|
archived: 14 - 27 Mar, 2004 Back Next MARCH 25, 2004 UPDATE
STEVEN JONAS,
MD, MPH, MS On occasion, in my column I am going to post a set of brief essays that are somewhat related, primarily reflecting thoughts on current issues. To some of the subjects, I may return in some detail at some time in the future. Controlling the Agenda This election, as with virtually every one (see my book, The New Americanism, chap. 16, esp. pp. 287-289), will be won by he who controls the agenda. If the agenda is Kerry and what he did and did not do in Vietnam and whether he threw his medals or someone else's or ribbons over the White House fence, and how he voted one way on a bill and then another after it was amended, Bush wins. If the agenda is George W.M.D. (War/ More Deficits) Bush and what he has done with the presidency and the nation, Kerry wins. As Lee Atwater preached, always attack; never defend, just as the Georgites are doing now. If anybody needs defending, it's Bush, but you will hardly ever hear any of that from the Georgite camp, unless and until they are really cornered. The Georgites realize this very well. Notice that there are very few elements of defense of the Bush record (indefensible of course) in their current campaign-initiating broadsides. That says a whole lot. They know very well that if they can continue to make Kerry the agenda, they win. There is only one man who can beat George Bush in this election, and it's not John Kerry; it's George Bush. The Georgites know this very well, and their whole campaign strategy is designed around that knowledge. On the other hand, if Kerry simply concentrates on attracting as many ABB (anybody but Bush), as well as the regular Democratic, votes as he can, and forgets about the rapidly-dwindling marginal “middle, if Kerry can just put Bush and all his many defects out there and keep them out there, he wins. It's as simple as that: the Gospel according to Lee Atwater. In the campaign against the last Bush, the motto was "It's the economy, stupid." This time around it must be, "It's Bush, stupid!" for if it isn't, that's really stupid. "There is no 'Middle Ground“ One of the liberals' main faults is that they think continually that there is some "middle ground" that can be gotten to if only reasonable people will get together. That position was well expressed by the DLCers Joe Lieberman and Joe Biden who actually came to Bush’s defense over the charges by former Bush advisor Richard Clarke that the Georgites totally ignored the very clear warnings on the dangers that a-Qaeda presented.
Well, there is
no "middle ground" on whether the rich should pay less and less their
deserved share of taxes, or whether we should have gone to war on Iraq
unilaterally with lies as the rationale, or whether the health care
delivery system should first and foremost be a profit center for the
pharmaceutical and insurance industries, or whether Social Security as we
have known since the New Deal should survive or become a profit center for
the securities industry, or whether energy policy should be designed first
and foremost for the present profit of the oil companies, or whether
global warming is real, and so on and so forth. These are all questions
that have two distinct sides, and all the talk from people like the DLCers who
"deplore the present situation" and ask people to reason together and find
that "middle ground" will not change that reality. One of the amazing aspects of Bush policy is that it has achieved something that even Hitler never did (that is up until, for Europe, Sept. 1, 1939, and for the US, Dec. 8, 1941): receive almost universal condemnation from both governments (to a greater or lesser extent depending upon their state of dependency on the US) and people from all around the world. Very few remember that the pre-war Hitler had many admirers, or at least "tolerators," in the major pre-war "Western democracies," that is the UK, France, and the US, many more in the UK and France surely than Bush has now. Kofi Annan on "Terrorism" From UN Sec Gen. Kofi Annan's address of January 21, 2004 to the UN Security Council.
"Internationally, we are seeing an increasing use of what I call the "T'
word -- "terrorism" -- to demonize political opponents, to throttle
freedom of speech and the press and to delegitimize political grievances.
Any sacrifice of freedom or the rule of law within states -- or any
generation of new disputes between states in the name of anti-terrorism --
is to hand the terrorists a victory that no act of theirs could possibly
bring.... On "throwing money at a problem" Republicans love to accuse Democrats of always attempting to solve problems "simply by throw money at them" The truth is that both parties (the Dems. up to the right-wing DLCer Clinton, of course) like to throw money at things when they can get their hands on some, although they haven't really had that option since the time of LBJ. Republican targets for large direct payments and/or the removal of obligations? Wealthy taxpayers, the military-industrial complex, the space exploration industry, the petroleum industry, the wealthy farmers, the logging industry, religiously correct charities, the "Drug War," to name a few. On the Nixon years: I am a registered Nixon-hater from way back. Coming from the home I did, at the age of eleven, I was aware of him when he ran his first red-baiting campaign for the House against the main-stream Democrat Jerry Vorhees in California in 1948, two years before he ran his more famous “Pink Lady” Senate campaign against Helen Gahagan Douglas in 1950. But compared with the Georgites, on certain major aspects of domestic policy, Nixon actually looks good, and his nefariousness looks quite petty.
The best environmental legislation we have ever had passed under Nixon (and the Republican Right has spent the time since then chopping away at it). In the spring of 1973, Nixon introduced into Congress a National Health Insurance Plan that had the same central financing feature that the Clinton Plan did: employer participation and payment mandated. Interestingly enough the strong speech made introducing it into the Senate was made by none other than Bob Dole, who (now how did that happen?) was of course the principal Republican attacker of the similar-in-many-ways Clinton Plan of 1993. Nixon’s proposal was a victim of Watergate. It is a measure of just how bad the Georgites are that even I can look back at the old red-baiter with some fondness! On George McGovern and George Bush: Kerry is being compared with Sen. McGovern because of his anti-Vietnam War stance. Of course there are many differences between Kerry and McGovern. But if I were Kerry, in responding to such a question, I wouldn't get into them. I would put the question into the context of military policy and say something like the following. "You know, I am happy to be compared with George McGovern. During World War II, a war that we fought with the broadest coalition of allies ever assembled in any war, George McGovern was a pilot of a B-24 Liberator bomber. Unlike the fabled B-17, which could fly on one engine and with its tail shot off, the B-24 was known by the men who flew it as 'The Flying Coffin.' Yet the Senator flew 35 combat missions, 10 more than the required number for strategic bomber pilots. Just compare that record with the Air National Guard record of the current White House incumbent during the Viet Nam War. George McGovern, like the tens of thousands of surviving World War II airmen like him whose VA benefits are being cut by the current incumbent, was a true hero, unlike others one could mention." ________________
Dr. Steven
Jonas as a TPJ contributing author. He is a Professor of Preventive
Medicine at
Stony Brook University (NY)
and author of some twenty books. Dr. Jonas is one of America's most
perceptive Democratic political analysts. The 15% Solution: A Political History of American Fascism, 2001-2022 is available from Amazon under the name "Johnathan Westminster." _______________ MARCH 23, 2004 UPDATE AN ELECTION OF SMALL THINGS The media is aflame with Richard A. Clark’s accusations that that the Bush administration failed to take the threat of Al Qaeda seriously before Sept. 11 and used the terrorists’ attack on Sept. 11 as an opportunity to implement its plans to attack Iraq. Bush’s administration is in full defense mode today in an attempt to blunt Clark’s allegations. The press’ central theme is that Clark’s allegations could drastically alter Bush’s reelection prospects. The press’ assumption could be true; yet, the essential story that the neoconservatives had already “targeted” Iraq has been known for well over a year. TPJ has featured at least fifteen stories on how and why the neoconservatives focused on ousting Saddam from Iraq long before 9-11 provided the excuse to implement their plans. Clark’s revelations certainly confirm what happened from someone who served at the highest level of government. We can expect that Clark’s public condemnation of Bush may be followed by even more revelations from “insiders.” Yet, elections sometimes turn on small things. Well below the press’ radar screen is new polling results that have some profound implications. A new Zogby poll shows: -- Zogby
Zogby then breaks the results down by the States Gore won (Blue States) in 2000 and the States Bush won (Red States) in 2000. The results are fascinating.
Essentially, Zogby’s polling suggests that 2004 is shaping up to be a replay of 2000 in which a small number of States will decide the difference. Polling results from other sources support Zogby’s conclusions. For example, SurveyUSA recently published this poll: -- Survey USA
Rasmussen recently published these polls from key States: -- Rasmussen
Michigan
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Florida:
California:
North
Carolina:
Illinois: In essence, Bush and Kerry will be spending millions of dollars to sway perhaps 3% to 5% of the voters in a small number of States. The Washington Post concluded that ten states in particular will be the focus: Bush and Gore split them five-five. The Bush states that may be most vulnerable to Democratic takeover are Florida, Ohio, Missouri, New Hampshire and Nevada, while the five Gore states eyed by the GOP are Pennsylvania, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and New Mexico.
The 2004 General Election may well be another election in which EVERY vote is critical. Bush recently launched his campaign in Florida. The major news services covered the story. Buried deep in the press reports were these reports: During Bush's 20th visit to the state as president, Republicans were organizing a voter registration drive across central Florida. – Fox
"Great events will turn on this election," Bush told more than 10,000 supporters who jammed the Orange County Convention Center for a three-hour show of GOP strength in Florida's politically pivotal Interstate 4 corridor. "In this election, the security and prosperity of America are at stake."
Voter registration in the seven counties along I-4, from Tampa to Daytona Beach, has grown rapidly during Bush's term. Democrats have out-registered Republicans in the area, causing the GOP to focus on minority outreach while shoring up its base in conservative suburbs and among Christian voters.
The campaign hoped to line up 2,000 more volunteers at the rally, which featured an 18-wheel truck known as "Reggie the Registration Rig" parked inside the cavernous convention hall. The truck will traverse the country, signing up new voters.
"We're taking nothing for granted," said state party Chairman Carole Jean Jordan. "We simply cannot afford to leave any voters behind in 2004." – Tallahassee Democrat Is the Democratic Party in your area registering voters with such professionalism and dedication? If 2004 is a replay of 2000, it could be an election of small things, not the least of which is critical voter registration. WHERE ARE THE DEMS? _____________________________________________ MARCH 18, 2004 UPDATE _______________ NOTICE Junkie will be taking a short break this week. TPJ will not be published this Sunday. TPJ will return next Tuesday. Junkie’s wife, Ms. Cathy, has “requested” a weekend vacation to Washington, DC. She has detailed plans for a weekend of high culture. Junkie sees it as a wonderful opportunity to see if TPJ can find a few good Democrats and a few good stories for TPJ. _______________
STEVEN JONAS, MD, MPH, MS
And now, my friends, for a bit of a change of pace (although when you get to the end of this piece, you will see that it is not entirely a change of pace). I am a public health/preventive medicine physician by training and experience. For the first 35-plus years of my career I have been engaged in health policy analysis. About 20 years ago, I began to become more involved with prevention per se, most especially personal health promotion, as in becoming a regular exerciser, managing one’s weight in a healthy weigh (sic), and adopting a Wellness lifestyle in general. As the US health care delivery system has become more and more depressing (as it has become more and more of a profit center for the drug companies and the “health” insurance companies), I have been turning my attention more and more to the much more fun stuff of trying to help people become and stay healthy. When health professionals counsel patients on the various aspects of healthy living, we rely on data, data gathered and analyzed scientifically over time. Over a period of many years, in this country government, either directly or indirectly, has been a major collector and analyzer of data concerning healthy living. At various times it has also promulgated specific recommendations for healthy living. At the Federal level, over time we have for example seen: the Surgeon General’s Reports on Smoking and Health that have appeared on a regular basis since 1964; the 1996 Surgeon General’s Report on Physical Activity and Health; and the Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity (2001). From time to time, the validity of certain health-related data and resultant recommendations for applying conclusions drawn from them to both personal and population health problems have been disputed by various parties on scientific grounds or at least grounds claimed to be scientific. In 1984, for example, a college classmate of mine, one Dr. Henry Solomon, published a book called The Exercise Myth. In it he challenged the validity of the then-available data on the relationship between exercise and health and made the claim that running in particular is actually harmful to health. The late Dr. Robert Atkins and his heirs have long disputed the widely accepted science, ostensibly on scientific grounds, concerning how to effectively lose weight and keep it off over the course of one’s lifetime. There have been commercial interests involved in disputes over healthy living as well. As is well known, for decades the tobacco industry challenged the scientific validity of the Federal government’s position on the relationship between cigarette smoking and ill health. In these types of disputes, government has maintained the pro-health position, to the extent that the science supported it. Within the past ten years, we have seen the emergence of a new phenomenon. On certain health-related matters for which the data are ample and widely accepted in the medical and scientific communities, government, or at least some element of it, has taken a position on the side of commercial interests. In these cases, there has been no more scientific evidence produced to support the positions taken by the commercial interests than there was to support the public position of the tobacco industry in its decades-long dispute with the United States Public Health Service on the negative health effects of cigarette smoking. (Of course, it is now known that internally, the industry had acknowledged the dangers of smoking for health for decades.) A paper published recently in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine details one example of government coming down on the side of industry when there is no scientific evidence to support the industry’s decision (1). In this instance, government was represented by one Thomas Bliley (R-VA), a prominent member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Quoting from the paper’s Abstract: Previously secret tobacco industry documents detailed a multifaceted approach of political strategies aimed to derail the 1993 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) risk assessment on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). These pervasive strategies included the following: (1) lobbying the first Bush Administration to approve an executive order that would impose new risk assessment standards for federal agencies, thus delaying the release of the EPA report; (2) the first Bush Administration transfer jurisdiction over ETS from the EPA to [the] Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), thus obviating the need for the release of the EPA report; and (3) applying enormous political pressure directly by alleging improper procedure and policy at EPA. Although some of the attempted strategies failed, the political pressure from Cong. Bliley was a success. It was not until Court action in 2002 that the EPA issued the report on ETS. More recently there has come to light an effort by the current Bush Administration to challenge recommendations made by the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations issued last year (2). The Report in summary stated that: Less saturated fats, sugar and salt, more fruit and vegetables and physical exercise, needed to counter cardiovascular disease, cancer diabetes and obesity. . . . Evidence suggests that excessive consumption of energy-rich foods can encourage weight gain, the report says and calls for a limit in the consumption of saturated and trans fats, sugars and salt in the diet, noting they are often found in snacks, processed foods and drinks. The Report also recommended goals for physical exercise. Based on what has been known about the science of nutrition and healthy eating for quite some time now, this sounds pretty non-controversial, doesn’t it? Well, not so fast. According to an AP story published in Newsday (3), in January, 2004 the Bush Administration challenged the recommendations of the Report, especially one that proposed limiting food advertising aimed at children. It is openly admitted by the Administration that this position was taken at the behest of the US food industry, most notably the Grocery Manufacturers of America. Surely it is coincidental that the industry forces behind the challenge are among the President’s largest campaign contributors. The challenge is based on two grounds. First, the claim is made that there is not enough scientific evidence to support the WHO's position that excess fat, salt and sugar (as in non-diet soda) are harmful to health, especially of children. (It happens that the US Public Health Service has been publishing data supporting the WHO position for years.) The second is that “individual choice” rather than other factors such as, say, advertising, is the major factor in food consumption and that the Report should take that position. One William Steiger, a special assistant at the US Department of Health and Human Services said that: "[The government] promotes the view that all foods can be part of a healthy and balanced diet, and supports personal responsibility to choose a diet conducive to individual energy balance, weight control and health." (This is from the government of the Drug Warriors [!!]. Why isn't the individual choice goose [now there's a fatty food unless it's cooked right] good for the recreational drug gander? Politics, racism, and money, of course, but the irony is striking.) This language reflects that of one Michael Diegel, a spokesman for the Grocery Manufacturers of America, who said: "One of the things we didn't see in the document was a recognition that it ultimately comes down to what individuals choose to do. You can't solve the problem by government fiat." From the WHO press release at least it didn’t sound as if there were any recommendations for establishing any “government fiats” on these matters other than perhaps the matter of food advertising aimed at children. But oh well. According to the Chair of the WHO Expert Group, Prof. Ricardo Uauy of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine: “The report provides goals for dietary components and physical activity levels consistent with good health and the prevention of the major nutrition related chronic diseases . . . .” It has been known for several decades that high-fat diets are major contributors to arteriosclerosis, that high salt diets are major contributors to hypertension, and that high sugar diets are related to excess caloric intake (as well as excess dental cavities). These are conclusions based on science that both the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and on occasion the U.S. Department of Agriculture have been promulgating for years. And these folks from the Grocery Manufacturers claim that the science is weak. I think that they are using the same script writers employed for so long by the tobacco industry to write its repeated claims, following the publication of the first Surgeon General's Report in 1964, that there was no scientific proof that cigarettes cause cancer, etc., etc., etc. But after all, those scriptwriters have been out of work for some time now and we know that the job situation, whatever this Administration claims, is tough. So let's give them some employment. Health-promotion practitioners have been data-based for decades. What is called “Evidence-based Medicine” in disease-treatment practice has been coming into vogue over the most recent one. There have been and always will be disputes over the scientific validity of promulgated positions and the data on which they are based. In past times, if government was not strongly backing the pro-health position it was at least the arbiter of disputes over the data. Virtually always, the government interest, at least in the health-related sectors of government, has been on the side of both personal and population health promotion. In the current Georgite Era however, when a health-related sector of government comes down on the side of an anti-health, commercial, position, in the absence of any new scientific data, it is just one more piece of evidence that these folks are for the profit-makers, especially if they are big campaign contributors, and to hell with health, science, or data. REFERENCES:
________________
Dr. Steven
Jonas as a TPJ contributing author. He is a Professor of Preventive
Medicine at
Stony Brook University (NY)
and author of some twenty books. Dr. Jonas is one of America's most
perceptive Democratic political analysts. The 15% Solution: A Political History of American Fascism, 2001-2022 is available from Amazon under the name "Johnathan Westminster." _______________ Junkie: Bush’s administration not only slants or ignores scientific research to satisfy the political will of the industries the federal government regulates, but Republicans also have weakened enforcement of existing regulatory programs. The Republicans have adopted a trifocal strategy: (a) cut funding for enforcement programs (less money usually equates to less personnel to enforce regulatory laws); (b) simply ignore enforcement of existing laws and (c) advocate “self-enforcement” by industry. In Junkie’s southern parlance: you simply hire fewer foxes to watch the chickens, put blinders on what few foxes you have and tell the chickens they can rule the roost. One of many examples demonstrating Republican philosophy that is directly related to Dr. Jonas’ excellent expose above is rising teenage smoking in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts where Republicans now control the executive branch of government. For over a decade, Massachusetts had a highly successful tobacco control program that has been emulated not only in the United States but internationally. However, under the current Republican governor: The Massachusetts Department of Public Health, which bankrolled local enforcement efforts for a decade, spent $50.5 million on antismoking campaigns as recently as fiscal year 2001 and served as a model for antitobacco campaigns around the globe. By last July, the state had slashed annual spending on tobacco control to $2.5 million.
As a result, 190 cities and towns across the Commonwealth have shuttered their tobacco enforcement offices, with other municipalities significantly reducing their antismoking campaigns, which had included educational efforts, treatment programs, and enforcement. . . .
The budget for the coming fiscal year proposed by Governor Mitt Romney's administration leaves tobacco control funding flat at $2.5 million. . . .
But budget cuts that began in 2002 and accelerated in 2003 rendered the program a shadow of its former self, a reality, health advocates said, not lost on those who buy and sell cigarettes illegally. – Boston Globe What has been the effect of the budget cuts (hire less foxes)? In communities that lost enforcement officers the rate of sales of tobacco to underage citizens doubled from “7.7 percent in 2002 to 15.4 percent last year.” – Boston Globe Next, Republicans invariably put on “blinders.” Despite the obvious effects of the budget cuts on illegal sales of tobacco products to teens, the Republican administration uses this page from its playbook: A spokeswoman for the Department of Public Health, which has been hard hit by budget cuts, said the agency could not draw a direct link between the budget cuts and increased sales to minors. Still, the agency plans to review the findings and determine if laws prohibiting underage tobacco sales need to be strengthened or better enforced, spokeswoman Roseanne Pawelec said. – Boston Globe Recall that Republicans nationally are still calling for “studies” of global warming despite the plethora of research, including that of the Pentagon, that global warming is actively damaging our environment. The third Republican approach is to always contend that the chickens are in charge of the roost (industry can regulate itself). That is exactly what the Republicans have done in Massachusetts: "The monitoring program was always meant to act as a supplemental check and balance on these retailers, but clearly the responsibility for cigarette sales to teenagers rests at the retailer's door," Pawelec said. – Boston Globe One can be kind to the Republicans and simply conclude that they simply just don’t get it. Actually, the Republicans have consciously developed a philosophy intended to dismantle as much government regulation of business and industry. As one observer in Massachusetts adroitly noted: "Everybody knows Tobacco Control Programs have been decimated, and everybody knows they're not out there doing the regular enforcement," said Cheryl Sbarra, director of the Tobacco Control Program for the Massachusetts Association of Health Boards.
"There's no teeth anymore," she said. – Boston Globe And, thousands of young Massachusetts citizens will become addicts damaging their health, and the health of others, because of a Republican political philosophy skewed to benefit corporate conglomerate profits. THERE IS A REASON WE ARE DEMS! _____________________________________________ MARCH 16, 2004 UPDATE
JUNKIE EDITOR
MICHAEL CARMICHAEL The votes are in, and the results are now perfectly clear.
Spain has
rejected the pro-American war policies of its ex-Prime Minister, Jose
Maria Aznar. Observers in Britain are now of the opinion that Tony Blair must change his core foreign policy of blindly following the neoconservative extremism of George Bush or risk losing the next British election which will take place sometime in the next two years.
RELATED ARTICLES: “New Spanish PM promises Iraq withdrawal -- Zapatero: 'war a disaster'” – Guardian Unlimited “Why Tony Blair fears the coming of President Kerry -- Clinton made Labour credible, now the Democrats threaten Bush's ally” – Guardian Unlimited “Socialists Oust Spain’s Conservatives” – Yahoo These excerpts from the article demonstrate the intensity of emotion that erupted against Spain’s support of the war in Iraq (emphasis added): It was the first time a government that backed the Iraq war has been voted out of office. Incoming prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has pledged to bring home the 1,300 troops Spain has stationed in Iraq when their tour of duty ends in July. . . .
Pre-election polls had favored the ruling party to win handily. But on Election Day voters expressed anger with the government, accusing it of provoking the Madrid attacks by supporting the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which most Spaniards opposed.
The government had insisted that its prime suspect in Thursday's rail bombings was the armed Basque separatist group ETA, even as evidence mounted of an Islamic link in the railway bombings, which killed 200 people and wounded 1,500.
The government was accused of withholding information on the investigation to save the election. . . .
"I wasn't planning to vote, but I am here today because the Popular Party is responsible for murders here and in Iraq," said Ernesto Sanchez-Gey, 48, who voted in Barcelona. . . .
In El Pozo northeast of Madrid, site of one of the four blasts, a ruined train car was in clear view of the polling station as were flowers for the victims, signs stating "Paz" (Peace) and dozens of lit candles.
Some of the voters, teary-eyed, held onto relatives and friends for support. . . .
A handful of young protesters screamed "murderer" at Rajoy, the ruling party candidate for prime minister, as he cast his vote in an elementary school outside Madrid. "We did not want to go to war!" they shouted. As Aznar voted in Madrid, some bystanders cheered him while others shouted, "Manipulator!"
Last Update: 07/23/2008 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
