This Week:

Quote of the Week

Homes, Parks and Sacred Lands

Saving Lives = Losing Money

Benefits of Privatization
Quote
Quote
Quote

Greetings,

Happy Summer Solstice, everyone! I hope all of you in the Northern hemisphere are enjoying the long days, green leaves, and summer fun.

I made an error last week in saying that my nephew Matthew was responsible for my reading TIME Magazine. In fact, he was not. I did get a subscription from him, but that was years ago. This year's subscription to TIME came courtesy of one of his younger brothers, either Jacob or Duncan (we're not sure which). I can't imagine too many of you caught this egregious error, but now it is corrected, with my humble apologies.

Readers may notice that this week's Stroll Through the News includes very little news about the War Against Terrorism (the WAT?!). This is not due to a shortage of meaningful data—just the opposite, in fact. There have been so many revealing and important items that I plan to do a special "Stroll" just for WAT?! news before too long. Maybe next week, maybe later. Stay tuned.

Thanks to all of you who passed along your feedback this week. I really appreciate it. I read all of your letters as soon as they arrive, and I respond as soon as I can (meaning, as soon as I can think of something interesting to say!) So, keep those letters and E-mails coming. It helps your humble editor stay on his proverbial toes.

‘Til next week,

Nygaard

"Quote" of the Week:

The following quotation is from that endless font of quotable "quotes," the Advertising column in the New York Times ("All the News That's Fit to Print"). This one ran on May 3rd, and aimed to tell us about how "the lines continue to blur between advertising and editorial content." The following words were seen therein:

"As advertisers like Abercrombie and Fitch, Coca Cola, and the Ford Motor Company assume a more direct role in determining the editorial content of the media in which they advertise, media companies are moving to accommodate advertisers by increasing product placements in episodes of television series, introducing publications that celebrate shopping without critical coverage, or changing the color of staples at the center of magazines to match the hue desired by advertisers."

The color of staples?

Our American Jihad

I wrote two weeks ago about the commencement address called "My American Jihad," delivered by graduating Harvard senior Zayed Yasin. Well, I'm happy to report that, despite the ignorant protests by some (a minority, I hope) in the Harvard community, Mr. Yasin did give his speech, and the world continues to spin on its axis. I have read the speech, and it is quite moving.

"Jihad, in its truest and purest form, the form to which all Muslims aspire, is the determination to do right, to do justice even against your own interests," said Yasin in his address. "On a global scale, it is a struggle involving people of all ages, colors, and creeds, for control of the Big Decisions: not only who controls what piece of land, but more importantly who gets medicine, who can eat."

For those who care to read the entire address, go to BeliefNet, found on the web at http://www.beliefnet.com/story/107/story_10725.html.

With his opening words—"I am one of you. But I am also one of ‘them.'"—Mr. Yasin expressed a contradiction felt acutely right now by Arabs and Muslims in this country. But the issue of being "other" and therefore suspect, is shared by all in the United States who are not "white" and Christian (and male, and able-bodied, and economically useful, and heterosexual, and...) Consider that, during the commencement program, "scores of...students wore red, white and blue ribbons to express their opposition to the speech," as reported in the Washington Post. This is yet another indication that the symbols of the United States in the post-9/11 world are increasingly becoming the symbols of intolerance and xenophobia. And it's more than that.

Although the Washington Post reported that people chose to display our national colors at the commencement as an expression of opposition to "the speech," that seems doubtful. After all, no one knew the content of "the speech." The opposition was to a simple and misunderstood word or, more accurately, to one brave young man's refusal to buy access to the American Dream at the cost of giving up his language and his voice. "White" people are given privilege automatically, by being born into "the club." People of color—or the members of other "target" groups—must give a variety of passwords in order to be allowed even the possibility of partaking of the privilege of being "American."

I think the opposition being expressed was opposition to one brave young man's refusal to "melt" into the melting pot of "America." While red, white, and blue ribbons are being used to reject Yasin's attempt to retain his complex identity—both "us" and "them," as he puts it—America continues to deploy its red, white, and blue military forces into every corner of the earth. Not only must we struggle to prevent our country from becoming no more than a belligerent and self-centered fortress, but we must struggle to bring into being a different vision entirely, one that will ultimately make a U.S. Empire both impossible and unwanted.

This is our American jihad.

A Stroll Through the News With Nygaard

Blue Skies? Cloudy Skies? It Depends...

Lest anyone think that they are getting "the news" when they look at a newspaper or watch television, consider the following. A story was reported in both the New York Times ("All the News That's Fit to Print") and the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) on June 5th. Both had to do with a report from the 2000 census about what happened to household incomes in the United States during the 1990s.

The Star Trib gave it a positive spin (it's based in Minnesota, after all), using the headline "Boom in ‘90s Raised Incomes of Nation's Richest, Poorest." The Times of the same day chose the headline "Gains of 90s Did Not Lift All, Census Shows." Hmm. Same report, two different spins. So, which is true?

Well, as usual, the picture is more complicated than a headline, but I'd have to go with the Times on this one. While it is true that, as the Star Trib said, "The figures confirm a long-term momentum that has given millions of Americans more income," they were mostly talking about the upper end (using these words: "Since 1980, the share of the U.S. population earning more than $100,000 annually has doubled.") The Times was also correct in pointing out that "we saw more inequality in the 1990s," and reminded us that we were still left with 9.2 percent of families living (officially) in poverty despite the economic expansion. Women's median incomes rose 7 percent, but that still leaves them earning only 73 percent of what the men earn, while the median income for those men declined by 2.3 percent in the 1990s.

