'White-Nose Syndrome' and Other Epidemics

Recently I heard a report on NPR's "Science Friday" with Ira Flatow about a mysterious epidemic decimating bat populations throughout the Northeast of the United States. So far the cause of this epidemic, dubbed 'white nose syndrome' for a mysterious white fungus that grows on effected bats noses, is elusive. As scientists try and discover the cause of this massive die-off that was first noticed around two years ago, the sickness continues to spread, threatening more and more bats and posing a serious risk to the species which plays an integral part in our ecosystem.

So far what is known about 'White-Nose Syndrome' is that bats stricken with the disorder either starve to death during hibernation due to a severe depletion of their fat supply, or they wake up from their hibernation hungry and go out of their caves in the dead of winter to try and find food, inevitably dying close to their caves in the cold weather.

This most recently reported epidemic is all the more troublesome because it comes as scientists are trying to grapple with another mysterious epidemic effecting world bee populations. 'Colony Collapse Disorder,' as this epidemic has been called, first appeared, like the epidemic facing bats, around two years ago, and has now spread around the world, possibly as far as Taiwan. The death en masse of bees posses a severe risk to world food supplies, since bees are the primary pollinators of around one-third of U.S. crops.

It is surly premature and purely speculative to connect the inexplicable die-offs of first bees and then bats, yet the similarities of the species - both living in large colonies - their interconnected ecological niches - bats eat many insects related to bees that might also be effected by whatever it is effecting bees - and the mysterious nature of both epidemics, inevitably invite comparison.

The writer/director of The Sixth Sense, M. Night Shyamalan, is working on a new film called The Happening, about a global environmental disaster survived by Mark Wahlberg and friends. In the movie, the first clue that something is up is an epidemic in bee colonies. It seems that Mr. Shyamalan might have to include yet another strange epidemic in his film to really scare his audience with reality.

U.S. vs. Iran

Another great report from Al Jazeera English. Make sure you watch the second half to see how good television journalism is done. 

Part I

Part II

60 Minutes of Propaganda and Pandering

I used to love the CBS news program 60 Minutes. I liked it because it offered accessible investigative news reports on the issues of the day. I continued watching it religiously up until three years ago or so when I went off to college and didn't have a TV. Since my break with 60 Minutes I have learned a lot about the world. Coming back to 60 Minutes now and again I would watch it much more critically, and sure enough, as with most mainstream media programming, holes began to appear.
Tonight's 60 Minutes program was possibly the worst product I have seen come from this bastion of mainstream television journalism. It was such an utterly pathetic program I could not stand to sit through the last 30 minutes. It was a perfect storm of unabashed propaganda, war baiting, sycophancy, and castrated questioning.
To understand why this 60 Minutes program was so bad you really have to watch it, but I will try to communicate what I found so disturbing briefly to the untainted reader. 

The first segment was on the Israeli Air Force. Bob Simon prefaced the piece by saying that "in return for access to its planes and personnel, we had to agree to rigorous censorship." Rigorous censorship? The credulous viewer might argue that Mr. Simon is saying that the Israeli Air Force (IAF) only has veto power over what is shown of their "top secret" bases. That's nonsense. There are countless examples of the damage that "access" with stipulations can have on journalistic integrity. Quite recently I wrote on the perversity of this access game (see here). The truth is that 60 Minutes latched on to the IAF for an easy and cheap story, full of militaristic jingoism and official Israeli talking points, all with a dearth of any substantive information. Bob Simon - the same Bob Simon who was assigned to question the Iranian president, Mr. Ahmadinejad, in a combative and shockingly unprofessional manner - was sucked, most likely willingly, into what was a blatant Israeli PR operation to prepare the citizens of this country for a probable strike/war against Iran. It was all beautifully done. Firstly, the mise en scène was painstakingly established, no doubt with the help of Israeli censors: Mr. Simon toured a high-tech military base, talking to soldiers, some partially obscured, purportedly to hide their identity, but more likely to lend to the sense that what we were seeing was all very hush-hush. The special access suggests that we, the American viewer, have some common cause with Israel, that we are good friends willing to share secrets (I couldn't imagine seeing Mr. Simon spending a day on an Iranian military base talking to soldiers. No, all we see of the Iranians is video of them marching in formation). This initial "inside" look into the IAF was followed by a one-sided history lesson about how Israel took control of the Middle East skies, and how they used their air power to deter the likes of Iraq from acquiring a nuclear weapon. This directly lead into considering how Israel might bomb Iran into stopping nuclear research that they claim is two-years from fruition; a time-line Bob Simon dutifully repeats, failing to mention the U.S. intelligence communities own report (here) that comes to some very different conclusions. To make sure that Americans really comprehend the threat that Iran posses to Israel, we are reminded of the Holocaust, and of how Mr. Ahmadinejad is a new Hitler. The connotations suggested by bringing up the Holocaust are incredibly distasteful, along with comparing Ahmadinejad to Hitler, especially since there are around 30,000 Jews living relatively peacefully in Iran, allowed many more rights than the majority of Palestinians who once called Israel their home.
By the end of this segment the keen and critical observer could see exactly what sort of conclusions the creators of the program wanted the viewer to walk away with: Israel is under threat; Israel can act decisively and humanely (they have "smart" bombs, never mind the thousands of Palestinian dead); If action is needed, Israel has every right to bomb Iran, just as it did against Saddam. The piece was propaganda, nothing more. Shameful propaganda. I don't know why or how something of its low-caliber and dubious type was produced. CBS ought to be ashamed.
The next section of the long hour was not quite as bad as the IAF piece, but it certainly showed just how far 60 Minutes has fallen. Lesley Stahl was assigned a two-part interview Antonin Scalia, the Conservative Supreme Court Justice. She brought up a few good points, which were subsequently brushed aside by the affable Scalia, including the infamous Bush v. Gore decision which handed the election to Bush. Right away the problem was obvious: Ms. Stahl was incredibly underprepared to actually press Scalia for answers that were half-way decent. Her duty is not to give the guy a pulpit from which to preach his point of view; as a journalist she must ask tough questions and get responses. Her lack of ability became too painful to watch when she brought up the question of torture, and then was quickly put on the defensive as Scalia cross-examined her on what she meant by saying that those being tortured were victims of "cruel and unusual punishment". "When he's hurting you trying to get information from you, you don't say he's punishing you; what's he punishing you for?" Lesley Stahl bumbled a response. How about talking about the Geneva Conventions Ms. Stahl, and how the Constitution instructs all members of government to abide by all treaties "made, under the authority of the United States," including the 1949 Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War? When the interview then cut to commercials instead of a followup question on this very pertinent point about torture, I could not watch any more. I left the room, got my computer, and began writing this little polemic.
The Scalia interview is nothing knew to the mainstream media. We hear soft-ball questioning all the time. What was really disturbing for me was recognizing the ever loudening drum-beats moving us towards war with Iran. I hope that the amorphous interest group that wants to fight this new, and undoubtably costly war fail miserably in the ill endeavor. I hope that more people speak up against attacking Iran than spoke up five years ago when we blundered, guns blaring and bombs thundering, into Iraq.

