have been asked by a number of people to provide my email address so they can send me sources, ideas, and other messages. It is now available when you click on "View My Complete Profile" on the left, under "About Me."
Ok, now email me!!!
Ok, now email me!!!
Laura Ingraham and Peggy Noonan Fret
Laura Ingraham interviewed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, her "good friend", in early June. The conversation between the two is revealing in that every question she asks is a setup. They all sound somewhat like this: "Mr. Secretary, the liberal press has been saying bad things about the war in Iraq and about the President, and about you. Don't you think the liberal press is as bad as I do"? "Mr. Secretary, isn't China bad too?" "Mr. Secretary, the liberals are stopping John Bolton from becoming Ambassador to the UN. Aren't they really bad to do that?"
During the interview, she confessed that she and Peggy Noonan had chatted the other day and they fretted together about the downsizing of the US military, worrying that we would be more at risk at a time when the Chinese are growing their military.
Rumsfeld set her straight, making it clear that, in fact, we are not downsizing our military, "We're increasing the size of the Army and the Marines and have been by some 30,000 in the active force. What we're doing is not downsizing, as such, what we're doing is making our capabilities more capable and more agile and more lethal."
We are making our capabilities more capable, more agile, more lethal. Even more shock and awe-like, I suppose.
Rumsfeld went on: "Even though the press reports downsizing, the fact is that we've had substantial excess in infrastructure and the funds from that need to be put into capabilities that can do the country some good rather than being wasted in infrastructure that requires force protection and repair and a great deal of expense that doesn't really add to the military capability of the Department of Defense. So the process it's going through, the Base Closing and Realignment, is going to make our military defense, our military capabilities much greater than they were previously. We'll be more joint, we will have more of the funds the Department receives from the taxpayers of the United States focused on where they're needed."
Sounds like a vague cop-out to me, doesn't it? Here's a conclusion I can draw: If it weren't for all the money we have spent on "excess in infrastructure" (does that mean stuff like decent housing for the troops, health care, veteran's care?) and "force protection and repair" (does that mean like armored Humvees, bullet-proof vests, more secure bases in Iraq?), we'd be better off in Iraq and Afghanistan. Does he actually mean to blame troop losses and lack of protection in Iraq and Afghanistan on the costs of maintaining bases at home? What does he mean by "do the country some good?"
At the end of the interview, when Ingraham asks if Rumsfeld watches the Fox TV show 24, she is surprised when he says no. She then says she will send the entire collection of DVDs of the first season to him and makes him promise he will watch them.
During the interview, she confessed that she and Peggy Noonan had chatted the other day and they fretted together about the downsizing of the US military, worrying that we would be more at risk at a time when the Chinese are growing their military.
Rumsfeld set her straight, making it clear that, in fact, we are not downsizing our military, "We're increasing the size of the Army and the Marines and have been by some 30,000 in the active force. What we're doing is not downsizing, as such, what we're doing is making our capabilities more capable and more agile and more lethal."
We are making our capabilities more capable, more agile, more lethal. Even more shock and awe-like, I suppose.
Rumsfeld went on: "Even though the press reports downsizing, the fact is that we've had substantial excess in infrastructure and the funds from that need to be put into capabilities that can do the country some good rather than being wasted in infrastructure that requires force protection and repair and a great deal of expense that doesn't really add to the military capability of the Department of Defense. So the process it's going through, the Base Closing and Realignment, is going to make our military defense, our military capabilities much greater than they were previously. We'll be more joint, we will have more of the funds the Department receives from the taxpayers of the United States focused on where they're needed."
Sounds like a vague cop-out to me, doesn't it? Here's a conclusion I can draw: If it weren't for all the money we have spent on "excess in infrastructure" (does that mean stuff like decent housing for the troops, health care, veteran's care?) and "force protection and repair" (does that mean like armored Humvees, bullet-proof vests, more secure bases in Iraq?), we'd be better off in Iraq and Afghanistan. Does he actually mean to blame troop losses and lack of protection in Iraq and Afghanistan on the costs of maintaining bases at home? What does he mean by "do the country some good?"
At the end of the interview, when Ingraham asks if Rumsfeld watches the Fox TV show 24, she is surprised when he says no. She then says she will send the entire collection of DVDs of the first season to him and makes him promise he will watch them.
July 04, 2005
Bush's Opportunity
Here's something positive we can do about the Supreme Court vacancy. Here is a Latino judge from Texas who Bush supported once before for a judgeship, who received a 97-0 approval from the Senate, and who is a moderate. Here is someone Bush could nominate who would really united most of the US Senate and not divide it.
Here is a litmus test for the Bush administration's legacy. Will he continue to insist that he has a mandate, and persist in his narrow right-wing agenda? He has stumbled on many of his key efforts since he was re-elected (Iraq, Afghanistan, Social Security, Bolton). Can we imagine that he will be smart enough to nominate a moderate and get a win, which he sorely needs? Or will the Christian right simply be too big a gorilla in the room?
Tip of the hat to Jason.
Here is a litmus test for the Bush administration's legacy. Will he continue to insist that he has a mandate, and persist in his narrow right-wing agenda? He has stumbled on many of his key efforts since he was re-elected (Iraq, Afghanistan, Social Security, Bolton). Can we imagine that he will be smart enough to nominate a moderate and get a win, which he sorely needs? Or will the Christian right simply be too big a gorilla in the room?
Tip of the hat to Jason.