Here's the story: The economy expanded in the ‘90s, but most of the gains went to those at the top. The rich got richer, the poor for the most part stayed poor, and the people in the middle (especially in urban areas) got squeezed. And, in terms of economic data that helps us understand how our economy is performing in the realm of justice and equality (and what other realm is more important for judging an economy?), we are missing some very crucial data. As the Star Trib pointed out, "The figures released so far do not report income by racial groups..." I'll keep my eyes peeled and let you know what I learn on this as it becomes available.

Racism Documented in Two Reports

"A far greater share of black and Hispanic homeowners with above-average incomes still have mortgages with higher interest rates than whites with comparable incomes," reported the New York Times of May 1st. Surprisingly, the study upon which the report is based finds that "the disparity between whites and African-Americans and other minorities actually grows at upper-income levels and is greater for higher-income African- American homeowners than for lower-income white homeowners."

In the same day's Times was the headline "Bias Incidents Against Muslims Are Soaring, Islamic Council Says." The article told of "more than 500 cases of discrimination and attacks" in the past year that were "unrelated to the [September 11] terrorist attacks," a number which constitutes a 43 percent increase over the previous year." That's according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which also "pointed to civil rights abuses against Muslims that it considered results of government policy," such as profiling at airports, the detention of more than 1,000 people and the questioning of thousands of others, the closing of Muslim relief agencies and charities, and raids on Muslim-owned houses and businesses."

Learning from Malaria

In an article in the "Science" Section on May 28th, the New York Times ran an article called "New Drug For Malaria Pits U.S. Against Africa." What's happening is that the malaria bug in many African countries is now 60-90 percent resistant to the long-standard drugs for treating malaria, chloroquine and sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine. The result is that 2,000 African children are dying of malaria every day in Africa.

The magnitude of the problem has doctors "clamoring" for a new Chinese-developed drug called artemisinin, which has reduced malaria deaths by 97 percent in Vietnam and 87 percent in an ongoing test in rural South Africa. For reasons that are "frankly, very difficult to understand," according to the international aid group Doctors Without Borders, the United States "generally opposes" using artemisinin in Africa. The U.S. Agency for International Development "officially suggests" that artemisinin be avoided and only used as a last resort, a position "that infuriates malaria specialists" on the front lines in Africa.

It's instructive to follow news about malaria because, as Dr. Kamini Mendis of the World Health Organization puts it, "It's not a rich man's disease." Perhaps that is why a 1996 study found that the world spends $42 per malaria death on research, compared with $840 per death on asthma research and $3,360 per death on AIDS research.

Oddly, the Times found several sources who said that the U.S. position is "not logical," but no one could be found to speculate on what might be motivating the Bush administration to take such a seemingly-cruel position. I'll continue to follow this, and pass on what I learn.

Ignore It and It Will Go Away

What will go away, Washington insiders hope, is the public. An article published on the front page of the Business section of the May 3rd New York Times spoke of the proposals of Harvey Pitt—the Bush administration's "top cop on Wall Street," that is, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission—to address recent "abuses associated with stock options." It's always difficult for elites to set policies that might limit the options (pun intended) of other elites, and so it is with Mr. Pitt, whose proposals some call "narrow," and others call "timid." In the world of the Business pages, the issue is reduced to political calculation, with the question being whether or not Mr. Pitt has made "the right calculation...as Washington prepares for an election season."

In a telling comment on the lack of concern for victims of the white-collar crime that is becoming increasingly obvious to all of us, the Times had this to say: "The emerging view is that if there are no more shocking corporate failures of the magnitude of Enron or Global Crossing, the political imperatives of cleaning up the markets and tightening corporate oversight will largely fade by the fall."

Is this why some refer to the USA as the "United States of Amnesia?"

"Off the Wall" Extremism Selling Like Hotcakes

In the "Arts and Ideas" section of the New York Times of May 4th was an amusing piece by Michael Massing entitled "Surprise Best-Seller Blames U.S." In it, Mr. Massing ponders the great mystery a slender book by Noam Chomsky, entitled simply "9-11," which "opposes conventional views on September 11th and was not expected to sell well." How can it be, asks Massing, that "As soon as the volume hit bookstores [in October 2001]...it began selling briskly, and it hasn't stopped," despite the fact that the book has had "limited promotion and few reviews." On this last point, Massing adds parenthetically that "This is true of most of Professor Chomsky's books, which editors commonly regard as too extreme to merit comment." He also says of Chomsky that "Many...find his analysis off the wall."

How many, we don't know, and Massing doesn't bother to back up his claim in any way, but they were well-represented in the article by Professor Susie Linfield, who teaches cultural reporting and criticism in the NY University's department of journalism. Massing quotes Ms. Linfield at length, saying, "‘9-11' is not a normal book... Chomsky's view of the world is that all evil emanates from one source: U.S. power. So in the case of September 11, Osama bin Laden is entirely a creature of the United States. It's a compelling world view, but a wrong one."

I'm not sure who Ms. Linfield thinks would consider such an idiotic point "compelling," but it certainly is wrong. I'm happy to report that it also bears no resemblance to anything Noam Chomsky has ever said. Having read Mr. Chomsky's work extensively, I doubt that anyone could find any remarks of his that even hint that "all evil" emanates from any one source, the U.S. or elsewhere. His analysis is far more complex and subtle than that, as you would see if you were to actually read this "off the wall" book, "9-11." I recommend that you do. It's a best-seller, you know.