Here is part one of the 60 Minutes program.
Excuse the commercial; they couldn't do the good work they do without it.

Hillary Threatening Genocide?

Good Morning America does not seem to me to be the most apt platform from which to threaten nations with "total obliteration." American's aren't ready for that sort of saber rattling until at least mid-day. But presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton thought it prudent to bid America a good morning with a threat to "obliterate" Iran if it were to attack Israel with nuclear weapons. Now for those not comprehending what "total obliteration" would mean for Iran, let me inform you: it would entail the mass murder of 71 million Iranian civilians.
Beside the magnitude of her provocation, her statement is disturbing on many levels. Firstly, her hypothetical scenario of Iran striking Israel with nuclear weapons is based on facts that are tenuous at best. Who said Iran is even building nuclear weapons? Sure many nations suspect the Iranian regime of coveting a nuclear bomb, but there is also general agreement that such a weapon is a long way of. Hell, even the the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran suspended their nuclear weapons development in 2003 (see here). Secondly, where did the idea of a belligerent Iran, willing to unilaterally attack other nations without direct provocation come from? There is little historical evidence for such claims. The reality is that Iran has been incredibly peaceful in the international arena compared to other nations. They have never invaded another country. In fact, it has been the Iranian people who have been brutalized by foreign powers, most notably by the west's support for Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in 1980. Lastly, why is it prudent to suppose that Iran would even consider using a nuclear weapon against Israel? Like other Middle East nations, Iran's support for the Palestinians is used mainly as a way to curry favor from the Muslim street, and does not directly translate into actions that would eventually benefit the Palestinians. A nuclear strike against Israel would be foolish, and the Iranians are not so ideologically demented to try it. In fact, their foreign policy is remarkably rational. Even their supposed development of weapons makes good sense. They have the warmongering United States on both their East and West borders; do we expect the Iranian regime to take their safety on faith alone, especially with the recent history of the Middle East as a reminder of how willing the U.S. is to go to war? They realize that a nuclear weapon is one very good way to guarantee their safety.
Hillary's comments, when taken with the aforementioned context, seem incredibly demented. But that's U.S. politics. Her playing along with the Bush administration anti-Iran narrative, clearly laid out and documented (see the recent New York Times investigation of Bush administration strategy to sell the war, here) is not just stupid, it's worrisome. If her comments are just fear-mongering as usual, than we ought to be perturbed; if her comments are indicative of her foreign policy, than we ought to be outraged.

