Author: michaelmt

One of the most important stories of the past few months was buried last week–not just accidentally, in the wake of Abdul’s abdication and astroturf, but deliberately and securely. If you saw anything of Hillary Clinton’s trip to the Congo on MSM, it was probably the Secretary of State’s thinly veiled contempt for a questioner who asked her what “her husband thought” (sic) about some issue.

Yet last week Clinton set down one of the most clear markers that (on the international front, at least) there will be “change we can believe in.” Aside from passing references in progressive blogs, the act–and its significance–passed unnoticed.

We have an obligation to look not only at what Clinton did and said, but on the underlying forces that caused it to be buried.

Last week Hillary Clinton made one of the most important statements of her short-but-notable tenure as Secretary of State, when she confronted the warlords and cowardly leaders of some African nations with respect to rape as a weapon of war. This year alone, some 3500 women have been raped in the Congo. In a study of small towns, UN representatives found that children as young as 4 had been raped in half of them.  A BBC report has this tragic anecdote:

“I came across a woman who said she was with her children in her house – they were 12 and 14,” she told the BBC’s Network Africa programme.
“She begged the rebels to rape her children first and finish with her because she had HIV/Aids. But she was crying because they didn’t listen.”

This is not just an act of violence–it’s genocide. Woman who have been raped in Muslim countries are often outcast for life. There is almost no health care for them. Many live with vaginal lacerations and serious urinary and rectal injuries for years. They have no way to make a living, and (because we have not provided the simpest of solar cooking devices) risk repeated violation every time they leave a camp to find firewood.

Her statements did threaten “serious consequences” but did not enumerate. The very fact that she was clear and didn’t mince words was amazing. Here’s one clip:

Clinton met with DRC President Joseph Kabila while in Goma, and described her “very frank discussions about sexual violence,” which included urging the Congolese government to prosecute and punish all who commit such crimes. “That is particularly important when those who commit such acts are in positions of authority, including members of the Congolese military,” she said.

To confront the military (an authority in itself) in a country like this takes cajones and that lady has them!

In a sense, Clinton’s militancy in this issue might be seen as recompense for (Bill Clinton’s admittedly) slow action over a decade ago. From AP via Wall Street Journal: this report:

The conflict has raged for about 15 years in this vast nation. It began when Tutsi forces pursued Hutu perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide over the Congolese border, but has since devolved into clashes among several armed groups over the valuable minerals in the region. The Congolese people are caught in the middle. Tens of thousands of women and girls, and some men, have been raped.

Why have we remained silent so long? Why was her confrontation of the Congolese military buried? A significant part of the question involves oil–and war for oil. In a global game of Stratego, the Chinese have planted their flags on most of Africa. We owe them so much money (over $2 trillion) for our Iraq war that previous administrations have hesitated to stand up for any sort of change in the region.

So when with her characteristic energy and courage–and the support of Obama–Clinton goes to the Congo and stares the abettors down, she is not just defending defenseless women, but she is signalling that the United States will not have its ethical and moral stands blackmailed by its Chinese and Middle Eastern “credit card companies.”

Is Africa truly low priority to Americans? Even if that is true, the implications of this move extend far beyond that continent to our relationships with China and the Arab world. Which leaves the issue: “How did our bankers manage to insure that there was almost no coverage?”  When we say we will not be muzzled, we indicate that we are a different nation than we were a year ago. This is an amazing development, and one for which Secretary Clinton should be receiving far more attention.

Watching Sarah Palin’s self-delusional interview this morning caused me some very uncomfortable flashbacks. It was impossible (for me, not her) to forget the drama of her rallies last fall, and the images of mindless Gop-bots chanting lines they had been fed by the party puppet-masters. It took me months to realize why those rallies seemed so familiar.

They are oddly reminiscent of an experience I had a decade ago, when a group of very bright young people dragged me to a midnight showing of Rocky Horror Picture Show.  The GOP audiences at the Sarah Palin rallies were not just far right nuts, they were programmed to recite, react and vote by a script.

And unless we want to see the same Rocky Horror Picture Show in two years in Iowa, it’s important we understand what makes these folks so attracted to such mass rallies.

There are some fascinating clues to the psychology of Republicanitis in current science–come along with me to learn to understand:
First, there’s the “science of gullibility”, a fascinating new book by psychologist Stephen Greenspan, who was featured on NPR’s Science Friday today. Greenspan (whose name is oddly incongruous) admits he’s lost a significant portion of his own retirement funds because he gullibly bought into a Madoff fund. His work is one of many that offer a peek into Republican psychology.

