May 30, 2006

Enron's Ken Lay Convicted but Bush Walks

 
Lay Convicted, Bush Walks
 
(and Ahnold Gets Lay'd)
 
by Greg Palast
 
 
Don't kid yourself. If you think the conviction of Ken Lay means that George Bush is serious about going after corporate bad guys, think again.
 
First, Lay got away with murder -- or at least grand larceny. Like Al Capone convicted of failing to file his taxes, Ken Lay, though found guilty of stock fraud, is totally off the hook for his BIG crime: taking down California and Texas consumers for billions through fraud on the power markets.
 
Lay, co-convict Jeff Skilling and Enron did not act alone. They connived with half a dozen other power companies and a dozen investment banks to manipulate both the stock market and the electricity market. And though their co-conspirators have now paid $3 billion to settle civil claims, the executives of these other corporations and banks get a walk on criminal charges.
 
Furthermore, to protect our President's boardroom buddies from any further discomforts, the Bush Justice Department, just days ago, indicted Milberg, Weiss, the law firm that nailed Enron's finance industry partners-in-crime. The timing of the bust of this, the top corporation-battling law firm, smacks of political prosecution -- and a signal to Big Business that it's business as usual.
 
Lay and Skilling have to pay up their ill-gotten gains to Enron's stockholders, but what about the $9-plus billion owe electricity consumers? The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Bush's electricity cops, have slapped Enron and its gang of power pirates on the wrist. Could that have something to do with the fact that Ken Lay, in secret chats with Dick Cheney, selected the Commission's chairmen?
 
Team Bush had to throw the public a bone -- so they threw us Lay and Skilling -- for the crime, note, not of ripping off the public, but ripping off stockholders, the owner class.
 
This limited conviction, and the announcement of only one more indictment -- of the crime-busters at Milberg-Weiss -- is Team Bush's "all clear!" signal for the sharks to jump back into the power pool.
 
That leaves one question: if Bush's Justice Department let Ken and company keep the California loot, what about that state's own government? If you want to know how Californian's $9 billion went bye-bye, read on ...
 
 
WHEN AHNOLD GOT LAY'D
 
[From Armed Madhouse , Greg Palast's new book out 06-06-06.  Order it now at www.GregPalast.com]
 
Peninsula Hotel, Beverly Hills. May 17, 2001. The Financial Criminal of the twentieth century, not long out of prison, meets with the Financial Criminal of the twenty-first century who feared he may also have to do hard time. These two, bond-market manipulator Mike Millikin and Ken Lay, not-yet-indicted Chairman of Enron Corporation, were joined by a selected group of movers and shakers -- and one movie star.
 
Arnold Schwarzenegger had been to such private parties before. As a young immigrant without a nickel to his name, he put on private displays of his musculature for guests of his promoter. As with those early closed gatherings, I don't know all that went on at the Peninsula Hotel meet, though I understand Ahnold,_ this time, did not have to strip down to his Speedos. Nevertheless, the moral undressing was just as lascivious, if you read through the 34 page fax that arrived at our office.
 
Lay, who convened the hugger-mugger, was in a bit of trouble. Enron and the small oligopoly of other companies that ruled California's electricity system had been caught jacking up the price of power and gas by fraud, conspiracy and manipulation. A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon it was real money - $6.3 billion in suspect windfalls in just six months, May through December 2000, for a half-dozen electricity buccaneers, at least $9 billion for the year. Their skim would have been higher but the tricksters thought they were limited by the number of digits the state's power-buying computers could read.
 
When Ken met Arnold in the hotel room, the games were far from over. For example , in June 2003, Reliant Corporation of Houston simply turned off several power plants, and when California cities faced going dark, the company sold them a pittance of kilowatts for more than gold, making several million in minutes.
 
Power-market shenanigans were nothing new in 2000. What was new was the response of Governor Gray Davis. A normally quiet, if not dull, man, this Governor had the temerity to call the energy sellers "pirates_" -- in public! -- and, even more radically, he asked them to give back all the ill-gotten loot, the entire $9 billion. The state filed a regulatory complaint with the federal government.
 
The Peninsula Hotel get-together was all about how to "settle"_ the legal actions in such a way that Enron and friends could get the state to accept dog food instead of dollars. Davis seemed unlikely to see things Ken's way. Life would be so much better if California had a governor like the muscle guy in the Speedos.
 
And so it came to pass that, in 2003, quiet Gray Davis, who had the cojones to stand up to the electricity barons, was thrown out of office by the voters and replaced by the tinker-toy tough guy. The Governator_ performed as desired. Soon after Schwarzenegger took over from Davis, he signed off on a series of deals with Reliant, Williams Company, Dynegy, Entergy and the other power pirates for ten to twenty cents on the dollar, less than you'd tip the waitress. Enron paid just about nothing.
 
 
-------
On June 6, Penguin Dutton will publish Greg Palast's new book, Armed Madhouse: Dispatches From the Front Lines of the Class War, from which this excerpt is taken.  You can pre-order the book now and see the BBC report on Enron at www.GregPalast.com
 
Palast, an internationally recognized expert on Enron and electricity market manipulation, is co-author of "Democracy and Regulation," the United Nation's guide to control of the utility industry.
 
