Wonder if DC has noticed the Chicago-styled "aroma" in the air?! Particularly when Rahm is the room.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
TADS must end if Democracy is to survive
In the good ol' US of A, we face TADS every day - Typical American Double Standard.
It's the zero accountability for the privileged, zero tolerance for everyone else approach that is the hallmark of US legislation. Hit those who are least able to defend themselves the hardest. Police are above the law (and blue wall of silence otherwise), Congress has better health care, pension and benefits than everyone else, and those with money/power get away with whatever they want, whenever they want.
If the US is to restore some semblence of the democracy it claims to be exporting all over the rest of the world, we must restore integrity and values at home, starting with one set of laws for everyone, and fairness in their application.
No more TADS is a step forward.
It's the zero accountability for the privileged, zero tolerance for everyone else approach that is the hallmark of US legislation. Hit those who are least able to defend themselves the hardest. Police are above the law (and blue wall of silence otherwise), Congress has better health care, pension and benefits than everyone else, and those with money/power get away with whatever they want, whenever they want.
If the US is to restore some semblence of the democracy it claims to be exporting all over the rest of the world, we must restore integrity and values at home, starting with one set of laws for everyone, and fairness in their application.
No more TADS is a step forward.
Nobody in power wants to ask the WHY questions - and all the more reason that we must.
Nobody in power wants to ask the WHY questions - and all the more reason that we must.
It's the shoot first, the spend/expand govt. first, the get more power first "opportunities," that are seized upon and implemented by those in power, without ever asking the WHY question (or asking Americans if that's what we want them to do, but that's another issue).
Posted: 01.11.2009
Take 9/11 for example. The World Trade Center Towers (and a few others for suspect reasons) were destroyed by extremists. Leaving the many unanswered questions aside (ie thermite and WTC 7 collapse), presuming it was extremists as we are told, nobody in government bothered to ask the WHY questions. Why are there such extremists? Why did the extremists do this to the US? (And, why is everyone so afraid to re-open the investigation, particularly since everything else from the Bush-Cheney regime consisted of lies and deceptions...)
Nope. Doesn’t matter to the people in power. Ramp up the military, let the bombs fly, clamp down on people in the US, destroy the Constitution. All “opportunities” seized upon by the fearless leaders of the “free” world, intent on scaring everyone else. Heck, they’re fearless because they know what they’re doing and what’s going on.
Take the “drug” war (and that America has a greater percentage of its population in prison than other nations). Nobody asks the WHY questions – why is there such a demand for drugs, why is there such crime? why are there gangs? Sure there are college professors that write papers on this, but the powerful people in control of our “free” world don’t want to know. All they want is the “opportunity” to expand their police forces, buy newer and more lethal toys for their boys in blue, lobby state and federal congresses for ever-more oppressive laws (that, btw are a convenient source of revenue/extortion), and expanded govt.
Take Gaza/Israel for example. Ask the Why questions, and get some insights.
Take cancer for example. Nobody asks why is there more cancer now than ever before? Well, the answer would be counter-productive to BigPharma’s goal of making profits dealing with symptoms. And since there’s no compassion, concern or even integrity in big business, the WHY questions are actively suppressed.
Anyway, the point is that the public would benefit by bringing the discussion back to WHY something is happening. The answers to the WHY questions would help return focus to the people, and return control to the people, for the benefit of the people, in the US.
SO… what do y’all think about this?
Can this be a rally cry of the Green Party that asks the unasked questions of the usual suspects in Congress and the White House. The otherwise overlooked and glossed over questions, that take politicians into deep, uncomfortable water.
Maybe, just maybe asking the questions will shift the attention of the otherwise docile American public to some real, meaningful discussions. It’s easy, too, and everyone can do it! Perhaps, if people on the street start asking their elected officials the WHY questions, those elected officials will start squirming, uncomfortably, and perhaps, start changing the course, finding their consciences and refocusing on addressing problems, rather than the typical reactionary political response that addresses convenient, money-making symptoms (but never comes close to dealing with the underlying problem).
Why does America have the highest percentage of its population incarcerated?
Why do extremists (the supposedly ultra-religious as well as the OK City types) resort to violence?
Why is America’s healthcare system falling in quality, compared to other similar countries?
Why has crime been rising precipitously, despite larger-than-ever law enforcement depts and more oppressive laws than ever?
Why are gangs so prevalent in urban (and spreading to adjacent) areas?
Why do the Dem/Repub politicians insist upon doing corporate America’s bidding, while ignoring what most people in the US would want them to do?
Why are there so many immigrants crossing the border to get into the US?
et al.
It's the shoot first, the spend/expand govt. first, the get more power first "opportunities," that are seized upon and implemented by those in power, without ever asking the WHY question (or asking Americans if that's what we want them to do, but that's another issue).
Posted: 01.11.2009
Take 9/11 for example. The World Trade Center Towers (and a few others for suspect reasons) were destroyed by extremists. Leaving the many unanswered questions aside (ie thermite and WTC 7 collapse), presuming it was extremists as we are told, nobody in government bothered to ask the WHY questions. Why are there such extremists? Why did the extremists do this to the US? (And, why is everyone so afraid to re-open the investigation, particularly since everything else from the Bush-Cheney regime consisted of lies and deceptions...)