Schwarzenegger to G8: Get Real
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of the fifth largest economy on earth, California he-man, and a man destined to be remembered as "The Terminator", has written an op-ed piece in the U.K. paper, The Independent, essentially telling the G8 summit, which includes the US, to stop talking and take action on global warming.
Schwarzenegger says emphatically: "Many people have falsely assumed that you have to choose between protecting the environment and protecting the economy. Nothing could be further from the truth. In California, we will do both. "
He teaches corporations: "Pollution reduction has long been a money saver for businesses. It lowers operating costs, raises profits and creates new and expanded markets for environmental technology."
Recently, I heard excerpts of a 1977 Presidential address by Jimmy Carter on public radio that outlined an energy plan for America that would have had a substantially positive impact on our energy problems by the year 2000. Of course, he was unable to implement it, and by the time Reagan came into power any of the good ideas were squashed for good.
Read the speech. Contrast how Carter approached this crisis (which existed back then) with how Bush does now. It was the last time we had a President who was not wholly bought and paid for by the energy, communications, military, financial, and pharmaceutical industries.
Schwarzenegger says emphatically: "Many people have falsely assumed that you have to choose between protecting the environment and protecting the economy. Nothing could be further from the truth. In California, we will do both. "
He teaches corporations: "Pollution reduction has long been a money saver for businesses. It lowers operating costs, raises profits and creates new and expanded markets for environmental technology."
Recently, I heard excerpts of a 1977 Presidential address by Jimmy Carter on public radio that outlined an energy plan for America that would have had a substantially positive impact on our energy problems by the year 2000. Of course, he was unable to implement it, and by the time Reagan came into power any of the good ideas were squashed for good.
Read the speech. Contrast how Carter approached this crisis (which existed back then) with how Bush does now. It was the last time we had a President who was not wholly bought and paid for by the energy, communications, military, financial, and pharmaceutical industries.
July 02, 2005
Rove Has Been a Rat Before
A follow-up to the news that it may have been Karl Rove who ratted out the American CIA agent Valerie Plame.
Here is a piece by William Rivers Pitt (thanks to my old pal Rhoda Carroll), from 2003, which describes how Karl Rove smeared someone else using Robert Novak as his hatchet man. In 1992, Rove was fired from the Bush I team because of this infraction. In 1999, this is what George Herbert Walker Bush, former President and former American chief spymaster, had to say about people who ratted out other people:
"Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."
George II's Svengalian sidekick, Karl Rove, may be out after two strikes. Although, we may learn of many other behind-the-scenes betrayals by Rove. I can't wait.
Here is a piece by William Rivers Pitt (thanks to my old pal Rhoda Carroll), from 2003, which describes how Karl Rove smeared someone else using Robert Novak as his hatchet man. In 1992, Rove was fired from the Bush I team because of this infraction. In 1999, this is what George Herbert Walker Bush, former President and former American chief spymaster, had to say about people who ratted out other people:
"Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."
George II's Svengalian sidekick, Karl Rove, may be out after two strikes. Although, we may learn of many other behind-the-scenes betrayals by Rove. I can't wait.
Baghdad is Burning
It seems that while we don't know much about the Mayor of Tehran who is the new President of Iran (see my piece), we also seem not to be paying much attention to the Mayor of Baghdad who is warning the American government about the utter decay of Baghdad and its infrastructure. It's pretty difficult to understand how, on the one hand, we can promise to help the Iraqis rebuild their country and lay the groundwork for a democracy, and yet, on the other, do so little to help make that happen. Where is the money going?
His Honor the Mayor says he has asked for $1.8 billion, just for 2005 alone, but gotten only $85 million so far. Why?
His Honor the Mayor says he has asked for $1.8 billion, just for 2005 alone, but gotten only $85 million so far. Why?
A Smorgasbord of Sleaze
Will newly revealed documents show that it was Karl Rove who leaked the information to a reporter about Valerie Plame, the CIA agent who was outed last year? If so, will he be prosecuted? Wouldn't it be sweet justice if Karl Rove's big mouth lands him in jail?
In 2003, Wal-Mart profits were $8.9 billion. The Walton family wealth is $98 billion. If they took just 1% of that wealth, they could have provided every one of their employees and their families with fully-paid health care. But $8.9 billion is not enough. The bottom line for Wal-Mart has nothing to do with its employees, but everything to do with its profit. Meanwhile, in a show of disdain for American women everywhere, Wal-Mart continues to refuse to carry Plan B, known as "the morning after pill", in its pharmacies. It is an especially egregious policy that has a direct negative effect on rural poor women whose only choice, in many cases, for a "neighborhood" pharmacy is Wal-Mart.
The Republicans spend money for war like a bunch of drunken sailors, but when it comes to money for veterans returning from war, they are stingy. The Bush administration has finally admitted it underestimated the number of veterans needing help after serving in the war by 5 times. While the Democrats objections fell on deaf ears, it took Republicans falling on their swords to get through to the heedless and deaf White House.
Organizations of Americans who oppose the war, some made up of grandmothers, are being monitored in California at anti-war protests because the California National Guard says it would be imprudent not to keep track of anti-war protests and protesters. "If you are not with us, you are with the terrorists," says George Bush. And, of course, we all know that when Americans demonstrate against the war, they are always joined by terrorists trying to blend in with the crowds.
The Bush administration has announced it will maintain control over the computers that control all internet traffic, the so-called 13 "root servers" that inform web browsers and email programs how to direct internet traffic. Rather than turn control over to a private, independent organization, it seems that Bush wants to preserve some kind of perceived leverage over the internet, even though it probably could not accomplish what it might want to -- namely, modification of sites, controlling access, and censoring content. But never underestimate the Bushies zeal for control and power.