A second glimpse into the conservative mindset appeared in a book published in the last few weeks of the election, two social scientists, D. Sunshine Hillygus and Todd G. Shieldsm, published a high level analysis of how campaigns succeed. (Not surprisingly, no one had much time to read it.)

The[ir] book advances the important point that although campaigns [do] not change a voter’s predispositions, that does not mean that all such predispositions favor the same candidate. Instead, many voters are ambivalent because their partisanship and issue positions conflict. For example, there are a sizable number of pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans. Campaigns can persuade these voters to favor one candidate over the other by altering the level of importance they place on their party and their issue positions.

In The Power of Cross Pressures, these authors present ample evidence that a campaign like Obama’s changes votes, but not underlying attitudes. So to really achieve change “we can believe in” we have to look under the vote–forget the celebration, and figure out what will be working next time around.

A third study: a deeper look at conservative psychology appeared in Science 3 October 2008, where Canadian psychologists Whitson and Galinsky showed data that the “need for control” was an important and vital source of motivation for many, who see social situations (like democratic and progressive cat-herding) as terrifying uncontrollable threats to their personal structure. This research fits well with the general assumption that Republicans need paternalistic and even dominionist structures. The authors recommend “self-affirmation exercises to bring their illusory perceptions under control.”

October surprise! For many people, their 401K statement just before the election was terrifying! So they went to the calmest “daddy” figure (Obama) for reassurance.

In that same issue of Science, two other authors, Norenzayan and Shariff, published a high level synthesis of a number of articles showing how religion could serve as a structure to reduce anxiety and improve social behaviors in such folks

Experimentally induced religious thoughts reduce rates of cheating and increase altruistic behavior among anonymous strangers. Experiments demonstrate an association between apparent profession of religious devotion and greater trust.

The stricter the religion (or the preacher) the more faithful the flock:

Sociological analyses are consistent with the idea that religious groups imposing more costly requirements have members who are more committed.

There is no better example of a person using religion as an avenue to political power than Palin.

The study also explains how the mindset fosters agreement within by fueling hatred for those who aren’t “in:”

The same mechanisms involved in ingroup altruism may also facilitate outgroup antagonism

So now for my personal nightmare–the Rocky Horror Picture Show scenario. If Obama is anywhere near effective, October, 2011 won’t be as terrifying economically or politically as October, 2008. Yet fear is needed for folks like Sarah Palin to succeed. She’s got to have enemies, so that her friends can unite. She’s got to convince them (not us) that the reason she didn’t win the 2009 election was that “scary people” (like Keith Olberman) conspired against her.

Unless we understand why Palin’s 15 minutes of fame occurred last fall, and why her audiences were so rabidly partison, we are destined (like “Groundhog Day”) to see the same show at a stadium somewhere near Des Moines in just a few years from now.

So don’t celebrate too hard next week. We have work to be done. We need to spend time both listening to and reassuring the Republican at the water cooler or the local donut shop. Science tells us that despite a nearly hundred electoral vote majority, there is still a significant segment of the American population who can be motivated by fear and insecurity. Their votes may have changed, but their insecurities have not.

Palin began with her interviews played on YouTube and the media today. “Be afraid–be very afraid”–of the media and the liberal elites. Her whining about Caroline Kennedy being “upper class” was a dog whistle–“Lower class folks, unite around me!”

Hopefully, the next four years will welcome an evidence-based revolution. We can understand and treat the pathological psychology of the far-right. And we can avoid another series of replays of the far right “Horror Picture Show” that ran ad nauseum last fall.

Have you seen Senator Clinton decry the way that American companies have “offshored” so many jobs? It’s a cry that rings true in Ohio, and probably in Pennsylvania and Indiana. But as the Clinton tax reports finally trickle out, it appears there’s an issue that’s much bigger in them than the amount they’ve earned, what they’ve donated, or what they payed. It appears the Clintons have offshored their own fortune or at least a good hunk of it.
The first example (that appeared only briefly in the press, then mysteriously disappeared) is the fact that report that Clinton has an interest in a Cayman Islands account:

In the increasing bitter, down to the wire, struggle for the Democratic candidacy, the media and Senator Obama have both now latched on to information that shows former president Bill Clinton has a substantial financial stake in three Cayman Islands-registered investment entities…The investments, with Yucaipa Companies, a Los Angeles-based holding company that was founded in 1986 by its billionaire chairman, Ronald Burkle, are believed to offer the former president a fairly risk-free potential yield in the order of tens of millions of dollars…At issue is how the money should be treated for taxation purposes.