Special thanks to the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, Los Angeles, www.ConsumerWatchdog.org, who first uncovered the confidential Peninsula Hotel documents.
 
View Palast's investigative reports for Harper's Magazine and BBC Television's Newsnight at www.GregPalast.com.
 
 
 
 
Posted by EvansMediaUSA at 10:48:27 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

May 29, 2006

Bush knew Enron,...

 

George W. Bush and Kenneth Lay


    By Jason Leopold
    t R U t h o U t | Report

    

    The Bush administration knew Enron was on a collision course two months before the high-flying energy company collapsed in a wave of accounting scandals that wiped out $60 billion in shareholder value and left thousands of company employees penniless.

    It was August 15, 2001, when Enron lobbyist Pat Shortridge met with then-White House Economic Adviser Robert McNally, one day after Jeff Skilling made a stunning announcement that he was stepping down as president of Enron.

    Shortridge confided in McNally that Enron was headed for a financial meltdown - one that could very well cripple the country's energy markets - and urged the White House economic adviser to alert President Bush about the company's financial problems so he could help put together a federal bailout, according to thousands of pages of documents about the meeting released by the government's Enron Task Force.

    It certainly made sense for Enron to seek help from the White House. In August of 2001, Ken Lay was still known as "Kenny Boy" to President Bush, a nickname Bush bestowed upon him when the two men were up and comers in the Texas energy and political industries respectively.

    When Bush announced his intention to run for president, Enron and its employees gave more than $1 million to Bush's 2000 election campaign, the Republican Party and the Bush Inaugural, and Bush aides used the Enron corporate jet during the post-election fracas in Florida.

    With Thursday's guilty verdicts against Lay and Skilling on numerous counts of accounting fraud, conspiracy, and dozens of other charges, perhaps Enron should be remembered as - in addition to a symbol of greed - the first in what has become a long list of scandals that can be directly linked to the White House.

    Back in 2002, White House spokeswoman Anne Womack pointed out that the McNally/Shortridge meeting was acknowledged by the White House on May 22, 2002, in documents released to reporters and Senator Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.

    In those documents, it was noted that "Mr. McNally met with Mr. Shortridge and another individual who was not from Enron." Asked whether Enron's future had been discussed, Womack said, "If the meeting was about that, I would assume there wouldn't be anyone else there besides Mr. McNally and Mr. Shortridge."

    To this day, no one knows exactly what happened after the meeting between Shortridge and McNally in the summer of 2001. President Bush has never answered questions about what he knew and when he knew it and whether he took steps to save the company's long-time employees from losing their savings.

    One thing is for certain, however: once Enron's accounting machinations became public in October 2001, the Bush administration wasted no time in covering up its close ties with the energy company.

    In late 2001, Alberto Gonzales, who at the time was Bush's chief counsel, refused to comment on the substance of the August 15, 2001, meeting between McNally and Shortridge in which McNally was tipped off to Enron's coming demise.

    Gonzales said there was no known instance of Enron asking the White House for help prior to its bankruptcy proceedings. But according to Enron's December 2001 bankruptcy filing the company did just that.

    According to those documents, Lay called Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill on October 28 to advise him that Enron was heading toward bankruptcy. The following day, Lay asked Commerce Secretary Don Evans for help in heading off a downgrading of Enron's credit rating by Wall Street credit rating agencies that would push the company into bankruptcy.

    A week later, former Enron president Greg Whalley called then-Treasury Under Secretary Peter Fisher six to eight times, seeking help in getting banks to lend more money to Enron.

    The White House also announced in January 2002 that Lawrence B. Lindsey, who headed Bush's National Economic Council, had directed a review in October - before the calls received by O'Neill and Evans - to see whether an Enron collapse could have a strong impact on the American economy. That admission prompted critics of the administration to sound several alarms.

    As Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, said at the time, "It shows once again that the administration did a lot of thinking about the fact that the company was going to collapse but they did absolutely nothing to make sure that 50,000 Enron employees would not lose their life savings."

    It also drew closer attention to the intensely close ties between Enron and the Bush administration. Lindsey had been a paid consultant for Enron, receiving $50,000 in 2000.

    And he was just one of several top White House and Republican Party officials who have had close Enron ties, including Robert Zoellick, former United States trade representative, who sat on an Enron advisory board in 2000; Karl Rove, senior White House political strategist, who held more than 1,000 Enron shares before selling them in June 2001; and Marc Racicot, onetime chairman of the Republican National Committee, who worked as an Enron lobbyist last year.

    When the White House finally complied with a subpoena in May of 2002 and released thousands of pages of documents about its contacts with Enron, it revealed that the company wielded enormous power and influence at the highest levels of government. One such document was a January 8, 2001, letter written to Bush's personnel director, Clay Johnson, recommending seven candidates to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Two of the candidates Lay recommended, Pat Wood and Nora Brownell, were appointed to FERC by Bush; Wood was appointed chairman.

    When Wood left his post as chairman of FERC in 2005, Bush appointed Joseph Kelliher, a former policy adviser with the Department of Energy and a member of Vice President Cheney's energy task force, to head up FERC, the agency that controls the country's natural gas industry, hydroelectric projects, electric utilities, and oil pipelines and has played a critical role in the deregulation of those industries.

