Category Archives: Americas

THE MOST VICIOUS ELEMENT OF AMERICAN SOCIETY

Faithful readers know I regard our police forces as the worst humans on earth since the heyday of Nazi storm troopers. Prior to 1970, those who disagreed with me had a leg to stand on. Since then, that leg has been cut out from under them. For the last 43 years there is no respectable argument against me. I have posted several pieces on the subject, mainly in www.watching politics.com and today I resume the attack. Continue reading THE MOST VICIOUS ELEMENT OF AMERICAN SOCIETY

CARDIOLOGISTS REBEL

Our guest columnist is John J. Pippen, the director of cardiovascular medicine at the renowned Cooper Clinic in Dallas. Here is a recent letter from him.
*********************************
There are many things wrong with the use of intimidation and violence in the critical debate over animal research. In addition to being anathema in our society, such tactics obscure important issues regarding animal experiments and human health.

I am a cardiologist and a former animal researcher. I stopped experimenting on animals after I came to doubt the medical value of such research. Today, a growing number of physicians, scientists and scientific agencies believe that moving to non-animal research and testing methods is critical to advancing human health.

Numerous reports confirm very poor correlations between animal research results and human results, and the research breakthroughs so optimistically reported in the media almost always fail in humans.

Examples abound. Every one of 197 human trials using 85 HIV/AIDS vaccines tested in animals has failed. More than 150 human stroke trials using treatments successful in animals have failed, as have at least two dozen animal diabetes cures. Vioxx was tested successfully in eight studies using six animal species, yet this anti-inflammatory medication may have caused the deaths of more Americans than the Vietnam War.

The monoclonal antibody TGN1412 was safe in monkeys at 500 times the dose tested in humans, yet all six British volunteers who received the drug in 2006 nearly died. Conversely, simple aspirin produces birth defects in at least seven animal species, yet is safe in human pregnancy. When even identical human twins have different disease susceptibilities, how can we think answers will be found in mice or monkeys?

The National Cancer Institute now uses panels of human cells and tissues to test treatments for cancer and HIV/AIDS, and to detect drug toxicities. And the National Research Council now recommends replacing animal toxicity testing with in vitro methods.

I can attest that animal research is inherently cruel. Animal protection laws do not mitigate this reality. Whether the debate involves humane issues or human benefits, the evidence confirms the need to replace animal experiments with more accurate human-specific methods. That’s the best way to make progress and improve health.
If you enjoyed this story, please share it by submitting it to one of the  listed public indexing sites:

WHY HEZBOLLAH FIGHTS

To understand Hezbollah, it is important to begin with this point: Almost all Muslim Arabs opposed the creation of the state of Israel. Not all of them supported, or support today, the creation of an independent Palestinian state or recognize the Palestinian people as a distinct nation. This is a vital and usually overlooked distinction that is the starting point in our thinking.

 

When Israel was founded, three distinct views emerged among Arabs. The first was that Israel was a part of the British mandate created after World War II and therefore should have been understood as part of an entity stretching from the Mediterranean to the other side of Jordan, from the border of the Sinai, north to Mount Hermon. Therefore, after 1948, the West Bank became part of the other part of the mandate, Jordan.

 

There was a second view that argued that there was a single province of the Ottoman Empire called Syria and that all of this province — what today is Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and the country of Syria — is legitimately part of it. This obviously was the view of Syria, whose policy was and in some ways continues to be that Syria province, divided by Britain and France after World War I, should be reunited under the rule of Damascus.

 

A third view emerged after the establishment of Israel, pioneered by Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt. This view was that there is a single Arab nation that should be gathered together in a United Arab Republic. This republic would be socialist, more secular than religious and, above all, modernizing, joining the rest of the world in industrialization and development.

