The JvL Bi-Weekly

 

James van Luik

Publisher & Editor

 

Tuesday, September 30^th, 2003

Volume 2, No. 17

 

7. Articles

 

 

 

1. Patriot Act: What It Is

2. World-Famous Philosopher Honderich Hit with "Anti-Semite" Slur in Germany

3. China's Distant Threat to U.S. Dominance in Asia

4. Excess, Corruption and, Vulgarity

5. Leave the Constitution Alone

6. Universal Health Plan is Endorsed

7. Coke: Hazardous Even Without Pesticides

 

1. PATRIOT ACT:  WHAT IT IS

BY

MICHAEL MOORE

 

On October 26^th, 2001, just six weeks after the devastation on September 11^th, Congress passed the USA Patriot Act with two dissenting votes. Ashcroft and his cronies wasted no time in attempting to further their agenda at the expense of a traumatized nation. USA Patriot is an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism", but all that elaborate language does not succeed in hiding the dangerous nature of the document.

 

So just what does the Patriot Act give the Bush administration the right to do? Well, for starters, it allows the FBI to monitor every thing from email to medical records to library accounts, providing frightening access to once private information. They can now legally wiretap homes, break into homes and offices, and access financial records without probably cause.

 

The Patriot Act broadens terrorism to include "domestic terrorism" which could potentially be used to target activists groups within the country speaking out against Bush's treacherous deeds.

 

The Patriot Act also disregards attorney-client privilege and authorizes government surveillance of previously confidential discussions.

 

Immigrants can be detained indefinitely based on suspicion alone, and the Patriot Act aids the excessive amounts of deportations that are taking place.

 

Calling this the Patriot Act is quite a dangerous action within itself, because the implication follows: if you speak against the Patriot Act, well you sure aren't being a good citizen in our country's time of need. When Bush labels his actions as the model of patriotism, he then classifies all dissent as un-American. While this may be comforting to him, it is actually an insult to patriotism. Protecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights demonstrates a great respect for the government of this country and the rights of its citizens, and that sounds downright patriotic.

 

PATRIOT II: WHAT IT IS

 

It is not over yet. Currently the Justice Department is working on the Domestic Security /enhancement Act, an extension of the Patriot Act that has been dubbed "Patriot II". Perhaps one of the most dangerous aspects of this bill would grant the government the right to detain someone indefinitely without ever disclosing their identity, allowing the person to ultimately disappear. It would also broaden local police's ability to spy on "terrorist" groups, including domestic religious and political organizations. The government could take sweeping "anti-terrorist" action, like obtaining an individual's financial and library records without a warrant and allowing wiretaps without a court order. How else could this affect you? Well, if you engage in civil disobedience, the government would have the right to strip you of your citizenship! Had enough? Stop this act before it starts!

 

You can read more about Patriot Act II, and the text of the proposed act at the Center for Public Integrity or through the ACLU.

 

TAKE ACTION!

 

Representative Bernie Sanders, a Vermont Independent, has proposed a bill that would revoke the sections of the Patriot Act that allows the government to invade your privacy at bookstores and libraries. This bill is currently stuck in committee, despite having 132 co-sponsors. For an explanation of the bill, visit the ACLU web site. E-mail the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security and put pressure on them to push this bill forward. Also, contact your Representatives and tell them to sign on as co-sponsors to the bill if they have not already. Demand an end to the elimination of civil liberties masked as anti-terror legislation!

Back to Top

 

2. WORLD-FAMOUS PHILOSOPHER HONDERICH HIT WITH "ANTI-SEMITE" SLUR IN GERMANY; HABERMAS AND SUHRKAMP CUT AND RUN

BY

ALEXANDER COCKBURN

 

The distinguished British philosopher Ted Honderich, is threatening to sue the head of the Holocaust museum in Frankfurt for calling him an anti-Semite. The director, Micha Brumlik, leveled the charge last week after Honderich's book "After the Terror" was published in Germany in July.

 

Suhrkamp, the jelly-kneed publisher, has said it is taking the book off the market, though in practice this appears to mean Suhrkamp won't order a reprinting when the first printing of 3,000 is sold out.

 

Germany's most eminent philosopher, Jurgen Habermas, has said he was the one who recommended the book to Suhrkamp, can find nothing anti-Semitic in it, though, in a kindred display of pusillanimity, simultaneously says he regrets having been involved in anything that may have caused offense.

 

Honderich is a resolute supporter of the Palestinian struggle for nationhood. But, as he emphasizes, he is in no way an anti-Semite, has a Jewish wife and step children and has always refused to lecture in Germany because of the Holocaust.

 

The book was published in a  German translation as Nach dem Terror: Ein Traktat, in July 2003, by Suhrkamp in Frankfurt on Main, as one of their 40^th anniversary books. Micha Brumlik is director of a centre for the history and effects of the Holocaust in Frankfurt, and a professor of science-education, at the Johann Wolfang Goethe University, Frankfurt on Main.

 

On August 5^th, in the liberal paper Frankfurter Rundschau, Brumlik published an open letter to the publisher Suhrkamp denouncing the book and Honderich as anti-Semitic, and demanding that it be taken off the market.

 

On August 6^th the paper carried an embarrassed dispatch from Prof. Dr. Jurgen Habermas, Germany's best known philosopher. This man of the mind vouchsafed that himself had recommended After the Terror to Suhrkamp for publication. Having been surprised by his friend Brumlik's letter, he had now read the book again and found in it no evidence of anti-Semitism. But he was sorry to have been involved in something that caused hurt.

 

Suhrkamp then announced in a press release it was taking the book off the market. Subsequently it became clear that what this comes to is that they are not reprinting a book that has sold out, or more or less sold out its run of 3,000 copies. It remains the case that they have 'banned' a book. In a letter to Honderich they remark in passing that they have a Jewish imprint within their house.

 

On August 8^th, after it had already appeared on my website, the Frankfurter Rundschau published most of an open letter from Honderich to Johann Wolfgang Goethe University. Honderich denied as absurd the charge of anti-Semitism, saying that it was made only because he asserted the moral right of the Palestinians to their terrorism or resistance, as the Israeli state asserts its moral right to killing. He demanded the removal of Brumlik from his professorship.

 

The affair has become the prime cultural-political controversy in Germany, eliciting at least 50 articles, some virulent.

 

Honderich says, "I have come to realize fully, mainly from German journalists, German emotions about the Holocaust and anti-Semitism, 60 years after the event, remain very strong indeed, [involving] guilt, resolution, and probably other things.

 

"My strong line has been the one in my open letter: I am being attacked as anti-Semitic because I assert the moral right of the Palestinians to their terrorism, as the neo-Zionist state in Israel asserts a moral right overtly and covertly to kill Palestinians. (My claim of a moral right to violence is far from unique.)

 

"That I am anti-Semitic is certainly a falsehood, probably a lie. The neo-Zionist use of the libel and slander of anti-Semitism is very well-known, at any rate outside of Germany, and recorded in the English liberal press. It is dirty politics and dirty morals. In Germany, it is operating in a  circumstance that does honour to the Germans: their guilt etc. 60 years after the Holocaust. The banning of this book is sad for Germany."

 

Honderich emphasizes that the charge of anti-Semitism has strong personal overtones for him:

 

"I have a Jewish wife, now have a Jewish step son-in-law and, so to speak, Jewish grandchildren. I refused to lecture in Germany because of the Holocaust. Even if philosophically advanced, as you might say, I am a British Lefty, a member of the Labour Party still, My autobiography Philosopher: A Kind of Life, provides evidence on the Holocaust point and also strong evidence of a general kind as to my attitudes to Jews.

 

"I am taking advice on the possibility of suing Brumlik for libel. There is the personal consideration of course. ('Honderich monster' finds you some files on Google.) There is also the moral and political aspect of the case, including that of the Palestinians, to which I am committed."

 

In the forthcoming The Politics of Anti-Semitism, edited by Jeffrey St. Clair and myself, there is a very interesting essay by Norman Finkelstein, recounting similar charges of anti-Semitism leveled at him when he visited Germany. In it Finkelstein writes:

 

"In fact, the Holocaust has proven to be a valuable commodity for politically correct Germans. By "defending" Holocaust memory and Jewish elites against any and all criticism, they get to play-act at moral courage. What price do they actually pay, what sacrifice do they actually make, for this "defense"? Given Germany's prevailing cultural ambience and the overarching power of American Jewry, such courage in facts reaps rich rewards. Pillorying a Jewish dissident costs nothing—and provides a "legitimate" outlet for latent prejudice.

 

"It happens that I agree with Daniel Goldhagen's claim in Hitler's Willing Executioners that philo-Semites are typically anti-Semites in 'sheep's clothing.' The philo-Semite both assumes that Jews are somehow "different" and almost always secretly harbors a mixture of envy of and of loathing for this alleged difference. Philo-Semitism thus presupposes, but also engenders a frustrated version of, its opposite. A public, preferably defenseless, scapegoat is then needed to let all this pent-up ugliness ooze out.

 

"To account for Germany's obsession with the Nazi holocaust, a German friend explained that Germans 'like to carry a load.' To which I would add: especially if it's light as a feather. No doubt some Germans of the post-war generation genuinely accepted the burden of guilt together with its paralyzing taboos on independent, critical thought. But today German 'political correctness' is all a charade of pretending to accept the burden of being German while actually rejecting it. For, what is the point of these interminable public breast-beatings except to keep reminding the world.: 'We are not like them.'"

Back to Top

 

3. CHINA'S DISTANT THREAT TO U.S. DOMINANCE IN ASIA

BY

ERICH MARQUARDT

 

A country that borders thirteen others with a population of 1.3 billion people, China stands to be a major power force in Asia. Though currently a relatively weak country, China is on a fast track toward economic modernization as its economy continues to rapidly grow. If China is able to continue its economic modernization program without any major obstruction, it will become the richest and most powerful state in the world – at least from a statistical point of view – surpassing even the projected economic and military power of the United States. While exciting for Chinese leaders and the Chinese population, this destiny has resulted in the opposite effect for American policymakers and the American population, who are very wary of this emerging great power. Moreover, the current US leadership has articulated quite clearly in their National Security strategy that the United States will take actions to stymie China's power ascension and work to prevent the massive country from equaling or surpassing US power. Indeed, this policy paper argues that "in pursuing advanced military capabilities that can threaten its neighbors in the Asia-Pacific region, China is following an outdated path that, in the end, will hamper its own pursuit of national greatness." The paper further states, in an indirect reference to China, that the US "must build and maintain our defenses beyond challenge."

 

This course of action by the United States is not surprising. The reason that the US has found itself in such a privileged position in the world has been due to its regional hegemony in the Western Hemisphere and the lack of regional hegemons elsewhere. When the potential hegemonic state of Germany rose to power in WWI and WWII, the US aided in that country's demise. When Tokyo attempted regional hegemony in the1930s and 1940s, the US took actions to stifle the country's power such as placing a devastating full-scale embargo on Japan and fighting a major war in order to prevent Japan's power lunge. The United States also put troops in Europe following WWII to warn the Soviet Union against any attempt at gaining European hegemony. Therefore, if China were to become a potential hegemon and achieve the same amount of power in Asia that the US. has achieved in the western Hemisphere, the United States would take actions to weaken China and prevent its quest for more power.

 

This realization has preoccupied members of the Bush administration, in addition to select members of the US Congress, who constantly talk of the need to contain China. These individuals are pushing for an increase in military ties with various Asian states, such as Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and the Philippines. They have also advocated the positioning of US military bases and forces on China's western flank in Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, and Uzbekistan. In countries such as Taiwan and Japan – which are dependent on US economic and military aid – these officials have called for allowing these two countries to further develop their military programs in order to act as a bulwark against the powerful China of the future. These policies are controversial as Japan previously had hegemonic ambitions in Asia. Supplying boosted amounts of military aid to Taiwan is also a divisive issue, as any such aid is an obvious threat to the Chinese leadership which considers Taiwan part of the mainland.

 

US official are aware that China's future economic and military might is inevitable. This is part of the reason why there are roughly 41,000 US troops in Japan, 37,000 in south Korea, and 19,000 on naval vessels in East Asia. Yet as China's power grows, the US will likely have to increase its military might in order to continue to rival China. But since US troops are usually stretched thin, augmenting current US forces in Asia to keep a growing China in check may not be feasible. Therefore, by building up the strength of US allies in Asia, the United States can attempt to contain China's potential power projection without actually having to commit and risk US forces. However, there is plenty of time before China would be able to rival the United States in power in Asia.

 

It is true that China has increased its military spending in recent years. In 2002, China increased its defense spending 18 percent, reflecting the modernization of its armed forces. Beijing is aware that in order to secure its interests in Asia it will need to be able to achieve enough military power to at least provide a stumbling block to unrestrained US foreign policy. For example, the US Department of Defense explained in its 2002 Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China that "Beijing apparently believes the Untied States poses a significant long-term challenge." While it is unable, and unwilling, to compete with the US in military spending, Beijing is attempting to boost its military potential in order to secure its direct interests such as preventing the US form helping Taiwan remain an independent entity apart from the mainland.

 

Therefore, Beijing has accelerated production of short-range ballistic missiles that could be used in any future conflict with Taiwan and also to confound any US attempt to defend the small island. The Pentagon assessment states that China has deployed 450 short-range ballistic missiles able to strike Taiwan and is planning on boosting that arsenal by 75 missiles a year. In addition to developing an advanced, medium-range missile capable of striking Japan – including the major US bases in Okinawa – China has also purchased more modern weapons from Russia, such as the Su-27 and Su-30 military jets, and a few Sovremenny Class destroyers. These developments would help China gain leverage in any conflict with Taiwan. The Pentagon report observes: "Should China use force against Taiwan, its primary goal likely would be to compel a quick negotiated solution on terms favorable to Beijing."

 

However, other than increasing the costs to the US of assisting Taiwan in any such attack, China's military modernization poses no threat to US interests in all of Asia. While the US Department of Defense claims that China has over 3,000 combat aircraft, only about 100 of those are modern aircraft such as the recent purchases from Russia. On the other hand, the United States currently has more than 3,000 combat aircraft and all of them are modern, fourth-generation aircraft. The US' naval fleet is also unprecedented in power, composing 12 large aircraft carriers. In addition, despite China's modernization program, the US is modernizing at an even faster pace. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the United States was responsible for almost seventy-five percent of the worldwide growth in military spending in 2002. While China now spends $40 billion on its military per year, the United states spends a whopping $400 billion plus.

 

Such an unbelievably high rate of spending by the United States will guarantee that China will have the utmost difficulty competing for raw military power. China also lacks the industrial edge to develop new technologies on its own, which explains why it has been purchasing its most modern military equipment form Russia. The United States, on the other hand, is at the forefront of new military technology. Furthermore, the United States has the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to sustain such spending. While since major political and economic reforms in 1978, China's GDP grew at a rate of 10 percent a year until the mid-1990s and currently stand around seven to eight percent a year, its GDP is still 1.19 trillion compared to10 trillion in the United States. Considering this inequality, it will take years and probably decades before China is more on par with the US' potential power.

 

Overall, the future ascension of China to great power status is inevitable if it follows its current economic and military course. While it will be many years before China poses a threat to US interests in Asia, US policy makers have already begun planning on how to counter China's growing power. And it is this reaction that will push China and the United States further apart. As the US continues to boost military spending in Asia, and does not withdraw from countries neighboring China, Beijing will continue to plan on one day removing the United States from Asia. The Department of Defense notes in its annual report that

 

China's leaders have asserted that the United States seeks to maintain a dominant Geostrategic position by containing the growth of Chinese power, ultimately 'dividing' and 'Westernizing' China. …Beijing has interpreted the strengthening US-Japan security alliance, increased US presence in the Asia-Pacific region, and efforts to expand NATO as manifestations of Washington's strategy.

 

Similar to how the United States effectively prevented European powers from exploiting the markets in the Americas by establishing the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, China will follow its own doctrine to prevent the United States from exploiting markets in Asia. In the same fashion the United States reacted to the Soviet Union increasing military ties with Cuba, when possible China will not allow the United States to increase military ties with Taiwan and other Asian states. The leaders of both China and the United States recognize that in the coming decades a power clash is inevitable. It still remains to be seen, however, whether China will be as successful at gaining regional hegemony in the 21^st century as the United States was during the 19^th century.

Back to Top

 

4. EXCESS, CORRUPTION AND, VULGARITY

BY

CATHERINE DONNE

 

Excess, corruption and vulgarity, thy names are the Bushies … who are now recklessly squandering our futures, and that of our children and grand-children, to enrich their Corporate Cronies to whom they've awarded incredible contracts in an illegal and immoral war, which has cost over 324 US & British Soldiers & over 7000 innocent Iraqi civilians (now more have died in the 'post-war' guerrilla quagmire, than prior to Bush's bombastic victory dance on May 1st, when he foolishly roared "Mission Accomplished!"), and over $70 Billion in taxpayer treasure thus far, with a staggering $4 Billion per Month and no end in sight.

 

Read "For Halliburton Iraq is a Cash Cow" by Katrina vanden Heuvel on

http://www.thenation.com/edcut/index.mhtml"bid=7, as she reports:

 

"War is a tragedy for some and a boon for others. As American soldiers continue to die in Iraq, and the length of the war and its costs escalate, Halliburton, the company headed by Vice-President Dick Cheney before the Bush Administration took office, announced that it had converted a half billion dollar quarterly loss of a year ago into a quarterly profit of $26 million for the same period in 2003. This profit comes largely from hundreds of millions of dollars in Iraqi rebuilding and oil contracts awarded by the Bush Administration. "Yes, one man's loss is another man's (vulture's) gain! Of course, Daddy Bush is raking in the big-bucks too (Read "Daddy Bush 41 has hit the Jackpot from Baby Bush 43 War on Iraq" on

http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=WinstonSmith&static+4906)

 

Today the Congressional Budget confirms what economists have been predicting, that the Bush Regime has foolishly spent us into a $480 Billion Deficit in 2004, and the interest we will incur on the debt alone will take a heart-breaking toll on low-income, middle-class workers and fixed income retirees. (Read "Estimate for '04 Deficit is Increased to $480 Billion", by the Associated Press on:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Federal-Deficit.html?hp

 

The Bushies have taken their walk on the "wilde" side, giving massive tax cuts to the corporations & richest Americans; massacring thousands to enrich their corporate paymasters & cronies; spending us into a lavish debt that won't hurt them (they've lined their own pockets with gold at the expense of the average American taxpayers & Iraqi citizens) but will become a back-breaking burden for the rest of us; and, they have lied, lied, lied:

 

*Bush Regime lied about the phony WMDs posing an "imminent threat" to give corporate pimps lavish gifts (Read "The Price of Freedom in Iraq and Power in Washington", by Ceara Donnelley and William D. Hartung on:

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/updates/081203.html)

 

*Bush Regime lied about environmental issues to let their corporate paymasters ruthlessly exploit the environment irrespective of the damage & destruction they cause (Read "White House Global Warming Cover-up on:

http://www.stopextinction.org/News/News.cfm?ID=1056&c=9

 

and "Dust and Deception" by Paul Krugman on :

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/26/opinion/26KRUG.html),

 

as we discover the EPA censored a taxpayer report on Global Warming and was also intimidated by the White House into "massaging" evidence of toxins spewed in the air in the aftermath of 9/11.

 

*Bush Regime lied about the economy "improving (sic)" with the Bushies having destroyed 3,000,000 jobs and spending us into an exorbitant record-level debt, faster than at any time in our nation's history, while their corrupt greedy feudal lords & ladies live the Belle Epoque at the expense of the misery and blood of most Americans. (Read "Nobel Laureate for Economics reports Bush Regime is Worst Government in US History" on:

http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=SamAdams&static=6040

and "Bush's Lootocracy in the USA I Iraq on:

http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=WinstonSmith&static=6406)

 

Why should the Bush Gang not take us on a walk on the "wilde" side and lie through their teeth?—It works. The American public loves to be snookered, bamboozled, swindled, scammed & conned … we're a country drowning in con artists and adore those who succeed at taking-the-money-and-running, like Bushy-boy & his gang of thugs, including their criminal buddies like Kenny-boy (Enron) Lay and Ahmed Chalabi.

 

Get ready folks, tomorrow's going to be a bumpy ride!

Back to Top

 

5. LEAVE THE CONSTITUTION ALONE

IF ATHEISTS CAN MARRY IN THIS COUNTRY, WHY NOT GAYS?

BY

CYNTHIA TUCKER

 

This was as unnecessary as it was utterly predictable: Shoring up his appeal among ultraconservative constituents, President Bush recently dismissed gay marriage, saying his administration is moving to "codify" a legal definition of marriage as restricted to a man and a woman.

 

That prejudice has already been enshrined in law, in former Georgia congressman Bob Barr's odious Defense of Marriage Act. So what is the president talking about? A constitutional amendment?

 

Senate Majority leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has endorsed an amendment banning same-sex unions, and a Colorado legislator has reintroduced a marriage amendment bill in the House.

 

Let's hope this is just political blather for the campaign trail. The last thing the nation needs is for its religious conservatives to hijack the US Constitution.

 

Among the fundamental differences between the United States and Iran is the separation of church and state that allows people of different religious views to live together in peace. How is America to denounce the theocracy of the Taliban and Iran's mullahs, who dictate what citizens wear, read and watch, if we allow our own mullahs to dictate our civil code?

 

No matter how you feel about the subject of gay marriage, you ought to be disturbed by the prospect of amending the Constitution to suit a particular theological point of view. There are some Christians who would be offended and whose religious views would be restricted by a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

 

As a member of the United Church of Christ, I would find my own religious views unfairly maligned by a constitutional prohibition against gay marriage. The UCC, which has struggled with issues of sexuality for decades, has gone further than many denominations in welcoming openly gay and lesbian church members and clergy. While the issue remains contentious inside the UCC, some individual pastors have performed marriage (or commitment) ceremonies for gay members. (The UCC has no governing hierarchy, leaving such matters to individual congregations.)

 

By contrast, conservative denominations such as the Southern Baptist Convention are adamantly opposed to gay marriage. At its annual meeting in June, the convention passed a resolution not only denouncing same-sex marriage but also pledging to campaign against attempts to legalize them.

 

What business does the Constitution have deciding that one church is right while the other is wrong? Where would that end? Should the Constitution also ban the ordination of women? Should it decree that all shops should close on the Sabbath and that the Sabbath be observed only on Sundays? Absolutely not.

 

Nor is the Constitution going to order any church to accept gay marriage if that violates its doctrine. No priest or preacher ever has to marry a couple he objects to. Ministers currently make those distinctions. Priests frequently deny the sacrament of marriage to divorced Catholics, and conservative Protestant ministers sometimes refuse to marry couples who have lived together before marriage or who have already conceived a child.

 

That's as it should be. The promise and the dilemma presented by the Bible both lie in its openness to myriad interpretations. The nation's founding document should not be used on behalf of any theological or sectarian view. Instead, it should defend the right of each person to interpret the Bible as he or she wishes. Or to ignore the Bible altogether.

 

Countless agnostics and atheists marry without benefit of religious authority. Wiccans marry, as do Druids, Raelians, Rastafarians and Hare Krishnas. Why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry in civil ceremonies as well? Or in churches that welcome them?

 

Granted, the nation is probably a generation away from general acceptance of that notion. The culture wars are heating up instead of cooling.

 

Meanwhile, the nation need not be torn asunder by an inflammatory debate over the US Constitution. Let the pope and the preachers, the bishops, the rabbis and the imams slug it out. Leave the Constitution alone.

Back to Top

 

6. UNIVERSAL HEALTH PLAN IS ENDORSED

THOUSANDS OF DOCTORS BACK PROPOSAL IN JAMA

BY

LIZ KOWALCZYK & AMBER MOBLEY

 

Thousands of US physicians have endorsed a broad proposal that would abolish for profit hospitals and insurers and transfer all Americans into an expanded and improved Medicare program for all ages, reigniting the debate over universal health care a decade after President Clinton's failed plan.

 

While the four physicians who wrote the plan – three of whom are affiliated with the Harvard Medical School – are members of a nonprofit organization that has long pushed for universal health coverage, the new proposal is important for two reason: It was published today in one of the country's most prestigious and its most widely circulated medical journal, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and because of the large number of doctors – nearly 8,000, including two former surgeons general – who endorsed it.

 

JAMA officials said it is unusual for the journal, which has a circulation of about 700,000 worldwide, to publish an article endorsed by such a large number of physicians. JAMA's editor, Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, said that an editorial accompanying the article represents the journal's viewpoint that it is time for the country to grapple more seriously with major problems in the health-care system.

 

"Look, if you don't agree with this plan, it's not a foolproof plan, there are plenty of problems with it, come up with something better," she said in an interview. "Let the debate resume. It's sort of been on the back burner and it's time we get on the stick with this. We're the only developed country in the world that doesn't have a specific health plan for our people. It's a disgrace. We have too many people not insured, and this is wrong."

 

In the editorial accompanying the proposal, Rashi Fein of Harvard Medical School said one drawback of such a comprehensive plan is that it may be too radical to pass the US political system, but that the doctors' proposal "should reenergize the debate."

 

The plan, developed by the Physicians for a National Health Program, based in Chicago, differs from Clinton's 1993 initiative in fundamental ways. Clinton sought to avoid large new taxes, instead seeking to require all companies to offer health insurance with federal subsidies helping small employers, Fein said. The country's basic system – employers buying health insurance from nonprofit and for profit insurance companies – would have remained intact.

 

The physicians' plan is more radical and more encompassing, including coverage for the 41 million uninsured Americans as well as incorporating ways to control costs by setting a national budget, providing a set amount of money to hospitals for day-to-day operations and major expansions, paying for nursing home and home care for the elderly, and developing a national list of drugs the program would pay for.

 

The government would pay for health care through an expanded version of traditional Medicare , the federal health insurance program for the elderly. Most hospitals and clinics would remain privately owned and operated, and the national health insurance program would pay them a monthly budget for operating costs. Investor-owned facilities would be converted to nonprofit status. Private insurance companies would be virtually eliminated. The plan is endorsed by former Surgeons General Dr. David Satcher, who served under Clinton, and Dr. Julius Richmond, appointed by Jimmy Carter.

 

One of the doctors' arguments is that for-profit companies and multiple insurers are diverting money from clinical care for the demands of business. The physicians estimate that the country would save $200 billion annually by eliminating profits of investor-owned hospitals and insurance companies and by reducing administrative costs for hospitals and doctors who must bill dozens of different insurance companies. Private health insurers now consume 12 percent of premiums for overhead, while Medicare and the Canadian national health insurance system have overhead costs below 3-2 percent, the doctors reported.

 

Taxes, the doctors said, would increase. But except for the very wealthy, higher taxes would be offset by the elimination of insurance premiums and out-of-pocket copayments and deductibles, they argued.

 

Lead coauthor Dr. Marcia Angell, a senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School and former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, said during a news conference in Washington, D.C., that the doctors want to curtail the entrepreneurial aspects of medicine, where insurers and providers avoid unprofitable patients and try to shift cost back to patients. But she said they also sought ways to control costs amid skyrocketing insurance premiums.

 

Dr. Steffie Woolhandler and Dr. David Himmelstein, both physicians at Cambridge Hospital and associate professors at Harvard Medical School, were coauthors.

 

Critics and even advocates of universal health insurance said the doctors' proposal has major shortcomings. Susan Pisano of the American Association of Health Plans said private industry, not the government, has led the way in adopting disease management programs and prescription drug coverage. "Political pressures on Congress make change and innovation very difficult," she said.

 

Giving hospitals a set monthly budget is similar to a form of managed care called "capitation," in which insurers paid doctors and hospitals a set amount of money to treat patients. If they kept it under the budget, providers made a profit; if they exceeded the budget, they lost money.

 

But capitation is now being called a failure by many providers, because it creates a financial incentive to limit care, and many insurers are moving away from it.

 

Further, many health-care economists questioned whether the proposal is realistic in the Untied States, given that even Clinton's more modest plan failed.

Back to Top

 

7. COKE: HAZARDOUS EVEN WITHOUT PESTICIDES

BY

VANDANA SHIVA

 

The Nutrient-composition of soft drinks, per 12 ounce serving in comparison to orange juice and low fat milk.

 

Contents: Coca Cola, Pepsi, OJ, Low-fat milk. % Calories 154, 160, 168, 153. Sugar, g 40, 40, 40, 18. Vit. A, IU 0, 0, 291, 750. Vit. C, mg 0, 0, 146, 3. Folic acid, mg 0, 0, 164, 18. Calcium, mg 0, 0, 33, 450. Potassium, mg 0, 0, 711, 352. Magnesium, mg 0, 0, 36, 51. Phosphate, mg 54, 55, 60, 353.

 

Ref: Marion Nestle, Food Politics

 

The sugar in soft drinks is not natural sugar (sucrose), but high fructose corn syrup. Plants for making corn syrup have started to be set up in India, and if strict regulations are not put in place, the Indian diet could go the way of the US diet, with high fructose corn syrup causing insulin resistance. Unlike sucrose, fructose does not go through some of the critical intermediary breakdown steps, but is shunted toward the liver, where it mimics insulin's ability to cause the liver to release fatty acids into the bloodstream. Studies have found that fructose diets have 31% more triglycerides than sucrose diets. Fructose also lowers the rate of fatty acid oxidation. P.A. Mayes, a University of London scientist has concluded that:

 

Long-term absorption of fructose causes enzyme adaptations that increase lipogenesis fat formation and VLDL (bad cholesterol) formation leading to triglyceridemea (too many triglycerides in the blood) decreased glucose tolerance, and hyper insulinemia (too much insulin in the blood).

 

Scientists at the University of California in Berkeley have also confirmed that overuse of fructose was skewing the American diet towards metabolic changes encouraging fat storage.

Back to Top