    However, what's most troubling about Kelliher's appointment to head FERC, a role in which his main priority will now be to protect consumers from the manipulative tactics of the very industry he enjoys a cozy relationship with, is the relentless lobbying of bigwigs in the energy industry in early 2001, as a member of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, to help write President Bush's National Energy Policy in a way that would be financially beneficial to energy corporations - at the expense of consumers.

    The lengths to which Kelliher went to solicit key players in the energy industry to help write the National Energy Policy became apparent in 2003 when Judicial Watch, a bipartisan watchdog group that sued Vice President Dick Cheney to gain access to Cheney's list of industry insiders who participated in secret meetings with Cheney's energy task force, won a legal battle that forced the White House to release several hundred pages of task force related documents.

    One such document, a March 10, 2001, email to energy lobbyist Dana Contratto, was damning - in it, Kelliher asked Contratto, if he were "King" or "Il Duce," "what would you include in a national energy policy, especially with respect to natural gas issues?"

    On another occasion, Kelliher sought out Stephen Craig Sayle, an Enron lobbyist, to make similar recommendations. Sayle, former counsel for the House Commerce Committee, sent Kelliher Enron's "dream list," including a recommendation that the administration commit to market-based emissions trading, which was also used in administration's National Energy Policy.

    Sayle wrote to Kelliher that "a multi-pollutant regulatory strategy should be estimated for the power generation sector including: Gradually phased in [mercury, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide emissions] reductions; Reform/replacement of NSR; Use of market-based/emission trading programs; Inclusion of both existing and new plants and equal treatment for both. The last bullet is the critical one to ensure that: a) we encourage the new generation that is required b) we ensure that the new technologies developed through DOE programs can come into the market."

    "Obviously, this is a dream list," Sayle said in the March 23, 2001, email he sent to Kelliher. "Not all will be done. But perhaps some of these ideas could be floated and adopted."

    Sayle also provided Kelliher with a PowerPoint presentation on behalf of his other energy clients in the so-called Clean Power Group, a consortium made up of a handful of the country's biggest energy companies, including NiSource Inc., Calpine Corp., Trigen Energy Corp., and El Paso Corp, whose mission, according to the group's web site, is to "streamline requirements under the Clean Air Act for electric generating facilities while at the same time making major reductions in air emissions."

    The PowerPoint presentation, "A Comprehensive Multi-Pollutant Emission Control Strategy for Power Generation," summarized the Clean Power Group's support of a "cap and trade" method in addressing emissions of mercury, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide from power plants, but included a proposal for a voluntary cap on carbon dioxide. The Clean Power Group stood to benefit from the initiative it urged Kelliher to get the White House to adopt - the companies could release more emissions under its proposed plan than under the more restrictive rules the Clinton administration had put in place.

    After receiving Sayle's email and supporting material, Kelliher recommended that President Bush "direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to propose multi-pollutant legislation that would establish a flexible, market-based program to significantly reduce and cap emissions; provide regulatory certainty to allow utilities to make modifications to their plants without fear of new litigation; provide market based incentives, such as emissions-trading credits to help achieve the required reductions," all of which was approved by the president and eventually incorporated into the National Energy Policy.

    In fact, President Bush's "Clear Skies" initiative consists of many of the bullet points laid out months earlier in Sayle's email to Kelliher.

    In addition to Kelliher's correspondence with Sayle, he also met with oil and gas industry lobbyists, who helped write executive orders that Kelliher passed on directly to the White House. Two months later, the president issued executive orders nearly identical to those Kelliher received from the lobbyists months earlier.

    But perhaps the most egregious of crimes involving Enron and the Bush administration is how the White House turned a blind eye to the Enron's manipulation to the California electricity market, which ignited a crisis in 2000 that resulted in several days of rolling blackouts.

    On May 29, 2001, when the energy crisis reached its peak, Governor Gray Davis met with Bush at the Century Plaza Hotel in West Los Angeles, and pleaded with him to enact much-needed price controls on electricity sold in the state, which had skyrocketed to more than $200 per megawatt-hour.

    Davis asked Bush for federal assistance, such as imposing federally mandated price caps, to rein in soaring energy prices. But Bush refused, saying California legislators had designed an electricity market that left too many regulatory restrictions in place and that it was that which had caused electricity prices in the state to skyrocket.

    It was up to the governor to fix the problem, Bush said, adding that the crisis had nothing to do with energy companies' manipulating the market.

    But Bush's response, in hindsight, appeared to be part of a coordinated effort launched by Lay to have Davis shoulder the blame for the crisis, which ultimately led to an unprecedented recall of the governor and Republican-funded attack ads on Davis's handling of the energy crisis.

    A couple of weeks before the Davis and Bush meeting, the PBS news program Frontline interviewed Cheney. Cheney was asked by a correspondent from Frontline whether energy companies were acting like a cartel and using manipulative tactics to cause electricity prices to spike in California.

    "No," Cheney said. "The problem you had in California was caused by a combination of things - an unwise regulatory scheme, because they didn't really deregulate. Now they're trapped from unwise regulatory schemes, plus not having addressed the supply side of the issue. They've obviously created major problems for themselves and bankrupted PG&E in the process."

    In April 2001, a month before the Frontline interview and Bush's meeting with Davis, Cheney, who chaired Bush's energy task force, met with Lay to discuss Bush's National Energy Policy.

