This Week: A Little o' This, A Little o' That

Quote of the Week

Budget Bill About To Pass: You Won't Believe What's In It

United States Culture?

Chile Social Security a Failure.  Who Knew?  We Did
TV-Land: "The Best Possible Environment" = No "Controversy"
"We're All Prepared For That Possibility?"  I'm Not!
"Progressively More Autocratic and Antidemocratic." Who, Me?

Greetings,

So much time was consumed in these pages over the past couple of months by the Propaganda Series that I now find myself with a large pile of newspaper clippings and other things that I never got around to discussing.  So, this week, and maybe the next, I will play a little "catch-up" with this stuff, throwing together a large number of shorter pieces that each illustrate a little something about our culture.  Or something.  It's almost a sort of "Humor Issue," or "News of the Weird" except that, when relevant, I will also offer an activist option for those who want to do something about a given issue, or at least support people who are doing something.

That doesn't mean that the things in this issue are not amusing.  Or weird.  But they're not ONLY that.  See what you think.

Amusedly yours,

Nygaard

"Quote" of the Week:

Last week I talked about the election of Evo Morales as president of Bolivia.  Two days after that issue came out, Mr. Morales was inaugurated, which got media coverage around the world.  Our local paper ran an article from the New York Times, which quoted a Bolivian "political analyst" speaking of Mr. Morales and his cabinet and their likely course of action, saying:

"There could be realism and pragmatism in their policies or they could allow ideology to guide them."

Get it?  The hidden premise here (not very well hidden) is that "realistic" and "pragmatic" economic policies have no "ideology."  Does that seem odd to you?  I hope so.

Budget Bill About To Pass: You Won't Believe What's In It

Or, maybe you will believe what's in it.  In any case, most people don't KNOW what's in it, since the news of its passage out of the House of Representatives on December 19th made the front page in only three newspapers in the nation that I could find: the Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Omaha World-Herald.  Since it has been so poorly reported, and since the final version of the budget will likely come up for a vote NEXT WEEK, I'll just mention a few of the more salient points here, courtesy of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.  All are direct quotations from their January 9th report, "Assessing the Effects of the Budget Conference Agreement on Low-income Families and Individuals."

To start out, CBPP points out that "The conference agreement, which runs 774 pages, was written behind closed doors and was not made available to Members of the House or the public until 1:12 AM Monday morning [Dec. 19].  The House then began voting on the legislation at 5:43 AM Monday morning, with little opportunity for Members to learn what the legislation actually did in a number of key policy areas."

Why the secrecy?  Once you read the following partial list of what's in the secret bill, you might understand why.  The conference agreement on the budget includes:

"substantial Medicaid cuts aimed at the program's low-income beneficiaries."

"Substantial increases in co-payments and premiums for many beneficiaries, including near-poor children."

"Benefit reductions that could affect working-poor parents and nearly all of the 28 million children who receive Medicaid coverage."

"Citizenship documentation that would likely decrease Medicaid coverage among eligible U.S. born citizens, especially elderly African-Americans."

"Overly restrictive asset transfer rules for people who need nursing home care. "

"a $1.5 billion cut in federal funding for child support enforcement efforts over the next five years and a $4.9 billion cut over the next ten years."

"the largest change in welfare policy since 1996."

"$343 million in net cuts in funding for the foster care program"

"under-funding of child care" so extensive that "we estimate that in 2010, some 255,000 fewer children in low-income working families ... will receive child care assistance than received such assistance in 2004."

Finally, CBPP points out that "The savings that the budget agreement produces are expected to be used not to reduce the deficit, but to help finance several tax cuts slated to be enacted early next year that will primarily benefit high-income individuals."

This summary is 'way too brief, but you can read the report yourself online (it's 10 pages long) at http://www.cbpp.org/12-20-05bud.pdf .  Then, before February 1st, you can call your Senator and Federal Representative and tell them what you think.

United States Culture?

For the week ending November 13th, 2005, three of the nation's Top Ten cable television shows were football games.  A fourth one was a Nickelodeon cartoon show called "The Fairly OddParents."  The other seven top-rated shows for the week were seven different episodes of SpongeBob SquarePants.

Chile's Social Security Is a Failure.  Who Knew?  We Did

Back in Nygaard Notes Number 298, on June 14, 2005, I quoted "President" Bush speaking to then-Chilean President Ricardo Lagos, as follows: "I think some members of Congress could take some lessons from Chile, particularly when it comes to how to run our pension plans.  Our Social Security system needs to be modernized, Mr. President, and I look forward to getting some suggestions as to how to do so, since you have done so, so well."

So well, you say?  Well, on January 10th there was an excellent article on page three of the New York Times (All The News That's Fit To Print!) about the campaign for president of Chile.  The headline read: "Chile's Candidates Agree to Agree on Pension Woes."  Woes?  Whoa!  Here are a few comments from the article:

"Michelle Bachelet is a pediatrician and a Socialist, while Sebastian Piñera is a billionaire businessman and a conservative. They may agree on little as the opposing candidates in Chile's election for president, but they concur on one important point: the country's much vaunted and much copied privatized pension system needs immediate repair."

"Mr. Piñera is the brother of Jose Piñera, the former labor minister who imposed the personal account system during the dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet." [Jose, by the way, is perhaps the world's leading advocate of privatizing Social Security systems.  Ed.]

"According to a recent study here, Chile's pension funds, whose number has shrunk to 6 from more than 20 as competition has diminished, recorded an average annual profitability of more than 50 percent during a recent five-year period.  Other studies, including one conducted by the World Bank, indicate that pension funds retain between a quarter and a third of workers' contributions in the form of commissions, insurance and other administrative fees."

