Re-imagineering Obama

by Rachel Maddow

President Obama’s BP oil disaster speech re-imagineered–re-imagineered into something that I find more satisfying. The should’ve, would’ve, could’ve version, direct from the not even remotely official Oval Office of my mind.

You know how sometimes after you get into an argument or a confrontation with somebody, you can’t help afterwards thinking of all the things you wish you’d said. You run it over and over in your mind, imaging the perfect comeback or the perfect way to have made your point.

Well, last night after the president’s big Oval Office speech on the BP oil disaster, I had a version of that experience. I hadn’t, of course, been in an argument with the president or anything. I just couldn’t stop running tape in my head of what I wish that speech had been like, what I wish he’d said.

An Oval Office address is a priceless chance to get the nation to stop what it’s doing, to stop every other TV show in the country, to get us all to pay attention, all at once, to this crisis and to what the president has to say about it.

What if he had started off by saying, “Good evening”? OK, actually, he did start off by saying, “Good evening.” But what if right after he said, “Good evening,” he said, I’m here to announce three major developments in the response to the BP oil disaster that continue right now to ravage the beloved gulf coast of the United States of America.

I wish I could tell you that the first development is that BP has capped the well, stopped the leak. They haven’t. They can’t. They don’t know how. And no one else does either. Their best hope is a relief well, which poses its own risks and challenges and which, even in a best-case scenario, affords no relief until August.

All this, the might of this, the mightiest nation on earth and the combined expertise of the richest, most technologically ambitious corporations the world has ever seen cannot, it turns out, cannot cap an oil well when it breaks 5,000 deep in the ocean.

It’s something that mankind does not yet have the technological capability to fix. And that brings us to the first development in this disaster that I am announcing tonight.

Never again will any company, anyone be allowed to drill in a location where they are incapable of dealing with the potential consequences of that drilling.

When the benefits of drilling accrue to a private company, but the risks of that drilling accrue to we, the American people, whose waters and shoreline are savaged when things go wrong, I, as fake president, stand on the side of the American people and say to the industry, “From this day forward, if you cannot handle the risk, you no longer will take chances with our fate to reap your rewards.”

Our nation’s regulatory oversight of the oil industry has been a joke in many ways for decades, from the revolving door of industry apparatchiks taking supposed oversight jobs in the government in which they just rubber stamp the desires of the industry to which they were loyal, to energy industry lobbyists themselves being allowed in secret meetings to write our nation’s policies.

In light of the state of the gulf right now, my fellow Americans, the details of how industry has infiltrated and infected the government that was supposed to be a watchdog, protecting the American public from them, those details are enough to turn your stomach.

But no detail tells you more about the corroding power of the industry against the interests of the American people than the simple fact that they have been allowed to drill in American waters without being forced to first prove that that drilling is safe.

That will never happen again, as long as I am fake president. When I announced in March that my administration’s energy policy would include expanded offshore drilling, that policy change was predicated on our acceptance of the oil industry’s assurances, our acceptance of their assurances that they knew how to do that kind of drilling safely.

They were lying. It cannot be done safely, not when no technology exists to cap a blowout on the sea floor. Offshore drilling will not be expanded in American waters. The moratorium will be held firm and in place, unless and until this industry conclusively demonstrates major advances in safety.

Oil industry jobs are important and I will work with industry to mitigate the impact on American families who survive on oil company paychecks. But in the 21st century and in the name of the 11 oil workers who were killed when the Deepwater Horizon rig blew out, we will not play Russian roulette with workers’ lives and we will not play Russian roulette irreversible national environmental disaster for the sake of some short-term income.

The second major development I’m announcing tonight, my fellow Americans, concerns another oil industry assurance we can no longer believe. The industry has long assured us that they were capable of handling spilled oil.

In BP’s own disaster response plan for the Gulf of Mexico, they claimed they were perfectly capable of containing and cleaning up to 250,000 barrels of oil a day, that no significant amount of oil spill of even that size would get to shore, foul beaches, kill wildlife or destroy wetlands. They were lying when they gave that assurance.

And the industry is lying when it says it takes seriously its responsibilities to contain and cleanup disasters that they cause. The same low-tech ineffective equipment and techniques are being used to respond to this oil disaster that were used in the 1960s and ‘70s to respond to spills.

That’s because the industry has not invested in any new containment and cleanup technology in all of these decades, because they haven’t cared too much about it as an issue and it shows. It shows both in the inept technology that we have to deploy, to contain, to clean up a spill like this.

And it also shows in the lackadaisical, uncoordinated and unprofessional way this inept technology has been deployed by BP. Beaches have been fouled. Wetlands have been destroyed. Wildlife has been killed that should have been saved. Pensacola Bay in Florida, if properly boomed, should never have been breached by oil. Perdido Pass of Orange Beach, Alabama should never have been breached by oil.

Queen Bess Island, the pelican nesting ground and Barataria Bay in Louisiana–Barataria Bay itself–none of these areas should have been breached by oil even given the sad state of existing technology to stop it. But the fact that those areas were breached is BP’s human error.

And tonight, as fake president, I’m announcing a new federal command specifically for containment and cleanup of oil that has already entered the Gulf of Mexico with priority of protecting shoreline that can still be saved, shoreline that is vulnerable to what’s still coming.

I’ve asked the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to assist me in the diplomatic side of this, in soliciting, green lighting and expediting all international offers of help, from experts in booming and skimming all over the world.

We will bring in the best experts and the best equipment from anywhere on earth to dramatically increase our efforts to get the oil out of the water and off the coast. Oil industry workers are often trained in booming and skimming.

I’m hereby directing BP to fund booming and skimming crash academies for all available oil industry personnel anywhere in the world to radically overhaul what has been a haphazard, halfhearted, totally unacceptable protection effort starting immediately.

No expense will be spared and no excuses will be brooked. Even if the oil leak is capped today, the oil in the water will continue to surge towards shore for weeks if not months. As fake president I will personally issue a public update on cleanup and containment efforts every single day until this disaster is under control.

And finally, the third development I have to announce to you tonight in the response to this oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is about how we got here and how that will change.

Every president in the modern era has complained that America must get off oil. Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and now, I, fake President Obama—we have all intoned solemnly that we must get off oil.

Now that we have, at the hands of the oil industry, experienced the worst environmental disaster in American history, the time for talk is over. The world is different now. Our country is different now. The scales have fallen from our eyes.

People say we’re not ready. They’re right. We’re not ready. We also weren’t ready to fight in World War II before Pearl Harbor happened. But events forced that upon us and events have forced this fight upon us now.

I no longer say that we must get off oil like every president before has said, too. I no longer say we must get off oil. We will get of oil and here is how. The United States Senate will pass an energy bill this year. The Senate version will not expand offshore drilling. The earlier targets in that bill for energy efficiency and for renewable energy sources will be doubled or tripled. If senators use the filibuster to stop the bill, we will pass it by reconciliation which still ensures a majority vote.

If there are elements of a bill that cannot procedurally be passed by reconciliation, if those elements can be instituted by executive order, I will institute them by executive order.

The political cowardice that has kept politicians from doing right by this country, finally, on energy–finally, standing up to the oil industry–that cowardice has been drowned in oil on Queen Bess Island.

There is a new reality in this country that has been forced on us by this disaster. As president, I pledge to you that the land and sea and livelihood and lives of American people will be put first as with every other thing that is humanly possible to stop this disaster.

We will never again let the oil industry put America at this kind of risk. We will save what can still be saved that is directly at risk in the gulf and we will free ourselves as a nation, once and for all, from the grip of this industry that has lied to us as much as it has exploited us, as much as it has befouled us with its toxic affluent.

The oil age, America, is over. If you are with me, let your senator know it. I will next speak to you about the BP oil disaster tomorrow with my first public update and the cleanup effort in the gulf. God bless you and God bless the United States of America.

Oh, and one more thing. I’ve also decided I’m not a White Sox fan anymore. I’m a Red Sox fan and I’m closing Guantanamo. Thank you. Bye.

So in my mind, last night, that’s what the president said which is why I will never run for anything because I say stuff like “toxic affluent” and I get all weepy when I’m mad. Also, when I’m mad, I get blotchy and nobody likes a blotchy president.

Printed with permission from The Rachel Maddow Show, June 16th, 2010, on MSNBC.

Tags: ,

No Comments


BP Escrow Deal

BP Doing the Right Thing

photo by John O'Kane

by Seize BP

People all around the country have put so much pressure on the Obama administration that it had to “do something” to look like it was standing up to BP. The announcement today of a so-called $20 billion escrow fund from BP would never have happened without mass pressure. But does this fund truly respond to the needs of the people in the Gulf Coast states?

Too much is at stake for people to let down their guard and accept the “feel good” sound-bite version of what took place today in the meeting between President Obama and BP’s executives.

The White House and BP are creating a mythology, or “spin,” on what the tentative agreement signifies.

It is noteworthy that BP’s executives are very happy with the new agreement. Their necessary goal as a corporation is to maximize profits, and not to pay damages to all of those who have been harmed. As the Washington Post reported after the meetings, “Behind the scenes, the company had signaled what it expected from Wednesday’s meeting—and the company appears to have gotten exactly what it wanted.”

It is quite clear to us, even though much more will be revealed in the coming days and weeks, that we have to accelerate the movement for justice. This agreement is not only inadequate but attempts to shield BP from paying all the damages and compensation for lost work, ruined small businesses, and a devastated ecosystem.

At first glance, one would believe, based on the headlines that the Obama Administration compelled BP to set aside $20 billion dollars in an escrow account to meet the needs of people and communities harmed by BP’s criminal negligence.

But this is actually a great deal for BP.

The facts on the “escrow” account

The “escrow account” in 2010 is not $20 billion dollars. BP will put in $3 billion dollars in the third quarter of 2010 (ending September 30) and another $2 billion in the fourth quarter (ending December 31). Thereafter, it will have to make installments of $1.25 billion each quarter for the next three years.

This means that the necessary money will not be available to pay the tens of billions in losses that are real and immediate. It also means that people and businesses will have to get in line.

The real number for the escrow account in 2010 is $5 billion—six months from now at the earliest. To put this in perspective, BP has been bringing in between $26 billion and $36 billion annually in profits on revenue of $250 billion, and pays out more than $10 billion in dividends yearly.

According to a report in Forbes, BP could absorb $35 billion in spill costs before it would have a “material impact” on its operations. But instead, it will be allowed a paltry $5 billion a year, in an installment plan over four years.

Another measure of perspective can be had by comparison of this $5 billion per year voluntary set-aside to the accumulated potential fines and penalties under the Clean Water Act. BP can be fined $4,300 per barrel of oil spilled as a consequence of gross negligence. With the recent acknowledgment that the spill volume is 60,000 barrels per day, that is a potential penalty of over $250 million per day. Put another way, every 60 days accumulates a potential $15 billion fine under the Act. The voluntary arrangement to set aside $5 billion per year is meager in comparison.

This, of course, reflects Obama’s unwillingness to exercise legal authority against BP. Department of Justice lawyers could be initiating prosecutions for the accumulated fines, but aside from the announcement of potential investigations, this has not occurred.

Obama denies that his deal with BP will function as a cap on its liability, but this remains to be determined. The deal appears to functionally provide a shield for BP. As one investment advisor told the Wall Street Journal, the agreement puts “an end to the financial bleeding,” and allows investors to assess what BP’s total liabilities might be. So while President Obama stresses that the plan is not a cap on liability, it certainly appears as one. The installment terms of the payments themselves limit the amounts that will be made available while people are seeking claims.

Mr. Feinberg to the rescue—again

President Obama announced that the fund will be administered by Kenneth Feinberg, a Washington lawyer who made $5.7 million in his law practice in 2008. Mr. Feinberg has played a particular role in Washington at the time of virtual uprising against the banks and bankers’ bonuses. He was appointed to be the “pay czar” by Obama reviewing and approving many of the obscene bonuses doled out to AIG and other executives after they were bailed out with hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money. As Reuters wrote today, “He has been hailed for soothing the egos of Wall Street executives clutching on to big paychecks, while still looking tough to a general public shocked by massive payouts to firms on a government lifeline.”

There is very little other information about how claims will be processed. There will have to be determinations made as to what, in the parlance of both BP and President Obama, is a “legitimate” claim. While Obama stated that anyone can file a claim, that doesn’t mean that the claim will be accepted or paid. Nor does it appear that the decision-making process will include any of the affected Gulf coast residents or their representatives from the fishers, shrimpers, crabbers, unions, small business people and workers in the tourism and recreation industry, local elected officials, clergy, and independent scientists and environmentalists.

Details must be forthcoming about claims payments and standards. Can we expect tens of thousands of people to receive checks by the end of the month? One thing is clear: The limited level of the fund necessarily means that claims cannot be paid equivalent to the damages incurred right now.

The creation of the so-called escrow fund was the result of a nationwide mass movement. Now is the time to step up our organizing to make sure that we have the kind of escrow fund that can really meet the needs of the people and repair the vast environmental damage caused by BP.

Tags: ,

No Comments


Do-Nothing 44th President

by David Michael Green

What do nine dead Gaza activists in the Mediterranean, nine-plus percent unemployment, and ninety years of oil catastrophe clean-up have in common? How about one astonishingly tepid president? How about one guy in the White House who squirms in his chair anytime someone uses the word “bold” and actually means it? How about one dude in the Oval Office who seems much more interested in making deals to determine who should be the Democratic candidates for various state offices than in actually solving national problems?

We could hardly have a president more ill-suited to our time if we were to dig up Herbert Hoover and prop his weary bones up on the presidential throne.

Barack Obama has five major problems as president. The first is that he doesn’t understand priorities. The second is that he seems to have little strong conviction on any given issue. The third is that to the extent he stands for anything, it is for maintenance of a status quo that continues to wreck the country in order to service the greed of a few oligarchs. The fourth is that he fundamentally does not understand the powers and the role of the modern presidency. And the fifth is that he maintains the worst communications apparatus in the White House since Jimmy Carter prowled its corridors.

In fairness to his communications team, though, he has given them almost nothing to sell. You try singing the praises of bailing out Goldman Sachs one hundred cents on the dollar, or of a health care plan that forces people to buy plans they don’t want from hated insurance vultures. It ain’t easy, pal. Yet, on the other hand, Bush and Cheney had far less than nothing to sell when it came to the Iraq war–indeed, they had nothing but lies–and their team handled that masterfully.

The fundamental characteristic of the Obama presidency is that the president is a reactive object, essentially the victim of events and other political forces, rather than the single greatest center of power in the country, and arguably on the planet. He is the Mr. Bill of politicians. People sometimes excuse the Obama torpor by making reference to all the problems on his plate, and all the enemies at his gate. But what they fail to understand–and, most crucially, what he fails to understand–is the nature of the modern presidency. Successful presidents today (by which I mean those who get what they want) not only drive outcomes in their preferred direction, but shape the very character of the debate itself. And they not only shape the character of the debate, but they determine which items are on the docket.

Moreover, there is a continuously evolving and reciprocal relationship between presidential boldness and achievement. In the same way that nothing breeds success like success, nothing sets the president up for achieving his or her next goal better than succeeding dramatically on the last go around.

This is absolutely a matter of perception, and you can see it best in the way that Congress and especially the Washington press corps fawn over bold and intimidating presidents like Reagan and George W. Bush. The political teams surrounding these presidents understood the psychology of power all too well. They knew that by simultaneously creating a steamroller effect and feigning a clubby atmosphere for Congress and the press, they could leave such hapless hangers-on with only one remaining way to pretend to preserve their dignities. By jumping on board the freight train, they could be given the illusion of being next to power, of being part of the winning team. And so, with virtually the sole exception of the now retired Helen Thomas, this is precisely what they did.

But the game of successfully governing is substantive as well as psychological. More often than not, timidity turns out not to yield the safe course anticipated by those with weak knees, but rather their subsequent undoing. The three cases mentioned at the top of this essay are fundamental.

By far and away the most crucial problem on the minds of most Americans today is the economy, as is often the case, but now more than ever. It’s hard to quite figure where Barack Obama is on this issue. What is always most puzzling with this guy is reconciling the fundamentally irrational behavior of his presidency with the obvious intellectual abilities of the president and the administrative masterfulness of the campaign he ran to obtain that office. It seems to me that there are four options for understanding Obama’s self-defeating tendency when it comes to the economic disaster he inherited.

One is that he simply isn’t so smart, and doesn’t get the ramifications of continued unemployment at the level it’s currently running. The second option is that he’s just a policy bungler, who has the right intentions but makes lousy choices for trying to get there. The third possibility is that Obama recognizes this latest recession as the capstone (we hope) of a three decade long process by the economic oligarchy seeking nothing less than the downsizing of the American middle class, and he simply lacks the courage to attempt any reversal of this tsunami of wealth redistribution. The final, and scariest–but by no means least probable–explanation for Obama’s behavior is that he is ultimately no less a tool in that very piracy project than was George W. Bush or Bill Clinton.