There is a part of this report that is questionable, though. Like Andorra and Leichtenstein, the Cayman Islands is a tax haven. There aren’t many tax treaties to cover the issue of how those funds will be taxed. So this continued statement in the article doesn’t reflect the best opinions of experts in the field:

Although ultimately former president Clinton will have to pay US taxes on income earned through the funds, experts point out that, because there is no domestic taxation system in the Cayman Islands, the way the funds are financed could be used to minimise tax liabilities incurred.

Tax treaties generally defer to local authorities the determination of what is taxable, and in the Caymans, anything goes.

The company was founded by Clinton “bundler” Ronald Burkle (over a million and counting) in the United States in 1986, but then offshored to the Cayman tax haven. Will the extent of that investment ever be revealed? Probably not! It has been only about a month since the temporary (albeit ineffective) attempted shut down of Wikileaks for revealing banking information from tax shelters. All that fuss accomplished was to make the banks (the defacto rulers of the Caymans, Andorra and Leichtenstein) more careful about their records.

Then there is there investment in a holding company headquartered in Dubai–again something that’s not illegal, but decidedly unpatriotic! It’s also a great way to obscure donations from foreign agents, although there’s no evidence of that.

How can Clinton run on a platform that includes eliminating offshore tax shelters and maintain several of her own? This statement by a Clinton spokesperson is questionable if not patently untrue:

Jay Carson, a spokesperson for Sen. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said the Yucaipa global fund was organized in the Cayman Islands to attract foreign investors. “Each investor or partner in the fund pays the taxes they owe in their home country. For U.S. citizens like Bill Clinton, that means he pays U.S. taxes on his income from this fund, which he does,” said Carson.

…While this statement, from the same article, is obvious:

“No average person has interest and funds in the Cayman Islands. This is all the above-average, non-tax-paying, super rich,” said Jack Blum, an attorney and leading expert on offshore tax havens.

Why has this not made lead headlines? Of course, it was released on Friday evening. But even beyond that, my guess is that the Clintons are pulling the old Obi Wan Kenobi trick: “Nothing to see here; move along now.” And MSM plays along, looking at the numbers and not the context of the reports.

But I’m left wondering two things: First, was there any connection between the attempt to protect tax-sheltering banks last month and the release of these documents? And second, how can labor (and union members) support a candidate whose “chief strategist” lobbies for Columbia, whose husband gets an award from Columbia’s union-terrorizing president, and who puts a hunk of their fortune in companies that offshore jobs and funds?

It was June 21, and the Incas in Peru were celebrating winter solstice much as their ancestors did–and as the Celts did in England, two thousand years and half a year ago…

Meanwhile, most of the Christians in Peru were cooking up a storm for St. John Baptist day, the “celebration” that the missionaries superimposed on solstice in South America, just as the popes, (St.) Patrick and his friends superimposed an arbitrary date for Christmas on winter solstice in Northern Europe.

If you’ve brought out the popcorn to read a diary that is reminiscent of a muddy Bobby DiNiro movie, The Mission, and you believe that the political machinations of Latin American missionaries ended in the 18th Century, read on. Missionaries from a wide number of churches are active in not only charity but political movements today.
I began a short series of diaries Monday with a look at the Amazon through Children’s Eyes and shared a bit about logging on Tuesday. But perhaps the biggest surprise I had as our short trip continued was the number of “missionaries” we ran into during our past few trips to Latin America. They were thicker than mosquitoes.

South America is swarming with lay missionaries today–they are the largest group of “tourists” in many regions. (There were at least 10,000 Catholic lay missionaries in 2006 according to www.uscatholicmission.org/files/pp2006a.pdf and the number of evangelicals is probably greater.) In our past two trips, they were a dominant presence in the lodges and air terminals. They paint schools, distribute (government financed) immunizations, and pray. In doing so, they are not only learning about poverty in a way that they never could at home, but at least a few are continuing a long tradition of political action by religious groups in Latin America that began with Pizzaro’s company.