    Lay recommended some energy policy initiatives that would financially benefit his company, and gave Cheney a memo that included eight recommendations for the energy policy. Of the eight, seven were included in the energy policy's final draft. The energy policy was released in late May 2001, after the meeting between Bush and Davis, and after Cheney's Frontline interview.

    What many people have failed to realize is that Davis was right in his assessment that energy companies, including Enron, were manipulating the state's wholesale power market. To this day, neither Cheney nor Bush has acknowledged that they got it wrong and that their inaction helped fuel the California energy crisis.

 
 
Jason Leopold spent two years covering California's electricity crisis as Los Angeles bureau chief of Dow Jones Newswires. Jason has spent the last year cultivating sources close to the CIA leak investigation, and is a regular contributor to t R U t h o U t. He is the author of the new book NEWS JUNKIE. Visit www.newsjunkiebook.com for a preview.
 
© : t R U t h o U t 2006
 
 
Posted by EvansMediaUSA at 15:49:43 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

May 22, 2006

From Old Bedlam to Modern TeenScreen,...

 
 
Psychiatric Stigma -
Legitimizing Abuse,
Degradation and Death;
 
From Old Bedlam to Modern TeenScreen,
Psychiatry Continues to Harm
in the Name of Help
 
         
By Jeanyne Wanner
 
Psychiatrists claim that people who experience certain feelings or behaviors are sick, that they are "mentally ill" with bio-chemical imbalances of the brain. These feelings and behaviors are organized into lists, and their symptoms are promoted as "disorders" in order to align with a medical model of disease. A person has only to have more than half of the "symptoms" on a particular list to get a permanent diagnosis of "disease." Being "diagnosed", another medical term co-opted by psychiatry, with one of these "mental illnesses" is reported to carry a sort of stigma. No one wants to be told that he or she is abnormal, that he or she will always be so, and that he or she should become a life-long mental "patient" to treat their "illness".
 
The Oxford Concise Dictionary defines the word "stigma" as "a mark or sign of disgrace or discredit." Contained within the confines of this definition is the PR wherewithal for the long term several pronged assault of psychiatry, calculated to forward their ever-advancing thrust of destructive ideas into our daily lives.
 
According to the National Institute of Mental Illness' website, "An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older ? suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year ? this figure translates to 57.7 million people." And we know that currently in this country there are over 8 million children on prescription psychiatric medications and the psychiatric community is working hard to convince us that many more are in need of their services, even babies.
 
Is there any wonder that psychiatry's rallying cry is, we must remove the stigma from mental illness, when with these numbers it could be your neighbor, your co-worker or you who is mentally ill. No, psychiatry runs the campaign, "We must remove the stigma from mental illness," in order to find more who will accept the label and accept the profitable "treatment."
 
As early as 1977 psychiatric influences working in the government to increase the patient ranks of psychiatry, through President Carter's Mental Health Commission, urged Americans to bring their mental and emotional problems "out of the closet" and end the "stigma." Moving forward, to an article in July of 2003 in the Seattle Times, "Stigma" surrounding mental illness was sighted as the major barrier to treatment.
 
Taken at face value this would certainly seem like a reasonable appeal. What sane, caring individual could possibly want to compound the burdens of the "mentally ill" by stigmatizing them? My guess is very few. But is de-stigmatizing mental illness for humanitarian reasons really psychiatry's intent? Or is it something much more sinister and self-serving?
 
Public Relations is a very powerful and persuasive tool. It can be used for good or bad purposes. The strength of PR relies in large part on some part of its message being true. But one can also position lies and half-truths with truth and they will be true in the eyes of the public, by association. "Mental illness should be de-stigmatized" is a truth. "People should be able to get help for their difficulties and have workable solutions available to them," is a truth. "Psychiatry with its drugs offers workable solutions for the mentally ill masses," is a lie. It is a lie positioned with truth and it therefore seems, in the eyes of many, to be true.
 
Perhaps there should be no stigma connected to mental illness. There should however, be stigma connected to the solutions that psychiatry proffers in the name of help which are destructive of individuals and society: mind-altering drugs, stigmatizing labels, shock treatment and abuse of human rights for profit.
 
(Some 200 legal actions have been filed against Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline, the manufacturers of Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil, respectively, to recover for suicides or homicides ? some completed, some only attempted?by patients in the first few days or weeks after they were prescribed one of these drugs.) ? ClassActionAmerican.com
 
Why is it that one never hears from a psychiatrist about such workable solutions as nutrition, tutoring, legitimate medical examinations, and change of environment? Why do nearly all of their solutions come in a bottle with an FDA black box warning label that even they admit to not understanding why these drugs work?
 
("Ritalin and amphetamine have almost identical adverse effects on the brain, mind and behavior, including the production of drug-induced behavioral disorders, psychosis, mania, drug abuse, and addiction,") Billy J. Sahley, PhD, author of Is Ritalin Necessary?
 
Could it be that labeling an individual with a "disorder" from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) is the only way that psychiatrists can make a living? The belief of the existence of these "disorders" is their sole basis for receiving money from insurance companies, research grants, charitable foundations, etc.
 
If a psychiatrist sends a child who is acting up in school to see a nutritionist or for tutoring, how would he make any money? If he labels that same child with "ADHD", he is creating a patient for life.
 