Whatever the explanation, Obama’s timidity early in his presidency not only failed to solve the problem, but more crucially, now precludes him from introducing any meaningful subsequent attempt at solving the problem. Obama’s management of the economic stimulus bill in the first weeks of his presidency was the very model of how a president should govern–provided, that is, that the nineteenth century hadn’t actually ended over a hundred years ago. This president, who has turned deference to others–including to his sworn enemies–into an art form, told Congress that he wanted a stimulus bill and let them fill in the details. What he got, accordingly, was a giant monstrosity filled with pet projects for each congressional district in America, with about one-third of it constituted by tax cuts in order to buy Republican votes which never came anyhow. Nor has there been, to this day, any urgency about the spending of those funds.

The upshot of all of this is threefold, all of it hugely negative. First, the government spent an enormous amount of money on the stimulus without solving the problem of the recession and unemployment. Second, it therefore massively exacerbated the national debt problem, with little gain to show for it. And, third, the combination of the first two factors effectively precludes any subsequent stimulus package from emerging out of Congress for the foreseeable future, the politics of spending in general and the stimulus in particular having become altogether radioactive.

And here we see how Obama’s failure to lead in the first instance has succeeded above all in digging him into a hole subsequently. We are likely looking at nine or ten percent unemployment for years to come, and Obama’s legislative cowardice has created a situation in which the only remaining meaningful tool by which to transcend this deep recession has been taken off the table. The public looks around and asks, “Why should we spend more money on economic stimulus, when all it does is fail to produce results, while simultaneously increasing the national debt?” It’s a legitimate question, except that it omits consideration of a third alternative, which is to actually do a stimulus correctly, pumping money into infrastructure, alternative energy projects, unemployment compensation, retraining programs and the like, all of which would positively impact the economy in both the short, medium and long terms.

You see the same phenomenon in virtually everything Obama touches. Lots of spiffy rhetoric. But then lots of deference to every other actor in the play (except, of course, for the interests of the American public or for his base of progressive voters), including those who are overtly trying to destroy the president. “You say that Republicans want to remove the public option from the health care bill? Okay, let’s give that to them. It’s bound to buy, golly, what? … zero whole votes from their caucus!” “You say they demand yet more tax cuts be included in the stimulus bill? Let’s do that! And watch them vote against it almost without exception.” Brilliant.

In the Middle East, Obama has spent his first year-and-a-half in office getting bitch-slapped by Noxious Netanyahu, with nothing to show for it but total embarrassment. It’s gotten so bad that you can no longer tell which country is the client state of the other. Is it the one with the economy, military, territory, population and political power that dwarfs the other, or is it the one that continually receives financial, military and political support from the other, no matter what it does? Including, for example, regularly invading its neighbors, strangling a population of over a million people, pissing off the whole world, and humiliating both the president and vice-president of its benefactor country by continuing to build more illegal, peace-preventing settlements, in direct, intentional and arrogant contravention of their expressed preference to the contrary. If Obama could possibly be more passive in this situation, it’s difficult to know how. Perhaps he could strap on a construction belt and assist the Israelis himself in building some apartment complexes in East Jerusalem. While he was at it, maybe he’d take his shirt off in the hot Mediterranean sun, and get in another one of those hunky president photos he seems so fond of.

The story is the same back in the Gulf of Mexico, where Obama recently had his very own Michael Dukakis moment. Trying to look tough, like Dukakis did haplessly riding around on that tank in the picture that spoke a million words (and sank a presidential campaign), Obama decided to use a four-letter word to show how serious he is about those mean fellows at BP and their errant flow of oil. Except that this president is so inept that he could only manage three of the requisite four letters. He told NBC’s Matt Lauer that he has been visiting the oil spill region “so I know whose ass to kick.” I mean, raise your hand if you think that that little display of anger for the cameras was about as authentic as Cheese Whiz. And simultaneously both far less and far more cheesy. But it gets worse. It then turns out that during all of the last 45 or so days, the president hasn’t yet had a phone conversation with the CEO of British Petroleum. Turns out Obama traveled all that way to New Orleans and still couldn’t get a postal code for the limey arse to which to fax over his presidential boot.

Like he would use it if he had it, anyhow. Can you imagine the conversation he might have with Tony Hayward?

Obama: “Hey, Tony, your oil spill is really causing me problems, so I thought I’d call to kick your ass a little.”

Hayward: “Screw you, punk. You do what I tell you.”

Obama: “Oh god, you’re right. Christ! Sorry. I forgot myself. For a minute there I thought I was talking to my daughter about her homework.”

Hayward: “Get your facts straight, pal. Starting with who here works for whom.”

Obama: “Yes, sir. Right away, sir. What can we do for you?”

Hayward: “Nothing at all would be perfect, just like you have been doing. Just let us drill where we want, spill where want, thrill as is our wont to the sheer brazenness of our lies, and bill your account for the damages. We’re not greedy we won’t ask for more than that.”

Obama: “You got it, Mr. Hayward. We’ll get right on it. Raaaahhm!!!”

The only thing more grim than the visage of the pathetic Obama administration in non-action is a consideration of the opportunity lost here. Obama had all the cards stacked in his favor, ranging from a destroyed opposition party, to a series of crises, to a public demanding change, to massive majorities in Congress, to global good will. He’s pissed it all away in his unrelenting dedication to mediocrity and inoffensiveness.

And the only thing more grim than that is to consider where this all leads. Every day I shudder a little more as yet another two-by-four is crow-barred out from the edifice of America’s experiment in liberal democracy. Every time the Supreme Court hands down a decision, it means more power for the state, more power for the imperial president (whom they also select when they feel like it), and especially, more power for the rich. Every day more people are dying in the stupid and endless wars of the twilight empire, for which nobody can even articulate a purpose. Every election cycle more lethally vicious regressives are victorious, crushing common sense and human rights in tandem, moving the country further in the direction of mindless fascism. There’s no other word for it. This country is just plain rotting from within.

And, thus, perhaps the most tragic aspect of the Obama regime will not be the embarrassingly hapless conduct of this baseball of a president, getting smacked around by big steroid-sculpted biceps swinging fat slabs of menacing lumber at the velocity of their choice. Nor will it be the blown opportunities of epic proportion, not likely to be seen again for a long time.

It is likely to be, instead, the consequences from the door being opened for far worse people to inflict damage upon the American public and the world. By failing to stand for anything while the country crumbles, Obama has virtually begged those who would make the trains run on time to seize power.

And why shouldn’t they “take their country back” from this president, anyhow?

I mean, the guy wasn’t even born in America, right?

David Michael Green teaches politics at Hofstra.

Tags: ,

No Comments


Housing Inventory Bulge

by Mike Whitney

Did the Federal Reserve collude with the big banks to hold millions of houses off the market until the Fed finished adding $1.25 trillion to the banks’ reserves? Did the Fed do this to make it appear that its bond purchasing plan (quantitative easing) was stabilizing prices when, in fact, it was the reduction in supply that stopped prices from plunging? It sure looks that way. This is from Bloomberg News:

“U.S. home foreclosures reached a record for the second consecutive month in May, with increases in every state, as lenders stepped up property seizures, according to Realty Trac Inc. Bank repossessions climbed 44 percent from May 2009 to 93,777, the Irvine, California-based data company said today in a statement. Foreclosure filings, including default and auction notices, rose about 1 percent to 322,920. One out of every 400 U.S. households received a filing.”

Inventory steadily declined during the period the Fed was exchanging cash-for-trash (toxic assets and non performing loans for reserves) with the banks. Now inventories have begun to rise again as the banks get back to business as usual, in other words, throwing people out of their homes. The sudden uptick in repossessions and property seizures coincides perfectly with the ending of the Fed’s giant “no bankster left behind” program. Clearly, there must have been a quid pro quo.

What’s so impressive about Bernanke’s trillion dollar sleight-of-hand operation is its utter simplicity. We’re just talking “supply and demand” here, not rocket science. The banks agreed to cut supply (by temporarily stockpiling homes) while the Fed loaded them up with a cold trillion-plus in reserves. Meanwhile, John Q. Public assumed (incorrectly) that Bernanke’s program helped to stabilize prices. It’s a very ingenious deception worthy of a professional conman.

Readers may remember that quantitative easing (QE) was promoted as a way to increase lending to consumers and to keep interest rates on mortgages low. But that was all just public relations hype. Consumer lending contracted in the last year while interest rates on the 30-year mortgage have fallen since Bernanke’s QE program ended at the end of March.

So what does it all mean? It means the public was snookered yet again. It also means that housing prices will fall further as banks dump more inventory on the market. How far prices drop will depend on how quickly the banks clear their shadow inventory which, in turn, depends on (secret) agreements they’ve made with the Fed and the other banks. Housing inventory is being released in drips and drabs according to an unknown plan. Some would call it price-fixing.

Here’s an excerpt from an article in the Wall Street Journal claiming there’s a 9-year backlog of distressed homes: “How much should we worry about a new leg down in the housing market? If the number of foreclosed homes piling up at banks is any indication, there’s ample reason for concern. As of March, banks had an inventory of about 1.1 million foreclosed homes, up 20% from a year earlier….

Another 4.8 million mortgage holders were at least 60 days behind on their payments or in the foreclosure process, meaning their homes were well on their way to the inventory pile. That “shadow inventory” was up 30% from a year earlier. Based on the rate at which banks have been selling those foreclosed homes over the past few months, all that inventory, real and shadow, would take 103 months to unload. That’s nearly nine years. Of course, banks could pick up the pace of sales, but the added supply of distressed homes would weigh heavily on prices–and thus boost their losses” (“Number of the Week: 103 Months to Clear Housing Inventory,” Mark Whitehouse, Wall Street Journal).

Here’s a clip from Housing Wire with a slightly different perspective: “The amount of REO property held by the banks is also known as the “shadow inventory” of foreclosures. According to Morgan Stanley, it would take 47 months for the market to clear the roughly 7.5m first-lien mortgages in danger or already in foreclosure” (“Foreclosed Properties Held by Banks Up 12.4% in Q110: SNL Financial,” Jon Prior).

No matter how you look at it, housing will be in a funk for the next 5 to 10 years. There’s just too much product and too few buyers. Austerity measures by the Obama team will only put more pressure on sales and prices.

Now that the government’s homebuyer credits, subsidies and incentives have ended, demand for housing is drying up fast. The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) reports that new mortgage purchase applications have tumbled nearly 40 percent to their lowest level since April of 1997. Sales are in freefall. Prices have already slipped 30 percent from their peak in 2006. Another 10 percent could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, as Whitney Tilson explains in a recent article titled, “The Housing Non Recovery.”

“Today about 17.2% of homeowners are underwater. But if home prices drop 10% from here, 27% of homeowners would go underwater. In other words, a 10% drop in home prices would cause a 56% increase in the number of people underwater…which would almost certainly lead to another surge in defaults” (“The Housing Non Recovery,” The Daily Reckoning).

This excerpt deserves a second reading. The next 10 percent plunge in prices will be more painful than the first 30 percent. The market is on a knife’s edge and one false move could be deadly. More than 7 million homeowners have already stopped paying their mortgages which means that the inventory-pipeline will be bulging for years to come. The administration needs to get on top of this problem before the downward spiral begins and the next disaster becomes unavoidable.

Tags: ,

No Comments


Unmelting Pot

John O’Kane

The most recent measure signed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer makes it illegal for public school courses to “advocate ethnic solidarity.” It’s supposedly meant to challenge programs that teach Mexican-American students about their history and culture in the belief that they produce “ethnic chauvinism,” the words of Tom Horne, the state’s top education official.

Horne’s claim is that these classes lead students to believe they are an “oppressed minority.” This complements the state’s earlier legislation that requires police to profile suspected undocumented immigrants. The belief apparently is that racism is fostered by the support of group awareness, not potentially eliminated by it; that racism is pretty much history in this country and attention to group identity will only re-inflame it. Instead of promoting the ethnic group and its solidarity, we need to treat “pupils as individuals.”

The profiling peccadillo was scary enough. This lean-and-mean pedagogical stripping threatens to remand consciousness to some pre-civil rights stone age. Together they’re a lethal weapon indeed.

Learning to think and act as an individual speaks to our cultural identity. America was founded on the democratic challenge of individuals–white males at least–to a repressive state. We should keep this idea alive but also realize that it’s less of a fact than a promising orientation toward the world. Individuals rise or fall with a big boost from the powers of association, the quid-pro-quo transactions that make the self-made men. Yet the personal angle keeps us consumed with ourselves and allows power to remain on the periphery.

We’ve been in a “post-racial” world for some time. The backlash against the civil rights movement gained steam in the Reagan years, culminating in moves to eliminate affirmative action in the 90s. The emerging commonsense was that group catch-up had become sufficiently complete and barriers to success were mainly in the mind. This was evident for example in the changed welfare law, TANF, in ’96. The entitlement to support established in the New Deal era was taken away in the belief that institutions were fair vehicles for the upwardly motivated. Poverty and joblessness became the responsibility of the individual who now faced a limited term for collecting benefits.

Even our African-American president sympathizes with this commonsense. Obama rejects policies—just ask the Congressional Black Caucus—that target specific races. In his major speech on race in the run-up to the election Obama appealed to universals, weaving a social fabric where we cohabit as diverse citizens; e pluribus unum, the many in the one. He was hardly suggesting we forget the past, believing passionately in the civil rights struggles that nurtured his life chances, and committed to Martin Luther King’s spirit of integration.

But he’s no reparationist, insisting we forgive past sins and move on. One of his purposes was to distance himself from those like the Reverend Wright who at least dallied with the idea of redress. The stress should be on the person, the energy of the committed individual to break through barriers of all kinds in a society where they’re diminishing. The speech ended with stories that showed personal loyalties trumping collective ones, a very American affectation.

We make believe groups are secondary; racial clusters are temporary. This was spurred by the arrival of immigrants, waves and waves since the beginning who wanted to think of themselves as Americans first in this fabric of the many-in-the-one. Successes made this a valuable goal. Newcomers at the bottom of the hierarchy did jobs no one else wanted while making do among themselves. They moved up and out of their stations as individuals believing they could rise on their own merits, melt into the mass and disperse throughout the larger society.

So holding on to the old ways, or clustering with your own kind, prevents you from embracing what it means to be an American.

The melting pot idea was exactly that, an “idea” which bore some relation to reality, at least during the waves of immigration from Europe, since the Irish, Poles, Italians and others were degrees of white. Getting rid of the accent was the big barrier to overcome before the grand dispersal. Then it was every man for himself in the urban and suburban frontiers.

The melt was supposed to be relatively friction-free once the initiation rites concluded. Color and cultural differences were just spicy variations, a stew of merely other Americans. The limits to this idea were exposed in the 60s when European immigration was mostly complete and the additions to the pot from Asia, Africa and South America were more different than the same. As the “potato eaters” and “organ grinders,” who’d already made efforts to assimilate, exchanged recipes and mates, differences were mostly invisible. But for the new immigration, colorful differences were more than slight variations, and brought the potential for friction. Familiarity can breed contempt, and full-blown prejudice and racism.

This partial freeze is an honest adjustment to the realities of assimilation that reveal how striving to achieve the American Dream is hampered by melting into the mass as individuals. Selective assimilation was an answer to the dilemma. The power to challenge the system and rise in it comes from large numbers staying together in networks. Dispersing throughout mainstream society as an individual of a race still experiencing significant inequality is the formula for more of the same.

Teaching Arizona students to view themselves as melted individuals is more than a little ironic since about 30% of the state’s population is Latino, and continuing to rise. These numbers suggest that perhaps in the not too distant future whites will be put upon to melt into a quite different kind of pot, and that is one source of the problem: the demographic shift and the balance of power. Though while the numbers benefit Latinos, the migration into the state of white retirees and other conservatives continues as well, fueling anti-ethnic flames (Sonali Kolhotcar, “Uprising,” 5/27, KPFK, Los Angeles).

If the balance was even remotely close to fair and equal, if the deficits Mr. Obama wants to ignore were minimal, then solidarity and group awareness would not be such a necessity. If school curricula had included more Latino history in the first place, the drive to develop special classes and programs would not have been so necessary.

Withdrawing the education now that prepares students to close the gap might create a greater demand for what’s missing, remind them of past deficits and cause worse resentment. How can the truth be avoided in a state whose land once belonged to Mexico? Despite the curriculum deficiencies, most know how that transfer took place. Dinner table conversations must be quite strained when the oral history gets to garnish the main course from the school textbooks. The kin links that go back generations have to overspill the classroom. The southwest US, witness California, is awash in Spanish labels.

