Prometheus 6   

The horns of a dilemma

Trade Sanctions Against U.S. to Be Delayed
By ELIZABETH BECKER

WASHINGTON, Nov. 28 - The World Trade Organization has agreed to a 10-day delay before Europe can impose $2.2 billion in sanctions against the United States in response to steel tariffs imposed by President Bush last year, an administration official said on Friday.

The decision was reached in Geneva on Thursday after the European Union and other nations that had complained about the tariffs joined with the Bush administration in seeking a delay, the official said. The earliest date that Europe can impose sanctions will now be Dec. 15.

This gives Mr. Bush breathing room to make a decision about lifting the tariffs that will be important both economically and politically.

What makes you think they want to escape?

No Escaping the Red Ink as Bush Pens '04 Agenda
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON and EDMUND L. ANDREWS

Published: November 29, 2003

WASHINGTON, Nov. 28 � President Bush is heading into 2004 facing a growing budget deficit, frustration among some Republicans about what they see as a lack of fiscal discipline and a challenge in putting together an election-year agenda that will not plunge the government all the deeper into debt, lawmakers, analysts and administration officials say.

…To avoid criticism that it is making the deficit even worse, the administration is focusing attention primarily on initiatives that would have little or no budgetary cost in the next few years, officials said. These include new tax-free savings accounts, which could be set up in a way that would actually generate additional tax revenue for several years before creating substantial revenue losses down the road. [P6: emphasis added]

Well, they did exclude NYC, so maybe it's true

Apartment Glut Forces Owners to Cut Rents in Much of U.S.
By DAVID LEONHARDT

MEMPHIS, Nov. 25 � Renting an apartment in much of the country these days can feel a little like waking up on your birthday.

Waiting for the tenants in some building lobbies around Memphis every morning are free cups of Starbucks coffee. In the Atlanta suburbs, people who move into one garden-style apartment building receive $500 gift certificates to Best Buy, the electronics chain. In Cleveland, Denver and many other cities, landlords have been giving new tenants gifts worth $1,000 or more: one, two or even three months of rent-free living.

While rents have continued to rise in many big cities on the coasts, including New York and Los Angeles, they are falling in more than 80 percent of metropolitan areas across the country. Low interest rates in recent years have persuaded many families to move out of rented apartments and buy their first homes at the same time that developers have been putting up thousands of new rental buildings, leaving many landlords desperate to fill apartments.

The portion of apartments sitting vacant this summer rose to 9.9 percent, the highest level since the Census Bureau began keeping statistics in 1956.

"I've been doing this for 30 years, and this is the worst rental climate I've ever seen," said Leonard Richman, president of the Sunshine Corporation, which manages almost 4,000 apartments in Memphis. "Rents have gone down to where they were about three or four years ago."

Fighting AIDS on the cheap

In the Vanguard Fighting AIDS, an Army of Haitian Villagers
By CELIA W. DUGGER

CANGE, Haiti � In the cool mist of daybreak, hundreds of villagers fanned out across the forsaken reaches of this nation's remote interior, fording rivers swollen by torrential rains, slogging through muddy cornfields and clambering up slippery mountainsides to reach people sickened by AIDS.

At each home, they handed out the little white pills that have brought their neighbors, wasted by the disease, back to robust life.

"If the medicines weren't here, I'd be dead," said Manesse Gracia, 39, a mother of six who was plump in a workday dress the color of orange sherbet. "My children would live in destitution. My husband is a farmer, but the earth gives back nothing."

Mrs. Gracia is part of a pioneering program run here by a Boston-based nonprofit group, Partners in Health, that has become an influential model in the frenetic race to expand drug treatment in dozens of poor countries across Africa, Asia and the Caribbean.

More than two decades into the pandemic, 22 million people have died of AIDS, and 40 million people are infected with H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS. Millions will perish next year unless they get the medicines.

"Bringing antiretroviral therapy to all who need it is the most medically challenging task that the world has ever taken on," said Dr. Richard Feachem, executive director of the Geneva-based Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

…The Spartan model of care used by Partners in Health was born of necessity, but its very spareness is now seen as a virtue by many experts who want the scarce dollars for treatment to stretch as far as possible. Doctors here grafted AIDS treatment efforts onto the existing program for tuberculosis control.

AIDS patients, who will have to take the drugs daily for the rest of their lives, are visited in their homes every morning and evening by a health worker who hands out pills and watches as they are gulped down. Ensuring the medicines are taken properly reduces the risk that drug resistant strains of H.I.V. will emerge.

One of the biggest obstacles to rapid expansion of treatment in poor countries is the extreme scarcity of doctors, nurses and high-tech equipment. And the program here has minimized reliance on them. Generally, there are no lab tests done once treatment begins. The only monitor is a scale to weigh patients monthly.

Peasants have been trained to dispense the medicines, draw blood, take X-rays, clean bedpans, measure vital signs and spread the word about condoms preventing H.I.V. infection. Most of the workers who visit patients' homes are paid a small stipend of $38 a month.

A fly in the Vasoline

Oil Experts See Long-Term Risks to Iraq Reserves
By JEFF GERTH

As the Bush administration spends hundreds of millions of dollars to repair the pipes and pumps above ground that carry Iraq's oil, it has not addressed serious problems with Iraq's underground oil reservoirs, which American and Iraqi experts say could severely limit the amount of oil those fields produce.

In northern Iraq, the large but aging Kirkuk field suffers from too much water seeping into its oil deposits, the experts say, and similar problems are evident in the sprawling oil fields in southern Iraq.

Experts familiar with Iraqi's oil industry have said that years of poor management have damaged the fields, and some warn that the current drive to rapidly return the fields to prewar capacity runs the risk of reducing their productivity in the long run.

"We are losing a lot of oil," said Issam al-Chalabi, Iraq's former oil minister. He said it "is the consensus of all the petroleum engineers" involved in the Iraqi industry that maximizing oil production may be detrimental to the reservoirs.

A 2000 United Nations report on the Kirkuk field said "the possibility of irreversible damage to the reservoir of this supergiant field is now imminent."

