Undernews For September 8, 2009

THE PROGRESSIVE REVIEW
96 Maine Street #255
Brunswick ME 04011
202 423 7884

EMAIL US
REVIEW E-MAIL UPDATES
REVIEW INDEX
UNDERNEWS
XML FEED

Tuesday September 8

WAVE OF DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION SWEEPING THROUGH LATIN AMERICA

Guardian, UK - Across Latin America and Mexico, there is a wave of drug law reform which constitutes a stark rebuff to the United States as it prepares to mark the 40th anniversary of a conflict officially declared by President Richard Nixon and fronted by his wife, Pat, in 1969. That "war" has incarcerated an average of a million US citizens a year, as every stratum of American society demonstrates its insatiable need to get high. And it has also engulfed not only America, but the Americas.

At El Paso at the end of the month, experts from the US and Mexico will gather to take stock and thrash out alternatives. El Paso stands cheek by jowl with its twin city, Ciudad Juárez, across the Rio Grande. There, last Wednesday, the day after the Argentinian court ruling, cartel gunmen broke into the El Aliviane drug rehabilitation centre, lined 17 young people against a wall and cut them down with a fusillade of machine-gun fire. Troops last night captured the suspected killer, Jose Rodolfo Escajeda, considered one of the most brutal hitmen in Chihuahua and one of the leaders of the Juárez cartel. The executions, coming shortly after the killing of 40 people over three days in Juárez two weeks ago, take the death toll to about 1,400 this year, making it the most dangerous city in the world. . . Latin America is seeking a different route to that of outright interdiction as advocated - and for decades directed - by Washington. The new thinking is emblematic of a new era in South American politics and statehood, in which the lexicon demands partnership with the US, not the subjugation that hallmarked the presidencies of Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes and Clinton.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso article on drugs

Guardian UK - The war on drugs has failed and should make way for a global shift towards decriminalizing cannabis use and promoting harm reduction, says the former president of Brazil, writing today in the Observer. Fernando Henrique Cardoso argues that the hard line approach has brought "disastrous" consequences for Latin America, which has been the frontline in the war on drug cultivation for decades, while failing to change the continent's position as the largest exporter of cocaine and marijuana. His intervention, which will reignite growing debate in Europe about how to tackle drugs, was welcomed by campaigners for drug law reform who increasingly see the impact on developing countries where drugs are produced as critical to the argument. "After decades of overflights, interdictions, spraying and raids on jungle drug factories, Latin America remains the world's largest exporter of cocaine and marijuana," Cardoso writes. "It is producing more and more opium and heroin. It is developing the capacity to mass produce synthetic drugs. Continuing the drugs war with more of the same is ludicrous."

PROZAC PRESS IGNORES FLU QUARANTINE LAWS IN WAITING

Once again, the prozac press is attempting to squash an issue by concentrating on an aspect easy to dismiss while ignoring underlying problems. In this case, while indeed no quarantine orders have been issued, a number of states have quarantine orders prepared and ready to go. These have been formulated without legislative or media discussion and could prove extremely controversial if ever put into effect. For example, Here's how one Iowa broadcast station handled the story:

KIMT - Health leaders in Iowa are reassuring people that there are no H1N1 related quarantines being ordered. Rumors started swirling after a quarantine form was found by someone on the internet. Polly Carver-Kimm from the state health department says that it's simply a template that was made months ago. She says folks shouldn't expect to see it used anytime soon."

The story ended with the soothing advice to wash your hands. Now here is a more informative story:

Lynda Waddington, Iowa Independent - A quarantine template created by the Iowa Department of Public Health and accessible through the Centers for Disease Control Web site should not be of great concern, according to a press release from health department officials. . . Many public health departments prepare such templates "in preparation for public health emergencies," the agency said, but "isolation and quarantine orders are only very rarely used in very specific situations.". . . The template, which, as expected, contains several fill-in-the-blank information areas, is dated May 1, 2009 and reads as follows. . .

[] The Iowa Department of Public Health has determined that you have had contact with a person with Novel Influenza A H1N1. Novel Influenza A H1N1 is a disease which is spread from person to person and is associated with fever (greater than 100.0 F), cough, sore throat, rhinorrhea (runny nose), nasal congestion, body aches, headache, chills and fatigue. Novel Influenza A H1N1 presents a risk of serious harm to public health and if it spreads in the community severe public health consequences may result.