The mid-19th century was a bloody affair out west. That history, which precedes the arrival of the first Anglos, must pose a threat. But it’s likely too late. Efforts to trash solidarity and encourage Latinos to see themselves as unaffiliated will backfire once we separate the authentic issues of immigration that need attention from how victims are being scapegoated by another agenda.

A good starting point would be to fix the cause of the immigrant gusher, rather than criminalizing the victims. Illegals are civil violators who’ve come across the border for reasons of survival to do jobs that in many cases whites won’t. But the conditions they confront here make them bend the law, and employers have a stake in keeping them illegal since they’re easier to control, and this represses wages. And this creates envy. Many are upset at the illegals who don’t have to get licensed to work at the same jobs they do, and for not having to pay taxes. This is hardly conducive to building a unified workers’ response to employers.

If employers benefit from the surplus of seekers after the dwindling number of jobs, you’d think we’d still have an open door policy. Come one and all to the land built from immigrant labor! Why not simply make them legal? They do after all contribute to the economy. Employers would have less control but still be able to pick and choose and pay very low wages. This is one of the reasons why many say that since employers are going against their economic interests, they must be racists.

The privatized, for profit prison system excepted, the decriminalization of immigrants would have a very positive ripple effect throughout society.

NAFTA looms large. A unified front against this stepchild of neoliberalism, the Clinton administration’s early demonstration that it could outdo the master at Reaganomics, is needed. What this “free trade” agreement set in motion needs to be reversed. It was viewed in 1993, when the long post-73 downturn had yet to lift, as a panacea for job growth and productivity. Just release the corporations, who’d already begun hightailing it to offshore sweatshops in the globalizing 70s, from fealty to country and they’d solve the perennial problem of matching workers to available jobs. They succeeded, finding minimalist wages across borders, particularly in the south. Our heavily subsidized and protected companies out-competed the local ones the old-fashioned way, as trusted monopolies, leading to their collapse and spikes in the jobless destined for the American border and beyond.

This was the beginning of the dumpster towns and makeshift plants along the Mexican border to accommodate workers trying to take advantage of the “free” market. They’ve now become ground zero in the killing fields of the drug wars that feed off an even more catastrophic collapse of the Mexican economy, as Charles Bowden shows in Murder City.

It somehow seems so right that expendable workers-on-demand who made our Nikes for a pittance would come back to the scene of the crime to haunt the establishment that created the multinational corporations that have such thin patriotic skin.

Another system that’s broken; another instance of failed regulation with horrific consequences. Let those with the drills and financial frills and sweatshop wages follow their dreams for the bottom line, and the poker chips will fall where they may. If they bring us down, if Adam Smith’s or god’s invisible hand fail to deliver us from evil, collect on the best bailout insurance lobbyists can buy. This wild west idea dies hard, but not the fallout from the freedoms of new right cowboys who shaped the republican party in the wake of Barry Goldwater’s defeat in 1964, Arizona’s least-known, but not forgotten, mainstream maverick.

Obama should respond to the “illegals” crisis like he finally has to the BP oil spill. He’s getting tough, saying they will have to pay every dime for the cleanup! Make those wielders of power who move the destinies of workers to the bottom pay damages for the market spills that threaten to soak them for generations. Talk them into putting their junk bonds and derivatives to work, plugging the chasm that keeps them impoverished. Call it operation overkill.

Natural disasters have a different pedigree than political-economic ones, even though we tend to view the latter as inevitable, like they’re in sync with the blowing wind or torrential downpours. Their ebb and flow is seen as part of the seasonal up-and-down cycles of everyday life (pre-global-warming weather patterns at least!). Bad people come and go and do evil things, so why get hot and bothered about it?

The employment catastrophe engulfing Arizona is not a natural one, and the oil spill is certainly not either, though it requires immediate action. The effects of policies like NAFTA that negatively impact large numbers are far from fully hidden, though the media doesn’t exactly go overboard in exposing the causes and effects of policies. Its coverage suggests a natural event about which little can be done. Ups and downs are normal. How often do we hear the refrain that there’s Obama can do to fix the job crisis! Causes can then be individualized. The burden is on the victims to act since policies are mostly abstractions–not exactly dinner table subjects–framed long ago.

Blaming policy designers for negligence is futile since their decisions are coordinated compromises executed by many with vested interests. Congress repealed Glass-Steagall in the late 90s to free the hands of financial elites who create wealth and jobs, getting a good chunk of campaign contributions to boot. What could be more natural! The vested get going and reap rewards. If there’s a flaw in the design, perhaps related to defective drills in MBA school, that leads to unintended credit spills, it will be drowned out by the obvious positives.

The foreclosure crisis is the grand consequence of these policies. All those good intentions to get more folks in homes and plug into the American Dream notwithstanding, the sum of the parts collapsed the whole. Not one of the super-salaried who bundled these packages of opportunity is liable; they merely acted naturally within the law to make a profit. Though the policy stinks from hindsight, it comes out in the wash as a practical innovation gone south, and therefore deserving of bailouts. And though virtually everyone points the finger at Wall Street, it’s blameless. Intentions were good, but no one’s perfect. Geniuses make mistakes too, and they apologized anyway. So bailouts are in order, not bail bondsmen.

A policy that acknowledges the guilt, passing the benefits to victims first, is taboo since this would interfere with the individual’s responsibility to take charge of their own affairs. Obama said as much, that direct actions for homeowners couldn’t discriminate between deserving and undeserving individuals. So let the banks mop up the credit spill, even try to plug leaks in the filter-down technology. Let it all ride out in the up-and-down-cycles of self-correction while individuals fend for themselves.

Neighbors ignore their foreclosed fallen like the plague, who do rapid sell-offs of their belongings alone, slipping into the night with bowed heads as scarred statistics. Victims of the recession, victims of NAFTA policies, have become an othered population, made untouchable and invisible.

There’s a new ad on TV for a Wall Street brokerage firm that shows a woman, head bowed, who’s clearly suffered an economic reversal from the recession, reflecting about her poor choices and how to prevent them again!

The only answer to cowboy capitalism across the spectrum is to coordinate a sensible policy of fair wages with the cleanup of all labor pool spills. This means facing the technological failings at the core of the setup that’s supposed to deliver what the American Dream promises. This would alleviate many social problems requiring cleanup down the road.

We need something like that “correxit” which BP used to clean up the oil, but which actually works. It is meant to absorb and decompose oil, convert it to another substance, which unfortunately might be worse than the disease, leaving daring toxic microbes afloat for generations that kill species of ocean life.

Individualizing the immigrant issue is the correxit that will pollute the pot for generations and kill species of working life. We need a chemistry that preserves the individual but not at the expense of the networks that bond them, links the fate of workers and immigrants to the machine that delivers a decent living, soaks relationships with fairness, and plugs leaks in the wage system. This will help minimize damage from flawed social technologies, and teach us how to spot and evaluate unnatural disasters and their–sometimes unintended–effects.

In other words we need more of the kind of education this law seems intent on suppressing. One of its not-so-veiled targets is “critical thinking,” a code for subversion to some on the sectarian fringe. But a critical awareness of the issues and stakes involved is a must to change policies and prevent future spills.

Melt the fear that isolation instills, not the person. As Eugene Robinson said recently in the Washington Post (5/14), this “angry anti-Latino spasm” is only partly about illegality. It’s really about fear and denial. But exactly what is needed to cancel these maladies is being denied by this legislation.

Reprinted from HuffingtonPost.com

Tags:

No Comments


Warring for Resources

by David Sirota

Reading this week’s New York Times headline–”U.S. Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan”–many probably wondered how this information was being presented as “news” in 2010. After all, humanity has long been aware of the country’s vast natural resources.

As Mother Jones magazine’s James Ridgeway said after recalling past public accounts of the ore deposits, “This ‘discovery’ in fact is ancient history tracing back to the times of Marco Polo.”

The intrigue in the Times dispatch, then, is not Afghanistan’s “huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals” that the paper quotes Pentagon officials gushing about–it is the gushing itself. Indeed, the real question is: What would prompt the government to portray well-known geology as some sort of blockbuster revelation?

The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder proffers a convincing answer. Noting the military’s coordinated quotes in the Times piece, he writes that the Pentagon is probably trying to bolster Americans’ support for the flagging Afghanistan campaign by “publicizing or re-publicizing valid but already public information about the region’s potential wealth.”

This assertion, mind you, is not coming from some antiwar ideologue in a “No War for Oil!” T-shirt. On the contrary, Ambinder is a quintessential buttoned-down establishmentarian far more interested in covering political process than in pushing a pet cause–which means his charge (later echoed by other Washington journalists) is a particularly powerful one. And if he’s correct, we may be witnessing the final spasm of a radical shift.

Remember, the idea that the U.S. invades countries to pilfer natural resources was once written off as an inflammatory insult and/or an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, irrespective of corroborating facts (like, say, pre-9/11 Pentagon plans to divvy up Iraqi petroleum, State Department proposals to privatize Iraq’s oil fields and top government officials insisting Saddam Hussein’s overthrow was “essential” to protect oil supplies). The assumption, of course, was that the public opposes resource conflicts and that therefore labeling wars as such is nothing but disreputable slander designed only to harm a political opponent.

This manufactured construct, though, began eroding as soon as George W. Bush started turning the “war for oil” aspersion into a proud clarion call.

In 2005, the Associated Press reported that the president “answered growing antiwar protests with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country’s vast oil fields.” During a press conference a year later, Bush three times pitched petroleum as a rationale for war, criticizing “extreme elements” who “want to control oil resources,” insisting that “we can’t tolerate a new terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East with large oil reserves” and warning that we must stop insurgents from gaining “the capacity to use oil as an economic weapon.”

Now, under President Obama, we get leaked Pentagon memos cheerily promising that Afghanistan will become “the Saudi Arabia of lithium” and generals touting the minerals’ “stunning potential”–the implication being that America is morally obligated to exploit such potential through armed occupation.

The theater of battle is different but the paradigm is the same: Whereas it was previously considered uncouth for anyone to even suggest that economic hegemony might motivate U.S. military action, our leaders are now boldly selling wars as commendable instruments of such profit-focused imperialism.

Importantly, this revised message relies on the new assumption that the public now sees resource conflicts not as detestable–but as worthy and even admirable. And should that assumption prove true, it would mean that this latest exercise in martial propaganda represents more than mere marketing innovation. It would signal a disturbing change in what the population thinks is–and is not–a just reason for war.

David Sirota hosts a radio show at AM 760 in Colorado. His latest book is The Uprising.

Tags: ,

No Comments


Audacity of Israel

by Cindy Sheehan

Since my son was killed in Iraq and I have come to prominence in the peace movement, the name I am called with the second highest frequency (behind “anti-American”) is “anti-Semitic.’

First of all, isn’t it interesting if one is anti-violence and pro-peace, that automatically makes one anti-American and anti-Semitic? That just tells us that violence and oppression are so inherently institutionalized in our cultures, that if one is against these things, that makes one against the entire culture, race or way of life.

It should be fundamentally understood that criticism of Israel’s program of Palestinian pogrom and the US’s demented foreign policy are not to be construed as hatred of all Jews or all Americans.

Here it should be pointed out that many Jews criticize Israel’s policies, in Israel and abroad, and are immediately branded as: “Self-loathing Jews.” I remember when I first met the Pentagon Paper’s whistle-blower, Daniel Ellsberg, and he was going off on Israel and its policies. I interrupted him and teased him: “Why Daniel, are you a self-loathing Jew?” And he responded: “No, I am a Likkud (rabid Zionist Israeli political party) and Sharon (Ariel Sharon, former terrorist and prime minister of Israel) hating Jew.”

I was recently sitting at my home in California having a cookout with my surviving children and grandchildren because we were commemorating Casey’s birthday (Memorial Day and Casey’s birthday always and unfortunately coincide) when I received a call from a friend and colleague who informed me that the Free Gaza Freedom Flotilla was under attack in International Waters by IDF (Israeli Defense Force) commandoes. Immediately, because of previous Israeli crimes against the Free Gaza humanitarians—ramming and firing at the boats and arresting and illegally detaining the participants—my gut reaction was the worst-case scenario. Minutes after I knew what happened, I knew that Israel would turn out to be the aggressor and, once again, justify its crimes with lies and cries of “self-defense.”

Israel’s claims of self-defense are usually delusional and paranoid. It would be like me claiming self-defense if I killed a homeless person for asking me for spare change.

Although all life is precious and all loss of life mourned, these facts should shame anyone who has cried “self-defense” (from www.ifamericansknew.org).

Since 2000: 124 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 1441 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis (and all of the Gazan children killed from 2008’s Cast Lead massacre have not been counted, yet); 1072 Israelis and at least 6448 Palestinians have been killed; 8,864 Israelis and 39,019 Palestinians have been injured; The US provides about 10 million dollars per day in military and other aid to Israel and ZERO dollars a day to Palestine; One Israeli political prisoner is being held in Palestinian jail while 7383 Palestinians are currently being held by Israel; Zero Israeli homes have been demolished while 24,145 Palestinian homes have been destroyed to make way for Israeli settlements; The Israeli unemployment rate is 6.1%, while the Palestinian unemployment rate in the West Bank is 16.3%, and 41.3% in Gaza.

I also want to make clear, and I think I speak for many people in the peace community, that as well as not being a “Jew hater”–I am not a Holocaust denier. How can one not look at the images from the concentration camps and hear the stories without being instantly and deeply moved and repulsed? How can one deny the overwhelming evidence that it did happen and that it was an immense tragedy to not only Jews, but Catholics, gypsies, homosexuals, political prisoners, and many other fringe groups that Nazi Germany persecuted? But, saying that, in my opinion, what happened to the Jews during the 30s and 40s does not justify in the least little bit what the Jewish State of Israel has been doing to the Palestinian people since 1947. One genocide does not justify another, especially since the Palestinian people had nothing to do with the Holocaust and any person of conscience or any basic intelligence must realize that the Palestinians have been forced to suffer for decades for the crimes of white Europeans.

I have been impressed by the protests arising all over the world in response to this crime, but even though the latest Israeli atrocity was horrible, people of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan go through this on a daily basis, and we have trouble raising interest for anti-war protests.

We here in the U.S. need to demand that our tax dollars stop going to help Israel violently occupy Palestine and destabilize the region. But we also need to look at our own complicity. What good does it do to go to an occasional protest and hold signs, no matter how clever they are, while still financing our country’s war crimes and crimes against humanity by paying our own pound of flesh to the Empire?

Tags: ,

No Comments


Sharks Should Not Own Sport

by John Pilger

As Tiger Woods returns to golf, not all his affairs are salacious headlines. The Tiger Woods Golf Course in Dubai is costing $100 million to build. Dubai relies on cheap third world labor, as do certain consumer brands that have helped make Woods a billionaire. Nike workers in Thailand wrote to Woods, expressing their “utmost respect for your skill and perseverance as an athlete,” but pointing out that they would need to work 72,000 years “to receive what you will earn from [your Nike] contract.”

Dave Zirin, is one of the few sports writers to break media silence on the corporate distortion and corruption of sport. His book Bad Sports: How Owners Are Ruining the Games We Love (Scribner) blows a long whistle on what money power has done to the people’s pleasure, its heroes like Woods and the communities it once served. He describes the impact of the Texan Tom Hicks’s half-ownership of Liverpool Football Club, which followed another rich and bored American Malcolm Glazer’s “leveraged takeover” of Manchester United in 2005. As a result, England’s most successful club (with Liverpool) is now 716.5 million pounds in debt.

How long has this been going on? In 1983, you could buy a ticket to a first division game for 75 pence. Today, the average at Old Trafford is around 34 pounds. Watch the latest crop of parents on morose queues to buy overpriced club strips and insignia, also made with cheap and often sweated labor, with the brand of a failed multinational emblazoned on it. Profiteering is now an incandescent presence across top-class sport. Sven-Goran Eriksson will trouser up to two million pounds for just three months’ work in Ivory Coast, where half the population has barely enough to survive. Australia’s finest, most boorish cricketers are collecting their bundles for a few months’ cavorting in the Indian franchises. The attitude is entitlement, the kind that less talented “celebrities” flaunt. It was in no way remarkable that in 2007-8 a number of the heirs to Don Bradman’s Invincibles achieved what was once nigh on impossible; they were disliked in their own country. Those high fives and air-punching fists have become salutes not to “everyone working for each other, everyone having a share of the rewards” (Bill Shankly), but to the voracious sponsor and the forensic camera.

Take for example FIFA, which effectively took charge of South Africa for the World Cup. Along with the International Olympic Committee, FIFA is sport’s Wall Street and Pentagon combined. They have this power because host politicians believe the “international prestige” of their visitation will bring economic and promotional benefits, especially to themselves. I was reminded of this watching a documentary by the South African director Craig Tanner, Fahrenheit 2010. His film is not opposed to the World Cup, but reveals how ordinary South Africans, whose game is football, have been shoved aside, dispossessed and further impoverished so that a giant TV façade can be erected in their country.

A new stadium near Nelspruit will host four World Cup matches over 10 days. Jimmy Mohlala, speaker of the local municipality, was gunned down in his home in January last year after whistle-blowing “irregularities” in the tenders. An entire school, which was in the way, has been removed into prefabricated, sweltering steel boxes on a desolate site with a road running through it. “When the World Cup is over,” said the writer Ashwin Desai, “it will become obvious that these stadiums are going to be empty shells, that our money has been used for what is really a pyramid scheme.”

A community of 20,000 people, the Joe Slovo Informal Settlement, is threatened with eviction from where they live near the main motorway between Cape Town and the city’s airport. They are deemed an “eyesore.” Street vendors will be arrested if they fail to comply with FIFA rules about trade and advertising and mention the words “World Cup,” even “2010.” FIFA will earn about two and quarter billion pounds from the TV rights, exceeding its income from the last two World Cups combined.

Incredibly, South Africa will get none of this. And this is a country with up to 40 per cent unemployment, a male life expectancy of 49, and thousands of malnourished children. This truth about the “rainbow nation” is not what fans all over the world will see on their TV screens, although they may glimpse an unreported feature of modern South Africa, which is a vibrant, rolling resistance that has linked the World Cup to an economic apartheid that remains as divisive as ever. Indeed, another kind of World Cup for effective popular protest has long been won in the streets of South Africa’s townships.

In his chapter on Liverpool FC, Dave Zirin describes a similar resistance that also offers inspiration to those struggling to reclaim sport from the sharks. A fans’ organization, Share Liverpool FC, is aiming for 100,000 shareholders to buy back the club from Tom Hicks and his co-owner, George Gillett. Liverpool fans have also formed the Liverpool Supporters Union (LSU), which has had thousands in the streets calling for a boycott of the Bank of Scotland if it gives Hicks and Gillett any more credit. Remember how the boycott of Murdoch press succeeded in Liverpool following the Sun’s lies over the Hillsborough tragedy. “If we stand together and speak with one voice, regardless of language or accent,” says the LSU, “we can make a genuine difference to our football club, the city of Liverpool and indeed the wider footballing world.” On 17 April, Hicks and Gillett announced they were selling the club. Manchester United fans are mounting a similar, principled resistance in defense of the sport they love and which they believe rightly is theirs. We should support them.

www.johnpilger.com

Tags: ,

No Comments


Long Beach Music Scene

by Greggory Moore

It’s fitting that Tiger Tank euphoria are precise about the way they write out their name and initials (TTe), since their music—all high-energy syncopated grooves, fast yet eminently melodic lead lines, and funk-fusion echoes—is T-I-G-H-T. But make no mistake: this is a L-I-V-E band, its members alive to each other’s sonic movement through time. Not only can you hear it, but you can see it. Hear/see TTe once and next time they come ‘round you won’t have to wonder if you’ve seen them before—you’ll remember (even if they’re not playing behind a troupe of fire dancers, as took place at Hancock University when they closed the Haiti benefit Carnival del Corazón on February 28).

“If you come see us and you’re not at least amused, then we’re doing this in vain,” says keyboardist Clancy Cramer, who, with drummer Jon Sacks, formed TTe two years ago when the fledgling band’s two-song/45-minute set at Shelter Surf Shop clicked. Shortly thereafter they added bassist Michael J. and guitarist Thor Jensen, and, with the help of “the Jonas Brass,” honed their description-resistant, genreless sound.

Cramer tells me I’ve just made his day when I opine that TTe is the result of no obvious musical genesis. “One of the things I like about playing in this band is that our music is not general at all,” he says. “When we play, we either offend somebody, have the person dislike us totally, or they love us. I’ve never had anyone say, ‘Eh, you guys are alright.’”

Although there was no gap in their sound, the sixth and last installment in TTe’s monthly residency at The Basement Lounge in April was their debut with the addition of vocalist Vanessa Acosta. The band say this wasn’t planned—in fact, the life and growth of TTe seems to have been a completely organic affair—but that it will be interesting to see where this takes things, since some people’s attention cannot be held by instrumental music. “’What we need is an amazingly beautiful woman who can sing,’” Cramer recalls musing. “And we happened to find one.”

Don’t expect a change in sound, though, as TTe continues to play live—as they will July 15 at the Long Beach Museum of Art (www.lbma.org)—and works to capture that live sound on a full-length recording that’s slated for an August 29 release. In the meantime, check them out on Facebook and on myspace.com/tigertankeuporia.

I distinctly remember the first time I heard oto. It was a Saturday in late 2006, and in the back room of Portfolio three painfully quiet Japanese 20-somethings had set up a quaint array of instrumentation—acoustic guitars, melodica, decrepit portable organ, tiny xylophone, boxy little drum set—and proceeded to produce a 20-minute musical breeze that wove its way into the spaces in the silence, then announced that they had exhausted their repertoire. Didn’t matter: they turned me into a fan for life at about Minute Three.

But little did I know then that one of them, Hiro Makino, was the Damon Albarn of Long Beach—you know, that guy who makes every one of his projects at least a good one. First there had been soto—basically, oto’s airy aesthetics with more of an electronic bent. From soto came oto and the shift to a more organic, woody sound. From oto grew Elephant Day, a quirky, carefree continuation of this musical heredity. Lovely projects, all.

With such unique musical offspring, it’s hardly surprising that established bands came calling for Makino’s magic touch. First came Venus Infers, a band that sounds like a distant cousin of The Strokes and is probably the most straightforward act with which Makino’s been involved. Then for a brief but glorious two months Makino joined Cosmodelion and lifted them to space-rock heaven, before an inscrutable change of musical direction in the wake of their drummer’s departure left them an entirely different band. (Do whatever you can to find the three songs they recorded with Makino in the mix.)

Never being content unless his musical dance card is filled (“I think I’m just greedy. I want to keep playing different stuff”), Makino and oto-mate Tai Tajima have recently joined longtime Long Beach standout Familiar Trees and will undoubtedly augment their ethereal, folkie indie pop.

While Familiar Trees and Venus Infers full-lengths are obtainable (Venus Infers just played an album-release show at the Grove of Anaheim), not so with Makino’s progeny. “I’ve sort of lost interest in making a commercial product,” he explains. “I just [figured]: If people want to listen to songs I make, I’ll just give it them [. . . for] right now, at least.”

July 17 presents you with a stellar opportunity to find out what Makino is all about, when oto (in duo form: third member Boon is currently in Japan) opens for Familiar Trees at Bleicher/Golightly Gallery (1431 Ocean Ave., Santa Monica 90401). Until then—or after then, or at the same time if you’ve got one of those new-fangled Internet phone contraptions—check out otosound.net; and you can find oto, Venus Infers, and Familiar Trees on MySpace.

Tags: , ,

No Comments


The Flight of Mehetabel

by James Howard Kunstler

On fall days after the ordeal of school, when he felt jaded by all the other fabled attractions of Manhattan–the Planetarium, the gun department of Abercrombie & Fitch, the shrunken head gallery at the Museum of Natural History, the ski-ball emporiums of Time’s Square, and with the boats all pulled up for the winter along Central Park’s Lake–Jeff Greenaway, age eleven and a quarter, liked nothing better than to go over to his friend Bobby Schindler’s place and throw things off the roof.

Bobby’s apartment was far superior for this pastime than Jeff’s, since the Greenaways lived on the seventh floor of their building at 79th Street and Lexington, with all but the living room windows facing the rear of the building, where nobody ever went but the superintendent and his dour minions; whereas the Schindler’s inhabited a 15th floor penthouse in their building on 74th Street, overlooking Fifth Avenue with its buses and mobs of schoolchildren and elderly pedestrians and occasional horse-drawn carriages.

This particular gloomy-gray November afternoon, while President Kennedy entertained the now-forgotten head-of-state of a nation that no longer exists, and all else was well with the world, Bobby issued the invitation to Jeff as Mrs. Snipes’s class lined up in formation to debouch from Public School Number Six at the three o’clock bell.

“It’ll be great,” Bobby whispered over his shoulder while holding hands with the bovine Esther Grubka, his perennial partner in line, who was exactly his height. “We’ll have the whole place to ourselves. My mom’s having root canals at four o’clock.”

“What’s root canals?” Jeff asked.

“It’s this thing the dentist does to you. She says it’s pure hell.”

For a moment Jeff imagined a dark, sewer-like tunnel running through a person’s jawbone. The pointy roots of molars hung down from the ceiling like stalactites. He pictured his own dentist, Dr. Voortman, tricked out in baggy silver coveralls and space helmet, braving the forbidding place in the prow of a gondola, and brandishing a flame-thrower which he used to blast the blob-like germs that lurked everywhere in the dank shadows.  It was especially hard for Jeff to link such a ghastly scene to Phyllis Schindler, a stately brunette who was one of the better-looking mothers in his acquaintance.

“God, that’s too bad about your mom,” Jeff said.

“She’ll live,” Bobby said. “Hey, I’ve got some firecrackers, too.”

“No talking on line,” Mrs. Snipes said blithely as she switched off the lights and the children marched forward.

“We can pick up some supplies on the way,” Jeff whispered to the back of Bobby’s neck. “It’ll be great. We’ll blow up the whole city.”

“They’re going to blow up the whole city, Mrs. Snipes!” cried Barbara Mitterwald, Jeff’s partner in line and the class snitch, who wore skirts with felt poodles sewn on and always drew exactly the same picture of a horse every time the class did art.

“Don’t worry, children,” Mrs. Snipes replied musically. “With President Kennedy in the White House, nobody’s going to blow up anything.”

By “supplies” Jeff meant balloons, which they customarily filled with water and lobbed off the terrace at various targets below. So, on their way to Bobby’s house they stopped at the newsstand on 77th Street run by a prankish Hungarian who had been used as an ashtray by the Nazi guards at Treblinka, and who sold many things that boys liked such as plastic vomit, false beards, soap that turned an unsuspecting victim’s hands black, squirting boutonnieres, invisible ink, flies embalmed in plastic ice cubes, et cetera, and here Jeff was seized by inspiration when he beheld a rack of balsa wood gliders.

“Hey, I got a great idea,” he said. “We scotch-tape those firecrackers to the wings of these babies and sail ‘em out over the park. It’ll be like the Battle of Midway.”

“You’re a goddam genius, you know that?” Bobby said.

The gliders were a dime each. They bought a dozen plus two packs of balloons. There was no need to squander their cash on candy, since the Schindlers kept on hand at all times an impressive horde of the foods required by children. Then they hurried the remaining blocks to 74th street, rode upstairs with Kelly the singing elevator man, who always hummed a plaintive ditty of his native land on the way up (never down for some reason), and entered the penthouse to find Althea the maid ironing linens in the dining room.

“Don’t you chirrun mess up my flo’, now,” she warned them as they made immediately for the kitchen.

“What’s she doing here?” Jeff whispered anxiously.

“It must be her day to come.”

“Obviously it must be. She’s here.”

“Don’t sweat it–we’re taking our shoes off, Althea!”

“. . . and watch them crumbs. I already done cleaned that kitchen once today.”

Though it was not his home, Jeff knew exactly where the Schindlers stockpiled their goodies, the top drawer under the breakfast counter, where he now gazed down at a bonanza of Hershey’s miniatures, bite-sized Baby Ruths, Mounds bars, Butterfingers, and Milky Ways. Mr. Schindler was in the entertainment business.

Bobby scouted the refrigerator for Cokes.

“Holy moley,” he said. “Look what’s here!” He took out a Spanish melon bigger than his head. “Want to give this baby the old heave-ho and see what happens?”

“Oh, absolutely,” Jeff said, his mouth filled with confections.

They adjourned to the bedroom that Bobby shared, theoretically, with his older brother Steve, who was away at the Trent School in New Hampshire. Curled up on the lower of two bunk beds was a mottled brown and white angora cat named Mehetabel, an animal of undetermined age whom the Schindlers had rescued as a stray several years before at Cape Cod. A placid, pliable creature who slept twenty-three hours a day, she was generally considered “the boys’ cat” though Bobby’s mother had come up with her name.

Jeff took a seat at the desk and began the tedious task of assembling all the gliders. Bobby crawled onto the bunk and hoisted Mehetabel onto his stomach. She remained there, purring madly, and licking the melted chocolate in the corners of Bobby’s mouth.

“That’s disgusting,” Jeff remarked.

“It’s okay,” Bobby said. “We’re married. Hey, how’s about filling up those balloons?”

They were soon ready to remove to the terrace when another inspiration seized Jeff. He held up one of Bobby’s brother’s 45 rpm records. “You know what?” he said. “We could scotch-tape three firecrackers to a record and twist the fuses together in the hole in the center and wing ‘em out over the park.”

“They’re not my records,” Bobby said.

“If Steve cared about them, do you think he’d have left them with you?”

“He’d kill me.”

“Look at this: Johnny Angel by Shelly Faberes! Sickening!”

“All right,” Bobby said, retrieving his precious horde of firecrackers from a secret hiding place inside a hollow cardboard globe.

They armed the records and soon they were ready to commence the aerial bombardment of Fifth Avenue.

A moderate breeze blew out of the southeast, with occasional freak gusts in all directions. Below, Central Park spread like a mauve sea, the trees by now mostly stripped of their leaves. Directly ahead lay the Conservatory Pond, bean-shaped from this height, its surface dotted with the white sails of model yachts. Beyond the pond lay the greater ragged expanse of Olmsted’s lake, the Adirondacks in miniature. Behind all this stood the somber sentinel row of apartment buildings on Central Park West, stretching north into the mists of Harlem. A five foot high wall rimmed the Schindler’s terrace, but a set of French planting boxes placed against it made excellent platforms from which to stand and peer over the building’s edge.

“Let’s toss some pennies off first,” Bobby suggested. Pennies were fun because pedestrians would hear the sound of money ringing on the sidewalk and stop to look for it. Older people, especially who grew up during the Great Depression, were thrilled, and often got down on their hands and knees to search. Today, however, the wind was carrying the coins out over the street.

“That was a waste,” Bobby said.

“Let’s try that flying saucer,” Jeff suggested.

“Okay. I’ll light it, you fling it.”

The three little blue firecrackers were taped equilaterally to the “B” side, leaving Johnny Angel exposed to the heavens. Bobby struck an Ohio blue tip kitchen match on the rough brick wall. The braided fuses came alive with a bright sputter. Jeff held it in thrall, cackling wildly.

“Wing it, ya jerk!”

Jeff flung it with a backhand motion out over Fifth Avenue. It carried impressively on the wind and had barely begun to descend when all three charges went off sequentially in three discreet bursts of white smoke, and the vinyl fragments fluttered slowly to earth like the Devil’s own snow.

“Hey, that was all right,” Bobby said admiringly. “Let’s try a few more.”

“What’d I tell ya?”

So, Johnny Angel was followed by Purple People Eater by Sheb Wooley. It hooked in a broad arc to the right, and was cutting sharply downward across the avenue in direct line with a chestnut peddler’s smoking pushcart when the disk exploded. One larger fragment hung eerily in an updraft, then flew to pieces in a second and third explosion. Distant pale faces swaddled in fall clothing gazed up from the far sidewalk along the park’s edge at a gray smudge in the air which was all that remained of the number one hit record. The chestnut peddler hurried away as though he were pushing a rickshaw. They sacrificed two more top-ten hits: The Wayward Wind, by Gogi Grant, and Lonely Street, by Clarence “Frog Man” Henry. The latter lodged in the branches of Chinese elm tree across the avenue and sent up a flock of starlings on detonation.

“Y’all out of yo’ mind!?” Althea, unseen until now, screeched from behind them. “Git off that damn thang!” The boys stepped down from the planter. “You two gonna kill yo’sefs hanging off de roof like dat!”

“We saw this deer running through the park,” Jeff said.

Bobby cut an astonished glance at his friend.

“Say what?” Althea said, squinting in disbelief.

“It had antlers and everything.” Jeff said.

Althea, wearing her red wool coat–a sure sign that her day’s work was at an end–strode briskly to the wall and looked over.  “Aint no deers in Central Park,” she muttered, “‘cept at de zoo.”

“It could have escaped from there,” Jeff said. “The way it was running I’m sure it did.”

“It might have been a big dog,” Bobby inserted.

“It wasn’t any dog,” Jeff said.

“Maybe it was a horse.”

“Do horses have antlers?”

“I don’t give a damn what it was,” Althea declared. “Y’all get off de terrace this minute. Go on, git!” She shooed them back inside. As Althea pulled on her gloves and stooped to pick up her immense vinyl tote bag, they stood sheepishly by the dining room table. “Yo mama be back at six. Don’t you go back out on dat terrace now, hear? If you kill yo’sefs, she only blame me.”

“Don’t worry, we won’t.” Bobby said.

