Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Red-light cameras spark debate in Texas cities

(More of a local issue, I guess.--jef)

***

Published on 07-20-2010 | Dallas Morning News

Red-light cameras, which have split the driving public like few other topics of the road, are reaching a public opinion crossroads.

Texas cities have collected more than $103 million in fines since a revised red-light camera law took effect in 2007. Houston has collected the largest chunk: some $24 million through May, state figures show.

Cities insist the cameras have cut intersection accidents and saved lives. But the rising revenue totals have fueled a public backlash and reinforced perceptions that their main impetus is money.

Lawmakers in Maine, Mississippi and Montana banned red-light cameras last year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Six other states recently considered similar proposals.

In Texas, College Station voters last fall forced their city to take down its cameras. Houston opponents say they have enough petition signatures to put the cameras to a vote this fall. And the Texas House of Representatives last year passed a measure that would have phased out the cameras. Though it failed in the Senate, camera opponents say they plan to try again.

"There is a backlash, for sure," said state Rep. Solomon Ortiz Jr., D-Corpus Christi, who co-sponsored the anti-camera push. "City budgeters are counting on these fines as a revenue stream and simply using the argument of safety as cover."

Safety claims

That sentiment clashes with the opinion of many engineers and city officials who say the cameras have, unequivocally, improved intersection safety.

The cameras capture images, and sometimes video, of drivers running red lights. The images are vetted by the camera company and, ultimately, by police. Most Texas cities charge civil fines of between $75 and $100 per violation. More studies than not suggest the cameras work, at least to some degree.

"They've performed much better than I ever imagined," said Elizabeth Ramirez, chief traffic engineer for Dallas. The city has witnessed declines in red-light accidents at nearly every one of its 59 camera-equipped intersections since the first wave launched in January 2007, she said.

While camera critics dispute the safety data, the money generated has raised even more questions and intrigue, especially as collections have pushed into the tens of millions. A 2007 state law requires cities to set aside half of all profits to help fund regional trauma care centers. Most cities use their share for traffic safety and enforcement efforts.

Houston police Sgt. Michael Muench, who oversees that city's red-light camera program, said his department has plowed all revenues into crash-scene investigation equipment, extra traffic patrols, radar guns and other traffic-related improvements. "So far, it's working," Muench said. Critics point to large disparities in the profits cities generate as evidence that some are just out to make a buck.

"In College Station, cameras were not put at the most dangerous intersections, but the most profitable ones," said Jim Ash, a sales representative who began the petition drive to take down the cameras there.

In fact, the contracts that cities have with camera vendors are the biggest factor in whether or not a city makes money, according to an analysis of state figures and the vendor agreements of about a dozen Texas cities. Cities do not purchase, operate and maintain the equipment outright. Rather, they rent the cameras from vendors under negotiated terms. Houston's $24 million haul since 2007 is more than triple the total fines collected by Dallas, according to figures from the state comptroller's office. And in the last two years, Dallas' program has cost more to run than Houston's.

That is because Houston pays a flat monthly fee of $3,000 per camera, plus bonuses if a camera catches a high number of violations. In contrast, Dallas pays its vendor $3,800 per camera per month. Houston, which has 70 cameras, uses American Traffic Solutions Inc., of Arizona. Dallas, with 59 cameras, uses a hometown contractor, Affiliated Computer Services.

Deficit in Garland

Garland, which also uses ACS and is believed to be the first city in Texas to install the cameras, has run a deficit in its program that once reached almost $300,000. The city has gradually paid back the contractor with red-light camera funds.

George Kauffman, Garland's finance director, suggested the shortfall proves that the city's goal has never been profit. He also argued that Garland's 12 cameras have proven so effective that the program now collects fewer fines than before.

"We're trying to do it for the right reasons," he said. "As long as we're breaking even and taking care of our costs, then we're happy."

The city's less-favorable camera contract, however, has played a big role in the financial difficulties. Garland pays ACS nearly $5,000 a month per camera. The city also is paying ACS for the installation of three extra cameras in 2008. Most cities do not pay for installation.

All told, Garland is paying twice as much to operate some of its cameras as Houston. Kauffman noted that Garland, as one of the first to install cameras in 2003, had fewer vendor options than Houston.

Houston's larger collections, of course, have led to public resistance and the petition drive to repeal the cameras.

Paul Kubosh, a Houston traffic attorney who has led the petition drive, accused the city of "selling the streets to the highest bidder. It's a voter revolt."

Jim McGrath, a consultant who works for a group tied to Houston's camera vendor, American Traffic Solutions Inc., said red-light cameras are easy targets for criticism. After all, he said, they raise the specter of Big Brother and "are something everyone can identify with."

But he added, "If these cameras were catching child molesters, we would insist on having them on every corner. ... Critics who say this is just a money grab are really saying that the city of Houston is being too efficient at enforcing the law."

BP fakes photo of Crisis Command Center

(Some people say that corporate corruption is just a conspiracy theory. Why would a corporation do anything bad? It would cost them customers! Then explain why after causing the worst environmental disaster in history would they follow it up with so many brainless gaffes, including this latest one.--jef)

***

BP photoshops fake photo of crisis command center, posts on main BP site
07-20-2010

BP has  now posted the "original" photo, they claim. Except - surprise - they are refusing to post the high-resolution version of the new "original" photo. They posted the high-res version of the altered photo earlier, and in fact, that version is still live via a link below the new photo. Why not post the high-res version of the new "original" photo? Afraid someone is going to enlarge it and find out it's fake too?

UPDATE 10:37PM Eastern: The Washington Post has the story now. Oddly, BP is now claiming that the photo is real - but it showed blank screens, and rather than show blank screens at AP's crisis center, they instead put fake content-filled screens in the photo. Uh, a few questions.

1) Why were the screens in the crisis center blank in the middle of the crisis? Coffee break?

2) The BP spokesman claims that the photographer photoshopped the changes. Really? A professional photographer hired by BP Photoshops so poorly that a 12 year old kid could do a better job. Really? Let me show you what BP said exactly, and then the photo that supposedly this "professional" edited:
Scott Dean, a spokesman for BP, said that there was nothing sinister in the photo alteration and provided the original unaltered version. He said that a photographer working for the company had inserted the three images in spots where the video screens were blank.
Now here is the Photoshop job that the "professional" photographer did - this is just one part of the photo that he screwed up:


Anyone who has ever used Photoshop knows that this is an incredibly amateur job. I can do far better than this, and I tend to play with Photoshop for fun. We're to believe that a professional photographer did this poor a job, for pay, for a huge corporate client? Really? No one would hire this photographer again if this is true. Oh, and the photographer added the fake screens to the photo, what, without BP's permission? That's what they're implying, "the photographer did it."

3) Why does the meta data show that the photo was actually taken on March 6, 2001? Or is BP next going to tell us that their professional photographer has never set the time and date stamp on his multi-thousand dollar camera? Because then all of his photos for all of his clients will be screwed up. Really?

UPDATE: The photo contains data suggesting it was taken in 2001, not July of 2010 as claimed on BP's Web site. That would suggest, at least one possibility is, that BP took an old photo and Photoshopped new pictures of the oil spill over it, to make it look "new." More on this at the end of the post.

I guess if you're doing fake crisis response, you might as well fake a photo of the crisis response center. Why do they need a fake photo at all? Don't they have a real crisis response center they could have used?

Original BP Photo that is linked off of this page, with a snippet of the photo:


Note the bad Photoshop job on the parts I cropped and blew up - click on each photo to see the larger version, which makes it painfully clear that they faked the photo (poorly, at that):








UPDATE: BP has apologized for the Photoshopped version of its command center, and it has just released this new, unedited version.


In all seriousness, an astute reader noticed that the meta info for the photo says it was created in 2001, not July 16, 2010 as claimed on BP's site. It looks like BP took a photo from 2001, and in order to make it look like the command center in July of 2010, they pasted pictures of the oil well leaking over the old photo.


Altered BP photo comes into question

By Steven Mufson | Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Apparently BP is no more adept at doctoring photos than it is at plugging deep-sea oil leaks (see images in previous post--jef).

A blogger has noticed that the oil giant altered a photograph of its Houston crisis room, cutting and pasting three underwater images into a wall of video feeds from remotely operated undersea vehicles. The altered photo is displayed prominently on the company's Web site.