Backing up this viewpoint are recent articles in USA Today, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Washington Post and countless other major newspapers which revealed the hidden financial connection between big Pharmaceutical Companies and the authors of the Diagnostic and Statistical manual. This manual, the self-proclaimed bible of psychiatry and sole wellspring of all of the more than 370 mental "disorders" used to label normal people and absolve those who should not be absolved, is the very foundation of psychiatry's most precious tenets. Not only were the majority of psychiatric panel members that created the DSM receiving funding from drug companies in one way or another, but their entire panel of "experts" had direct connections to pharmaceutical monies.
 
("ADHD is a controversial diagnosis with little or no scientific or medical basis. A parent, teacher, or doctor can feel in good company when utterly dismissing the diagnosis and refusing to apply it to children")? Bill J. Sahley, PhD author of "Is Ritalin Necessary?"
 
Why are there so many people labeled mentally ill?
 
The more you look the more obvious it should become that no amount of political correctness or de-stigmatizing of mental illness will make wrong solutions right!
Fictitious labels and murderous drugging for profit are not humanitarian activities no matter how you look at it.
 
In an interview with Jay Baadsgaard, Washington State Director of the International Coalition for Drug Awareness, he related to me how his teenage son Corey had walked into his high school English class with a rifle. He was found afterward to be in diminished capacity due to an abrupt discontinuation of Paxil and a significant dose of Effexor. He had no memory of what had transpired. Fortunately, he did not hurt anyone.
 
(Ten families from across the United States have joined forces to bring wrongful death and personal injury suits against the drug giant Wyeth alleging that their respective family members committed impulsive acts of violence - mostly suicides-or attempted them-shortly after taking Wyeth's best-selling drug, Effexor.) - Justice Seekers.com
 
When I asked Mr. Baadsgaard how this was originally presented to him he said that it was presented it to him as a "normal biological thing."
 
Yes. Let's de-stigmatize "mental illness" and make sure everyone knows that mental illness is a normal thing, that way we can all receive psychiatric "help."
 
And no one would like to "help" your children more than Teenscreen. Now cropping up in schools across the nation, Teenscreen, the psychiatric/ pharmaceutical marketing contrivance, carefully packaged as an innocent and well-meaning way to "save" our hapless children from suicide, is busy trying to garner new patients out of our schools with the rallying cry of remove the "stigma" and save your children.
 
But what solutions do they offer? After your child is "screened" and evaluated and most likely found to be possessed of one or more "mental illnesses" out of the DSM what then? "Treatment" is just a prescription away and your child could be headed down the path of other children like Kip Kinkle, Chris Pittman, Sam Manzie, Patrick Purdy and countless others who have taken their own lives or the lives of others while on psychiatric medication purported to ?help" them.
 
It's not hard to understand why the pharmaceutical companies have pumped so much money into "Teenscreen" and another suicide screening program called "Signs of Suicide."
 
("Antidepressants increased the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in short-term studies in children and adolescents with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders. Anyone considering the use of Effexor XR or any other antidepressant in a child or adolescent must balance this risk...") - Wyeth Laboratories Website - warning
 
De-stigmatize mental illness? Perhaps; but not so that Psychiatry can commit its nefarious acts of "caring" on our children or our society at large!
 
("Ritalin and other brain stimulants create severe biochemical imbalances. Stimulants do not normalize the brain; they render it abnormal. Stimulants produce pathological malfunctions in the child's brain.") - Dr. Peter Breggin Author of Talking back to Ritalin.
 
Flanking the efforts of Teenscreen is the PR assault from the psychiatric/pharmaceutical front group, NAMI, the National Alliance on Mental Illness. Purportedly an independent organization of brain injury and mental illness advocates, they are working hard to convince us that unless we subscribe to their views and their solutions to "mental illness we are all just insensitive and callous individuals bent on marginalizing the mentally ill. This is the red herring that sunk the tuna boat!
 
In its "Stigma Buster" electronic newsletter alerts, NAMI urges its members to "Contact sponsors personally. Explain the meaning of stigma and the fact that the U.S. Surgeon General and President Bush have made its elimination a public health priority. (December 2004 alert) ??contact local newspaper editors and television news directors. Educate them about stigma and your concerns. ?.work to recruit them into sponsors of NAMIWalks or other events?.." PR, PR, PR.
 
If we trace the line from NAMI to Teenscreen we will see that NAMIs former Executive Director, Laurie Flynn is now the Executive director of Teen Screen and pharmaceutical money has followed her to her new job.
                        
(According to internal documents obtained by Mother Jones, 18 drug firms gave NAMI a total of $11.72 million between 1996 and mid-1999. These include Janssen ($2.08 million), Novartis ($1.87 million), Pfizer ($1.3 million), Abbott Laboratories ($1.24 million), Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals ($658,000), and Bristol-Myers Squibb ($613,505).
 
("In 1999 alone, Lilly will have delivered $1.1 million in quarterly installments, with the lion's share going to help fund NAMI's "Campaign to End Discrimination" against the mentally ill.") ? Mother Jones Magazine
 
("NAMI's Flynn says her group is "not a captive of any outside industry." But she acknowledges there is "at times" [sic] a "synergy" in goals between NAMI and the drug companies") ? Mother Jones Magazine ? November/December 1999
 
There is a line here that has been blurred. It has been a deliberate and calculated blurring and its authors have taken no quarter. What the psychiatric/pharmaceutical PR machine says and what it does are diametrically opposed. Have compassion, de-stigmatize mental illness, help your fellow man, are not the same as "psychiatric drugs are the answer to human suffering" though that is what they would have you believe.
 