In the 1980’s Ecuadorian president Jamie Roldόs declared war on at least one missionary group, the Summer Institute for Linguistics, of “sinister collusion with the oil companies.” Here’s John Perkins (Confessions of an Economic Hitman) again:

[Roldόs] …accused …SIL, an evangelical missionary group…of sinister collusion with the oil companies…SIL had been working estensively with the Huarani tribe in the Amazon basin area, during the early years of oil exploration when a disturbing pattern appeared to emerge. While it might have been a coincidence (and no link was ever proved), stories were told…that when seismologists reported to corporate headquarters that a certain region had characteristics indicating a high probability of oil beneath the surface, some SIL members went in and encouraged the indigenous people to move from that land, onlto missionary rservations; there they would receive free food, shelter, clothes,medical treatment and missionary-style education. The condition was that, according to these stories, they had to deed their lands to the oil companies…Rumors abounded that SIL missionaries used an assortment of underhanded techniques to persuade the tribes to abandon their homes…food heavily laced with lazatives–then…medicines to cure the diarrhea epidemic.

But unlike North of the Border, in Latin America the political views of the Evangelical presence has been skewed left rather than right. Here’s a take on the net effect from Paul Freston for the Pew Forum:

The political implications of Protestantism, especially pentecostalism, have been appraised in very varied ways by scholars. On the one side are authors who emphasize the repressive and corporatist nature of the pentecostal churches and see them as reproducing traditional authoritarian political culture and social control. Other authors stress Protestantism’s democratizing potential, talking of a vibrant civil society. They contend that Protestant churches offer a free social space, an experience of solidarity and a new personal identity, as well as responsible participation in the community and, for some, the development of leadership gifts.

As in the United States, the Protestant activists have been politically active–but often in surprising directions.

There has been considerable pentecostal support for Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Evangelicals do not seem to be very worried about Evo Morales in Bolivia, at least not so far. Another factor is evangelical penetration of the indigenous communities in the Andes and Central America, and that also has taken a strong political connotation in many areas.

That’s partly a function of their opposition to the Catholic Church’s ties to the old, right-wing political parties and partly a result of the membership–largely the poorest of the poor.

Despite the best efforts of the Catholic hierarchy and their allies in governments, the line between indigenous religions and mission work is often blurred. Here’s a description of one “fight” between the U.S. and Latin American governments that you might never have suspected.

Several Brazilian churches started to administer ayahuasca as a sacrament in a syncretic fusion of Catholicism and shamanism. The two largest of these church movements–Santo Daime and União de Vegetal–utilized yagé in their religious services without interference by the Brazilian government until the mid-1980s, when U.S. officials pressured Brazil’s Federal Council on Narcotics to put the Banisteriopsis caapi vine on a list of controlled substances. The ayahuasca churches protested, and a government committee was appointed to investigate the matter. After examining the churches’ use of yagé and testing it on themselves, the members of this committee recommended that the ban on ayahuasca be lifted. The Brazilian government acted upon this recommendation and legalized the sacramental use of yagé in 1987, much to the dismay of the U.S. Embassy.

Evangelicism in Latin America is pervasive and growing. It’s been enough of a concern to the Vatican that two papal visits–with canonizations–have occurred in the past few years. It’s not clear, however, whether the net effects will be plusses or minuses for the poor. Will all those returning young people remember the great gifts of the people to whom they’ve given their time and talents? Or will they remember only their own pride and power?

Part of my own answer came from a conversation I overheard between a group leader and her young charges. Prior to taking them to see a local Yagua Shaman, she was encouraging them to be respectful and to listen quietly. She told them he might paint them with blue symbols that would eventually wear off, and to listen carefully to his lessons on ecology. In word and attitude, she was modeling respect.

So here’s to the missionaries…not the Christians, but the Yagua and the other indigenous South American peoples, who are teaching our young people to appreciate their genius and their heritage. Hopefully, those young people will come home and teach us a thing or two.

I began a short series of diaries yesterday with a look at the Amazon: Amazonia: Through Children’s Eyes. Today I’d like to share a horror story that almost no one sees–at least, not in the United States. Even living in Miami, where Univision rivals Faux as the primary news source, I was surprised to learn of the war between Peru and Ecuador from students.

Here’s the official story:

A longstanding territorial dispute between Ecuador and Peru erupted in fighting on January 26, 1995, in the remote, rugged jungle mountains of the Cordillera del Condor, where a stretch of border had never been clearly marked and where deposits of gold, uranium, and oil supposedly lay.

Peru reported losing several warplanes and almost 50 soldiers; Ecuador’s official toll was about 30 dead and 300 wounded, but the casualties on both sides most likely were greater.

Certainly they were…because the defenders of the rainforest from the oil czars were indigenous people, and they don’t count, do they? Their opponents were aided by CIA advisors, your “tax dollars at work.”