Jimmy Carter's Hopeless Peace Effort

Jimmy Carter took a trip to Israel and Syria this week to try and push the peace process forward. The trip was a failure on many fronts, which points to the hopelessness of the situation in Israel/Palestine.
Mr. Carter's trip started off on a bad note. The Bush administration and the Israel government of Ehud Olmert decried his planned meeting with Khaled Meshal, Hamas's exiled political leader, and Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama also distanced themselves from Mr. Carter's talks in Syria. John McCain lambasted them.
The political climate got even chillier though. Not only did Israeli leaders, for the most part, shun the former U.S. president, but, in an unprecedented move, Shin Bet, the Israeli secret service, seems to have declined to coordinate security with Mr. Carter's U.S. secret service entourage. Meanwhile, back home in the U.S., Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice claimed that the State Department had explicitly told Mr. Carter not to meet with Mr Meshal, a claim Mr. Carter calls "absolutely false". I tend to find Jimmy Carter more credible than Madame Rice.
The uproar over Mr. Carter's trip is more than enough evidence to show that the prospects for peace are not good. Far from a diplomatic foible, as many are trying to characterize the trip as, a meeting with Hamas is far overdue and is the best hope for any peace settlement - oh that a peace settlement was wanted by the West and the Israeli government. Hamas has at least some legitimacy among the Palestinian people, more than Fatah can claim. They were elected into government in 2006, only to be immediately boycotted by the international community, and plotted against by the United States in a failed coup attempt (see here). Since Hamas is such a crucial part of the political landscape, it is absolutely ridiculous to ostracize them.
Israel understands this well, and this is why it has continually been in contact with Hamas - not officially of course. The history of Israel's contact with Hamas goes back to its founding, which was helped by Israel's secret service in order to counter balance the PLO. More recently, as Robert Fisk has reported, the Israeli army was in contact with Hamas in order to undermine Arafat and the Oslo agreement. It can also be assured that there is constant, clandestine discussion between the Israeli government and Hamas, especially since the capture of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in 2006.
In other words, all of this grandstanding we see going on is completely empty, for political purposes. Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, has a shaky coalition government that, by design, must pander to extremist elements, and make a big noise about any sensible discussion between political entities. America is beset with narrow-minded Zionists, who cannot understand the grave implications of a continued occupation of the Palestinians, and are flummoxed when anyone exposes the apartheidesque policies of Israel for what they are - as Jimmy Carter did in his book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid".
So all of this context leads us back to Jimmy Carter's trip. He met with Mr. Assad of Syria, reporting that the President thinks that "about 85 percent" of the issues blocking a peace deal between Israel and Syria have been resolved. Mr. Carter also met with Mr. Meshal, who, Mr. Carter says, promised that Hamas would respect the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza if such a state were approved by the Palestinian people in a referendum. Mr. Carter could not secure a release of Gilad Shalit, nor could he commit Hamas to a unilateral ceasefire, at least without some Israeli concessions.
The best thing that came out of Mr. Carter's trip was the, not so revelatory, realization that such a discussion with Hamas can take place. The real question is why Mr. Carter is one of the first to give talks a try. Why hasn't the EU, the U.N., Israel, the U.S., or Tony Blair - envoy on behalf of the EU, UN, U.S. and Russia - talked to one of the most important political players in the ongoing conflict. The lame-old excuse that "we don't talk to terrorists" is tired, and doesn't stand up to any historical scrutiny.
Mr. Carter's trip, and all of the indignation that has gone with it, when taken as part of recent events such as the continued building of settlements in the West Bank by Israel, the killing of Palestinians by Israeli's and Israeli's by Palestinians, the ongoing siege of Gaza and the collective misery it has caused, the hollow pronouncements of present future U.S. presidents on the issue (excluding Nader/Gonzalez of course) and the willingness of despotic Arab government to turn a blind eye to all of it, against the wishes of their people, lead me to conclude that Carter's high-minded goals are unrealistic and destined to fail; unless something big happens.
What could it be, where could it come from? I don't know. Maybe it could come from the U.S., with the people voting for a president other than then the stale three. Maybe it could come from the Middle East - no, I don't think so. Maybe it could come from within Israel, with the ousting of this hawkish and expansionist government. Call me a pessimist; I think this mess is going to last a lot longer than anyone wants to contemplate.

General Embarrassment: The Media

The Pentagon has been running "Psyops" - psychological operations - on the American public to sell a war and then keep it going when it became unpopular. This is what the New York Times revealed on the front of Sundays paper. The investigation, lasting 2-years, was finally able to wrench the incriminating documents - 8,000 pages - from the Pentagon through the Freedom of Information Act, revealing the psyops operation in all its sordid detail. The program to misinform Americans went like this: The Bush administration knew that in order to run a war with as little public meddling as possible they would need to use the media as a PR arm. So communications experts devised a plan to enlist the support of retired officers, who, in retirement, often ran or sat on the boards of big military contractors, as well as dropped by news channels such as CNN, FOX, ABC etc. to give their vaunted opinions on war. The Pentagon had it all worked out: The retired generals were too connected with the military, for profit or personal reasons, to be overly critical. Also, the Pentagon realized that by being fickle with access to top commanders - access that the news networks thought, for some strange reason, brought better information - they could exert control over the retired generals. In short, the Pentagon piled on conflicting interests until the pathetic generals were buried.
The Pentagon understood that anyone with the title of "retired general" was seen as credible by many credulous Americans. Once they had their "message force multipliers" regimented, they organized private sojourns to Iraq, where they were whisked to all the good spots to show how much progress was being made. Meanwhile things were going downhill in the 99.9% Iraq not visited by the message force multipliers. Many of the retired generals said to the Times that they realized that the Pentagon was pulling the fleece over their eyes, but they went along with it anyway because the web of rewards had entrapped them - kind of shameful, isn't it.
So as things got worse and worse, the generals dined on china with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, gave him tips on how he could fight the naysayers in the public and the media, along with a host of other, more prestigious generals in open revolt. In return for all their help, Rumsfeld's office put together gift baskets, if you will, of talking points, that the ret. generals could use to dispel any doubts about the progress in Iraq, or the Defense Secretary running the show.
Now all of this is really no surprise. It was totally obvious to anyone who critically listened to the retired generals that they were full of it. That isn't to say that the The New York Times investigation was a waste; to the contrary. As they say, journalists write the first draft of history, and this little piece is going straight into the historical file as one more deceitful thing done by this administration. But it should have taken a lot less investigating in order to understand what the danger was of having a bunch of ex-army guys on television expected to give a fair and balanced opinion on the war.
Like most stories, this piece points to a more fundamental problem than a conflict of interest, an ethical lapse, or government malfeasance. The root problem is a rot at the heart of corporate media; this rot of principle and purpose is what allowed jokers such as the retired generals on television, masquerading as journalists. This episode also points to a problem with the citizenry of this country. To grudgingly steal terms from the advertising industry, Americans are, by and large, uninformed consumers of news. We don't know what we want from news, and we don't know what good journalism is, and what to look for to spot it. If we really did understand what journalism was all about, and what we hope to gain from reading a newspaper or watching the news, we may become informed consumers of media, and turn off CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, MSNBC and the rest of them, and switch on news with more integrity, or better yet, read news with more integrity.
Truth be told, many watch their news strictly for entertainment, and such infotainment fans cannot be saved. They will continue to follow the antics of the various news personalities with bated breath until the next war is sold by the airwaves.
The lesson that I think we, as well as the smart guys at the networks, ought to take away from this big embarrassment, is that access to top officials does not matter. ACCESS DOES NOT MATTER. Access is actually worse than useless: it is corrupting, as this NYT investigation has shown. The incomparable Middle East correspondent for The Independent, Robert Fisk, put it best when he wrote in "The Great War For Civilization" that

Reporters often justify their own unique form of self-censorship - their uncritical repetition of the statements of generals and major generals - on the grounds that their "access" to senior military officials must be kept open, that this access gives them information that might otherwise be denied their readers. In Northern Ireland and in the Middle East - both among Arab or Iranian military officers and American and British forces - I have found the opposite to be the case. The more journalists challenge authority, the more the military whistleblowers want to talk to them.