The Department has determined that it is necessary to quarantine your movement to a specific facility to prevent further spread of this disease. The Department has determined that quarantine in your home and other less restrictive alternatives are not acceptable because [insert the reason home quarantine is not acceptable, the person violated a previously issued home quarantine order, the person does not have an appropriate home setting conducive to home quarantine, etc.] The Department is therefore ordering you to comply with the following provisions during the entire period of quarantine:

1. Terms of confinement. You are ordered to remain at the quarantine facility, [insert name and address of facility], from [insert dates of quarantine].

2. Requirements during confinement. During the period of quarantine:

a. You must not leave the quarantine facility at any time unless you have received prior written authorization from the Department to do so. b. You must not come into contact with anyone except the following persons: (i) other persons who are also under similar quarantine order at the quarantine facility; (ii) authorized healthcare providers and other staff at the quarantine facility; (iii) authorized Department staff or other persons acting on behalf of the Department; and (iv) such other persons as are authorized by the Department. c. Your daily needs, including food, shelter, and medical care, will be provided for you during the period of quarantine at the quarantine facility. You should bring clothing, toiletries, and other personal items with you to the quarantine facility. You will have limited access to a telephone at the quarantine facility. You may bring your cell phone with you should you desire to have greater access to a means of communication. d. You should inform your employer that you are under quarantine order and are not authorized to physically come to the work place, although you may work from the facility via electronic or other means if appropriate. You should be aware that Iowa law prohibits an employer from firing, demoting, or otherwise discriminating against an employee due to the compliance of an employee with a quarantine order issued by the Department. . .

Violations of order. If you fail to comply with this Quarantine Order you may be ordered to be quarantined in a more restrictive facility. In addition, failure to comply with this order is a simple misdemeanor for which you may be arrested, fined, and imprisoned. []

Other states have similar laws in waiting. Some are written in a way that essentially gives the state martial law status. In North Carolina, , failure to comply with an isolation order can result in a jail sentence. In Massachusetts, officials can enter homes without a warrant, and gives the state power over "routes of transportation and over materials and facilities including but not limited to communication devices, carriers, public utilities, fuels, food, clothing, and shelter."

There are a number of problems with all this such as who determines whether the swine flue situation deserves quarantines? The record of past flu analysis is not reassuring. The predictions, after all, are being made by politicians and bureaucrats who want to make sure they are not caught underestimating the problem. While there is little harm in this at the advisory level, it becomes a whole other matter when it results in martial law. Further, neither the media nor the legislatures involved have had anything close to adequate public discussion of the issue.

BRITISH CHILDREN BEING DISCOURAGED FROM RIDING BIKES

Guardian, UK - Significant numbers of children face active official discouragement and even bans against cycling to and from school, cycle campaigners have warned as a new academic year gets under way. As state pupils in most of the UK returned for the new term over the past week - those in Scotland went back earlier - most travelled to school in cars, on buses or on foot. Just a tiny minority did so on a bicycle, despite rising levels of obesity and inactivity. Many would actively like to ride but are prevented from doing so by a mixture of parental worries and school policies which range from warnings about safety to effective bans through a refusal to allow bikes to be kept on school grounds, campaigners say

OBAMA'S FOUR BIG MISTAKES ON HEALTHCARE

Vincente Navarro, Counterpunch

Error number One

One of the two major objectives for health care reform, as emphasized by Obama, is the need to reduce medical care costs. The notion that "the economy cannot afford a medical care system so costly, with the annual increases of medical care running wild" has been repeated over and over "“ only the tone varies, depending on the audience. An element of this argument is Obama's emphasis on eliminating the federal deficit. He stresses that most of the government deficit is due to the outrageous growth in costs in federal health programs. Thus, a crucial part of the message he is transmitting is the health care reform objective of reducing costs.

This message, as it reaches the average citizen, seems like a threat to achieve cost reductions by cutting existing benefits. This perception is particularly accentuated among elderly people - which is not unreasonable, given that the president indicates that the funds needed to provide health benefits coverage to the 48 million currently uncovered will come partially from existing programs, such as Medicare, with savings supposedly achieved by increasing efficiency. To the average citizen (who has developed an enormous skepticism about the political process), this call for savings by increasing efficiency sounds like a code for cutting benefits. Not surprisingly, then, one sector of the population most skeptical about health care reform is seniors - the beneficiaries of Medicare. The comment that "government should keep its hands off my Medicare," as heard at some of the town hall meetings, is not as paradoxical or ridiculous as the liberal media paint it. It makes a lot of sense. An increasing number of elderly people feel that the uninsured are going to be insured at the expense of seniors' benefits.