The war threatened to re-ignite in 2002. Here’s how John Perkins described the situation: (from Confessions of an Economic Hitman):.

…yet, in Ecuador, the situation was very different. This war would not require the U.S. Army, for it would be fought by a few thousand indigenous warriors equipped only with spears, machetes, and single shot, muzzle-loaded rifles. They would face off against a modern Ecuadorian army, a handful of U.S. Special forces advisers, and jackal-trained mercenaries hired by the oil companies…In December, 2002, oil company representatives accused an indigenous community of taking a team of its workers hostage; they suggested that the warriors involved were members of a terrorist group, with implications of possible ties to al-Qaeda…The oil workers…had trespassed on lands where they were not allowed.

In the end, the people of the forest went on a hunger strike in protest.

Here’s the Bush game of fear and fear-mongering again. Oppose the profits, and you are labeled a terrorist.

The “war on terror”, identified in Amnesty International’s annual report as a new source of human rights abuses, is threatening to expand to Latin America, targeting indigenous movements that are demanding autonomy and protesting free-market policies and “neo-liberal” globalisation. In the United States “there is a perception of indigenous activists as destabilising elements and terrorists,” and their demands and activism have begun to be cast in a criminal light, lawyer José Aylwin, with the Institute of Indigenous Studies at the University of the Border in Temuco IPS

Echoes of that war still filter through the forest. Last year in Ecuador, I heard constant comments about (with emphasis) Peruvians. (We were in the Galapagos, and many of those comments were about fish poaching.) This year, we heard as many about Ecuador–not overtly angry or aggressive, but the shoulder-shrugging sort of nuance that indicated that the trouble we’ve sown is still germinating there.

On BoomanTribune and other sources we read about great ideas and massive schemes. It’s rare that we take the time to zoom in on their effects on little people with great hearts. But take the time today. Go to Google Earth. Hit Iquitos, Peru. Zoom down and scan…look at the areas that are cleared. That’s your tax dollars at work. As we rode the Amazon and Napo this weekend, we saw many blocked channels into the forest, evidence of the damage being done. But only from a satellite can you see the real impact.

The World Bank makes loans it knows can’t be repaid, for massive, overpriced infrastructure projects that will never be built but will profit cronies. In order to pay the interest on the debt, countries must make concessions to oil and logging companies owned by other cronies (or perhaps, the same ones.) No one who matters can see the damage…The people, and the birds and beasts, and the trees lose.

If this scenario makes you want to pray, think again. Tomorrow’s diary discusses the role of “missionaries.”

(Crossposted at DailyKos)

It’s hard to get people excited about Latin America politics–a bit like asking for a brisk discussion of methods of solving differential equations. But please read on–our future may depend on it. So try a little conscience calisthenics.

I just returned from a quick trip to the Amazon Rainforest. (The mold is still growing in my shoes!)Fortunately (or unfortunately, as your politics may dictate) I took along a bargain copy of John Perkins’ Confessions of an Economic Hitman on the advice of a DKos commenter. It was a “born again” experience.

I’m going to share a number of very specific political situations and insights in a couple of diaries this week. But first, I’d like to share with you the comments of children I saw there.

100 miles up the Amazon from Iquitos, Peru you will find incredible poverty and incredible genius. The Peruvian government has provided relatively permanent “deeds” to strip farms (1 hectare on the river, 14 back) to people who might formerly have been nomadic. The area is changing. One-roomed homes are creeping up along the Amazon and Napo highways.

We spoke to women who worked all day for the equivalent of fifty cents, weaving palms for roofs. We tasted the guane the women were making for St. John’s day (that great scam that the Conquistador missionaries laid on top of winter solstice, just as Christmas was superimposed on winter solstice in northern Europe.) We talked to men who hunted endangered monkeys to feed their children and to “mission groups” who were painting schools and trying to influence politics.

Like most native areas, this one is dramatically split. The insidious influence of international business is corrupting the traditionally generous and peaceful communities. Jobs? Or the environment?

Just two examples today:

I was honored to be invited into the one room home of a Yagua family. Five children lived there. The only decoration on their home (which was being destroyed by termites) was this picture by a ~9 year old child. This was the most significant object in her life–a logging barge that was destroying her environment. I didn’t have enough Spanish to determine the nuance of her observations.

My second example–I sat that evening with a teacher, who had taken her middle schoolers to meet peers in a private Amazonian school. The American kids were relatively shy; just introduced themselves and said hello. The Peruvian kids (100 miles upriver, who have never experienced electricity, running water, or Playstations) introduced themselves and then asked: “Why haven’t you Americans approved Kyoto?”

I’m not kidding!

Now, as an American, did you know that Ecuador and Peru were at war a decade ago? Do you know why? In a nutshell, the issue was where the border was, and which nation controlled the right to sign an oil agreement. The weapons? The spears and poison arrows of indigenous people. Your government provided “technical advisors” to one side, in order to defeat the natives who didn’t want oil spilled into their life-giving river!

More details when the jet lag wears off. But in the interim, please take a look at Confessions of an Economic Hitman. Your conscience depends on it.

(Cross Posted at DailyKos.com)

Promoted by Steven D.

In the morass of scandals being investigated in Washington, there’s a danger that the heroic actions of a few might be ignored at their peril. According to TPMMuckraker.com, during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Bradley Schlozman, the controversial former senior political appointee in the Civil Rights Division indicated that he was looking to fill positions with (sic) “good Americans.” Evidently, that didn’t include women, people of color or people with diverse political views.

The information came from am increasingly endangered species–federal whistleblowers.

The anonymous complaint named three female, minority lawyers whom Schlozman had transferred out of the appellate section (of African-American, Jewish, and Chinese ethnicity, respectively) for no apparent reason.

The complaint languished for two years with no recourse for the whistleblowers. Unless the Senate takes up a whistleblower protection act that was overwhelmingly passed by the House last winter, such brave acts may become even more rare in the future.
Last year the Supreme Court dealt a blow to free speech that caused few waves in public awareness: The Supreme Court scaled back protections for government workers who blow the whistle on official misconduct in a a 5-4 decision in which Justice Samuel Alito cast the deciding vote. In a victory for the Bush administration, justices said the 20 million public employees do not have free-speech protections for what they say as part of their jobs. (Garcetti v. Ceballos, 04-473)

The House took dramatic action in January to restore these rights passing HR 985 by a veto-proof majority. This would not not just be vital for DOJ employees, but especially for scientists who feel their work is being undermined. It is strongly supported by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Senators Levin, Akaka and Grassley introduced S. 274, the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act, to correct what they termed the Federal Circuit’s repeated misinterpretations of the whistleblower law. S. 274 would also strengthen the Office of Special Counsel (the agency responsible for protecting whistleblowers from reprisal) and create protections for federal employees whose security clearances are revoked or against whom an investigation is initiated simply because they blew the whistle. S.274 – the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act – will provide much needed updates to federal whistleblower protections.

To amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify which disclosures of information are protected from prohibited personnel practices; to require a statement in nondisclosure policies, forms, and agreements to the effect that such policies, forms, and agreements are consistent with certain disclosure protections, and for other purposes.

But six months later, nothing has happened. The bill is not active and nothing has happened since its introduction introduction January 11. It seems destined for the same fate it had under the previous two Republican congresses, when it was introduced and died.

Some might argue that there are other, more important issues on the table. But in the long run, there may be nothing more important than the ability of federal employees to maintain their integrity. It’s time to flex your fingers and nudge the Senate to action.

When a controversial study was released in The Lancet last October, suggesting that by that time some 655,000 people had died (over and above normal mortality rates) in Iraq since the war had started, Republican pundits went crazy.  That was more than 10 times any official estimate.  Even George Bush (who certainly studied statistical epidemiology at Yale) was quick to criticize the “poor methodology” of the Johns Hopkins team.

Now, in response to the real criticism of university professionals, the researchers are responding by releasing raw data to some–but not all–of their peers. The fire storm continues.
The authors of the study (lead by Gilbert Burnham of Johns Hopkins) got their results by extrapolating from the results of door-to-door surveys, and validating some of those results by cross checking with death certificates. They employed local resident and trained them to take the surveys.

Critics like Michael Spagat, from Royal Holloway, University of London, suggests there is a bias in their methods, since the quick survey results may have relied on main street homes–more susceptible to IEDs and car bombs than back street or more rural settings. There is also the issue of some raw data being destroyed in the chaos of Baghdad. These factors have led some blogs on the right to join the chorus accusing the researchers of ginning up the numbers for political reasons:

As I pointed out in this post, the Lancet survey included only residents of urban areas, thus introducing significant bias into the results.  [Some critics] argue that the survey methodology also excludes many urban residents, making bias problems even worse.  The problem is what they call “main street bias”.

Now lead researcher Gilbert Burnham’s team is releasing some of the raw data stripped of information that might reveal identities–but only to groups that they consider “qualified.” They define that as those “with expertise in biostatistics and epidemiology…and ‘without publically stated views that would cause doubt about their objectivity in analyzing the data.'” [Quoted from Science, 316:20 April, 2007]

Spagat was not allowed access to the data, because the research team suggested he “would not meet the criteria by multiple measures.” The feud was featured prominently in this week’s Science.

Many people believe that the halls of scientific research are normally quite quiet and staid; not so with this epidemiological spat. Accusations have continued to go back and forth, fired by the vehemence of political fervor.  Without access to the original documents, or the ability to interview the brave employees who did the street surveys (for their own protection) the issue may never be truly resolved by scientific standards.

In the midst of the war of words, the essential message of the study seems to have been lost–the true death toll in Iraq is many times what the Bush administration is willing to admit. Neither have they discussed the growing number of refugees in Jordan, Syria and other nations where they have been admitted.

The situation parallels the political games being played with death rates and injury rates of American service persons in Iraq, where the distinction between a death that is “combat related” and one that is not seems to be which seat you are sitting in then an IED hits. (The backlog of over 600,000 potential combat-related injuries in the VA is another sign of ongoing effects to deceive.)

Does it really matter whether the number is 655,000 or 555,000? Any number that is an order of magnitude greater than (statistician) Bush will admit is a human tragedy beyond imagination.

An April 2 decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office never made MSM coverage, and barely rippled through the “tubes.” But it contains hints of the awe-inspiring levels of potential profits in future stem cell research.

The ruling rejected extremely broad patent applications by the (University of) Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation on the methods and products of stem cell research, and put into question the potential profits that foundation might have made.

Conventional wisdom suggests that Democrats and researchers are almost universally supporting federal funding and regulation of ESC research, while conservatives oppose it. Dig a little deeper, and you can see why some of the major players in this field (CEOs) are actually quite ambivalent about the federal funding and the concurrent regulation that would come if the present bills pending in the House and Senate actually saw passage.
The April 2 ruling came in response to a challenge to the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation’s (WARF)to three WARF patents on stem cell lines; the patents covered both the cell lines and the methods by which they were obtained. These patents (according to Science, 13 April 2007) have already earned WART $3.5 million inlicensing fees.

Most scientists doing basic stem cell research in academic or government labs are minimally restricted by WARF’s current policies…[but]collaboration is slowed considerably by having to negotiate the WARF…agreements…WARF’s grip on the “basic platform technology critical to the future development” of the field is bound to impede progress.”

Science reports that licences on the stem cells developed by such for-profit arms can amount to “six figure fees.”

If federal funding were used for some or all ESC research, most or all of the information would become public and it would be more difficult to achieve such patent profits.

What’s ultimately at stake is control of a potential billion-dollar industry that could make therapies to treat some of the world’s most devastating diseases.

That quote is part of an analysis of University of Wisconsin’s effort to secure such extremely broad patent on the methods used to create stem cell lines that future developers will be tied to their methodologies. WARF says its policies are “evolving.” But their issues are just the tip of the iceburg of potential stem cell profiteering.

Who’s doing stem cell research in the United States now? Stemnion in Pittsburgh, Geron of Menlo Park, California and (surprise?) Cellerant, a subsidiary of Novartis which contributes 27% to Democrats, 73% to Republicans

Readers might be surprised that the CEOs of some stem cell companies might actually be fighting federal support–or at least, not jumping on the lobbying bandwagon to see federal funds channeled into the field. For larger companies, the logic seems to be “no support–no public scrutiny or regulation” (except the standards agreed by the companies, themselves.)

“(Biotech) companies want to make sure that no legislation is passed that will hinder the sale of their products,” said Sophia Kolehmainen, who directs the human genetics program at the Council for Responsible Genetics. The Council is a nonprofit group based in Cambridge, Mass., that advocates “socially responsible” use of new genetic technologies. Kolehmainen and other bioethicists say the lack of a legal mechanism to govern cloning prevents mainstream researchers from responsibly tapping into new technologies such as genetic engineering. The failure on the public-policy front to address cloning in any significant way has turned the field into a Wild West that cultists, romantic researchers and profit-minded businesspersons have threatened to exploit.

Republican lawmakers are walking a tightrope, trying to appease both their anti-abortion and pro-business constituents. “Republicans are also favoring the biotech industry,”

It’s evident from their campaign contributions that CEOs like Chiron’s William Rutter are leaning Republican. Why? If Federal Funding were so desireable, wouldn’t these CEOs be backing only Democrats? The answer, of course, is that there’s a schizophrenia in the marketplace–a desire for start-up money but not the scrutiny that would follow.

Meanwhile, we lose scientists to overseas efforts.

As a result, many U.S.-based scientists are looking for opportunities to take their work abroad. Two studies out of Princeton University show that U.S. stem cell scientists, compared to researchers in other fields, are disproportionately considering leaving the country. Patent concerns and access to the essential cells were among the reasons cited.

I’m well aware that for many this is a sincere issue of ethics. There are outstanding small companies which could do amazing things with the jump-start that federal funding would provide. But realize, that for others, there’s money involved!

Have you watched the dramatic testimonies of the scientists who have been forced to make their research politically correct–and patently false? Or watched the contortions to which Congressional oversight committees have had to go to get the truth from government employees? That’s because of an accountability loophole created by the SCOTUS decision Garcetti v. Ceballos (with Alito as the deciding vote.)

Now your help is needed to reverse the devastating effects of this decision, and protect the whistleblower rights of government employees and contractors.

This spring the Senate will take up S. 274, Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act.
First, a little more history:
Last year the Supreme Court dealt a blow to free speech that caused few waves in public awareness:

The Supreme Court scaled back protections for government workers who blow the whistle on official misconduct Tuesday, a 5-4 decision in which new Justice Samuel Alito cast the deciding vote.In a victory for the Bush administration, justices said the 20 million public employees do not have free-speech protections for what  say as part of their jobs.
Critics predicted the impact would be sweeping, from silencing police officers who fear retribution for reporting department corruption, to subduing federal employees who want to reveal problems with government hurricane preparedness or terrorist-related security.

Alito was the deciding vote on Garcetti v. Ceballos. Just a year earlier O’Connor had been the deciding vote on a case that protected whistleblowers in schools.

The bill is strongly supported by the Union of Concerned Scientists:

Across a broad range of policy areas, the administration has undermined the quality and independence of the scientific advisory system and the morale of the government’s outstanding scientific personnel:

–Highly qualified scientists have been dropped from advisory committees dealing with childhood lead poisoning, environmental and reproductive health, and drug abuse, while individuals associated with or working for industries subject to regulation have been appointed to these bodies.
–Censorship and political oversight of government scientists is not restricted to the EPA, but has also occurred at the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and Interior, when scientific findings are in conflict with the administration’s policies or with the views of its political supporters.
–The administration is supporting revisions to the Endangered Species Act that would greatly constrain scientific input into the process of identifying endangered species and critical habitats for their protection.
–Existing scientific advisory committees to the Department of Energy on nuclear weapons, and to the State Department on arms control, have been disbanded.
–In making the invalid claim that Iraq had sought to acquire aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment centrifuges, the administration disregarded the contrary assessment by experts at Livermore, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories.

A week ago, the House took dramatic action to restore these lost rights–especially for scientists who feel their work is being undermined. H.R. 985 was proposed by Henry Waxman. It reads in part:

To amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify which disclosures of information are protected from prohibited personnel practices; to require a statement in nondisclosure policies, forms, and agreements to the effect that such policies, forms, and agreements are consistent with certain disclosure protections, and for other purposes.

It passed the house by a veto-proof majority (331-94) largely as a result of the uproar caused by recent hearings on the stifling of global warming research (esp. at NASA). All 94 Nays were Republican.

A similar action was passed last spring, but eliminated by conference committee under intense pressure from the White House. But elections have consequences. Here’s what happened last week:

The House soundly rejected an amendment from Rep. Bill Sali (R-Idaho) that would have stripped all protections for scientists from the legislation. Instead, the legislators included an amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) giving scientists the right to present their research at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.

But passage of S. 274 (despite cosponsorship by Collins) in the Senate by a veto-proof majority is questionable, and Bush has listed this as one of the 16 he will flush. (No wonder: Imagine what would happen if government employees were suddenly freed from their muzzles!)

If you agree that

The distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends must cease if the public is to be properly informed about issues central to its well being, and the nation is to benefit fully from its heavy investment in scientific research and education.

then it’s time to call your senator.

Postscript: There is another issue that is peripheral to the bill. Bush vetoed nothing for the first 6 years of his presidency. Why now? Is someone telling him that the signing statement scam is unlikely to be sustained by the SCOTUS? Remember, he’s getting different legal advice now from Fred Fielding, the first White House counsel who had any legal ability at all.