Saturday, March 26, 2011

Bob Herbert's Last Column For The New York Times

This is the second high profile defection from the New York Times in the span of a few weeks. First it was Frank Rich. And now, Bob Herbert. They were quick to note that it isn't a knock on the Times. But, in my view, it's a symptom of the troubled state of American journalism and of our politics and society at large. Increasingly, print media has been shuffled to the back of the relevancy line, and although the Times continues to set the standard in depth of coverage its quality has declined, succumbing to Gray Lady staidness while more aggressive advocacy publications like Rolling Stone and Mother Jones have scooped the Times on some big stories.

As the Times' capacity to influence and inform public opinion wanes, it has been replaced by the venomous propaganda of right wing media dominated by Fox and its minions. When Fox's principal competitor in defining not only the parameters of the public debate but separating truth from lies is half-owned (it was fully owned before the Comcast merger) by the nation's largest corporation, GE, which, it was recently reported, did not pay a cent in corporate taxes, then the scope of the problem with American media today becomes clearer.

And this is only part of the problem. The extremist, corporatist GOP has launched a frontal assault on public broadcasting, namely National Public Radio (NPR) and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (PBS). For those of us who rely on public broadcasting for news that is objective, incisive and truthful, this is a tragic development. In the place of very modest public funding  from your tax dollars and mine, increasingly we see PBS and NPR having to accept money from right wing billionaires like David H. Koch with his baggage of an aggressively partisan and anti-democratic agenda. As a result of a carrot-and-stick strategy from venal right wing corporatists stepping into the funding breach, public broadcasting is cast in the position of supplicant, afraid to offend its new patrons. The influence of these  repulsive corporatists is insidious. It can be seen in how the News Hour reports (or rather fails to report) the seminal events in Wisconsin and America's heartland in favor of softball interviews with Republican governors, in which the hard questions are not asked and remain unanswered. Except when Scott Walker reveals his true intent to a fake Koch brother or in a Talking Points Memo report.

The Koch brothers are not to be confused, for example, with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, whose philanthropy is aimed at improving education for low-income kids and ending the spread of contagious diseases in third world countries. The Koch brothers are pursuing an agenda that is inimical to what poll after poll indicates are the American people's priorities: Taxing the rich to pay down our debt as President Clinton did, no privatization of Social Security and no reduction of Medicare benefits, Defense cuts first before slashing education, and opposing laws aimed at stripping collective bargaining rights from public employee unions.

The GOP's brazen disregard for the expressed wishes of the American people is a reflection of the right wing corporate agenda of its master funders — the Koch brothers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce among them. It draws upon the cocky conviction they can keep poking us in the eye with one outrage after another, and we won't react. Whether it's defunding NPR, Planned Parenthood, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, tsunami relief, or the Financial Consumer Protection Agency — a death by a thousand cuts of amazing programs that are part of the fabric of our lives and distinguish America as a modern state from just another third world oligarchy. They believe they can stomp on people who earn less than six figures because we've fallen into a kind of media/propaganda-induced stasis that makes us unable to react and fight back. And if we do, they will pit us against each other, whether it's the working poor or the struggling middle class, or the unemployed, or the medically uninsured that have been identified for demonization.

They have the arrogant conviction that they can pull the wool over the people's eyes at the most important juncture — our electoral system — by which we reaffirm this democracy, because under the Citizens United decision they can now spend unlimited funds and blanket the airwaves with 24/7 propaganda. The latest, a crude Koch-funded anti-union ad urged We, The People to tell our elected representatives, "you're not going to take it anymore." Not, as Rachel noted, "we're not going to take it anymore" — no no, it's "you're not going to take it." A revealing Freudian slip, perhaps. They, the super-rich millionaires and billionaires are not to be confused with We, The People. And don't you forget it! They are supremely confident that they can sell us anything, because they control and own everything: The media, most of our nation's wealth, and our government. They may be right.

Ironically, PBS's coverage of other countries is far more penetrating than their coverage of what is happening in our own backyard — which has never been more relevant to our lives. This is but another symptom of the poisonous influence of right wing money and corporate ownership of government and media. The right wing's noxious influence is everywhere. You can no longer do a Google search on certain topics and expect to find a wide range of factual information that informs rather than distorts. Such topics can include "hot button" issues such as the KKK or Islamic terrorism. Wikipedia, the open source internet encyclopedia, is being rewritten by agenda-driven propagandists to project a distorted right wing point of view.

When I looked up the KKK on Wikipedia I found a revisionist partisan screed which skillfully sought to link the KKK with the Democratic Party to the exclusion of the GOP. For example, the one president pictured in a photo and mentioned eight times is Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat. Nowhere are the Republican presidents and (alleged) Klan members William McKinley, Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge cited. Harding was buried with full "Klan regalia and honors." (Correction: This is what Klan sites proudly claim of their "history." There is no evidence for this whatsoever, that I could find. Nor is there evidence for Coolidge's membership, despite Klan claims, although his Democratic rival, Al Davis, hurt himself in the South when he denounced the Klan in a speech in the election of 1924.) Further, contemporary history of the Klan's close ties to the GOP, no pun intended, is a total whitewash.

Similarly, when I tried to research the Islamic Brotherhood I was redirected to a plethora of right wing Islamophobic sites with the usual fearmongering speech about the threat of Islamic extremism that one hears from Glenn Beck. The Wikipedia entry for the Islamic Brotherhood was a cut-and-paste job from an ultra-right wing anti-Islamic site that doesn't even list its members. Nowhere could I find a scholarly, balanced, objective examination of the Islamic Brotherhood. This was not the case only a few years ago. Today, once reliable and objective reference sites on the internet — Wikipedia chief among them — are being polluted and distorted by right wing propaganda.

Rachel's fabled "Google machine" isn't so reliable anymore as a source of unbiased information. Not that it was before, but at least then certain search terms weren't appropriated by narrow political and ideological interests. It's one of the least reported stories in the "culture wars" and all the more disturbing because it's part of a larger pattern of historical deception and misinformation that can be traced to the rewriting of history and science textbooks by right wing ideologues on the Texas Board of Education rather than by university trained historians.

The result is the dumbing down of America, as related in a recent Newsweek article that found most Americans are incapable of passing a citizenship test, lacking the most basic knowledge of our history. Some of its most incredible findings are: 70% of Americans do not know the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land;" 63% do not know how many justices sit on the Supreme Court; 81% could not identify some of the powers of the federal government under our Constitution. Or how many years a U.S. senator is elected to serve (61%); or who was the president during World War I (80%); or what did Susan B. Anthony do (59%). The parade of ignorance just goes on, and on. And on. It's stunning. And it explains a lot about our present condition.

One of my all-time favorite quotes is by Thomas Jefferson:
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
He was right, of course. We may well be living in revolutionary times in which the people are slowly awakening to the realization of who and what their real oppressor is. Another favorite quote, this one by Lincoln, known to most of us, dovetails nicely with this theme:
“You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”
We can see this happening in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey. We can see it in the plunging poll numbers of the corporatist Republican governors with their extremist agendas. People are waking up everywhere, and they may find there is no choice but to fight back by any means necessary. For if the ruling oligarchy believe they can commit economic violence and repression to people without pushback or consequences, then they have misread their history and have deluded themselves into believing their own propaganda. Bob Herbert writes of this in his last column; the parts that resonate — the historical fault line on which the American Dream ends — I have highlighted.

Fortunately for us, Bob Herbert is not leaving the Times to drop out of sight. He is leaving to join the fight, rather than just observe and report it.

