Archive for May, 2007
May 22nd, 2007
By: Jason Miller of Thomas Paine’s Corner
Larry Kudlow is CEO of Kudlow & Co., LLC, an economic and investment research firm. Kudlow is host of CNBC’s “Kudlow & Company” which airs weeknights at 5 p.m. He is the host of “The Larry Kudlow Show” on WABC Radio on Saturdays 10:00am. Kudlow is a nationally syndicated columnist and also hosts his own blog. He is a contributing editor of National Review magazine, as well as a columnist and economics editor for National Review Online. He is the author of “American Abundance: The New Economic and Moral Prosperity,” published by Forbes in January 1998. Kudlow is consistently ranked one of the nation’s premier and most accurate economic forecasters according to The Wall Street Journal’s semiannual forecasting survey.
For many years Kudlow served as chief economist for a number of Wall Street firms. Kudlow was a member of the Bush-Cheney Transition Advisory Committee. During President Reagan’s first term, Kudlow was the associate director for economics and planning, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, where he was engaged in the development of the administration’s economic and budget policy. He is a trusted advisor to many of our nation’s top decision-makers in Washington and has testified as an expert witness on economic matters before several congressional committees.
Kudlow began his career as a staff economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, working in the areas of domestic open market operations and bank supervision. Kudlow was educated at the University of Rochester and Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He and his wife Judy live in New York City and Redding, Connecticut. (from the CNBC website)
Karl Marx once asserted, “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.”
Even a relatively cursory study of Western socioeconomic history and current events provides abundant evidence to substantiate Marx’s observation. Forged in a crucible of formidable indoctrination underscored by materialistic bribes enabled by usurious lending, seductive propaganda in the form of media and advertising, and illusory “get rich” opportunities, American Capitalism maintains an iron grip on the psyches of hundreds of millions of people—not only at home but around the globe.
Blindly worshipping profits, money, and material “success”, we US Americans have plunged the United States into a moral abyss from which it is unlikely we will re-emerge. If we don’t implode due to our own decadence, the rest of the world will see to the demise of our bloody, exploitative, and barbaric empire.
Wrestle free for at least a moment, if you can, from the catechism of free markets, deregulation, free trade, and the like. Now consider just a few characteristics of American Capitalism which guarantee that we, as its practitioners, will continue sinking deeper and deeper into the fetid cesspool of depravity and isolation that rules our everyday lives, even if we (at least many of us) remain largely oblivious to its daily exactions. Our system, which we have been inculcated to view through Panglossian lenses, rewards greed, selfishness, self-absorption, and hyper-individualism (four of the most repulsive aspects of human nature); necessitates that profits trump humanity, and demands perpetually futile efforts to fulfill an insatiable appetite for growth and expansion. If we in the United States had the courage to gaze upon our collective reflection in the mirror, we would shudder at the sight of a visage more grotesque than that of Dorian Gray.
Few in today’s corporate-dominated mass media in the United States better embody our “ruling intellectual force” than Lawrence Kudlow. As his CNBC bio sketch indicates, he is no mere sycophant to the criminal class of plutocrats who rule our nation. His resume’ includes a Princeton education, an influential position within the Reagan administration, a stint as a high-powered player on Wall Street, and (currently) a position as the principal of an investment research firm. No mere journalist is he. Lawrence is both a member of the ruling class and its staunch advocate in the “liberal media.”
Calling him a swine would insult our porcine brethren, so let’s not label him. Instead, let’s define him by his numerous betrayals of the human race. As we shall learn, these betrayals gush from his pen (and mouth) to form a relentlessly potent stream of perverse justifications for institutionalized theft, rape and murder.
Let’s consider and dissect some examples of Mr. Kudlow’s punditry:
Kudlow’s “Design for Doom” appeared in the Washington Times on 5/13/07:
“And while Republicans talk about significantly increasing the defense budget and expanding American force levels for all the armed services, the Democrats hope for some sort of Iraqi peace dividend upon immediate withdrawal — one that can be rechanneled into higher domestic social spending….. To a person, each Democratic presidential candidate also wants to raise taxes on the rich and roll back President Bush’s tax cuts. The Republicans, however, understand those tax cuts have propelled economic growth and contributed to a stock market boom. They recognize Mr. Bush’s Goldilocks bull-market economy — which I call the greatest story never told — relies on extending the investor tax cuts and perhaps even moving forward with a flat tax or national sales tax…. Finally, to a person, each Democratic presidential candidate also has it in for corporate America. The Democrats discuss various punishments for business — especially oil companies, but also drug, utility and insurance firms. Not so for the Republicans, who talk about helping businesses and promoting entrepreneurship in our successful free-enterprise economy.”
Slow down there, Larry! You are emptying your arsenal of American Capitalist memes in just a few paragraphs.
Kudlow knows that if he and his fellow aristocrats are to maintain the shekels to afford $3,000 suits, cars costing six figures, Rolexes, trophy wives and mistresses, global jet-setting, and homes with the square footage of the Taj Mahal, us “commoners” have to believe in the illusion of democracy, and hence that there is a dime’s worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats. Yet given the fact that both parties are beholden to obscenely wealthy corporations and individuals, and that many of our “elected” officials are well-heeled insiders like Mr. Kudlow, even Mr. Roarke and Tattoo couldn’t make this fantasy real.
And by all means, let’s increase a “defense” budget that already exceeds more than the rest of the world combined (to “defend” 5% of the world’s population). Assuming the Democrats did throw a few additional crumbs to the homeless, poor and working class via the “higher domestic social spending” Larry decries, public spending for infrastructure, education, housing, transportation, and health care would remain grossly inadequate for a nation with the wealth and power of the United States.
Presenting a particularly glaring pair of contradictions, Kudlow laments that the Democrats have “it in for corporate America.” Would Larry have us believe that the Democrats are truly dense enough to bite the hand that feeds them?
Further miring himself in inconsistencies, he raves about the success of our “free-enterprise economy.” With sharply decreased regulation and the increasingly incestuous relationship between the US government and “corporate America,” leviathan companies like Microsoft, Halliburton, and Wal-Mart are attaining frightening power and dominating the so-called “free market.” Free enterprise has indeed been wildly successful for a relative handful of major investors, like Kudlow.
In May of 2006, Larry penned “Would Adam Smith Approve?” This excerpt comes from Human Events.com, which claims to have been “leading the conservative movement since 1944”:
“A couple hundred years ago, in his “Theory of the Moral Sentiments,” Adam Smith contended that capitalism requires a moral and ethical center if it is to function effectively and to the benefit of all.