Error Number Two

The second major objective of health care reform as presented by Obama is to provide health benefits coverage for the uncovered: the 48 million people who don't have any form of health benefits coverage. This is an important and urgently needed intervention. . . . But, however important, this is not the largest problem we have in the health care sector. The most widespread problem is not being uninsured but underinsured: the majority of people in the U.S. - 168 million, to be precise - are underinsured. And many (32 per cent) are not even aware of this until they need their health insurance coverage. . . Among people who are terminally ill, 42 per cent worry about how they or their family will pay for medical care. And most of these people are insured - but their insurance does not cover all of their conditions and necessary interventions. Co-payments, deductibles, and other extra expenses - besides the insurance premiums - can amount to 10 per cent or even higher proportion of disposable income. . .

None of the proposals that the Obama administration is ready to support would address most of these cases. It will be an embarrassing and uncomfortable moment during the 2012 presidential campaign if someone asks candidate Obama about what has happened to some of the people whose stories he told in the 2008 campaign.

Error Number Three

Obama plans to cover the uninsured by increasing taxes on the rich (a very popular measure, as shown in all polls) and by transferring funds saved through increased efficiencies in existing programs, including Medicare (an unpopular measure, for the reasons I've mentioned). We see here the same problems we've seen with other programs targeted to specific, small sectors of the population, such as the poor. Programs that are not universal (i.e., do not benefit everyone) are intrinsically unpopular. This is why antipoverty programs are unpopular. People feel that they are paying, through taxation, for programs that do not benefit them. Compassion is not, and never has been, a successful motivation for public policy. Solidarity is. You support others with the understanding that they will support you when you need it most. The long history of social policy, in the U.S. and elsewhere, shows that universality is a better way to get popular support for a program than means-testing for programs targeted to specific vulnerable groups. The limited popularity of the welfare state in the U.S. is precisely due to the fact that most programs are not universal but means-tested. The history of social policy shows that the best way to resolve poverty is not by developing antipoverty programs, but by developing universal programs to which all people are entitled - for example, job and incomes programs. In the same way, the problem of non-coverage by health insurance will not be resolved without resolving the problem of undercoverage, because both result from the same failing: the absence of government power to ensure universal rights. There is no health care system in the world (including the fashionable Swiss model) that provides universal health benefits coverage without the government intervening, using its muscle to control prices and practices. The various proposals being put forward by the Obama administration are simply tinkering with, not resolving, the problem. You can call this government role "single-payer" or whatever, but our experience in the U.S. has already shown (what other countries have known and practiced for decades) that without government intervention, all the measures now being proposed by this administration will be handsome bailouts for the medical-insurance-pharmaceutical complex.

Error Number Four

I can understand that Obama does not want to advocate single-payer. But he has made a huge tactical mistake in excluding it as an option for study and consideration. He needs single-payer to be among the options under discussion. And he needs single-payer to make his own proposal "respectable." (Keep in mind how Martin Luther King became the civil rights figure promoted by the establishment because, in the background, there was a Malcolm X threatening the establishment.) This was a major mistake made by Bill Clinton in 1993. When Clinton gave up on single-payer, his own proposal became the "left" proposal (unbelievable as that may seem) and was dead on arrival in Congress. The historical function of the left in this country has been to make the center "respectable." If there is no left alternative, the Obama proposals will become the "left" proposal, and this will severely limit whatever reform he will finally be able to get.

But there's another reason that Obama has erred in excluding single-payer. He has antagonized the left of his own party that supports single-payer, without which he cannot be reelected in 2012. He cannot win only with the left, of course, but he certainly cannot win without the mobilization of the left. His victory in 2008 is evidence of this. And today, the left is angry at him. It is a surprise to me, but Obama is going to pay the same price Clinton paid in 1994. Clinton antagonized the left by putting deficit reduction (under pressure from Wall Street) at the top of his policies and supporting NAFTA against the wishes of the AFL-CIO and the majority of Democrats. The Gingrich Republican Revolution of 1994 was due to a demobilization of the left. The Republicans got the same (I repeat the same) number of votes in the 1994 congressional election that they got in 1990 (the previous non-presidential election year). Large sectors of the grassroots of the Democratic Party that voted Democratic in 1990 stayed home in 1994. Something similar could happen in 2010 and in 2012. We could see a strong mobilization of the right and a very demoralized left. We are already seeing this. Why aren't those on the left out in force at the town hall meetings on health care reform? Because the option they want - single-payer - has already been excluded from the debate by a president they fought to get elected. . .