Nope. Doesn’t matter to the people in power. Ramp up the military, let the bombs fly, clamp down on people in the US, destroy the Constitution. All “opportunities” seized upon by the fearless leaders of the “free” world, intent on scaring everyone else. Heck, they’re fearless because they know what they’re doing and what’s going on.
Take the “drug” war (and that America has a greater percentage of its population in prison than other nations). Nobody asks the WHY questions – why is there such a demand for drugs, why is there such crime? why are there gangs? Sure there are college professors that write papers on this, but the powerful people in control of our “free” world don’t want to know. All they want is the “opportunity” to expand their police forces, buy newer and more lethal toys for their boys in blue, lobby state and federal congresses for ever-more oppressive laws (that, btw are a convenient source of revenue/extortion), and expanded govt.
Take Gaza/Israel for example. Ask the Why questions, and get some insights.
Take cancer for example. Nobody asks why is there more cancer now than ever before? Well, the answer would be counter-productive to BigPharma’s goal of making profits dealing with symptoms. And since there’s no compassion, concern or even integrity in big business, the WHY questions are actively suppressed.
Anyway, the point is that the public would benefit by bringing the discussion back to WHY something is happening. The answers to the WHY questions would help return focus to the people, and return control to the people, for the benefit of the people, in the US.
SO… what do y’all think about this?
Can this be a rally cry of the Green Party that asks the unasked questions of the usual suspects in Congress and the White House. The otherwise overlooked and glossed over questions, that take politicians into deep, uncomfortable water.
Maybe, just maybe asking the questions will shift the attention of the otherwise docile American public to some real, meaningful discussions. It’s easy, too, and everyone can do it! Perhaps, if people on the street start asking their elected officials the WHY questions, those elected officials will start squirming, uncomfortably, and perhaps, start changing the course, finding their consciences and refocusing on addressing problems, rather than the typical reactionary political response that addresses convenient, money-making symptoms (but never comes close to dealing with the underlying problem).
Why does America have the highest percentage of its population incarcerated?
Why do extremists (the supposedly ultra-religious as well as the OK City types) resort to violence?
Why is America’s healthcare system falling in quality, compared to other similar countries?
Why has crime been rising precipitously, despite larger-than-ever law enforcement depts and more oppressive laws than ever?
Why are gangs so prevalent in urban (and spreading to adjacent) areas?
Why do the Dem/Repub politicians insist upon doing corporate America’s bidding, while ignoring what most people in the US would want them to do?
Why are there so many immigrants crossing the border to get into the US?
et al.
Our liberty depends upon the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves... struck out on that one!
Obama's stance confirms: the Constitution has failed
Without the vigilence of people holding their elected official accountable, and each branch of government checking and balancing the others, the Constitution and the American democratic experiment have both failed.
Posted: 01.14.2009
As Patrick Henry asked, “For where, Sir, is the responsibility? Where is the responsibility, that leading principle in the British government?”
He was speaking of the British Constitution, under which malfeasance in office had cost the heads of some of “the most saucy geniuses that ever were.”
And now, the whole lot of America’s politicians see themseleves as “the most saucy of geniuses,” and smarter than the citizens over whom they preside.
Under the US Constitution, however, Patrick Henry argued, “the preservation of our liberty depends upon the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.”
Well, we have struck out on both counts: there are no virtuous men (or women) in office, nor are there the laws to punish themselves. The people of America are counting upon the benevolence of politicians, putting their hope in a benevolent dictator, rather than fighting harder than ever to defend the Constitution and their meager civil rights.
The American experiment has taken on a life of its own and broken free of the constraints of the Constitution, with saucy geniuses making decisions for the people and ever more strongly legislating against the people, without the responsibility that Patrick Henry warned us about centuries ago.
Amazing how timely and current his dated words yet remain. Hardly amazing that the new benevolent dicator is letting the last one have a pass on all his malfeasances and assorted Constitutional transgressions.
Without the vigilence of people holding their elected official accountable, and each branch of government checking and balancing the others, the Constitution and the American democratic experiment have both failed.
Posted: 01.14.2009
As Patrick Henry asked, “For where, Sir, is the responsibility? Where is the responsibility, that leading principle in the British government?”
He was speaking of the British Constitution, under which malfeasance in office had cost the heads of some of “the most saucy geniuses that ever were.”
And now, the whole lot of America’s politicians see themseleves as “the most saucy of geniuses,” and smarter than the citizens over whom they preside.
Under the US Constitution, however, Patrick Henry argued, “the preservation of our liberty depends upon the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.”
Well, we have struck out on both counts: there are no virtuous men (or women) in office, nor are there the laws to punish themselves. The people of America are counting upon the benevolence of politicians, putting their hope in a benevolent dictator, rather than fighting harder than ever to defend the Constitution and their meager civil rights.
The American experiment has taken on a life of its own and broken free of the constraints of the Constitution, with saucy geniuses making decisions for the people and ever more strongly legislating against the people, without the responsibility that Patrick Henry warned us about centuries ago.