March 25, 2011
Losing Our Way
By BOB HERBERT
So here we are pouring shiploads of cash into yet another war, this time in Libya, while simultaneously demolishing school budgets, closing libraries, laying off teachers and police officers, and generally letting the bottom fall out of the quality of life here at home.

Welcome to America in the second decade of the 21st century. An army of long-term unemployed workers is spread across the land, the human fallout from the Great Recession and long years of misguided economic policies. Optimism is in short supply. The few jobs now being created too often pay a pittance, not nearly enough to pry open the doors to a middle-class standard of living.

Arthur Miller, echoing the poet Archibald MacLeish, liked to say that the essence of America was its promises. That was a long time ago. Limitless greed, unrestrained corporate power and a ferocious addiction to foreign oil have led us to an era of perpetual war and economic decline. Young people today are staring at a future in which they will be less well off than their elders, a reversal of fortune that should send a shudder through everyone.

The U.S. has not just misplaced its priorities. When the most powerful country ever to inhabit the earth finds it so easy to plunge into the horror of warfare but almost impossible to find adequate work for its people or to properly educate its young, it has lost its way entirely.


Nearly 14 million Americans are jobless and the outlook for many of them is grim. Since there is just one job available for every five individuals looking for work, four of the five are out of luck. Instead of a land of opportunity, the U.S. is increasingly becoming a place of limited expectations. A college professor in Washington told me this week that graduates from his program were finding jobs, but they were not making very much money, certainly not enough to think about raising a family.


There is plenty of economic activity in the U.S., and plenty of wealth. But like greedy children, the folks at the top are seizing virtually all the marbles. Income and wealth inequality in the U.S. have reached stages that would make the third world blush. As the Economic Policy Institute has reported, the richest 10 percent of Americans received an unconscionable 100 percent of the average income growth in the years 2000 to 2007, the most recent extended period of economic expansion.


Americans behave as if this is somehow normal or acceptable. It shouldn’t be, and didn’t used to be. Through much of the post-World War II era, income distribution was far more equitable, with the top 10 percent of families accounting for just a third of average income growth, and the bottom 90 percent receiving two-thirds. That seems like ancient history now.

The current maldistribution of wealth is also scandalous. In 2009, the richest 5 percent claimed 63.5 percent of the nation’s wealth. The overwhelming majority, the bottom 80 percent, collectively held just 12.8 percent.


This inequality, in which an enormous segment of the population struggles while the fortunate few ride the gravy train, is a world-class recipe for social unrest. Downward mobility is an ever-shortening fuse leading to profound consequences.

A stark example of the fundamental unfairness that is now so widespread was in The New York Times on Friday under the headline: “G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether.” Despite profits of $14.2 billion — $5.1 billion from its operations in the United States — General Electric did not have to pay any U.S. taxes last year.


As The Times’s David Kocieniewski reported, “Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore.”


G.E. is the nation’s largest corporation. Its chief executive, Jeffrey Immelt, is the leader of President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. You can understand how ordinary workers might look at this cozy corporate-government arrangement and conclude that it is not fully committed to the best interests of working people.

Overwhelming imbalances in wealth and income inevitably result in enormous imbalances of political power. So the corporations and the very wealthy continue to do well. The employment crisis never gets addressed. The wars never end. And nation-building never gets a foothold here at home.

New ideas and new leadership have seldom been more urgently needed.



This is my last column for The New York Times after an exhilarating, nearly 18-year run. I’m off to write a book and expand my efforts on behalf of working people, the poor and others who are struggling in our society. My thanks to all the readers who have been so kind to me over the years. I can be reached going forward at bobherbert88@gmail.com.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Newt’s “I was For It Before I Was Against It” Moment On Libya

Rachel does this one best. Even on her show, which is scrupulously wedded to the facts and her  “did-I-get-all-this-right” (“because I want to make sure I give the wingnuts every opportunity to save themselves and go to Heaven”) longing to be fair in every way, including religious salvation, to the lying wingnut hypocrite bastards of this world (brownie points from Jon!) — EVEN ON TRMS Newt comes off spayed and neutered. Here's more. (And we love Rachel for being such a sweetheart.)

 

Even The Wingnuts Don't Want Any Part of This Hustler ...

I mean, it's not like they don't have the money: Where are the Koch brothers when one of their own is in dire need of their financial support? Koch brothers —> $12 million —> Tea Party —> (measly) $500 —> James O'Keefe. Is that how it works? How about Andrew Breitbart; isn't he chummy with O'Keefe? Breitbart practically took him under his wing, and now he's throwing O'Keefe under the bus ... just because the wingnut pimp wants 50 grand to pay off his credit card? How about Limbaugh the Pigman, leader of the radical right GOP (he's a millionaire, what's $50,000 to him) ... or Glenn Beck, multimillionaire ... Pfft, really just a drop in the bucket for him, or Rupert Murdoch? Bill-O'Reilly The Clown, maybe? Greta! Hannity — hmm, he's big on charity even if it's to line his pockets instead of donating to any veterans that may need help.

"HELP! I NEED 50 GRAND! DAVID, TUCKER, TREACH! ANYONE???"
C'mon guys! Where's the love? You've all used the wingnut runt's amateurish video hit jobs. Even the toe-sucking fetishist with the creepy girly voice could probably come up with the cash from his fetish specialty hookers fund. Here's an idea: Why not hit Tucker Swanson Carlson up for the money? He's good for it, I'm sure. I'm told he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Just hired a Supreme Court Justice's wife to expand the Court's conflicts of interest in a Rightwingville political porn rag. Hmm ... but I must have missed O'Keefe's fundraising plea in the Daily Caller. Strange.

Didn't catch DC story of union member Tucker bashing teachers on Fox, either. The DC wingnut frat kiddies usually like to promote their boss with a big suck-up brown-nosing piece every time he shows up in the MSM. But nothing except Big Eddie's take(down) on it. Strange.


I wonder if any of the frat house wingnuts at the Daily Caller took up Big Eddie's challenge to do a write-up defending their boss, or go on the Ed Show to defend him in person? I think they might be shakin' in their boots skeert of Big Eddie ... Here's Big Eddie's Takedown of Tucker Swanson Carlson and his casual LIES (it's a prerequisite for working at the Daily Caller, which isn't a burden for wingnuts for whom lying comes naturally, then compulsively) — once they start, they can't stop:


I only hope O'Keefe the wingnut hustler, who's seemingly been disowned by the Big Hitters in Rightwingville, doesn't hit on our buddy Jim "the Digger" Treacher for the money. The trusting Treach has already been burned by the dude. But I can't seem to find the story on the DC site. You would think ... O'Keefe being one of their own and all ... Maybe they're all shakin' in their bootsies it was a GLENN BECK SITE spelling Media Matters that did the debunking of O'Keefe this time. Whoops!

Even for truth-challenged Rightwingville, that's hitting a new low in O'Keefe's cred.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Preventing Genocide = A Just War

Of the many rationales criticizing our intervention in Libya, none adequately addresses the task at hand, to prevent Khaddafi from committing wholesale slaughter of his people. Given the urgency of a looming humanitarian crisis, the tribal roots of the conflict or whether the uprising against the dictator fits the definition of a civil war take a back seat to the reality on the ground: Colonel Khaddafi has all the heavy guns while his opponents have brought a knife to this fight. Rep. Anthony Weiner is one street smart liberal who said, sensibly, that where we have a chance to do some good, we should, understands this isn't a fair fight.