American officials acknowledge the underground problems, but figuring out how to address them is a quandary for the United States. The Bush administration and the Iraqis are banking on oil revenues to help pay for Iraq's reconstruction, and American officials say that aggressively managing the reservoirs is crucial to keeping oil and revenue flowing. But so far, American officials have steered clear of delving below ground, partly, they say, out of fear of adding to suspicion in the Arab world that the United States invaded Iraq to control its oil.

I've been bad

Not only have I slowed posting over the last few days (I can blame holidays for that) but over the last two weeks or so I haven't read very mony blogs. I've pretty much kept up with the comments, though.

The last word on the Lord of the Rings

A little early

Just so I don't forget, December 1, 2003 is World AIDS day.

The button in the Good Causes box on the right will take you to a British site where you can discover if you are HIV prejudiced. Of course, YOU'RE not prejudiced, right? You don't need to take the test or find out the facts about AIDS, right?

Right?

AIDS

UN says AIDS deaths at new high

By John Donnelly, Globe Staff, 11/26/2003

PRETORIA -- The global AIDS epidemic is entering its deadliest phase so far, with high numbers of new HIV infections being matched by an unprecedented number of deaths in many southern African nations, according to a United Nations report released yesterday.

Saying there were no signs of the epidemic abating, the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS, or UNAIDS, found that one out of every five adults in southern Africa is infected with HIV and that two countries, Botswana and Swaziland, recorded an astounding infection rate of 39 percent of adults last year.

UNAIDS estimated that a record 3 million people will die this year from AIDS-related illnesses, a 10 percent jump from 2002 estimates, and a record 5 million people will become infected with HIV, which causes AIDS.

"The epidemic continues to deepen, to expand, and it is tightening its grip on southern Africa and threatening Southeast Asia," Peter Piot, UNAIDS executive director, told reporters in a conference call from London.

The numbers of those infected in southern Africa, he said, are "a really dramatic illustration how the epidemic is further eroding this part of the continent." Piot also said he was worried about the spread of the virus in China, India, and Russia, in particular. He pointed out that Russia was spending only a "few million dollars" a year on AIDS, while the billion-plus populations of both China and India mean that if the epidemic crosses the 1 percent threshold in those countries, more than 20 million people will be infected.Now, an estimated 40 million people are infected worldwide, according to the report, 7.4 million in Asia alone.The report, released six days before World AIDS Day, also reflected a growing caution about estimating the numbers of those who are infected or have died from the disease. Some critics, pointing to poor record-keeping throughout sub-Saharan Africa, have cast doubt on previous estimates of the impact of AIDS, impact, saying they were vastly inflated.

This year's report, based on data collected from pregnant women at prenatal clinics and from door-to-door surveys in at least seven nations, estimated that the number of people infected was between 34 million and 46 million worldwide. The report selected the midpoint between the estimates, or 40 million. Last year, UNAIDS estimated that 42 million worldwide were infected with HIV or AIDS.

Piot and Karen Stanecki, chief demographer for UNAIDS, stood strongly behind the numbers and stressed that this year's lower estimate did not mean that the epidemic was declining, but rather reflected more accurate statistics gathered in the past year. In particular, demographic studies taken in rural areas found that previous reports had overestimated prevalence rates in those areas.

Billy-Beer in the 21st century

Documents: Neil Bush has Contract With Chinese
President's brother has agreed to strategize with chip manufacturing firm at the same time the Bush administration is trying to help U.S. firms compete more effectively.
By Warren Vieth and Lianne Hart
Times Staff Writers

3:02 PM PST, November 26, 2003

WASHINGTON -- Neil Bush, younger brother of President Bush, has a $400,000-a-year contract to provide business advice to a Chinese computer chip manufacturer, according to court documents.

At the same time the Bush administration is trying to help U.S. firms compete more effectively against the Chinese, Neil Bush has agreed to strategize with China's Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp., the documents show.

There is no indication he has done anything improper. However, the arrangement could attract attention during a presidential election cycle in which Chinese business practices have become a hot button issue.

"There's certainly the appearance of influence being sought," said Charles W. McMillion, a Washington business consultant who advised a congressional commission on U.S.-China policy. "If nothing else, it doesn't look good."

Vendor lock-in

Drug Benefit's Impact Detailed
Many Will Face Big Out-of-Pocket Costs

By Edward Walsh and Bill Brubaker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 26, 2003; Page A10

The Medicare prescription drug benefit approved yesterday by the Senate will provide the most help to low-income older Americans who are not so destitute that they qualify for Medicaid, the health care program for the poor, according to experts in the field.

The vast majority of Medicare recipients should receive some benefits from the program when it takes effect in 2006. But the size of the benefits will vary depending on each person's annual spending for prescription drugs, and in many cases will involve substantial out-of-pocket expenses.

For those joining the voluntary plan, prescription drug coverage will not be provided by the government but by private companies. The bill's first impact will come this spring when prescription drug discount cards are issued. The cards, which could be offered by as many as 20 competing companies that charge different annual fees and different prices for the same medications, will be the main benefit of the legislation until the full program takes effect in 2006.

Guilt by innuendo

Chaplain Held in Espionage Case Is Freed
By NEIL A. LEWIS

WASHINGTON, Nov. 25 � The military said on Tuesday that it was releasing Capt. James J. Yee, the former Muslim chaplain at Guant�namo Bay, Cuba, after confining him for nearly three months on suspicion of espionage activities.

Captain Yee will be allowed to resume his chaplain duties at Fort Benning, Ga.

At the same time, though, the United States Southern Command, based in Miami, which administers the detention center at Guant�namo Bay, said it was investigating other possible violations of military code by Captain Yee, including contentions that he had kept pornography on his government computer and had an affair. Those new charges are in addition to the ones brought in October contending that Captain Yee, also known as Youseff Yee, had disobeyed orders by taking classified information home when he was leaving Guant�namo in September.

Captain Yee's civilian lawyer, Eugene R. Fidell of Washington, said the fact that the new charges seemed to have nothing to do with national security demonstrated that military authorities had made a major error when they held up Captain Yee as a potential spy at Guant�namo, where he ministered to the mostly Islamic prisoner population.

Mr. Fidell said the initial set of charges of failing to obey a lawful order by taking classified information home without proper covers was not a serious infraction. The new charges, he said, showed that the military was persecuting Captain Yee to cover up its mistake.