Vicente Navarro, M.D., Ph.D., professor of Health Policy at The Johns Hopkins University and editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Health Services.

OBAMA NOMINEE TIED TO BIOTECH INDUSTRY

Washington Times - President Obama's nominee at the Department of Homeland Security overseeing bioterrorism defense has served as a key adviser for a lobbying group funded by the pharmaceutical industry that has asked the government to spend more money for anthrax vaccines and biodefense research. But Dr. Tara O'Toole, whose confirmation as undersecretary of science and technology is pending, never reported her involvement with the lobbying group called the Alliance for Biosecurity in a recent government ethics filing. The alliance has spent more than $500,000 lobbying Congress and federal agencies -- including Homeland Security -- since 2005, congressional records show. . . Analysts say the lack of disclosure reflects a potential loophole in the policies for the Obama administration, which has boasted about its efforts to make government more transparent. They also question lobbying laws that allow such a group to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars without the public knowing exactly how much money each of the companies that belongs to the group contributes, though such arrangements are permitted under the law.

ONE REASON DEMOCRATS DON'T DO BETTER

Sam Smith, Progressive Review - Someone in Obama Spin Central made a bad mistake: attempting to push a politicized lesson plan for elementary school kids to use following the president's speech to them on TV. It wasn't all that important in itself but symbolizes an apparent desire in some quarters to replace Muzak in our lives with the sound of all Obama all the time.

The lesson plan included such tacky political recommendations as having students "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president."

Elsewhere the lesson plan suggested sample questions including, "Is President Obama inspiring you to do anything?" and, "Is he challenging you to do anything?"

Once the plan was exposed (and the Review was about the only progressive journal to help in this), The White House quickly dumped some of the objectionable language. For example, the plan now suggests that students "write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals."

The spinmeisters pulled out a classic non-apology. Said one, "That was inartfully worded, and we corrected it."

But other Democrats were not content to correct and move on. Instead they tried to rewrite the script so that it was only about the president giving a speech. Nothing about the crummy lesson plan.

And the liberal media joined the fray. MSNBC's John Harwood, for example, badly misstated the issue by claiming, "I've been watching politics for a long time, and this one is really over-the-top. What it shows you is there are a lot of cynical people who try to fan controversy, and let's face it, in a country of 300 million people, there are a lot of stupid people too, because if you believe that it's somehow unhealthy for kids, for the president to say "work hard and stay in school," you're stupid." Nothing about the lesson plan.

Now it's true the Republicans and conservatives leaped on the issue as could be expected. But the Democratic and liberal media tried to argue that all those opposed were in this camp as well.

This reflects a growing Democratic tendency, whether the issue be end of life decisions, gun control, or politicized lesson plans issued by the president's staff, to treat all those opposed to the Democrats as stupid conservatives.

And since that isn't true, the Democrats end up insulting an awful lot of people who just don't happen to agree with them on one issue. People like school superintendents who have decided not to run the speech because of its political context or parents who are also troubled by it.

Take for instance Vasselboro Maine parent, Micki Stetson, whose two children attend Vassalboro Community School. According to the Morning Sentinel, "Stetson said it's great that the president is giving a pep talk to students and that children will look at this as 'sort of a good thing, something they will remember,' but that 'the department was overstepping its boundaries. I believe the questions asked were advocating an ideology, as opposed to a critical approach. They shouldn't be asking a child how this figure inspired you. What if the figure didn't inspire them? That's political propaganda, and I don't believe that should be portrayed in the school."

Do John Harwood and the Daily Kos think Micki Stetson is stupid?

What good does it do to assign such a name to those who happen to disagree with you on one issue? Especially when even the White House tacitly admitted they were right by removing the objectionable language?

And if they do think they were stupid, would this category include the former Democratic House majority leader Dick Gephart who in 1991 said of a George H. W Bush speech at a Washington junior high school, "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students."

You start calling people stupid for disagreeing with you on a few issues and there's no telling who will end up in the pot. And every one is less likely to vote the way you want after they've heard your low opinion of them.