An enlarged version of the photograph reveals flaws in the editing job. One of the 10 images sticks down into the head of one of the people sitting in front of the wall, while another piece of the image is separated from the other side of the head by jagged white space. The right side of the same image also hangs down below the area on which the video feeds were projected.

John Aravosis pointed out the alterations Monday evening on his Americablog.com and observed, "I guess if you're doing fake crisis response, you might as well fake a photo of the crisis response center." The photo doctoring comes as BP has promised transparency in a bid to regain the public's trust.

Scott Dean, a spokesman for BP, said that there was nothing sinister in the photo alteration and provided the original unaltered version. He said that a photographer working for the company had inserted the three images in spots where the video screens were blank.

"Normally we only use Photoshop for the typical purposes of color correction and cropping," Dean said in an e-mail. "In this case they copied and pasted three ROV screen images in the original photo over three screens that were not running video feeds at the time."

Dean said BP usually has a couple remotely operated vehicles on the surface at any given time for maintenance.

"We will replace the Photoshopped version currently on bp.com with the original image tonight," he added. "We've instructed our post-production team to refrain from doing this in the future."

Feds: BP's cap stays on, new leaks insignificant

(Yeah, this sounds encouraging. It sounds like another bad decision made by idiots with no foresight--one we will all regret soon. I hope I'm wrong.--jef)

***

Feds say oil and gas leaking from cap on BP's well of minor concern, focus instead on big fix
COLLEEN LONG and MATTHEW DALY | AP News | Jul 20, 2010 07:30 EDT

Oil from BP's blown out well is again seeping into the Gulf of Mexico, but this time, more slowly and scientists aren't convinced the cap that stopped the flow last week is making things worse.

The government said Monday that oil was seeping into the Gulf after days of warning that the experimental cap on the oil well could cause more leaks.

Despite what at first seemed a setback, though, the federal government declared the development insignificant and forged ahead with BP's plan for finally sealing the hole in the ocean floor.

Ever since the cap was used to bottle up the oil last week, engineers have been watching underwater cameras and monitoring pressure and seismic readings to see whether the well would hold or spring a new leak, perhaps one that could rupture the sea floor and make the disaster even worse.

Small amounts of oil and gas started coming from the cap late Sunday, but "we do not believe it is consequential at this time," retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen said.

Also, seepage from the sea floor was detected over the weekend less than two miles away, but Allen said it probably has nothing to do with the well. Oil and gas are known to ooze naturally from fissures in the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.

At a Monday afternoon briefing in Washington, Allen said BP could keep the cap closed at least another 24 hours, as long as the company remained alert for leaks.

Since the cap was closed Thursday, beachgoers have reported less oil fouling the shore.

Bob Broadway, 41, of Huntsville, Ala., said his vacation spot in Orange Beach, Ala., has improved from a month ago.

Then, he said, the oil was thick "like chocolate" and the beach smelled like "an old mechanic's garage."

"The beach looks better now than before," he said Monday.

BP and the government had been at odds over the company's desire to simply leave the cap in place and employ it like a giant cork in a bottle until a relief well being drilled deep underground can be used to plug up the well permanently.

Allen initially said his preference was to pipe oil through the cap to tankers on the surface to reduce the slight chance that the buildup of pressure inside the well would cause a new blowout. That plan would require releasing millions more gallons of oil into the ocean for a few days during the transition — a spectacle BP apparently wants to avoid.

On Monday, Allen budged a bit, saying unless larger problems develop, he's not inclined to open the cap.

Also on the table: Pumping drilling mud through the top of the cap and into the well bore to stop up the oil flow. The idea is similar to the failed top kill plan that couldn't overcome the pressure of the geyser pushing up.

BP said it could work now because there's less oil to fight against, but it wasn't clear how such a method would affect the cap's stability. Allen said the relief well was still the plan for a permanent fix.

BP and the government are still trying to understand why pressure readings from the well are lower than expected. Allen offered two possible explanations: The reservoir the oil is gushing from is dwindling, or there is an undiscovered leak somewhere down in the well.

Work on a permanent plug is moving steadily, with crews drilling into the side of the ruptured well from deep underground. By next week, they could start blasting in mud and cement to block off the well for good. Killing the well deep underground works more reliably than bottling it up with a cap.

Somewhere between 94 million and 184 million gallons have gushed into the Gulf over the past three months in one of America's worst environmental crises.

BP PLC said the cost of dealing with the spill has now reached nearly $4 billion. The company said it has made payments totaling $207 million to settle claims for damages. Almost 116,000 claims have been submitted and more than 67,500 payments have been made. BP stock was down slightly Monday.

Gulf oil disaster could destroy over 100,000 jobs

By Agence France-Presse | Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

The impact of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill was thrown into sharp relief Tuesday, as US data showed rising unemployment in Louisiana and experts warned the disaster could cost up to 100,000 jobs.

The US Department of Labor said Louisiana -- among the US states worst hit by the spill -- was one of only five states across the country to see a rise in unemployment last month, with the jobless rate up 0.2 points to seven percent.

While the bayou state's unemployment rate remains well below the national average of 9.5 percent, the data comes amid warnings that a worst-case scenario would see 100,000 jobs lost across the Gulf Coast.

Analysts at Moody's reported that the region could face billions of dollars in lost growth from the spill, depending on whether a recent cap halts the flow of crude.

"Moody's Analytics estimates that nearly 1.2 billion dollars in output and 17,000 jobs will be lost in the Gulf Coast states by the end of this year," the firm said in a report.

"Under a more pessimistic scenario in which the oil spill continues through December and President (Barack) Obama's moratorium on deepwater drilling is extended until year's end, 7.4 billion dollars in output and over 100,000 jobs would be lost."

BP crafted a new plan Tuesday hoping to seal for good the blown-out well that has disgorged oil onto hundreds of miles (kilometers) of coastline, ravaging thousands of livelihoods.

"The most direct impact thus far is being felt by the Gulf Coast's sizeable fishing and aquaculture industry, especially in Louisiana," Moody's said.

The oystermen, shrimpers and others affected by the spill stand to claim spill damages from BP, which has set aside 20 billion dollars in compensation.

"The largest economic impact of the oil spill will be at the local level.... Louisiana and Florida are likely to be hardest hit because of Louisiana's heavy dependence on fishing, aquaculture and oil extraction, and Florida's heavy dependence on tourism."

But Moody's warned that a larger economic impact may come from a decision by Obama's administration to freeze deep-sea oil drilling.

"The potential for even greater economic damage to Louisiana's economy stems from President Obama's six-month moratorium on new offshore drilling."

The order froze the work of 33 rigs, including 20 off the coast of Houma, Louisiana.

The Scariest Unemployment Graph Yet

JUL 20 2010, 12:00 PM ET|



The median duration of unemployment is higher today than any time in the last 50 years. That's an understatement. It is more than twice as high today than any time in the last 50 years.

What does this mean? Does it mean we must increase the duration of unemployment benefits to protect this new class of unemployed, or does it mean we need to stop subsidizing joblessness? Does it mean we need to expand federal retraining programs, or does it mean federal retraining programs aren't working? Does it mean we need more stimulus, more state aid, more infrastructure projects, more public works ... or does it mean it's time to stop everything, stand back and let business be business?

You're going to find smart people make a case for all six of the above public policy directions. (Most tend to side with the first of each coupling.) It's hard to know for sure how to design public policy for historically unique crises precisely because they are historical orphans, without precedent to show us the right way from the wrong.

One of my first reactions to this graph was: Surely this is why we don't have to worry about inflation for a very, very long time. However, here's evidence that despite the historically inverse relationship between inflation and joblessness, "the long-term unemployed put less downward pressure on inflation." Ultimately, this is a graph that should humble policy makers more than it should scare them into confidently arguing they know exactly how to fix it.

Senate advances unemployment extension bill

Jul 20, 2010 | USA Today On Politics

Millions of out-of-work Americans would continue to receive unemployment benefits through November under legislation that cleared a major procedural hurdle in the Senate today after months of debate.

Democrats captured the 60 votes required to overcome GOP opposition only after swearing in a new Democratic senator from West Virginia, Carte Goodwin, who will temporarily fill the seat left vacant by the June 28 death of Robert Byrd.

The legislation, which was supported by President Obama, will extend benefits for those who have already used their standard 26 weeks of unemployment. The measure now faces a final vote in the Senate and must also clear the House of Representatives.