"They have destroyed this man's reputation for what turns out to be no good reason," Mr. Fidell said, "and now it appears they are pursuing matters in a completely vindictive manner."

Raul Duany, a spokesman for the Southern Command in Tampa, disputed that assertion, saying: "At no time have we made any implications about what Captain Yee might have been charged with. We only said we're investigating him."

RealEconomik

Does the free market recognize any forces other than supply and demand? Reality certainly does. The process of creating a Medicare drug benefit is a real world example. An article in the NY Times shows that even though Drug Makers Move Closer to Big Victory,



Consideration of exactly where this pressure comes from led to a minor epiphany because it is not one of the forces of the free market as I understand it.

The true free market way to address this would be to openly allow the Canadian imports, putting Big Pharma in competition with the only force on the planet powerful enough to give it pause—itself. But that won't happen for non-free market reasons. In fact, all the things that affect the environment the free market operates in create market "distortions" of one kind or another; the things that affect supply and demand are not subject to the laws of supply and demand. To my knowledge there has never been a market that was totally unaffected by non-market forces. This makes me question whether or not a thing such as The Free Market actually exists.

I've always thought of The Free Market much as I do The Economy. The Economy is apparently measurements of the supply of, and demand for, selected commodities. The Economy represents our activity about as well as sequential wire frame images of a building (with notes as copious as you have time to append between snapshots) represents the actual building, the substances it is made of, its contents and the processes that affect it taking place in and around it.

Similarly, The Free Market is a skeletal description of the activity of a skeletal description (The Economy). Actual market activity will only resemble The Free Market is it is coerced into doing so by disregarding the real events that are disregarded by this skeletal description. The Real Market can only become The Free Market by the application of force.

The article that sparked this tangent follows.

Drug Makers Move Closer to Big Victory
By GARDINER HARRIS

As Congress edged closer to passing a Medicare drug benefit that prohibits the government from using its buying clout to win discounts, one thing was clear: the drug industry appeared on the cusp of an enormous victory, gained in part by millions in political donations and an expensive lobbying campaign.

But like everyone else, drug executives flipped on their computers this morning and found a raft of unsolicited e-mail messages for discounted drugs from Canada � a sign that the industry's political and business troubles are far from solved.

Drug makers have pressed hard for the legislation, because most executives believe that a Medicare drug benefit will forestall efforts to legalize drug imports or control drug prices.

Still, the industry is not out of the woods, said Joe Antos, a health policy analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative research center in Washington.

"The pressure to do something about drug prices is still very high," Mr. Antos said yesterday. "This bill is the best the industry could get, but that's not very good."

Indeed, the Medicare legislation is better than the gloomiest pictures that investors imagined, and perhaps for that reason, shares of many of the largest drug companies rose on Monday.

President Bill Clinton had threatened price controls. Democrats had proposed having Medicare buy drugs in much the way that it pays for hospital care, which would have meant steep discounts across most of the companies' businesses.

Instead, "you're getting a drug benefit, and the two things we were most scared about � drug importation and price controls � aren't in the bill," said Richard Evans, an analyst for Bernstein Research.

But worries abound in the industry. Many drug executives predict that the additional volume of sales they will earn from Medicare beginning in 2006, when the benefit is scheduled to take effect, will be balanced by discounts they will have to provide to the health plans and insurers that will negotiate prices for Medicare beneficiaries.

"No one's seeing any kind of big windfall for this," said Ian D. Spatz, vice president for public policy at Merck & Company.

Some internal company analyses predict that drug makers' profits could rise or fall 5 percent. While not welcome, a 5 percent drop in profits is manageable, industry executives say. Their worry, they say, is that the plan will draw them into the vortex of a huge government program that will eventually run short of money and begin demanding much bigger discounts.

"Whatever the government says this thing costs, it's going to cost more," said Dr. William McGuire, chief executive and chairman of UnitedHealth Group, the nation's largest health insurer.

If the billions in subsidies that Congress has devised to discourage employers from eliminating drug benefits for retirees fail, and more people than expected enroll in the Medicare drug plan, costs could go up.

Mr. Evans, of Bernstein Research, predicts that more than half of the Medicare population � between 20 million and 30 million beneficiaries � will end up in the program and cost far more that the $400 billion that Congress estimated.

"That blows a hole in the budget," he said, adding, "That's when the government takes a chain saw to the industry."

Insurers will rely on pharmacy benefit managers � companies like Medco Health Solutions and AdvancePCS � to negotiate discounts from drug makers, as they do now on behalf of health maintenance organizations and other insurers. The benefit managers typically draw up preferred drug lists and demand discounts from drug makers whose products are included.

While the process has been criticized for lacking transparency, with doubts raised about whether enough of the discounts reach the employers and consumers who pay for drugs, many drug industry executives worry about the benefit managers' clout almost as much as they fear negotiating with government officials.

Drug industry executives say that the Medicare bill's endorsement of the pharmacy benefit managers' techniques is not good for them, but they add that the legislative process forced them to pick a less lethal poison than negotiating prices directly with the government.

"The water was getting pretty rough without a benefit, so we just traded one set of rough waters for another," a top drug industry executive said. "And when the issues of costs start coming in future years, we'll be back on Capitol Hill talking about the value of our medicines."

Political pressures force Mr. Bush to act

Bush Meets Families of 26 Killed in Iraq; Offers Prayers
By GLEN JUSTICE

FORT CARSON, Colo., Nov. 24 � President Bush offered personal condolences on Monday to the families of 26 soldiers killed in Iraq, meeting privately with 98 parents, spouses, children and other relatives of the dead at a time when his handling of war casualties has become a political issue.

"I want to thank the families of the fallen soldiers who are here with us today," Mr. Bush said in an address to troops before the private meeting. "Our prayers are with you."

How to deal with the casualties of war is a quandary for any president, and particularly so for Mr. Bush, whose handling of Iraq has become a central issue in the presidential campaign. A further challenge, White House aides have said, is how to express sympathy for those killed without showing favoritism for one family over another or drawing attention to the mounting number of deaths.

Lesson learned?

U.S. Acquiesces to Allies on New Iran Nuclear Resolution
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 � The United States, bowing to the wishes of its allies, agreed Monday to let the International Atomic Energy Agency adopt a resolution deploring Iran's nuclear program without referring the issue to the United Nations for possible sanctions, administration officials said.