"'Most people perceive the costs of pensions and the pensions themselves as unfair,' said Patricio Navia, a political science professor at New York University and at Diego Portales University here. 'Many of those who started work when the system was first adopted are realizing that they have not been able to contribute enough to get a significant pension,' Mr. Navia said, adding that they resent 'overhead costs that are so high' and that have led to record profits for the pension funds that manage contributions automatically deducted from workers' paychecks."

''The bottom line is that this system does not work with this labor market,'' said Andras Uthoff, an economist who is director of the social development division of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America here.

TV-Land: "The Best Possible Environment" = No "Controversy"

The Advertising Column of the New York Times of January 11th was all about a TV show called "The Book of Daniel," which is about "a priest with a dysfunctional family."  It seems there is a "paucity of marketers buying commercial time during the debut" of the show, which is not unrelated to the fact that "the American Family Association criticizes the program as anti-Christian."  The AFA, for those who don't know, "believes in holding accountable the companies which sponsor programs attacking traditional family values."

Times reporter Stuart Elliot first makes the point that "Many mainstream advertisers have long been skittish about television programs with plot lines deemed contentious or provocative."

From the same article, here is Kevin Reilly, president of NBC Entertainment, elaborating on the point:  "Advertisers do have a history of taking a cautious approach to controversial shows.  It's an age-old issue.  We want to run contemporary programming, and we want to create the best possible environment for advertisers."

If this issue concerns you, check out the group Commercial Alert, whose mission is "to keep the commercial culture within its proper sphere, and to prevent it from exploiting children and subverting the higher values of family, community, environmental integrity and democracy."  They are found at http://www.commercialalert.org/ .

"We're All Prepared For That Possibility?"  I'm Not!

On January 19th the United States launched the $650 million "New Horizons" space probe on a mission to study the planet Pluto.  Since Pluto is so far away from the sun, "New Horizons" could not be totally powered by solar panels.  Instead, the probe was launched with 24 pounds of highly-radioactive plutonium on board, which the Ottawa Citizen calls "the second-largest chunk of plutonium-powered load NASA has ever launched."  Does this seem like a bad idea to you?  It seems like a bad idea to a lot of people, although you'd be hard-pressed to find that out by reading the Mainstream Corporate For-Profit Agenda-Setting Bound Media.

In fact, the daily newspaper in Houston, the home of NASA's Johnson Space Center, ran this headline on January 12th: "Weighing the Risks of Plutonium Power; Threat to Public Called Virtually Nil, Despite Concerns Voiced by Some Anti-Nuclear Critics."

Well, call me an "anti-nuclear critic," but I do know that NASA itself says there is a 1-in-350 chance of plutonium being released in a launch failure.   And radiation cleanup costs, according to the Tampa Tribune, could range from $240 million to $1.3 billion per square mile.

And here is an excerpt from a chilling report that a Gannett newspaper called "Florida Today," ran in their "Pluto New Horizons launch journal" on the day of the launch:

"The government officials are making the rounds of the press site. ... reminding us of the steps to take if something goes wrong today. ... We were just told the same thing we've been telling you for months now.  If the rocket explodes during the first 40 seconds of flight and winds are blowing the resulting plume toward populated areas, people should go inside immediately.  We were told to get inside fast, turn off our air conditioning and wait for word from NASA officials about what to do next.  We're all prepared here for that possibility."

Turn off the air conditioning?!?

On January 27, 1967, NASA's Apollo I spacecraft was destroyed in a flash fire during a launch pad test.  Three astronauts died in that tragic accident.  On January 28, 1986, NASA's Challenger spacecraft exploded 73 seconds after launch, killing seven astronauts and hurling debris for miles.  On February 1, 2003 the space shuttle Columbia broke apart over northeastern Texas, killing another seven astronauts and "spreading debris over a swath of Texas and Louisiana."  Some people think there was nuclear material on board Columbia, but it's very hush-hush.

With this history in mind, a database search of English-language newspapers for the past month reveals an interesting pattern.  Searching for the words "Pluto" and "NASA" brought up 130 articles.  Searching for the words "Pluto" and "plutonium" brought up 23 articles.  Searching for the words "Pluto" and "plutonium" and "Challenger" brought up zero articles.  The same for "Columbia."

Is it worth $650 million and a risk of nuclear disaster to find out more about the planet Pluto?  Despite the fact that most people only become aware of such missions through the window provided by the corporate media, the debate that this question might provoke never seems to appear there.

If you are concerned about nuclear energy in outer space--and weapons, which are a whole 'nother story!--check out the website of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space.  They can be found at http://www.space4peace.org/ .

"Progressively More Autocratic and Antidemocratic." Who, Me?

According to the American Psychological Association, the word "projection" is used "when one erroneously attributes his or her own unwanted thoughts, motives, or feelings to another."  Another definition says that "projection" is "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept."

Why am I telling you this?  Well, you see, I was reading an article about Venezuela on page 6 of the New York Times of January 14, talking about how "the United States will not allow Spain to sell military aircraft with American technology to Venezuela."  The U.S. has the right to do this, because the planes "were to contain American technology, so Spain was required to obtain a license from Washington before completing the sale."

The article said, "In rejecting Spain's request, American officials said the sale amounted to support for an oppressive government that threatened to spread instability.  'Despite being democratically elected, the government of President Hugo Chavez has systematically undermined democratic institutions, pressured and harassed independent media and the political opposition, and grown progressively more autocratic and antidemocratic,' the embassy said in a statement."

That quote from the embassy is the one that got me to go look up the definition of "projection."