About 30 years ago, supply-side economic philosopher Irving Kristol similarly emphasized the importance of capitalism’s moral compass. His wife, the brilliant historian Gertrude Himmelfarb, wrote regularly about the importance of morality in society, culture and the economy, a topic she covered in her standout book, “The De-Moralization of Society.” She sets off the Victorians in English history as an example of a moral society……
Capitalism in this country has been under assault ever since FDR’s New Deal 1930s, a time when a number of alphabet agencies attempted to control America’s industrial and farming sectors. The experiment soon proved a dismal failure, with unemployment running 20 percent to 25 percent up until World War II. It was only when Roosevelt started unleashing businesses to produce wartime goods that the economy ultimately resurrected.
Still, the American welfare state would grow. In the 1960s and 1970s, the murderer’s row of economic morons — LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter — in allegiance with their liberal Keynesian advisors, concocted a socialist policy mix that ultimately led to wealth-destroying big-government stagflation.
Providentially, Ronald Reagan changed all that in the 1980s. The Gipper slashed tax rates, deregulated industries and rescued the dollar, unleashing the forces of entrepreneurial capitalism….
As deregulated stock markets democratized the American financial system, a great new investor class grew up. Roughly 20 million investors evolved into over 100 million share-buyers, and they got rich in the process….
This investor class has also become the nation’s most powerful voting block. In recent elections, nearly two out of every three voters has been a stockowner. And yes, they are voting for capitalism — meaning lower tax rates, limited government and greater opportunities for entrepreneurship.
George W. Bush, a lineal descendant of Reagan, calls this the “ownership class.” And though I can’t prove it, I’m willing to bet that this group’s demand for lower tax rates and entrepreneurial activity goes hand-in-hand with the cultural characteristics of hard work, thrift, personal responsibility and law-abiding behavior….
Looking down from his perch in heaven, Adam Smith would be very proud.”
Once again, Kudlow has showered us with a salvo of deceptions and distortions. He wastes no time with subtlety either as he relentlessly advances the agenda of the ruling elite.
It is obviously a testament to his superior intellect that Kudlow can discern that Adam Smith would feel such pride “from his perch in heaven.” Yet in spite of Larry’s certainty, one can’t help but consider the more likely possibility that a moral philosopher like Smith would recoil in horror at the gross injustices and atrocities resulting from the economic system so often attributed to him.
In a flagrant display of intellectual dishonesty, Kudlow reassures us of the “moral compass” guiding capitalism by referencing Irving Kristol, the godfather of the Neoconservative movement. Sinking further into a quagmire of deceit, he portrays Victorian England as “an example of a moral society.” Lawrence has a point. Those of us with a social conscience marvel at the morality exhibited by the industrial capitalists of the Victorian Era. Child labor, fourteen hour work days, pittance wages, dangerous working conditions, squalid living conditions, and workhouses exemplified a moral society driven by an undying compassion for humanity.
What Larry means when he says that “capitalism in this country has been under assault ever since FDR’s New Deal 1930’s” is that he and his excessively wealthy associates strenuously object to progressive taxes, public spending on domestic social programs, and laws that protect workers and consumers. Kudlow longs for a return to the “good old days” of the Gilded Age, Robber Barons, monopolies, and unbridled freedom for him and his ilk to inflict misery upon the rest of us.
Lawrence’s professed reverence for “the Gipper” (who was largely successful in his efforts to crush what remained of the power of organized labor, emasculate government regulatory agencies, and shift the tax burden back to the poor and working class) coupled with his odd reference to George W. Bush as a “lineal descendent of Reagan” offer us more clear indications that he is a relentless champion for the cause of the ruling elite.
(“Lineal descendent?” Sounds almost as if he would welcome the restoration of a monarchy).
Kudlow’s highly disingenuous arguments concerning the “ownership class” or “investor class” in the US are riddled with fallacious conclusions.
Playing fast and loose with the truth, Larry boldly proclaims that “this investor class has also become the nation’s most powerful voting block….And yes, they are voting for capitalism — meaning lower tax rates, limited government and greater opportunities for entrepreneurship….. I’m willing to bet that this group’s demand for lower tax rates and entrepreneurial activity goes hand-in-hand with the cultural characteristics of hard work, thrift, personal responsibility and law-abiding behavior.”
Since we haven’t had a legitimate presidential election since 1996, and both the Democrats and Republicans represent corporate and patrician interests, the composition of the largest voting block is nearly irrelevant. This “minor detail” aside, wouldn’t it be instructive if we knew by what means Lawrence determines that people voting for a particular candidate were “voting for capitalism?” It is also interesting to note his less than subtle implication that those who don’t “vote for capitalism” are lazy, wasteful, irresponsible, and criminal.
Kudlow’s ebullient claim that, “Roughly 20 million investors evolved into over 100 million share-buyers, and they got rich in the process…” is extremely dubious.
For a more realistic perspective on the “ownership class” in the United States, consider this segment from a report from Professor G. William Domhoff of the University of California at Santa Cruz:
“In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 44.1% of all privately held stock, 58.0% of financial securities, and 57.3% of business equity. The top 10% have 85% to 90% of stock, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.”
Remember that Lawrence Kudlow represents the 10% who own the United States. Those of us comprising the remaining 90% are “just renting” and need to recognize his agitprop for the intellectual flatulence that it is.
For those still doubting pernicious nature of Kudlow and his efforts, here are a few more examples:
“The Greatest Story Never Told” appeared in Human Events in 4/06:
“Today’s economy may be the greatest story never told. It’s an American boom, spurred by lower tax rates, huge profits, big productivity, plentiful jobs and an ongoing free-market capitalist resiliency. It’s also a global boom, marked by a spread of free-market capitalism like we’ve never seen before….
Indeed, bashing big oil won’t create a drop of new energy. Nor will confiscating Lee Raymond’s bank account.
Energy is best left in the hands of the free market. With this in mind, Congress should allow environmentally friendly drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf, more LNG terminals and the creation of nuclear power facilities.”
Perhaps today’s economy is the “greatest story never told” because the fairy tale Kudlow depicts never happened.
To his credit, in this piece Larry openly proclaims his support for rapacious industries (i.e. Big Oil), outrageously excessive CEO compensation, and the rape of the environment for profits.
Kudlow wrote “Bull-Market Cheers for Bush” on 2/3/07:
“… George W. Bush became only the second sitting American president to visit the floor of the New York Stock Exchange…
Huge cheers. Loud applause.
This is the same guy the mainstream media loves to kick around — the same guy who suffers sinking polls while standing resolute on the subject of Iraqi freedom, and who gets virtually no credit for the Goldilocks economy and unprecedented four-year stock market boom. He’s also the same guy who continues to prove he has more character than most anyone serving in public office today.”