A senior administration official said the resolution, which could be adopted Wednesday in Vienna, would say that the atomic energy agency "strongly deplores" Iran's 18 years of secretly developing a nuclear arms program and hints that further actions might be possible if such activity continued.

Yielding to the insistence of France, Britain and Germany, the administration backed off its demand that Iran be condemned and that allegations of its misconduct be referred to the United Nations Security Council. The three European countries have joined in an unusual coalition to press Iran to cooperate.

Administration officials said that in the end, the United States had little choice but to go along not only with the wishes of its European allies, but also with the urging of the atomic energy agency's leadership, most notably its general director, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei.

The Europeans and Dr. ElBaradei argued that Iran's recent steps, including its announced suspension of its program to enrich uranium, warranted a conciliatory approach. Moreover, they said, confronting Iran would backfire, causing it to cut off any discussion.

"Getting Iran to acknowledge that it has cheated in the past and that it will cooperate in the future may not be everything the United States wants," a European diplomat said. "But to walk away from talking to Iran will block any chance of progress in the future."

I don't have anything to add

Congress Expands FBI Spying Power
By Ryan Singel

02:00 AM Nov. 24, 2003 PT

Congress approved a bill on Friday that expands the reach of the Patriot Act, reduces oversight of the FBI and intelligence agencies and, according to critics, shifts the balance of power away from the legislature and the courts.

A provision of an intelligence spending bill will expand the power of the FBI to subpoena business documents and transactions from a broader range of businesses -- everything from libraries to travel agencies to eBay -- without first seeking approval from a judge.

Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can acquire bank records and Internet or phone logs simply by issuing itself a so-called national security letter saying the records are relevant to an investigation into terrorism. The FBI doesn't need to show probable cause or consult a judge. What's more, the target institution is issued a gag order and kept from revealing the subpoena's existence to anyone, including the subject of the investigation.

The new provision in the spending bill redefines the meaning of "financial institution" and "financial transaction." The wider definition explicitly includes insurance companies, real estate agents, the U.S. Postal Service, travel agencies, casinos, pawn shops, ISPs, car dealers and any other business whose "cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax or regulatory matters."

Why all the questions, anyway?

Yesterday I asked a couple of questions. They were inspired by a comment to this post:

It occurred to me that (given human nature) it is by no means certain that a government whose every decision was vetted for consistancy with Libertarian morality would result in a society where everyone in it had the personal economic ability to live according to that morality.

So I'm wondering which is more important: that the government act in Libertarian fashion, that I act in Libertarian fashion or that everyone acts in Libertarian fashion.

WARNING: Race is explicitly considered in this post

I'm reading this:

I'm thinking this is good news along the lines of being told the rate at which crime increases has decreased.

The "reduced rate of increase" thing is a fine looking piece of conceptual juggling that allows one to claim victory when rates at which home ownership increase coincide for the demographics under consideration. This could, and likely will, happen long before the home ownership rates of each demographic coincide.

Make no mistake. The comparitive rates of home ownership is the important statistic. The rate at which those rates increase is a near-meaningless abstraction.

From Fannie Mae Foundation Census Note 07 (September 2001)

Changes in Minority Homeownership During the 1990s
Patrick A. Simmons
Fannie Mae Foundation

from INTERVIEW WITH DALTON CONLEY
edited transcript

Dalton Conley is director of the Center for Advanced Social Science Research (CASSR) and an associate professor in the Department of Sociology at New York University. He is the author of Being Black, Living in the Red: Race, Wealth, and Social Policy in America.

Jesse Jackson bashers, here's your chance

End of the Political Rainbow
by George E. Curry

When I was covering Jesse Jackson�s 1984 crusade for president�it hadn�t reached the campaign stage at the time � nothing seemed to bother Jackson more than African-American leaders endorsing Walter Mondale for president. Never mind that the former senator from Minnesota had an impressive record on civil rights. Never mind that as Jimmy Carter�s former vice president, Mondale had a better chance of getting elected to the top office than Jackson. Never mind that Jackson didn�t have a snowflake in hell�s chance of winning the Democratic nomination. All that mattered was that most Black officials were siding with the party�s eventual nominee over Jesse Jackson, who never had held office as a dogcatcher, let alone a high-ranking national office.

Now, the tables are reversed. Al Sharpton is clearly the most progressive Democratic candidate running for president. And what are the Jackson 2 doing? Jesse Jr. has just endorsed Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor. Jesse No. 1 has declined to endorse Sharpton, claiming that he is staying out of the race at this time. He�s staying out of the race, he told me in a recent telephone conversation, yet he was about to fly off to Mississippi to support the race of a Black candidate for lieutenant governor, Barbara Blackmon.

To me, this marks the end of the Rainbow. And it underscores a certain hypocrisy some of our national leaders consistently practice. When Jesse No. 1 is the candidate, everyone is supposed to fall in line behind him and be as excited as he is about whatever fleeting issue that is occupying his mind at the time. Yet, when someone else is positioned for leadership�even when that person has supported him in the past�suddenly it�s acceptable to stay out of the fray.

First of all, Jesse Jackson couldn�t stay out of the race if he wanted to. He may be walking the sidelines now, but when the Democratic Party settles on a nominee, Jackson will be out, as he always is, picking the party�s electoral cotton, urging African-Americans to flock to the polls regardless of which of the seven White men running for president gets the Democratic nomination.

As a national figure once told me in private, �Jesse Jackson is like a terrorist�all he wants is an airplane and some money.�

That may be an overstatement, but it�s not that far off the mark. Jackson always has wanted the �respect� of having his own plane and budget to pick Democratic cotton and once that was in hand, as he would so often say during that 1984 crusade, the hands that once picked cotton will now pick the next president. He should revise that to add�as long as that �next president� is not Black and deserving of his support.

Actually, this is a reflection of a larger problem. Before many of our Black elected officials won office, they vigorously complained about our community being underrepresented�they still voice that complaint�and argued that the political process needed a breath of fresh air. However, once they became insiders rather than outsiders, they began to sing a different tune. Like many White politicians, they started to view public office as a position to be inherited, not earned.

So, when Rep. Harold Ford Sr. (D-Tenn.) looked for someone to succeed him in Congress, he didn�t have to look far�he chose his son, Harold Jr. When William L. Clay (D-Mo.) decided to step down, surprise, surprise, he turned to his son, Lacy. And although Jesse Jackson probably couldn�t get elected dogcatcher in Chicago, his son, Jesse Jr., could get elected to Congress.

Don�t misunderstand my point. I am not saying Harold Jr., Lacy and Jesse Jr. are not capable lawmakers in their own right; they are. Still, it�s a sad commentary that when African-Americans get elected to office, their idea of passing the torch on to the next generation is to keep it in the family.

The tragedy of Jesse Jackson�s 1984 crusade and 1988 campaign is that despite all the talk of building a �Rainbow Coalition� that would stay in place after the presidential runs and help others�presumably non-family members, as well�assume power, it has been a bust. That is, unless you count nepotism as a sign of political progress.

Beyond that, it�s quite telling when a Black person who sought the presidency as an outsider becomes an insider�at least, in his mind�and then treats the new outsider like the insiders once treated him. That�s not my idea of keeping hope alive.

George E. Curry is editor-in-chief of the NNPA News Service and BlackPressUSA.com. His most recent book is �The Best of Emerge Magazine,� an anthology published by Ballantine Books. He can be reached through his Web site, georgecurry.com.

Just a spoonful of sugar

GOP Medicare 'Reform' is a Sham
11/23/2003 06:44 PM EDT

By DEBORAH MATHIS
BlackAmericaWeb.com

…The authors of the new Medicare plan are counting on the same vulnerabilities that help psychics, palm readers, lotteries and real estate investment scam artists get rich. They are counting on public need to nourish private greed.

The linchpin of the bill -- which George W. Bush would claim for bragging rights in the 2004 re-election bid - is the prescription drug component. Currently, Medicare does not help pay for the medications older Americans need to hold their own.

Americans spent $95 billion this year for prescription drugs. Nearly $41 billion of that came from senior citizens, even though they make up only 13 percent of the population.

That's a lot of money plucked from the pockets of people who, typically, are on fixed incomes but who have little choice since, if they don't pay, the crippling pain comes back or the heart clogs or the blood sugar drives them blind or the mind crumbles. Or worse.

For the black elderly, affordable prescription drugs are an especially critical need. A disproportionate number of older black people suffer chronic ailments so their reliance on prescription drugs is greater than the rest of the elderly population.

But the new plan offers little comfort. For example, it would pay 75 percent of the first $2,250, but after that, it would pay nothing until the drug bill reaches $3,600. After that, it covers 95 percent.

That would mean an 81-year-old man I know, who now spends $4,800 a year for eight life-sustaining drugs, would pay out about $2,700 once you add in the $250 deductible and $35-per-month insurance premium.

That sounds pretty good, until you see that he would have to give up the doctor who has treated him for years, knows his case inside and out, understands the nuances of both the patient and his conditions, and holds his trust. Why? Because, in order to get the Medicare benefits, the old man would have to sign up with a government-approved private plan, like an HMO, and go to one of the doctors on its list. Meanwhile, the annual deductible for doctors' visits and outpatient care would increase every year.

Meanwhile, too, the bill does nothing to address the exorbitant and ever-increasing cost of drugs. There are no provisions for price controls. How long do you think it would be before the 81-year-old is back where he started and beyond, only now without the comfort of knowing the doctor he trusts is on the case while being herded into a crammed, impersonal system?

Taking it into their own hands

Roots and Kulture: A New African Institute

By Dr. Pamela Hill
African-American News&Issues
Dallas Fort-Worth, Texas

Since 1987, Takuma Umoja and his wife Nia IAfrika have maintained an Afrikan cultural presence in Fort Worth, when they opened a small bookstore about Afrikans and Afrikan Americans because they saw an identity problem in the community and wanted to do the best we can to find a solution. They gave up their home and everything to focus on this issue. Roots and Kulture Redemptive Books and Resources was the first black bookstore in Fort Worth.

Umoja says the Afikan community in Fort Worth where he lives and works has not seen industry in the 17 years he has been in the area. Better jobs are needed as is more money. To help ease some of this a work study program was developed with the primary purpose being Black Unity and designed towards enhancing skills and teaching about blackness, and how to love black, help black survive black and live black. We advocate a new Afrikan culture, because we are not the same Afrikans that left Afrika. We are a new Afrika, which mean we know of old and we know of the new, and based on the old, we are the new. Through Afrikan union we will foster, that will help regarding the chaos that is plaguing the Black community�.

Already Roots and Kulture use their space to enhance the community. In addition to the Work Study program, they sponsor the Center for Positive Education, that provides basis skills and history knowledge. Just recently they held a Young Prince and Princess Day, which allowed the children to dress as ancient Afrikan rulers, and are preparing for Kwanzaa

There is a larger vision on the horizon for Roots and Kulture. They have begun raising funds to establish The New Afrikan Culture Institute, a non profit community collective for the holistic development to the Black community. The vision of this multi-purpose facility is to create, promote and maintain a viable environment for academic achievement, mental and physical health, economic empowerment and culture preservation. In order to meet these needs the plan includes four centers. Those centers will be Creative Learning and Scientific Research Center, the Holistic Health and Wellness Center, the Business and Technology center and the Community Support and Cultural Services Center

Nia IAfrika says that everybody will have a role to play. �No matter what you do, what your contribution is, you can find a place at the New Afrikan Cultural Institute. If you have a program you will have a space for it, it you have a business, you may be able to have your business within the Institute. We will be a centralized location where we can all come together. We will have a school a place to eat, counselor services, all want to come together to one. Whatever we need we will have it at the New Afrikan Cultural Center.�

The overall specific and primary objects of the Institute include developing finance resources to promote the interest of the Black community, to teach job skills, to promote heath care, entrepreneurial opportunities and various social services .The Institute is not seeking government funds but will apply for private funding. The goal is to raise enough funds to begin building in 2005. Patrons are welcomed. Roots and Culture is located at 3630 East Roseda.le.

Dean Stuff

Dean's New Challenge: Reaching Black Voters
By JODI WILGOREN

Cynthia Williams showed up nearly an hour before Howard Dean's scheduled appearance at Mount Olivet Baptist Church in Harlem yesterday morning, eager to disappear among the women in feathered hats who filled the pews. For once, the only thing making Ms. Williams, an African-American computer technician from Nutley, N.J., stand out was the blue Dean button on her lapel.

"So many events that I go to I'm like one of maybe two black faces," said Ms. Williams, 37, a staunch Dean fan who has followed her candidate to more than a dozen events in New York, New Jersey and New Hampshire over the last year. "The only thing I can say the reason why is there hasn't been any effort to reach out to minorities."

Ms. Williams's experience points to a problem that has been looming over Dr. Dean's presidential campaign throughout his surge to the front of the field this summer and fall. How can Dr. Dean, the former governor of a nearly all-white, mostly rural state, speak to urban issues and motivate the minority voters who have been a mainstay of the Democratic electorate for decades?

The campaign has devoted increasing attention to this question in recent weeks, calling attention to the support it has won from several leading black politicians and two major unions with many African-American and Hispanic members. Indeed, the crowds at union-led rallies on Dr. Dean's behalf this weekend in Detroit and New York were among the most racially diverse he has seen, and he has recently begun referring to his campaign as a rainbow.

But it was just a few weeks ago that Dr. Dean's handling of criticism for his comments about wanting to be the candidate for "guys with Confederate flag decals on their pickup trucks" raised concerns about his command of the complex racial dynamics of the country, particularly in the South.

Dr. Dean, 54, was not active in the civil rights movement, and has neither the political network of black ministers and community leaders nor the personal relationships that have helped other white candidates. His campaign's heavy use of the Internet has largely bypassed poorer pockets of African-Americans and Latinos, and issues like crime, drugs and failing public schools have not been centerpieces of his message.

A couple of questions

Which is more important: that a government and economy operate by Libertarian principles or that individuals live in Libertarian freedom?

And speaking of freedom, the word seems to be a term of art…actually, I've come to see that almost all nouns (and many verbs) are used as terms of art by this administration. Watching how it's used and inducing a definition from its context (we're a free nation, free nations banded together in a Coalition of the Willing, now Iraq is free, freedom mush be defended), my current working definition of "freedom" is "a legal, economic and political environment in which you can do anything you can afford are able to do."

Yes, the cheesy half hearted bullshit denial of the impact wealth has on this "freedom" while leaving it in place in such a way as to make clear it remains central to the definition, is part of the definition.

What do you think? Did I get it right?

LATER: the working definition of "freedom" was slightly edited from the original "a legal, economic and political environment in which you can do anything you can afford want to do."

Unreality check

George W. Bush Loves Michael Jackson
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Friday 21 November 2003

A number of explosions tore through the British consulate in Turkey today, killing scores of people. George W. Bush is in England, surrounded on all sides by enraged British citizens whose massive protests have required nearly every police officer in London to be put on the line of defense.

This is happening in a nation that has been, both in government and among the populace, one of the strongest allies America has ever known. There are a couple of wars happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which are going very well. A great many soldiers and civilians have died in the last year. Osama bin Laden is still on the loose, and after nearly 750 days, the American people have still been given no explanation for why September 11 happened.

It is 3:16 p.m. on Thursday afternoon as I write this. CNN has been covering, with total exclusivity, a parking lot outside a police station for the last hour. They covered an airplane landing. They covered the same airplane sitting still on the tarmac. They covered the airplane slowly moving into a hangar. All the while, talking head after talking head explored every conceivable facet of the parking lot, the plane, the tarmac, and the hangar, as well as a variety of parallel issues. No stone of data was left unturned.

Why? Michael Jackson is about to surrender to police.

In the last two years, CNN has not devoted this much energy and coverage to any story in the manner that is unfolding right now. Enron, the stock market, the reasons for September 11, the nomination of Henry Kissinger to chair the investigation into that event, the disinformation that was pushed by the Bush administration before the attack on Iraq, the civilian casualties during the attack on Iraq, the American troop casualties during and after the attack on Iraq, the missing weapons of mass destruction, the missing Osama bin Laden, the war in Afghanistan that is far from over, the outing of a CIA agent by the Bush administration in an act of political revenge, and about two hundred other explosive stories did not get the attention that Michael Jackson is getting now.

One talking head just said, "I'm waiting for a white Bronco to pull up."

The other talking heads laughed and kept on going. A detailed discussion progressed about the tail numbers on Michael Jackson's plane, along with questions about how all this will affect Jackson's fans. We're approaching the two-hour mark in the coverage.

For a while we had the Petersons to obsess the mainstream television media. Then we had Kobe Bryant, and for a bit both stories ran concurrently with 'Breaking News' announcements throughout daily coverage. Neither managed to seize national attention, and so periodically CNN and the other networks were forced to mention that the fighting in Iraq is getting a lot of Americans killed, the promised weapons of mass destruction have not been found, and no one but Dick Cheney can say that Iraq was involved in September 11 without looking like a total blithering idiot.

And then, like a surgically enhanced cavalry charge, Michael Jackson blasts to the forefront to rescue the mainstream media from perhaps being required to cover matters of substance. The ability for these talking heads to natter on for weeks and weeks about Jackson, previous charges against him, his musical history, his personal oddities, his baby-dangling antics, and "Oh my goodness, what do we tell the children?" is pretty much bottomless, but we will spend the next several weeks, again, racing to that bottom as quickly as television signals can travel through a coaxial cable.

A black Bronco just left the airplane hangar, and is driving slowly, slowly to the police station. CNN is on it. CNN is all over it.

One of the shots on my television an hour ago showed a gaggle of reporters and cameras gathered outside the police station, waiting for Jackson to arrive. The talking head working the microphone at that moment mistakenly called those people "journalists." This is not journalism, and those people are not journalists. This is entertainment television passed off as news of import. This is more poison poured into our national discussion. This is the grand bull moose gold medal winning distraction of all time.

George W. Bush should send Michael Jackson flowers and a thank-you note, and send more flowers to CNN. The Republican Party effected an historic takeover of Congress in 1994, during a time when the only television coverage one could find focused on OJ Simpson. The timing was exquisite.
We're right back, today, to that marvelous chapter in American journalism history.

TV news viewers who think they are getting the hard truth from the mainstream media just forgot Bush exists, forgot the hundreds of thousands of protesters who have dogged his state visit to Britain, forgot the attacks in Iraq, forgot the dead soldiers, forgot September 11, forgot everything except a mutant in a Bronco who lives in a place called Neverland.

They just showed Jackson in handcuffs. The talking heads almost fainted. God bless America.

Learning from the U.S.ofA

China Warns Taiwan That Attack May Be 'Unavoidable'
General Condemns President's Moves Toward Independence

By John Pomfret
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, November 20, 2003; Page A28

BEIJING, Nov. 19 -- For the first time in more than three years, China has openly threatened to attack Taiwan, warning President Chen Shui-bian to curb recent moves it said were intended to bring Taiwan closer to formal independence.

Chinese Premier Presses U.S. on Taiwan, Trade
Wen Addresses Wide Range of Issues

By John Pomfret and Philip P. Pan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, November 23, 2003; Page A01

BEIJING, Nov. 22 -- Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao called on the United States to deter Taiwan from adopting laws that could pave the way for a referendum on the island's independence, warning that China would "pay any price to safeguard the unity of the motherland."

…He pledged to "develop democracy," protect human rights and improve China's legal system. But he all but ruled out talks with Tibet's Dalai Lama, and he rejected bold reform of China's one-party political system.

"Conditions are not ripe for direct elections at the higher levels," he said. "The first hindrance in my view is the inadequate education level of the population."

D-minus

How to Make the Deficit Look Smaller Than It Is
By DANIEL GROSS

THE news on the federal budget deficit for fiscal 2003 was encouraging, wasn't it? In July 2003, the Office of Management and Budget projected a record deficit of $455 billion. But when the fiscal year ended in October, the shortfall was only $374 billion, equivalent to 3.5 percent of gross domestic product.

"As a percentage of gross domestic product, the deficits are below the historical peaks that we've seen in the past," says J. T. Young, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget. In 1983, for example, the deficit was 6 percent of gross domestic product; in 1992, it was 4.7 percent.

Congratulating the administration for such an achievement, however, would be like raising the allowance of a high school student who brought home a D-minus in math instead of an F.

If we factor out the so-called Social Security surplus - payroll taxes collected by the government but not paid out in benefits - the deficit in fiscal 2003 was actually far larger: $531 billion, or 4.9 percent of gross domestic product. For the current fiscal year, the administration expects that this figure, also called the on-budget deficit, will be even higher: $639 billion, or a whopping 5.4 percent of gross domestic product.

Every year since 1983, workers have paid more in Social Security payroll taxes than Social Security has paid out to beneficiaries. The surplus was supposed to be used to pay down the national debt. "That way, when the baby boomers are retired, our other debt will be lower and we'll be in a better position to borrow funds to pay for benefits," said Richard Kogan, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning group in Washington.

To ensure the proper use of the Social Security surplus, Vice President Al Gore in 2000 proposed segregating the funds into a sort of lockbox. George W. Bush, then the Texas governor, also supported this concept, although his understanding of Social Security was revealed to be something less than complete. (In November 2000, during a campaign speech, he famously accused opponents of wanting "the federal government controlling the Social Security like it's some kind of federal program.")

In the past three years, President Bush and Congress have viewed the Social Security surplus more as a cookie jar than a lockbox.

Delusions in law enforcement

F.B.I. Scrutinizes Antiwar Rallies
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, Nov. 22 � The Federal Bureau of Investigation has collected extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators and has advised local law enforcement officials to report any suspicious activity at protests to its counterterrorism squads, according to interviews and a confidential bureau memorandum.

The memorandum, which the bureau sent to local law enforcement agencies last month in advance of antiwar demonstrations in Washington and San Francisco, detailed how protesters have sometimes used "training camps" to rehearse for demonstrations, the Internet to raise money and gas masks to defend against tear gas. The memorandum analyzed lawful activities like recruiting demonstrators, as well as illegal activities like using fake documentation to get into a secured site.

F.B.I. officials said in interviews that the intelligence-gathering effort was aimed at identifying anarchists and "extremist elements" plotting violence, not at monitoring the political speech of law-abiding protesters.

The initiative has won the support of some local police, who view it as a critical way to maintain order at large-scale demonstrations. Indeed, some law enforcement officials said they believed the F.B.I.'s approach had helped to ensure that nationwide antiwar demonstrations in recent months, drawing hundreds of thousands of protesters, remained largely free of violence and disruption. [P6: Here is the delusion…that monitoring the speech of those who disagree with the Bushistas somehow enhances crowd control. The demonstrators had no knowledge of this "initiative", so it had no impact on their behavior. The demonstrations were largely free of violence because the demonstrators weren't violent.]

But some civil rights advocates and legal scholars said the monitoring program could signal a return to the abuses of the 1960's and 1970's, when J. Edgar Hoover was the F.B.I. director and agents routinely spied on political protesters like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

"The F.B.I. is dangerously targeting Americans who are engaged in nothing more than lawful protest and dissent," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "The line between terrorism and legitimate civil disobedience is blurred, and I have a serious concern about whether we're going back to the days of Hoover."

The thin red-white-and-blue line

Thomas L. Friedman

…I fear we're starting to cross [the line] in ways that could actually be dangerous for us all. Whether we're talking about our public officials or your family deciding whether to vacation in Istanbul, we all have to learn to live with more insecurity. Because terrorists are in the fear business, and every time we visibly imprison ourselves, they win another small victory and become more emboldened. Indeed, we could learn from the British. The I.R.A. murdered the queen's cousin and almost blew up Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in her hotel � yet life in London goes on and the police here still don't carry guns.

I fear that the kinds of security officials who pulled the plug on Mr. Powell are becoming the new priesthood of our age. If the 1990's were the era of "Davos Man," the 2000's are the era of "Security Man" � and like a priesthood, these "terrorism experts" have unchallenged authority to curb our freedom in the name of freedom. Some of them deserve respect and know their stuff. But some wouldn't recognize the 6-foot-5 Osama bin Laden if he walked past them dribbling a basketball and dragging his dialysis machine.

Bin Laden is supposed to be on the run � not us. What good is driving bin Laden into a cave if our secretary of state has to live in a bubble? When Mr. Powell can't deliver a speech in London � London � then why travel anywhere? And if diplomats can't travel or circulate, then diplomacy becomes virtual. And virtual diplomacy leads to virtual allies and virtual allies lead to no allies at all. If communities of shared values can't share their values, where are we?