“We have to study decimals,” Jeff said. “It’s really fascinating.”

“Well, you practice yo’ lesson, den,” Althea said, heading out the door. “And stay off dat damn terrace!”

As soon as the front door closed behind her, they returned to the terrace, this time with the four pound Spanish melon. Minutes later, Althea’s red coat could be seen emerging from under the green canopy at the building’s entrance.

“I have a feeling this could really hurt someone,” Jeff said.

“Okay, let’s try to heave it out into the middle of the street between lights when the cars are all lined up at seventy-fifth. We can time it.”

They climbed up in the planter again, the melon cradled between them. A stream of cars, yellow taxies, and buses passed in the avenue below.

“Start swingin’ her,” Bobby said.

“The light’s starting to change. They’re stopping.”

“Okay, on three, let her go.”

With excellent coordination, they discharged the melon over the terrace wall. Unfortunately, it arced sharply up before gravity overtook it, and it began plummeting rather short of the avenue’s temporarily vacant middle. As Jeff and Bobby gazed down in dread, the melon headed straight for a Buick parked at the curb. It landed directly on the vehicle’s roof. They couldn’t bear to see it and withdrew. A split second later a muffled report reverberated back up to the terrace, a sound as of a forest giant thumping on a colossal hollow log. Without another word, Bobby and Jeff bustled back inside and started watching television with ferocious intensity so that when the police showed up with Kelly the elevator man, they could feign complete ignorance of the dastardly act. The minutes ticked by with agonizing slowness. On TV, a fat woman was telling a story about her husband’s industrial accident to a studio audience who clapped when she finished.

“They’re gonna put us in reform school this time,” Bobby whimpered, clutching the purring Mehetabel.

“For Godsake, quit sniveling and act normal, in case they do come up here,” Jeff said.

Twenty minutes elapsed and no police arrived at the Schindler penthouse.          They went back out to the terrace. Peering over the wall, they descried the fateful Buick parked at the curb below. The Spanish melon had landed in the exact center of its roof, its impacted residue radiating like a great slimy sunflower against the black metal. From this angle, the vehicle’s roof appeared somewhat cratered.

“Maybe we should stick to water balloons,” Jeff concluded.

“Let’s just fly some gliders for now.”

The first of the gliders hung on the updrafts generated by the canyons of apartment towers and repeatedly sailed back onto the terrace.

“Let’s take ‘em up there and launch them,” Jeff said, pointing to the art deco water tower that loomed another two stories above the Schindler’s penthouse roof. An iron ladder led from the terrace to a sort of workman’s balcony halfway up.

“You think it’s safe?”

“It must be. They put a ladder up to it.”

“I never saw anyone go there.”

“Come on.”

“Oh, okay.”

So they took several gliders up to the balcony, but the added height did not avail. The aircraft hung in the wind and landed on the terrace. By and by, Mehetabel the cat ventured out onto the patio and reclined languorously in a little puddle of sunlight.

“Your wife’s here,” Jeff said.

“I give up on these gliders.”

“Hey, I’ve got an idea,” Jeff said. “Let’s parachute her down to the terrace from up here.”

“Who?”

“Your cat.”

“Yeah, sure.”

“It’d be just like Coney Island.”

“You’re crazy.”

“You saw the way all those planes are blowing. Come on, let’s fix up a parachute.”

“I don’t know about this.”

“Bobby, your cat is going to die of boredom. It doesn’t have anything to do around here.”

“I don’t think it needs anything to do.”

“Of course it does. How would you feel cooped up in an apartment all day. If it was me, I’d commit suicide.”

“Oh, okay.”

They went back inside to look for a suitable parachute and found a perfect one in Phyllis Schindler’s pink damask tablecloth, which they rigged with sturdy sisal utility twine to the leather chest harness that Mrs. Schindler had purchased that September they returned from Cape Cod with Mehetabel–thinking, like many persons who have never owned a cat before, that it would be fun to take her for walks in the park, as though she were a springer spaniel. Of course, it hadn’t worked out that way. It would have been easier to walk a twenty pound sack of Idaho potatoes.

The phlegmatic Mehetabel cooperated like a flight cadet as they fitted her harness with its thrilling new accessory and carried her back out to the terrace.

“You take her up there and I’ll stay down here and make sure she lands okay,” Jeff said.

“Are you positive about this?”

“I’m telling you, this cat needs some excitement in her life.”

Bobby took the cat up to the little balcony. It was, as a matter of fact, only twelve feet higher than the terrace. The chute already billowed out in the wind. Mehetabel felt practically weightless as Bobby held her over the rail.

“It’s gonna work,” Jeff shouted. “I can tell.”

“It feels okay.”

“Let her go, then.”

“Geronimo!”

Bobby released the cat. Like the gliders before, Mehetabel hung eerily suspended a moment on an updraft. Then she began to gently descend to the terrace, her damask parachute working beautifully–until a freak gust hoisted her up again and blew her toward the terrace wall.

“Grab her, for Godsake!” Bobby hollered from the balcony on the water tower. “Quick!”

But just as Jeff cleared a potted hydrangea, Mehetabel sailed over his head and out of reach.

“Hurry!”

Jeff lunged again, but tripped over a wicker chaise lounge. He looked up just in time to see Mehetabel’s back paws frantically backpedaling in space as she desperately tried to gain purchase on the concrete cap of the wall. She meowed once, and then she was gone.

“Omigod,” Bobby muttered from above.

Moments later, the two stood together on the planter at the wall, watching goggle-eyed as Mehetabel sailed westward across Fifth Avenue toward the immensity of Central Park, her legs now merely dangling, and her cries of “meow” gleeping across the ether like the yelps of an astounded voyager aloft in a strange and wondrous land.

“Forget the goddam elevator!” Bobby screamed, as Jeff frantically pounded the button. “Quick. Follow me!”

By the time they reached the lobby, their heads were swimming from all the turns and landings on the fire stairs. They got within a few steps of the building’s main entrance when Larry the swingshift doorman threw open the filigreed iron and glass door and in wobbled Phyllis Schindler, demure in a forest green cashmere wool coat, much like the Givanchy original Jackie Kennedy had worn on her recent state visit to Denmark. However, Mrs. Schindler held her head at a peculiar angle, her eyes looked bloodshot, perhaps even slightly crossed, and she seemed a bit unsteady on her feet.

“Where are you going?” she asked in a slurry voice, her lips still numb from the Novocain. “It’s almost six o’clock.”

“My grandmother just got hit by a taxi in front of Bloomingdale’s,” Jeff said.

“I gotta go along for moral support,” Bobby explained.

“It’s the truth,” Jeff said. “And she was only fifty-eight.”

“What!  Is she dead?”

“They’re not sure yet.”

“Not sure. . . ?”
“Go upstairs and rest, Mom,” Bobby said. “I won’t be gone long.”

“Well, I certainly hope she comes through all right,” Mrs.  Schindler said and reeled toward the elevator holding her jaw.

Once outside, they scanned the horizon across Fifth Avenue and spotted the distant silhouette of Mehetabel’s parachute against the pink-gray crepuscular sky, on a course that put her generally above the statue of Balto the Heroic Sled Dog, heading due west.

“Quick, follow me!” Bobby cried. The two bolted out into the rush hour traffic between a phalanx of checker cabs and a Penn Station bound bus, causing much squealing rubber to be left on the asphalt. Vaulting the stone wall that enclosed the park, they landed in a rhododendron bush, fought their way out of its ancient tangled labyrinth of limbs, raced around the pond past the statue of the pilgrim, caught up with the road that led to the Bethesda Fountain at the edge of Olmsted’s lake, and hurried down the stone steps to the masonry plaza below. At this hour of a crisp fall evening the park was empty of young lovers, nannies with prams, elderly strollers, and other of its more benign denizens.

“Look, there she is,” Bobby pointed to a speck flying above the graceful Bow Bridge.

“I think she’s getting a little lower.”

“Quick! This way!”

They followed the bike path that skirted the lakeshore, then crossed the Bow Bridge into that area of the park known as the Ramble, Olmsted’s favorite vignette, a Transylvanian wilderness of cliffs, secret grottos, twisted gnarly trees, dark vales, brooks, caves, and rotting rustic belvederes. They had just turned the corner on the twisting path when a very large man stepped out of the shadows and blocked their way. He wore pointy black shoes, checked pants, a greasy-looking greenish metallic suit jacket, and a blue porkpie hat with the rim turned clownishly up all around. He sucked on a toothpick that had the look of an auxiliary fang.

“You boys out for a li’l stroll?” he inquired.

“No,” Bobby said, “My cat is flying over the park in a parachute.”

“Hunh. . . ?”

“We really don’t have time for a robbery,” Jeff told him. “If you don’t move, I’ll bite you so hard you’ll bleed to death.”

“Just gimme a quarter.”

“Run, Bobby, run,” Jeff screeched as they dashed by the menacing if awkward figure. The man wheeled and made as if to give chase, but he had only moments earlier snuffed out his 37th Kool cigarette of the day, and his lungs could not take the exertion.

They emerged from the Ramble and darted across the busy Western Drive, where the cars now all had their headlights on. As they reached the far side, Mehetabel passed briefly over their heads–like an hallucination out of the Vedic myths–at an altitude now of about one hundred feet, and vanished over the treetops ahead. Sharing glances of amazement, the two dashed a final hundred yards to the 77th Street entrance and emerged from the park onto Central Park West, the mirror image of Fifth Avenue. Hurrying uptown, they stopped the occasional passerby to ask whether he or she had, perchance, seen a cat in a parachute along their way. Finally, they spied a crowd gathered on the sidewalk one last block north. Some of the crowd members were pointing up into a tree that grew along the outside of the park wall, a London plane tree, to be precise, one of the tallest examples of that handsome species to be found in the city (it was planted by vice-president Roosevelt in 1901), and, as they drew nearer, they could make out the telltale pink damask tablecloth dangling limply amid the bare branches about three quarters of the way up. Just below it, clinging to the tree’s mottled green-and-tan trunk, hung the intrepid Mehetabel. They could see her little pink mouth open and close, but her cries could not be discerned above the ambient noise of traffic and the chatter of the excited onlookers.

“Here Hetty! Here girl,” Bobby called up to her, making the little kissing noises to which, it universally supposed, cat’s cannot fail to do a human’s bidding. But Mehetabel would not budge from her precarious position hugging the tree’s great trunk. “Here Hetty!” kiss kiss kiss. “It’s all right. You can come down now.”

“That your cat?” a member of the crowd asked, a prissy man wearing a wine-colored ascot and toting a shiny red shopping bag from Saks.

“Sort of,” Bobby said.

“We know the owners,” Jeff added.

“Well, you better call the fire department to get it down.”

“Maybe we could climb up and get her?” Bobby said.

“The branches don’t start for twenty feet, for Godsake,” Jeff pointed out.

“Oh, all right. But you call them. I have to stay here and make sure she doesn’t get away”

There was a phone booth across the street, on the corner beside the New York Historical Society. Jeff ran over, dialed the operator and asked for the fire department. She connected him to the nearest fire station on 69th Street.

“Whaddaya mean you got a cat in a parachute stuck up in a tree?” the fire sergeant barked into the phone. “Chuck you, Farley!”

The line went dead. Jeff pounded the return coin button but his dime was gone forever. What is more, it was his last dime. In desperation, he lurched out of the booth and stopped the first person within reach, a woman of a certain age and immense dignity in a long lamb’s wool coat. Before she could hit him with her furled umbrella, Jeff cried, “Help, please, I’m lost and I need ten cents to call my mother.”

“Why, you poor thing,” the woman said, melting with grandmotherly tenderness. She went fishing in her Chanel bag and produced a little coin purse, from which, with great ceremony, she drew a dime. “Here you are young man.”

“Thanks a million.”

“But, can’t you tell me where you live?”

“Of course I can: 127 East 79th Street, Apartment 7-D.”

“Then you’re not lost.”

“No, this is different. It’s more like I’m lost mentally.”

“Huh. . . ?”

“Say, have you got an extra dime, ma’am? This phone gobbles ‘em right up.”

She handed him a second dime with a sour look of suspicion at being snookered and waddled off in a cloud of cologne.

Jeff went back to the phone booth and got the same fire sergeant on the line again. Instead of saying anything about any cats, he put on a falsetto voice and said, “There’s a terrible fire on 74th Street and Central Park West. Please come right away!”  Before the sergeant could ask any questions, he hung up.

Not a minute later, a great uproar of winding sirens and pulsating lights turned staid Central Park West into scene of tumultuous melodrama. A pumper followed by a hook-and-ladder swerved around 73rd Street, stopping traffic in all directions. A captain dressed in full fire-fighting regalia of black rubber coat, knee-high rubber boots, and helmet with his rank emblazoned over the sunburst company insignia on the crown, stepped down from the cab of the pumper truck before it even came to a full stop and eyeballed the apartment buildings occupying the block. Seeing no sign whatever of any fire, and noting the doormen lollygagging beneath their canopies, the captain swaggered over to the crowd, swollen now to more than a hundred people, gathered under the London plane tree on the park side of the street.

“What seems to be the problem here?” he asked. Dozens of crowd members answered at once, gesticulating wildly up the tree, and soon the captain understood that there was a cat stuck in the tree. By this time, he had been joined by his sergeant, a short, barrel-chested Irishman who, in his rubber outfit, quite remarkably resembled a fireplug.

“Don’t tell me it’s wearing a parachute,” he muttered, just then making out the pink damask tablecloth and the vague mottled brown and white puffball below it. “Well, I’ll be jiggered…”

“Swing the cherry-picker around, O’Hara,” the captain said. Then to the crowd he said, “Anybody amongst you the owner of this alleged feline?”

“I am, sir,” Bobby said.

“What the hell is that pink thing up there?”

“Just a tablecloth, sir.”

Just then several bystanders volunteered that they had seen the cat descend from the sky under it, as though it were a parachute.

“That’s cute,” the captain said. “You throw your cat out the window to see if it had nine lives?”

“No, sir. It was an accident.”

“Oh?  Was the cat having a little picnic out there on the windowsill all by its lonely?”

“It’s more complicated, sir.”

“I don’t doubt that, sonny.”

Meanwhile, the pumper had been positioned in front of the great tree and its cherry-picker was slowly rising up into the crown. Soon, a fireman up in the bucket was able to get his hands on Mehetabel. However, he seemed to have some difficulty getting her free.

“What’s the problem, D’Angelo?” the captain said through an electric bullhorn.

“Its claws is stuck,” D’Angelo hollered down.

“Whaddaya mean, ‘stuck?’”

“Embedded, like. In the trunk.”

“Jesus, Mary, and Joseph,” the captain muttered. “Okay, just sit tight up there, D’Angelo.  Don’t force anything.”

The captain now directed his bullhorn to the moiling crowd.

“Is any amongst you a vet by chance?” he asked.

Quite a few hands went up, including those of a couple of rum-soaked bums dressed in the filthy raiment of their lifeway.

“Guadalcanal!” the first shouted robustly.

“Sicily!” the other rasped.

“Not war veterans,” the captain snarled irritably. “I mean an animal doctor.”

All but one of the hands went down, and this one belonged to a wizened man barely five feet tall, leaning on a gutta-percha cane. Everything about him seemed dreadfully shrunken with great age, like a pear that has lain too long on the windowsill, even his head, which, but for its jug-handle ears, might have vanished under his ancient Homberg hat like a wrinkled pea under a walnut shell.

“You still in business?” the captain asked.

“Medicine is an art, not business,” the little old man replied rather fiercely, considering his frail appearance. “Doctor Teitlebaum at your service.”

“Do you think you could, maybe, get this cat’s claws unstuck from that tree trunk, Doctor Teitlebaum?”

“Do you think you could, maybe, put out a fire?” the old vet retorted.

The cherry-picker was lowered and Doctor Teitlebaum was helped aboard. As it returned aloft, a young man in cheap suit with a camera slung around his neck approached Jeff and Bobby.

“Eddie Huntzinger, Daily News. I unnerstand that’s your cat up there, kid?” he said, flipping open a small notepad and licking the tip of his ball-point pen. “Say, is it true you tossed him out the window with a tablecloth for a parachute?”

Jeff at once attempted to correct the reporter on a few counts. It was a roof, not a window, and it was for an important school report on science, and it proved that thousands of lives could be saved every year if people who were in the mood to commit suicide would only wear a parachute as regular apparel, just like people in the mood for a drive wear safety belts. The flight’s point of origin had to remain a secret for scientific purposes.

“All right, then, what’s your names?” the reporter asked.

“He’s Dale Long, and I’m Hector Lopez,” Jeff said, borrowing two names from the ranks of the New York Yankees.

“Long and Lopez, huh?” the reporter said, nodding his head skeptically. “Funny, you don’t look Spanish.”