Compassion is not simpering tolerance of destructive solutions, so as not to offend, nor is it condemnation of the whole human race to satisfy the authoritative proclamations of psychiatry or the twisted agendas of big Pharma.
 
("There are no tests available for assessing the chemical status of a living person's brain." No "biochemical, anatomical, or functional signs have been found that reliably distinguish the brains of mental patients. The theories are held on to not only because there is nothing else to take their place, but also because they are useful in promoting drug treatment.") -- Elliot Valenstein, Ph.D., author of Blaming the Brain
 
By pushing their ceaseless PR line, psychiatry stigmatizes mankind himself, with abuse degradation and death. And in arrogant assignment of all of mans frailties and idiosyncrasies to the category of "disorders," psychiatry impugns his character and his resolve and takes from him his God- given right to meet life's challenges on his own terms.
 
("The time when psychiatrists considered that they could cure the mentally ill is gone. In the future the mentally ill will have to learn to live with their illness/") ? Dr. Norman Sartorius, former president of the World Psychiatric Association, 1994
 
Despite what they would have you believe, Man is not the sum of all his difficulties or his sorrows. Hi triumphs and trials are not the result of so many chemical reactions in his brain and he should not be viewed as, nor held sway by the lowest common denominators of his humanity ? his own self-doubts, and demons.
 
Yes, men and women, and even children, do sometimes need help. Certainly there are enough people who suffer from unwanted feelings and behaviors, whatever the cause, to prove this point. But the answers lie elsewhere than in the pages of the DSM or the bottles of anti-depressants, anti-psychotics and stimulants now touted as the "cure" for being human.
 
 
Jeanyne Wanner is a freelance writer and activist living in Florida.  She may be contacted at:  jeanynewanner@netscape.net
 
 
Posted by EvansMediaUSA at 04:53:21 | Permanent Link | Comments (8) |

May 18, 2006

War on the Middle Class

 
The Freefalling Dollar
 
and
 
Bush’s War on the Middle Class

By Mike Whitney


The dollar is getting hammered almost daily now. It’s like watching the blood ooze from a hemophiliac. In just one month the dollar has tumbled from $1.20 to $1.29 vs. the Euro; an astonishing 7% retreat.

Can’t the American people see what is happening to their future? In just 6 years Bush has taken the world’s strongest currency and chopped it into finally ground hash. By the time people rouse from their stupor, the greenback will be eye to eye with the peso.

Bush has piled up more debt than all the other presidents combined. His tax cuts have fattened the bankrolls of his constituents but they’ve put the dollar on a downward slide. Since he took office the once-mighty greenback has plummeted a whopping 35%.

Meanwhile, at the Federal Reserve, new Fed-master Bernacke has the printing presses running at warp-speed. The soaring price of oil has soaked up more than a trillion dollars of freshly-minted fiat currency, but it’s the only thing that's kept the greenback from slipping beneath the waves. Unfortunately, that trick won’t last forever.

Now that Bernacke is hinting that interest hikes may slow down or stop entirely, central banks across the world are stealthily off-loading their dollar-stockpiles. The twin-deficits ($400 billion account deficit and $800 billion trade deficit) have finally come home to roost and are pushing the dollar to new lows.

Dick Cheney’s foolish axiom, “Deficits don’t matter” has turned into a funereal-dirge for the greenback. Deficits Do matter, and bankers around the world are proving that by hastily moving away from Uncle Sam’s washed-out script.

On Thursday the congress added another $70 billion to Washington’s mountain of debt, completely ignoring the fact that the dollar lost a full 2% against the Euro in the same 24 hour period. Is it possible to be that obtuse?

Is anyone minding the store? The blinkered congress keeps writing bad checks on an overdrawn account and then patting themselves on the back for a hard day’s work. It’s incredible. What foreign country wants to be yoked to a currency that is underwritten by $8.4 trillion in debt and freefalling by the day?

The currency markets are as jittery as anyone can ever remember. The European Central Bank (ECB) and Japan are not prepared to take over as the world’s reserve currency, but they are equally reticent to keep shoring up the flaccid dollar. What they’d like to see is the Bush administration demonstrate that they can still be a responsible steward of the global economic system, a role the US has managed since World War 2.

Don’t expect maturity from this crowd.

Bush is simply carrying out a crackpot plan from his globalist friends at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) It is a strategy that Washington has executed many times via its surrogates in the World Bank and IMF. Corrupt politicians (Bush and co) plunge the nation into unsustainable debt, interest rates rise, the economy implodes, and the banks and corporations pick the carcass clean; privatizing what they can while destroying what's left of the social safety net. (John Perkins “Diary of an Economic Hit Man” provides a first rate account of how this method has been used repeatedly throughout Latin America) In fact, it is simply the corporate version of traditional colonialism.

The American public is too blind to see that the trap has now been set for them and that soon they'll be tottering off to the grocery store with wheelbarrows of cash for a loaf of bread and a head of lettuce.