Fearmongering

Scaring Up Votes
By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

First came the pre-emptive military policy. Now comes the pre-emptive campaign strategy.

Before the president even knows his opponent, his first political ad is blanketing Iowa today.

"It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known," Mr. Bush says, in a State of the Union clip.

Well, that's a comforting message from our commander in chief. Do we really need his cold, clammy hand on our spine at a time when we're already rattled by fresh terror threats at home and abroad? When we're chilled by the metastasizing Al Qaeda, the resurgent Taliban and Baathist thugs armed with deadly booby traps; the countless, nameless terror groups emerging in Turkey, Morocco, Indonesia and elsewhere; the vicious attacks on Americans, Brits, aid workers and their supporters in Iraq, Afghanistan and Turkey? The latest illustration of the low-tech ingenuity of Iraqi foes impervious to our latest cascade of high-tech missiles: a hapless, singed donkey that carted rockets to a Baghdad hotel.

Yet the Bush crowd is seizing the moment to scare us even more.

---

The proper response: point out all the money Bush has been given to act, all the cooperation the Democrats in Congress have given him on defense and counterterrorism, so "when even Mr. Bush's own campaign ads say you're no safer now as a result, ask yourself—whose fault is that?"

A minor point

Campaigning in Wartime

If there was ever any doubt that President Bush would run for re-election as the commander in chief of the war on terror, it will end when the Republican Party begins broadcasting its first campaign commercial on Mr. Bush's behalf. "Some are now attacking the president for attacking the terrorists," says the ad, as it shows film of Mr. Bush warning of the potential dangers ahead.

---

The proper response:

In a classic expression of victim mentality, Republicans are claiming Mr. Bush (always call him Mr. Bush, never use the title) is being attacked for attacking the terrorists.

This is a lie. He is being attacked for ignoring the terrorists.

Democrats supported the war in Afghanistan, because that was where the terrorists were. Democrats supported Mr. Bush's Iraqi Adventures at first because we trusted him when he said he had proof of an Iraqi threat to the U.S.

Only to find out that not only was there no connection between Iraq and the terrorists that attacked us, but Bush's administration knew it.

Bush's choices have distracted the nation from the real threat, thrown an unstable region into greater chaos, tied up money and resources that could have been used to help Americans at home as well as to continue against real threats to our security and sent your neighbors, children and friends into a hostile environment wearing a target that says "Made in the USA" in fine, but still readable, print.

Bush's choices have shortchanged homeland security as well as our rights as citizens, thrown even your unborn children into debt, disrupted decades old alliances that were arranged as much for our defense as our allies', and convinced the world he is a Crusader…a Crusader in service, not of God, but of Oil… in service, not of prophecy but of profit.

The rest of the editorial follows.

---

It was inevitable that Sept. 11 was going to wind up in the messy center of presidential politics. The war against terror is by its very nature a war with no conclusion, and Democrats who lined up behind the president after the World Trade Center was destroyed cannot be expected to give him a free pass into a second term. The Republicans, meanwhile, are bound to base their campaign on the public's natural reluctance to change chief executives in dangerous times.

The Democrats need to find ways to attack Mr. Bush's stewardship without attacking his character; most Americans remember the president's firm resolve after 9/11 with admiration and do not want those memories challenged. Mr. Bush has what may be the trickier task. He undoubtedly regards maintaining control of the White House for a second term as critical to winning the war on terror. Yet in order to maintain credibility while he runs for re-election, he must convince people that the decisions he makes are not just based on political self-preservation. On that front, so far, he has come up short.

The sight of the president in London last week, standing next to Prime Minister Tony Blair, was a study in contrasts. Mr. Blair has taken enormous political hits to support Mr. Bush, and he has done so because he believed the Iraqi invasion was in the best interests of both his own country and the rest of the world. Mr. Bush has undoubtedly been grateful in private. But in public he has failed to lend the prime minister any of his own political capital. The president, for instance, could have provided support on an issue of great concern to Europe by pressing to end Israel's suicidal expansion of its West Bank settlements. That would be good for Israel, aid the cause of Middle Eastern peace and greatly strengthen Mr. Blair's position. The fact that Mr. Bush has not made the effort suggests he is setting a higher priority on conservative Christian and Jewish lobbying groups in his own political base � groups whose support he is unlikely to lose under any circumstances, but whose enthusiasm could be helpful in both turning out the vote and collecting campaign contributions.

Political consultants have been mesmerized lately with the question of whether the undecided moderate voters who are supposed to turn the tide of any presidential election really exist. The country, some say, may be divided fairly equally between those red states and blue states, with victory going not to the man who mobilizes the middle but the one who energizes his own base. To us, it matters less which theory is true than that Mr. Bush chooses the path that is best for the country. He cannot successfully preside over a frustrating and painful struggle to change the Middle East and protect the homeland from terrorism if he always has one eye on appeasing his supporters on the right. We have gone too far down that road already, with Republicans ramming unaffordable tax cuts through Congress on the eve of the invasion of Iraq and the White House sending polarizing judicial nominees to the Senate.

One area in which the president has certainly damaged his image of a commander in chief above the fray is on the very delicate question of the treatment of the war dead. The White House, as is well known, has done everything in its power to keep the image of coffins and grieving families as far away from the TV screen as possible, and neither the president nor his representatives have attended the funerals of any of the fallen soldiers. One of the explanations given for this is the desire to leave the families to their private grief, but that could certainly be a decision left to the families themselves. Another is that the president and his chief lieutenants are too busy to attend so many memorials.

According to Public Citizen, which keeps exhaustive statistics on the topic, George Bush has attended 35 campaign fund-raisers since June 17 and is expected to attend at least 7 more by the end of the year. Vice President Dick Cheney has attended 31. That averages about three a week for the two men, most of them much farther away from the White House than Dover Air Force Base, where the bodies of the dead soldiers arrive back home.

We respectfully suggest that Mr. Bush change his priorities. If he wants to run for re-election as the leader in a time of war, he needs to behave like a president, not a politician. The public needs some reassurance that he is willing to sacrifice something himself to win the struggle to which he has committed us.