Republicans have said they also support extending the benefits but argue that the $34 billion cost of the proposal should not add to the deficit. "Of course we ought to extend unemployment," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "But we ought to pay for it."

The vote came just minutes after Goodwin was sworn in, giving Democrats the 60 votes they needed to overcome the threat of a GOP filibuster. Goodwin was escorted on to the Senate floor by West Virginia's senior senator, Democrat Jay Rockefeller. Vice President Biden administered the oath of office.

"Hey, Carte, welcome," Biden said before presiding over the swearing in. "Good to see you, man."

Updated at 3:25 p.m. ET. Two Republicans -- Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins -- voted for the unemployment legislation. One Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, voted against it.

"I support extending unemployment benefits for Nebraskans and Americans who remain out of work," Nelson said in a statement. "However, I opposed the Senate's unemployment bill today because it should have, and it could have, been paid for."

Made in China

(Why are there no jobs? Because they've been sent overseas to cheaper labor.--jef)

***

Learning About Wages from Henry Ford
By DAVID MACARAY

The U.S. no longer makes stuff. In their wisdom, America’s politicians, academics and corporate leaders willingly relinquished our manufacturing base to the Third World. Our trade deficit remains huge, we’re trillions of dollars in debt, our infrastructure (roads, bridges, ports, aqueducts) is begging for repair, and our states and municipalities are going broke.

We’re fighting two expensive wars which, with each passing day, seem to make less and less sense to the public; the gap between rich and poor is widening; our health care system (even with the tepid reforms set to take effect in 2014) is spiraling out of control; and our public education system—once a source of national pride—is scandalously under-performing.

Pharmaceuticals remain one our few growth industries, but much of that growth is fueled by drug companies inventing new diseases (shyness, excessive blinking, etc.) so they can sell us remedies for them. Currently, they’re trying to convince American women that their natural sex drives are dysfunctional, hoping to create a market for female Viagra.

If these are our deficiencies, then what are our strengths? In what categories does America lead the world? Two areas immediately come to mind: childhood obesity and prison incarceration. Addressing our burgeoning jail population, Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) made this observation, “Either we are home to the most evil people on earth, or we are doing something very counterproductive.”

We also lead the world in drug use, lawsuits, graffiti, TV evangelists, junk food, gun ownership, cosmetic surgery, teenage pregnancies, energy consumption, and credit card debt.

Now let us consider China. The Chinese government’s response to the recent strikes in the auto manufacturing industry came as a surprise to veteran observers, particularly those with images of Tiananmen Square still fresh in their heads. Uncharacteristically, the government did not crack down when workers at Foshan Fengfu Autoparts, a Honda parts supplier in Guangdong province, went on strike in June, demanding higher wages.

Instead, the Chinese government stood back and watched. The government stood back and watched even as the dominoes fell, as Foshan Fengfu strike-fever spread throughout the factories of southern China’s manufacturing heartland, with tens of thousands of workers rising up and insisting on higher wages.

Liu Shanying, an analyst at Beijing’s Institute of Political Science, sees the government’s tolerance as significant. According to Shanying, China is looking to promote higher wages not only to close the gap between the rich and poor (which Beijing sees as a potential threat to the Communist Party), but to provide citizens with more cash to spend on domestic products.

Beijing wants Chinese workers to be able to afford more Chinese goods, reminiscent of Henry Ford’s innovative notion of providing workers with wages high enough to afford the Model Ts they were building.

“If incomes won’t go up, how can domestic demand be boosted?” Shanying asks. “Strikes for better pay are very much in line with the big trend of Chinese economic development.” Apparently, staggering, runaway credit card debt doesn’t strike them as a suitable “cure.”

Compare the Chinese view to the knee-jerk, anti-union sentiment found in the U.S. Instead of acknowledging the obvious advantages of a thriving middle-class—and recognizing organized labor’s role in sustaining that middle-class—there’s a scabrous, mean-spirited movement in this country, led by the Republican Party and corporate America, to attack unions.

Instead of rejoicing in the fact that firemen, policemen, teachers and other public employees are still earning enough to contribute to the economy, people are clamoring to cut their wages and benefits, looking to gut the public employee unions just as they gutted the UAW and the Steelworkers.

Our embrace of short-term fixes and our near pathological worship of the stock market—coupled with a quasi-libertarian, every-man-for-himself mentality—have clearly hurt us. When you assault the middle-class, you risk destroying the one constituency capable of maintaining the long-term viability of a robust economy.

The decline in union membership coincides with the decline of the economy. They are interconnected. Without the safety net of union wages, fewer people are able to afford domestic goods and services. The Chinese have figured that out. In fact, they were probably contemplating the United States when they did the math.

Life Imitates Art

(The mainstream media is a joke. Corporate-owned, they report on stories that follow the agenda set by their corporate ownership. Objectivity in the media has disappeared. There is no liberal media or conservative media, there is only corporate media.--jef)

***

That Completes My Argument
By MARK WEISBROT

It’s nice when you make a documentary about how the major media outlets misrepresent reality, and the media response to the film proves your point. In fact, the media’s response to Oliver Stone’s South of the Border, which I wrote with Tariq Ali, really completes a number of the film’s arguments.

The first has to do with the sloppiness and lack of knowledge that characterizes the debate over U.S.-Latin American relations, problems to which the major media regularly contributes. A number of reviews had trouble getting the presidents and countries straight. Perhaps the most poignant example was in the Washington Post, which ran a picture of Sacha Llorenti, Bolivia’s Minister of Government, identifying him as “Evo Morales.” Llorenti is unknown in the United States, but appears in the film translating for President Morales. Someone at the Post must have seen them both in the film, and figured that the whiter guy speaking English must be the President.

Larry Rohter’s frontal assault on the film took up most of the front page of the New York Times’ Arts section, with a big sub-headline that read “Questions of Accuracy Arise.” However, he failed to find any factual errors in the film – despite some rather desperate attempts. In one such foray he used data on oil imports from 2004-2010 to try to refute an oil industry analyst who appears in a TV clip in the film, in April 2002. The whole 5-second sound bite had no relevance to the film in any case, but Rohter still got it wrong.

The errors in the reviews are far too numerous to list here. (You can vote for your favorite mistake here.) Many reviewers also reinforced the film’s critique of the media by viewing the whole story in ideological terms, and missing most or all of substantive points in the film. For example, the film provides five pieces of evidence of Washington’s involvement in the 2002 coup that overthrew Venezuela’s elected president, Hugo Chávez. These include such items as a U.S. State Department document acknowledging “that NED [the National Endowment for Democracy], Department of Defense (DOD), and other U.S. assistance programs provided training, institution building, and other support to individuals and organizations understood to be actively involved in the brief ouster of the Chavez government.”

This, together with other documentary evidence in the film – some of which has never made it into the major media -- makes a compelling case that Washington was involved in the coup. This conclusion is also backed up by the Washington Post’s Scott Wilson, who was foreign editor at the time that we interviewed him, and who reported from Caracas during the coup.

Eduardo Porter, of the New York Times’ editorial board, also appears in the film and refers to the Bush Administration’s support for the coup: “[T]his particular incident was the worst possible decision the United States could have taken. It not only locked in eternal enmity from the Chávez administration but it made it very difficult for anybody else in Latin America to like the United States.”

Yet we have had thousands of articles and broadcast reports about relations between the U.S. and Venezuela in the past eight years, and almost nothing on the actual U.S. role in the coup. At most it is mentioned as an “allegation” by none other than Hugo Chávez – a demonized source – or brushed off as some kind of “tacit support.” Most of the journalists who reviewed “South of the Border” also seem to see this issue and the evidence presented as irrelevant.

Of the reviews that did notice the film’s criticism of the media, the problem was seen as Fox or other television news. But the film emphasizes that it is all of the major media – not just Fox or even the TV news – that has given Americans such a distorted impression of the historic changes that have taken place over the last decade in Latin America. It was the New York Times editorial board that openly endorsed the overthrow of a democratically elected government during the 2002 coup – a major point in the film. This also went unnoticed, despite the fact that it is something that the United States’ most prominent newspaper had not done in probably 30 or 40 years.

Not surprisingly, the film attracted a lot of the same hostility from the media that characterizes reporting on the same subject matter (although there were also favorable reviews). The L.A. Times’ review of the film, which contained several major mistakes, criticized it for not having enough substance. But it seems that the substance of the film was too much for most of the media to handle.

Carbon trading a front for money-laundering?