Journalism on such a caliber can be applied not only on the battle field, but also on the local, regional, state, federal, and international levels. The best journalism comes from this sort of work, not the verbatim repetition of the press secretaries remarks, or the famous appeal to sources - i.e. sources say... - that are so frequently used by the arbiters of American journalistic integrity.
The networks should have known better, but they will never learn from their mistakes. They were built to play a little bit of news - cheaper the better - sell some advertising - pharmaceuticals for their aging audience - and do it again day after day after day, until a war comes, and more people tune in - more ad revenue. Sure, many of the networks will get rid or thin out their line-up of retired generals, but they still have all those journalists instructed to not rock the boat. Nothings learned by watching these drab boats on placid lakes. My suggestion is to read foreign papers, watch Democracy Now!, and keep checking up on The Main Issue.

Matt Gonzalez on Democracy Now!

This is a great interview with Ralph Nader's vice-presidential running mate Matt Gonzalez. Addressing the issues sorely missing from the talking points of all other presidential candidates, Matt Gonzalez brings this campaign down to earth, while offering some stern rebukes of both Clinton and Obama's (especially Obama's) many illiberal positions. Doesn't Mr. Gonzalez just scream credibility.

The Conservative Nanny State

"The Conservative Nanny State" is a book by the economist Dean Baker that has been highly influential in the way I have viewed economic policy. The book can be bought, or read for free online here, if you don't mind reading it from a computer. If you are not into reading a book at the moment, try and find some time to watch this video I just found of Dean Baker talking about the book in Charleston, West Virginia. The way he talks about economics is fresh and exciting, especially since it departs from all the vapid platitudes we usually hear in the media and from our government. Enjoy!

China Conundrum

I recently wrote about my views on the Olympic torch run through San Francisco. As anyone following the torch's unhappy trip around the globe knows, the San Francisco event was quite an embarrassment. Instead of running the torch along the originally planned route, a decision was made by the mayor and police chief to re-route it away from the thousands protesting, without giving even many police officers notice. A brief torch ceremony occurred at a secure pier away from prying eyes, followed by an unannounced run down Van Ness street, miles away from where everyone thought the torch would pass.
I went down to the embarcadero even so, which wasn't such a bad idea as it turned out. No, I didn't see the torch - that didn't really bother me - but what I did witness was a clash of perspectives and allegiances that are becoming all the more important to consider in a time when power is shifting to the East.

The two main conflicting groups present at the protests were, obviously, Chinese and Tibetans, along with their respective sympathizers. The Tibetan's, as could be guessed, had a monopoly on the sympathizer crowed, although a few socialists stood at the base of Market with a banner reading "Say no to U.S.-CIA campaign against China" - read on, you'll understand why. I witnessed tempers flare many times between rival protesters. The most memorable scuffle was between a mid-forties goateed man and an older Chinese woman, in which he yelled at her "we no buy Chinese goods anymore," as she castigated him inaudibly.

That brief argument sums up the larger issues involved in this debate on the Beijing Olympics: economics and nationalism. The nationalism aspect blinds both sides to the implications of their actions, and the economics of a rising trading power, feeding off of nationalism, brings conflict.

As I understand it, there are two main positions present in U.S. foreign policy towards China. The first position is that it is in the interest of the U.S. to continue to integrate with China so as to take advantage of deep reserves of cheap labor. This position is held by those who's interest it is to see the price of labor continue to decline, especially relative to capital. The more trade between the U.S. and China, the higher profits are able to rise as costs are reduced. The price of goods also fall, benefiting consumers. All of this integration, however, comes at the expense of workers. The second position is that China's rise will inevitably bring a precipitous decline in U.S. power. The opponents of rising China, are, obviously, fairly nationalistic. With hard economic times we are likely to see many more taking up this position. In fact, judging by U.S. troop deployments in the Pacific, those wary of China hold sway at the Pentagon.

Now these two China-policy positions often mix, being championed at different times to different people by the same politicians. If history is any judge, the second position is the one most likely to triumph as China bumps up against the U.S. in its quest for resources to fuel its growth. So far China has gone to places the U.S. refuses to do business in order to fulfill its insatiable appetite for raw materials and energy. These places include Sudan, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Iran, and Venezuela, to name a few off the top of my head. The U.S. and Europe has put up quite a fuss about China's trade with "rogue" nations, even as they too trade with their own personal brutal autocrats and dysfunctional countries, as well as start wars to secure resources. There are no good guys.

The interaction of all of the different interests, perspectives, and policy positions are already putting on quite a show in the lead up to the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. In the corridors of power, in both the U.S. and EU, many different political acts are being staged. Mr. Sarkozy of France is considering a boycott of the opening ceremonies, while Ms. Merkel of Germany has already committed to not showing up. Gordon Brown of Britain is less willing to anger China, and has commited to being at the Olympics ceremonies. In the U.S., the most cacophonous cries for a boycott are coming from the Democratic leadership, especially Nancy Pelosi - I think Ms. Pelosi ought to focus on getting us out of Iraq like she promised and stop being a hypocrite; was that harsh?

All of this brings up the question of what all the fuss is about? Firstly, its about the recent crackdown in Tibet. Secondly, it is about China's human-rights record. Thirdly, its about foreign policy.

As any reasonable person will acknowledge, China's actions against its people, minorities, and citizens of foreign countries have at times been cruel. Yet on many issues things are not as simple as many make them out to be. Take Tibet for example:

Tibet prior to the Chinese invasion was a feudal society. The monasteries and aristocracy owned most of the land, which was worked by a large underclass of serfs. China also had some merit in claiming Tibet as a part of historical China, although going back further than a hundred years to gain invasion license is going to be messy.

The first incarnation - no pun intended - of Chinese rule was fairly light, granting autonomy to much of Tibet, although in two provinces considered not part of Tibet, the Chinese began a land redistribution project that led to a general insurrection. This insurrection in 1959 was supported by the CIA, but eventually it failed. During the insurrection, the Chinese clamped down brutally and killed thousands. Since the rebellion, the Chinese have followed a sometimes-socialist policy, along with efforts to colonize areas with ethnic groups other than Tibetans.

The apparent undermining of Tibetan culture has sparked protests among many Tibetans. China views such protests, as any nation would, as separatist impulses, and, with the memory of CIA involvement from '59 through the 70's, is loth to come to compromises that would undermine its authority. The issue of Tibet has also been staked on principles of territorial integrity: how could the Chinese hope to deal with Taiwan if they were to spin off Tibet as an autonomous region. Add to all this the fact that China's steadfast policy on its rebellious provinces has proven to be pretty successful in holding the country together - Taiwan just elected a pro-Chinese government that wants to further integrate with the mainland - and it is understandable why China does not find it necessary to compromise on Tibet.

On its other inhumane aberrations, the Chinese leadership is just following the example of the rest of the international community. Sudan, where estimates put the death toll at between 180,000-400,000 with over 2 million people displaced, is China's main oil provider, and thus a major trading partner. I see China's involvement in Sudan directly comparable to the U.S. in Iraq, another country with massive oil reserves. Estimates of dead due to the U.S. invasion of Iraq are over 600,000 (John Hopkins University Study) with over 4 million people displaced. While China is giving tacit support to a genocidal regime, the U.S. is active in killing thousands of Iraqis, while acting as an occupational force. The majority of Iraqi's want the U.S. to leave, but the U.S. does not care. Knowing all this, it is a little hypocritical for U.S. leaders to preach human rights (lets not forget Guantanamo as well) as they are committed to a protractive war in Iraq.

The last question that needs to be answered is what the people of China think of the international reprobation of their country? They don't like it, as was on display in San Francisco. They see the condemnation of the EU and U.S., I believe rightfully so, as the first step in a PR war to delegitimize China, rightly or wrongly. Once China is brought low, it becomes much easier to create momentum towards war.
China by no means is a country that deserves much praise. But, by the standards being applied to China, neither does most other countries in the world. In fact China, a huge country with the infamously large million-man army, has been far less belligerent than the morally righteous United States.

Again, it is good to remember there are no good guys in foreign relations. Mostly everyones records have been irreparably tarnished. We ought to remember that and look for protesting positions that circumvent the policies of morally bankrupt states.

Count Me Out: The Obama Craze

By MATT GONZALEZ

Part of me shares the enthusiasm for Barack Obama. After all, how could someone calling themself a progressive not sense the importance of what it means to have an African-American so close to the presidency? But as his campaign has unfolded, and I heard that we are not red states or blue states for the 6th or 7th time, I realized I knew virtually nothing about him.

Like most, I know he gave a stirring speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. I know he defeated Alan Keyes in the Illinois Senate race; although it wasn't much of a contest (Keyes was living in Maryland when he announced). Recently, I started looking into Obama's voting record, and I'm afraid to say I'm not just uninspired: I'm downright fearful. Here's why:

This is a candidate who says he's going to usher in change; that he is a different kind of politician who has the skills to get things done. He reminds us again and again that he had the foresight to oppose the war in Iraq. And he seems to have a genuine interest in lifting up the poor.

But his record suggests that he is incapable of ushering in any kind of change I'd like to see. It is one of accommodation and concession to the very political powers that we need to reign in and oppose if we are to make truly lasting advances.

THE WAR IN IRAQ

Let's start with his signature position against the Iraq war. Obama has sent mixed messages at best.

First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. Once he was running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.
The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute." The Tribune went on to say that Obama, "now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration."

Obama's campaign says he was referring to the ongoing occupation and how best to stabilize the region. But why wouldn't he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war? Was he trying to signal to conservative voters that he would subjugate his anti-war position if elected to the US Senate and perhaps support a lengthy occupation? Well as it turns out, he's done just that.

Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion. He also voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her complicity in the Bush Administration's various false justifications for going to war in Iraq. Why would he vote to make one of the architects of "Operation Iraqi Liberation" the head of US foreign policy? Curiously, he lacked the courage of 13 of his colleagues who voted against her confirmation.

And though he often cites his background as a civil rights lawyer, Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, easily the worse attack on civil liberties in the last half-century. It allows for wholesale eavesdropping on American citizens under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts.

And in March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called Lieberman "his mentor" and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial contributions to him. This is the same Lieberman who Alexander Cockburn called "Bush's closest Democratic ally on the Iraq War." Why would Obama have done that if he was truly against the war?

Recently, with anti-war sentiment on the rise, Obama declared he will get our combat troops out of Iraq in 2009. But Obama isn't actually saying he wants to get all of our troops out of Iraq. At a September 2007 debate before the New Hampshire primary, moderated by Tim Russert, Obama refused to commit to getting our troops out of Iraq by January 2013 and, on the campaign trail, he has repeatedly stated his desire to add 100,000 combat troops to the military.

At the same event, Obama committed to keeping enough soldiers in Iraq to "carry out our counter-terrorism activities there" which includes "striking at al Qaeda in Iraq." What he didn't say is this continued warfare will require an estimated 60,000 troops to remain in Iraq according to a May 2006 report prepared by the Center for American Progress. Moreover, it appears he intends to "redeploy" the troops he takes out of the unpopular war in Iraq and send them to Afghanistan. So it appears that under Obama's plan the US will remain heavily engaged in war.

This is hardly a position to get excited about.

CLASS ACTION REFORM:

In 2005, Obama joined Republicans in passing a law dubiously called the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) that would shut down state courts as a venue to hear many class action lawsuits. Long a desired objective of large corporations and President George Bush, Obama in effect voted to deny redress in many of the courts where these kinds of cases have the best chance of surviving corporate legal challenges. Instead, it forces them into the backlogged Republican-judge dominated federal courts.

By contrast, Senators Clinton, Edwards and Kerry joined 23 others to vote against CAFA, noting the "reform" was a thinly-veiled "special interest extravaganza" that favored banking, creditors and other corporate interests. David Sirota, the former spokesman for Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee, commented on CAFA in the June 26, 2006 issue of The Nation, "Opposed by most major civil rights and consumer watchdog groups, this Big Business-backed legislation was sold to the public as a way to stop "frivolous" lawsuits. But everyone in Washington knew the bill's real objective was to protect corporate abusers."

Nation contributor Dan Zegart noted further: "On its face, the class-action bill is mere procedural tinkering, transferring from state to federal court actions involving more than $5 million where any plaintiff is from a different state from the defendant company. But federal courts are much more hostile to class actions than their state counterparts; such cases tend to be rooted in the finer points of state law, in which federal judges are reluctant to dabble. And even if federal judges do take on these suits, with only 678 of them on the bench (compared with 9,200 state judges), already overburdened dockets will grow. Thus, the bill will make class actions most of which involve discrimination, consumer fraud and wage-and-hour violations all but impossible. One example: After forty lawsuits were filed against Wal-Mart for allegedly forcing employees to work "off the clock," four state courts certified these suits as class actions. Not a single federal court did so, although the practice probably involves hundreds of thousands of employees nationwide."

Why would a civil rights lawyer knowingly make it harder for working-class people to have their day in court, in effect shutting off avenues of redress?

CREDIT CARD INTEREST RATES:

Obama has a way of ducking hard votes or explaining away his bad votes by trying to blame poorly-written statutes. Case in point: an amendment he voted on as part of a recent bankruptcy bill before the US Senate would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. Inexplicably, Obama voted against it, although it would have been the beginning of setting these predatory lending rates under federal control. Even Senator Hillary Clinton supported it.

Now Obama explains his vote by saying the amendment was poorly written or set the ceiling too high. His explanation isn't credible as Obama offered no lower number as an alternative, and didn't put forward his own amendment clarifying whatever language he found objectionable.

Why wouldn't Obama have voted to create the first federal ceiling on predatory credit card interest rates, particularly as he calls himself a champion of the poor and middle classes? Perhaps he was signaling to the corporate establishment that they need not fear him. For all of his dynamic rhetoric about lifting up the masses, it seems Obama has little intention of doing anything concrete to reverse the cycle of poverty many struggle to overcome.

LIMITING NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES:

These seemingly unusual votes wherein Obama aligns himself with Republican Party interests aren't new. While in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted to limit the recovery that victims of medical malpractice could obtain through the courts. Capping non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases means a victim cannot fully recover for pain and suffering or for punitive damages. Moreover, it ignored that courts were already empowered to adjust awards when appropriate, and that the Illinois Supreme Court had previously ruled such limits on tort reform violated the state constitution.

In the US Senate, Obama continued interfering with patients' full recovery for tortious conduct. He was a sponsor of the National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act of 2005. The bill requires hospitals to disclose errors to patients and has a mechanism whereby disclosure, coupled with apologies, is rewarded by limiting patients' economic recovery. Rather than simply mandating disclosure, Obama's solution is to trade what should be mandated for something that should never be given away: namely, full recovery for the injured patient.

MINING LAW OF 1872:

In November 2007, Obama came out against a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872. The current statute, signed into law by Ulysses Grant, allows mining companies to pay a nominal fee, as little as $2.50 an acre, to mine for hardrock minerals like gold, silver, and copper without paying royalties. Yearly profits for mining hardrock on public lands is estimated to be in excess of $1 billion a year according to Earthworks, a group that monitors the industry. Not surprisingly, the industry spends freely when it comes to lobbying: an estimated $60 million between 1998-2004 according to The Center on Public Integrity. And it appears to be paying off, yet again.

The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007 would have finally overhauled the law and allowed American taxpayers to reap part of the royalties (4 percent of gross revenue on existing mining operations and 8 percent on new ones). The bill provided a revenue source to cleanup abandoned hardrock mines, which is likely to cost taxpayers over $50 million, and addressed health and safety concerns in the 11 affected western states.

Later it came to light that one of Obama's key advisors in Nevada is a Nevada-based lobbyist in the employ of various mining companies (CBS News "Obama's Position On Mining Law Questioned. Democrat Shares Position with Mining Executives Who Employ Lobbyist Advising Him," November 14, 2007).

REGULATING NUCLEAR INDUSTRY:

The New York Times reported that, while campaigning in Iowa in December 2007, Obama boasted that he had passed a bill requiring nuclear plants to promptly report radioactive leaks. This came after residents of his home state of Illinois complained they were not told of leaks that occurred at a nuclear plant operated by Exelon Corporation.

The truth, however, was that Obama allowed the bill to be amended in Committee by Senate Republicans, replacing language mandating reporting with verbiage that merely offered guidance to regulators on how to address unreported leaks. The story noted that even this version of Obama's bill failed to pass the Senate, so it was unclear why Obama was claiming to have passed the legislation. The February 3, 2008 The New York Times article titled "Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate" by Mike McIntire also noted the opinion of one of Obama's constituents, which was hardly enthusiastic about Obama's legislative efforts:

"Senator Obama's staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft," said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. "The teeth were just taken out of it."

As it turns out, the New York Times story noted: "Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama's campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers."

ENERGY POLICY:

On energy policy, it turns out Obama is a big supporter of corn-based ethanol which is well known for being an energy-intensive crop to grow. It is estimated that seven barrels of oil are required to produce eight barrels of corn ethanol, according to research by the Cato Institute. Ethanol's impact on climate change is nominal and isn't "green" according to Alisa Gravitz, Co-op America executive director. "It simply isn't a major improvement over gasoline when it comes to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions." A 2006 University of Minnesota study by Jason Hill and David Tilman, and an earlier study published in BioScience in 2005, concur. (There's even concern that a reliance on corn-based ethanol would lead to higher food prices.)

So why would Obama be touting this as a solution to our oil dependency? Could it have something to do with the fact that the first presidential primary is located in Iowa, corn capital of the country? In legislative terms this means Obama voted in favor of $8 billion worth of corn subsidies in 2006 alone, when most of that money should have been committed to alternative energy sources such as solar, tidal and wind.

SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE:

Obama opposed single-payer bill HR676, sponsored by Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers in 2006, although at least 75 members of Congress supported it. Single-payer works by trying to diminish the administrative costs that comprise somewhere around one-third of every health care dollar spent, by eliminating the duplicative nature of these services. The expected $300 billion in annual savings such a system would produce would go directly to cover the uninsured and expand coverage to those who already have insurance, according to Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler, an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.

Obama's own plan has been widely criticized for leaving health care industry administrative costs in place and for allowing millions of people to remain uninsured. "Sicko" filmmaker Michael Moore ridiculed it saying, "Obama wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan-the same companies who have created the mess in the first place."

NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT:

Regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement, Obama recently boasted, "I don't think NAFTA has been good for Americans, and I never have." Yet, Calvin Woodward reviewed Obama's record on NAFTA in a February 26, 2008 Associated Press article and found that comment to be misleading: "In his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama said the US should pursue more deals such as NAFTA, and argued more broadly that his opponent's call for tariffs would spark a trade war. AP reported then that the Illinois senator had spoken of enormous benefits having accrued to his state from NAFTA, while adding that he also called for more aggressive trade protections for US workers."

Putting aside campaign rhetoric, when actually given an opportunity to protect workers from unfair trade agreements, Obama cast the deciding vote against an amendment to a September 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill, proposed by North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, that would have prohibited US trade negotiators from weakening US laws that provide safeguards from unfair foreign trade practices. The bill would have been a vital tool to combat the outsourcing of jobs to foreign workers and would have ended a common corporate practice known as "pole-vaulting" over regulations, which allows companies doing foreign business to avoid "right to organize," "minimum wage," and other worker protections.

SOME FINAL EXAMPLES:

On March 2, 2007 Obama gave a speech at AIPAC, America's pro-Israeli government lobby, wherein he disavowed his previous support for the plight of the Palestinians. In what appears to be a troubling pattern, Obama told his audience what they wanted to hear. He recounted a one-sided history of the region and called for continued military support for Israel, rather than taking the opportunity to promote the various peace movements in and outside of Israel.

Why should we believe Obama has courage to bring about change? He wouldn't have his picture taken with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom when visiting San Francisco for a fundraiser in his honor because Obama was scared voters might think he supports gay marriage (Newsom acknowledged this to Reuters on January 26, 2007 and former Mayor Willie Brown admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle on February 5, 2008 that Obama told him he wanted to avoid Newsom for that reason.)

Obama acknowledges the disproportionate impact the death penalty has on blacks, but still supports it, while other politicians are fighting to stop it. (On December 17, 2007 New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine signed a bill banning the death penalty after it was passed by the New Jersey Assembly.)

On September 29, 2006, Obama joined Republicans in voting to build 700 miles of double fencing on the Mexican border (The Secure Fence Act of 2006), abandoning 19 of his colleagues who had the courage to oppose it. But now that he's campaigning in Texas and eager to win over Mexican-American voters, he says he'd employ a different border solution.

It is shocking how frequently and consistently Obama is willing to subjugate good decision making for his personal and political benefit.

Obama aggressively opposed initiating impeachment proceedings against the president ("Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable," USA Today, June 28, 2007) and he wouldn't even support Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold's effort to censure the Bush administration for illegally wiretapping American citizens in violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In Feingold's words "I'm amazed at Democrats cowering with this president's number's so low." Once again, it's troubling that Obama would take these positions and miss the opportunity to document the abuses of the Bush regime.

CONCLUSION:

Once I started looking at the votes Obama actually cast, I began to hear his rhetoric differently. The principal conclusion I draw about "change" and Barack Obama is that Obama needs to change his voting habits and stop pandering to win votes. If he does this he might someday make a decent candidate who could earn my support. For now Obama has fallen into a dangerous pattern of capitulation that he cannot reconcile with his growing popularity as an agent of change.

I remain impressed by the enthusiasm generated by Obama's style and skill as an orator. But I remain more loyal to my values, and I'm glad to say that I want no part in the Obama craze sweeping our country.

Matt Gonzalez is a former president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and is running on Nader's ticket as a vice presidential candidate.

Nepal's Upcoming Election

Nepal, the last Hindu monarchy, will be holding parliamentary elections on April 10. This two-part report by Al-Jazeera highlights the difficult political situation in this small Himalayan country racked by poverty, warfare, and social unrest.