Tips of the hat to AlterNet, CommonDreams, and Buzzflash.
In 2003, Wal-Mart profits were $8.9 billion. The Walton family wealth is $98 billion. If they took just 1% of that wealth, they could have provided every one of their employees and their families with fully-paid health care. But $8.9 billion is not enough. The bottom line for Wal-Mart has nothing to do with its employees, but everything to do with its profit. Meanwhile, in a show of disdain for American women everywhere, Wal-Mart continues to refuse to carry Plan B, known as "the morning after pill", in its pharmacies. It is an especially egregious policy that has a direct negative effect on rural poor women whose only choice, in many cases, for a "neighborhood" pharmacy is Wal-Mart.
The Republicans spend money for war like a bunch of drunken sailors, but when it comes to money for veterans returning from war, they are stingy. The Bush administration has finally admitted it underestimated the number of veterans needing help after serving in the war by 5 times. While the Democrats objections fell on deaf ears, it took Republicans falling on their swords to get through to the heedless and deaf White House.
Organizations of Americans who oppose the war, some made up of grandmothers, are being monitored in California at anti-war protests because the California National Guard says it would be imprudent not to keep track of anti-war protests and protesters. "If you are not with us, you are with the terrorists," says George Bush. And, of course, we all know that when Americans demonstrate against the war, they are always joined by terrorists trying to blend in with the crowds.
The Bush administration has announced it will maintain control over the computers that control all internet traffic, the so-called 13 "root servers" that inform web browsers and email programs how to direct internet traffic. Rather than turn control over to a private, independent organization, it seems that Bush wants to preserve some kind of perceived leverage over the internet, even though it probably could not accomplish what it might want to -- namely, modification of sites, controlling access, and censoring content. But never underestimate the Bushies zeal for control and power.
Tips of the hat to AlterNet, CommonDreams, and Buzzflash.
July 01, 2005
Less Safe, More Killing
Notice how more safe you feel as fewer American soldiers are killed - and we are winning? Oops, I think I got that backwards. Notice how less safe you feel as more Americans are killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Should that be a question? Maybe that should just be a statement. We are less safe and more Americans are being killed. There, that's clear, isn't it?
It's certainly much clearer than anything Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld or Scott McClellan or George Bush are saying:
Cheney -- the insurgency is in its "last throes";
Rumsfeld -- it depends on how you define "throe";
McClellan -- we have a "clear strategy"
Bush - __________________ (you fill in the blank)
Did you see the report from the National Academy of Sciences on the terrorist threat to our milk supply?
Have you seen the stories about the resurgence of al-Queda and the Taliban in Afghanistan?
Have you noticed how bad our national intelligence is? Here is a case in point.
You would think that US intelligence would know everything there is to know about the man who is Iran's new President. You would think that had he been involved with the Iranian students who took Americans hostage in 1979 in Tehran, we would know that. You'd think that someone in our intelligence services would have had a picture that could have been shown around of this guy. Here, look at this photo, anyone know him? It's astonishing that it has taken some former hostages to identify him as someone who took them hostage. Stephen Hadley, Bush's National Security Advisor, at a White House Press Briefing, said yesterday that "we are looking into it" and that he doesn't know how long it will take to make a determination about it. What do we know about the new Iranian President? Anything?
After being pressed about what American intelligence knows about the guy, Hadley did admit that we knew he was the mayor of Tehran. Where'd did we learn that? From the China News Agency correspondent in Tehran? Would our intelligence services notice if Osama bin Laden visited Disney World? What are they doing with the billions of dollars to fight terrorism, and just how have they reorganized our intelligence services this long after 9/11?
In response to a question about the shooting down of the American helicopter in Afghanistan and the loss of 17 American soldiers, Hadley actually said this:
"Well, obviously, it is a sad day for -- any loss of life is a sad event for the country and for the President. He and the nation mourns every life. He remains confident that the loss of life was in a good cause in terms of bringing stability and freedom to Afghanistan so that Afghanistan does not again become the kind of haven for terrorists that allowed things like 9/11 to occur. But it's, obviously, a sad day and something -- and obviously, we have condolences for the families of those who have fallen." Does he take diction lessons from Bush?
What was really shocking was that not one reporter at this briefing questioned him about the growing reality of Afghanistan again becoming a "haven for terrorists."
Don't you feel safer?
It's certainly much clearer than anything Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld or Scott McClellan or George Bush are saying:
Cheney -- the insurgency is in its "last throes";
Rumsfeld -- it depends on how you define "throe";
McClellan -- we have a "clear strategy"
Bush - __________________ (you fill in the blank)
Did you see the report from the National Academy of Sciences on the terrorist threat to our milk supply?
Have you seen the stories about the resurgence of al-Queda and the Taliban in Afghanistan?
Have you noticed how bad our national intelligence is? Here is a case in point.
You would think that US intelligence would know everything there is to know about the man who is Iran's new President. You would think that had he been involved with the Iranian students who took Americans hostage in 1979 in Tehran, we would know that. You'd think that someone in our intelligence services would have had a picture that could have been shown around of this guy. Here, look at this photo, anyone know him? It's astonishing that it has taken some former hostages to identify him as someone who took them hostage. Stephen Hadley, Bush's National Security Advisor, at a White House Press Briefing, said yesterday that "we are looking into it" and that he doesn't know how long it will take to make a determination about it. What do we know about the new Iranian President? Anything?
