An Important Source

Sometimes the short articles say the most, as with Pentagon can keep funding Scout event in today's paper. A federal appellate court has ruled that it isn't a violation of the separation of church and state for the military to help fund the annual Boy Scout Jamboree, held at a military base in Virginia.

Funding has been going on for 35 years now, and it is clearly a violation of church-state separation. But the important thing is the main issue for the military: the Boy Scouts are a "useful recruiting and training tool." The BSA has long been a bastion of blind patriotism and religion. You aren't technically allowed to be a member unless you are religious; atheists need not apply.

It would be nice to see a real separation of church and state, but that's only possible in a democracy. Cases like this, while sad in that they show how far we are from a more humane society, also bare wide open the real nature of this system in a straightforward way. It also shows how intimately connected religion and the state are.

Why Attorneys Matter

The media and Congress is making much of the firing and resignations of several U.S. attorneys. Much of the blame is being put on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, despite the complete glossing over of his bigger crime in the promotion of torture to public U.S. policy. Certainly, the Democratic Party has something to gain electorally by pressing this issue. It seems that the reason these firings are a bigger issue, however, is because it undermines the American illusion in a fundamental way.

It is one thing for the nation to carry out unspeakable acts. It is an entirely different thing to make plain that the checks and balances of the system are in fact illusion. The legal system is a fundamental part of the illusion that the people have some sort of check on the government. High school civics classes across the nation go to great lengths to instill this notion.

To paraphrase George Carlin, it is called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.

The Game is Up

Capitalism has been bankrupt for a long time, but its inability to deal with global warming is a wonderful example of just how bankrupt it is. Game over on global warming? highlights this well.

What is the first proposal that the article makes, even if only in "jest"? That all American abandon their cars for bicycles. The EPA administrator says, "As a citizen, each of us has an opportunity to make a difference." But then their own statistics later on reveal this common attitude, i.e. that individuals should have to suffer and sacrifice for the greater corporate good. Motor traffic and transport account for 7.3% of global emissions. Power plants, however, account for 39%. Seems a little obvious that we should start with the big dogs, but then energy companies are a major component of the ruling class, so we cannot expect them to sacrifice themselves (and by sacrifice, we mean take less profits).

They hint at one way the U.S. is trying to solve the problem today — "If the rest of the world returned to the Stone Age." Maybe U.S. foreign policy is more forward-looking that we realized. By returning Iraq and Afghanistan to the stone age, we are helping to stem global warming. Who's next? Any volunteers?

But we've seen where the U.S. and the rest of the imperialist powers stand and how far they are willing to go. The war in Iraq is about oil and the control of that oil-producing region. Another chunk of our foreign policy is about preventing Iran and North Korea from developing nuclear energy, thus keeping them dependent upon fossil fuels — another article in today's paper reports that a deal might be in the making with North Korea to supply them with oil in lieu of the two light-water reactors they were promised over a decade ago. And blame continues to be heaped upon China; how dare they try to expand their economy so recklessly? The second suggestion, of course, was that the "Chinese could close all their factories."

Real change requires large-scale action. People cannot "give up" their cars simply because of this problem. Real alternatives have to be produced, and we see here in L.A. how, despite the glaring need, even the "transportation" mayor is dragging his feet on putting in real mass transit and doing it now. Every proposal a capitalist politician puts forth is an attack against working people, an enforced sacrifice so that corporate profits might be protected for a little while longer. This system offers no solutions for humanity, only for itself.

Protecting the Cattle Industry

Three separate bills have been introduced to address the E. coli issues that arose last year with spinach and lettuce here in California (Bills would target unsafe farming of leafy greens). The bills basically call for more restrictions, inspections, and accountability for those "farmers" producing leafy greens.

The problem with this is that E. coli is a bacteria that lives in the intestinal track of mammals. Last I heard, leafy greens were plants that grow out of the ground, now out of a mammalian hind end. Since the focus of the laws is the greens growers, it seems an obvious maneuver to avoid blaming the people who should be responsible for keeping E. coli out of the water and fertilizer supply. Another example of good old fashioned American blaming the victim.

Even if the cause of these particular outbreaks is not directly attributable to nearby cattle farms, it doesn't negate the fact that more people in the U.S. die or get sick from E. coli because of infected beef than from anything else, but somehow those stories aren't big news.

In Case You Were Worried

The Democrats are the party of delusion, and they gather their votes through the illusion that they are different from their sister party. Events continue to show what the real difference is. Despite an overwhelming mandate in the 2006 election to get the U.S. out of Iraq, all Congress is willing to do at this point is non-binding resolutions while continuing to sign the checks.

In case there was any doubt as to what would happen to the Gemini relationship of business and politicians with a new Congress, this article sheds some light on the matter: Lobbyists find new Congress is open for business. A lobbyist from Bracewell & Giuliani says it about as well as can be expected in a public statement: "One of the lessons is that good lobbying is always bipartisan."

The article has its own twist. It presents the situation as one where other groups besides business are getting a voice. The counterpoint is that you cannot win an election like the last one and expect to do nothing ... there must still be token gestures. By no accounts will the Oil industry be hurt by the elimination of subsidies – all honest economists will tell you this and a basic understanding of economics should confirm it &ndash and the bills passed only cut a small portion of those subsidies. But the public effect is to fuel the illusion that the Democrats have done something about excessive Oil profits. The same goes for Medicare changes (which don't do what would be a baby step in fixing the problem) and the minimum wage increase (long overdue and loaded with subsidies).

Regarding Atheism

An editorial the other day, 10 myths -- and 10 truths -- about atheism, lays out ten common "misconceptions" about atheists and the reality behind these falsehoods. The article does a pretty good job of laying out the arguments and countering them. It is written in a rational, thought-out manner and exposes these arguments against atheism as complete contradictions.

The real problem here, though, is that these are not genuine arguments. These ten points are not issues that are brought up against atheists. These are the talking points of the evangelical preachers and politicians and are all about distraction and avoidance of real issues. By addressing the arguments as if they are real, the author is legitimizing their war against anyone who is not of their sect. Instead, these people need to be exposed for who they are, lest we waste our effort trying to give bulk to their straw men.

Still Sick

Nothing to add to my last post except this article, which just came out from the Nobel winner Joseph Stiglitz: Scrooge and intellectual property rights.

Making Us Sick

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released a study, New Drug Development: Science, Business, Regulatory, and Intellectual Property Issues Cited as Hampering Drug Development Efforts, an analysis of the problems with the drug industry in the past decade. For example, only 12% of new drug patents are for truly innovative drugs that might help people; the rest are primarily for "me-too" drugs or insignificant modifications to existing drugs with the primary purpose of extending the patent and profits. Although half of their conclusions shouldn't be taken even with a grain of salt, the data is interesting. The best part, of course, is that this is the government, so the data has the veneer of neutrality.

Despite the numerous claims by the drug industry to what is hindering their progress, the statistics show that drug approval times are actually diminishing and the chances of getting approved have not varied. The report effectively lays out the flaws in a for-profit drug research model, where the vast majority of truly significant advances are still coming from government and charity-funded research. The path of least resistance for capitalism is the me-too drugs and sexy drugs, not necessarily something that will help people who are suffering from serious problems. Industry complains about FDA guidelines getting in the way, but the report does not offer any clear demonstration that this is something that has change significantly in the past ten years.

The reality is that we need more restrictive drug approval, instead of the system that has gotten things like Vioxx into the marketplace. Drug news over the past several years has shown how linked the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry are.

The proposals out of this report will do little to aid the rest of us. Shorter patents for non-innovative drugs isn't an answer: no patents is. And putting longer patents on innovative drugs isn't the problem, since the drug that might help (or even cure, a notion contrary to profit motives?) isn't likely to be profitable. Furthermore, such drugs should be quickly and cheaply available on a widespread basis, not restricted to only the wealthiest patients for years to come.

Disparate Reporting

No big deal. With potentially 800,000 people subject to identity theft because UCLA hadn't spotted a leak for a year, it was front page news for a couple days. When Boeing announced that the personal information of nearly 400,000 workers was on a stolen laptop, it was buried in a small article in the Business section (Information on Boeing workers, retirees stolen). Given that Boeing is one of largest employers in the L.A. area, you'd have thought it was bigger news.

I haven't gotten my letter yet from UCLA, but I've been told that they offer to lock the files of those of us at risk ... for a fee. Boeing at least has the decency to offer credit monitoring for three years for those affected. Maybe they are charging a fee, too, but the article doesn't indicate that. Given that it is their responsibility, it is the least they should do.

Cancer from IBM

As a result of a lawsuit, IBM released a large data set of its former employees and the causes of their deaths. This, in turn, resulted in a study, Mortality among US employees of a large computer manufacturing company: 1969–2001.

Summing it up quickly, there is an increased amount of cancer among workers who had been employed at their factories. IBM, of course, denied the findings of the study, which was the largest (10,219 people after removing incomplete records) study of its kind for a computer hardware manufacturer. IBM was also not cooperative with helping flesh out the data, though that should be expected since it could lead to more liability on their part.