DEMOCRATS REACTED A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY WHEN BUSH GAVE A TALK TO SCHOOL KIDS

Washington Examiner - The controversy over President Obama's speech to the nation's schoolchildren will likely be over shortly after Obama speaks at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. But when President George H.W. Bush delivered a similar speech on October 1, 1991, from Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC, the controversy was just beginning. Democrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush's speech -- they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue. . .

The day after Bush spoke, the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president's political benefit. "The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props," the Post reported.

With the Post article in hand, Democrats pounced. . . Rep. William Ford, then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate the cost and legality of Bush's appearance. On October 17, 1991, Ford summoned then-Education Secretary Lamar Alexander and other top Bush administration officials to testify at a hearing devoted to the speech. "The hearing this morning is to really examine the expenditure of $26,750 of the Department of Education funds to produce and televise an appearance by President Bush at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, DC," Ford began. . .

Unfortunately for Ford, the General Accounting Office concluded that the Bush administration had not acted improperly. "The speech itself and the use of the department's funds to support it, including the cost of the production contract, appear to be legal," the GAO wrote in a letter to Chairman Ford. "The speech also does not appear to have violated the restrictions on the use of appropriations for publicity and propaganda."

That didn't stop Democratic allies from taking their own shots at Bush. The National Education Association denounced the speech, saying it "cannot endorse a president who spends $26,000 of taxpayers' money on a staged media event at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, D.C. -- while cutting school lunch funds for our neediest youngsters."

Lost in all the denouncing and investigating was the fact that Bush's speech itself, like Obama's today, was entirely unremarkable. "Block out the kids who think it's not cool to be smart," the president told students. "If someone goofs off today, are they cool? Are they still cool years from now, when they're stuck in a dead end job. Don't let peer pressure stand between you and your dreams."

GIRLS USE FACEBOOK FOR EMERGENCY AID

Tech Radar - Two girls trapped in a storm drain in South Australia chose to update their Facebook status to get help - rather than ringing the emergency services. . . Fireman Glenn Benham told ABC News it was fortunate that someone was online and able to call emergency services when he saw the update.

DOWN EAST NOTES

Coastal Packet - The latest data, supplied by the state Department of Public Safety, show that last year, police arrested 1,067 women for domestic assault. That's up nearly 300 from 2003, representing an 8 percent increase. . . . . . A new DVD tells the story of lobstering from trap to plate. . . An early college program pays for one college class for high school juniors and seniors per semester, or four during the two years. . . The Colby College Museum of Art is prospering in the face of, and perhaps because of, the economic downturn. . . Forty years ago, an alternative school opened on 110 acres; alumni recall the animals, gardens and modern dance, carpentry and weaving. . .

ENTROPY UPDATE: BRITISH SCOUTS NO LONGER ALLOWED TO HAVE PENKNIVES

Telegraph, UK - Scouts will soon have to survive without their trusty penknives on camping trips thanks to Britain's growing knife crime culture. Scouts used to be allowed to carry sheath knives on their belts. New advice published in Scouting, the official in-house magazine, says neither Scouts nor their parents should bring penknives to camp except in "specific" situations. Scouts have traditionally been taught how to use knives correctly, using them on camping trips to cut firewood or carve tools. . . Troops leaders have said the decision is "very sad". Sheila Burgin, from 4th Sevenoaks Scout Group in Kent, said: "Scouts by law are allowed to have Swiss army knives. I think this is going too far "“ you just don't know when a Scout will need a knife. It is also suggested that the leader keeps control of the knives when they go camping, but I think that is completely wrong. The first Scout Law is 'The Scout is to be trusted'. Scouts love having knives and using them properly. There is nothing wrong with it.". . . A Scouts spokesman said: "We believe that young people need more places to go after school and at weekends, where they can experience adventure without the threat of violence or bullying and the need to carry weapons.

ARIZONA HIGHWAY OFFERS DRIVE THRU PRAYERS

Arizona Republic - Vendors set up along Hunt Highway in San Tan Valley to peddle turtles, mattresses, tamales and other items. But a newcomer to the scene doesn't have a ware to sell. Hand-painted fiberboards welcome motorists to Matthew Cordell's roadside stop with this message: "Prayer Stand, Drive Thru Open.". . . He's there from 6 to 10 a.m. on most Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, waiting for visitors with his "assistant," a friendly 5-year-old Chihuahua named Skye. People stop by to make requests for him to pray for things such as the healing of ailments and the safety of children going to college for the first time. "They pull in, I go up to the window, we can pray and they pull out," Cordell said. "And people know they can have their needs met. It seems to be a real blessing."

