| Number 393 | November 30, 2007 |
|
This Week: Deficits, Cuba, Health
|
|
Greetings, Nygaard Notes is still in catch-up mode, sifting through the still-impressive pile of clippings on the desk here at World Headquarters. After two weeks of focusing on Wartime Propaganda, this week brings a return to looking at the usual propaganda—the type to which we are so accustomed that we hardly notice it. This might go on into the next issue, too. We never know. A short editor's note this week, to make room for all of the stuff that has to fit in here. Concisely yours, Nygaard |
|
This week's "Quote" is actually a set of three, all on the subject of Venezuela, where recent developments are very ominous. #1: The Council on Hemispheric Affairs released an analysis of Venezuelan affairs on May 31st 2007 that included these words: "[T]here is the notion in Europe that when it comes to Hugo Chavez, there is more than meets the eye, and that he deserves the chance to end the country's history of tiny elites exploiting Venezuela's natural resources to the disadvantage of its poverty-ravaged population. For many, Chavez's vision for Latin America's future contains much more diamond than lead." #2: Thomas Walker, Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Director Emeritus of Latin American Studies at Ohio University, wrote this on November 30th, 2007: "As a grizzly, grumpy old professor who has watched the behavior of the United States in Latin America for a number of years, I am increasingly worried nowadays about the real possibility that the US may be about to foment a coup in Venezuela. We've done it a number of times in other countries and unsuccessfully once in Venezuela itself in 2002. I would ask you all to be very suspicious if our media and government start beating their breast over the killing of peaceful opposition marchers in the planned demonstration protesting the constitutional referendum this Sunday [December 2]." #3: Finally, from the very reliable Eva Golinger in Venezuela, this crucial (and otherwise unreported) item was published two days earlier, on November 28th: "[A]n internal CIA memorandum has been obtained by Venezuelan counterintelligence from the US Embassy in Caracas that reveals a very sinister—almost fantastical, were it not true—plan to destabilize Venezuela during the coming days. The plan, titled ‘OPERATION PLIERS' was authored by CIA Officer Michael Middleton Steere and was addressed to CIA Director General Michael Hayden in Washington." I'll have more—hopefully much more—on Venezuela in the coming weeks. |
|
Hate Crimes Up On November 20 the FBI released its annual report on the incidence of hate crimes in the United States. This report covered the year 2006, and found that hate crime incidents rose about 8 percent last year from the year before. The statistics, to be sure, are suspect. The State of Mississippi, for instance, reported zero hate crimes in 2006. Alabama does not consider crimes linked to sexual orientation to be hate crimes, according to Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center. "That's one example of why hate crime statistics are basically a worthless number," she says, adding that "It's not the FBI's fault." Still, faulty though the numbers are, any attempt to substantiate what many targeted communities have been reporting should be prominent news. Yet this story appeared on page 8 in my local paper, and in none of the nation's agenda-setting newspapers did this story make the front page. The New York Times—no doubt the most powerful agenda-setter of all—failed to report the story on any page. Deregulation Fails Again November 6th, NY Times Business Section, Page 4. Headline: "Unregulated Electricity Costs More, Studies Say." The lead paragraph says it all: "Retail electricity prices have risen much more in states that adopted competitive pricing than in those that have retained traditional rates set by the government, new studies based on years of price reports show." How bad is it? "...in 2006 alone industrial customers paid $7.2 billion more for electricity in market states than if they had paid the average prices in regulated states." Three months earlier (August 10) USA Today had this headline on the front page of its Business section, a section it calls "Money": "Shocking Prices Follow Deregulation; States That Dropped Price Caps Watch and Worry as Rates Soar." The story is not shocking enough, apparently, to put on the front page (the actual front page, not the "Money" front page). The issue has appeared on the front page of only two newspapers in the U.S. in the past six months (Houston and Allentown, PA). Sex Ed: Something Works, But Not "Abstinence-Only" On November 7th my local paper had a tiny "News Brief" from the Associated Press on page 14 that started out "Programs that focus exclusively on abstinence have not been shown to affect teenager sexual behavior, although they are eligible for tens of millions of dollars in federal grants..." And thus is added a drop to the tsunami of evidence that has been coming in on the effectiveness of so-called "abstinence" sex education. This was a report on a study by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, which "found that while abstinence-only efforts appear to have little positive impact, more comprehensive sex education programs were having ‘positive outcomes' including teenagers ‘delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the frequency of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom or contraceptive use.'" |
|