Amazing how timely and current his dated words yet remain. Hardly amazing that the new benevolent dicator is letting the last one have a pass on all his malfeasances and assorted Constitutional transgressions.
Zero tolerance for people, zero accountability for Bush-Cheney?!
Zero tolerance for people, zero accountability for Bush-Cheney?!
Will Obama issue another get out jail free card?
The dangerous precedent set by the Bush-Cheney regime cannot be left to stand. The unalienable rights of the Constitution need to be re-established, for they were wrongly "balanced" away from Americans. It is folly for anyone in America to accept the current conditions and grave damage perpetrated by the most dangerous and destructive regime ever. The Constitution and democracy require accountability. At a minimum, the new govt is obligated to give the Bush-Cheney regime its day in court for the blatant and acknowledged Constitutional and human rights violations. To give the outgoing regime a get out of jail free card as was given to ATT/Verizon, would be precariously dangerous to America's future.
_____________
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090202/holtzman?rel=hp_picks
(excerpted)
Reforms
The most pressing reform involves the War Crimes Act of 1996, which would be a more effective tool for prosecuting detainee mistreatment than the Anti-Torture Act. The president and other top officials were concerned about prosecution under that act, which makes cruel and inhuman treatment of detainees a federal crime. Like the anti-torture statute, it carries the death penalty when death results from the mistreatment, which means there is no statute of limitations. Administration officials might think they can avoid criminal liability under the Anti-Torture Act by claiming the mistreatment isn’t torture (as in President Bush’s oft-repeated claim that we “don’t do torture”); but they know that they can’t avoid liability under the War Crimes Act, because “harsh” interrogation techniques—waterboarding, stress positions, threatening dogs, exposure to temperature extremes—are all clearly cruel and inhuman. They can’t get around the War Crimes Act with definitional tricks.
Following White House counsel Alberto Gonzales’s advice in January 2002 about how to “reduce the likelihood of prosecution” under the War Crimes Act, President Bush opted out of the Geneva Conventions for members of Al Qaeda. Administration officials apparently thought this would enable them to avoid liability for mistreating those prisoners, because the War Crimes Act was intended to enforce the Geneva Conventions. But then the Supreme Court ruled in summer 2006 that the Geneva Conventions applied to Al Qaeda detainees, and the administration realized that something had to be done to prevent criminal liability under the act. So it quietly inserted a provision into the Military Commissions Act in October 2006 that made the War Crimes Act retroactively inoperative—meaning that past violations could not be prosecuted.
Retroactively nullifying the War Crimes Act was one of the Bush administration’s most cynical acts with respect to the rule of law. In essence, it issued a blanket pardon to anyone who had violated the War Crimes Act, including the president and vice president. There was no examination of the facts of any particular case. The violations, whether egregious or minor, were swept under the rug. No one was ever to be called to account. The crimes were made to disappear—poof. This maneuver may be the worst embodiment of the doctrine of impunity for high-level government officials in our history. It cannot be allowed to stand.
Fortunately, the retroactive nullification can be undone and the original law resurrected. Once the War Crimes Act is restored, a special prosecutor should determine whether and how to prosecute under the act. But even if no prosecutions are brought against President Bush and his team, by restoring the original law, we put an end to the horrific situation in which a criminal statute is decriminalized after crimes are committed to protect people in the highest offices.
A second reform is limiting the president’s pardon power. This must be done by constitutional amendment. One of the ways a president can execute illegal schemes is to assure subordinates that they will not face criminal liability. To prevent this kind of high-level conspiracy, the amendment should prohibit a president from pardoning anyone he or she appointed to office, or the vice president. Prohibitions against self-pardoning or pardoning in return for a bribe should also be clearly spelled out in the amendment.
A third reform would re-enact legislation creating a special prosecutor for crimes committed by high-level government officials. The original law was allowed to expire after the sorry excesses of special prosecutor Kenneth Starr. A new statute, devised to prevent such excesses, would permit prosecution of officials when the Justice Department cannot or will not investigate—as happened repeatedly during the Bush era. (The appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald in the Valerie Plame leak case was fortuitous; the attorney general was incapacitated, so the power to appoint a special prosecutor fell to a nonpolitical professional prosecutor.) The problem extends beyond the Bush administration: no attorney general can be expected to investigate the president who appointed him or her.
Sooner or later, America will confront the abuses of the Bush presidency head-on. The only question is whether we will wait for years—as Chile did with respect to bringing Gen. Augusto Pinochet to justice—or do it now, sending a clear signal that our country is back on track and firmly embraces the rule of law.
Will Obama issue another get out jail free card?
The dangerous precedent set by the Bush-Cheney regime cannot be left to stand. The unalienable rights of the Constitution need to be re-established, for they were wrongly "balanced" away from Americans. It is folly for anyone in America to accept the current conditions and grave damage perpetrated by the most dangerous and destructive regime ever. The Constitution and democracy require accountability. At a minimum, the new govt is obligated to give the Bush-Cheney regime its day in court for the blatant and acknowledged Constitutional and human rights violations. To give the outgoing regime a get out of jail free card as was given to ATT/Verizon, would be precariously dangerous to America's future.