The Olympic Torch in San Francisco

No one wants a repeat of the 1936 Olympic games in Berlin, in which the world largely went along with an event propagandizing the triumphs of the Third Reich. Yet there is also a wariness to jump to such a comparison between the 2008 Olympics in Beijing and the Olympics of over seventy years ago. Sure, China's human rights record is egregious, and its foreign policy, while less destructive than the United States', is quite repugnant, but they are also not retooling their economy for war, nor are there signs of ingrained racism in the government. Many say that exerting positive pressure on China to change its behavior towards Tibet, the situation in Sudan, Myanmar, and North Korea, is a far better approach than condemnation and negative pressure. The Olympics, these positive pressure proponents argue, is a perfect opportunity to cajole China towards less authoritarianism at home, and more constructive world citizenship abroad. Show China the benefit of world respect, and they will, possibly slowly at first, begin to come around to emulating the better parts of free, western democracies.
There are signs that such an approach towards China can work, to an extent: China has responded to international pressure on many international issues. But when it comes to domestic policy, international positive pressure has done little to soften China's authoritarian tendencies. The internet is still on lock down, Taiwan is still part of China - although recently Taiwanese seem to have acquiesced - Tibet is forced to accept Chinese control, and democracy is a long-way off. Recent events in Tibet show that even with the world's eyes on China in the lead-up to the Olympics, the Communist government is leaving little room for compromise. While not as brutal as the '89 crackdowns, the events in Lhasa last month show very little softening in China's approach to domestic unrest.
On April 9 the Olympic torch will be run along the Embarcadero in San Francisco under unprecedented security. The ceremonies have so far been marred by protests throughout the world. In London, the torch was almost put out by protesters with fire extinguishers, and in Paris, the torch had to be doused a number of times so that it could be rerouted around thousands of protesters. Many people have asked themselves the question of what their response should be to the Beijing Olympics, and the answer has been quite simple: protest. While it may not change China's ways, it certainly satisfies the motivation to do something, anything, in the face of injustice. On Tibet inparticular, China has chosen not only an abusive policy, but also a policy that does not make any sense, and they ought to know that the international community can't stand by as they crack down on a subjugated people. So on April 9th, after my class, I'll head down to the Embarcadero and join in with the protesters.

The events in Paris:

John Adams

I've only watched the first installment of the HBO original series on John Adams, but so far I am very impressed. HBO purportedly spent over $100 million dollars on the production. Thankfully, the series, so far, has been without the usual corniness of big-budget historical films. Instead, the script has been insightful and honest. I was somewhat apprehensive of Paul Giamatti's ability to play John Adams, but so far I think his performance has been remarkable. Laura Linney has also been outstanding in the role of Abigail Adams. If you get the chance, be sure to watch this, or else rent it when it comes out.

Corporate-Do-Good

Anyone traveling around San Francisco recently cannot help but notice a new advertisement appearing on public transport and bus shelters for a mobile phone service provider called Credo Mobile. The typical advert is orange and dark blue (the color combo screams for attention). A typical phone conversation beginning in the blue section merges into a political "socially aware" statement in the orange section. For example: (in the blue) i'll bring the chips and di (in the orange) preserve forests. On their website they are more explicit with their message: Change your plan, change the world.
Credo Mobile is the most blatant example I have found of the new business of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Credo is founded on the idea of donating 1% of your cell phone charges to "progressive non-profit groups". Most business' taking part in the CSR "revolution" have far less at stake in the new venture - it's tough getting into the cell phone service business - but they still realize that the times are a-changing, and they better lead, follow, or fail. So they make sure everyone knows about their new initiatives, their green product lines, their fair traded produce.
The truth is, all of this corporate do-goodery is nothing new. Companies have been setting aside profits for philanthropy for some time now. The legal precedent for corporations to allocate profits to "socially responsible" causes was set in the infancy of the corporation. One very interesting precedent setting case was in Theodora Holding Corp v Henderson in 1969, where the judge found that corporations should conduct philanthropy, lest "an aroused public" realize the real nature of the corporation and try to change things around (I have to thank Noam Chomsky for informing me of the exact court case).
So now here we are today, facing big problems, and looking for someone, anyone, who can address them. The last years have seen a grossly ineffectual government with little interest in working for public welfare, so naturally, many have turned to the next big power nexus for solutions: private industry. And as outlined before, private industry had just the legally acceptable palliative for our nations ills; at least that is what we are told.
Unfortunately, the future is a little less bright for many reasons. Firstly, there is no substitute for good government. You can have the most socially contentious business in the world, but it is still a business, and a business' only concern is to stay in business, and make a profit. Under the right circumstances this capitalist system can create fabulous wealth, but it creates wealth only for its customers and itself, not for society as a whole. If interests are harmonized, and business interests and societies interests are one and the same, then we have CSR, but most of the time, business interests only serve the interests of a portion of society. Too bad, huh. It could have been perfect. So we need government to represent the stakeholders of society.
Second problem: CSR is usually PR. Remember Theodora Holding Corp v Henderson? Remember assuaging the anxiety of "an aroused public"? Corporations remember as well, and so they dutifully donate to Ballets and Museums and give out free drugs to the poor (see here) so as to present an image of responsibility to the public. This sort of philanthropy, no doubt, can do a lot of good, just as Rockefeller's ill-gotten oil wealth did build a lot of libraries, but the gains of CSR are a little uneven and often not all they are cracked up to be. Voluntarily greening your business is not the same as making green business practices standard, but companies would like to make you believe it is, so you don't pester your congress man or woman for more regulation.
This is not to say that there are some good things coming out of the CSR movement. Consumers are making it clear that they want the products they buy to be ethically produced or grown, and companies are listening. This market driven approach makes up a big part of the change being described as new corporate responsibility.
Yet while there is good news, we must remember that the key (missing) ingredient is government. Programs such as Bank on San Francisco, a public-private partnership to provide free checking accounts to the poor, shows what can be done only through the effort of government. Before City Hall got involved, banks, for all their philanthropy, did not offer free checking accounts to the poor.