A story from the Washington Post that was reprinted in my local newspaper, the Star Tribune, on October 16th bore the headline "‘Fiscal Showdown' Brewing?" It was about the "battle" between Bush and the Congress over spending. The sub-head in the Star Trib began with the words "With the deficit way down..." And in the article we read that "the deficit now represents just 1.2 percent of the overall economy, lower than the average rate over the past four decades. Yet Bush has gotten no credit for that with the public..." Possibly this is because the public is aware that the federal budget was actually in SURPLUS when Mr. Bush was appointed to his current position—a surplus which equaled 2.4 percent of the economy, or $236 billion. By Mr. Bush's fourth year in office this surplus had been transformed into a huge deficit (3.6 percent of the economy, or $413 billion). That's a swing of almost $650 billion in four years. So, is the deficit "way down"? The answer is yes... IF we start counting from 2004, when it was considerably higher than the average rate over the past four decades. But the answer is NO, if we count from the time when Mr. Bush was appointed to office. The article says that the current "battle" is occurring "after years of record-high deficits." In fact, the current Bush deficits peaked in 2004 at 2.6 percent of the economy, which is lower than it was in the fiscal years 1976, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993. Since the article implies that this "battle" is between the fiscally-responsible Republicans and the high-spending Democrats, misreporting the years of "record-high deficits"—which all have occurred under Republican presidents—is a rather serious error, and very convenient for one side in the current "battle." This is what passes for economic reporting in the establishment media. Heaven help us. |
|
On November 16th the New York Times decided to publish a major article on Cuba's Operation Miracle, the program that started in 2004 to provide free eye surgeries to millions of people in the Americas. The headline read, "A Health System's 'Miracles' Come With Hidden Costs." It was a very odd article, since it contained mostly testimonials to the program from people who have benefited. The fifth paragraph, for example, reads like this: "The government has dubbed the program Operation Miracle, and for the hundreds of thousands of people from Venezuela, Central America and the Caribbean who have benefited from it since it was started in July 2004, it is aptly named." After noting that some Cuban physicians have chosen to work abroad as a part of the program, the Times notes that "The doctors and nurses left in Cuba are stretched thin and overworked, resulting in a decline in the quality of care for Cubans, some doctors and patients said." The article then quotes exactly one doctor—and no patients—who say anything of the sort. "Dr. Sergio M. Vidal Casali... at the Ramon Pando Ferrer Cuban Institute of Ophthalmology ... said the heavy flow of foreign patients through the hospital, combined with the exodus of several physicians to other countries, had hurt his department. ‘I don't like it, really,' he said. ‘It's wonderful for the people, but not for us. It disturbs our work.'" On the other hand, the Times spoke with Dr. Reynaldo Rios Casas, the director of the Institute, whose only complaint was that "the first days of the program were hectic." Then he commented that "It was really heroic. We were operating day, afternoon and night." Operation Miracle has meant that "The hospital's budget has been increased tenfold and its equipment upgraded. It now has 34 operating theaters with state-of-the-art equipment, including two outfitted for advanced laser surgery techniques. One advantage of the program is that it has given young surgeons a steady flow of patients on whom to hone their skills." Dr. Rios notes that, now, "Our specialists have an incredible amount of experience." Francisca Antonia Guevara, 74, "a homemaker" with "few resources" had cataract surgery "with the Cuban government paying for everything—including air transportation, housing, food and even the follow-up care." As she waited for her surgery, she said to the Times "I never imagined anyone would help me the way they [the Cubans] have helped me. I thought I was going to end up blind." Reina Lopez, 58, "has not been able to see for 13 years because of cataracts." Her daughter "said she had cared for her mother since she lost her sight. The family, including four children, survives on her father's salary of $3 a day, plus whatever fruit can be sold at a market on Saturdays. ‘For the poor, [Operation Miracle] is a tremendous benefit,'" said the daughter. Manuel Agustin Isasi, 33, had "accidentally burned both corneas with a bucket of quicklime" and "had been one of the first to receive a cornea transplant in his left eye when the program started, he said. Then, in early November, doctors in Havana replaced the cornea in his right eye. He was unabashed in his praise for the Cuban government and for President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela." So, there you have it: One doctor who said "I don't like it, really." Another doctor who says that the first few days were "hectic" but "heroic," with his doctors getting "an incredible amount of experience." Then several patients speak, one saying that she "never imagined" she could receive such help, another saying that the program "is a tremendous benefit," and a third who is "unabashed in his praise for the Cuban government and for President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela." Obviously, all of this justifies the headline: "A Health System's 'Miracles' Come With Hidden Costs." |