After being pressed about what American intelligence knows about the guy, Hadley did admit that we knew he was the mayor of Tehran. Where'd did we learn that? From the China News Agency correspondent in Tehran? Would our intelligence services notice if Osama bin Laden visited Disney World? What are they doing with the billions of dollars to fight terrorism, and just how have they reorganized our intelligence services this long after 9/11?
In response to a question about the shooting down of the American helicopter in Afghanistan and the loss of 17 American soldiers, Hadley actually said this:
"Well, obviously, it is a sad day for -- any loss of life is a sad event for the country and for the President. He and the nation mourns every life. He remains confident that the loss of life was in a good cause in terms of bringing stability and freedom to Afghanistan so that Afghanistan does not again become the kind of haven for terrorists that allowed things like 9/11 to occur. But it's, obviously, a sad day and something -- and obviously, we have condolences for the families of those who have fallen." Does he take diction lessons from Bush?
What was really shocking was that not one reporter at this briefing questioned him about the growing reality of Afghanistan again becoming a "haven for terrorists."
Don't you feel safer?
June 29, 2005
Bush is Churchill
In an attempt to sound like Winston Churchill during the darkest hours of the London blitz, George Bush's speech in front of hundreds of red bereted soldiers at Ft. Bragg, N.C. was unadulterated recalcitrance. I was wrong in my earlier article (Listen to the Language) when I said to look for a tiny bit of apology for a mistake or two. There was none. It was an uncompromising and muscle-flexing speech. His words were directed at his base, no one else. He was telling those soldiers, and any young American who is considering enlistment to sign up, stay the course, do the work of good against evil, and you will be American heroes just like all the other American heroes who have gone before you.
Bush declared: "Our mission in Iraq is clear. We're hunting down the terrorists. We're helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We're advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability, and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren."
What he didn't say was that there were no terrorists to hunt down before we invaded Iraq.
What he didn't say was that only 5% to 7% of the current insurgents are foreign jihadis, that the rest are actually Iraqi citizens in rebellion against us.
What he didn't say was that freedom in the broader Middle East is far from a realization.
What he didn't say was that our children and our grandchildren are inheriting a bankrupt future created by his "war on terror."
What he didn't say was that this is a rebellion, a resistance, which is exactly what an insurgency is.
What he didn't say, and what is the Achilles heel in this entire mess, is that Iraqi soldiers are having a hard time fighting other Iraqis who are fighting against a perceived occupier, not a liberator as Bush had hoped. It's the same problem Palestinian leaders who genuinely want to put down groups like Hamas have. Using Palestinian police to quell Palestinians, who regard themselves as freedom fighters, has not worked. It will not work in Iraq. And the longer the American occupation lasts, the bigger the resistance will grow.
Bush claimed that Iraq has "160,000 security forces trained and equipped for a variety of missions...". Why is it that 160,000 Iraqi security forces are not even close to being enough and that they, apparently, are utterly ineffective? Are most of them directing traffic? How many will we need? 500,000? 1,000,000? What will it take for an Iraqi army to fight against its own people?
Public television's post-speech coverage consisted of Gwen Ifill interviewing Tom Oliphant of the Washington Post, Rich Lowry of the National Review, retired Marine General Bernard Trainor, and retired Army Colonel Douglas MacGregor. Despite the fact that a progressive voice was not included, Colonel MacGregor did his best to inject some reality into the discussion.
Contrary to the Bush administration claim that 12,000 Iraqis have been killed since the war began, Colonel MacGregor used the figure "over 111,000." He also described Iraq as a country with jails everywhere filled to capacity. He put the figure at 5% of the insurgency that is actually foreign, and the rest are fighting for their "homes, tribes, and families." MacGregor made the point that the US needs to define the conditions necessary for us to leave Iraq. Those conditions have never been clearly defined. He made the point that many Iraqis believe we will never leave.
One thing that all four of these men seemed to agree on was that we can't simply cut and run, that we must stay the course, somehow, and find a way out that is honorable. Sound familiar?
Bush declared: "Our mission in Iraq is clear. We're hunting down the terrorists. We're helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We're advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability, and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren."
What he didn't say was that there were no terrorists to hunt down before we invaded Iraq.
What he didn't say was that only 5% to 7% of the current insurgents are foreign jihadis, that the rest are actually Iraqi citizens in rebellion against us.
What he didn't say was that freedom in the broader Middle East is far from a realization.
What he didn't say was that our children and our grandchildren are inheriting a bankrupt future created by his "war on terror."
What he didn't say was that this is a rebellion, a resistance, which is exactly what an insurgency is.
What he didn't say, and what is the Achilles heel in this entire mess, is that Iraqi soldiers are having a hard time fighting other Iraqis who are fighting against a perceived occupier, not a liberator as Bush had hoped. It's the same problem Palestinian leaders who genuinely want to put down groups like Hamas have. Using Palestinian police to quell Palestinians, who regard themselves as freedom fighters, has not worked. It will not work in Iraq. And the longer the American occupation lasts, the bigger the resistance will grow.
Bush claimed that Iraq has "160,000 security forces trained and equipped for a variety of missions...". Why is it that 160,000 Iraqi security forces are not even close to being enough and that they, apparently, are utterly ineffective? Are most of them directing traffic? How many will we need? 500,000? 1,000,000? What will it take for an Iraqi army to fight against its own people?
Public television's post-speech coverage consisted of Gwen Ifill interviewing Tom Oliphant of the Washington Post, Rich Lowry of the National Review, retired Marine General Bernard Trainor, and retired Army Colonel Douglas MacGregor. Despite the fact that a progressive voice was not included, Colonel MacGregor did his best to inject some reality into the discussion.
Contrary to the Bush administration claim that 12,000 Iraqis have been killed since the war began, Colonel MacGregor used the figure "over 111,000." He also described Iraq as a country with jails everywhere filled to capacity. He put the figure at 5% of the insurgency that is actually foreign, and the rest are fighting for their "homes, tribes, and families." MacGregor made the point that the US needs to define the conditions necessary for us to leave Iraq. Those conditions have never been clearly defined. He made the point that many Iraqis believe we will never leave.
One thing that all four of these men seemed to agree on was that we can't simply cut and run, that we must stay the course, somehow, and find a way out that is honorable. Sound familiar?
June 28, 2005
You Say Tomato, I Say Tomatoe
While Donald Rumsfeld is saying (on various Sunday news shows) that it will take twelve years to put down the insurgency in Iraq, the Iraqi PM is saying it will take only two years. So, it is apparent Don and Ibrahim are not coordinating their messages, or are they? It seems likely that, while they both recognize and know the reality that they face, they articulate different messages for different audiences. It serves Rumsfeld's interests of being open-ended and vague by saying it could take twelve years, and it serves al-Jaafari's interests to say, to an Arab newspaper, it will only take two years, showing his purpose and resolve to end this fast. Both of them know that neither has any idea how long it might take, or what it will take, or if they might ever be successful.
Rumsfeld says that the American military can't end the insurgency, it will be the Iraqi military that will do it. Rumsfeld does reassure us that we will be gone before the twelve years are up (don't bet on it). Does that mean eleven and half years? In the meantime, we have American military commanders telling US Senators that it will take at least another two years to train enough Iraqis to fight the insurgency.
In his Sunday interviews, Rumsfeld also supported VP Cheney's musings about the "last throes" of the insurgency, urging one interviewer to look up the meaning: "If you look up 'last throes,' it can mean a violent last throe'." Of course, the word throe has many meanings, one of which can mean attack. there is nothing inherently unsuccessful about a throe, last or otherwise.
Cheney and Rumsfeld are using language again to scam the American people. Twelve years is a long time. The networkof large American bases in Iraq are not going to be disassembled any time soon. Our presence there is too strategically important for us to cut and run. We have invested too much.
One thing for usre, Cheney and Rumsfeld probably won't be around to answer for their perfidy in twelve years.
Rumsfeld says that the American military can't end the insurgency, it will be the Iraqi military that will do it. Rumsfeld does reassure us that we will be gone before the twelve years are up (don't bet on it). Does that mean eleven and half years? In the meantime, we have American military commanders telling US Senators that it will take at least another two years to train enough Iraqis to fight the insurgency.
In his Sunday interviews, Rumsfeld also supported VP Cheney's musings about the "last throes" of the insurgency, urging one interviewer to look up the meaning: "If you look up 'last throes,' it can mean a violent last throe'." Of course, the word throe has many meanings, one of which can mean attack. there is nothing inherently unsuccessful about a throe, last or otherwise.
Cheney and Rumsfeld are using language again to scam the American people. Twelve years is a long time. The networkof large American bases in Iraq are not going to be disassembled any time soon. Our presence there is too strategically important for us to cut and run. We have invested too much.
One thing for usre, Cheney and Rumsfeld probably won't be around to answer for their perfidy in twelve years.
Jeb Bush's Obsession
The Terri Schiavo autopsy has shown that she was blind, that her brain had shrunk to half its normal size, and that there was no sign of any physical abuse. It was final proof that the poor woman was gone in every way possible other than being kept alive by artificial means.
Is it too much to expect any apologies from people like Senator Doctor Frist who diagnosed her from a thousand miles away, and ranted and raved about "saving" her life? Of course, it is. None of the self-righteous, sanctimonious, and hypocritical loud-mouths will say a thing.
But they will continue to believe they were right, and furthermore, to that end, will always wonder whether Terri Schiavo's husband really did have something to do with her injury 15 years ago. And to that end, so they can keep this self-righteousness alive and kicking, Governor Jeb Bush of Florida has asked a prosecutor to investigate.
So, no apologies, just more hatred, vile behavior, and threats against Terri's husband who endured 15 years of his wife's horrible condition, his in-laws doing battle with him for most of those 15 years, and national condemnation from gasbag, knee-jerk political leaders who, if God was really doing his job, should be struck by lightning.
Is it too much to expect any apologies from people like Senator Doctor Frist who diagnosed her from a thousand miles away, and ranted and raved about "saving" her life? Of course, it is. None of the self-righteous, sanctimonious, and hypocritical loud-mouths will say a thing.
But they will continue to believe they were right, and furthermore, to that end, will always wonder whether Terri Schiavo's husband really did have something to do with her injury 15 years ago. And to that end, so they can keep this self-righteousness alive and kicking, Governor Jeb Bush of Florida has asked a prosecutor to investigate.
So, no apologies, just more hatred, vile behavior, and threats against Terri's husband who endured 15 years of his wife's horrible condition, his in-laws doing battle with him for most of those 15 years, and national condemnation from gasbag, knee-jerk political leaders who, if God was really doing his job, should be struck by lightning.
June 27, 2005
Listen to the Language
At Friday's (June 24, 2005) White House Press Briefing, produced, directed and written by Karl Rove,, with Scott McClellan in the lead role, there was an interesting and revealing exchange between McClellan and an unnamed (as always) reporter. From the exchange, it appeared as though it became somewhat heated. I am going to quote for you key words and phrases and you try to guess what McClellan was talking about.
***********************
"clear strategy"
"strategy for success"
"the way forward to succeeding"
"implementing that strategy"
"important progress"
"many challenges that lie ahead"
"hard work"
"not an easy task"
"peaceful and democratic future"
"powerful force for change"
"dangerous region of the world"
"ideology of oppresssion, and hatred, and tyranny"
"critical period"
"moving forward"
"moving forward"
"determined and ruthless enemy"
"no regard for human life"
"derail the transition to democracy"
"failed to stop the advance to democracy and freedom"
"those who seek to stop democracy from taking root"
"a number of our men and women who are serving in harm's way"
"we mourn and grieve when we lose our men and women"
"tremendous sacrifices in defense of freedom"
"the advance of freedom in a dangerous region of the world"
"complete the mission"
"we are making great progress"
"difficulties and dangers ahead"
"this is a very critical period"
"moving forward on drafting a constitution"
"moving forward to prepare for an election"
"a nation that is at war"
"trying to test our resolve"
"trying to shake the will of the international community"
"central front in the war on terrorism"
"it's a critical period"
"we are a nation at war"
"the progress we're making"
"the strategy we have for succeeding"
"important that the American people know the progress we are making"
"important that they understand the difficulties and dangers that lie ahead"
"this is a time when we are seeing that the enemy is determined"
"ruthless in the violence that they seek to spread to try to shake our will and shake our resolve"
"and that's why it's important to talk to the American people"
**********************
This logorrhea of jabberwocky is being fed the American press over and over and over. It is the daily bread at these press conferences. It is what is translated by the press and then fed to the American people. It is very calculated language that requires extreme repetition. It is simple, straightforward, uncomplicated by nuances or gray areas. It is delivered to highly educated men and women as if they were grammar school students and this was a civics class.
You will hear many of these phrases and words, or close variations of them, in Bush's speech this Tuesday night. Watch for him to be a bit humble in one spot when he says something like "maybe we have made mistakes", or "we have stumbled a little here and there" This will show his human side, his vulnerability, his willingness to say he made a booboo. But it will be fleeting and short.
The purpose of this speech is to rekindle support from the American people for the war in Iraq. Both he and support for the war are sinking in all the polls and this speech is the beginning of a major Karl Rove offensive to regain that support. If we were to imagine Rove's own words:
"It is a critical period for the President. Here is our strategy for the President to succeed. The Democrats are a determined and ruthless enemy. We will move forward to democracy and freedom with the President. We have a clear strategy and we are making important progress. There are dangers and difficulties lying ahead and that's why it is important for the President to talk to the American people."
It's the language that counts in all of this. At the end of eight years of a George Bush presidency, how his presidency and its successes and failures are described is what is paramount to Karl Rove. What matters most, right now, is how to pull George Bush's fat out of the current fires. And he has many fires: failures in Iraq and Afghanistan; clear and mounting evidence of his pre-war deceptions; a huge deficit, getting worse; an economy increasingly choked by high energy costs, increased pollution, and fewer good paying jobs; an international community whose respect for the United States has all but disappeared; and a citizenry that may be waking to the fact that this imperial President really doesn't have any clothes on.
How is Karl Rove going to make sure that Bush wins in Iraq, wins the war on terror, maintains his cowboy, freedom-fighting, mission-accomplished image, doesn't bankrupt the country, and doesn't get remembered as the most reviled President in American history? As George Bush goes, so goes Karl Rove. Listen to the language, it tells all.
***********************
"clear strategy"
"strategy for success"
"the way forward to succeeding"
"implementing that strategy"
"important progress"
"many challenges that lie ahead"
"hard work"
"not an easy task"
"peaceful and democratic future"
"powerful force for change"
"dangerous region of the world"
"ideology of oppresssion, and hatred, and tyranny"
"critical period"
"moving forward"
"moving forward"
"determined and ruthless enemy"
"no regard for human life"
"derail the transition to democracy"
"failed to stop the advance to democracy and freedom"
"those who seek to stop democracy from taking root"
"a number of our men and women who are serving in harm's way"
"we mourn and grieve when we lose our men and women"
"tremendous sacrifices in defense of freedom"
"the advance of freedom in a dangerous region of the world"
"complete the mission"
"we are making great progress"
"difficulties and dangers ahead"
"this is a very critical period"
"moving forward on drafting a constitution"
"moving forward to prepare for an election"
"a nation that is at war"
"trying to test our resolve"
"trying to shake the will of the international community"
"central front in the war on terrorism"
"it's a critical period"
"we are a nation at war"
"the progress we're making"
"the strategy we have for succeeding"
"important that the American people know the progress we are making"
"important that they understand the difficulties and dangers that lie ahead"
"this is a time when we are seeing that the enemy is determined"
"ruthless in the violence that they seek to spread to try to shake our will and shake our resolve"
"and that's why it's important to talk to the American people"
**********************
This logorrhea of jabberwocky is being fed the American press over and over and over. It is the daily bread at these press conferences. It is what is translated by the press and then fed to the American people. It is very calculated language that requires extreme repetition. It is simple, straightforward, uncomplicated by nuances or gray areas. It is delivered to highly educated men and women as if they were grammar school students and this was a civics class.
You will hear many of these phrases and words, or close variations of them, in Bush's speech this Tuesday night. Watch for him to be a bit humble in one spot when he says something like "maybe we have made mistakes", or "we have stumbled a little here and there" This will show his human side, his vulnerability, his willingness to say he made a booboo. But it will be fleeting and short.
The purpose of this speech is to rekindle support from the American people for the war in Iraq. Both he and support for the war are sinking in all the polls and this speech is the beginning of a major Karl Rove offensive to regain that support. If we were to imagine Rove's own words:
"It is a critical period for the President. Here is our strategy for the President to succeed. The Democrats are a determined and ruthless enemy. We will move forward to democracy and freedom with the President. We have a clear strategy and we are making important progress. There are dangers and difficulties lying ahead and that's why it is important for the President to talk to the American people."
It's the language that counts in all of this. At the end of eight years of a George Bush presidency, how his presidency and its successes and failures are described is what is paramount to Karl Rove. What matters most, right now, is how to pull George Bush's fat out of the current fires. And he has many fires: failures in Iraq and Afghanistan; clear and mounting evidence of his pre-war deceptions; a huge deficit, getting worse; an economy increasingly choked by high energy costs, increased pollution, and fewer good paying jobs; an international community whose respect for the United States has all but disappeared; and a citizenry that may be waking to the fact that this imperial President really doesn't have any clothes on.
How is Karl Rove going to make sure that Bush wins in Iraq, wins the war on terror, maintains his cowboy, freedom-fighting, mission-accomplished image, doesn't bankrupt the country, and doesn't get remembered as the most reviled President in American history? As George Bush goes, so goes Karl Rove. Listen to the language, it tells all.
June 25, 2005
Bush's Darth Vader Gets His Face Slapped
Karl Rove's recent vicious and defamatory remarks about Americans who oppose the Iraq war reminded me of the kind of vile propaganda that used to come out of the Soviet Politburo. Of course, Karl would have been right at home there. I can imagine him coming up with political antics like Nikita Krushchev's slamming his shoe on the table at the UN.
While Rove teaches his boss how to lie with impunity, Americans continue to die.
Today, in Iraq, 4 women American Marines were killed and 11 women American Marines wounded.
Kristen Breitweister brings Rove to task and asks him questions he will never answer. Kristen, by the way, lost her husband in the World Trade Centers on 9/11.
While Rove teaches his boss how to lie with impunity, Americans continue to die.
Today, in Iraq, 4 women American Marines were killed and 11 women American Marines wounded.
Kristen Breitweister brings Rove to task and asks him questions he will never answer. Kristen, by the way, lost her husband in the World Trade Centers on 9/11.
June 24, 2005
Congress Defends America from Crazed Liberal Flag Burners
The House of Representatives has passed yet another Constitutional Amendment banning flag-burning.
They have nothing better to do than obsess on an issue like flag-burning. Most of them chickenhawks. Most of them heedless to the current and pressing need to provide our soldiers with better protection in Iraq. Most of them supporters of the Bush welfare programs for the rich and for tax-breaks to corporations. Most of them sinking this country into the largest deficit in our history. Most of them careless about our environment and the future health of our children.
But, by God, this witless majority has helped to protect America by fighting for a Constitutional Amendment banning flag-burning. These are the heroic members of Congress defending America.
Imagine that. Millions of pieces of red, white and blue cloth that are one of many symbols of this country threatened by waves of crazed liberals lighting matches. But have no fear, once this new Constitutional Amendment is in place, wingnut liberals can start burning copies of the Constitution itself in protest. And when they pass a Constitutional Amendment banning burning copies of the Constitution, enraged liberals can start burning copies of the Declaration of Independence in protest. And when they enact a Constitutional Amendment banning burning copies of the Declaration of Independence, traitorous liberals can start burning copies of the Republican platform. And the heroic members of Congress can fight on with more Amendments to the Constitution, defending life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
My father was a company commander (E Company, 66th Infantry, 71st Division) in France, Germany and Austria in WWII. The 71st, by the way, was the division that ended up liberating more concentration camps than any other. To make a long and very interesting story short, when my dad heard about the first flag burning amendment effort years ago, his comment to me was "My men died so that people in this country could burn the flag in protest."
They have nothing better to do than obsess on an issue like flag-burning. Most of them chickenhawks. Most of them heedless to the current and pressing need to provide our soldiers with better protection in Iraq. Most of them supporters of the Bush welfare programs for the rich and for tax-breaks to corporations. Most of them sinking this country into the largest deficit in our history. Most of them careless about our environment and the future health of our children.
But, by God, this witless majority has helped to protect America by fighting for a Constitutional Amendment banning flag-burning. These are the heroic members of Congress defending America.
Imagine that. Millions of pieces of red, white and blue cloth that are one of many symbols of this country threatened by waves of crazed liberals lighting matches. But have no fear, once this new Constitutional Amendment is in place, wingnut liberals can start burning copies of the Constitution itself in protest. And when they pass a Constitutional Amendment banning burning copies of the Constitution, enraged liberals can start burning copies of the Declaration of Independence in protest. And when they enact a Constitutional Amendment banning burning copies of the Declaration of Independence, traitorous liberals can start burning copies of the Republican platform. And the heroic members of Congress can fight on with more Amendments to the Constitution, defending life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
My father was a company commander (E Company, 66th Infantry, 71st Division) in France, Germany and Austria in WWII. The 71st, by the way, was the division that ended up liberating more concentration camps than any other. To make a long and very interesting story short, when my dad heard about the first flag burning amendment effort years ago, his comment to me was "My men died so that people in this country could burn the flag in protest."