TEXAS RIGHT WING HISTORY CURRICULUM COULD INFECT NATIONAL TEXTBOOKS

TPM Muckraker - The GOP-controlled [Texas] State Board of Education is working on a new set of statewide textbook standards for, among other subjects, U.S. History Studies Since Reconstruction. And it turns out what the board decides may end up having implications far beyond the Lone Star State.

The first draft of the standards, released at the end of July, is a doozy. It lays out a kind of Human Events version of U.S. history.

Approved textbooks, the standards say, must teach the Texan student to "identify significant conservative advocacy organizations and individuals, such as Newt Gingrich, Phyllis Schlafly, and the Moral Majority." No analogous liberal figures or groups are required, prompting protests from some legislators and committee members.

The standards on Nixon: "describe Richard M. Nixon's role in the normalization of relations with China and the policy of detente."

On Reagan: "describe Ronald Reagan's role in restoring national confidence, such as Reaganomics and Peace with Strength." . . .

What happens in Texas doesn't stay in Texas, says Diane Ravitch, professor of education at NYU.

That's because Texas is one of the two states with the largest student enrollments, along with California. "The publishers vie to get their books adopted for them, and the changes that are inserted to please Texas and California are then part of the textbooks made available to every other state," says Ravitch, who wrote a book about the politics of textbooks.

Rick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute explains it as a simple economic calculation by the big textbook publishers. "Publishers are generally reticent to run two different versions of a textbook," he says. "You can imagine the headache the expense the logistics, the storage, all of it."

AHMADINEJAD READY TO TALK WITH U.S.. . .BUT ONLY IN PUBLIC

Bloomberg - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the debate over Iran's nuclear program is over, while he is ready to discuss a range of international issues with President Barack Obama. At his first formal press conference since his June re- election, Ahmadinejad said he didn't recognize deadlines for talks on Iran's nuclear plans and isn't willing to negotiate on its "undeniable" rights. Iran is ready for talks about the peaceful use of nuclear energy for all countries, as well as organizing worldwide nuclear non-proliferation, Ahmadinejad said. His press conference in Tehran was carried live by state television. . . . "We are ready to discuss world issues with the U.S. president in the presence of mass media," Ahmadinejad said.

LA Times - Ahmadinejad said he planned to attend the General Assembly to meet with American people and media, but only meet with U.S. officials publicly. "The era of secret and clandestine meetings to solve problems has ended," he said. "In the presence of world media, anything can be discussed."

U.S. ARMS SALES DOUBLE

Russia Today - Sales of U.S. arms have doubled during last year and now account for more than two-thirds of all foreign weapons sales, according to a report by the New York Times. Citing a new Congressional study, the newspaper reported that in 2008, the U.S. signed arms agreements to the value of $37.8 billion, or 68.4% of all global arms business. The jump came amid a 7.6% fall in worldwide sales, which last year totaled $55.2 billion. According to the report, most of the U.S. arms contracts were signed with developing countries.

JAPANESE PRIME MINISTER PRESSES ECO ISSUES

Guardian, UK - Japan's new prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama, has promised to make ambitious cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, months before world leaders meet for crucial climate change talks. Hatoyama, who will take office next week, said Japan would seek to reduce CO2 emissions by 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, but said the target would be contingent on a deal involving all major emitters in Copenhagen in December. "We can't stop climate change just by setting our own emissions target," he said at a forum in Tokyo. "Our nation will call on major countries around the world to set aggressive goals." Hatoyama will discuss the initiative, which is far more ambitious than the equivalent 8% cut unveiled by the outgoing government in June, at a UN meeting on climate change in New York this month. Connie Hedegaard, Denmark's minister for climate and energy, described the plan as a bold step forward. "For a long time, everybody has been waiting for everybody else to move in the negotiations. Japan has taken a bold step forward and set an ambitious target. I hope this will inspire other countries to follow suit." The commitment places Japan firmly among countries committed to aggressive CO2 emissions cuts, despite mounting opposition from business and industry groups, which claim the measures will put jobs at risk.