Agence France-Presse | Singapore, July 17, 2010

Organised crime gangs are using carbon emissions trading schemes as fronts for money-laundering,experts warned on Friday. The experts who attended a meeting of the Asia Pacific Money Laundering Group (APG) said crime syndicates are resorting to new methods to hide their illegal proceeds.

One "issue that we've looked at closely is money laundering associated with carbon emissions trading schemes", APG executive secretary Gordon Hook told a news conference after the five-day meeting.

Hook did not elaborate on how crime syndicates were using carbon emissions trading schemes to launder money.

Emissions trading schemes place a limit on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution which companies can produce, forcing heavy polluters to buy credits from companies that pollute less — thereby creating financial incentives to fight global warming.

John Harrison, a security analyst at Singapore's S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, said that the carbon emissions trading market is relatively new and crime gangs are taking advantage of loopholes in regulation. "They will use new markets to try and launder their money, and particularly if these new markets are not well regulated yet," he said.

APG is an international organisation that is closely affiliated with the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force.

Hook said the region's money-laundering activities had wider, international connections.

"More and more money laundering and terrorist financing we are seeing are in reality transnational crimes so the web of international connections is extremely important," he said.

APG co-chairman Tony Negus, who is also the commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, said the ease of movement and communications have made the fight against organised crime more difficult.

"These days syndicates move across jurisdictions and across the world with ease with increased travel and increased electronic transfers," he said.

America's Defense Associations

Key Cogs in the War Machinery 
By JOHN STANTON

W
ith the Washington Post’s series on Top Secret America  (a Pulitzer Prize for summarizing what everyone already knew) hitting the streets, it’s appropriate to take a quick look at a few of the national security non-profits that operate betwixt and between the public and private sectors, many holding their own classified briefings and conferences. These Washington, DC defense associations operate in similar fashion to the many Think Tanks in the area who are also non-profits.

Unlike the Think Tanks though, they have local chapters nationwide housed near many military and defense contracting facilities, as well as major research universities. This potentially provides the defense association’s membership with influence right down to the state and local levels.  Through feast and famine their rallying cry never changes: there’s never enough money to meet strategic, operational and tactical objectives or the strategic, operational and tactical requirements are wrong. It’s always about avoiding the next “train wreck.”

Defense non-profits like the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) also represent the non-military interests of members such as Boeing—at once a defense contractor and commercial airline manufacturer. In fact, James Albaugh, dual hat XVP of Boeing and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, sits on the Aerospace Industries Association’s Board of Governors and the Executive Committee.  The defense associations, like the heavyweight corporations they speak for, maintain Boards of Directors/Trustees who are nearly always only six degrees of separation apart. For example, you’ll just as easily find a member of Northrop Grumman Corporation on the AIA roster as you will on that of the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA).

Defense association presidents and officers are generally paid very well for networking, sitting on this and that board of directors or trustees, and representing their member’s interests.  The individuals that run these associations are nearly all spun out of the revolving door of the federal government whether they were employed in a civilian, military or paramilitary capacity. In addition to compensation packages they receive from their own associations (they all “serve at the discretion of the Board of Directors/Trustees” and have their salaries approved by them), they receive retirement packages for their years employed by the federal government and rank/grade achieved. That includes health care, social security and other perks (commissary shopping, for example) that fall mostly to former employees of one of the military branches.

Defense associations are allowed to lobby Congress spending up to $1 million per year. Most defense non-profits, like AUSA and NDIA have legislative agendas that are based on membership demands. And there is an added and unspoken benefit:  it’s extremely difficult to know where the dividing line between education and lobbying is. That’s the beauty of the non-profit defense association. With so many Directors/Trustees,  conferences, trade shows, classified meetings and networking done behind closed doors (between military and civilian personnel at all levels) it’s impossible to know who leaking insider information to whom or who is on the receiving end of that crucial nod or wink.

Selective Service

Gordon Sullivan, a retired US Army General, received $638,000 in 2008 from the Association of the US Army (AUSA). That includes compensation received from all sources according to its 2008 IRS Form 990*. AUSA had revenues just over $32 million according to the IRS document.
Amongst the many items that AUSA is spending its lobbying money on is ensuring the survivability of Selective Service Boards.  “We must also continue the Military Selective Service Act that provides a database allowing a rapid mobilization in times of national emergency as well as the Standby Selective Service Boards.”

Yes, indeed.  If the USA intends to destroy Iran; fight Mexico’s drug war; entrench itself in Iraq and Afghanistan;  continue to send armed forces into Pakistan;  fully fund AFRICOM; encircle China and Russia with missile defense systems;  cut taxes, health care programs, pensions and social security;  allow income inequality to increase in America; and watch the US infrastructure (roads, water systems, communities and people) collapse; and develop predominant national culture of war,  then Sullivan better make sure that those Draft Boards are ready for either domestic revolution or WWIII. Shooting for an end-strength of 700,000 isn’t going to be enough.

NDIA made the news some time ago for its opposition to a proposal (by Rep. Maloney (D) and Sen. McCaskill (D)) for a database—FAPIIS--that would list government contractors who were penalized with fines or disbarred for various types of malfeasance.  That database is up and running.

In 2007, Lawrence P. Farrell, a retired USAF lieutenant general, made $909,433 in total compensation (with a benefit plan contribution of $35, 931) as President of the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) according to its IRS Form 990 for 2007. An FPDS entry on June 2010 indicates NDIA had revenue of $27 million.  

NDIA, like AUSA and most of the defense associations that rest inside the Washington, DC, Beltway, are classified as IRS 501 (C) (3) organizations and are tax exempt. Their charters invariably indicate that they are “educational” groups though that’s sometimes a stretch.

For example, NDIA facilitates conferences for “legal and ethical” interaction between commercial contractors and civilian and military employees of the federal government. In this sense, it is a trade association. But it also provides scholarships to worthy college students and defense community awards for exceptional service.

For the most part, though, the business of the non-profit is to put private and public sectors together to explore contracting opportunities for everything from weapons systems to uniforms.

NDIA has a long and distinguished history working in the defense community promoting the interests of the Defense Industrial Base (defense contractors) and the nation’s national security.  Starting as the Army Ordnance Society in 1919, it publishes one of the oldest and finest defense publications in the USA—National DEFENSE. National DEFENSE is managed by Sandra Erwin, one of the most underrated national security reporters and analysts in the national security community. National DEFENSE’s stories are timely and insightful with depth. Erwin has kept the publication “21st Century” with the support of Farrell who is also the magazine’s publisher.

It shouldn’t be long before Danger Room, the Wired Magazine Blog (Conde Nast/Advanced Publications), strikes out on its own to form its own magazine. The model for that will be National DEFENSE though it’ll be interesting to see if they will stand the test of time. National DEFENSE has been around since 1926.

F-35 Obsolete?

Before changing its name to NDIA the group was known as the American Defense Preparedness Association and was led by US Army Ordnance/Material Command legends Larry Skibbie (LTG, USA Ret.) and Bill Eicher (MG, USA Ret.). Under their guidance, a salvage operation of the financially failing National Security Industrial Association was completed.  Skibbie and Eicher laid the foundations that have allowed Farrell to expand NDIA’s membership and widen NDIA’s reach. NDIA recently joined with its equivalents in Canada and the UK to find more contracting opportunities in anticipation of the inevitable “train wreck.”

The AIA head, Marion Blakely, was paid just over $800,000 in 2008 according to its IRS Form 990. Blakely was a controversial figure as head of the Federal Aviation Administration. While there, her imposition of new work rules (that led to pay cuts) caused many of the FAA’s most experienced air traffic controllers to retire (nearly 30 percent). She would later claim she was shocked that so many would leave their positions because of the pay cuts. Her predecessor, John Douglass, former Assistant Secretary for the Navy (RDD) under Bill Clinton received a severance package of $623,616.

The AIA recently had a posting on its main website that the F-35 Lightening is already obsolete and that the Obama Administration should consider next generation alternatives to the fledgling aircraft “as foes advance.”

So as every defense association group gets set to hop-to on behalf of its membership, the question is: Who is willing to sacrifice? The answer to that has surely has to be all or none.

Farrell’s recent editorial is largely on track.

Maintaining wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is high cost. Global dominance is very expensive. Prepositioning for the challenge of the BRIC’s is high cost.  Invading and occupying Iran will be high cost. Keeping fuel prices low is tough. Sending a converted Ohio Class sub to kill/capture 10 members of AQ is expensive. Creating a perpetual war state out of a Republic—that is ostensibly a democracy—is costly.

But if these are the things that America’s leaders really want, then by all means let’s stop dancing around the matter. Start printing dollars, get Sullivan’s Draft Board’s up and running, declare total war footing, ramp up the defense industrial base and COCOM’s, and re-create the world in America’s image.  Stop doing it piecemeal.

Big Oil Makes War on the Planet

Our addiction to oil is now blowing back on the civilization that can't do without its gushers and can't quite bring itself to imagine a real transition to alternative energies.
By Ellen Cantarow, Tomdispatch.com
on July 20, 2010

If you live on the Gulf Coast, welcome to the real world of oil -- and just know that you’re not alone. In the Niger Delta and the Ecuadorian Amazon, among other places, your emerging hell has been the living hell of local populations for decades.

Even as I was visiting those distant and exotic spill locales via book, article, and YouTube, you were going through your very public nightmare. Three federal appeals court judges with financial and other ties to big oil were rejecting the Obama administration’s proposed drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico. Pollution from the BP spill there was seeping into Lake Pontchartrain, north of New Orleans. Clean-up crews were discovering that a once-over of beaches isn’t nearly enough: somehow, the oil just keeps reappearing. Endangered sea turtles and other creatures were being burnt alive in swaths of ocean ("burn fields") ignited by BP to "contain" its catastrophe. The lives and livelihoods of fishermen and oyster-shuckers were being destroyed. Disease warnings were being issued to Gulf residents and alarming toxin levels were beginning to be found in clean-up workers.

None of this would surprise inhabitants of either the Niger Delta or the Amazon rain forest. Despite the Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969 and the Exxon Valdez in 1989, Americans are only now starting to wake up to the fate that, for half a century, has befallen the Delta and the Amazon, both ecosystems at least as rich and varied as the Gulf of Mexico.

The Niger Delta region, which faces the Atlantic in southern Nigeria, is the world’s third largest wetland. As with shrimp and oysters in the Gulf, so its mangrove forests, described as “rain forests by the sea,” shelter all sorts of crustaceans. The Amazon rain forest, the Earth’s greatest nurturer of biodiversity, covers more than two billion square miles and provides this planet with about 20% of its oxygen. We are, in other words, talking about the despolation-by-oil not of bleak backlands, but of some of this planet’s greatest natural treasures.

Flaming Mangroves

Consider Goi, a village in the Niger Delta. It is located on the banks of a river whose tides used to bring in daily offerings of lobsters and fish. Goi’s fishermen would cast their nets into the water and simply let them swell with the harvest. Unfortunately, the village was located close to one of the Delta’s many pipelines. Six years ago, there was a major spill into the river; the oil caught fire and spread.

Nnimo Bassey, Nigerian head of Friends of the Earth, International, visited soon after. “What I saw” he reported in a recent radio interview, "was just a sea of crude, burnt out mangroves, and burnt out fishponds beside the river… All the houses close to the river were burnt... It was like a place that had been set on fire in a situation of battle, of war. The people were completely devastated.”

Nigeria’s biggest oil producer, Royal Dutch Shell, insisted that it cleaned up the village, but Bassey just laughs. “One thing about oil incidents: you cannot hide them. The evidence is there for anybody to see. This was in 2004; I’ve been there two times this year. The devastation is still virtually as fresh as it was then. You can still see the oil sheen on the river. You can see the mangroves that were burnt, they’ve not recovered. You can see the fish ponds that were destroyed. You can see the fishing nets and boats that were burnt. They’re all there. There’s no signs of any clean-up.”

Though the local inhabitants are still there, struggling for survival, notes Bassey, they can’t depend on fishing anymore. “The last time I went there, there was a little boy who came with a plastic container… [He and his father had gone] to look for shrimps all night. And what they came back with was a paltry quantity of crayfish that could barely cover the bottom of the plastic container…The container was covered with crude and the crayfish itself was covered in crude oil. So I was wondering what they were going to do with it, and he said they were going to wash the crayfish, and then they would feed on it.”

Now people in Goi have to buy fish from traders. The fish are not very fresh, and often smoked. More important, buying fish is a luxury, given that 70% of Nigerians subsist on less than a dollar a day.

Fifty years ago, Shell sank its first 17 wells in the Delta. The rest is history written as nightmare: unparalleled government corruption, ecocide, impoverishment. One estimate puts spills in the Delta over the past half century at 546 million gallons -- nearly 11 million gallons a year. If it’s hard to wrap your mind around those figures, maybe this is easier to grasp: more oil is spilled from the Delta’s pipeline maze each year than has been lost so far in the Gulf of Mexico.

Through photographs, you can glimpse life in the Delta under the shadow of big oil. Derelict shacks slouch on river banks amid an extravagance of garbage and waste. Children bathe in lifeless ponds. People live and work in the heat and amid toxins released by flames roaring from flare stacks. Flaring is universally agreed to be wasteful, but is also a way of maximizing oil production on the cheap. Much of the gas burned could be used productively, but in places like the Niger Delta big oil just doesn’t want to spend the money necessary to reclaim it. The flames belch toxins and methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. The U.S. prohibits such flaring. Officially, Nigeria does, too, and scheduled its first “flare-out” for 1984. To date, however, its governments still keep eternally postponing the deadline for stopping the practice.

The sheen, sludge, and slime of crude oil that Americans living on the Gulf coast are just beginning to get used to have been omnipresent facts in the Delta for so long that most people know little else. Average life expectancy in the rural Delta, says Bassey, “has never been lower than it is now” -- 48 years for women, 47 for men, and 41 if you escape subsistence farming and petty trading by becoming an oil worker. In other words, years shaved off lives are the personal sacrifice those in the region make to big oil.

In the 1960s and early 1970s, Nigeria nationalized its oil, but Shell still ruled production. The state organized large public works projects and long-term plans for development, only to abandon them under powerful international financial pressures -- the “free market” doing what it does best when truly unchecked. Nigeria’s leaders have raked in $700 billion in national oil revenues since 1960. One percent of Nigeria’s population, in other words, has pocketed over 75% of its energy wealth. In part thanks to the unwanted sacrifices of the Nigerian majority, America’s gas tanks remain well-filled at relatively reasonable prices, since 40% of U.S. crude oil imports come from the Delta.

Indigenous inhabitants of the Delta like the Ogoni people have suffered disaster without even the oil-money equivalent of trickle-down economics touching their lives. “In recovering the money that has been stolen from us I do not want any blood spilt, not of any Ogoni man, not of any strangers amongst us,” Ken Saro-Wiwa, Nigeria’s legendary nonviolent activist, told an audience of his people in 1990. “We are going to demand our rights peacefully, nonviolently, and we shall win.” The movement he launched adopted the tactics of South Africa’s anti-apartheid movement, promoting divestment from Shell and staging peaceful demonstrations.

Shell soon took notice. So did Nigeria’s military government, which also felt threatened by a movement in the Delta region dedicated to regaining some share of pillaged local wealth. In 1995, that government hanged Saro-Wiwa and eight other nonviolent leaders. A case brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of Saro-Wiwa’s son and other plaintiffs resulted in a $15.5 million out-of-court settlement by Shell, a veritable drop in the bucket for the giant company.

Since Saro-Wiwa’s execution, a rebellious spirit has spread widely in the region, but his pacifist approach has long since been rejected. The rebel Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) has become remarkably disruptive and powerful through sabotaging pipelines, kidnapping foreign oil workers, and even piracy. It has, in fact, come close to bringing the oil industry to a standstill there. Shell has shut down its major operations in the Delta, where 36% of young people interviewed in a 2007 World Bank study showed a "willingness or propensity to take up arms against the state."

Tropical Crudities

Oil corporations have penetrated vast parts of the Amazon rain forest in Ecuador, Peru, and Brazil. Consider just one part of that Amazonian immensity, the Oriente region of Ecuador in the Amazon basin. Humberto Piaguaje of the Secoya people still remembers how life there used to be. With a staggering abundance of birds, plants, animals, and foliage, with streams and tributaries winding through a humid lushness to the Amazon River, the region seemed like a blessing rather than something that could be owned by anyone.

“Own” wasn’t even a notion: the endless stretches of rain forest were literally common wealth. The oil beneath the ground, says Piaguaje, was “the blood of our grandparents -- our ancestors.” The rain forest was a university that conferred its knowledge on those who lived there and their shamans. Its medicinal plants made it the people’s hospital; its vegetables and animals made it their marketplace.

For Texaco, however, the jungle invited domination. Emergildo Criollo of the Cofan people remembers how it all began. In 1967, when he was eight years old, a helicopter suddenly appeared in the sky. He’d never seen anything like it and thought at first it was some strange bird. Later, even stranger sounds came from within the jungle itself as Texaco set up shop. Within six months, the first oil spill appeared in a stream near where his family lived. After he grew up, Criollo lost two children: an infant stopped developing after he was six months old, and an older child who bathed one day in the oil-polluted river, swallowed some of the water, and later began vomiting blood. He died the next day. Criollo sums up his sorrow in 13 stark words: “They came and spilled oil, they contaminated the river, and my children died.”

In its first 25 years, Texaco pumped 1.5 billion barrels of oil out of the Oriente region. According to one estimate, the company discharged 345 million gallons of pure crude oil into Ecuador’s rainforest and waterways. In 2009, Amazon Rights Watch reported that the company, by its own estimates, had dumped 18 billion gallons of toxic wastewater directly into the environment. Next to its hundreds of wells, Texaco dug into the forest floor at least twice as many unlined waste pits. That it intended the filth from the pits to flow into forest streams is clear, because it installed drainage pipes that allowed for just such run-off. “Pits,” by the way, is a euphemism for oil-sewage swamps, as is evident both in this photograph and this video.

Forty years of oil exploration and production have translated into the slow poisoning of Oriente’s land, its people, its animals, and its crops. With no other water source, local tribes are forced, as in the Delta region in Nigeria, to use contaminated water for drinking, bathing, and cooking. A Harvard medical team and Ecuadorian health authorities have described eight kinds of cancer that result from this sort of contamination. Birth defects are legion in the region, as are skin diseases, which torment even newborns.

In 1993, 30,000 indigenous Ecuadorians brought a class-action lawsuit against Texaco (which merged with Chevron in 2001 to become Chevron-Texaco, the world's fourth-largest investor-owned oil company). “60 Minutes” called it “the largest environmental lawsuit in history.” The plaintiffs are seeking $27 billion in compensation for their suffering and for the restoration of their world. The lawsuit is still pending.

Last month, some Ecuadorian indigenous leaders visited the Gulf Coast to show solidarity with another indigenous people, the Houma of Louisiana. A joint group then took a boat tour through bayous where the Houma have fished for generations. Mariana Jimenez, from Ecuador’s Amazon, reached over the side of the boat into gray water, grasping a handful of once-verdant marsh grass. It drooped lifelessly in her hand, leaving dark brown blotches of crude oil on her palm. “I see it,” she said. “It’s just like Ecuador. They talk about all the technology they have, but when there’s a situation like this, where’s the technology?”

“I think all of this is a terrible contamination for the Houma people,” commented Humberto Piaguaje. “It’s a cultural contamination. Their fishing and shrimping that was their livelihood is ending now. They need to be asking BP for compensation for the next generation.”

Big Oil Blowback

Here’s the simple, even crude, lesson these ambassadors offer: whether Americans like it or not, we are all connected in new ways -- and not ways the advocates of “globalization” once promised -- now that we’ve entered what resource expert Michael Klare calls the age of extreme energy. Think of it as a new kind of blowback.

Our addiction to oil is now blowing back on the civilization that can’t do without its gushers and can’t quite bring itself to imagine a real transition to alternative energies. Humberto Piaguaje might say that the wound BP gashed in the floor of the Gulf of Mexico has unleashed the wrath of the Earth’s millions-of-years dead.

Put another way, corporations presume that it’s their right to control this planet and its ecosystems, while obeying one command: to maximize profits. Everything else is an “externality,” including life on Earth. "What we conclude from the Gulf of Mexico pollution incident,” says Nnimo Bassey, “is that the oil companies are out of control. In Nigeria, they have been living above the law. They are now clearly a danger to the planet.”

Think of oil civilization in its late stages as a form of global terrorism.

The Retirement Nightmare: Half of Americans Have Less Than $2,000 Banked for Their Golden Years

With declining earnings and a culture of borrow-and-consume, America's workers face a future of uncertainty and little money to pay for their retirement.
By Scott Thill, AlterNet
July 20, 2010

The days of quietly retiring with a nest egg built up from years of savings from a long career on the verge of disappearing. For tens of millions of Americans, facing rising costs, shrinking incomes and growing debts they already have disappeared.

"One out of three working Americans does not have retirement savings beyond Social Security, and about 35% of those over 65 rely almost totally on Social Security alone," Dallas Salisbury, president of the Alliance for Investor Education and the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) , explained to AlterNet. "Of the remaining two-thirds of working Americans that have some retirement savings, 27 percent report less than $1,000, 16 percent between $1,000 and $9,999, 11 percent between $10,000 and $24,999, 12 percent between $25,000-$49,999, and 36 percent $50,000 or more." Perhaps the most shocking number is that half of Americans have $2,000 or less saved for retirement.

Crunch the numbers and you end up with a retirement myth, rather than a money-maker. We face a colder economic reality: Not only are there no astronomical retirement returns coming down the financial pike, but what nuts and nest-eggs families have set aside for their futures have been mostly sucked dry.

"Individuals need to follow the advice of the ages," said Salisbury. "Spend less than you earn by 25 percent, and save for your future. This keeps your lifestyle from getting ahead of your income."

While saving 1/4 of our shrinking incomes sounds nigh on impossible in this economic climate, many are watching their savings getting squandered by bad fund managers. One retirement Ponzi scheme starting to worry the Senate Special Committee on Aging, according to an aide who asked not to be named, are target-date funds, a financial instrument . They're basically mutual funds that try to play equities and stocks in their early years before settling into more conservative investments like cash and fixed-income before maturing, so as not to give their investors heart attacks on the date of their retirement. As imagined, given our wheezing global economy, target-date funds are leaking money to managers who are charging insane fees before the house of cards crashes. In July, the SEC proposed new rules to make target-date funds more transparent, but lately the SEC has been proposing much while the banksters and executives that really run the country have continued to fund everything from Barack Obama's election to the Republican Party itself.

In related news, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are free to spend, pardon the pun, as much as they want to buy political candidates In other words, even if your target-date fund survives the banksters' scams by the time it finally matures, there's no guarantee it can't be downsized by them at a moment's notice. To quote Wikipedia, "almost all target date funds do not have any guarantee." The banksters and the SEC know it, and now so do you.

But what can we do about it? Nothing, if we don't accept the fact that we're quickly turning into a world of freelancers in search of our next check. Which, of course, we'd all like to divide accordingly to live comparatively well and invest in a nest-egg for a more convenient future. But in an economic environment that is alternately unable to provide job growth or security, and is infested by market-makers armed with supercomputers and math and Ph.Ds, that's unlikely and illogical.

"I think Americans will no longer have retirements that demand no additional work," Sara Horowitz, executive director of the nonprofit Freelancers Union, explained to AlterNet. "They will lessen work in old age. In other words, retirement will increasingly mean becoming an independent worker."

Living like freelancers would go a long way to ameliorating our dependence on investment banks and other entities whose traditional function was to take our money and stash it smartly, where it could feed on modest interest rates that were not the plaything of freelancing hedge funds and their proprietary algorithms. But in today's hyperspeeding electronic market, there are just too many easy marks in the matrix.

"Goldman Sachs in the 401k world is no better or worse than the others," said Horowitz. "We need to move away from the idea that individuals will go by themselves to for-profits and be OK. They won't be OK. They're little bitty consumers dealing with giant corporations. Instead, they should band together and spread the costs for experts and lawyers to level the playing field. In the 1970s, freelancers were the first to lose the employer's safety net, so they've been working this way for several decades. Instead of being isolated individuals, they form strong networks for information, community and benefits. Freelancers have to be more disciplined at setting money aside to pay taxes and benefits that traditional workers expect their companies to pay. And they have to purchase their own safety nets -- health insurance, unemployment, and retirement -- which makes it that much more difficult to save."

In short, they have to live in a real world of diminished returns, expectations and impact. Which is a good thing, given the new millennium's spiraling hyperconsumption. If the gushing oil bleeder in the Gulf of Mexico is a sign of anything, it's of our excessive appetites. Today, it's time pay up, especially if we want to retire later. Our messy ways and means have to be choked off and cleaned up. If we're smart, live well below our lucky means, and stop trashing the planet, and its political processes, then we might just get lucky enough to dodge the guilty bullets.

"I think freelancers will actually be better off in many ways than traditional workers," concluded Horowitz. "Because a future without a safety net has been their reality for the last 25 years."

Monday, July 19, 2010

A Treatment for Multiple Sclerosis That Upsets Big Pharma

If angioplasty for MS catches on, who is going to buy all the toxic drugs now prescribed for the mysterious disease?
By Philip Lillies, rabble.ca
 July 19, 2010

In a breakthrough in the treatment of multiple sclerosis, last summer Dr. Paolo Zamboni, a vascular surgeon from the University of Ferrara in Italy, made public the results of findings from his study of 65 MS patients.

Dr. Zamboni and colleagues investigated CCSVI -- Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency -- a condition characterized by blockages in the veins causing problems in the blood flow drainage from the brain and/or spinal cord of sufferers. This condition has been shown to contribute in a significant way to the many symptoms of multiple sclerosis. It can be relieved by angioplasty, which is a simple surgical treatment that removes the blockages.

Despite the results of Zamboni's and other significant studies, my research into the media's coverage of angioplasty as a treatment for multiple sclerosis reveals that the mainstream media, with some notable exceptions (examples of which are here, here and here) , is generally presenting arguments that are favourable to maintaining the pharmaceuticals' monopoly on treatment options (examples here, here and here). Overall, the media has failed to do its journalistic duty to research all sides of the issue. They have failed to take the numerous testimonials and positive research results seriously and are failing to take into account the costs and benefits of angioplasty versus those of MS drugs that in the end offer little to no long-term benefits.

Pharmaceuticals provide millions of dollars every year to MS Societies in the U.S. and Canada, and the MS Societies in turn advertise the drugs developed by the pharmaceuticals and encourage their members to have full confidence in these drugs, even when alternative treatments, such as diet and angioplasty, might be more effective in alleviating the symptoms of the disease.

In fact, the MS Society of Canada claims to receive less than two per cent of its funding in pharmaceutical grants -- see Myth #2 in the link above. Additional direct assistance to the MS Societies of Canada and the US would be in the form of free education materials, speakers, and expertise, as well as paid advertising in MS Society newsletters; however, total assistance would certainly be a relatively small percentage of total budget, hundreds of thousands in Canada and millions in the U.S., but direct assistance is perhaps not the main source of influence on MS Society decision making.

Eminent neurologists and MS research foundations also receive extensive funding from pharmaceuticals, as revealed in a full disclosure article critical of CCSVI treatment that appeared in the Annals of Neurology (Khan et al, January 2010, Annals of Neurology ).

In addition to funding their research, the pharmaceutical industry also influences through leaders -- see below -- through an educational organization known as the "Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers." Page two of the report explicitly states that the CMSC is a partner with the pharmaceutical industry, other non-profit advocacy and services organizations (which would include MS Societies), and MS professional organizations.

Seven of the 11 authors of the report (including the first four, senior authors) disclosed receiving significant financial support from pharmaceuticals that produce drugs for MS. In addition, the pharmaceuticals are key players in an organization known as the "Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers" whose main function is to influence MS thought leaders such as neurologists, researchers, and directors of MS Societies.

The medical establishment, in general, is hesitant to embrace a finding that would shift some of the burden of treatment for MS from neurologists to interventional radiologists, vascular surgeons, and experts in blood flow and imaging. One can only speculate about why this shift is so difficult for them.

One factor might be professional pride, but a more important factor might be the re-training that is necessary, both for doctors and technicians. As it stands now technicians lack the training to detect the blockages, even when they have the latest Doppler ultrasound equipment; and surgeons are flabbergasted at the thought of performing interventions on veins, which unlike arteries, are pliable and difficult to manipulate.

The upfront investment required to support the required changes, which would affect personnel and equipment, is also an impediment to recognition of CCSVI treatment by provincial health plans. So despite the enthusiastic support of both the Liberal and NDP health critics at the federal level, without federal financial support, changes at the provincial level may be slow in coming. In fact, the upfront cost would quickly be recovered as use of MS drugs became less common.

It is not surprising, then, that the mainstream media, when it follows the lead of the medical establishment and the MS Society, presents a biased picture that does not contribute to our understanding of the costs and benefits of CCSVI treatment. MS patients demanding the right to angioplasty for CCSVI are often depicted as a mere advocacy group attempting to badger the scientific community because of their hope for a miracle cure. The hundreds of positive reports and internet videos depicting MS patients who have benefited substantially from the treatment are dismissed as mere testimonials with no scientific merit.

Then there are the weasel words that are used to depict MS patients as emotional, subject to the whims of an unpredictable disease characterized by attacks and remissions, which renders them susceptible to quackery, psychological boosterism, and the much touted "placebo effect." Angioplasty itself is often referred to as "the liberation treatment," which suggests the wild and radical aims of those advocating for it. Research directors working on projects funded by pharmaceuticals and spokespersons from the MS Society are frequently quoted speaking out against the treatment without regard for the inherent bias such spokespersons would be expected to have.

The Canadian Medical Association Journal recently featured an editorial in which it argued that the medical establishment was on the side of the plain folk, guarding them against being overwhelmed by unproven therapies that had not been evaluated for safety and effectiveness, while preventing public monies from being diverted for use in untested procedures.

The truth is that despite concerted efforts to depict it otherwise, the issue here is not one of science but one of ethics. There is already ample evidence that the treatment has a high probability of being beneficial to a large number of MS patients. Detractors, however, raise the question of whether the costs outweigh the benefits. There is, in fact, ample evidence for those willing to take the time to look for it that this question has been amply answered in the positive (see here and here). Angioplasty, which is a medical procedure of long standing, can easily be adapted to treatment of CCSVI, and the treatment works. Why it works is still undetermined, but no one is arguing that it works by some mysterious energy or élan vital. There are several promising leads (such as build up of iron within the brain) that can be the subject of future scientific investigation. Patients themselves are amassing the evidence of success on the electronic bulletin boards of websites like "This Is MS." The videos are very moving, and it is hard to dismiss them as anything but overwhelming evidence for the effectiveness of the treatment.

Detractors like to point out that the benefits of the treatment cannot be considered long-term because veins are subject to collapse after stretching. However, even if the veins collapsed again and needed to be re-stretched annually, this would still be more cost effective than most MS drugs, which cost up to $30,000 per year and marginally slow the course of the disease at best.

In fact, recent studies have suggested that the so-called CRAB drugs have no statistically significant long-term effects. CRAB drugs are Copaxone, Rebif, Avonex, and Betaseron, the standard drugs used to treat MS. They are administered by injection and cost up to $30,000 per year. Because we don't have a pharmacare program in Canada, the cost of these drugs can be a considerable burden to those lucky enough to be able to afford them at all.

In addition, using vein stents (no this is not a new technology either) could eliminate the need for additional treatments.

CCSVI itself is characterized in the mainstream media as unproven and controversial. Maybe, after all, it is a fairly normal condition. However, CCSVI is not controversial. It has been unanimously recognized by an expert international body as an undesirable congenital malformation. In 2009, at a conference on venous malformations (UIP09), experts from 47 countries voted unanimously in favour of officially including the stenosing lesions found in CCSVI in the phlebology consensus document and guidelines.

How dangerous is the treatment? As of today, the treatment has been applied over 1,000 times with reports of only one death following improper placement of a stent. Many MS patients, whose lives are in ruins, are willing to take the risk. And the risk can be compared with the risk of taking MS drugs, which are very unpleasant and hardly risk free. For example, a common drug for MS causes liver damage. Another recent study suggests that there are two types of MS -- similar symptoms but different diseases -- and if you treat one of the types of MS with one of the commonly prescribed CRAB drugs you may actually make the disease worse.

The medical establishment is demanding double-blind testing on the Zamboni method, which works well on drugs but is almost impossible to do with a surgical intervention. There is, of course, the questionable ethics of not correcting obvious problems once the surgical intervention has begun. In addition, given that the patients are not under general anaesthesia during the procedure, and in light of the fact that most doctors are probably lousy actors, the blind is going to be hard to maintain.

The University of Buffalo has received funding to try a double-blind test on a small sample, but any results are almost certain to be contested. The small sample size itself creates a problem because of the danger of sample bias, which is all the more likely as MS, unlike say breast cancer, is such a multi-faceted disease. Ideally you would want patients that were similar in background, venal malformations, and symptoms, except some would be given the treatment and some not. Unfortunately, this similitude is going to be impossible to achieve.

Double-blind testing does make sense for drugs, where the blind is relatively easy to maintain and ethics may be less of an issue when the benefits of the drug really are uncertain. It would seem that more usual for surgical interventions is to try it if it seems to work, and evaluate based on tracking of results over multiple treatments.

Perhaps this is what Dr. Zamboni means when he says that every Canadian should be given the treatment but also that the treatment should be given in a context of scientific study. This try-and-track approach was used with the original angioplasty procedures that were performed on arteries in the 70s, for example. It has also been used with radical mastectomy for breast cancer and caesarean sections, both of which have lately been given a serious re-evaluation. One notable procedure that the try-and-track approach was used on was scoping of knees. Now, after over a million trials, it would seem that scoping is being rejected as a valuable treatment.

Blind testing of drugs seems to suffer from a problem that is the contrary of the try-and-track approach. Once a drug is approved it may readily be prescribed for conditions that don't meet the test specifications. Notably, it may also continue to be prescribed even when tracking suggests that it may be dangerous under certain conditions. This appears to be the case with one of the commonly prescribed CRAB drugs, which as mentioned before under certain conditions may actually make the disease worse.

There is also a danger that the medical establishment will dismiss the benefits by setting the bar too high. Keeping in mind that the only long-term benefit of the CRAB drugs appears to be modulation of the attacks (so that the disease progresses just as quickly but with less serious attacks and remissions), we should not expect immediate and obvious benefits from every treatment. Benefits may, after all, be both restorative and preventive. Those in the early stages of the disease might not perceive any benefits even though unblocking their veins might prevent future deterioration. Those in the middle stages of the disease are most likely to notice perceptible benefits. Those in the final stages of the disease, after their muscles have atrophied making recovery impossible, might not notice any benefits, but at least they would benefit from prevention of further deterioration.

Some patients have complained that perceived benefits are fleeting, lasting merely months. Indeed, if their veins collapse again they may need to travel once again to Europe to have the treatment redone. Unfortunately, travelling abroad can easily cost $15,000, so can't be repeated too frequently. The solution is, of course, to make the treatment locally available, then it would cost only a few thousand dollars at most. Even if this procedure needed to be repeated annually, it would be much cheaper than treatment with MS drugs, which costs tens of thousands of dollars annually.

The MS Societies of Canada and the US have tried to accommodate pressure from the medical establishment while appeasing patients by providing $2.4 million of support to seven small basic research projects over the next few years. However, the paltry amount of funding and the focus on basic research has simply further raised the ire of the MS community. Not one of the projects is focused on improving intervention techniques, and some of them, such as testing for similar conditions in the brains of Alzheimer's patients, would appear to be aimed primarily at fortifying the arguments of detractors. In addition, some of the projects appear to have been chosen because the researchers have not in the past worked with Dr. Zamboni, which might seem logical, except that part of Dr. Zamboni's contribution was precisely in the area of techniques for the detection of venal blockages.

At this point, based on the evidence of thousands of case histories and several scientific studies, the science points to a cost/benefit trade off that is wildly on the positive for providing the treatment. The benefits would accrue not only to MS patients but to society as a whole which needs otherwise to pay for their MS drugs and accommodate their incapacities. The research at this point needs to focus on refining the technique. And despite how the mainstream media tries to depict it, pressure from advocacy groups is being correctly aimed, not at short-circuiting the scientific method, but at overcoming the intransigence of the medical establishment.

Cracking the Sea Floor

Fools' Errand in the Gulf
By DAVE LINDORFF

It is increasingly looking like the BP Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico is gravely damaged, and that the cap that was placed on top of the casing and the blowout preventer is simply causing gas and oil to leak out of the drill pipe into the surrounding concrete and subsurface layers of rock. Retired Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, the nominal head of the disaster response operation, on Monday admitted that methane appears to be seeping from the surrounding seabed, and demanded that BP provide an explanation. He also said BP had to be prepared to remove the cap at a moment’s notice--clear evidence that there are fears the blowout could get worse, with oil and gas rising uncontrollably from the sea floor.

It all raises the question of why the temporary fix of capping the top of the well was ever even attempted, knowing that there was a strong likelihood that the 13,000 feet of well casing had been damaged by the initial violent blowout and by the racing oil and gas and debris pressing up from deep in the bowels of the earth.

There was already clear evidence that the casing had been breached. While it had not been mentioned in mainstream news reports, one view taken of the sea floor taken by a videocam on the Hos ROV 1, one of the remote robot submersibles monitoring the wellhead, and on display on the BP website, beginning at about 2:48:40 Central Time on June 16, showed clouds of muddy looking water suddenly spring up and begin obscuring the view of the sea floor. Some of the billowing material was light colored, and could be mud pushed up by leaking methane gas. Some looked decidedly dark brown, like the oil that has been seen coming from the top of the blowout preventer (BOP).

A second rover, the Viking Poseidon ROV 1, which was not included in the live cams displayed from BP’s public access site on June 16, but which could be seen live here, also showed a large cloud of churning brown material billowing up from the sea floor beginning at 3:06:00 Central Time. Other images showed bubbles rising form the sea floor--something that had not been seen earlier.

If either of these video images are in fact showing oil or gas coming out of the ground around the wellhead, it could mean only one thing: that the liner has been seriously breached somewhere below ground, and that there is no way to either stop the oil flow, or even collect it all from above the wellhead. That would certainly explain why the pressure at the stoppered wellhead has leveled off at about 6750 psi. That's well below the "8000-9000 psi" that until Friday was what the government and BP said would be full pressure, and is even below the new, improved target mentioned by retired Adm. Thad Allen, who on June 16 said a more modest 7500 psi would be okay. (Allen's claim that the underground pressure in the reservoir, 13,000 feet below the sea flow, could be lower by 15-20%, explaining the low readings at the wellhead, because of the 1-2 million barrels that have already escaped, is patently absurd. We’re talking about a reservoir said to contain over 1 billion barrels of oil! Two million barrels would be just 0.2% of that amount. Furthermore, the reservoir isn't a rigid container like an oil tank. Its pressure is caused by the weight of the 2.5 miles of crust and mile of water sitting atop it, which will continue to press down with the same force however much oil remains in the deposit. There might be a slight decrease as oil comes out, but not by that amount.)

The only hope of stopping this catastrophe would be the relief wells that have been drilled to within a few feet of the casing, several miles down below the surface of the earth, but even those offer no certainty of success. If the well casing is damaged below the point of entry of the side wells into the original well they won’t stop the leak from moving up through the original well hole.

The failure of the effort to cap the well above the BOP, a was pretty well foreordained when the same Viking Poseidon ROV 1, a month ago, showed a video of oil blasting out of cracks in the sea floor around the BOP, already proving that the casing had been breached.

It is possible that the pressure in the pipe was greater at that point, back on June 13, because the well opening, at the top of the BOP, was still crimped and holding back the gusher. Once that opening was cleared in preparation for installing the current cap, the oil was able to flow out more freely, which would have reduced the pressure on whatever leaks exist in the casing below ground.

But now, for reasons that still elude me, the government has allowed BP to try to shut down the well at the top, allowing the pressure in the whole casing to rise precipitously, and it appears the inevitable has happened: the oil and gas is pushing out the breaches in the casing, and is likely expanding the openings, too, making the breach worse than before.

The top of this blown-out well should be opened up wide as soon as possible, and BP and the government should focus all efforts on those relief wells, and on trying to get this runaway well sealed at the bottom as soon as possible.

Trying to shut things off at the top was a fool’s errand, and can only have been driven by a BP and White House desire to show that something is being done. However, some things shouldn’t be done, and this is one of those things. The idea that the government and BP knew that shutting down the top of the well could lead to disaster, and that for the sake of a short-term PR benefit, they went ahead and did it, knowing that it would only provide temporary relief at best anyhow, is insanity.

By the way, last Thursday I contacted both the BP and the government-run Unified Command press offices asking for an explanation as to how they could shut down the top of the well, when BP’s own cameras in June showed oil blowing out of cracks in the sea floor near the wellhead. Both offices promised to respond. To date, neither has.