 

All of these three views rejected the existence of Israel, but each had very different ideas of what ought to succeed it. The many different Palestinian groups that existed after the founding of Israel and until 1980 were not simply random entities. They were, in various ways, groups that straddled these three opinions, with a fourth added after 1967 and pioneered by Yasser Arafat. This view was that there should be an independent Palestinian state, that it should be in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, extend to the original state of Israel and ultimately occupy Jordan as well. That is why, in September 1970, Arafat tried to overthrow King Hussein in Jordan. For Arafat, Amman, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv were all part of the Palestinian homeland.

 

After the Iranian revolution, a fifth strain emerged. This strain made a general argument that the real issue in the Islamic world was to restore religious-based government. This view opposed the pan-Arab vision of Nasser with the pan-Islamic vision of Khomeini. It regarded the particular nation-states as less important than the type of regime they had. This primarily Shiite view was later complemented by what was its Sunni counterpart. Rooted partly in Wahhabi Sunni religiosity and partly in the revolutionary spirit of Iran, its view was that the Islamic nation-states were the problem and that the only way to solve it was a transnational Islamic regime — the caliphate — that would restore the power of the Islamic world.

 

That pedantic lesson complete, we can now locate Hezbollah’s ideology and intentions more carefully. Hezbollah is a Shiite radical group that grew out of the Iranian revolution. However, there is a tension in its views, because it also is close to Syria. As such, it is close to a much more secular partner, more in the Nasserite tradition domestically. But it also is close to a country that views Lebanon, Jordan and Israel as part of greater Syria, the Syria torn apart by the British and French.

 

There are deep contradictions ideologically between Iran and Syria, though they share a common interest. First, they both oppose the Sunnis. Remember that when Lebanon first underwent invasion in 1975, it was by Syria intervening on behalf of Christian friends and against the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Syria hated Arafat because Arafat insisted on an independent Palestinian state and Syria opposed it. This was apart from the fact that Syria had business interests in Lebanon that the PLO was interfering with. Iran also opposed the PLO because of its religious/ethnic orientation; moreso because it was secular and socialist.

 

Hezbollah emerged as a group representing Syrian and Iranian interests. These were:

 

* Opposition to the state of Israel

 

* An ambiguous position on an independent Palestine

 

* Hostility to the United States for supporting Israel and later championing Yasser Arafat

 

Hezbollah had to straddle the deep division between Syrian secularity and Iranian religiosity. However the other three interests allowed them to postpone the issue.

 

This brings us to the current action. Three things happened to energize Hezbollah:

 

First, the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon under pressure from the United States undermined an understanding between Israel and Syria. Israel would cede Lebanon to Syria. Syria would control Hezbollah. When Syria lost out in Lebanon, its motive for controlling Hezbollah disappeared. Syria, in fact, wanted the world to see what would happen if Syria left Lebanon. Chaos was exactly what Syria wanted.

 

Second, the election of a Hamas-controlled government in the Palestinian territories created massive fluidity in Palestinian politics. The Nasserite Fatah was in decline and a religious Sunni movement was on the rise. Both accepted the principle of Palestinian independence. None made room for either Syrian or Iranian interests. It was essential that Hezbollah, representing itself and the two nations, have a seat at the table that would define Palestinian politics for a generation. But Hezbollah was more a group of businessmen making money in Beirut than a revolutionary organization. It had to demonstrate its commitment to the destruction of Israel even if it was ambiguous on the nature of the follow-on regime. It had to do something.

 

Third, the Sunni-Shiite fault line had become venomous. Tensions not only in Iraq, but also in Afghanistan and Pakistan were creating a transnational civil war between these two movements. Iran was positioning itself to replace al Qaeda as the revolutionary force in the Islamic world and was again challenging Saudi Arabia as the center of gravity of Islamic religiosity. Israel was a burning issue. It had to be there. Moreover, in its dealings with the United States over Iraq, Iran needed as many levers as possible, and a front in Lebanon confronting Israel, particularly if it bogged down the Israelis, would do just that.