SOME REASONS TO SUPPORT SINGLE PAYER

Daily Kos - Six of California's biggest insurance companies have rejected more than one in five claims the past seven years -- according to data the insurance giants, Blue Cross, PacifiCare, Kaiser Permanente, Health Net, Cigna, and Aetna report to the state Department of Managed Care. California Attorney General Jerry Brown announced that he has launched an "independent inquiry" on this issue. Brown said: "These high denial rates suggest a system that is dysfunctional, and the public is entitled to know whether wrongful business practices are involved." Researchers from the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee analyzed data reported by the insurers to the California Department of Managed Care. From 2002 through June 30, 2009, the six insurers rejected 45.7 million claims -- 22 percent of all claims.

Penn Live - Don and Delores Maus discovered that the company Don worked for, Turbine Airfoil Designs, stopped paying for employees' health coverage but didn't tell them. They are among several employees facing a lot of medical bills incurred during that time. . . . TAD stopped paying toward its Capital Blue Cross group plan in October. . . In March, Capital sent TAD employees letters saying their coverage had been canceled retroactively to Oct. 9. Now some TAD employees face five months' worth of medical bills. Some have bills totaling $10,000 or more. State agencies are investigating.

BRITISH MUSICIANS RISE TO DEFENSE OF DOWNLOADERS

Torrent Freak - Musicians have spoken out strongly against UK government plans to disconnect the Internet connections of repeated copyright infringers. They argue that the plans, much applauded by the big music labels, will further alienate fans from artists.

While the music industry paints a picture where file-sharers are criminals who refuse to pay for music, the reality is quite the opposite. The people who share music are dedicated music fans who actually buy more music than their non-pirating friends. . .

The music industry fails to realize this though and has declared war against their main source of revenue, which resulted in UK plans to disconnect alleged file-sharers. Instead of finding ways to please the changing demands of music fans in the digital era, they have chosen to defend their old models and punish the fans instead.

This trend is worrying artists, the people who actually produce the music but who are never heard when new legislative measures are drafted. Unlike the big labels they don't want their fans to be punished for a 'problem' that was created by a lack of innovation from the labels.

The Featured Artists Coalition, the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors (and the Music Producers Guild have joined forces to prevent a three-strikes disconnection regime being implemented.

In a statement the broad alliance of musicians, producers and songwriters criticizes the new UK anti-piracy plans, which they labels as illogical and "extraordinarily negative". . . .

OBAMA DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW IF YOU'RE ON THE TERRORIST WATCH LIST

Washington Post - The Obama administration wants to maintain the secrecy of terrorist watch-list information it routinely shares with federal, state and local agencies, a move that rights groups say would make it difficult for people who have been improperly included on such lists to challenge the government. Intelligence officials in the administration are pressing for legislation that would exempt "terrorist identity information" from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Such information -- which includes names, aliases, fingerprints and other biometric identifiers -- is widely shared with law enforcement agencies and intelligence "fusion centers," which combine state and federal counterterrorism resources.

Advocates for civil liberties and open government argue that the administration has not proved the secrecy is necessary and that the proposed changes could make the government less accountable for errors on watch lists. . . "Instead of enhancing accountability, this would remove accountability one or two steps further away," said Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy.

HURRICANE FEMA

Note: The Review, with headquarters overlooking and somewhat high above Casco Bay a few miles east of Portland, ME, may be affected by this policy. Having gone through a number of hurricanes at this location, we find FEMA's approach a bit hysterical and suspiciously like a post-Katrina CYA operation and/or the real estate version of Obama healthcare, where the public loses its option and the insurance companies end up the big winners. The Portland Press Herald has been a bit less polite about it, noting editorially that the FEMA plan would "clearly be an unconscionable abuse of power."

It is interesting to speculate how FEMA's policy would have affected the outcome of World War II, as Portland was then the kickoff harbor for much of the North Atlantic fleet. Would FEMA have prevented the Navy from effectively using the harbor?

As the Press Herald rightly argued, "FEMA is attempting to limit the government's exposure to claims by essentially shutting down improvements to an entire port. If it can do this to Portland, it can do it to Boston, New York, Baltimore, Jacksonville or hundreds of other port cities, large and small."

Portland Press Herald - The cities of Portland and South Portland are cooperating in an effort to challenge the Federal Emergency Management Agency proposal for new flood insurance maps for Portland Harbor. The maps reclassify the harbor as a high-risk zone and effectively prohibit new construction on all of the city's private and public piers. They would also raise insurance rates for property owners on both sides of the harbor.