Some of those opposing intervention are quick to call it a war, i.e., war is the organized killing of people. To which the pregnant question is left unanswered: What then is genocide? Why not ask Roméo Dallaire, the Canadian Lt. General who begged the international community to intervene in Rwanda because the UN failed to give him the resources to stop the genocide, and the international community stood by and let it happen. International law has evolved since Rwanda. The treaty establishing the International Criminal Court defines genocide as:
[A]ny of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
– Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II
UN Security Council Resolution 1674, adopted in 2006, "reaffirms the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity". The resolution committed the Council to action to protect civilians in armed conflict.

Weirdly, one progressive staunchly opposed to this action, wondered about Hillary's purported "emotional" response — interesting how Mr. I-don't-want-to-say-anything-sexist implies Hillary's decision was based on emotion. And how could we not notice that some in the Idiot Punditocracy have framed the internal debate in the Obama administration about the merits of intervention in Libya as a "girls (Hillary and Susan Rice) against the boys" in which the "emotional" girls prevailed. How's that for sexism, hmm?

How war is defined versus, e.g., a "police action" or a "humanitarian" intervention is open to interpretation. Our own recent history against Khaddafi reflects that ambiguity. In 1986 after a series of skirmishes with Libya over its territorial claims to the Gulf of Sidra and a wave of terrorist attacks in Europe culminating in the bombing of a German disco, President Reagan ordered an air raid on Libya. The disco bombing didn't claim many victims, but pointed directly to Libyan operatives. That was enough for the U.S. to strike at Libya. Khaddafi narrowly escaped death when his tent was not hit. Was that an "act of war" or a preemptive shot across the bow to warn Khaddafi his terrorist activities would not be tolerated?

Two years later, when it was equally clear that Libyan operatives were responsible for the bombing of Pan An 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, there was no military action against Khaddafi for reasons best known to Britain and the U.S. Instead an economic sanctions regime was imposed. So much for the wingnut claim by crazed Teabagger Rep. Allen West that after Reagan bombed Khaddafi "he didn't say a word for the next 30 years":
"You know, back two or three weeks ago, we could have taken care of this situation if we had done the exact same thing that Ronald Reagan did back in the early 80's to Muammar Gaddafi, when he dropped the bomb in his back yard. Muammar Gaddafi didn't say a word for the next 30 years."
(What a pathetic imbecile.)


Evidently, Lockerbie escaped Westie's selective memory, not to speak of Khaddafi flipping Reaganauts the Bird by staging a hero's welcome for the Lockerbie bomber's triumphant homecoming. Outrageously, a Scottish court had ordered the terrorist's early release from prison on humanitarian grounds. Apparently he had days to live from terminal cancer which magically entered remission upon his return to Libya. In the current situation, imposing another economic sanction (I'm sure West would approve, since that's what his hero, Ronnie the Wimp, chose to do) is not a viable option in the face of  a credible and imminent threat of genocide perpetrated by Khaddafi against his people.

War is hell. But not all war is the same; not all war is preventable; and not all war is unjust. Military intervention to prevent genocide, it seems to me, is the very embodiment of a just war.

On a point of personal privilege, I used the intransigent wingnut verb "dithering" to describe President Obama's seeming hesitancy to act as Khaddafi threatened to hunt his enemies down to "the last drop of blood." The President had said earlier that Khaddafi "must go" and we were "tightening the noose" around him. At that writing, he had not made his decision public —the presumption was that the President would choose not to act. But in concert with Hillary, President Obama patiently and deliberately worked behind the scenes to line up international support from European allies and the Arab League. UN Ambassador Rice proved to be outstanding in securing the 10 Security Council votes and the necessary abstentions from Russia, China, Brazil and others that gave international legitimacy to this action. No cowboy diplomacy here.


As it turns out, the President had very good reasons to be patient before taking the plunge. Patience and deliberation are among his finest qualities as a leader, particularly in the foreign policy arena. Predictably, Sarah Palin took the opportunity on a trip to India to lob another cheap shot at the President (get in line, Republicans): After she said Americans have a "tradition" of not criticizing the President's foreign policy on "foreign soil"... in the very next sentence Palin criticized Obama for "dithering." Sarah Palin is an embarassment to the United States as our "any dumbass idiot can be a heartbeat away from the presidency" embassador — particularly in light of this Newsweek story.

In the last analysis, President Obama did the right thing and deserves our full support.  However this military intervention in Libya turns out — plenty of fodder for Rachel's "master narrative"— it can never be said that we stood idly by and did nothing as Khaddafi systematically slaughtered innocent civilians. Instead we had the means and the will to stop the genocide. And so we took preventive military action. That's a pretty good standard to get behind.

Radiation From Japan Reaches Our Shores. YAY!

Tell me I'm wrong, but it seems the consensus from "experts" about radiation from Japan reaching our shores is that it would be diluted at sea before any radiation ever made its way to our Pacific coastline. Many said CATEGORICALLY (which is a dishonest position to take) that there is no cause for concern. Now we have this report from the AP:
State Department of Health officials say they have detected trace levels of radiation in Washington from Japan's damaged nuclear reactors.

Monday's announcement says that the "minuscule" amounts of radioactive iodine are millions of times lower than levels that would raise health concerns. Officials say that despite the new readings, overall radiation levels in the state have not risen.

The department reported that reading levels by the state are on par with federal and Canadian measurements. The radiation from Japan's crippled nuclear reactors is not reaching Washington in high levels because of the distance and air mixing.
Worse yet for the people of Japan, even with electric power restored, those crippled reactors have not been brought under control. There was more release of radioactive clouds from two of the reactors. As expected, the radiation in the afflicted area has entered the food chain, milk and vegetables. As for the low-level radiation detected in Washington, one can only imagine how severely marine life between Japan and the United States is impacted.

I still think investment in radiation detection devices, like geiger counters, as well as in iodine pills, is a prudent measure for anyone in the direct path of this spreading radiation. This is an open-ended crisis with no end in sight. But then, I'm not an "expert." New, disturbing revelations just keep popping up every other day. As long as  the reactors are not stabilized, radiation release will continue. The amount released, in measurable terms, still remains somewhat of a mystery. The low-level radioactive dust apparently did not need the Jet Stream to be carried in the winds all the way to Seattle.

Monday, March 21, 2011

Tea Party Remedial Education: This Is What Democracy Looks Like!

This is one more object lesson in DEMOCRACY for those pasty-white sclerotic beached whales known as the Teabaggers, bussed in from out of state (Wisconsin) by Koch brothers money to dump on events like these (below) in  which the media milquetoasts actually outnumber the tea cups but are nowhere to be seem in the real outburst of genuine people power exercising their constitutional rights to reddress their government for grievances, or — overthrow the tyrant. And another lesson in DEMOCRACY, Teabaggers: For all the Tea and American jobs flight in China that your selfish, treasonous activities have spurred, there still remains in this country a system of CHECKS AND BALANCES in which ONE JUDGE can STOP a tyrannical OUTLAW governor dead in his tracks. Look up Judge John Sirica, you ignorant farts — know who he is?

Consider NOT Donating A Friggin' Penny To PBS!