Kudlow’s capacity to pervert the truth (or perhaps his tenuous grasp on reality) is breath-taking. While many serving in public office in the United States are ethically challenged (which lowers the bar considerably), Larry has still averred that George W. Bush, one of history’s most heinous war criminals, has character.
Notice too how he cleverly intimates that he is not a part of the “mainstream media”, which he and his fellow reactionaries often label as “liberal” to maintain the illusion that the Fourth Estate is still performing its function as watchdog rather than serving as the propaganda network for the ruling elite.
In response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 7/06, Kudlow opined in “Israel’s Moment, the Free World’s Gain”:
“Israel is doing the Lord’s work. They are defending their own homeland and very existence, but they are also defending America’s homeland as our frontline democratic ally in the Middle East….
Repeatedly hostile actions by the totalitarians in Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, and North Korea are all connected….
When the dust clears the world will applaud Israel for its courage. Sensible freedom-loving people everywhere will realize that Israel’s furious response in the face of senseless terrorist attacks will have made the world a better place.
In fact, we are all Israelis now.”
What are we to make of this bizarre set of statements?
Are we reading the ravings of a lunatic, the pronouncements of a pathological liar, or perhaps the calculated manipulations of a master propagandist?
Killing over a thousand Lebanese civilians (compared to the 43 Israelis Hezbollah killed), displacing over 200,000 people, and devastating Lebanese infrastructure is “doing the Lord’s work?”
What is Kudlow’s alleged connection linking the actions of the disparate entities he characterizes as “the totalitarians in Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, and North Korea?”
Mr. Kudlow, thank you for pointing out that millions of “sensible freedom-loving people everywhere” are lining up to support oppressive, militaristic aggressors like Israel and the United States. Most of us are unable to recognize their presence.
“We are all Israelis now?” Wow! Perhaps Lawrence is a bit daft after all.
After examining Lawrence Kudlow’s mendacious punditry, it is reasonable to conclude that his myriad media conduits have enabled him to infect the minds of untold millions with “the ruling ideas” of “the ruling class.” Accordingly, if by some miracle the ruling elite of the United States face consequences for their egregious military and economic crimes against humanity, those meting out punishments need to remember to give Mr. Kudlow a generous helping.
May 21st, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
(Image courtesy of James Dragesic of the Australian Gvt. Antarctic Division)
It was reported that scientists have found more than 700 new species of sea life in the Antarctic. Hailed as a “treasure trove,” the species were found by the Andeep (Antarctic benthic deep-sea biodiversity) project in waters thought “too hostile” to contain life.
It always makes me sad when “new species” are discovered because it generally means that they will be gone soon. It means that technological, consuming and polluting society has crashed its way into an area that had remained remote an unexploited.
It seems that it is always because the forest has been destroyed to the “deep forest,” or a previously inaccessible area has been made accessible. The species - and sometimes people - who have lived quite fine for millennia, are suddenly exposed and then destroyed.
With the sea life deep in the Antarctic, multiple threats now present themselves: the threat of being discovered and sampled and studied and - if there is a commercial possibility - exploited; the threat of global warming. Both threats are the consequences of a societal paradigm that frames itself as separate from the world and the inhabitants of it.
We need to come to an awareness, that we are not part of a society that values life - only one that values its own life. We need the awareness that we are an “anti-biotic” society - against life. If the world, including this society, are going to survive, then that consciousness needs to change dramatically. Culturally and institutionally we need to become “pro-biotic” - pro-life - and that is all life, not just our own. Pro-biotic does not mean moving to a “sustainability” platform that trades development against destruction. We are past any hope of “sustainable development” in that context. We need to repair before we can even consider sustainability.
We see the resistance to repairing the damage in the various approaches to addressing carbon emissions and global warming. The capitalist approach is “carbon trading.” Buying carbon stock. Spreading out emissions, or sequestering emissions underground or on the ocean floor. The scientists tell us clearly that we need an immediate 80% reduction in carbon emissions. That is not carbon “neutral.” That is reduce. It doesn’t mean stopping where we are. Further, that even with an 80% reduction, that so much damage is done that no one can predict the recovery time.
Meanwhile, there are 700 newly “discovered” species under the rapidly melting Antarctic ice, and the race is on to catalogue them before they go extinct.
Links of Interest
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
intute: science, engineering & technology
U.S. Antarctic Program
May 19th, 2007
By: Jason Miller of Thomas Paine’s Corner
So long as the markets are free and the rich stay that way, human suffering and environmental devastation are irrelevant. Beneath the “feel good” facade of baseball, apple-pie, mom, and Chevrolet lurks this sinister reality of the American Way.
Much of humanity is shackled by poverty and besieged by the violence of war. Earth is experiencing a slow, agonizing death. Animal and plant species are disappearing at an alarming rate. Despite these tragic and inevitable consequences, the United States persists in spreading the cancers of Americanized Capitalism and Democracy.
Here’s to Saint Charles
America’s wealthiest owe a significant debt of gratitude to their patron saint, Charles G. Koch. Mr. Koch’s Herculean efforts have virtually ensured that the United States’ plutocracy and its complementary corporatocracy will continue their reign in America’s highly dysfunctional democracy. Blessed with a significant number of Americans still rendered somnambulant by a mass media machine, Koch and his fellow patricians are riding high.
Mr. Koch has virtually endless resources at his disposal to keep “his people” in power. Charles owns 40% of the shares of the largest privately held company in the world. Koch Enterprises generated revenues of $40 billion in 2004. Koch recently acquired gargantuan lumber and paper producer Georgia Pacific, which significantly expands his empire of oil, pipeline, fiber, and chemical enterprises. By shunning public sale of Koch Enterprise stock, Charles Koch has maintained a tight-fisted grip on his company while cloaking its finances behind a veil of secrecy.
It’s in their blue blood
Causes enhancing the power of America’s Capitalist elites are a Koch clan obsession. They live to pursue lower taxes on corporations and the wealthy, shifting the burden of subsidizing America’s burgeoning military, oil, pharma, and prison industrial complexes to the middle class and poor.
As they press to defang consumer, labor and environmental protection laws to shelter corporations from liability and increase their profit-making capacity, the Koch family vigorously toils to enhance corporate power.