The dollar-slaughter is the biggest part of this whacko scheme. It is the quickest way to crush the middle class by robbing them of their life-savings through hyper-inflation.

We often refer to Tom Friedman in this column as the unofficial spokesman for the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR is an amalgam of American elites from all professions who are committed to the creation of a “global government”. When Friedman preaches his “Flat-earth” theory of economics from his perch at the New York Times, he’s really offering his vision of what America will look like after labor laws and trade protections have been removed and workers are forced to compete head-on with the poorest paid workers in China or Guatemala. The falling dollar will trigger this scenario sooner than we think.

This view of unfettered capitalism is the Holy Grail of “free market” globalists. In fact, they invariably refer to it as “democracy”. It portends a world where industry overlords dictate policy to their political underlings and where society is entirely shaped to enhance corporate profits.

For the avatars of predatory capitalism, Friedman’s Flat-world is a “dreamscape”; the capitalist Valhalla. For the struggling middle class, it is a return to the law of the jungle; the fast-track to widespread destitution.

By collapsing the dollar, Bush can shift the wealth of the American middle class to corporate mandarins in the blink of an eye. Industry profits will soar while working class people drown in an ocean of red ink.

The wheezing housing bubble and the steadily rising interest rates are a warning sign that time is running out on the dollar. America is being readied for economic “shock therapy” and “structural readjustment”, the vile remedies for ailing economies. When the bottom drops out, the snoozing American middle class will finally stir from their slumber and get their first look at the new world.
 
 
 
 
 
Posted by EvansMediaUSA at 13:36:18 | Permanent Link | Comments (1) |

BATTLEFIELD U.S.

 

Pentagon Spies are treating

The Homeland like a War Zone.
 
By Laura K. Donohue
 
 
May 18, 2006

TODAY, THE Senate Intelligence Committee will begin questioning Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, nominated to be director of the Central Intelligence Agency, about the National Security Agency's collection of U.S. citizens' telephone records.

The scrutiny of the NSA is deserved, but the Senate and the American public may be missing a broader and more disturbing development. For the first time since the Civil War, the United States has been designated a military theater of operations. The Department of Defense — which includes the NSA — is focusing its vast resources on the homeland. And it is taking an unprecedented role in domestic spying.

It may be legal. But it circumvents three decades of efforts by Congress to restrict government surveillance of Americans under the guise of national security. And it represents a profound shift in the role of the military operating inside the United States. What's at stake here is the erosion of the principle, embedded in the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, that the U.S. military not be used for domestic law enforcement.

When the administration declared the United States to be a theater of military operations in 2002, it created a U.S. Northern Command, which set up intelligence centers in Colorado and Texas to analyze the domestic threat. But these are not the military's only domestic intelligence efforts. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Pentagon controls "a substantial portion" of U.S. national intelligence assets, the traditional turf of the FBI and CIA.

In 2003, Congress created the job of undersecretary of Defense for intelligence to oversee the department's many intelligence bodies — including a new entity called Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA.

CIFA was ordered to maintain a "domestic law-enforcement database" on "potential terrorist threats" to U.S. military installations, and it began collecting information on U.S. citizens.

In 2005, a presidential commission suggested that CIFA, set up as a clearinghouse for information, be empowered to conduct domestic investigations into crimes such as treason, espionage and terrorism. Astoundingly, the commission declared that such an expansion of military powers would not require congressional approval; a presidential order and Pentagon directive would suffice. One Defense Department program feeding information to CIFA is TALON (Threat and Local Observation Notice), which is supposed to obtain data from "concerned citizens and military members regarding suspicious incidents" that could herald terrorist attacks. But the military appears to have interpreted its mandate broadly. A TALON report was filed on a protest against "war profiteering" by Halliburton, Newsweek reported. The protesters alleged the defense contractor overcharged for food for U.S. troops in Iraq.

Counterintelligence reports were also filed on New York University's OUTlaw, a decades-old organization of openly gay law students. "The term 'outlaw' is a backhanded way of saying it's all right to commit possible violence," concluded one misguided military investigator in a document obtained last month under the Freedom of Information Act." NBC reported that about four dozen TALON database entries on "suspicious incidents" were not about terrorism but about opposition to the Iraq war and military recruiting.

These misguided military forays into domestic surveillance harken back to Vietnam War-era abuses. This time, they are the result of a much broader intelligence-gathering effort by the military on U.S. soil. President Bush said last week, "We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans." But a 2004 survey by the General Accounting Office found 199 data-mining operations that collect information ranging from credit-card statements to medical records. The Defense Department had five programs on intelligence and counterterrorism.

The Defense Intelligence Agency, created in 1961 to provide foreign military intelligence, now uses "Verity K2" software to scan U.S. intelligence files and the Internet "to identify foreign terrorists or Americans connected to foreign terrorism activity," and "Inxight Smart Discovery" software to help identify patterns in databases. CIFA has reportedly contracted with Computer Sciences Corp. to buy identity-masking software, which could allow it to create fake websites and monitor legitimate U.S. sites without leaving clues that it had been there. The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency is collecting data from 133 U.S. cities; intelligence sources told the Los Angeles Times that, when collection is completed, the agency would be able to identify occupants in each house, their nationality and even their political affiliation.