The other day I was watching a NOVA documentary on the mating habits of wingnuts (kidding, but it might as well be true) crash of that Air France flight over the Atlantic, from Rio to Paris, when the credits started rolling and I saw in big, bold type that seemed to linger and dwell on the screen, like an evil incantation or the mark of the beast — 666 — that that program had been funded in a very LARGE part (maybe entirely) by David H. Koch. I was stunned. So I did a little research, and came upon the PBS Ombudsman's "Mailbag." Now, I'm not going to dump on the Ombudsman; it's a thankless task. He or she must justify and rationalize programming that edged up against some invisible propriety border without the power to do much of anything about it. And he's got to take a LOT of kvetching from the viewers, on top of everything else. Here's what PBS had to say about accepting the David Koch money:
A Response from NOVA Senior Executive Producer Paula Apsell:

WGBH is committed to the editorial integrity of all our programs, adhering to the strictest journalistic standards. To maintain that integrity, and the trust of our audiences, funders are prohibited from any involvement in the editorial process. NOVA, like all WGBH programs, maintains complete, independent editorial control of its content.
With all due respect, Ms. Aspell, that's not the point. Would you receive money from a rapist? Or a murderer? How about a crony capitalist, union-buster, highly partisan political contributor involved in various shady and barely legal schemes to destroy the American middle class? Would you accept money from such an individual? You may have built a firewall around your programming in which funders are "prohibited" from "any involvement in the editorial process." I've got news for you, Ms. Aspell: David H. Koch is already involved, only you're too blind to see it, or more likely, you just don't want to see that your company is in survival mode as a result of actions ruthlessly undertaken by your "funder" David H. Koch. There's no firewall that can protect your credibility.

The Ombudsman, Michael Getler (who gives me the impression he's frequently sweating bullets), added his own cheerful note:
(Ombudsman's Note: One rarely knows when or how, if at all, influence works its way. If it is a factor, it can come from outside or from within. As a viewer of what strikes me and a lot of others as a consistently first-rate program, I trust NOVA.)
This is a typical example of the Ombudsman's dilemma: When reason and logic fail, there's always blind faith to fall back on.  I wouldn't know, because I'll be watching a whole lot less of PBS.

But then, having been duly sensitized to the PBS sellout to right wing corporate America, I fired off this rant in their general direction:
I used to be a regular News Hour viewer. Still am, to some extent, because I like the other anchors, besides Jim and Judy, and the weekend wrapup with Mark Shields and David Brooks. But I must say, your coverage of politics has become so biased in favor of corporate elites, so unreal in its whitewash of what's going on in the country regarding the radical right wing Republican power grab, in all its dimensions, as to be utterly irrelevant.

I used to think Jim Lehrer was an objective anchor — the image he so carefully cultivates — until I saw his coverage of Wisconsin Gov. Walker signing the bill stripping unions of collective bargaining rights. There was something in the tone of Jim's voice that was almost gleeful, reporting Walker's Pyrrhic "victory." Then when Mark Shields rightly opined that this was a "victory" for the Democrats Jim retorted with exaggerated incredulity, for effect: "REALLY? THE DEMOCRATS?" Showed me which side of the fence he was on.

As for Judy Woodruff, it was comical to see her interview GOP governors Barbour (MS) and McDonnell (VA), taking their GOP talking points at face value (might as well interview Frank Luntz: Did you tell them to say "job killer" and "budget crisis" and what about this word, and that?) in a complete whitewash of their lies. Asked for some reason to speak on behalf of Walker and against the unions, McDonnell kept distorting the truth, insisting unions had to make financial concessions — which they did! They gave Walker everything he wanted — when the crux of it was union-busting and stripping workers of collective bargaining rights. Not a manufactured budget "crisis" in which a large portion of that budget shortfall was in tax cuts for rich people like Jim and Judy.

How can you ignore demonstrations of more than 100,000 people supporting workers' rights in Wisconsin while providing a forum for GOP governors to plug their talking points? You call yourselves journalists? And why didn't you make a more spirited defense of NPR? With all the problems confronting us, the extremist right wing Republicans in Congress call an "emergency" hearing to defund NPR — to take funding away from programs like "Car Talk" and "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me"? You should have been taking these Republicans to task. Shame on you.

For all of your cosmetic enhancements, you have become increasingly irrelevant as a reliable news outlet. And you have the gall to ask the viewers for money, with all the economic pain that's happening outside your cloistered walls. It would be a different thing if you were actually honestly reporting the news on our behalf. You don't need, nor do you deserve, our money. The corporations are bankrolling you. And it shows.

West's Intervention in Libya Creates Strange Bedfellows

How else could one get Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's Hardball and celebrated Dean of the Beltway media, aka, the Idiot Punditocracy, Noam Chomsky, a leading academic thinker on the Left, and Pat Buchanan, MSNBC's resident nativist, to agree on anything? Pat's claim to fame is the original "lock and load" and a blood-curdling GOP convention speech about taking "back our cities ... block by block."

Colonel Khaddafi must have had Pat's speech in his YouTube "favorites"— no doubt the kind of rhetoric he fancies. Pat could charge Khaddafi with plagiarism for his notorious “Zenga Zenga” music video speech, in which Khaddafi pledged to hunt Libya’s rebels like rats “house to corner, alley to alley, inch by inch ... to the last drop of blood.” Echoes of Buchanan for the mad Colonel who said, “I will call upon millions from desert to desert. We will march to purge Libya inch by inch, house by house, alley by alley.”

Here's the Buchanan original: "Here were 19-year-old boys ready to lay down their lives to stop a mob from molesting old people they did not even know. And as those boys took back the streets of Los Angeles, block by block, my friends, we must take back our cities, and take back our culture, and take back our country." When Pat says mob, he is tweaking the voter's racist subconscious fear. Think rampaging mobs of inner-city blacks and invading mobs of non-white illegal aliens. These are common themes — purging, cleansing, disinfecting — in fascist rhetoric.


But that's not all Khaddafi said. Some of my friends on the Left balked at this new military action, just as they balked when NATO intervened to stop "ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia. The opponents of intervention were wrong then, and they're wrong again, now. The two rationalizations they make are absurd: (1) That Libya is a "civil war;" and (2) that's it's all about "OIL."

With regard to the civil war argument, YES, it is a civil war; so what's your point? How is the Left's reticence today any different from that of the world's democracies that stood idly by as Nazi Germany tipped the military scales in favor of Generalissimo Francisco Franco's fascist military coup against the ELECTED republican government of Spain? Back in those days, the only Americans with the balls to fight Franco's fascists and his Nazi patrons were the socialist and communist volunteers of the storied Abraham Lincoln brigade.

The Spanish Civil War was Hitler's laboratory to test his war tactics and new weapons on the Spanish population and the valiant international volunteers who defied him. The abject timidity of the democracies to confront him then only served to embolden the dictators and their grand designs. For nearly 40 years Franco ruled Spain with an iron fist and was toasted by disgraced U.S. president Richard Nixon for his anti-communism.

That worked out really well for the Spanish people.

Bosnia was a civil war, too. It took images of concentration camps reminiscent of Hitler's extermination camps, and the forced evacuation — ethnic cleansing — of Kosovo's predominant Muslim population, reminiscent of Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields, to get NATO off the block. Should we have not intervened because it was a civil war? When the West stood by and failed to intervene in Rwanda, critics on the Left skewered the West for not acting, and made the specious charge that it was because the victims of genocide were black — they did not look like us — and Rwanda did not have a vital resource, like OIL. Considering the boo birds in the peanut galleries will criticize any decision the West takes, they may as well take one based on principle and humanitarian grounds.

If the critics thought about the OIL argument logically, they would realize it's ridiculous. Khaddafi has remained in power for decades, not by defying the West (which he did, initially, but then reversed himself after the Lockerbie terrorist attack was met with harsh economic sanctions, and earlier military skirmishes with the U.S. in the Gulf of Sidra followed by a Libyan terrorist attack of a German disco triggered the bombing retaliation from the U.S. in which Khaddafi narrowly escaped death when the bombs missed his tent). From then on, Col. Khaddafi became Mr. Cooperation and his oil flowed freely to the West.

As is often the case, the West had made a pact with the Devil by allowing Khaddafi to remain in power in exchange for free-flowing oil. So if OIL were the main motivator here, it would be in the West's interest to stand down and let Khaddafi slaughter his civilian population. The Arab League, terrified as they are of the "Arab Street," wouldn't mind at all. Moreover, many of those fighting on the rebels' side were once allied with Al Qaeda against the United States. So a Realpolitik explanation, that the U.S. is some kind of evil empire out to subjugate and colonize Libya, just doesn't hold water.

Ethnic cleansing is a synonym for genocide. How soon the boo birds forget the example of Canadian Lt. General Roméo Dallaire, who commanded the UN forces in Rwanda and was practically broken by his inability to save hundreds of thousands of human lives, whose genocide he bore witness to. General Dallaire's humanity, his searing and raw torment shamed many of us to action, or at least to a recognition that if we have the means to stop it, STOP the wanton slaughter of civilians we must.


How soon we forget. Often enough, the simplest explanation is the correct one ... Occum's Razor. And though we may criticize the U.S. for its double standard regarding Bahrain and Yemen, two wrongs don't make a right. Never did. Doing what's right is a standalone proposition; it's not dependent or contingent on whether or not a related action is right or wrong. In the case of Libya, Khaddafi has made credible threats that he is prepared to commit wholesale genocide against his people. That is unacceptable, by any standards of civilized behavior.

President Obama had a lot more to do with Mubarak stepping down and the initial peaceful conclusion to the Egyptian Revolution, culminating in the dictator's departure, than he is given credit for. Mubarak certainly didn't agree with the boo birds. In interviews, the bitterness he felt toward the United States for not standing behind him was evident. President Obama threw Mubarak under the bus, and he's about to clip Khaddafi's wings and given the Libyan rebels a fighting chance. I applaud the President for doing the right thing. Let the ideological critics carp. Common sense trumps ideology.

Friday, March 18, 2011

The Obama Doctrine

President Obama established today what is possibly the only legitimate use of UN-sanctioned military force: Intervening in an internecine conflict to avert a humanitarian catastrophe in which largely defenseless civilians are slaughtered by a dictatorial or rogue state authority. The international community, as represented by the UN and led by the United States, has a MORAL RESPONSIBILITY to use all necessary power to prevent atrocities against civilians. PERIOD.

This is the 21st century, and we, as civilized people, should not tolerate a horrific repeat of the atrocities that happened in Bosnia, Rwanda, and northern Kurdish Iraq. Military intervention on humanitarian grounds rests on a solid legal and moral foundation of international law dating back to the Nuremberg Trials. What's so hard about this for the Idiot Punditocracy to understand?


Of all the trumped-up excuses for military intervention, this is perhaps the only type of preemptive military intervention, other than the usual claims of self-defense, that is justified. Setting up a no-fly zone under the auspices of the UN and the Arab League is not an act of war. Dennis Kucinich and the libertarian doves argue that it is, and certainly every U.S. military intervention since World War II was done without an act of war declared by Congress. So it's a tad disingenuous for Kucinich to demand such a declaration for a no-fly zone whose intent is to prevent genocide and establish a cease-fire. Chris Matthews wondered where the outcry from the anti-Khaddafi forces was for intervention. Apparently, he has ignored the persistent pleas by the Libyan rebels made to correspondents in the war zone with the question: "Where is America, where is Obama?"

Well, the President stepped up in the 11th hour and did the right thing. Military intervention to prevent genocide against defenseless civilians is the singular justification for the use of force for which there is no counter-argument based on our values and principles as a nation. Call it the Obama Doctrine. It's a whole lot better than his predecessor's, which "justified" preemptive military intervention based on subterfuge and manufactured intelligence of imminent threats to our national security that never quite materialized.

Dr. Michio Kaku Raises Entombment Option on Larry-O's Show

Lawrence O'Donnell, who's been on fire ever since Stephanie Miller promised him her sacred honor (coincidence?), had the iconoclastic physicist, Dr. Michio Kaku, on his show. What's great about Dr. Kaku is that he makes science fun and accessible to us regular folks and sci-fi buffs. He's the antidote to stuffy academics whose work is circumscribed by research dollars from one special interest or another. Dr. Kaku is as much at ease on C-Span as he is on Coast-to-Coast taking questions about alien visitations and abductions. And he doesn't smirk or talk down to people who ask him questions from "out there." Which is pretty cool. Dr. Kaku has done as much as anyone to popularize science, and his show on the Science Channel is a whole lotta interactive fun. And, of course, he's brilliant too. Here's Dr. Kaku raising the "Chernobyl Option" on Lawrence's show before Japanese authorities indicated they may have to resort to the "sarcophagus" solution:


Thursday, March 17, 2011

Musical Interlude: Beautiful Music to Soothe Anxieties in Anxious Times

Liza Veiga is a Portuguese soprano singer. This is the video for "A Whiter Shade Of Pale" a legendary composition of Procol Harum. Recorded and filmed in Prague with the Czech Chamber Philarmonic Orchestra. As one listener said: "So classical beauty and still faithfull to Procol Harum. Wonderful orchestra, divine voice."

IRRADIATED AMERICA: No Need For Concern?

Dr. Nancy Snyderman, the MSNBC health "expert" criticized Americans for our "narcissism" concerning the possible health hazards to us from the Japanese nuclear catastrophe. Of course, Dr. Nancy, I presume, draws a salary from the designer of those nuclear plants, GE. And her colleagues in Japan are equipped with the latest portable radiation detection devices not available to us plebes. They're not crazy, they're significantly more protected than the Japanese population, whose government directives — I fear, from my layman observer's perch — will have caused grave short- and long-term damage to the health of the Japanese people.

But that's just me; I'm no "expert"— not of the caliber of those who perpetuated the LIES spread by then-EPA Director Christie Whitman days after 9/11 that the air in Manhattan was "safe" to breathe. The minute she uttered those words, the first thing that occurred to me, literally (to quote Joe Biden), was incredulity followed by "THAT'S BULLSHIT." Common sense would dictate that the body's exposure to that toxic cloud of chemicals in unknown quantities was UNSAFE and HIGHLY HAZARDOUS to human health. Years later, there was a lot of hand-wringing about the deaths and terminal illnesses of first responders exposed to the toxic air. I wasn't surprised. Were you?


It should also be noted — and this is a whole other story — that people who live in the shadows of nuclear plants, or chemical plants, or oil refineries, or coal mining operations, all of which expell high (or unknown, because unregulated "monitoring" is a joke) concentrations of toxins into the immediate environment have suffered from statistically significant incidences of cancers and other diseases compared to the general population. The same applies to people who contract to work cleanup of toxic environmental disasters, e.g., the Exxon Valdez (documented) and the BP oil spill, whose consequences, you can count on it, will be afflicting victims for decades, as they try to collect compensation from BP for their illnesses. In the 50s and 60s, army personnel and workers exposed to atmospheric atomic tests and civilians living downwind of the test sites contracted cancers such as leukemia at high levels. Notably, John Wayne's cancer is attributed to filming in a former test zone with lingering radiation hazards. Just about all of his film crew contracted cancer from this exposure.

Nuclear radiation is radiation. It's just the method of its dissemination that changes. There are NO safe levels. 

The bottom line is, people who live in these hazardous chemical and radiation exposure zones — low-level or "acceptable levels," pick your poison euphemism — are the poor, who lack the resources to make a lot of noise about the quality of their health. If you've ever driven that stretch of the New Jersey Turnpike known as "cancer alley" because there are clusters you can see on a map of high cancer rates in the population living along that highway, you know exactly what I mean. It's like a DEAD ZONE heading in or out of Manhattan, with oil refineries around the towns of Kearny and Harrison, and a glut of chemical plants. We roll up the car windows, kill the air, step on the accelerator and hold our breath to get the hell out of there as quickly as possible. The smell is like astringent detergent.