 

Hezbollah is enabled by both Syria and Iran. But precisely because of both national and ideological differences between those two countries, Hezbollah is not simply a tool for them. They each have influence over Hezbollah but this influence is sometimes contradictory. Syria’s interests and Iran’s are never quite the same. Nor are Hezbollah’s interests quite the same as those of its patrons. Hezbollah has business interests in legal and illegal businesses around the world. It has interests within Lebanese politics and it has interests in Palestinian politics. As a Syrian client, it looks at the region as one entity. As an Iranian client, it looks to create a theocratic state in the region. As an entity in its own right, it must keep itself going.

 

Given all these forces, Hezbollah was in a position in which it had to take some significant action in Lebanon, Israel and the Islamic world or be bypassed by other, more effective, groups. Hezbollah chose to act. The decision it made was to go to war with Israel. It did not think it could win the war but it did think it could survive it. And if it fought and survived, it would have a seat at the Palestinian and Lebanese tables, and maintain and reconcile the patronage of Syria and Iran. The reasons were complex, the action was clear.

 

Hezbollah had prepared for war with Israel for years. It had received weapons and training from Iran and Syria. It had prepared systematic fortifications using these weapons in southern Lebanon after Israel’s withdrawal, but also in the Bekaa Valley, where its main base of operations was and in the area south of Beirut, where its political center was. It had prepared for this war carefully, particularly studying the U.S. experience in Iraq.

 

In our view, Hezbollah has three military goals in this battle:

 

  1. Fight the most effective defensive battle ever fought against Israel by an Arab army, surpassing the performance of Egypt and Syria in 1973.

 

  1. Inflict direct and substantial damage on Israel proper using conventional weapons in order to demonstrate the limits of Israeli power.

 

  1. Draw Israel into an invasion of Lebanon and, following resistance, move to an insurgency that does to the Israelis what the Sunnis in Iraq have done to the Americans.

 

In doing this, the U.S.-Israeli bloc would be fighting simultaneously on two fronts. This would place Jordan in a difficult position. It would radicalize Syria (Syria is too secular to be considered radical in this context). It would establish Hezbollah as the claimant to Arab and Islamic primacy along the Levant. It also would establish Shiite radicalism as equal to Sunni radicalism.

 

The capture of two Israeli soldiers was the first provocation, triggering Israeli attacks. But neither the capture nor the retaliation represented a break point. That happened when Hezbollah rockets hit Haifa, several times, presenting Israel with a problem that forced it to take military steps — steps for which Hezbollah thought it was ready and which it thought it could survive, and exploit. Hezbollah had to have known that attacking the third largest city in Israel would force a response. That is exactly what it wanted.

 

Hezbollah’s strategy will be to tie down the Israelis as long as possible first in the area south of the Litani River and then north in the Bekaa. It can, and will, continue to rocket Haifa from further north. It will inflict casualties and draw the Israelis further north. At a certain point Hezbollah will do what the Taliban and Saddam Hussein did: It will suddenly abandon the conventional fight, going to ground, and then re-emerge as a guerrilla group, inflicting casualties on the Israelis as the Sunnis do on the Americans, wearing them down.

 

Israel’s strategy, as we have seen, will be to destroy Hezbollah’s infrastructure but not occupy any territory. In other words, invade, smash and leave, carrying out follow-on attacks as needed. Hezbollah’s goal will be to create military problems that force Israel to maintain a presence for an extended period of time, so that its follow-on strategy can be made to work. This will be what determines the outcome of the war. Hezbollah will try to keep Israel from disengaging. Israel will try to disengage.

 

Hezbollah sees the war in these stages:

 

  1. Rocket attacks to force and Israeli response.

 

  1. An extended period of conventional combat to impose substantial losses on the Israelis, and establish Hezbollah capabilities to both Israel and the Arab and Islamic worlds. This will involve using fairly sophisticated weaponry and will go on as long as Hezbollah can extend it.

 

  1. Hezbollah’s abandonment of conventional warfare for a prepared insurgency program.

 

What Hezbollah wants is political power in Lebanon and among the Palestinians, and freedom for action within the context of Syrian-Iranian relations. This war will cost it dearly, but it has been preparing for this for a generation. Some of the old guard may not have the stomach for this, but it was either this or be pushed aside by the younger bloods. Syria wanted to see this happen. Iran wanted to see this happen. Iran risks nothing. Syria risks little since Israel is terrified of the successor regime to the Assads. So long as Syria limits resupply and does not intervene, Israel must leave Damascus out.

 

Looked at from Hezbollah’s point of view, taking the fight to the Israelis is something that has not happened in quite a while. Hezbollah’s hitting of Haifa gives it the position it has sought for a generation. If it can avoid utter calamity, it will have won — if not by defeating Israel, then by putting itself first among the anti-Israeli forces. What Hezbollah wants in Israel is much less clear and important than what it opposes. It opposes Israel and is the most effective force fighting it.

 

Fatah and Hamas are now bystanders in the battle for Israel. They have no love for or trust in Hezbollah, but Hezbollah is doing what they have only talked about. Israel’s mission is to crush Hezbollah quickly. Hezbollah’s job is to survive and hurt Israel and the IDF as long as possible. That is what this war is about for Hezbollah.

 

 

RUSSIA VERSUS THE U.S.S.R.

The dismantling of the great “evil” Communist empire 15 years ago has not reduced Russia to a 2nd rate power. Russia has the 5th largest military force in the world – some million soldiers. Russia retains nuclear arms and has satellite technology. With 6000 nuclear warheads, it ranks number one in the world. Even without the rest of the nations that comprised the U.S.S.R., Russia is twice the size of the U.S.A. and with a population density of 22 people per square mile (China has 353) it has the capacity for tremendous growth without stretching its resources to the limits, although for the moment, Russia’s population is in decline.

 

Russia trails only Saudi Arabia as an oil producer but it has the world’s greatest natural gas reserves. It has eight times as much as the U.S.A. Russia even has 127 McDonald restaurants as evidence of its power. No small thing. Russia trades heavily with Iran and therefore it is not easy for the U.S. to get anti-Iranian resolutions through the Security Council. Russian vetoes see to that.

 

Russia is no longer THE enemy. In fact, it is not an enemy at all and it is incumbent on the U.S. to see it stays that way.

 

AN EVEN SMARTER APPROACH TO IRAN

Today’s Washington Post has an excellent analysis of the Administration’s approach to the Iran problem but it neglects one important preliminary. Rice, Bush and Cheney must give up once and for all the business of calling Iran’s and North Korea’s leaders “terrorists”. It must not continue to compose useless lists of “states that harbor terrorists”. It must abandon the nonsensical phrase “axis of evil” even if the term is deserved. Quite simply, this is not the way to conduct diplomacy. It is ridiculous to insult Ahmadinejad and then say, “Wanna negotiate?”.

Since the U.S. likes to put conditions upon Iran as a precursor to formal talks, it seems to me that Iran should return the favor and demand an end to insults as a condition of talks.

 

 

AUSTRALIA NOW DEPENDS ON CHINA, NOT USA

As recently as 2004, the U.S. was Australia’s number one trading partner but China has replaced the U.S.

Australia did $18.6 billion with China in 2003-2004 and $21.6 billion with the U.S.

In 2004-2005, these figures changed to $24.1 billion and $22.6 billion. So, the U.S. is not dropping, but

China just flew by.

Australia is very attractive to China because the Aussies have 30% of the world’s uranium. On the other

side of the ledger, China helps keep Australia’s manufacturing costs low. The political upshot of all this

is that Australia is no longer impressed by U.S. anti-China propaganda, namely the idea that

China is a military threat to the land down under because China enjoys capitalism

EDITORIALS – USA

The NY Times has a foolish, unthinking editorial criticizing Michael Chert off for asking for more federal standards to protect vulnerable chemical plants from being bashed, banged and boomed to smithereens by the bad guys. Instead he should get after the industry for not doing all it can within the existing standards. The problem with the Times is that it has not read any of my articles explaining why we don’t have a problem.

The Washington Post is not sure that prosecuting Steven Rosen and Keith Weiss man for

passing secrets to Israel is wise. Of course, it isn’t. It is downright dumb but the Post focuses on the wrong aspect of the madness. It says, “”The conviction would herald a dangerous aggrandizement of the government’s power not merely to prosecute leaks but to force ordinary Americans to keep its secrets. The Post makes no comment on the absurdity of this particular case. It seems that U.S. Intelligence came into possession of an Iranian plot to

do nasty things in Israel. You would think that letting Israel know would be a good idea. Uh,

  1. U.S. Intelligence doesn’t share its secrets. Rather like getting into trouble for telling your

mother that the elevator is broken and dangerous. Everyone is supposed “to mind his own

business.”. Haven’t we been told that ad nauseum?

 

Madeline Al bright has an op-ed piece in today’s LA Times. It seems she doesn’t think Bush is the smartest man of the last 1000 years. She doesn’t think much of the phrase “axis of of evil” either and, for that matter, doesn’t see why Bush lumps Saddam Hussein with bin Laden. These are separate concerns. We’re with you, Madame Secretary, on all counts.

LATIN AMERICAN MONEY

Argentina raised the minimum salary at which it imposes income tax. This will cost the government $490 million in lost revenue.

Brazil’s zero-coupon Treasury bill which matures in January 2007 now pays 15.1%. Got the guts, anyone? Count me out.

Chile’s copper exports surged 81% last month. (How nice. I once bought Anaconda copper when I was a callow youth. The next day, Chile nationalized the company and I got 0 cents on the dollar.)

The yield on Columbia’s benchmark 13.5% bond, due September 2014, rose to 7.5%. Sell this! Don’t be deterred by the fact that you don’t own any.

Good times in Mexico. Industrial output jumped from 2.7% to 3.9% in December – best increase in a long time. It has nothing to do with you and, unfortunately, nothing to do with the Mexican people.

Peru’s economic growth is slowing but its 9.91% bond maturing in May 2015 is paying a nifty 7.58%. Therefore? Sell, of course and, once again, it doesn’t matter that you don’t have any to sell. Sell, anyway. Or pretend.

All is well in Venezuela, of course. Unemployment is rapidly falling, economic growth is going swell, and Hugo Chavez wants to beat George Bush to a bloody pulp in or out of the ring. And he can do it.

SPRINGTIME FOR HITLER

 

About 35 years ago there was a hilarious movie musical about Hitler titled “The Producers” whose hit song was called “Springtime for Hitler.” It was meant to be unintentionally funny. Now the Germans are trying it themselves, only this time the joke is blatant. Berlin crowds were stunned by the sight of swastikas and demonstrations until they discovered it was all part of a movie spoofing the Nazi regime. It is a parody on Hitler’s final days and it is called “Mein Fuhrer: The Truly Truest Truth About Adolf Hitler.” I can’t wait to see it when it opens in the U.S.A.

EDITORIALS USA

Christian Science Monitor

A passage to India. Bush will visit the world’s largest democracy this week and he must not compromise in such a way that would let India continue to mix its military and civilian nuclear programs.

 

San Francisco Chronicle

Federal support for foster care programs is bad but is about to get much worse. A congressional budget cut is about to ensure that children will have to be removed from their homes and put back in orphanages.

 

Miami Herald

Miami-Dade jails are horrible and the responsibility for fixing the mess falls squarely on the shoulders of the county commissioners.

 

Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Congress is about to give the very rich another $70 billion tax break while leaving crumbs on the table for millions of others.

 

New Orleans Times-Picayune

Most Americans believe the federal government hasn’t done enough to help the Katrina victims.

 

Baltimore Sun

A “lamebrained bully”, politician Donald Dwyer is trying to get a judge removed from her position because she struck down a state ban against gay marriage. The Sun is right. He is lamebrained. Even if the ruling is wrong, one ruling does not incompetence make.

 

Dallas News

Texans don’t want a border wall and neither does the Dallas News. [They got that right.]