In 2002, the Defense Department launched the granddaddy of all data-mining efforts, Total Information Awareness, to trawl through all government and commercial databases available worldwide. In 2003, concerned about privacy implications, Congress cut its funding. But many of the projects simply transferred to other Defense Department agencies. Two of the most important, the Information Awareness Prototype System and Genoa II, moved to NSA headquarters.

The Pentagon argues that its monitoring of U.S. citizens is legal. "Contrary to popular belief, there is no absolute ban on intelligence" agencies collecting information on Americans or disseminating it, says a memo by Robert Noonan, deputy chief of staff for intelligence. Military intelligence agents can receive any information "from anyone, any time," Noonan wrote.

Throughout U.S. history, we have struggled to balance security concerns with the protection of individual rights, and a thick body of law regulates domestic law enforcement agencies' behavior. Congress should think twice before it lets the behemoth Defense Department into domestic law enforcement.
 

LAURA K. DONOHUE
is a fellow at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation.
A longer article on this topic will appear next month in Northwestern School of Law's Journal.
 
 
Posted by EvansMediaUSA at 11:11:33 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

May 10, 2006

HookerGate

 
The Best Little Whorehouse in Washington
 
by Molly Ivins
 
 

Of course I am above sex, drugs, and rock ’n’ roll. So serious a servant of the public interest am I, I can fogey with the best: On my better days, I make David Broder look like Page Six.

I don’t care what anyone smoked 20 years ago, I approve of those who boogie till they puke, and I don’t care who anyone in politics is screwing in private, as long as they’re not screwing the public.

On other hand, if you expect me to pass up a scandal involving poker, hookers, and the Watergate building with crooked defense contractors and the No. 3 guy at the CIA, named Dusty Foggo (Dusty Foggo?! Be still my heart), you expect too much. Any journalist who claims Hookergate is not a legitimate scandal is dead—has been for some time and needs to be unplugged. In addition to sex, drugs and rock ’n’ roll, Hookergate is rife with public-interest questions, misfeasance, malfeasance and non-feasance, and many splendid moral points for the children. Recommended for Sunday school use, grades seven and above.

But for starters, let us consider the unenviable record of Porter Goss at the CIA. From the beginning of his tenure, Goss has been criticized for politicizing the agency. He brought a bunch of political hacks with him for staff, one of whom turns out to be the poker player called “Nine Fingers.” And in the end, he was probably fired for not having politicized the agency sufficiently.

What is the point of politicizing an intelligence agency? So the CIA officials would get a report from some agent in Iraq saying, “Looks bad.” The first thing they’d ask was, “Is this agent a Republican or a Democrat?”

Maybe there really are conservatives who believe everything in Iraq is hunky-dory and there’s a giant media conspiracy to hide the joyous tidings. But as you may recall, the ever-nimble minds at Donny Rumsfeld’s shop have already tried paying public relations people to invent good news about Iraq and then plant it in newspapers there—it didn’t work. In fact, it was so stupid it was humiliating. Fortunately, the Pentagon was once again able to investigate itself and determine it had done nothing illegal.

So now they’re turning the CIA over to a general who not only ran the warrantless wiretap program but still can’t figure out that it’s unconstitutional. Why do I get the feeling this is W. and Karl again flipping the finger at some grown-up they don’t like?

Gen. Michael Hayden had mixed reviews as director of the National Security Agency—he’s evidently not a good manager, which makes him a perfect Bushie. But is he straightforward enough to have admitted that some warrantless spying has been done for political reasons? None of the usual Washington insiders seems to have a bead on this. Hayden would theoretically report to John Negroponte, Bush’s supposed intelligence czar. Negroponte is widely considered worthless. His major achievement so far seems to be organizational charts and buying furniture.

You know me, no conspiracy theories here, but the Bush administration, which doesn’t seem to be able to run much, set out to retool the CIA after 9/11 and the Iraq war. Problem is, everything that worked at the CIA—that it warned about 9/11 and said the Iraq war was a bad idea—was on the hit list. The Bushies wanted to eliminate the people who were right and promote those who were wrong. This is no way to shape up an intelligence agency, not to mention the White House spit fit over Joe Wilson’s wife.

Next, we need to contemplate sincere, old-fashioned, non-ideological greed, theft, and bribery. In the beginning, there was only Duke Cunningham, the high-living, fun-loving super-patriot congressman from San Diego. His yacht was called The Duke-Stir, and he had nice taste in 19th century French commodes. While we all are happy to see our elected representatives enjoying themselves in Washington, that’s real people’s money. Actually, the yacht and commode were paid for by defense contractor Brent Wilkes (keep an eye on that player). It was people’s money that paid for the defense contracts Wilkes allegedly bribed public officials into landing for his clients.

The former inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security, Clark Kent Ervin—that would be the DHS equivalent of a police department’s internal affairs chief—tried to blow the whistle on shady contracts at DHS and instead was thrown overboard himself. Folks, we’ll never get government straightened out again if we don’t keep the IGs strong and independent.

If the Bush administration continues to fall apart at this clip, I think we’ll be grateful for incompetence as an excuse.

Molly Ivins's latest book is “Who Let the Dogs In?

© 2006 TruthDig.com, LLC

 

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

 

 

Posted by EvansMediaUSA at 13:09:12 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |