MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: January 21, 2007

« January 14, 2007 - January 20, 2007 | Main | January 28, 2007 - February 3, 2007 »

January 27, 2007

Washington Marchers Demand Congress Stop the War

protester%20on%20poll.jpg

The tens of thousands of antiwar protestors gathered on the National Mall today had their gazes fixed squarely on the U.S. Capitol, in more ways than one. The theme of the day seemed to be that the new Democratic-controlled Congress could—and perhaps would—stop the war, an idea rooted more in sincere wishful thinking than in reality.

Amid the peaceful demonstration, CNN reported, "about 300 protesters tried to rush the Capitol, running up the grassy lawn to the front of the building." Their chant was "Our Congress," while "several dozen shouting 'We want a tour' broke away and tried to get into a side door." In a move that may well turn out to be highly symbolic, police, after scuffling with the protestors, set up a series of barricades on the Capitol steps.

John Conyers, the Detroit Democrat who heads the House Judiciary Committee, spoke to the demonstrators’ hopes, promising to defund the war if Bush doesn’t stop it. "George Bush has a habit of firing military leaders who tell him the Iraq war is failing," he said, but "He can't fire you." And, in a reference to Congress, "He can't fire us... The founders of our country gave our Congress the power of the purse because they envisioned a scenario exactly like we find ourselves in today. Not only is it in our power, it is our obligation to stop Bush."

condi%20and%20crew.jpg fonda%2C%20sarandon%2C%20robbins.jpg raging%20grannies.jpg

While it may be encouraging to see figures like Conyers in positions of power in Congress, the general attitude of the Democrats is less promising. Antiwar public opinion might stiffen the Dems, but cutting off funds is a doubtful prospect. Any such cutoff of funds must begin in the House Appropriations Committee, where John Murtha’s subcommittee on military spending holds sway. Murtha has said he is all for defunding the war, but his principal patron, Nancy Pelosi, has never suggested cutting off money for the troops. The Blue Dog Dems, perhaps the most powerful swing bloc in the House, are even less likely to do so.

In fact, a move in Congress to defund Iraq is just what the Republican Right wants. Since Congress has no power to actually pull out troops, they are left with the prospect of cutting off funding for troops still locked in combat. Pro-war Republicans lie in ambush waiting for that fatal political move, which will send their ranks storming out of the trenches screaming that the Dems want to "cut and run," leaving our troops twisting in the wind.

The presence at the antiwar rally of Jane Fonda, who emerged as the major personage of the day, immediately linked the Iraq conflict to Vietnam, and she made that plain in her speech, citing: "Blindness to realities on the ground, hubris... thoughtlessness in our approach to rebuilding a country we've destroyed." The Vietnam parallel in fact presents a history lesson for those depending on Congress to get us out of Iraq: One Democratic Congress after another backed the Vietnam War. The Democratic president, LBJ, went down because he supported the war. Humphrey backed the war. And in the end, it wasn’t Congress, but Richard Nixon, who finally, reluctantly, brought the troops home.

--Photos by Caroline Dobuzinskis

January 26, 2007

K-Fed an Insult to Fast Food

K-Fed just can't get a break. Fresh off of his split from Britney, the stay-at-home-rapper swung a sweet deal with Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. (yes, at least someone is "On Your Side," Kev) to star in a Super Bowl commercial where he essentially daydreams of being a star and then wakes up to find himself merely a burger flipper.

Nothing groundbreaking here people. Fast food work is not exactly glory-filled, and pop culture calls attention to that fact quite often. Still, this week the National Restaurant Association asked the insurance company to pull the ad saying that it: "give[s] the impression that working in a restaurant is a demeaning and unpleasant," and stands as a "direct insult to the 12.8 million Americans who work in the restaurant industry."

Now wait, does an ad expressing disappointment at being a minimum wage, part-time worker with no benefits rather than a millionaire rap mogul really strike you as demeaning? (Even if that worker is Kevin Federline.)

Did they also object to the ending of American Beauty where another Kevin (Spacey) got a job flipping burgers so he wouldn't have to think about anything? Maybe the NRA (could have switched around their name for a more kindly acronym?) should come to the rescue of their "insulted" workers in more substantive ways: let them unionize, increase their wages, and improve working conditions. For starters, just leave Kevin alone.

NY Times Pokes Fun at an Iraqi Parliament in Shambles

You know there's trouble when this is the lede in the New York Times:

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s presentation of a new Baghdad security plan to the Iraqi Parliament on Thursday broke down in bitter sectarian recriminations, with Mr. Maliki threatening a Sunni Arab lawmaker with arrest and, in response, the Sunni speaker of Parliament threatening to quit.

Nice. What else can you tell us, gray lady?

The prime minister’s claim [that Iraqi law enforcement will hit Shiites as hard as Sunnis] was challenged by Abdul Nasir al-Janabi, who represents a powerful Sunni Arab bloc. "We can not trust the office of the prime minister," he said over jeers from the Shiite politicians before his microphone was cut off.

And how did our esteemed Prime Minister respond? With the equanimity of someone in his illustrious and weighty position, I presume? With the knowledge that his behavior in this time of national strife could determine the outcome of a new republic?

Mr. Maliki could barely contain his rage, waving his finger in the air and essentially accusing Mr. Nasir of being a criminal.

"I will show you," Mr. Maliki said. "I will turn over the documents on you" showing all your crimes, "then you can talk about trust," Mr. Maliki said.

Oh my. But it did eventually settle down? Must have, right? After all, this session of parliament was televised for the Iraqi citizenry to see.

As the prime minister continued, Shiites encouraged [the Prime Minister] on and Sunni Arabs tried to shout him down.

Mr. Mashhadani [speaker of the Parliament] yelled for everyone to "shut up."

Wow. Washington, Jefferson, and Madison this group is not. Tell me, New York Times, was there anything super-ironic that might make all of this even more absurd?

The lawmakers had their shouting match while sitting beneath a banner with a phrase from the Koran extolling civil debate as the key to good decisions.

Well, good. Now America's greatest newspaper has subtly mocked the country we invaded and then provided with a broken infrastructure and sham government. Somehow, I feel as though everyone involved in this depressing circus has let each other down.

Lower Breast Cancer Rates May Not Mean Less Cancer

According to a report released today by the CDC, fully 1.1 million fewer women aged 40 and over had mammograms last year than in 2000. This decline might explain, in part, the recent drop in breast cancer rates in the U.S., meaning rates might not actually be going down. Fewer diagnoses does not mean fewer cases, just fewer known cases. So, while we have seen detection rates decrease, deaths from breast cancer could increase, the report says.

The reason for the drop is unclear but the CDC researchers point to a couple of disturbing trends that move beyond the taking-it-for-granted explanation:

"One study has indicated that breast-imaging facilities face challenges such as shortages of key personnel, malpractice concerns and financial constraints."

"Because the number of U.S. women aged more than 40 years increased by more than 24 million during 1990 to 2000, the number of available facilities and trained breast specialists might not be sufficient to meet the needs of the population, whose overall median age continues to increase."

This feels wrong. Wrong, not in the incorrect sense, but wrong in the how can there not-be-enough-facilities-for-such-basic-needs sense. And let's get some more "breast specialists" trained, this is a must people.

The report did not look at mammography rates by age, geographic region or socioeconomic status though the researchers say they do plan on examining whether the decrease in mammography rates is concentrated among certain groups, such as the poor and uninsured.

Each year, more than 200,000 women in the U.S. are diagnosed with breast cancer and about 40,000 die from the disease. According to the report, screening might reduce breast cancer mortality by 20% to 35% among women ages 50 to 69 and by 20% among women ages 40 to 49.

Q: What Do Dolphin-Mounted Weapons and NSA Wiretapping Have in Common?

A: The government has claimed that they are "state secrets" and therefore cannot be discussed in court. The state secrets privilege, as Mother Jones reported in August, is basically a get-out-of-court-free card.

Bad news for Bush, the government's attempt to invoke the privilege was denied in several suits brought against it as a result of warrantless wiretapping by the NSA. But, the New York Times reports today, the government is still using Kafkaesque tactics to make the suit difficult for the plaintiffs. The Justice Department is filing its legal briefs in an office in its own building. It promises the employees guarding the briefs and the litigators in the case are separate and that the documents have not been altered—but the funny thing about lying is that it makes everything you say in the future suspect. Government lawyers have also demanded that a document accidentally provided to an Oregon Muslim charity, documenting warrantless surveillance of the group, be returned to the FBI even though the document is the primary evidence the charity is using to claim damages.

Kinda makes your head spin, doesn't it?

Victory Over Wal-Mart for Overtimers

Mother Jones has always been hot on the Wal-Mart beat. In November of last year, when San Diego banned Wal-Mart Supercenters, I summarized on MoJoBlog.

Mother Jones has written a ton about Wal-Mart in the past, including this feature on Wal-Mart employees being so fed up with low wages, unpaid overtime, and union busting that they started fighting back, this blog post about how Wal-Mart's claims about going organic are a big fat lie, this blog post about how Wal-Mart could raise wages by more than $2,000 per employee and still maintain profit margins almost 50 percent higher than Costco, this short article about how Rick Santorum sided with Wal-Mart over his own beleaguered constituents, this essay about how Wal-Mart's "Made in America" claims are deceitful and disgusting, and on and on.

Today, a new addition. Wal-Mart has agreed to settle a case in which 87,000 employees sued for unpaid overtime wages. Specifically, Wal-Mart has agreed to pay $33 million, which averages out to be $379 per employee involved. Hilariously, though, the damages paid to each employee range from a few cents to, in one instance, $39,000.

If you are a Wal-Mart employee and are wondering if you are due any unpaid overtime, you can go here to find out.