_____________
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090202/holtzman?rel=hp_picks
(excerpted)
Reforms
The most pressing reform involves the War Crimes Act of 1996, which would be a more effective tool for prosecuting detainee mistreatment than the Anti-Torture Act. The president and other top officials were concerned about prosecution under that act, which makes cruel and inhuman treatment of detainees a federal crime. Like the anti-torture statute, it carries the death penalty when death results from the mistreatment, which means there is no statute of limitations. Administration officials might think they can avoid criminal liability under the Anti-Torture Act by claiming the mistreatment isn’t torture (as in President Bush’s oft-repeated claim that we “don’t do torture”); but they know that they can’t avoid liability under the War Crimes Act, because “harsh” interrogation techniques—waterboarding, stress positions, threatening dogs, exposure to temperature extremes—are all clearly cruel and inhuman. They can’t get around the War Crimes Act with definitional tricks.
Following White House counsel Alberto Gonzales’s advice in January 2002 about how to “reduce the likelihood of prosecution” under the War Crimes Act, President Bush opted out of the Geneva Conventions for members of Al Qaeda. Administration officials apparently thought this would enable them to avoid liability for mistreating those prisoners, because the War Crimes Act was intended to enforce the Geneva Conventions. But then the Supreme Court ruled in summer 2006 that the Geneva Conventions applied to Al Qaeda detainees, and the administration realized that something had to be done to prevent criminal liability under the act. So it quietly inserted a provision into the Military Commissions Act in October 2006 that made the War Crimes Act retroactively inoperative—meaning that past violations could not be prosecuted.
Retroactively nullifying the War Crimes Act was one of the Bush administration’s most cynical acts with respect to the rule of law. In essence, it issued a blanket pardon to anyone who had violated the War Crimes Act, including the president and vice president. There was no examination of the facts of any particular case. The violations, whether egregious or minor, were swept under the rug. No one was ever to be called to account. The crimes were made to disappear—poof. This maneuver may be the worst embodiment of the doctrine of impunity for high-level government officials in our history. It cannot be allowed to stand.
Fortunately, the retroactive nullification can be undone and the original law resurrected. Once the War Crimes Act is restored, a special prosecutor should determine whether and how to prosecute under the act. But even if no prosecutions are brought against President Bush and his team, by restoring the original law, we put an end to the horrific situation in which a criminal statute is decriminalized after crimes are committed to protect people in the highest offices.
A second reform is limiting the president’s pardon power. This must be done by constitutional amendment. One of the ways a president can execute illegal schemes is to assure subordinates that they will not face criminal liability. To prevent this kind of high-level conspiracy, the amendment should prohibit a president from pardoning anyone he or she appointed to office, or the vice president. Prohibitions against self-pardoning or pardoning in return for a bribe should also be clearly spelled out in the amendment.
A third reform would re-enact legislation creating a special prosecutor for crimes committed by high-level government officials. The original law was allowed to expire after the sorry excesses of special prosecutor Kenneth Starr. A new statute, devised to prevent such excesses, would permit prosecution of officials when the Justice Department cannot or will not investigate—as happened repeatedly during the Bush era. (The appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald in the Valerie Plame leak case was fortuitous; the attorney general was incapacitated, so the power to appoint a special prosecutor fell to a nonpolitical professional prosecutor.) The problem extends beyond the Bush administration: no attorney general can be expected to investigate the president who appointed him or her.
Sooner or later, America will confront the abuses of the Bush presidency head-on. The only question is whether we will wait for years—as Chile did with respect to bringing Gen. Augusto Pinochet to justice—or do it now, sending a clear signal that our country is back on track and firmly embraces the rule of law.
“¡Que se vayan todos!”
When will people in the US of A have the courage to fire all the sellouts in Congress? And remind those in office, that they are civil servants, owing a special and trusted duty to uphold and defend the Constitution, among other very important obligations for our benefit - they need to be reminded that they work for us, We the People.
"[I]f we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power."
- Paul Krugman 1/16/2009
___________________________________
January 16, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Forgive and Forget?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Last Sunday President-elect Barack Obama was asked whether he would seek an investigation of possible crimes by the Bush administration. “I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” he responded, but “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”
I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.
Let’s be clear what we’re talking about here. It’s not just torture and illegal wiretapping, whose perpetrators claim, however implausibly, that they were patriots acting to defend the nation’s security. The fact is that the Bush administration’s abuses extended from environmental policy to voting rights. And most of the abuses involved using the power of government to reward political friends and punish political enemies.
At the Justice Department, for example, political appointees illegally reserved nonpolitical positions for “right-thinking Americans” — their term, not mine — and there’s strong evidence that officials used their positions both to undermine the protection of minority voting rights and to persecute Democratic politicians.
The hiring process at Justice echoed the hiring process during the occupation of Iraq — an occupation whose success was supposedly essential to national security — in which applicants were judged by their politics, their personal loyalty to President Bush and, according to some reports, by their views on Roe v. Wade, rather than by their ability to do the job.
Speaking of Iraq, let’s also not forget that country’s failed reconstruction: the Bush administration handed billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to politically connected companies, companies that then failed to deliver. And why should they have bothered to do their jobs? Any government official who tried to enforce accountability on, say, Halliburton quickly found his or her career derailed.
There’s much, much more. By my count, at least six important government agencies experienced major scandals over the past eight years — in most cases, scandals that were never properly investigated. And then there was the biggest scandal of all: Does anyone seriously doubt that the Bush administration deliberately misled the nation into invading Iraq?
Why, then, shouldn’t we have an official inquiry into abuses during the Bush years?
One answer you hear is that pursuing the truth would be divisive, that it would exacerbate partisanship. But if partisanship is so terrible, shouldn’t there be some penalty for the Bush administration’s politicization of every aspect of government?
Alternatively, we’re told that we don’t have to dwell on past abuses, because we won’t repeat them. But no important figure in the Bush administration, or among that administration’s political allies, has expressed remorse for breaking the law. What makes anyone think that they or their political heirs won’t do it all over again, given the chance?
In fact, we’ve already seen this movie. During the Reagan years, the Iran-contra conspirators violated the Constitution in the name of national security. But the first President Bush pardoned the major malefactors, and when the White House finally changed hands the political and media establishment gave Bill Clinton the same advice it’s giving Mr. Obama: let sleeping scandals lie. Sure enough, the second Bush administration picked up right where the Iran-contra conspirators left off — which isn’t too surprising when you bear in mind that Mr. Bush actually hired some of those conspirators.
Now, it’s true that a serious investigation of Bush-era abuses would make Washington an uncomfortable place, both for those who abused power and those who acted as their enablers or apologists. And these people have a lot of friends. But the price of protecting their comfort would be high: If we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we’ll guarantee that they will happen again.
Meanwhile, about Mr. Obama: while it’s probably in his short-term political interests to forgive and forget, next week he’s going to swear to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That’s not a conditional oath to be honored only when it’s convenient.
And to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable. So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside, that’s not a decision he has the right to make.
"[I]f we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power."
- Paul Krugman 1/16/2009
___________________________________
January 16, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Forgive and Forget?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Last Sunday President-elect Barack Obama was asked whether he would seek an investigation of possible crimes by the Bush administration. “I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” he responded, but “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”
I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.
Let’s be clear what we’re talking about here. It’s not just torture and illegal wiretapping, whose perpetrators claim, however implausibly, that they were patriots acting to defend the nation’s security. The fact is that the Bush administration’s abuses extended from environmental policy to voting rights. And most of the abuses involved using the power of government to reward political friends and punish political enemies.
At the Justice Department, for example, political appointees illegally reserved nonpolitical positions for “right-thinking Americans” — their term, not mine — and there’s strong evidence that officials used their positions both to undermine the protection of minority voting rights and to persecute Democratic politicians.
The hiring process at Justice echoed the hiring process during the occupation of Iraq — an occupation whose success was supposedly essential to national security — in which applicants were judged by their politics, their personal loyalty to President Bush and, according to some reports, by their views on Roe v. Wade, rather than by their ability to do the job.
Speaking of Iraq, let’s also not forget that country’s failed reconstruction: the Bush administration handed billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to politically connected companies, companies that then failed to deliver. And why should they have bothered to do their jobs? Any government official who tried to enforce accountability on, say, Halliburton quickly found his or her career derailed.
There’s much, much more. By my count, at least six important government agencies experienced major scandals over the past eight years — in most cases, scandals that were never properly investigated. And then there was the biggest scandal of all: Does anyone seriously doubt that the Bush administration deliberately misled the nation into invading Iraq?
Why, then, shouldn’t we have an official inquiry into abuses during the Bush years?
One answer you hear is that pursuing the truth would be divisive, that it would exacerbate partisanship. But if partisanship is so terrible, shouldn’t there be some penalty for the Bush administration’s politicization of every aspect of government?
Alternatively, we’re told that we don’t have to dwell on past abuses, because we won’t repeat them. But no important figure in the Bush administration, or among that administration’s political allies, has expressed remorse for breaking the law. What makes anyone think that they or their political heirs won’t do it all over again, given the chance?
In fact, we’ve already seen this movie. During the Reagan years, the Iran-contra conspirators violated the Constitution in the name of national security. But the first President Bush pardoned the major malefactors, and when the White House finally changed hands the political and media establishment gave Bill Clinton the same advice it’s giving Mr. Obama: let sleeping scandals lie. Sure enough, the second Bush administration picked up right where the Iran-contra conspirators left off — which isn’t too surprising when you bear in mind that Mr. Bush actually hired some of those conspirators.
Now, it’s true that a serious investigation of Bush-era abuses would make Washington an uncomfortable place, both for those who abused power and those who acted as their enablers or apologists. And these people have a lot of friends. But the price of protecting their comfort would be high: If we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we’ll guarantee that they will happen again.
Meanwhile, about Mr. Obama: while it’s probably in his short-term political interests to forgive and forget, next week he’s going to swear to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That’s not a conditional oath to be honored only when it’s convenient.
And to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable. So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside, that’s not a decision he has the right to make.
Business as usual, even at American Cancer Society
Selling out to big pharma...
http://world-wire.com/news/0912280002.html
Reckless Indifference Of The American Cancer Society To Cancer Prevention
CHICAGO, IL, December 28, 2009 --/WORLD-WIRE/-- Early this month, top Republican Senator Charles E. Grassley sent letters to the American Cancer Society (ACS), besides the American Medical Association (AMA) and 31 other medical advocacy groups, asking them to provide detailed information on tax-deductible funds that they have received from drug and device makers. Such funds have encouraged these organizations to lobby on behalf of a wide range of industries and strongly influence public policy, says Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition.
Senator Grassley also invited involvement of "whistleblowers interested in establishing communication regarding wrongdoing or misuse of public dollars."
However, this wrongdoing still remains unrecognized by policy makers, let alone by the public, says Dr. Epstein. As a result, he warns, "the incidence of a wide range of avoidable cancers has continued to escalate."
Meanwhile, well-documented scientific information on their well-documented causes remains undisclosed or ignored by the ACS, as published by Dr. Epstein in his 2005 book, Cancer Gate: How To Win The Losing Cancer War.
1971 The ACS refused to testify at Congressional hearings requiring FDA to ban the intramuscular injection of diethylstilbestrol, a synthetic estrogenic hormone, to fatten cattle, despite unequivocal evidence of its carcinogenicity, and the cancer risks of eating hormonal meat. Not surprisingly, U.S. meat is banned by other nations worldwide.
1977 The ACS opposed regulating black or dark brown hair dyes, based on paraphenylenediamine in spite of clear evidence of its risks of non-Hodgkins lymphoma, besides other cancers.
1978 Tony Mazzocchi, then senior international union labor representative, protested that "Occupational safety standards have received no support from the ACS." This has resulted in the increasing incidence of a wide range of avoidable cancers.
1978 Cong. Paul Rogers censured ACS for its failure to support the Clean Air Act in order to protect interests of the automobile industry
1982 The ACS adopted restrictive cancer policies, rejecting evidence based on standard rodent tests, which are widely accepted by governmental agencies worldwide and also by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
1984 The ACS created the industry-funded October National Breast Cancer Awareness Month to falsely assure women that "early (mammography) detection results in a cure nearly 100 percent of the time." Responding to question, ACS admitted: "Mammography today is a lucrative [and] highly competitive business." Also, the Awareness Month ignores substantial information on avoidable causes of breast cancer.
1992 The ACS supported the Chlorine Institute in defending the continued use of carcinogenic chlorinated pesticides, despite their environmental persistence and carcinogenicity.
1993 Anticipating the Public Broadcast Service (PBS) Frontline special "In Our Children's Food," the ACS trivialized pesticides as a cause of childhood cancer and charged PBS with "junk science." The ACS went further by questioning, "Can we afford the PBS?"
1994 The ACS published a highly flawed study designed to trivialize cancer risks from the use of dark hair dyes.
1998 The ACS allocated $330,000, under 1 percent of its then $680 million budget, to claimed research on environmental cancer.
1999 The ACS trivialized risks of breast, colon and prostate cancers from consumption of rBGH genetically modified milk. Not surprisingly, U.S. milk is banned by other nations worldwide.
2002 The ACS announced its active participation in the "Look Good...Feel Better Program," launched in 1989 by the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association, to "help women cancer patients restore their appearance and self-image during chemotherapy and radiation treatment." This program was partnered by a wide range of leading cosmetics industries, which failed to disclose information on the carcinogenic, and other toxic ingredients in their products donated to unsuspecting women.
2002 The ACS reassured the nation that carcinogenicity exposures from dietary pesticides, "toxic waste in dump sites, "ionizing radiation from "closely controlled" nuclear power plants, and non-ionizing radiation, are all "at such low levels that cancer risks are negligible." ACS indifference to cancer prevention became embedded in national cancer policy, following the appointment of Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, ACS Past President-Elect, as National Cancer Institute (NCI) Director.
2005 The ACS indifference to cancer prevention other than smoking, remains unchanged, despite the escalating incidence of cancer, and its $ billion budget.
"Some of the more startling realities in the failure to prevent cancers are illustrated by their soaring increases from 1975 to 2005, when the latest NCI epidemiological data are available," Dr. Epstein emphasizes.
These include:
Malignant melanoma of the skin in adults has increased by 168 percent due to the use of sunscreens in childhood that fail to block long wave ultraviolet light;
Thyroid cancer has increased by 124 percent due in large part to ionizing radiation;
Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma has increased 76 percent due mostly to phenoxy herbicides; and phenylenediamine hair dyes;
Testicular cancer has increased by 49 percent due to pesticides; hormonal ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products; and estrogen residues in meat;
Childhood leukemia has increased by 55 percent due to ionizing radiation; domestic pesticides; nitrite preservatives in meats, particularly hot dogs; and parental exposures to occupational carcinogens;
Ovary cancer (mortality) for women over the age of 65 has increased by 47 percent in African American women and 13 percent in Caucasian women due to genital use of talc powder;
Breast cancer has increased 17 percent due to a wide range of factors. These include: birth control pills; estrogen replacement therapy; toxic hormonal ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products; diagnostic radiation; and routine premenopausal mammography, with a cumulative breast dose exposure of up to about five rads over ten years.
MAJOR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Public Relations
1998-2000: PR for the ACS was handled by Shandwick International, whose major clients included R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings.
2000-2002: PR for the ACS was handled by Edelman Public Relations, whose major clients included Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company, and the Altria Group, the parent company of Philip Morris, Kraft, and fast food and soft drink beverage companies.
All these companies were promptly dismissed once this information was revealed by the Cancer Prevention Coalition.
INDUSTRY FUNDING
ACS has received contributions in excess of $100,000 from a wide range of "Excalibur Donors," many of whom continue to manufacture carcinogenic products, Dr. Epstein points out.
These include:
Petrochemical companies (DuPont; BP; and Pennzoil)
Industrial waste companies (BFI Waste Systems)
Junk food companies (Wendy's International; McDonalds's; Unilever/Best Foods; and Coca-Cola)
Big Pharma (AstraZenceca; Bristol Myers Squibb; GlaxoSmithKline; Merck & Company; and Novartis)
Biotech companies (Amgen; and Genentech)
Cosmetic companies (Christian Dior; Avon; Revlon; Elizabeth Arden; and Estee Lauder)
Auto companies (Nissan; General Motors)
Nevertheless, as reported in the December 8, 2009 New York Times, the ACS responded that it "holds itself to the highest standards of transparency and public accountability, and we look forward to working with Senator Grassley to provide the information he requested."
THE CHRONICLE OF PHILANTHROPY
As the nation's leading charity watch dog, the Chronicle has warned against the transfer of money from the public purse to private hands, says Dr. Epstein, who points out that the Chronicle also warned that "The ACS is more interested in accumulating wealth than in saving lives."
A copy of this release has been sent to Senator Charles E. Grassley, of Iowa. This news release has also been sent to: staff members of relevant Congressional committees; senior officials in all regulatory agencies; and senior officials in all 50 state health departments.
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health; Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition; and a former President of the Rachel Carson Trust. His awards include the 1989 Right Livelihood Award and the 2005 Albert Schweitzer Golden Grand Medal for International Contributions to Cancer Prevention. Dr. Epstein has authored 20 scientific articles and 15 books on cancer prevention, including the groundbreaking The Politics of Cancer (1979), and most recently Toxic Beauty (2009, Benbella Books) about carcinogens in cosmetics and personal care products.
CONTACT:
Samuel S. Epstein, MD
Professor emeritus Environmental & Occupational Medicine
University of Illinois Chicago School of Public Health
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
Chicago, Illinois 60612
Tel. 312-996-2297
Email: epstein@uic.edu
Web: www.preventcancer.com
http://world-wire.com/news/0912280002.html
Reckless Indifference Of The American Cancer Society To Cancer Prevention
CHICAGO, IL, December 28, 2009 --/WORLD-WIRE/-- Early this month, top Republican Senator Charles E. Grassley sent letters to the American Cancer Society (ACS), besides the American Medical Association (AMA) and 31 other medical advocacy groups, asking them to provide detailed information on tax-deductible funds that they have received from drug and device makers. Such funds have encouraged these organizations to lobby on behalf of a wide range of industries and strongly influence public policy, says Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition.
Senator Grassley also invited involvement of "whistleblowers interested in establishing communication regarding wrongdoing or misuse of public dollars."
However, this wrongdoing still remains unrecognized by policy makers, let alone by the public, says Dr. Epstein. As a result, he warns, "the incidence of a wide range of avoidable cancers has continued to escalate."
Meanwhile, well-documented scientific information on their well-documented causes remains undisclosed or ignored by the ACS, as published by Dr. Epstein in his 2005 book, Cancer Gate: How To Win The Losing Cancer War.
1971 The ACS refused to testify at Congressional hearings requiring FDA to ban the intramuscular injection of diethylstilbestrol, a synthetic estrogenic hormone, to fatten cattle, despite unequivocal evidence of its carcinogenicity, and the cancer risks of eating hormonal meat. Not surprisingly, U.S. meat is banned by other nations worldwide.
1977 The ACS opposed regulating black or dark brown hair dyes, based on paraphenylenediamine in spite of clear evidence of its risks of non-Hodgkins lymphoma, besides other cancers.
1978 Tony Mazzocchi, then senior international union labor representative, protested that "Occupational safety standards have received no support from the ACS." This has resulted in the increasing incidence of a wide range of avoidable cancers.
1978 Cong. Paul Rogers censured ACS for its failure to support the Clean Air Act in order to protect interests of the automobile industry
1982 The ACS adopted restrictive cancer policies, rejecting evidence based on standard rodent tests, which are widely accepted by governmental agencies worldwide and also by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
1984 The ACS created the industry-funded October National Breast Cancer Awareness Month to falsely assure women that "early (mammography) detection results in a cure nearly 100 percent of the time." Responding to question, ACS admitted: "Mammography today is a lucrative [and] highly competitive business." Also, the Awareness Month ignores substantial information on avoidable causes of breast cancer.
1992 The ACS supported the Chlorine Institute in defending the continued use of carcinogenic chlorinated pesticides, despite their environmental persistence and carcinogenicity.
1993 Anticipating the Public Broadcast Service (PBS) Frontline special "In Our Children's Food," the ACS trivialized pesticides as a cause of childhood cancer and charged PBS with "junk science." The ACS went further by questioning, "Can we afford the PBS?"
1994 The ACS published a highly flawed study designed to trivialize cancer risks from the use of dark hair dyes.
1998 The ACS allocated $330,000, under 1 percent of its then $680 million budget, to claimed research on environmental cancer.
1999 The ACS trivialized risks of breast, colon and prostate cancers from consumption of rBGH genetically modified milk. Not surprisingly, U.S. milk is banned by other nations worldwide.
2002 The ACS announced its active participation in the "Look Good...Feel Better Program," launched in 1989 by the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association, to "help women cancer patients restore their appearance and self-image during chemotherapy and radiation treatment." This program was partnered by a wide range of leading cosmetics industries, which failed to disclose information on the carcinogenic, and other toxic ingredients in their products donated to unsuspecting women.
2002 The ACS reassured the nation that carcinogenicity exposures from dietary pesticides, "toxic waste in dump sites, "ionizing radiation from "closely controlled" nuclear power plants, and non-ionizing radiation, are all "at such low levels that cancer risks are negligible." ACS indifference to cancer prevention became embedded in national cancer policy, following the appointment of Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, ACS Past President-Elect, as National Cancer Institute (NCI) Director.
2005 The ACS indifference to cancer prevention other than smoking, remains unchanged, despite the escalating incidence of cancer, and its $ billion budget.
"Some of the more startling realities in the failure to prevent cancers are illustrated by their soaring increases from 1975 to 2005, when the latest NCI epidemiological data are available," Dr. Epstein emphasizes.
These include:
Malignant melanoma of the skin in adults has increased by 168 percent due to the use of sunscreens in childhood that fail to block long wave ultraviolet light;
Thyroid cancer has increased by 124 percent due in large part to ionizing radiation;
Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma has increased 76 percent due mostly to phenoxy herbicides; and phenylenediamine hair dyes;
Testicular cancer has increased by 49 percent due to pesticides; hormonal ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products; and estrogen residues in meat;
Childhood leukemia has increased by 55 percent due to ionizing radiation; domestic pesticides; nitrite preservatives in meats, particularly hot dogs; and parental exposures to occupational carcinogens;
Ovary cancer (mortality) for women over the age of 65 has increased by 47 percent in African American women and 13 percent in Caucasian women due to genital use of talc powder;
Breast cancer has increased 17 percent due to a wide range of factors. These include: birth control pills; estrogen replacement therapy; toxic hormonal ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products; diagnostic radiation; and routine premenopausal mammography, with a cumulative breast dose exposure of up to about five rads over ten years.
MAJOR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Public Relations
1998-2000: PR for the ACS was handled by Shandwick International, whose major clients included R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings.
2000-2002: PR for the ACS was handled by Edelman Public Relations, whose major clients included Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company, and the Altria Group, the parent company of Philip Morris, Kraft, and fast food and soft drink beverage companies.
All these companies were promptly dismissed once this information was revealed by the Cancer Prevention Coalition.
INDUSTRY FUNDING
ACS has received contributions in excess of $100,000 from a wide range of "Excalibur Donors," many of whom continue to manufacture carcinogenic products, Dr. Epstein points out.
These include:
Petrochemical companies (DuPont; BP; and Pennzoil)
Industrial waste companies (BFI Waste Systems)
Junk food companies (Wendy's International; McDonalds's; Unilever/Best Foods; and Coca-Cola)
Big Pharma (AstraZenceca; Bristol Myers Squibb; GlaxoSmithKline; Merck & Company; and Novartis)
Biotech companies (Amgen; and Genentech)
Cosmetic companies (Christian Dior; Avon; Revlon; Elizabeth Arden; and Estee Lauder)
Auto companies (Nissan; General Motors)
Nevertheless, as reported in the December 8, 2009 New York Times, the ACS responded that it "holds itself to the highest standards of transparency and public accountability, and we look forward to working with Senator Grassley to provide the information he requested."
THE CHRONICLE OF PHILANTHROPY
As the nation's leading charity watch dog, the Chronicle has warned against the transfer of money from the public purse to private hands, says Dr. Epstein, who points out that the Chronicle also warned that "The ACS is more interested in accumulating wealth than in saving lives."
A copy of this release has been sent to Senator Charles E. Grassley, of Iowa. This news release has also been sent to: staff members of relevant Congressional committees; senior officials in all regulatory agencies; and senior officials in all 50 state health departments.
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health; Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition; and a former President of the Rachel Carson Trust. His awards include the 1989 Right Livelihood Award and the 2005 Albert Schweitzer Golden Grand Medal for International Contributions to Cancer Prevention. Dr. Epstein has authored 20 scientific articles and 15 books on cancer prevention, including the groundbreaking The Politics of Cancer (1979), and most recently Toxic Beauty (2009, Benbella Books) about carcinogens in cosmetics and personal care products.
CONTACT:
Samuel S. Epstein, MD
Professor emeritus Environmental & Occupational Medicine
University of Illinois Chicago School of Public Health
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
Chicago, Illinois 60612
Tel. 312-996-2297
Email: epstein@uic.edu
Web: www.preventcancer.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)