The people who live live downwind of that chemical cocktail, a cloud that hangs low in the air, are among those statistics on "cancer alley," also called one of the most hazardous stretches of highway in America. And then we have exposure to radiation. The GE crowd over at MSNBC, except for Ed Schultz, has refused to even acknowledge the studies conducted by the Radiation and Public Health Project. RPH isn't a fly-by-night operation, and their findings, published in academic journals, deserve  serious airing and consideration — what are the chances on the GE network? (Rhetorical question.)

Ironically, today the President trots out to inform us there's no cause for alarm ... before hightailing it out of Dodge and trotting up the steps of Air Force One on a trip south of the Rio Grande that will eventually land him in Brazil. Cool, eh? I wish I was heading that way too! Of course, the trip was pre-planned; still, the timing is, um ... amusing.

In more FREAK OUT news, there's a radioactive cloud that is scheduled to alight on the West Coast sometime tomorrow. It's the first wave, I guess, of TOTALLY harmless radioactivity from the Japanese nuclear catastrophe. At least that's what the "experts" say. Obviously, none of them live along cancer alley. After all, they know the hazards. Our government, what's left of it, with all those GOP cuts to the EPA, says it'll be monitoring the radioactivity as it makes its way to our shores. Radioactivity has been detected in planes coming in from Japan. Also, it should be noted that a huge threat in Japan is of fallout getting into the food chain. And if it makes its way over here, settling where milk-producing cattle graze, livestock feed, vegetables are grown ... I hope we'll have enough government inspectors to keep our food safe.

Are you feeling reassured, yet? I honestly tried not to be alarmist. (PSA: Geiger counters are still available on Amazon, eBay, etc. but stocks are dwindling. Better hurry.) A glimmer of hope: Electrical power has been restored at part of one plant, which raises the possibility the generators can be restarted and the cooling system restored. It this takes, the worst of the crisis — a full-scale meltdown, not to speak of massive release of radiation from spent fuel rod pools — may be averted.

Let's hope for the best.

Meanwhile, In Libya ...

A genocide looms as Khaddafi's forces rally and President Obama dithers.

The Libyan insurgents have no chance against Khaddafi's mercenary regulars, his weaponry, air force and gunboats, artillery and tanks. The President once again is reluctant to take decisive action — nor could it have been otherwise for this risk-averse President after Bob Gates put his foot down and said "no intervention, under any circumstances!" What was striking is not that Gates said it, but the vehemence of the statement; it suggests the President has basically delegated to Gates the military decisions on this (and other?) matters.

So far, President Obama is content to hide behind the UN Security Council, the Arab League, the amorphous "international community" that, in turn, take their cues from the United States. For example, if the U.S. insists upon it, the Arab League authorizes a no-fly zone over Libya, as does the UN Security Council, namely China and Russia. Even if they don't, the authority of the Arab League is sufficient for the U.S. to take action.


And the U.S. must act soon, if we are to avert an impending genocide by Khaddafi and his despicably arrogant son giving triumphalist interviews. They are poised to crush the people's uprising in Libya with malice aforethought and "rivers of blood," to coin a phrase used in the region. Acting under cover of the Japan disaster trifecta of earthquake, tsunami and nuclear catastrophe, it's almost as if Khaddafi was provoked into ruthless counterattack by President Obama's ill-advised statement that we are "tightening the noose" on the Libyan dictator.

Those are fighting words in any battleground in the world. You must be willing to back them up with action, Mr. President, lest we, the United States, become what President Nixon once described as a "pitiful, helpless giant." Whatever restraint the madman may have considered to avoid a U.S. attack was dissipated after he and his scumbag son figured out that we were all talk and no action.

It's a familiar scenario.

The insurgents, the people, rise up against the dictator in the vain hope that America, "the cavalry" will come to the rescue for the final takedown. But the "international community" has its own priorities. Priority One, is the free (as in unemcumbered) flow of Libyan oil. Our allies require leadership. In its absence, nations such as France step into the breach and begin making noises about a no-fly zone. In the absence of U.S. leadership, Russia and China dig in their heels. NATO remains divided. And so it goes. No one wants to interrupt the flow of Libyan oil, or take responsibility for owning a Libyan power vaccuum, as despicable as the Khaddafi clan may be.

It's a familiar and tragic scenario: Bosnia, Rwanda, the Kurdish uprising in northern Iraq during the First Gulf War. In that instance, loose talk from President George H.W. Bush, the usual Republican pablum about "freedom" and "democracy" — was taken seriously by the Kurds, who revolted against Saddam Hussein expecting the U.S. to intervene and save them from the brutal dictator who had used lethal force and poison gas against them. But U.S. forces were ordered to stand down, and no help came for the Kurds, not even air power to give them, at least, a fighting chance to beat back Saddam.

The Kurds were slaughtered by Saddam even as they begged and cried out for the U.S. to save them.

There is an eerie and unsettling similarity between the horrible genocide committed by superior military and paramilitary forces against a largely defenseless civilian population, and what is unfolding and about to happen in Libya, as Khaddafi and his son prepare to unleash all the might of their terroristic power and money against their enemy, the people of Libya, who are striving to be free as the international community stands by, pretending to be too preoccupied with the tragedy in Japan to notice the one in Libya.

It's sick and immoral. But Libya has oil. And oil trumps morality.

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

I Think I Figured Out What's The Matter With President Obama ...

First, what do you call that sign in the background, considering the President's in the nuclear waste TANK with the nuclear power industry: Ironic? Overt subliminal secuction? A Freudian vid?



Evidently, the President can't seem to locate a comfortable enough pair of hush puppies, so maybe BOOTS will work better for him ... One of these days — after 2012? (Works either way ...)

MSNBC LIES About Three Mile Island Health Effects

First it was Cenk Uygur, and today a special report on MSNBC makes the FALSE CLAIM that there were no "deaths or long-term health effects connected to the accident." But they never mentioned studies by the Radiation and Public Health Project, including a "new analysis of health statistics in the region  found that death rates for infants, children, and the elderly soared in the first two years after the Three Mile Island accident in Dauphin and surrounding counties." (This directly contradicts what Big Eddie reported — see his "Takedown" below. I guess Big Eddie didn't get the memo from The MAN ...)

I e-mailed Cenk this information, so whose agenda are he and his superiors pushing at MSNBC — could it have anything to do with the fact that former NBC majority owner General Electric has designed Japan's stricken reactors and many of the reactors in operation in the U.S. today? For the MSNBC research hounds (did you find this, then it mysteriously disappeared from the final report, or what they gave Cenk to read?) here's the information contradicting your broadcast LIES about Three Mile Island:
FIRST STUDY OF IN-BODY RADIATION BEGINS AT THREE MILE ISLAND

Harrisburg, November 14, 2005 – A study of baby teeth measuring levels of Strontium-90, a radioactive chemical found only in nuclear weapons and reactors, has begun near the Three Mile Island nuclear plant.

The study is the first to analyze radioactivity in bodies of persons living near U.S. nuclear plants. The Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP) research group announced it is seeking donations of baby teeth at a press conference today in Harrisburg.

“This project will accomplish two goals,” said Joseph Mangano RPHP National Coordinator. “For the first time, we can understand how much radioactivity Three Mile Island has added to people’s bodies. And we can also determine if it is contributing to high local cancer rates.” Effects of both the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island’s unit 2, and ongoing operations at unit 1, will be explored.

Infants and children living in Dauphin County, where Three Mile Island is located, have high rates of disease and death, specifically:
  • Cancer death rate age 0-9, 1980-2002, 45% above U.S. (35 deaths)
  • Cancer incidence rate age 0-14, 1993-2002, 17% above U.S. (86 cases)
  • Infant death rate, age 0-27 days, 1979-2002, 23% above U.S. (600 deaths)
  • Child death rate, age 1-14, 1979-2002, 13% above U.S. (187 deaths)
  • Rate of births under 5 ½ lbs, 2000-2002, 37% above U.S. (994 births)
  • Excluding accidents, suicide, and homicide
RPHP began conducting the baby tooth study in 1998. It has tested over 4,500 teeth, mostly from areas near seven U.S. nuclear plants, and has published results in four medical journals. Strontium-90 levels have been consistently found to be highest near nuclear plants, and have risen sharply since the late 1980s. The chemical is released from nuclear reactors and enters the body through breathing, drinking, and eating. It attaches to bone and teeth, where it damages cells, and is most harmful to the infant and fetus.
Welcome to the world of crony capitalism as practiced by allegedly "liberal" MSNBC. Please note, boys and girls, that the nuclear technology for those stricken nuclear plants in Japan is from General Electric, with more in the pipeline. The stakes are significant, to say the least,  for GE which still owns 49% of NBC. I love Rachel, but she and her liberal colleagues are swimming in a shark's tank.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Notes From The Fringe: Maybe A Conspiracy Theory? NOT!

Yesterday on Hardball Chris Matthews tried painting an ideological distinction between our response to the nuclear crisis in Japan versus the secrecy and misinformation that characterized the Soviet disclosures following the Chernobyl disaster, back when communist Russia was in its death throes. Democracies (considering the release of information is coming mainly from Japanese authorities) are more caring for the people's welfare than authoritarian regimes, regardless of their ideology.

That is true — broadly speaking. But then a very interesting thing occurs: A consensus of views begins to crystallize in the media (mainly the electronic media, or TV-and radio- machine as Rachel likes to call it) all trending toward rosy and reassuring scenarios. There are valid reasons for this — news and government sources have a responsibility in times of extreme crisis to avoid panic in the population, especially when the information is incomplete and speculative. No need to raise concerns, say the experts, media elites, and government authorities — we'll do the worrying for you.

But then, isn't it interesting that the filthy (interchangeable adjective) rich millionaire media criers most vehemently attacking the legitimate concerns raised of a nuclear catastrophe are the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Larry Kudlow.  Is it just a coincidence that they stand to lose a significant portion of their investments if panic selling ensues and the world markets plunge as a result of the Japan Syndrome? Kudlow let the cat out of the bag when he said, "The human toll here looks to be much worse than the economic toll, and we can be grateful for that." Kudlow gave voice to the NUMBER ONE concern of the right wing elites in this nation in the wake of the triple environmental disaster in Japan: preserving our economy and protecting their capitalist cronies. In this context, one can understands Lamar Alexander's lies and the Beck/Limbaugh agit-prop hysterics:


Of course, giving assurances about health and radiation exposure concerns in order to prevent a run on the markets, from governments' cost-benefit analysis, is a no-brainer as every effort (sometimes) is made to minimize casualties and victims. Most of us are invested in the stock market anyhow, so there is a natural tendency to tamp down the panic and ramp up the optimism. The thinking being, hey we can handle it, but there's plenty of people out there who will get hysterical and we don't need that.

It's a message management game that governments and media elites play in order to safeguard the short- and long-term health of the economy in times of crisis. The bottom line is, you can't listen to what the "experts" say to assess your personal risk of radiation exposure, or any kind of airborne environmental health hazard, for that matter. First of all, there is no level of radiation exposure that is considered safe. No one willingly submits to X-rays and CAT scans unless it's absolutely necessary. Second, if the threat's immediacy is removed, a kick-the-can-down-the-road attitude sets in regarding elevated cancers and exposure-related deaths several years down the road. That's what enables Alexander, Beck and Limbaugh to lie about it. Let's face it: Thousands of people die every year as a result of exposure to dangerous contaminants in "dirty" energy industry work such as coal, oil and gas. For Lamar Alexander and his capitalist cronies, that's just the cost of doing business.


When "civilians," as it were, are exposed, then a bit more message massaging and propaganda are required to allay fears and panic. But the principle is the same. From a cost-benefit analysis, there is an acceptable level of exposure and premature deaths that makes the victims expendable. This thinking is prevalent among crony capitalists, corporatists, wingnuts and libertarians — the fascists among us. (Note to Thom Hartmann: I believe in calling a spade a spade; besides, no one reads this blog, anyway.) Most of them would hardly face exposure to these environmental poisons and toxins, so it's just an abstraction to them, numbers on a screen, a positive cost-benefit analysis.

As we follow this unfolding crisis in Japan, with its terrible human toll, it's instructive to recall our government's reaction to the health hazard posed by the enormous toxic dust cloud from the collapsed twin towers in Manhattan hours after the 9/11 attacks. The EPA administrator was former NJ governor Christine Todd Whitman. She was considered a "moderate Republican" who cared about the environment. This was early into the George W. Bush administration. The EPA still had an unsullied reputation. Whitman put her cred with liberals and Democrats on the line by spreading the LIE that the air quality in Manhattan was "safe" to breathe.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, whose district includes Ground Zero grilled Whitman at a 2007 Congressional hearing on the health effects of 9/11: “Our government has knowingly exposed thousands of American citizens unnecessarily to deadly hazardous materials,” said Representative Jerrold Nadler, the chairman of the subcommittee and a Manhattan Democrat whose district includes ground zero. “And because it has never admitted the truth, Americans remain at grave risk to this day.” Nadler and then-NY Senator Hillary Clinton issued a joint statement which said, in part:
"In a recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found that former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman's falsely reassuring and misleading statements of safety after the September 11, 2001 attacks were "without question conscience-shocking." The court also found the facts "support an allegation of a violation of the substantive due process right to be free from official government policies that increase the risk of bodily harm" by Whitman's misstatements regarding the air quality of the affected area. An EPA Inspector General review reached similar conclusions."
 I bring this up as a cautionary reminder of how the United States, a capitalist democratic state, reacted to an environmental crisis affecting thousands of people. Three years later, Senate Republicans were still trying to deny government health benefits to the surviving first responders — "heroes" they called them until the time came to take care of their health. It was only when Jon Stewart the "good" libertarian in his two-pony show intervened (because after all, he breathes the same air too when he drives into his "you go, I go" Lincoln Tunnel to eat oysters in Mahattan) that the Republicans were shamed into relenting.

The template is 9/11. What was the terrorist target in Manhattan: Wall Street. As Kudlow noted, the economy comes first. People are expendable when fortunes are on the line. And just because you invest in a geiger counter, or there's a run on iodine tablets, doesn't mean you're unreasonably paranoid.

Notes From The Fringe: More FREAK OUT News (Because We Can't Rely On The MSM)

Want to see how JAPAN SYNDROME nuclear radiation reaches our shores? Check out this link for the Jet Stream path, i.e. the ATMOSPHERIC EXPRESS, Japan-USA. Surf's up. Or keep an eye out for some extra pretty California sunsets in the coming days. Here's an Accuweather graphic of projected wind trajectories from the stricken reactor's site to U.S. and Canadian shores, with details from one of its blogs:

The wind direction may impact where the radiation goes both at a local level and even across the globe. The wind direction at both of these locations are similar since the Onagawa power plant is located just to the northeast of Fukushima power plant.

"The exact direction of the winds would have to be known at the time of the release of a large amount of radiation to understand exactly where the radiation would go," according to Expert Senior Global Meteorologist Jim Andrews. It is unknown when a large release of radiation would occur, if at all, at this point.

"You can calculate how long the release of a radiation would take to cross the Pacific from Japan to the U.S. by choosing different speeds that the radioactive particles might be moving and using the direct distance between given locations—say Sendai, Japan, and Seattle, Wash.," Andrews added.

However, even that calculation may not reflect how long the particle would take to cross the Pacific, since it would not likely cross the ocean in a direct path. This is the case because the wind flow is often a complicated pattern. A typical wind trajectory across the Pacific is westerly, since there is often a large dome of high pressure over the central Pacific and an area of low pressure in the Gulf of Alaska. Any storm systems moving across the Pacific would add kinks in the westerly flow that would make the path of a particle crossing the Pacific longer. "In other words, it would be a very intricate and difficult calculation," said Andrews.
And the most deadly and frightening threat yet, which has hardly been broached at all by the MSM, is the release of plutonium fuel into the atmosphere:
Observers said the biggest threat is plutonium fuel. Only one Fukushima reactor uses plutonium-enriched uranium fuel known as MOX, or "mixed oxide" fuel. A hydrogen explosion at the No. 3 reactor on Sunday (March 13) injured 11 workers. So far, Japanese officials said the containment vessel in the No. 3 reactor appears to be holding. But it could take weeks or even months before the MOX fuel cools to levels that no longer threaten public safety.

"If there is a large-scale release of plutonium into the air this could become the worst nuclear disaster in history," predicted Ira Helfand, a member of the board of Physicians for Social Responsibility. "So far, the venting of radioactive steam has been blown out to sea, but tomorrow [March 15] the wind is forecast to shift to northeast which means any radiation released tomorrow will be blown straight toward Tokyo, which is less than 150 miles away."

A release of deadly plutonium would require heightened precautions to protect Japanese citizens, particularly if winds shift. Helfand said these would include staying indoors and testing water and foods supplies. "Most of the exposure to people at Chernobyl, for instance, was from children drinking contaminated milk that had not been tested," Helfand said, resulting in high rates of thyroid cancer in children.

Monday, March 14, 2011

Notes From The Fringe: Dr. Michio Kaku Says It's OK To FREAK OUT

But he didn't say it on American TV. NATURALLY.

Here's my layman's take: Don't believe a WORD the Japanese authorities say. The most accurate assessment is what was told to the Times by one official, that the nuclear plant operators are in "full panic mode." The latest announcement from the Japanese Prime Minister struck a more somber tone. He urged people within a designated 30-plus kilometer perimeter of the stricken nuclear plants to stay indoors in order to avoid radiation contamination, STRONGLY suggesting there has been a MAJOR release of radiation into the atmosphere.

My advice to Chris Jansing (I like her) is get the HELL OUT OF DODGE. The French and German governments (reportedly) have instructed their citizens to leave the country. The French Embassy in Tokyo said radiation could reach that city in 10 hours. The same advice goes for the rest of the media over there. Radiation is colorless, odorless, invisible, AND LETHAL. Unless they're carrying geiger counters, they would be wise to get away. Anderson Cooper doesn't seem to care, but Dr. Sanjay Gupta, who knows a little more about this kind of stuff, looks grim, and very uneasy being there.



Finally, do not believe much of what you hear on the MSM. Take it all in with a grain of salt. They've probably passed the word out at the production meetings not to alarm the viewers, etc. When it comes to the potential deadly hazards to health from widespread radiation contamination carried in the atmosphere, a little alarmism is a good thing. Government health department assurances from the U.S. and Canada that the radiation gets diffused in the atmosphere are meaningless, considering the worst-case scenario — a "China Syndrome" — without any yardstick as to the maximum levels of radioactivity that can be released into the atmosphere from THREE OR FOUR REACTORS PLUS SPENT FUEL RODS, WHOSE CONTAINMENT BUILDING IS REPORTEDLY ON FIRE.

The truth is, no one can say for sure how much radiation will eventually make its way in the Jet Stream to the United States and Canada, and how concentrated (rather than diffuse) it may be. If the media is going to hang around the area as a meltdown disaster unfolds at those plants, then take Dr. Michio Kaku's advice, and have a geiger counter on hand. As for the rest of us, stateside, is OK TO FREAK OUT! (Even Rachel, after her show is done ...)

Question Regarding Safety of Nuclear Plants In The U.S.

The disaster in Japan raised questions and concerns about the safety of U.S. plants; parallel concerns and lessons that may apply here; i.e., of earthquakes and tsunamis. Well, it was reported that the Japanese nuclear power plants were knocked out by the tsunami and not the earthquake. So, is there a concern that American nuclear plants may be vulnerable to increasingly severe flooding events, recorded over the past decade as a result of climate change? Floods wreacked much destruction on affected communities and knocked out power in areas that were under water, as in a tsunami. Wouldn't flood damage pose as potentially serious a problem to nuclear plants, similar to a tsunami water damage, if backup power fails? Just a thought, assuming there are nuclear plants in the U.S. built on flood zones.

What Separates Wingnuts From The Rest of Us

Answer: A lack of common decency and empathy. It's really true. Larry Kudlow, a former cokehead and right wing business guru, pontificates on "business channel" CNBC, along with Jim Cramer, the clown who dispenses bad investment advice (Matthews likes him; 'nuff said) and Rick Santelli, the jackass whose rant on the floor of the NY Stock Exchange is said to have given rise to the Tea Party. This trio alone ranks CNBC as serious contender for FREAK SHOW co-dependent with Fox, and a prime reason sane people should avoid it like the plague. Kudlow made this unbelievably crass statement about the tragedy in Japan: "The human toll here looks to be much worse than the economic toll, and we can be grateful for that."

As Joe Conason wrote in 1999 about Kudlow's CLASS SKATING, a topic as relevant today as EVER:
"First, let's consider the typical drug defendant, who as we all know is likely to be a young jobless male without a high school diploma. A disproportionate number also are black or Latino. The average sentence for narcotics possession meted out to this typical defendant is roughly four years behind bars, according to statistics compiled by the Justice Department.

Upon conviction, the prospects for this typical offender are poor, since he is unlikely to receive treatment and will eventually emerge into society with a criminal record that leaves him pretty much unfit for any kind of work except the criminal conduct that sent him to prison in the first place.

Now let's examine the contrasting case of a more fortunate druggie — a prominent Reaganite not altogether unlike the current Republican presidential front-runner. Lawrence Kudlow, the conservative Ivy-educated son of a rich New Jersey businessman, once served as chief economist for the Office of Management and Budget during the Reagan administration. Later, he earned $1 million a year at the investment house of Bear Stearns. He was also a cocaine addict who checked into the Hazelden clinic in 1995, after he blacked out and his third wife threatened to divorce him.

Following successful treatment, the reformed Kudlow has told his sad story on television and returned to the good graces of his sympathetic fellow Republicans. He currently advises the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee on tax and budget policy, no doubt urging big cuts in domestic spending (including publicly funded drug treatment programs for those who can't afford Hazelden or the Betty Ford Clinic).

In short, Kudlow has benefitted from liberal attitudes toward drug abuse, which prescribe medicalization rather than criminalization. Among his Republican peers, however, that kinder, gentler approach is considered too lenient to be applied to the poor."

If those hypocrites in the high councils of Marbles-Mouth media were consistent, and applied the same sanctions across the board as they have meted out to, oh ... Keith Olbermann and David Schuster, Kudlow the cokehead would be fired outright. What are the odds? Less than zero.