Consider that Fred Koch, Charles’s father, was a charter member of the John Birch Society, which pushed for the repeal of income taxes and civil rights legislation. Practicing a racist agenda on behalf of the White wealthy elite, the JBS was formed on the pretext of fighting Communism. Fred’s interest in the JBS allegedly stemmed from having witnessed the Purges under Stalin in the 1930’s. Despite his concern for Stalin’s victims, Fred still remained in Russia to make money by upgrading Communist oil refineries. A true Capitalist.
Happiness is not for sale, but in America, power and influence are
David Koch, Charles’ brother, founded the Cato Institute in 1977 and was a presidential candidate in 1980 as a Libertarian. Charles, David and Cato are no friends to America’s working class or minorities. Staunch supporters of social security privatization and property rights, Cato strongly opposes affirmative action and government regulation. With such an obviously biased agenda, it is rather curious that the “liberal” mainstream media often cites Cato as a neutral source.
In 1996, the Cato Institute itself wrote:
“Dozens of huge corporations, eager to roll back government regulatory powers, are among Cato’s largest donors.”
With the backing of one of the wealthiest families in America, Koch Family Foundations provides funding to several think tanks similar to Cato, each of which “nobly” crusades for the rights of the “oppressed” upper class and fights for the freedom of corporate America.
According to the Nation (in a 1996 article documenting Bob Dole’s incestuous relationship with the Koch group) the reverse Robin Hoods from Wichita, Kansas have “lavished tens of millions of dollars in the past decade on ‘free market’ advocacy institutions in and around Washington.”
In 2004, Koch Industries made $587,000 in campaign donations, more than any other oil company. From 1998 to 2004 the Koch family and its enterprises gave $3.9 million in political contributions. Compare that to the $3.8 million contributed by Exxon Mobile, which is six times the size of Koch. During that same period, the Koch boys spent $2.4 million lobbying Congress to pass “humanitarian” legislation that would repeal the estate tax and significantly reduce the capacity of consumers to sue.
Particularly noteworthy is the fact that 79% of Koch’s campaign funding in 2004 went to Republicans, including $121,000 to Todd Tiahrt, the US Congressman representing Wichita (where Koch Enterprises is head-quartered); $109,000 to George Bush; and $53,000 to the Hammer, Tom DeLay. Evidently Charles and David forgot that one is often judged by the company one keeps. Or perhaps they simply don’t care.
For people with such a professed aversion to government, it seems a bit odd that Charles Koch and kin would part with their beloved greenbacks so readily to participate in political activities. Slicing through their rhetoric, it appears they are far more interested in manipulating the United States government than in minimizing it.
In 1996, Triad Management, a shell corporation with little purpose or substance, began influencing federal elections by airing attack ads. Since Triad did not publicly disclose the source of its funding, wealthy individuals could exceed legal limits on campaign contributions by donating to Triad. In essence, Triad was a vehicle for laundering money.
One of its chief beneficiaries was Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, who defeated Jill Docking in the 1996 Senatorial race with a Triad-financed anti-Semitic ad campaign. Evidence indicates that Koch was Brownback’s primary financier, through Triad of course. In exchange, Brownback has represented Koch interests so well that he has earned a 100% rating from the Cato Institute.
Of major theft, environmental crime, and wrongful death
In their relentless pursuit of the sacred tenets of free markets and deregulation, the Koch brothers and their multi-tentacled corporate entities have committed several egregiously immoral and criminal acts. Fortunately for Charles and David, the Gods of Capitalism have smiled upon them. Leaving carcinogenic pollutants and death in its wake, Koch Enterprises has emerged relatively unscathed.
In 2000, Bill Koch, another of Fred’s sons, appeared on 60 Minutes II and characterized Koch Enterprises like this:
“It was - was my family company. I was out of it,” he says. “But that’s what appalled me so much… I did not want my family, my legacy, my father’s legacy to be based upon organized crime.”
When he made that statement, Bill Koch had already parted ways with his brothers and filed a federal lawsuit alleging that much of Koch Industry’s oil profit was derived from theft and fraud. In December of 1999 a jury decided that Koch stole oil 24,000 times by “adjusting” the volume they had collected. Koch’s own records showed that their “adjustments for errors” translated into at least 300 million gallons of oil in their favor. Koch Industries eventually settled the suit for $25 million.
Koch Industries has the largest network of gas and oil pipelines in the United States. Quite an achievement. Unfortunately, Koch chose increased profits over the environment. In 2000, it paid $30 million for violating federal environmental laws. Koch had caused over 300 oil spills in seven states because it didn’t maintain its pipelines properly.
In 1996, Danielle Smalley and Jason Stone died tragically before they reached their twentieth birthdays. These Texas teens were in the vicinity of a Koch high-pressure gas line that was leaking when it suddenly exploded. Danielle and Jason were incinerated, their bodies burned beyond recognition. Danielle’s family won a $296 million wrongful death judgment as a result of Koch’s criminal negligence. Koch eventually paid the Smalleys an undisclosed settlement.
Does Bill Koch think about the charred remains of Danielle and Jason when he writes checks to Cato and its ilk?
Bill Koch again captured the essence of Koch when he commented:
“Koch Industries has a philosophy that profits are above everything else.”
As the 2000 election approached, the Koch brothers’ political contributions proved to be money very well spent. It seems that the Koch conglomerate had dumped 91 metric tons of benzene, a cancer-causing agent, near its refinery in Corpus Christi. They added insult to injury by attempting to conceal their crime. Facing a 97 count indictment, possible prison time for company executives, and potential fines of $352 million, Charles and David needed a “white knight” to ride to their rescue.
Enter George Bush, who “won” the election with the aid of $800,000 worth of Koch donations. Striking a blow for the free market, Attorney General Ashcroft dropped almost all of the charges. Koch Industries pled guilty to falsifying documents and paid a settlement of a mere $20 million. No one served jail time.
Putting outsiders in and bringing insiders out
To ensure the continued success of their malignant influence on the United States government, in 2005 Koch hired a “Beltway insider”. Matt Schlapp became their director of Washington lobbying. Schlapp had been working in the White House’s Office of Political Affairs.
Disturbingly, Elizabeth Stolpe, a former Koch lobbyist, now holds a significant position on the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Another former Koch employee, Alex Beehler (who reported to David Koch), exerts influence on federal environmental policy from his position with Environment, Safety and Occupational Health.
Charles Koch has covered his political bets going both ways. Very impressive, in a Machiavellian way.
A criminal by any other name…
Charles Koch also gets an “A” for somehow manufacturing a respectable public image. On 3/13/06 Forbes ran a story about Koch entitled “Mr. Big”. Much to the discredit of the publication, Forbes writer Daniel Fisher focused almost exclusively on the buyout of Georgia Pacific and the “Capitalistic virtues” of Charles Koch, a man who belongs in prison.
Charles Koch is indeed an “American success story” by the measure of those who still believe in the real American Way, which is the suffering of the many for the pleasure of the few.
For those who know the American Dream is a nightmare, Charles Koch puts a human face on the ruthlessness of Capitalism as it is practiced in the United States. Born into America’s de facto aristocracy, Koch is one of the privileged top 1% of Americans who hold a significant portion of the world’s wealth.
While the poor and working class of the world bleed, sweat, cry, and die to keep the money flowing from the spigot for such men, Koch, his friends, and his progeny reside comfortably in their secure castles and counting houses.
No wonder Mr. Big smiled so brightly for the Forbes photo.
May 18th, 2007
By: Patrice Greanville of Cyrano’s Journal and Greanville’s Journal
A Capsule Assessment
There are those who believe (and can’t understand why) American foreign policy has been such a “resounding failure.” I’m afraid such folks are painfully mistaken. US foreign policy has NOT been a failure from the perspective of its creators and direct beneficiaries. It has been a fantastic success story–at least until September 11–when, for the first time in a long, uninterrupted American imperial history of sordid and criminal interventions in other nations’ affairs, we experienced some of the “blowback” widely anticipated by even many of our own experts.
With 9/11 the era of “total impunity” for our actions may have come to an abrupt end, but now we have entered a more complex period of “quasi-impunity” which is still a major godsend for the very folks who put us into this quandary. For in this new era of widespread fear and open-ended “wars on terror” the plutocracies who always benefitted lavishly from our criminal foreign policy have found a new pretext to deepen and extend their near-absolute control over government levers around the world, beginning with our own.
So what are the basic facts? By now they are widely known, at least in progressive circles, so I will not go into any detailed account of this sordid chapter of “the American Experience.”
More than a century ago, sensing that their time has come, the leading American corporatists of the age set out to expand the United States “sphere of influence.” As is customary for adventures of this type, this newfangled imperial notion required from the start more than a normal diet of lies to the people. Lies to manufacture “valid” reasons for wars in distant places (such as the trumped up reasons for the 1898 war with Spain that yielded Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines); for toppling existing governments that refused to do our bidding; for making enduring alliances with enormously unsavory characters in all latitudes, and for robbing sovereign nations–such as Mexico–of large chunks of their territories.
The chief and almost exclusive purpose of this wholesale robbery and murder across the globe was the classical reason fueling most colonialist interventions: the quest by the nation’s plutocratic circles to seek further sources of riches and power, and, in the case of the US, the first nation to practice reactionism with a clear class-conscious agenda, to perpetuate their system of structured (but carefully concealed) selfishness. In all of this they were wildly successful, even now that the legendary chickens are finally coming home to roost. As a result of such policies, always carefully wrapped in the robe of sanctimonious superpatriostism or a suitable moral crusade, the plutocracy enriched itself beyond its wildest expectations. Croesus-rich even before the empire seeking adventure began at the turn of the 20th century, by now these elites have become masters of the universe.
So let’s get this straight, and let the new Judges for a new Nuremberg remember this: The moneyed elites have done and they do what they do with open eyes about the perfidy and hypocrisy of their policies. No use telling them that such policies are immoral, as well-intentioned people are always trying to do. They know it. Nor, for that matter, giving them counsel about how misguided such policies are in terms of the “real facts on the ground.” Again, they know that or they simply don’t care. And why should they? They have specific class objectives to fulfill and the real cost, like when some dying has to be done, or when some treasure has to be emptied–is not likely to fall on their shoulders. They have us, the perennially bamboozled, to do the heavy lifting.
So what’s the real problem? The real problem, and the constant engine for such criminal policies lies in the disconnect between the true aims of the American and world plutocracies and the interests of the people whom they continue to mislead under the pretense of “democracy.” As a result, they can never admit, up front, why they topple an Iranian premier in the 1950s, or engineer a bloodbath in Indonesia in the 60s, or they go into Iraq in 2003, for example, or attack Nicaragua in the 1970s, or strangle Cuba for half a century, and so on. They can’t afford to come clean because the American masses might not only NOT follow them, but throw them in jail or worse.
Having ridden the tiger of imperialist falsehoods for so long, now they can’t risk dismounting. Hence they have to go on invoking that long litany of repulsive lies that refer the public mind to the highest and noblest motives. And they still manage to fool quite a few, I’ll say that. By last count, 80 million Americans remained mired in this kind of mental cesspool, in this highly adulterated version of reality, ready to support this crowd’s abominable and increasingly deranged goals.
May 18th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
George Bush told us that the “War on Terrorism” would be a “generational” war. It seems clear that means “war without end” which brings to mind George Orwell’s . (Of course, there are a lot of things about the Bush cabal does that makes Orwell’s book look down right prophetic.) To fight the war without end would normally take a very large fighting force, but long before Rumsfeld’s lean, mean, high tech vision, the Pentagon has been deeply involved in creating future “warfighters.”
Remember the Kurt Russell movie Soldier? In “Soldier” Russell plays a genetically selected interplanetary soldier (war fighter) who get wiped out by a new generation genetically engineered model. Or maybe you remember Jean-Claude Van Damme in Universal Soldier. The theme here is that soldiers who have been killed are “reanimated” and “enhanced” to become a super fighting force. Well, for quite some time the Pentagon has been working on creating the future “warfighter.”
A trip through the public portions of DARPA’s (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), is enlightening. I know that every time I visit, I can’t help but think “If this is what is public, then what are the classified programs?” DARPA has a wide ranging research program on “improving” soldiers. However, DARPA (and indeed DoD “vision” documents) rarely use the term “soldier.” They prefer the term “warfighter.” The goal of many of DARPA’s programs regarding warfighters is to improve them through a variety of means:
Sharon Weinberger over at Wired wrote a fairly extensive article on a project that has gone out to bid colloquially referred to as “Luke’s Binoculars” (though officially known as Cognitive Technology Threat Warning System (CT2WS)). This project involves merging a binocular function with extreme range and “threat detection” into the prefrontal lobe of warfighters’ brains (graphic from Wired below).
Ah, the
prefrontal lobe?
The basic activity of this brain region is considered to be orchestration of thoughts and actions in accordance with internal goals.
The most typical neurologic term for functions carried out by the pre-frontal cortex area is Executive Function. Executive Function relates to abilities to differentiate among conflicting thoughts, determine good and bad, better and best, same and different, future consequences of current activities, working toward a defined goal, prediction of outcomes, expectation based on actions, and social “control” (the ability to suppress urges that, if not suppressed, could lead to socially unacceptable outcomes).
Many authors have indicated an integral link between a person’s personality and the functions of the prefrontal cortex. (Wikipedia)
“Luke’s Binoculars” are not some long term, far future, research project. No, the bids have gone out with the goal of having them in use by Special Forces in three (3) years.
Now these projects - including the “binoculars” - seem fairly permanent to me. Once you have modified a warfighter, can they ever not be a warfighter? Do they then become a piece of military equipment? These projects certainly give the name “GI” (Government Issue) a whole new level of significance.
Are we really willing to commit people for life (not retirement) to be extended military equipment? Certainly the government seems willing to do so. Do we need permanent warfighters to fight a never ending war? Might such “enhanced” humans be useful in other areas besides war? Or might the technologies have uses beyond the military? I can think of a number of them actually. For example,workers that don’t need to rest and can eat the recycling to keep going. Of course, much like the warfighter, the worker must become property as well - another resource of service until removed from service - sort of a high tech version of by Max Barry.
The implications of the direction being forged are into a future that I, personally, find terrifying. I can’t believe that we must be on this path. I must believe that we can, and will see the travesty we are becoming and turn aside.
May 14th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
Shame on CBS and Katie Couric for their report Behind the Sticker Price. Piggybacking on Daimler’s sale of Chrysler to Cerberus Capital Management, they went straight into the U.S. auto makers’ lack of profitability due to so-called “legacy costs.” Tied into the upcoming union negotiations this summer, the report cited the “excessive” burden of health and retirement plans for current and retired employees. The gist being that the UAW was going to have to “give back” to GM because it was in nobody’s interest to see U.S. automaking go out of the country. LIES DAMN LIES!
I guess that CBS, and likely other “news” media, think that we have forgotten (or perhaps never saw) the Wall Street Journal article “Hidden Burden: As Workers’ Pensions Wither, Those for Executives Flourish.” The article exhaustively reports on corporations (including GM) who are claiming massive burdens and losses due to worker’s (particularly union) health insurance and retirement costs. It is not these costs, but executive plans that are running the companies into the ground. Reneging on commitments to workers on the basis of costs is an outright lie
“To help explain its deep slump, General Motors Corp. often cites “legacy costs,” including pensions for its giant U.S. work force. In its latest annual report, GM wrote: “Our extensive pension and [post-employment] obligations to retirees are a competitive disadvantage for us.” Early this year, GM announced it was ending pensions for 42,000 workers.
But there’s a twist to the auto maker’s pension situation: The pension plans for its rank-and-file U.S. workers are overstuffed with cash, containing about $9 billion more than is needed to meet their obligations for years to come.
Another of GM’s pension programs, however, saddles the company with a liability of $1.4 billion. These pensions are for its executives.
This is the pension squeeze companies aren’t talking about: Even as many reduce, freeze or eliminate pensions for workers — complaining of the costs — their executives are building up ever-bigger pensions, causing the companies’ financial obligations for them to balloon.” WSJ article.
Such reporting is consistent with the continuous presentation of a corporate perspective of the world, and particularly of the work environment. What is stunning is that the corporate media will tell the same lies over and over again.
In CBS’s run-up story to the greedy, over paid, union workers at GM (and other U.S. automakers), was the story of Chrysler’s ongoing failure to be a profitable company. Lee Iacoca was introduced as having pulled Chrysler out of bankruptcy in the early 1980s. Yet another lie. Iacoca did not pull Chrysler out of bankruptcy - the U.S. tax payers did. Chrysler received a massive bailout of $1.5 billion in loan guarantees under the arguments that it was a primary defense contractor and could not be allowed to fail, and the impact of job losses (Carter administration). Now the albatross is back in U.S. hands via Cerberus - an investment firm run by none other than former Secretary of the Treasury John Snow. Snow served as Secretary of the Treasury in the current Bush administration from 2003-2006.
Lies like these are not simply bad reporting. They are outright propaganda.
[Of interest: Snow earned his Republican street cred by serving in the Nixon administration, and as an advisor to the Reagan campaign, and then on a series of Reagan commissions.]
Related Article: Schultz & Francis, 4/24/03, Wall Street Journal. Executives Get Pension Security While Plans for Workers Falter
May 13th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
The United States has seen the chickens coming home to roost regarding the consequences of a globalized and industrialized food supply. The issue arose in relationship to animal feed. It started with a recall of dog and cat food because it contained a toxic mix of additives (melamine and cyanuric acid) which resulted in the illness and death of thousands of family pets across the country. It then spread to contamination of hog and chicken food as (apparently) both the recalled pet food, and the same adulterants in other feed, was shipped across the country. Then it spread to feed for farmed and nursery fish.
Along the way, we have discovered several alarming facts:
- that the FDA only inspects 1% of the food and food ingredients that enter the United States;
- that there is no way of tracking imported food ingredients;
- that there is no centralized reporting system for illness and disease in “pets.”
We have also “discovered” a problem with is also making its way from China to the U.S.
It seems like once one starts pulling on a loose thread that the entire garment starts to unravel.
When it comes to the food supply, we have already seen the beginning of the breakdown. Industrializing and corporatizing does not work well with food. What is efficient and profitable may introduce long term risks leading to collapse. We have seen this with “mad cow” disease which is linked to the industrial feeding practices where cattle (herbivores) being fed like pigs (omnivores). While regulations have been put in place, “downed” cattle are still regularly slaughtered, and very few are tested.
We have seen it with the mass centralization of food processing and distribution which has brought repeated nation-wide e-coli and salmonella outbreaks. We saw it with the StarLink corn fiasco. We are likely to see massive crop failures from our cloned crop approach to food production. We have had multiple warnings, but have continued as if these issues are “flukes.”
The most recent issue that resulted in the massive recall of pet food has uncovered both the problems of industrialized food supply, and a globalized one. Terry Allen, had a nice detailing of the industrialization issues in his article “Poisoning Pets with Industrial Food.” He discusses the issue of pet food as the last repository of food stuffs that have failed human consumption; the inclusion of deceased pets within the “mix;” the lack of controls; and the concentration of production into a handful of facilities. However, what became clear as the toxic food spread from dog and cat food, to pigs and then chickens, was that pet food was not the final destination of the toxic garbage of an industrialized food system - livestock was. Yes, recalled and outdated pet food is directly channeled into the livestock food supply.
Some might say “So what? They don’t live long enough to get hurt.” Perhaps and perhaps not. If the adulterated, “efficient,” “cost effective,” “food” we give these creatures then poisons humans (and other animals for which these may become “food”) then whether they suffer or not is a separate - though not unimportant- issue. (I know that the majority of these creatures are already suffering from the conditions of industrialized agriculture, but that is another issue for another day.) What this points to is the circle of life, and ultimately that circle has been concentrated to an obscene level in the United States.
The other issue that has come glaringly to light is the problem of a globalized food supply. The controls on global agriculture are (deliberately) woefully lacking. There are innumerable issues with globalization, and globalized agriculture, but I am not going to take in that wide sweep. An excellent discussion of the global agricultural issue is the International Forum on Globalization’s 2007 sixty-eight page (pdf) report “The Rise and Predictable Fall of Globalized Industrial Agriculture.” At the heart of the failure seen in the pet food recall is the World Trade Organization and the international agreements that it governs and enforces. [Namely, GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), The AoA (Agreement on Agriculture), Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS), and to some extent the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS).]
As it came to light that the FDA seemed woefully under staffed to address the massive amount of food and food ingredients imported into the country, one had to ask “Why?” Was this just another case of gutting the government protections by corporate interests? Was this another example of corporate cronyism within a critical government agency? In part, the answer to these questions is “yes.” But the bigger issue is the impacts of the agreements that form the infrastructure of globalization.
Under these agreements, the global food supply is under the control of industry-set standards which makes up the Codex. These standards are low to say the least. However, also at issue are “equal treatment” clauses in various agreements which state that international products (and companies) must be treated as equal to national products. Therefore, imported food stuffs - whether grain products from China or sheep with chemical contamination from New Zealand - cannot be inspected for contamination that would not be monitored in the U.S.
I know this sounds crazy, but (as I understand it) melamine is banned from food production in the US, and so it is not generally monitored by inspectors. Therefore, grains from China (or anywhere else) would not be checked. Further, imported products are subject to the SPS agreement and standards set by industry - not by nations. Therefore national food safety standards are trumped by international standards set by industry and enforced through the World Trade Organization.
As the cries of “food security” are now raised, it is years too late to address the issue. Just as it was years too late to address “national security” issues related to ownership of the ports of the United States - ports whose ownership had long since passed from US to corporate and international hands - facilitated by the same agreements run through the WTO.
At the heart of the issue in the United States is the worms that were seeded into the agreements and the WTO. Worms that politicians knew they were there. However, the public was not informed, and as issues arose they would never effect the U.S. In other words, it is yet another example of greed combined with U.S. exceptionalism. The global issues, from the exploitation of global resources and people, to the overthrow of governments, to the “free trade” agreements has been one drum beat - U.S. interests. Over the decades those interests have been increasingly a hegemonic capitalism, in corporatized control. Meanwhile, the people of the United States have been drugged into complacency, and sometimes mobilized to actively support those interests (i.e. the “war on terrorism”).
The problems are the problems of “other” nations, just as the issues associated with the failures of people in poverty in the 1960s, have crept up the economic ladder as the draining of the national reserve and will nears empty. Well, “we” are not immune to the agreements we have let be signed in our name - nor the processes that continue to steam roll towards destruction.
Other Documents of Interest
World Trade Organization - UNDERSTANDING THE WTO: THE AGREEMENTS - Agriculture
World Trade Organization - Multilateral Agreements on Trade in Goods
World Trade Organization - Links to Legal Texts of WTO agreements
World Trade Organization - Final Uruguay Round Agreements - the Agriculture part is mid-way down the “page”
Gerald Greenfield, The WTO, World Food System, and the Politics of Harmonised Destruction
May 9th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
The Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT) IV Operation Iraqi Freedom 05-07 Final Report (17 November 2006) was released to the public this week. It is a damning report. It sites a number of mental health problems among the troops in Iraq, which are increased by the number, length, and frequency of deployments. Along with mental health issues, the MHAT found there were considerable ethical behavior concerns. General Patreaus reports being “very concerned” by the findings, and that we need to “make sure that folks remember that that’s (not dropping to the level of the enemy) a foundation for our moral compass.”
Moral compass? Exactly what moral compass is that? Is it the moral compass of the Bush administration which has said that none of the international agreements - from preemptive attack, through the Geneva Convention - apply to the United States? Is it the moral compass which came up with a lengthy justification for approving the use of torture? Is it the moral compass of those who hired contractors to oversee U.S. forces while they “softened up” prisoners for interrogation by using torture? Perhaps it is the moral compass that has shown such high regard for the lives of Iraqi non-combatants that the Bush administration and Department of Defense have refused to count either the number of Iraqi casualties or even fatalities (meanwhile denying the figures that have been released utilizing internationally accepted methodologies).
I think the “ethical behavior” assessment is very much in line with the moral compass that has set the “rules of engagement” in Iraq. In fact, I am surprised that the report shows the troops as “ethically minded” as they are.
What exactly is Patreaus going to “remind” the forces in Iraq of? The ethics that have been put forward by the Bush administration, or the ethics that are part of the U.S. Military Code of Ethics? If it is the latter, how long would Patreaus last as head of command in Iraq?
If the U.S. were following an ethical “moral compass” we wouldn’t even be in Iraq.
Summary of Findings (page 42)
Soldier and Marine Battlefield Ethics was assessed using survey items and focus questions developed ny the MHAT IV members per the request to CG, MNF-1. Four Battlefield Ethics areas were assessed: attitudes, behaviors, reporting and training. Less than half of the Soldiers and Marines believed that non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect and well over a third believed that torture should be allowed to save the life of a fellow team member. About 10% of Soldiers and Marines reported mistreating an Iraqi non-combatant when it wasn’t necessary either by destroying their property or hitting or kicking them. Less than half of Soldiers or Marines would report a team member for unethical behavior, instead preferring to handle it themselves at a team level. Although reporting receiving ethical training, nearly a third of Soldiers and Marines reported ethical situations in Iraq in which they did not know how to respond. Having a unit member become a casualty or handling dead bodies and human remains were associated with increases in mistreatment of Iraqi non-combatants. High levels of anger and screening positive for a mental health problem we also associated with the mistreatment of Iraqi non-combatants.
– Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT) IV Operation Iraqi Freedom 05-07 Final Report (17 November 2006)
May 8th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
[Originally published 1/19/07 updated 5/08/07]
Over the last six years we have become very accustomed to the loss of our Constitutional protections and civil liberties. So there seems little reaction when we find out that both the Pentagon and the CIA are spying inside the United States. It is somehow comforting to know that the ACLU is putting up a fuss. The U.S. corporate media doesn’t seem alarmed.
It is disturbing that Radio New Zealand announces “US govt admits military spying role inside own country.” It sounds stark and unexpected. Something doesn’t seem to “work” with that statement.