Privatizing Morality
How does Bush do it? How does he convince people in a middle class that is losing income, losing high-wage job opportunities, losing health and retirement benefits, and working longer hours, that the Bush future of giving more to the rich and giving less to the poor, while fear-mongering huge increases in military spending, is the best course for America. Arlie Hochschild explains it in the July 2005 issue of The American Prospect.
If you have wondered why so many Americans would vote against their own economic self-interests, she explains it. If you have wondered so many Bush voters are threatened more by homosexuality and abortion than by loss of their jobs, lower wages, loss of health insurance, and loss of retirement benfits, she explains it. Why is it that, for so many millions of Americans, the Rapture replaces temporal concern for the poor?
It's a superb piece of analysis. I urge you to read it.
If you have wondered why so many Americans would vote against their own economic self-interests, she explains it. If you have wondered so many Bush voters are threatened more by homosexuality and abortion than by loss of their jobs, lower wages, loss of health insurance, and loss of retirement benfits, she explains it. Why is it that, for so many millions of Americans, the Rapture replaces temporal concern for the poor?
It's a superb piece of analysis. I urge you to read it.
June 23, 2005
Corporate Money Perverts Medical Studies
Here is the abstract of a study entitled "The prevalence of corporate funding in adult lower extremity research and its correlation with reported results." It's over two years old, but it never received any major coverage in the press at the time.
****************
Abstract
****************
Abstract
The author reviewed 603 consecutive articles and scientific presentations pertaining to adult lower extremity orthopedic research from 2 major American orthopedic journals and 2 major American orthopedic meetings. The prevalence of commercial funding in these studies was 50%. Clinical studies of total hip arthroplasty implants by American investigators were commercially sponsored in 75% of studies. Commercially funded hip research reported positive outcomes in 93% of studies, whereas independently funded researchers reported good results in only 37%. Funded clinical studies of total knee arthroplasty implants yielded good results in 75%; this is in contrast to the findings of independently funded investigators, who reported positive conclusions in only 20% of studies. Investigators receiving royalties reported no negative outcomes related to the respective devices. The source of research funding was strongly correlated with reported outcomes.
****************
I love the way scientists are able to maintain their calm and objective perspective while at the same time reporting direct evidence that corporate money in medical studies results in huge discrepancies (inconsistencies? perversions? aberrations? irregularities?) in results. I wish I could find the right word.
Here is the entire study as reported in the Journal of Arthroplasty
The Washington Post is Drugged
There is "concern," according to The Washington Post, about the increasing amounts of prescription drugs and other toxic materials in our drinking water, and in fish in rivers and streams. The Post's lead sentence says that experts are "starting to question" whether "massive amounts of pharmaceuticals" which are being flushed down toilets and discarded unsafely "pose a threat" to aquatic life and humans.
Let's look at what I believe is the key paragraph of the entire article. Here it is:
"But several rank-and-file EPA employees said senior agency officials have expressed little interest in the subject. Hilary Snook, an EPA research scientist who has been analyzing pharmaceutical levels in about 45 water samples from Maine, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont, said he has yet to receive funding from headquarters for the project. As a result, he said, his office lacks the money to complete the study quickly. 'I don't think there's much political will at all' to tackle the issue, Snook said. 'We should at least look at it. We shouldn't be burying our heads in the sand'."
Why did the reporter not find out and name those "senior agency officials" who have expressed "little interest in the subject." In all likelihood, there is the real story. Find out who those people are and what their background is and you will understand why there is little interest.
But The Washington Post seems to have little interest, too.
Just north of the Washington Post is the home of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore MD. In April 2002, Johns Hopkins University announced a study "aimed at identifying the scope of the nation's prescription drug pollution problems." One of the researchers, after studying the probable environmental concentrations of the 200 most frequently sold and prescribed drugs said she has concluded that anti-depressants, anti-convulsants, anti-cancer drugs and anti-microbials are among the pharmaceuticals most likely to be found at "toxicologically significant levels" in the environment.
All the Washington Post reporter needed to have done is made an internet search using the words PRESCRIPTION DRUG POLLUTION. See what comes up.
Also see my subsequent post and you will have the reason why there is so little interest in finding out about phamaceutical pollution of of water.
Let's look at what I believe is the key paragraph of the entire article. Here it is:
"But several rank-and-file EPA employees said senior agency officials have expressed little interest in the subject. Hilary Snook, an EPA research scientist who has been analyzing pharmaceutical levels in about 45 water samples from Maine, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont, said he has yet to receive funding from headquarters for the project. As a result, he said, his office lacks the money to complete the study quickly. 'I don't think there's much political will at all' to tackle the issue, Snook said. 'We should at least look at it. We shouldn't be burying our heads in the sand'."
Why did the reporter not find out and name those "senior agency officials" who have expressed "little interest in the subject." In all likelihood, there is the real story. Find out who those people are and what their background is and you will understand why there is little interest.
But The Washington Post seems to have little interest, too.
Just north of the Washington Post is the home of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore MD. In April 2002, Johns Hopkins University announced a study "aimed at identifying the scope of the nation's prescription drug pollution problems." One of the researchers, after studying the probable environmental concentrations of the 200 most frequently sold and prescribed drugs said she has concluded that anti-depressants, anti-convulsants, anti-cancer drugs and anti-microbials are among the pharmaceuticals most likely to be found at "toxicologically significant levels" in the environment.
All the Washington Post reporter needed to have done is made an internet search using the words PRESCRIPTION DRUG POLLUTION. See what comes up.
Also see my subsequent post and you will have the reason why there is so little interest in finding out about phamaceutical pollution of of water.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)