“Well, chingate tu madre,” Jeff said, utilizing a vulgarism then much in vogue around the P.S. Six playground. The reporter was evidently unfamiliar with it.

“Yeah, sure, well, how ‘bout a picture…”

Just then, a cheer rang out from the surrounding mob. Jeff and Bobby wheeled around to see fireman D’Angelo descending from on high with Mehetabel clutched to his rubbery chest. Next to him in the bucket, Doctor Teitlebaum shook his cane at the ground, yelling, “Not so fast! Not so fast!” When the cherry-picker touched down, D’Angelo handed Mehetabel over to the captain, who conveyed the blinking cat to Bobby, who took her into his arms, weeping, indeed like a husband who has almost lost his wife to some awful quirk of the earth’s merciless and mysterious forces. Eddie Huntzinger tried to snap a picture but Jeff stuck his hand in front of the lens, saying the government didn’t allow it.

The fire captain led his valiant company back to the station, leaving Bobby and Jeff to a lecture at the frail but furious hands of Doctor Teitlebaum, who informed them that “animals are people, too, with rights, even!” and that tossing a cat out a window was like Hitler stuffing a baby into the gas chamber. But his rage eventuated in a coughing spasm, and with a gesture indicating that he was disgusted with the whole deplorable business, the aged DVM resumed his long journey to Kirschner’s Dairy Bar at 73rd Street and Columbus Avenue. The rest of the crowd also dispersed, for all New Yorkers innately know when a show is over.

Jeff and Bobby and the indomitable Mehetabel caught a crosstown bus in front of the Planetarium and made their way back to the more familiar precincts of the Upper East Side. Bobby managed a stealthy return to the family penthouse, since Phyllis Schindler was in bed sleeping off a Darvocet and three scotches, while Harvey Schindler attended the dress rehearsal of his latest Broadway show, a musical based on the Pullman Strike of 1894.

Jeff escaped his parents’ wrath by explaining that his friend Barry Bucholtzer had been hit by a garbage truck in front of PS Six and that they (he and many other concerned friends) had been down at the hospital since four o’clock waiting for the poor kid to come out of the operating room.

“Is he going to be all right?” Jeff’s mother asked, aghast.

“Yes, if he lives,” Jeff replied gravely before trudging off to his room to watch the latest installment of “The Untouchables” on TV, in which the ever-treacherous Frank Nitti once again challenged the authority of jailed mob boss Alphonse Capone.

For several years after the incident, a pink damask tablecloth hung in a London plane tree at 74th Street and Central Park West, and Bobby Schindler’s mystified parents could not understand the strange phobia that gripped the boy whenever there was occasion to travel anywhere near the vicinity of Central Park West in a taxi-cab, for instance, on Passover, when they had to attend the Seder at Uncle Alfred and Aunt Seema’s lovely art-filled duplex in the famous San Remo Towers. Once, returning home in a Checker cab from a matinee of “Fiddler on the Roof” he went so far as to fake an epileptic seizure–an incident that, unfortunately, led to months of medical tests.

Eddie Huntzinger’s story about the parachuting cat was killed by a cynical, hard-drinking night editor who said he’d heard a lot of whoppers in thirty years but that this was “the most ridiculous and unbelievable of them all,” and warned Huntzinger in no uncertain terms to quit making stuff up or he’d spend the rest of his career at the shipping news desk. The editor died of a cerebral infarction three months later, while Huntzinger went on to become the millionaire author of seventeen Roscoe Dowling Detective novels about a deaf-and-dumb private investigator who specializes in finding lost persons.

The End

James Howard Kunstler is the author of The Long Emergency, The Geography of Nowhere, and many other books, both fiction and non-fiction. His recent novel World Made By Hand (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2008), is set in the post-oil American future.

Tags: ,

No Comments


Monsanto Endangers Health

by Jeffrey M. Smith

While visiting a seed corn dealer’s demonstration plots in Iowa last fall, Dr. Don Huber walked past a soybean field and noticed a distinct line separating severely diseased yellowing soybeans on the right from healthy green plants on the left. The yellow section was suffering from Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS), a serious plant disease that ravaged the Midwest in 2009 and 2010, driving down yields and profits. Something had caused that area to be highly vulnerable, and Don had a good idea what it was.

He spent 35 years as a plant pathologist at Purdue and knows a lot about what causes green plants to turn yellow and die prematurely. He’s one of the world’s experts. He asked the seed dealer why the SDS was so severe in one area of the field and not the other. “Did you plant something there last year that wasn’t planted in the rest of the field?” he asked. Sure enough, precisely where the severe SDS was, the dealer had grown alfalfa, which he killed off at the end of the season by spraying a glyphosate-based herbicide. The healthy part of the field, on the other hand, had been planted to sweet corn and hadn’t received glyphosate. This was yet another confirmation that Roundup was triggering SDS.

Perfect storm

More than 30% of all herbicides sprayed anywhere contain glyphosate–the world’s bestselling weed killer. It was patented by Monsanto for use in their Roundup brand, which became more popular when they introduced “Roundup Ready” crops starting in 1996. These genetically modified (GM) plants, which now include soy, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets, contain inserted genetic material from viruses and bacteria that allows the crops to withstand applications of normally deadly Roundup.

Monsanto encourages farmers who buy Roundup Ready seeds to also use the company’s Roundup brand of glyphosate. They only provide warranties on the approved herbicide brands and offer discounts through their “Roundup Rewards” program. This has extended the company’s grip on the glyphosate market, even after its patent expired in 2000.

The herbicide doesn’t destroy plants directly. It cooks up a perfect storm of conditions that revs up disease-causing organisms in the soil, and at the same time wipes out plant defenses against those diseases. The mechanisms are well-documented but rarely cited.

The glyphosate molecule deprives crops of the vital minerals necessary for healthy functioning, and especially the ability to resist soilborne diseases. It annihilates soil organisms that live around the roots and help suppress disease. And it is highly toxic to plants. But the clincher is that it dramatically promotes disease-causing organisms, present in almost all soils, which overrun the weakened crops with deadly infections.

By weakening plants and promoting disease, glyphosate opens the door for lots of problems in the field. According to Don, “There are more than 40 diseases of crop plants that are reported to increase with the use of glyphosate, and that number keeps growing as people recognize the association between glyphosate and disease.”

Human and animal toxins

Some of the fungi promoted by glyphosate produce dangerous toxins that can end up in food and feed. Sudden Death Syndrome, for example, is caused by the Fusarium fungus. USDA scientist Robert Kremer found a 500% increase in Fusarium root infection of Roundup Ready soybeans when glyphosate is applied. Corn, wheat, and many other plants can also suffer from serious Fusarium-based diseases.

But Fusarium’s wrath is not limited to plants. According to a report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, toxins from Fusarium on various types of food crops have been associated with disease outbreaks throughout history. They’ve “been linked to the plague epidemics” of medieval Europe, “large-scale human toxicosis in Eastern Europe,” oesophageal cancer in southern Africa and parts of China, and a blood disorder in Russia. Fusarium toxins have also been shown to cause animal diseases and induce infertility.

Plant diseases

When Roundup Ready crops were introduced in 1996, Monsanto boldly claimed that herbicide use would drop as a result. It did, slightly, for three years. But over the next 10 years, it grew considerably. Total herbicide use in the US jumped by a whopping 383 million pounds in the 13 years after GMOs came on the scene. The greatest contributor is Roundup.

Over time, many types of weeds that would once keel over with just a tiny dose of Roundup now require heavier and heavier applications. Some are nearly invincible. In reality, these super-weeds are resistant not to the glyphosate itself, but to the soilborne pathogens that normally do the killing in Roundup sprayed fields.

Having hundreds of thousands of acres infested with weeds that resist plant disease and weed killer has been devastating to many US farmers, whose first response is to pour on more and more Roundup. Its use is now accelerating. Nearly half of the huge 13-year increase in herbicide use took place in just the last 2 years. This has serious implications.

As US farmers drench more than 135 million acres of Roundup Ready crops with Roundup, plant diseases are enjoying an unprecedented explosion across America’s most productive crop lands. Don rattles off a lengthy list of diseases that were once under effective management and control, but are now creating severe hardship. It includes SDS and Corynespora root rot of soybeans, citrus variegated chlorosis (CVC), Fusarium wilt of cotton, Verticillium wilt of potato, take-all root, crown, and stem blight of cereals, Fusarium root and crown rot, Fusarium head blight, Pythium root rot, Goss’ wilt of corn, and many more.

In Brazil, the new “Mad Soy Disease” is ravaging huge tracts of soybean acreage. Although scientists have not yet determined its cause, Don points out that various symptoms resemble a rice disease (bakanae) which is caused by Fusarium.

In recent years, corn plants and entire fields in the Midwest have been dying earlier and earlier due to various diseases. Seasoned and observant farmers say they’ve never seen anything like it.

“A decade ago, corn plants remained green and healthy well into September,” says Bob Streit, an agronomist in Iowa. “But over the last three years, diseases have turned the plants yellow, then brown, about 8 to 10 days earlier each season. In 2010, yellowing started around July 7th and yield losses were devastating for many growers.”

Bob and other crop experts believe that the increased use of glyphosate is the primary contributor to this disease trend. It has already reduced corn yields significantly. “If the corn dies much earlier,” says Bob, “it might collapse the corn harvest in the US, and threaten the food chain that it supports.”

Roundup persists

Monsanto used to boast that Roundup is biodegradable, claiming that it breaks down quickly in the soil. But courts in the US and Europe disagreed and found them guilty of false advertising. In fact, Monsanto’s own test data revealed that only 2% of the product broke down after 28 days.

Whether glyphosate degrades in weeks, months, or years varies widely due to factors in the soil, including pH, clay, types of minerals, residues from Roundup Ready crops, and the presence of the specialized enzymes needed to break down the herbicide molecule. In some conditions, glyphosate can grab hold of soil nutrients and remain stable for long periods. One study showed that it took up to 22 years for glyphosate to degrade only half its volume. So much for trusting Monsanto’s product claims!

Glyphosate can attack from above and below. It can drift over from a neighbor’s farm and wreak havoc. And it can even be released from dying weeds, travel through the soil, and then be taken up by healthy crops.

The amount of glyphosate that can cause damage is small. European scientists demonstrated that less than half an ounce per acre inhibits the ability of plants to take up and transport essential micronutrients.

As a result, more and more farmers are finding that crops planted in years after Roundup is applied suffer from weakened defenses and increased soilborne diseases. The situation is getting worse because the glyphosate concentration builds up with each seasonal application (it can accumulate for 6-8 years inside plants which get continually sprayed, like alfalfa). And immobilized residues in the soil can be reactivated by phosphate fertilizers or other methods. Glyphosate can also find its way onto farmland accidentally, through drifting spray, in contaminated water, and even through chicken manure!

Manure from other animals may also be spreading the herbicide since livestock consume copious amounts of glyphosate, which accumulates in corn kernels and soybeans. If it isn’t found in livestock manure (or urine), that may be even worse. If glyphosate is not exiting the animal, it must be accumulating with every meal, ending up in our meat and possibly milk.

Add this threat to the already high glyphosate residues inside our own diets due to corn and soybeans, and we have yet another serious problem threatening our health. Glyphosate has been linked to sterility, hormone disruption, abnormal and lower sperm counts, miscarriages, placental cell death, birth defects, and cancer, to name a few.

Nutrient loss

The same nutrients that glyphosate deprives in plants are also vital for human and animal health. These include iron, zinc, copper, manganese, magnesium, calcium, boron and others. Deficiencies of these elements in our diets, alone or in combination, are known to interfere with vital enzyme systems and cause a long list of disorders and diseases.

Alzheimer’s, for example, is linked with reduced copper and magnesium. Don Huber points out that this disease has jumped 9000% since 1990.

Manganese, zinc, and copper are also vital for proper functioning of the SOD (superoxide dismustase) cycle. This is key for stemming inflammation and is an important component in detoxifying unwanted chemical compounds in humans and animals.

Glyphosate-induced mineral deficiencies can easily go unidentified and untreated. Even when laboratory tests are done, they can sometimes detect adequate mineral levels, but miss the fact that glyphosate has already rendered them unusable.

Glyphosate can tie up minerals for years and years, essentially removing them from the pool of nutrients available for plants, animals, and humans. If we combine the more than 135 million pounds of glyphosate-based herbicides applied in the US in 2010 with total applications over the past 30 years, we may have already eliminated millions of pounds of nutrients from our food supply.

This loss is something we simply can’t afford. We’re already suffering from progressive nutrient deprivation even without Roundup. In a UK study, for example, they found between 16-76% less nutrients in 1991, compared to levels in the same foods in 1940.

Mineral deficiency

Roundup Ready crops dominate US livestock feed. Soy and corn are most prevalent–93% of US soy and nearly 70% of corn are Roundup Ready. Animals are also fed derivatives of the other three Roundup Ready crops: canola, sugar beets, and cottonseed. Nutrient loss from glyphosate can therefore be severe.

This is especially true for manganese (Mn), which is not only deprived by glyphosate, but also reduced in Roundup Ready plants. One veterinarian finds low manganese in every livestock liver he measures. Another vet sent the liver of a stillborn calf out for testing. The lab report stated: No Detectible Levels of Manganese–in spite of the fact that the mineral was in adequate concentrations in his region. When that vet started adding manganese to the feed of a herd, disease rates dropped from a staggering 20% to less than ½%.

Veterinarians who started their practice after GMOs were introduced in 1996 might assume that many chronic or acute animal disorders are common and to be expected. But several older vets have stated flat out that animals have gotten much sicker since GMOs came on the scene. And when they switch livestock from GMO to non-GMO feed, the improvement in health is dramatic. Unfortunately, no one is tracking this, nor is anyone discussing the effects of consuming milk and meat from GM-fed animals.

Alfalfa madness

As we continue to drench our fields with Roundup, the perfect storm gets bigger and bigger. Don asks the sobering question: “How much of the hundreds of millions of pounds of glyphosate that have been applied to our most productive farm soils over the past 30 years is still available to damage subsequent crops through its effects on nutrient availability, increased disease, or reduced nutrients of our food and feed?”

Instead of taking urgent steps to protect our land and food, the USDA is making things worse. In December they released their Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on Roundup Ready alfalfa, which Monsanto is reintroducing to the market with the USDA’s approval.

Alfalfa is the fourth largest crop in the US, grown on 22 million acres. It is used primarily as a high protein source to feed dairy cattle and other ruminant animals. At present, weeds are not a big deal for alfalfa. Only 7% of alfalfa acreage is ever sprayed with any kind of herbicide. With Roundup Ready alfalfa approved, however, herbicide use will jump to unprecedented levels, and the weed killer of choice would of course be Roundup.

Even without the application of glyphosate, the nutritional quality of Roundup Ready alfalfa will be less, since Roundup Ready crops, by their nature, have reduced minerals. When glyphosate is applied, nutrient quality suffers even more.

The chance that Roundup will increase soilborne diseases in alfalfa fields is a near certainty. In fact, Alfalfa may suffer more than other Roundup Ready crops since it is planted yearly and the Roundup accumulates. It is a deep-rooted plant, and glyphosate leaches into sub soils. And “Fusarium is a very serious pathogen of alfalfa,” says Don. “So too are Phytophthora and Pythium,” both of which are promoted by glyphosate. “Why would you even consider jeopardizing the productivity and nutrient quality of the third most valuable crop in the US?” he asks in frustration, “especially since we have no way of removing the gene once it is spread throughout the alfalfa gene pool.”

It’s already spreading. Monsanto had marketed Roundup Ready alfalfa for a year, until a federal court declared its approval to be illegal in 2007. They demanded that the USDA produce an EIS in order to account for possible environmental damage. But even with the seeds taken off the market, the Roundup Ready alfalfa that had already been planted has been contaminating non-GMO varieties. Cal/West Seeds, for example, discovered that more than 12% of their seed lots tested positive for contamination in 2009, up from 3% in 2008.

In their EIS, the USDA does acknowledge that genetically modified alfalfa can contaminate organic and non-GMO alfalfa, and that this could create economic hardship. But studies confirm that genes do transfer from GM crops into soil and soil organisms, and can jump into fungus through cuts on the surface of GM plants. The EIS does not adequately address these threats and their implications.

The USDA largely marches lock-step with the biotech industry and turns a blind eye to the widespread harm that Roundup is already inflicting. With the approval of Monsanto’s alfalfa, the USDA may ultimately be blamed for a catastrophe of epic proportions.

Jeffrey M. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology. His last book is Genetic Roulette. Responsibletechnology.org.

Tags: ,

No Comments


The Revolutionary Moment

by James Howard Kunstler

I overheard a conversation between two employees over at the Price Chopper supermarket last week. (The Price Chopper logo is a picture of a Mercury dime with an ax cleaving into Mercury’s head; in other words, an ax murder.) The supermarket employees were both middle-aged women.