Bernie Kerik To Try His Luck In Guyana

Bernie Kerik, who rose to fame after 9/11, is now headed to Guyana where he will be a new state security advisor, working alongside the President and the national security ministry. Kerik was the New York City police commissioner when the 9/11 attacks occured and was subsequently praised for his department's valor.

But Kerik's career since then has been marred by scandal. And, we mustn't forget his stellar performance in Iraq. The NYPD hero took over a police advisory role in the country in May of 2003, but due to his less than sufficient preparation -- he watched A&E documentaries on Saddam Hussein to prepare -- and lack of experience in Iraq, he proved to be incompetent in the role. He held only two staff meetings while in the country and returned having failed. (To be fair, the administration did not send enough advisers to Iraq despite numerous recommendations to do so.) The lack of competent police advising would prove to be one of the gravest errors made by the adminstration to date. For more examples of the adminstration's incompetence regarding Iraq, see the Mother Jones timeline.

Kerik, though, certainly has a nose for a deal. One can only imagine how much his one year contract in Guyana, which begins next month, is worth.

More Good News About Factory Farming

Smithfield Foods Inc., the nation's largest pork producer, announced yesterday that it is phasing out the use of gestation crates at all of its farms. Smithfield says that within ten years, it will have no gestion crates at any of its facilities. Ten years is a long time for hundreds of thousands of pigs to continue to suffer, but the announcement is nevertheless a major breakthrough in the fight against corporate animal abuse.

Bush to Congress: "I'm Still Making the Decisions Around Here"

This morning, President Bush told reporters, regarding Congress' opposition to escalation, that he really doesn't care.

"Most people recognize that failure would be a distaster for the United States. And, that I'm the decision-maker. I had to come up with a way forward that precluded distaster."

For what it's worth, I think I personally preferred "the Decider."

January 25, 2007

Shi'a Iraqi Soldiers Beat Sunnis As American Soldiers Cheer Them On

Footage of the beating of Sunnis by Shi'a Iraqi soldiers is available here. Obtained by a British public television station, the footage shows the Sunnis being beaten with fists, kicked, and beaten with the butts of weapons. While the beatings are taking place, American soldiers taunt the Sunnis and cheer on the Shi'a soldiers, then help load the victims into the back of a truck.

The beatings were witnessed by two journalists from the First Cavalry division. According to the British television station, American troops threatened the journalists and held them under armed guard, threatening to seize their footage. A U.S. Army commander reports that he has taken action to suspend the platoon sergeant.

Farewell to Ryszard Kapuscinski

Ryszard Kapuscinksi, the Polish foreign correspondent, astute observer of the Third World and fixture of most college courses on literary nonfiction for the last 25 years, passed away today. He was best known in the United States for the translations of his books on wars and revolutions, told through the eye of a nation that had itself been victim to conquest and subjugation. He was criticized in his later years for being somewhat essentialist on the matter of race and culture, and for being more literary than literal in his use of facts, but he remains one of the great chroniclers of post-colonial tumult in Africa and the Middle East, a journalist of exemplary courage and a writer of great empathy.

While riding the bus this week, it just so happens I’ve been rereading Kapuscinski. His Shah of Shahs, published in 1982, chronicles the events leading up to the 1979 Islamic Revolution in which Ayatollah Khomeini deposed Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, the corrupt, US-backed autocrat. As I’d hoped, Kapuscinski shed some light on what we’d be getting into if the Bush Administration made good on its brinksmanship. Bush might want to consider this before invading:

[Iranians] have a particular talent for preserving their independence under conditions of subjugation. For hundreds of years the Iranians have been the victims of conquest, aggression, and partition. They have been ruled for centuries on end by foreigners or local regimes dependent of foreign powers, and yet they have preserved their culture and language, their impressive personality and so much spiritual fortitude that in propitious circumstances they can arise reborn from the ashes. During the twenty-five centuries of their recorded history the Iranians have always, sooner or later, managed to outwit anyone with the impudence to try ruling them. Sometimes they have to resort to the weapons of uprising and revolution to obtain their goal, and then they pay the tragic levy of blood. Sometimes they use the tactic of passive resistance, which they apply in a particularly consistent and radical way. When they get fed up with an authority that has become unbearable, the whole country freezes, the whole nation does a disappearing act. Authority gives orders but no one is listening, it frowns but no one is looking, it raises its voice but that voice is as one crying in the wilderness. Then authority falls apart like a house of cards. The most common Iranian technique, however, is absorption, active assimilation, in a way that turns the foreign sword into the Iranians’ own weapon.”

The Highwayman: DeFazio to Take on Privatization

When I met with Peter DeFazio in his office last summer, the Oregon democrat was, to put it mildly, a bit exercised. Having flown in from Oregon the night before after participating in a charity bike ride, he was going on basically no sleep. And, when I asked him about the nascent trend of leasing the nation's highways to the private sector, he was particularly blunt: "It's a scam, basically," he told me. He was even more candid in his comments about Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, the former Bush administration official who pushed to privatize his state's 157-mile toll road, ultimately leasing it for $3.8 billion to a foreign consortium.

Daniels had appeared before the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit that May to talk up so-called public-private partnerships and DeFazio, then the ranking democrat on the committee, questioned him pointedly on the logic of such deals during the hearing. “Are we outsourcing political will to a private entity here?” he asked at one point, referring to the fact that Indiana had chosen to lease its road rather than increase its profitability by raising tolls. When we spoke later that summer, DeFazio, questioning how good these deals are for the public, said Daniels had “just screwed the state of Indiana and the people of the state of Indiana.” (By one estimate, the Indiana Toll Road, in state hands, could have earned as much as $11.38 billion over the next 75 years. If so, then Indiana taxpayers will lose out on more than $7 billion in revenue.) “The point is these are very, very tricky things,” he said. “You're making a 75 year commitment of vital public infrastructure and you're not getting a very good deal.”

As Jim Ridgeway and I report in the current issue of the magazine, there are other problems with these public-private transactions. One of them is the keen interest investment banks, Goldman Sachs in particular, have taken in opening the toll road market to private investment. In doing so, Goldman has played the role of lobbyist, municipal finance advisor, and, controversially, would-be principal investor. In this new market, the potential for conflicts of interest abounds.

Last summer, when I asked DeFazio where he saw this trend going, he said, “if the Republicans retain control of everything, the Bush administration will push this hard I'm sure.” But, he added, “this is nowhere near a done deal.” At the time, he was particularly concerned by a blue ribbon panel, known as the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, which had been tasked, after the passage of the last highway bill in 2005, with the lofty mission of looking at ways to “preserve and enhance the surface transportation system to meet the needs of the United States for the 21st century.” “My understanding is it's turning more and more and more toward a sole focus of how to justify the privatization of infrastructure — just like Bush's Social Security commission," DeFazio told me. With several privatization advocates appointed to the committee, including transportation secretary Mary Peters, DeFazio certainly had reason to be concerned. “If we take control, we'll drag those people in here and remind them of their charge,” DeFazio said.

Well, the Democrats have retaken control of Congress and DeFazio, who now serves as the chairman of the Highways committee, has kept his pledge. Yesterday, he gaveled to order the committee’s first hearing of the new Congress, dubbed the “Surface Transportation System: Challenges of the Future.” Among the witnesses, were two members of the transportation policy committee. “You should expect this subcommittee to be very active over the next two years as we conduct oversight on the implementation of the last highway and transit reauthorization, SAFETEA-LU, and prepare to meet the many challenges we will face in crafting the next reauthorization," he said yesterday. Then, he addressed the transportation policy committee directly, perhaps offering a subtle warning. “Congress created the Commission in hopes of getting a thorough and objective analysis of what our surface transportation system needs to become to support our economy in the future, as well as short and long term funding solutions to increase revenue into the Highway Trust Fund.” But yesterday's hearing was just the precursor for what's to come. Expect the real fireworks to arrive when the committee holds a hearing specifically on the topic of private-partnerships, which is expected to take place sometime next month.

Even though DeFazio has now ascended to the key post on the Highways committee, it remains to be seen whether or not his efforts will slow the privatization trend, which has the enthusiastic backing of the Bush administration. To this end, the president recently nominated D.J. Gribbin to be general counsel to the Department of Transportation. Who is Gribbin you might wonder? A former general counsel to the Federal Highway Administration, he has most recently been working on behalf of Macquarie Holdings, Inc., a branch of the very same company that has been so avidly buying up the nation's highways.

Giuliani's Campaign Plan: Now Ready for Your Consumption

From new political website/blog circus "The Politico" comes Rudy Giuliani's.... well, Rudy's everything, really. His entire campaign plan, from daily schedule to fundraising targets to staff hires, is now out in the open, thanks to Daily News reporter Ben Smith, who somehow got the 140-page document. Want a peak? Go here.

Romney Donated to Democrats Multiple Times

Prominent Republican and likely presidential contender Mitt Romney has more problems on his hands. There's lot of evidence out there that Romney held a lot of very moderate, even liberal, positions in his past -- and that body of evidence just got larger.

Talking Points Memo reveals that Romney donated a total of $1,500 to three Democrats in 1992 -- the same year Romney voted for Paul Tsongas in the Democratic primary.

Of particular concern for Romney is that one of the Democrats is a Mormon -- social conservatives are already concerned that Romney's allegiance to his faith might trump his allegiance to his party. At this point, Romney's "party" may be completely in doubt.

Ayad Allawi Says the Surge is About Iran

Andrew Sullivan highlights an interesting interview with Ayad Allawi, Iraq's former Minister of Defense, in which Allawi makes it clear that the surge is more about applying pressure on Iran than about achieving "victory" in Iraq. Check it out.

Dick Cheney vs. Reality

By now there is a consensus, among lawmakers, military leaders, and the American public — even among the very same hawks who were beating the drum for this war —that Iraq is a horrible debacle. Of late, even our notoriously stubborn commander-in-chief has tempered his “mission accomplished” rhetoric, allowing, in a recent policy address, that the situation in Iraq is “unacceptable” and that “mistakes have been made.”

Apparently Dick Cheney didn't get the memo. He is still telling that same old Iraq fairytale. “Bottom line is that we've had enormous successes and we will continue to have enormous successes,” he told Wolf Blitzer in an interview aired by CNN yesterday. Of course, you'll remember that Cheney has been responsible for uttering, with his trademark grimace, the administration’s more outlandish claims about Iraq. First, he told us days before invasion that he expected U.S. forces would be “greeted as liberators.” Two years later, when it was evident that Iraq was descending into chaos, he suggested that the insurgency was “in the last throes.” He insisted a month later that Iraq will be an “enormous success story.” While it is the responsibility of our leaders to evoke confidence, the power of positive thinking only goes so far, and there is a point when optimism becomes lunacy. Cheney crossed that line long ago.

But if you were to ask Cheney why his statements about Iraq are so at odds with the bloody reality on the ground, he will tell you, as he has told many incredulous interviewers in the past, that the press is at fault for fostering the notion that Iraq is coming apart at the seams. In his view, we, in the media, have ignored the positives in Iraq — the school openings, the elections, the deep gratitude of the Iraqi people — only showing our readers and viewers the dark side of the conflict. “If the history books were written by people who are so eager to write off this effort or declare it a failure, including many of our friends in the media, the situation obviously would have been over a long time ago,” he told Blitzer yesterday. Over the years, “blame the media” has been the oft-used mantra of the administration. But while most of the members of the president's inner-circle have largely dropped this claim (as it became increasingly absurd in the face of escalating violence in Iraq), Cheney has clung to this delusion.

Ignoring reality has long been the hallmark of an administration that believes it can manufacture its own. As a Bush aide once boasted to Ron Suskind: “We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors… and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

This mentality, I’d argue, is what has kept the administration from revisiting its Iraq strategy for so long. In the interim, the administration and, to an extent the military as well, has simply tried to mask the truth instead of adapting to it.

How did this manifest in Iraq? At one point, with a propaganda campaign aimed both at Iraqi citizens and the American public. In one case, efforts were made to slant military press releases to play down, or altogether omit, the involvement of U.S. troops, making it appear that everything from civil works projects to heroic military victories were the product of Iraqi initiative. This couldn’t have been further from the truth. Under heavy political pressure to better communicate successes in the war on terrorism, the military also began to blur the lines between public affairs and information warfare, co-mingling these disparate functions (one deals in truth, the other in "truth-based" messages or outright misinformation) in strategic communications, or stratcom, offices in Baghdad and Kabul. Then, of course, there was the Lincoln Group's half-baked (and military funded) effort to secret propaganda into fledgling Iraqi new outlets — a campaign that backfired, in spectacular fashion, when it was exposed by the press. Of the military's information operations in Iraq, a senior military officer once told me, “Perhaps Iraq is a unique situation, but I think some of our IO efforts may have hurt our overall efforts at supporting an elected government and democratic, free institutions. Saddam fed the people propaganda for decades — should we continue to feed them propaganda and expect them to support us and/or their elected officials?”

Just as propagandizing to the Iraqi people is no way of introducing them to the democratic process, continuing to shade the truth, as Cheney has done repeatedly in his public remarks, is no way for the administration to regain the credibility it’s lost with the American people. The president, who for so long has mistaken denial for resolve, finally seems to get this. Not so Cheney.

While some might argue that Cheney is intentionally misleading the public, just as some believe administration officials purposely misstated the facts about Iraq to sell a pre-emptive war to the public, I think there’s another, more realistic, possibility: That Cheney has misled himself. And that’s just as dangerous.

Ridin' Dirty in Alabama

I’m not really sure whether this is really cool or really, well, dirty. Police in Mobile, Alabama are pulling over suspected drug dealers in their pimped-out rides, and, if they find the trunks loaded with cocaine and C-notes and the like, they seize the drug money and use it to buy the car off the impoundment lot. Officers then take the slab to the hood—scraping tail, flashing rims, thumping Mike Jones, or whatever—as if to say, “This is what happens when you cross the law, suckers!” Their current ride is a canary yellow 2006 Dodge Charger with a 5.7 liter 8-cylinder HEMI. The cops are known as the Ridin’ Dirty team, a slangism popularized by the rapper Chamillionaire meaning driving with contraband. Here's the best quote from today's Moblie Press-Register story:

"We wanted to send a message that police have nice things, too," Battiste said, "Sometimes courtesy of the drug dealers."

Fair enough, I guess. But the money they seize is actually the property of taxpayers, so the question is really whether it’s worth it to the public to be setting them up to be pimpin’.

January 24, 2007

Libby Bombshell: The Tom Cruise Connection

One of the more entertaining revelations to come out in the Scooter Libby trial thus far, drawing a collective guffaw in the press gallery, arrived this afternoon in the testimony of Craig Schmall, Libby's one-time CIA briefer. According to Schmall, during a briefing on June 14, 2003 at Libby's home, the veep's chief of staff brought up a recent meeting he’d had with Tom Cruise and his then-squeeze Penelope Cruz. Schmall, stifling laughter, reported that “Tom Cruise was there to talk” with Libby “about how Germany treats scientologists.” You can't make that stuff up.

President Bush: As Usual, Sending the Wrong Message on the Environment

According to most environmentalists, President Bush’s message on the environment was weak. While Bush addressed the issue of global warming, the message he gave most clearly to Americans was to stay the course and these pesky ecological issues will go away.

In a statement released yesterday, The Sierra Club said: "Despite the warning from the President's economic advisor that the State of the Union would ‘knock your socks off in terms of our commitment to energy independence,’ so far we have heard no new evidence that this administration understands what it will really take to break our oil addiction or curb global warming. In fact, the President's proposals are more likely to make the problems worse."

In his plan, President Bush touts ethanol as the major catalyst towards an emissions-reduction solution, but he doesn’t mention its possible detrimental effects. The President doesn’t see any issue with drilling in Alaska either. And he doesn’t seem to be rushed in imposing any sort of harsh standards on the automotive industries. The official White House plan states that the reduction in gasoline will be helped along by an assumed increase of fuel standards for light trucks and passenger cars by a four per cent each year, starting in 2010. Sounds pretty wishy-washy.

This from the Sierra Club: “…[T]he President assumes that fuel economy will increase but fails to order an increase when a 40 mile per gallon standard is the single biggest step we could take to curb global warming and end oil dependence.”

Yet, in reporting on the latest automotive models, some media outlets have chosen to call the 2010 fuel-efficiency standards “stringent.”

Armed with this what-me-worry message, some Americans (as well as Canadians and Europeans) are just keeping on keeping on. This means driving hummers and other tank-like vehicles to invade the strip malls, taking private jets so to have a place to smoke at 30,000 feet, and buying instantly disposable goods to keep on top of fashion trends.

-- Caroline Dobuzinskis

MotherJones.com Ignores Privacy Laws in a Blatant Attempt to Sell Advertising

In an ironic and diabolic move to generate advertising revenue to support its journalistic mission, MotherJones.com recently launched a series of ads on its site to encourage users to willingly disclose personal information on consumer habits in an online user survey. Even more shocking, these ads tout that users who complete the survey will be entered into a drawing to win some really cool prizes donated by advertising sponsors Aveda and Patagonia.

When questioned about this blatant attempt to learn more about its website visitors, Associate Publisher of Sales & Marketing, Suzanne Saluti was quoted as saying, "We don't intend to release personal, individual user information to anyone. We will merely aggregate the data and share those results with the advertising community in order to generate online ad sales to off-set the costs associated with providing in-depth investigative reporting on the site."

You can view (and participate in, if you dare) the survey here.

January 23, 2007

MSNBC and Nancy Pelosi's Outfit

MSNBC is running (and rerunning and rerunning) a comment on the ticker on the bottom of its screen that says something to the effect of: the working class will be disappointed to learn that Nancy Pelosi's outfit cost more than an average American family's first home.

I'd like to see some proof of that. The comment is attributed to Andrew Noyes writing on Chris Matthew's group blog, Hardblogger. Yet, a search of all the posts on Hardblogger tonight turn up nothing.

Update: Just saw it again. It's probably run a dozen times by now. I'll keep searching. That's (1) a pretty ridiculous thing for MSNBC to be reporting over and over, and (2) badly in need of sourcing.

Tucker Carlson: Was McCain Asleep?

Tucker blogs on Hardblogger:

Imagine that you’re John McCain. You’re running for president for the second time, and this time you’re widely considered the frontrunner for the Republican nomination. Knowing that, you’ve got to expect that whomever is directing the television coverage of tonight’s speech is going to point the camera your way. You’re going to be on primetime TV, no doubt. With that in mind, you’re going to want to stay awake. If you’re McCain, who will be over 70 by 2008, you’ll want to make doubly sure to demonstrate your alertness and vigor. You definitely won’t want to slump in your seat, out cold, when Bush starts talking about Iraq. And yet that’s exactly what McCain did tonight, napping on camera for ten agonizing seconds. Lack of self-control? An expression of contempt? Embarrassing in any case.

Quick Reaction to SOTU From Around the Nation

Reports that Bush would moderate his policies to take into account the new Democratic majority in Congress turned out to be ill-founded. Stubborn as always, Bush stuck to his guns: Health insurance delivered through the private marketplace, with help for the poor in the form of tax deductions. More medical savings accounts. Tort reform to get rid of "junk lawsuits." In energy, talk about clean coal. Promises to reduce auto emissions but no standards.

What follows is a thumbnail of some of the reaction to Bush's speech along with lobby figures prepared by the Center for Responsive Politics.

• Health:

"A tax deduction for someone in the 15 percent tax bracket only provides $1,125 in tax relief," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA. "This means that moderate-income people will still be left with a price tag of thousands of dollars for premiums, to say nothing of the significant additional costs for deductibles and co-payments. This will leave affordable health coverage out of reach for tens of millions of Americans."

"On the other hand," Pollack continued, "the proposal provides disproportionately higher tax benefits for people who need help the least. People in the highest tax brackets will receive tax breaks that are more than twice as high as the purported relief for moderate-income workers. Instead of this ill-advised proposal, the President should expand health coverage for the nine million children who are uninsured when Congress reauthorizes the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) later this year."

"The President's tax proposal is more about shifting responsibility, rather than sharing the responsibility of our health care system," says Andrew Stern, president of SEIU. "We should be making sure that everyone has good coverage, not punishing those who already do."

The lobbies and their donations:

• Pharmaceuticals/Health Products: $17,865,648, 68 percent to Republicans
• Health Professionals: $49,717,325, 63 percent to Republicans
• Accident and Health Insurance: $7,320,915, 68 percent to Republicans

• Oil:

Bush insists on drilling in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge, which is at best just a drop in the bucket for our energy supply. Our dependence on foreign oil continues. As Bush speaks, the Iraq government readies a new oil law that will place the once nationalized industry into the hands of the international oil companies.

Gas Guzzlers: The president talks about improved mileage rates, but won't change the law to require them. "The President assumes that fuel economy will increase but fails to order an increase when a 40 mile per gallon standard is the single biggest step we could take to curb global warming and end oil dependence," says Frances G. Beinecke, president of the Natural Defense Council. "We would be less dubious of the president's intentions if he had promised to raise the standards instead of assuming that they will rise four percent a year."

Ethanol: "A lot of it depends on the efficiency with which ethanol is produced," says Mike Casey, an environmental consultant who in the past worked for the Environmental Working Group. "It's better than imported oil, [but] it's not the long term. We can't base our entire energy policy on it. Here's what George Bush needs to do tonight: he needs to announce an aggressive initiative to move this country to the alternative sources of energy tomorrow based on technology available today."

Again, the lobbies and their donations:

• Oil & Gas: $17,576,986, 83 percent to Republicans
• Mining: $4,022,031, 83 percent to Republicans
• Electric Utilities: $14,970,532, 66 percent to Republicans
• Misc. Energy: $3,142,220, 76 percent to Republicans
• Environment: $889,748, 83 percent to Democrats

• The Budget:

Critics give Bush a plus for just mentioning bringing the budget deficit in line, but the president promises a balanced budget in 2012, but as Bob Greenstein of Center for Budget and Policy Priorities pointed out in a press call today, the real problem comes in the following decade. Another game of smoke and mirrors by the administration: the budget situation will actually get worse because Bush wants to make his tax cuts to the rich permanent. Bush says the tax cuts resulted in a robust economy, but Greenstein says the growth is unexceptional.

Again, the lobbies:

• Business Associations: $1,976,248, 84 percent to Republicans
• Labor: $62,599,397, 86 percent to Democrats

-- James Ridgeway

Baby Einstein in SOTU--WTF?

Ok, so what was up with Bush pimping the woman who founded Baby Einstein? What was her great moment or heroism or contribution to the country? Maybe Baby Einstein is an OK product or maybe, like some charge, it is a harmful scam, but I just don't see how it rates the SOTU gallery of heroes treatment. Consider:

"Citing a lack of evidence that screen media is beneficial for babies and growing concern that it may be harmful, the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) filed a complaint today with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against Baby Einstein and Brainy Baby, two of the leading producers of videos for infants and toddlers, for false and deceptive advertising. The complaint charges that these companies are violating Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act by marketing their videos as educational for babies. CCFC is asking the FTC to prohibit Baby Einstein and Brainy Baby from making claims about the educational and developmental benefits of their videos and require that advertisements, packaging and websites for all baby videos prominently display the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP) recommendation of no screen time for children under two. "

Rest of press release after the jump. More on the complaints against Baby Einstein here.

May 1, 2006
Contact: Josh Golin (617.278.4172); jgolin@jbcc.harvard.edu

For Immediate Release

CCFC Files FTC Complaint Against Baby Einstein and Brainy Baby;
Parents Deserve Honest Information About Baby Videos

Citing a lack of evidence that screen media is beneficial for babies and growing concern that it may be harmful, the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) filed a complaint today with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against Baby Einstein and Brainy Baby, two of the leading producers of videos for infants and toddlers, for false and deceptive advertising. The complaint charges that these companies are violating Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act by marketing their videos as educational for babies. CCFC is asking the FTC to prohibit Baby Einstein and Brainy Baby from making claims about the educational and developmental benefits of their videos and require that advertisements, packaging and websites for all baby videos prominently display the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP) recommendation of no screen time for children under two.

“These companies are exploiting parents’ natural tendency to want what’s best for their children and their deceptive marketing may be putting babies at risk.” said Dr. Alvin F. Poussaint of the Judge Baker Children's Center and Harvard Medical School. Research suggests that television viewing for babies is negatively associated with cognitive development, regular sleep patterns, and time spent interacting with parents and engaged in creative play.

CCFC’s complaint charges that the videos’ packaging, websites, advertisements, and even the names “Baby Einstein” and “Brainy Baby” are likely to mislead parents into believing that they are beneficial to babies’ development. For instance, on its website, Baby Einstein claims its Baby Wordsworth video – designed for babies as young as one year -- “will foster the development of your toddler’s speech and language skills.” Similarly, Brainy Baby’s claims on its website that its “brain stimulating” Peek-A-Boo video “helps nurture such important skills as object permanence, communication skills, cause and effect, language development and many others.”

“The industry, when pressed, acknowledges they have no proof these products do what they say they do,” said pediatrician Dr. Dimitri Christakis, a researcher at Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle and the senior author of “A Teacher in the Living Room,” a study on educational media for babies, toddlers and preschoolers released in 2005 by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. “Their unfounded claims undermine the research-based advice that families in my practice deserve."

“Baby Einstein and Brainy Baby clearly violate the consumer protection laws. The Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits companies from making false claims or claims they cannot substantiate.” said Jennifer Prime of the Institute for Public Representation at Georgetown University Law Center, which is representing CCFC in its complaint.

There are clear signs that the marketing of baby videos is effective. To date, sales of videos for babies for children under two are estimated at more than $1 billion. Last year, Disney’s Baby Einstein alone took in about $200 million. By contrast, only 6% of parents are aware of the AAP’s recommendation of no screen time – regardless of content – for children under two.

“Parents need honest information They have a right to know that baby videos aren’t really educational and may even be detrimental to their babies’ development,” said Dr. Susan Linn, CCFC’s co-founder and author of Consuming Kids. “Just because the marketing and media industries want to lure babies and toddlers to screens doesn’t mean that Baby Einstein and Brainy Baby can mislead parents about the benefits of their products.”

The complete complaint and supporting documentation can be found at http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/babyvideos/ftccomplaint.htm

The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood is a national coalition of health care professionals, educators, advocacy groups and concerned parents who counter the harmful effects of marketing to children through action, advocacy, education, research, and collaboration among organizations and individuals who care about children. CCFC supports the rights of children to grow up – and the rights of parents to raise them – without being undermined by rampant commercialism. For more information, please visit: www.commercialfreechildhood.org

Dikembe and Laura, Sitting in a Gallery

How is 7-foot-2 Dikembe Mutumbo only a few inches taller than Laura Bush when sitting down?

Oh my God, they just stood up. He's a giant! And the woman on his right is tiny! Again, how can he be only three inches taller than the first lady when seated? Is Laura Bush on a booster seat?

Bush Has Done Homework?

Thus far, my takeaway from this speech is that somebody finally sat the man down and educated him on some real basics, the difference between Sunni and Shiites, etc. Of course, he's marshalling all that energy to justify some kind of action against Iran.

To the notion that Bush is going to create a "special council on the war on terror," Dave just asked: "Isn't that called Congress?"

The State of Our Healthcare Industry is Weak

Bush said tonight that when it comes to our health care, private insurance is the way to go. As you take that in, consider this: Americans spend $5,000 more per capita on health care, fully 50% more than any other country.

What's Bush's solution? According to the Washington Post, Bush wants to redirect federal money away from hospitals that serve the poor and uninsured, and away from Medicare and Medicaid. Redirect it where, you ask? To private insurance companies, of course.

Now consider this: Private insurers take a dollar for every five dollars in the health care industry. It's a super-duper rip-off. How? Well, have a look at the "medical loss ratios" of major insurers—that is, how much insurers pay in doctors bills, hospital bills, tests and drugs, divided by their revenue in insurance premiums.

76.9% - Aetna
82.3% - Cigna
83.9% - Health Net
83.2% - Humana
78.6% - UnitedHealth Group
80.6% - WellPoint

Get it? You pay Aetna $100 a month? They spend $76.90 percent on your health and $23.10 on corporate overhead, administration, and their own healthy profit margin. That list was compiled by Jonathan G. Bethely of American Medical News, but it's quite easy to find in insurers' SEC 10 filings, though insurers prefer to call it "benefit cost ratio" and "benefit expense ratio." (Whatever they call it, it's no perfect measure, argues James Robinson, a UC Berkeley professor of public health. But it's what we have to work with.)

And it's not all. How many staff at doctors' offices and hospitals devote their time to billing, negotiating, and haggling with insurance companies? In order to get private insurance companies to pay up, doctors' offices spend 14 percent on "billing and insurance-related functions" and hospitals spend another 7 to 11 percent, according to the journal Health Affairs.

Add that up and you see that one in three dollars in the healthcare industry is spent on neither health nor care. That's how efficient the market is! The state proposals to force people to buy private insurance — and Bush's proposal tonight to divert money from government caregivers to private insurance — just send more money down the drain. The answer is single-payer health care. But in the meantime we have patchwork plans like Arnold's, though at least his would cut what insurance companies skim down to 15 percent.

— April Rabkin