I suppose we are to feel comforted by Cheney saying that the Pentagon program is not illegal. But somehow I think that “Spying program targeting individuals is inappropriate for CIA, Pentagon” rather understates the issue. Don’t you?
Then we have the warrantless spying from the NSA which was approved by Bush. Despite complaints and concerns, Bush has refused to stop the programs. Now he graciously will allow the FISA court to monitor the program. That might sound like a conciliatory move, but “allowing” the court oversight of an illegal program hardly addresses the issue. Does it?
In reading news reports and transcripts, it seems that most people are assuming that something has changed, and that Bush will no longer engage in warrantless surveillance. However, that does not seem clear from what I read in the memo Gonzales sent to the committee (page 1, page 2).
Attorney General Gonzales, says that he found “a judge” on the FISA court who agreed to authorize the warrantless surveillance. What about the others?
The FISA Court (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act created the court) is now comprised of eleven justices selected by the Chief Justice (Roberts) to serve terms of 7 years (Wikipedia).
So, out of eleven judges, Gonzales found ONE to “authorize” warrantless surveillance not just of “foreign intelligence” agent, but of U.S. citizens. Does that make it legal? Does “letting” the court “monitor” the program mean that one judge? Does monitoring mean they can stop it if it goes over the line? How does this address any of the issues?
I find it difficult to believe that one judge out of eleven can make a decision on a program that violates numerous laws, and with a wave of the magical swizzle stick all problem “disappear.”
There is a chilling analysis by Robert Perry of Gonzales response to a question by Arlen Specter regarding habeas corpus protections. Gonzales essentially argued that the Constitution does not guarantee habeas corpus rights - it just bars removing those rights. Perry notes that many rights are defined in the negative in the Constitution - the First Amendment for example. Under the reasoning that Gonzales puts forwards, such “rights” quite simply do not exist unless specifically granted. If those laws do not exist, then neither do the protections. This reasoning actually explains a lot of the conflict with this administration over rights and Constitutional protections.
When one combines such a perspective of the Constitution with the administration’s embracing the concept of “Unitary Executive,” one has to wonder exactly what their view is on “democracy” and of the “freedoms” we think we have in the United States.
We also have the Pentagon and the CIA collecting data and running “intelligence” programs inside the United States on U.S. citizens - clearly outside the purview of these organizations, and we are told (again) “it’s legal” by the administration. Well that must make it so.
I hear a sucking sound as the world we thought we knew goes down the drain.
Update
Bush supposedly agreed to abide by some controls on his (unitary) executive power. However, in testimony on May 1, 2007 before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mike McConnell (new head of the NSA), told Senators, that Bush reserved the right to engage in surveillance without approval or oversight ( Risen, 5/02/07). The argument being that Bush’s power to ignore law and Constitution is implicit in Article II of the Constitution.
Actually, this interpretation of the Constitutional authority of the President is part of the administration’s belief and construction of a Unitary Executive. In essence, the argument is that the President has the authority to ignore all law and controls if (he) deems it appropriate. That “authority” has extended from unchecked surveillance of the people, to eliminating the right of habeas corpus. Well Bush did say that it would be easier to be a dictator. Given his history of taking the easiest path, I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised. The dismantling of democracy fits the “grand plan” of the neoconservatives backed by their corporate interests, blessed by a fanatical “Christian” fringe. Hey! Isn’t that the time honored recipe for fascism?
May 8th, 2007
By Rowan Wolf
[Originally published 5/01/07]
The food contamination issues, and the lack of oversight by the FDA has now been solved. The FDA has named a Food Safety Czar. Now we can all breathe a sigh of relief and go back to sleep. David Acheson, MD will be responsible for advising FDA Commissioner Andrew C. von Eschenbach on “food safety and defense strategies.”
Just as a side note, I think it is interesting that the United States, a democratic country, has a penchant for naming “czars” of things. It is after all a title that implies emperor, or king, and has imperial connotations. It certainly doesn’t connote any expertise, and generally does not connote much in the way of actual power. Our new food safety czar will advise - not make decisions or actually organize anything. Given the apparent lack of funding for the FDA in the area of food safety, he is not likely to have much of a staff either.
Meanwhile, more and more questionable things are coming to light. Personally, I wish that someone would ask some questions that are just bugging me.
Various reports have said that livestock feed is contaminated, or that livestock was fed contaminated pet food (Millions of Chickens Fed Contaminated Pet Food. Given that these two are interposed and used synonymously, one is led to assume that rejected, and discarded pet food is a regular livestock feed. I don’t know about you, but I think that is a pretty questionable practice. It also means that pet food that was recalled because it was sickening and killing dogs and cats was sent into the livestock feed system. Now that seems criminally dumb (or greedy) to me. Would you take poison and put it deliberately into the human food supply?
I have read several statements over the last week that have essentially said that the levels of contaminants in the ingredients would not harm humans even if they are directly in the food supply (wheat gluten added to bread for example), because humans are bigger than dogs and cats. There are a number of issues with this. First is that not all humans are, and infants and children definitely are comparable size with “pets.” Add to this that concentrated protein - particularly soy and rice, are a fairly common ingredient in infant foods. Seems like that might be an issue. However, no one (except Kelly and I) are even talking about this little “over sight.”
The other big issue is that they (the FDA) has not yet determined exactly what the “contaminants” are, nor why they are causing problems. As I mentioned in an earlier article, Guelph University researchers feel that it is a chemical reaction involving melamine, cyanuric acid and the environment of the digestive system. I have seen nothing regarding the levels of these chemical necessary to cause the formation of the crystals that are apparently implicated in the resultant kidney damage.
According to Richard Lobb of the National Chicken Council:
“The dilution factor is enormous. You have a relatively small amount of pet food byproducts used,” in poultry feed manufacturing, Lobb said.
In fact, “it’s a safe and wholesome product to use,” he added.
If they don’t know what, and how this is happening, then how can they determine what is harmful or not? The pigs and chicken that have eaten the contaminated feed (and my guess that both the pet food used as feed and other feed have the same issue) are also forming the same crystals found in the urine of effected pets, that the “dilution factor” doesn’t matter. Or perhaps, that traces of these elements when ingested still cause the same results.
The other question not being asked or answered is “If pigs and chickens have been fed contaminated feed, does it then show up in the animal or eggs?” Further, since most vaccines are grown in eggs, “Does it make a difference that the eggs used may come from chickens who ate contaminated feed?”
Both the appointment of a “czar,” and the assurances about the safety of our food, sound like a lot of smoke and mirrors, and false assurances to me.
Next Posts Previous Posts