The two cities are urging FEMA to re-examine its data and methodology and have hired a consultant to develop additional analysis. . .

In its proposed map, the agency reclassifies Portland Harbor from an "A-zone" to a "V-zone." In an "A-zone," the bottom floor must be raised a foot above a 100-year flood: a flood with a 1 percent chance of occurring or being exceeded in a given year. Velocity flood zones, or "V-zones," are areas where FEMA believes waves or high velocity water could cause structural damage in a 100-year flood.

In a V-zone, new structures cannot be built on piers and wharfs that are over water. In addition, an existing structure on a pier or wharf could not be substantially rebuilt if it were damaged or destroyed. . .

The cities of Portland and South Portland have hired Bob Gerber, an environmental engineer with Sebago Technics of Westbrook, to further analyze the FEMA data. "Some of the FEMA data is pretty good," Gerber said. "Some of it is pretty far-fetched. It's kind of a mixed bag."

Portland Press Herald - Portland officials are shocked that restrictions would likely prohibit any development of the Maine State Pier and block improvements to other waterfront buildings. They correctly say there is a considerable difference between construction in environmentally pristine areas and developing or repairing structures in a harbor that has hosted commercial and recreational activity for centuries.

NY Times - The inhabitants of the bungalows and wood-frame homes along the gently lapping waters of Raritan Bay are, in the words of one of them, Cathy Vashey, "hard-working, week-to-week kind of people." Buying flood insurance would pinch their blue-collar budgets, and most have never had to - until now.

What has prompted the shift is a five-year, $1 billion project by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to draw new maps pinpointing places that are vulnerable to the kind of flood that occurs once a century - meaning the flood has a 1 percent chance of occurring in any year. Every county in the New York region has been remapped, and in Monmouth County in New Jersey, across Raritan Bay from Staten Island, 4,300 properties in four towns have been newly branded as flood-prone. Starting Sept. 25, those property owners - in Middleton, Keansburg, Hazlet and Union Beach - will be required to carry flood insurance; in Ms. Vashey's case, the cost could be $1,700 a year.

"I think we're paying for Katrina," said Ms. Vashey, 50, a nurse's aide who has lived with her husband, a truck driver, and two children in a $180,000 clapboard house here for 18 years. "I think FEMA needs the money and they want us to pay for all the money they spent for the other emergency.". . .

Monmouth County is suing the agency in federal court to block the flood-zone designations. The lawsuit contends that the agency declared a two-mile 1970s-era dike along Pews Creek and the dunes along Raritan Bay to be adequate flood protection for bayside residents as recently as January 2008 - then, five months later, switched positions. . .

Behind the debate lies the complex half-century-old saga of flood insurance. Because floods can wreak wide and catastrophic destruction, few carriers provided insurance until 1968, when Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program. Under the program, homeowners in certain zones are required to buy policies from insurance companies - about 90 provide it - and the government pays for flood damage with federal funds collected largely from homeowner premiums.

To enable homeowners to know their risks, FEMA was charged with mapping areas with a 1 percent or more chance of catastrophic flooding in any given year. Banks almost always require customers in these zones to purchase flood insurance to get or maintain their mortgages. . .

Residents can view the agency's maps online, or visit their local town halls to check whether their properties are deemed flood-prone. Property owners who object to the agency's classification of their buildings can commission land surveys (at a cost of several hundred dollars) and then ask FEMA for a "letter of map amendment" to show to their banks. . .

Bruce Steneck, 68, a retired power lineman from nearby Hazlet who has lived on the Jersey Shore his entire life, said that the worst storm he could remember was in the 1960s, and that bay water moved only a couple of blocks inland. He lives 11 blocks away, yet is in the new flood zone.

"A tsunami would have to hit Raritan Bay to push the water as far as Highway 36, and that, in my opinion, would never happen," he said, referring to the major road that runs parallel to the shoreline. "They are forcing a lot of people to take flood insurance that it would never affect."

FREE EMAIL UPDATES
SEND US A DONATION
ABOUT THE REVIEW
NEW ARTICLES
READERS' PICKS
ALSO OF INTEREST
POCKET PARADIGMS
ESSAY ARCHIVES
SAM SMITH'S BIO
SAM SMITH'S BOOKS
SAM SMITH'S MUSIC

ENDS

© Scoop Media