First: “I’m going home to a cold house.”

Second: “Why don’t you turn up the heat?”

First: “I don’t have no money for fuel.”

Meanwhile, 175 miles south in Manhattan somewhere, Lloyd Blankfein’s personal shopper is trying to figure out whether to buy Lloyd’s favorite niece a Fabergé egg themed Memories of Azov or a Jaguar XK convertible. Maybe the catch here is that the anonymous supermarket workers are only freezing this Christmas season. If they were freezing and hungry, it might be a different story. But, working in a supermarket, a person might find a way to cadge a few tidbits here and there (whoops, we broke a bag of Cheetos on the loading dock)–the catch there being you could get fired for stealing the merchandise. O sorry nation!

But don’t fear! The president and congress are looking out for you, O nation of freezing supermarket employees (and flummoxed personal shoppers, and wily mega-bank CEOs)! They have fashioned a deal that we might call Stim-u-rama. Everybody gets a tax cut! Everybody! Not just Lloyd B but all you toiling and moiling shelf-stockers and check-out cashiers. Plus, you will get a reduction of several percentage points in your payroll deductions–a redoo in the dedoo!–which must be good for at least one Justin Bieber action figure (if there are any left!) in these waning days of the Yuletide consumer frenzy.

Meanwhile moreover, 60-Minutes showed a segment Sunday night on the rip-roaring economic miracle of Brazil–”a little bit bigger than the USA geographically and loaded with natural resources”–as if to rub it in that we have become a sorry nation of losers to a bunch of no-account beach layabouts. As usual, the 60-Minutes reportage was full of lies and misrepresentations, for instance, that Brazil’s offshore oil discoveries are so huge and so easy to extract that they will save industrial civilization.

The sights and smells of Christmas usually put me in a mellow frame of mind. But this year there’s an acid edge in the mulled wine, an off-taste in the plum pudding, a disconcerting odor of rot in the piped-in holiday potpourri.

Obviously, the government tax deal along with the Federal Reserve’s recent QE announcements represent a mighty effort to stuff some spendable lucre into this shuddering, doddering beast of the American economy. The people running things don’t know what else to do. We find ourselves in a decelerating system, hopelessly over-complex (and scheming, even, to add additional layers of complexity!), with money-making activity shifted from producing things of value into a runaway Wall Street machine dedicated to something-for-nothing rentier exploitation of interest rate differentials, arbitrages, short-sales, outright swindles, and other activities based on no creation of value whatsoever. While capital piles up in the salons of Central Park West and the cigar cellars of the Hamptons, social capital hemorrhages every day as masses of formerly-working Americans forego the acquisition of any useful skills, or forget old ones, or opt to lose themselves in the transports of methadrine, “reality” TV, and tattoo art. To put it perhaps a bit indelicately, our shit is falling apart.

It’s fascinating that in the background of all this the price of oil is fibrillating around $90-a-barrel–and nobody is paying any attention to that. We seem to have forgotten the lesson from back in 2008 that when oil gets above the $80 mark, things in this land of Happy Motoring and the Warehouse-on-wheels don’t work so well. No wonder President Obama and congress are trying to stuff the country full of sugar plums just to get past the horror of a Christmas holiday when not a few working people will be freezing in their homes, if they have homes.

And in not too many days ahead we’ll get a peek at those Christmas bonuses landing in the laps of Lloyd Blankfein’s minions at Goldman Sachs and the rest of the geniuses in the engine room of prosperity.

When I was already a grown-up young newspaper reporter thirty-odd years ago, I never dreamed I’d see a revolutionary moment here in the USA–even with old Nixie pulling one fast one after another, before heading off to that helicopter for his last wave to the people who elected him. Now, I’m not so sure.

James Kunstler’s recent book is The Witch of Hebron. Kunstler.com.

Tags: ,

No Comments


Obama Turned His Back on His Base

by Keith Olbermann

To paraphrase Churchill, again, let me begin by saying the most unpopular and most unwelcome thing: “That we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road. We should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of American politics and policy have been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being, been pronounced against this Administration: ‘thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting’.”

In exchange for selling out a principal campaign pledge, and the people to whom and for whom it was made. In exchange for betraying the truth that the idle and corporate rich of this country have gotten unprecedented and wholly indefensible tax cuts for a decade. In exchange for giving the idle and corporate rich of this country two more years in which to accumulate still more, and more vast piles of personal wealth with which they can buy and sell everybody else.

In exchange for extending what he spent the weeks before the mid-terms calling “tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires” to people who have proven, without a scintilla of doubt, without even a fig leaf of phony effort to make it look like they would do otherwise, that they will keep the money for themselves.

In exchange for injecting new vigor into the infantile, moronic, disproved-for-a-decade three-card monte game of an economic theory purveyed by these treacherous and ultimately traitorous Republicans, that tax cuts for the rich will somehow lead to job creation even though if that had ever been true in the slightest the economy would not be where it is today.

In exchange for giving tax cuts for the rich which the nation cannot afford, and extending their vintage through the next election and thus promising at best a reenactment of this whole sorry, amoral, degrading spectacle in the winter of 2012 and at worst a rubber-stamp from a wholly Republican House and Senate and even White House.

In exchange for this searing and transcendent capitulation, the President got just thirteen months of extended benefits for those unemployed less than 100 weeks. And he got nothing absolutely nothing for those unemployed for longer–the 99ers.

This the Administration is celebrating–taking the victims of Republican Economic Policy, taking the living breathing proof that the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich do not create jobs, and putting economic bullseyes on their backs as of next December.

On the one hand, unaffordable tax breaks for the beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts, made ever more permanent as they threaten to suck four trillion dollars out of government revenues in the next decade. On the other hand, an insufficient dead-end unemployment solution for Americans who would actually work for a living, made ever more temporary.

And we are hearing nothing about those 99ers. Even though the numbers of them will balloon from two million to four million or more by next December, even with this deal. Even though just last Thursday, the President’s own Council of Economic Advisers reiterated the reality that the easiest way to create jobs and keep jobs is to make sure that the unemployed continue to have money to spend.

The unemployed, unlike the rich whom this President has just bowed to are, in fact, the job creators. They do not have investment portfolios to expand. They do not have vast savings into which to stuff the government checks. They have to spend the money. And the Council reported last week that when someone becomes a 99er his or her household loses at least a third of its income. And where the 99er was the sole breadwinner–four households out of ten–they lose 9/10ths of their income.

The economy is surprisingly simple. If business and the rich won’t spend, and the middle class can’t spend, the only factor left to keep pushing money into the insatiable maw of capitalism is the government. So, should the government give the money to the rich who keep it, or the not rich, who spend it? Apparently this President does not know the answer to that question. Even though he has his own Council of Economic Advisers.

Mr. President, for these meager crumbs, you have given up costly, insulting, divisive, destructive tax cuts for the rich and you have given in to Republican blackmail which will be followed by more Republican blackmail. Of course, it’s not just tax cuts for the rich that you’ve given up. There is also your new temporary payroll tax holiday, establishing a precedent that the way money is pumped into Social Security should be negotiated and traded off and making it just that much easier to gut Social Security later.

And, oh by the way, in the middle of a crisis over making temporary Republican tax cuts permanent, you give the Republicans another temporary Republican tax cut that they can come back later to blackmail you into making permanent. Well, Sir, at least that’s the end of it.

Except, of course, for the estate tax, what Republicans so happily call “the death tax.” Which will be reduced from its 2009 levels. Huh?

The money given by one dead rich person to some living rich persons, will not be taxed, up to five million dollars. More than five million and it’s 35 percent–which is less than it was under the tax laws of President Bush’s last fiscal year. Sir, you have given undeserved tax breaks–and you have carved them a little more deeply into the stone of law–to rich people, living and dead. And you want me to tell them which Democrat proposed the Estate Tax giveaway?

Blanche Lincoln! Blanche Lincoln, repudiated by nearly half the Arkansans in her own party, and then repudiated by 63 percent of the voters in Arkansas. Mr. President, you’re listening to Blanche Lincoln? What? Were Bob Beckel and Pat Caddell unavailable?

This President negotiates down from a position of strength better than any politician in our recent history. It is too late now to go back and ask why the President, why the wobbly Democratic leadership, whiffed on its chance to force John Boehner to put his money where his mouth was. In September Boehner said if he had no other option, of course he would vote to extend tax breaks only for the middle class.

So the President and the Democrats gave him another option, naturally. But didn’t extending the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy become necessary to get Republican support for extending the jobless benefits? Nonsense.

Five times in the last two years, the Republicans have gone along with extending those jobless benefits, and they’ve done it without being bribed with tax cuts for the rich. Even now Boehner’s September confession, and the GOP’s unwillingness to take the blame for killing off jobless benefits, offered an alternative blueprint for this President:

Let the law expire as scheduled in 24 days. Let all the tax breaks go, and when the Republicans take over the House and try to pass them anew, if they somehow are not stopped in the Senate, veto anything that does not keep tax cuts for the middle class and unemployment benefits as the dog, and perks for the rich as the tail. The GOP is still terrified of being blamed for cutting off the unemployed. You take that fact and you break them with it.

There is only one possible rational explanation for this irrational and childish transaction. There are Republicans and Tea Partiers who are still intent on cutting off their noses to spite their faces–the “Blind Rage Conservatives” for whom any compromise is disaster, just as for this President, apparently no compromise is disaster.

Maybe the reason the Administration’s numbers don’t add up in this deal is that it was too busy instead counting votes and there really are enough on the Far Right to sink it and the President winds up having his cake and eating it too, proposing what he can call a “tax compromise” and then having it derailed publicly and embarrassingly by the Republicans. Maybe the political calculus here exceeds both in priority and quality, the real calculus.

But I deeply doubt it. Yesterday I had an exchange with a very Senior member of this Administration who wanted to sell me on this deal. I pointed out that that was fine, except that–as I phrased it to him–”frankly the base has just vanished.” “Well,” he replied, “then they must not have read the details.” There, in a nutshell, is this Administration. They didn’t make a bad deal–we just don’t understand it.

Just as it was our fault, Mr. President, for not understanding your refusal of even the most perfunctory of investigations of rendition or domestic spying or the other crimes of the Bush Administration, or why you have now established for those future Administrations who want to repeat those crimes, that the punishment for them will be nothing.

Just as it was our fault, Mr. President, for not understanding Afghanistan. Just as we didn’t correctly perceive, Sir, the necessity for the continuation of Gitmo. Or how we failed to intuit, President Obama, your preemptive abandonment of Single Payer and the Public Option. Or how we couldn’t have foreseen your foot-dragging on “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Just as we shouldn’t have gotten you angry at your news conference and made all the moderate Democrats wonder why in the hell you get publicly angry so often at the liberals who campaigned for you and whether you might save just a touch of that sarcasm and that self-martyrdom for the Republicans.

And of course, Mr. President how we totally betrayed your Administration by not concluding our prayers every night by saying “Thank you for preventing another Great Depression, you are entitled to skate along on your own wonderfulness indefinitely and if you get less than you could have on Health Care Reform or taxes, well, that’ll be okay, we’re happy to pay $10,000 for a $300 car because hey, it could’ve been $20,000, right? And because we only expect you to do one thing correctly during a presidency and you had pretty much cleared that obligation when it proved that you were, indeed, not John McCain.”

We are very very sorry. In some sense, the Senior Member’s remark about how we “did not read the details” is not utterly absurd. We have enabled this President, and his compromises-spinning-within-compromises. And now there are, finally, those within his own party who have said “enough.” In the Senate, the Independent, Mr. Sanders deserves the support of every American, as does Mr. Conyers and Mr. McDermott and the others in the house. It is not disloyalty to the Democratic party to tell a Democratic president he is goddamned wrong.

It is not disloyalty for the 99ers and the 99ers-to-be to rally in the streets of Washington. It is not disloyalty to remind the President that he was elected by people to whom he had given a clear outline of what he would do for them, and if he does not steer out of the skid of what he is doing to them, he will not only not be re-elected, he may not even be re-nominated.

It is not disloyalty to remind him that we are not bound to an individual. We are bound to principles. If the individual changes, or fails often and needlessly, then we get a new man. Or woman. None of that is disloyalty. It is self-defense. It is the acknowledgment that, as my hero Thurber wrote, you might as well fall flat on your face as lean over too far backwards.

That is what the base is saying to this President, about his Presidency. “Well, then, (we) must not have read the details.” The Churchill quotation–as opposed to the quotation from the very Senior member of your Administration, Mr. President–is from October 5th, 1938.

I don’t want to make any true comparison to the historical event to which it related. The viewer can go ahead and look it up if they wish. I will confess I won’t fight if anybody wants to draw a comparison between what you’ve done with our domestic politics of our day, to what Neville Chamberlain did with the international politics of his.

The rest of what Churchill said, paraphrased–but only slightly paraphrased–bears repeating again. The terrible words have for the time being, been pronounced against this Administration: “Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting.” And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and political vigor, we arise again and take our stand for what is right.

Reprinted from Countdown.

Tags: ,

No Comments


Where’s Health Care going?

by Arianna Huffington

The White House is in full scramble mode, trying to walk back last week’s reports that the administration had struck a deal with Big Pharma promising to remove from its health care overhaul the ability of Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices.

But they can’t walk back two essential facts: 1) the drug industry has drawn an $80 billion line in the sand — that’s the maximum amount of cost cutting it’ll accept before withdrawing its support for health care reform, and 2) during the campaign Obama promised to repeal the ban on negotiating with drug companies, predicting it would result in as much as $310 billion in savings.

So even if the White House didn’t explicitly promise to take price negotiations off the table, by agreeing to Big Pharma’s $80 billion ceiling they’ve effectively done just that (the $150 million ad campaign the drug industry has promised to run in support of the president’s health care plan only adds to the stench).

And if the right to negotiate drug prices is dead, so is the chance for meaningful reform.

The White House has now shown itself willing to cave on the two essential elements of real health care reform — drug price negotiations and having a public option.

Both are crucial to containing costs. The right to negotiate drug prices is how free markets operate — taking advantage of economies of scale and the bargaining power that comes with bulk purchasing. To give this up should be abhorrent to anyone who believes in a functioning capitalist system, as opposed to what we are increasingly becoming: an oligarchy of powerful interests. In the same way, having a public option is the only meaningful way to provide competition leading to lower insurance costs.

Giving us health care reform without those key ingredients is like serving a PBJ sandwich without the peanut butter or the jelly.

This white-bread-only reform makes no sense practically — or politically. Health care reform that doesn’t contain costs is destined to fail — arming the GOP with a powerful “I told you so” cudgel to swing in 2010 and 2012.

Making matters worse, the chance to enact meaningful change doesn’t come along often. And when the opportunity is squandered, it is lost for a long, long time. When reform that isn’t reform passes, people check it off their list and move on — and we are left with worse-than-no-reform boondoggles like No Child Left Behind and Bush’s Medicare drug plan.

Robert Reich called the White House/Big Pharma deal — or its wink-wink, no-deal-here equivalent — “extortion.”

For me, it’s emblematic of precisely what Obama promised to put an end to: politics as usual where, as Frank Rich put it, “the American game is rigged” and (quoting Obama himself) the system is in hock to “the interests of powerful lobbyists or the wealthiest few” who have “run Washington far too long.”

And it’s not like the drug industry somehow pulled a fast one on the president. During the 2008 campaign, Obama was unequivocal on the issue. Here are some of the flashback quotes:

– “Congress exempted Medicare from being able to negotiate for the cheapest available price. And that was a profound mistake.”

– “We will break the stranglehold that a few big drug and insurance companies have on the health care market.”

– “We’re not going to get change unless we can overcome the resistance the drug companies, the insurance companies, the HMOs, those who are making a major profit from the system currently.”

And from his campaign documents:

– “Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices…. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will repeal the ban on direct negotiation with drug companies and use the resulting savings, which could be as high as $310 billion, to further invest in improving health care coverage and quality.”

“We’ll tell the pharmaceutical companies ‘Thanks but no thanks for overpriced drugs,’” Obama said in October. “We’ll let Medicare negotiate for lower prices.” From now on shall we just assume that “thanks but no thanks” really means “thanks”?

Obama also promised to hold all negotiations on C-SPAN. He hasn’t. Instead we’ve had a week of White House statements, followed by anonymous White House briefings, followed by contradictory anonymous White House briefings, accompanied by the PhRMA drug lobbyists touting their agreement, followed by the lobbyists issuing “no comment” comments on their agreement, followed by the lobbyists walking back their touting of their agreement.

The health care industry has hired more than 350 former members of Congress and government staffers to lobby their former colleagues, and is spending around $1.4 million a day trying to maintain the status quo. Looks like it will be money well spent. With price control negotiations and the public option circling the drain, their victory is near complete.

The third fundamental element of real cost containment is getting serious about prevention — shifting the focus of our health care system from treating sickness to preventing illness. As Einstein put it: “Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them.” That’s why HuffPost is committed to pursuing new lines of thinking on the health care debate — including the importance of making changes to the lifestyle choices that greatly impact our health.

To this end, we are delighted to welcome Dr. Dean Ornish as our Medical Editor. He’s a pioneer in promoting lifestyle changes and prevention as a path to better health, and will be writing both about personal health issues and about moving prevention front and center in the ongoing health care debate. He’ll also be recruiting writers with a wide range of perspectives on how to achieve wellness. This is a vital debate to have, because we clearly cannot continue down the current costly and inefficient health care path.

Remember when Obama kept presenting the fact that he hadn’t been in Washington very long as a virtue? If real health care reform dies — and the death of real health care reform is completely consistent with a Rose Garden signing ceremony of a “reform bill” — I guess it will show that even six months in Washington is too long.

The White House

has now shown itself willing to cave on the two essential elements of real health care reform — drug price negotiations and having a public option.

– Arianna Huffington

Tags: ,

No Comments


How the “public option” was sold

Kip Sullivan

The people who brought us the “public option” began their campaign promising one thing but now promote something entirely different. To make matters worse, they have not told the public they have backpedalled. The campaign for the “public option” resembles the classic bait-and-switch scam: tell your customers you’ve got one thing for sale when in fact you’re selling something very different.

When the “public option” campaign began, its leaders promoted a huge “Medicare-like” program that would enroll about 130 million people. Such a program would dwarf even Medicare, which, with its 45 million enrollees, is the nation’s largest health insurer, public or private. But today “public option” advocates sing the praises of tiny “public options” contained in congressional legislation sponsored by leading Democrats that bear no resemblance to the original model.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the “public options” described in the Democrats’ legislation might enroll 10 million people and will have virtually no effect on health care costs, which means the “public options” cannot, by themselves, have any effect on the number of uninsured. But the leaders of the “public option” movement haven’t told the public they have abandoned their original vision. It’s high time they did.

The bait

“Public option” refers to a proposal, as Timothy Noah put it, “dreamed up” by Jacob Hacker when Hacker was still a graduate student working on a degree in political science. In two papers, one published in 2001 and the second in 2007, Hacker, now a professor of political science at Berkeley, proposed that Congress create an enormous “Medicare-like” program that would sell health insurance to the non-elderly in competition with the 1,000 to 1,500 health insurance companies that sell insurance today.

Hacker claimed the program, which he called “Medicare Plus” in 2001 and “Health Care for America Plan” in 2007, would enjoy the advantages that make Medicare so efficient–large size, low provider payment rates and low overhead. (Medicare is the nation’s largest health insurance program, public or private. It pays doctors and hospitals about 20 percent less than the insurance industry does, and its administrative costs account for only 2 percent of its expenditures compared with 20 percent for the insurance industry.)

Hacker predicted that his proposed public program would so closely resemble Medicare that it would be able to set its premiums far below those of other insurance companies and enroll at least half the non-elderly population. These predictions were confirmed by the Lewin Group, a very mainstream consulting firm. In its report on Hacker’s 2001 paper, Lewin concluded Hacker’s “Medicare Plus” program would enroll 113 million people (46 percent of the non-elderly) and cut the number of uninsured to 5 million. In its report on Hacker’s 2007 paper, Lewin concluded Hacker’s “Health Care for America Plan” would enroll 129 million people (50 percent of the nonelderly population) and cut the uninsured to 2 million.

Until last year, Hacker and his allies were not the least bit shy about highlighting the enormous size of Hacker’s proposed public program. For example, in his 2001 paper Hacker stated: “Approximately 50 to 70 percent of the non-elderly population would be enrolled in Medicare Plus…Put more simply, the plan would be very large…Critics will resurface whatever the size of the public plan. But this is an area where an intuitive and widely held notion–that displacement of employment-based coverage should be avoided at all costs–is fundamentally at odds with good public policy. A large public plan should be embraced, not avoided. It is, in fact, key to fulfilling the goals of this proposal.”

In his 2007 paper, Hacker stated: “For millions of Americans who are now uninsured or lack affordable work place coverage, the Health Care for America Plan would be an extremely attractive option. Through it, roughly half of non-elderly Americans would have access to a good public insurance plan…A single national insurance pool covering nearly half the population would create huge administrative efficiencies.”

Hacker’s papers and the Lewin Group’s analyses of them have been cited by numerous “public option” advocates. For example, when Hacker released his 2007 paper, Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) published a press release praising it and drawing attention to the large size of Hacker’s proposed public program. The release, entitled “Activists and experts hail Health Care for America plan,” stated:

“Detailed micro-simulation estimates suggest that roughly half of non-elderly Americans would remain in workplace health insurance, with the other half enrolled in Health Care for America…A single national insurance pool covering nearly half the population would create huge administrative efficiencies. Because Medicare and Health Care for America would bargain jointly for lower prices, they would have enormous combined leverage to hold down costs.”

When the Lewin Group released its 2008 analysis of Hacker’s 2007 paper, CAF’s Roger Hickey wrote in the Huffington Post, “efficiencies achievable through Hacker’s public health insurance program” would save so much money that the US could “cover everyone” for no more than what we spend now.

The switch

Now let’s compare the “single national health insurance pool covering nearly half the population” that Hacker and other “public option” advocates enthusiastically championed with the “public option” proposed by Democrats in Congress. And then let’s inquire what Hacker and company said about it.

As readers no doubt know, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, and three House committee chairmen working jointly, published draft health care “reform” bills in June. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the “public option” proposed in the House “tri-committee” bill might insure 10 million people and would leave 16 to 17 million people uninsured. The “public option” proposed by the Senate HELP committee, again according to the Congressional Budget Office, is unlikely to insure anyone and would hence leave 33 to 34 million uninsured. The CBO said its estimate of 10 million for the House bill was highly uncertain, which is not surprising given how vaguely the House legislation describes the “public option.”

Here is what the CBO had to say about the HELP committee bill: “The new draft also includes provisions regarding a ‘public plan’, but those provisions did not have a substantial effect on the cost or enrollment projections, largely because the public plan would pay providers of health care at rates comparable to privately negotiated rates–and thus was not projected to have premiums lower than those charged by private insurance plans.”

Obviously the “public option” in the Senate HELP committee bill (zero enrollees; 17 million people left uninsured) and the “public option” in the House bill (10 million enrollees (maybe!); 34 million people left uninsured) are a far cry from the “public option” originally proposed by Hacker (129 million enrollees; 2 million people left uninsured). Have we heard the Democrats in Congress who drafted these provisions utter a word about how different their “public options” are from the large Medicare-like program that Hacker proposed and his allies publicized? What have Hacker and his allies had to say?

In public comments about the Democrats’ “public option” provisions, the leading lights of the “public option” movement imply that Hacker’s model is what Congress is debating. Sometimes they come right out and praise the Democrats’ version as “robust” and “strong.” But I cannot find a single example of a statement by a “public option” advocate warning the public of the vast difference between Hacker’s original elephantine, “Medicare-like” program, and the Democrats’ mouse version.

For example, on June 23 Hacker testified before the House Education and Labor Committee that “the draft legislation prepared by [the] special tri-committee promises enormous progress.” He went on to enumerate all the benefits of a “public option.” Yet the House tri-committee proposal bore no resemblance to the public plan he described in his papers and that the Lewin Group analyzed. Later, when Kaiser Health News asked Hacker in a July 6 interview why “your signature idea–a public plan–has become central to the health care reform debate,” Hacker again praised his “public plan” proposal and offered no hint that the “public option” so “central to the debate” was very different from the one he originally proposed.

Ditto for Hacker’s allies. Representatives of Health Care for America Now (HCAN), the organization most responsible for popularizing the “public option,” repeatedly describe the House and Senate HELP committee bills as “strong” or “robust,” always without any justification for this claim, and have repeatedly failed to warn the public that the “public options” they promote today are mere shadows of the “public options” they endorsed in the past. On July 15, the day the HELP committee passed its bill, Jason Rosenbaum blogged for HCAN: “The Senate HELP Committee has just referred a bill to the floor of the Senate with a strong public option.”

Searching the websites of the organizations that serve on HCAN’s steering Committee–AFSCME, Democracy for America, Moveon.org and SEIU, for Example–one will find not a shred of information that would help the reader comprehend how small and ineffective the “public options” proposed in the Democrats’ bills are, nor how different these are from the one Hacker originally proposed. Yet these groups continue to urge their members and the public to “tell Congress to support a public option.”

Models compared

It has become fashionable among advocates of a “public option” to trash the expertise and the motives of the Congressional Budget Office. But the CBO’s characterization of the “public option” proposed in the Democrats’ legislation is entirely reasonable. This becomes apparent the moment we compare Hacker’s blueprint for his original “Medicare Plus” and “Health Care for America” programs with the “blueprints” (if tabula rasas can be called “blueprints”) contained in the Senate HELP Committee and House bills.

Hacker’s papers laid out these five criteria that he and the Lewin Group said were critical to the success of the “public option:”

“1. The PO had to be pre-populated with tens of millions of people, that is, it had to begin like Medicare did representing a large pool of people the day it commenced operations (Hacker proposed shifting all or most uninsured people as well as Medicaid and SCHIP enrollees into his public program); 2. Subsidies to individuals to buy insurance would be substantial, and only PO enrollees could get subsidies (people who chose to buy insurance from insurance companies could not get subsidies); 3. The PO and its subsidies had to be available to all nonelderly Americans (not just the uninsured and employees of small employers); 4. The PO had to be given authority to use Medicare’s provider reimbursement rates; 5. The insurance industry had to be required to offer the same minimum level of benefits the PO had to offer.”

Hacker predicted, and both of the Lewin Group reports concluded, that if these specifications were met Hacker’s plan would enjoy all three of Medicare’s advantages–it would be huge, it would have low overhead costs, and it would pay providers less than the insurance industry did. As a result, the “public option” would be able to set its premiums below those of the insurance industry and seize nearly half the non-elderly market from the insurance industry. According to the Lewin Group’s 2008 report, Hacker’s version of the “public option” would, as of 2007:

“Enroll 129 million enrollees (or 50 percent of the non-elderly); have overhead costs equal to 3 percent of expenditures; pay hospitals 26 percent less and doctors 17 percent less than the insurance industry (but these discounts would be offset to some degree by increases in payments to providers treating former Medicaid enrollees); and, set its premiums 23 percent below those of the average insurance company.”

I question some of Hacker’s and the Lewin Group’s assumptions, including their assumption that any public program that has to sell health insurance in competition with insurance companies could keep its overhead costs anywhere near those of Medicare (Medicare is a single-payer program that has no competition), especially during the early years when the public program will be scrambling to sign up enrollees. A public program will have to hire a sales force and advertise. It will have to open offices. It will have to negotiate rates, and perhaps contracts, with thousands of hospitals and hundreds of thousands of clinics, chemical treatment facilities, rehab units, home health agencies, etc. Or it will have to contract with someone to do all that. But I have little doubt that if a public program were to open with a large enough customer base, and it had the advantage of a law requiring that only its customers receive substantial subsidies, it could do what the Lewin Group said it could do.

Now let us compare Hacker’s original model with the mousey “public options” proposed by the Senate HELP Committee and the House. Of Hacker’s five criteria, only one is met by these bills! Both proposals require the insurance industry to cover the same benefits the “public option” must cover. None of the other four criteria are met. The “public option” is not pre-populated, the subsidies to employers and to individuals go to the “public option” and the insurance industry, employees of large employers cannot buy insurance from the “public option” in the first few years after the plan opens for business and maybe never (that decision will be made by whoever is President around 2015), and the “public option” is not authorized to use Medicare’s provider payment rates. (The House bill comes the closest to authorizing use of Medicare’s rates; it authorizes Medicare’s rates plus 5 percent).

Is it any wonder the CBO concluded the Democrats’ “public option” will be a tiny little creature incapable of doing much of anything? More curious is that CBO gave the House “public option” any credit at all (you will recall CBO said it would enroll maybe 10 million people). The CBO should have asked, Can the “public option”–as presented in either bill–survive?

How did this happen?

How did the “Medicare Plus” proposal of 2001 (when Hacker first proposed it) get transformed into the tiny “public options” contained in the Democrats’ 2009 legislation? The answer is that somewhere along the line it became obvious that the Hacker model was too difficult to enact and had to be stripped down to something more mouse-like in order to pass. Did the leading “public option” advocates realize this early in the campaign? Or midway through the campaign when the insurance industry began to attack the “public Option?” Or late in the campaign when they found it difficult to persuade members of Congress to support Hacker’s original model? Whatever the answer, will they find it in their hearts to tell their followers their original strategy was wrong? I suspect the answer is different for different actors within the “public option” movement. Hacker surely knew what was in his original proposal and surely knows now that the Democrats’ bills don’t reflect his original proposal. Hacker and others familiar with his original proposal were probably betrayed by the process. As the “public option” concept became famous and edged its way toward the centers of power, they couldn’t find the courage to resist the transformation of the original proposal into the mouse model.

For other actors within the “public option” movement, ignorance of Hacker’s original proposal and of health policy in general may have led them to rely on more knowledgeable leaders in the movement. Their error, in other words, was to trust the wrong people and, as the “public option” came under attack, to cave in to groupthink. This error was facilitated by the “public option” movement’s decision to avoid mentioning any details of the “public option” whenever possible.

What next?

Those of us in the American single-payer movement must continue to educate Congress and the public on the need for a single-paye r system. We must also convince advocates of the “public option” that they have made two serious mistakes and, if they learn quickly from these mistakes, that real reform is still possible.

The first mistake was to think that a “public option” that merely took over a large chunk of the non-elderly market (as opposed to one that took over the entire market) could substantially reduce health care costs and thereby make universal coverage politically feasible. Any proposal that leaves in place a multiple-payer system–even a multiple-payer system with a large government-run program in the middle of it–is going to save very little money. Even if Hacker’s original Health Care for America Plan had taken over half the non-elderly market and then reached homeostasis (something Hacker swore up and down it would do), the savings would have been relatively small. The reason for that is twofold. First, any insurance program, public or private, that has to compete with other insurers is going to have overhead costs substantially higher than Medicare’s. (It is precisely because Medicare is a single-payer program that its overhead costs are low.) Second, the multiple-payer system Hacker would leave in place would continue to impose unnecessarily large overhead costs on providers.

The second mistake the “public option” movement made was to think the insurance industry and the right wing would treat a “public option” more gently than a single-payer. Conservatives have a long history of treating small incremental proposals such as “comparative effectiveness research” as the equivalent of “a government takeover of the health care system.” It should have been no surprise to anyone that conservatives would shriek “socialism!” at the sight of the “public option,” even the mouse model proposed by the Democrats.

The bait-and-switch strategy adopted by the “public option” movement has put the Democrats in a terrible quandary. Seduced by the false advertising about the potency of the “public option” to lower costs, Democrats have raised public expectations for reform to unprecedented levels. Failing to meet those expectations during the 2009 session of Congress, which is inevitable if the Democrats continue to promote legislation like the bills released in June, is going to have unpleasant consequences. Is there no way out of this quandary?

Conventional wisdom holds that if the Democrats don’t pass a health care reform bill by December, they will have to wait till 2013 to try again. But if the “public option” movement were to join forces with the single-payer movement, the two movements could prove the conventional wisdom wrong. This won’t happen, obviously, if the “public option” movement fails to perceive the reasons it failed.

It is conceivable the “public option” movement could decide the bait-and-switch strategy was wrong and that their only error was not to stick with Hacker’s original model. It should be obvious now that that would also be a tactical blunder. We have plenty of evidence now that conservatives will react to the mousey version of the “public option” as if it were “a stalking horse for single-payer.” We can predict with complete certainty they will treat Hacker’s original version as something even closer to single-payer. If a proposal is going to be abused as if it were single-payer, why not actually propose a single-payer? At least then, when a particular session of Congress comes and goes and we haven’t enacted a single-payer system, we will have educated the public about the benefits of a single-payer and have further strengthened the single-payer movement.

To sum up, “public option” advocates must choose between continuing to promote the “public option” and seeing their hopes for cost containment and universal coverage go up in smoke for another four years, and throwing their considerable influence behind single-payer legislation. At this late date in the 2009 session, it is unlikely that a single-payer bill could be passed even if unity within the universal coverage movement could be achieved. But if the “public option” wing and the single-payer wing join together to demand that Congress enact a single-payer system, December 2009 need not constitute a deadline.

Kip Sullivan belongs to the steering committee of the Minnesota chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program.

…today “public option” advocates sing the praises of tiny “public options” contained in congressional legislation sponsored by leading Democrats that bear no resemblance to the original model.

– Kip Sullivan

Tags: ,

No Comments



SetPageWidth