Flesh and Stone

JSTOR drops charges against Swartz; US government will pursue

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:40:00 -0600

In July, Aaron Swartz, an internet freedom activist and former Harvard Ethics fellow, was arrested and charged with data theft for downloading millions of academic journal articles from MIT’s computer network that were behind a paywall belonging to JSTOR. JSTOR, short for Journal Storage, digitizes academic journals and sells subscriptions to libraries and other institutions.

JSTOR has dropped its data theft charges against Swartz but the U.S. Department of Justice is pursuing wire and computer fraud charges against him. If convicted, he could face up to 35 years and prison and $1 million in fines.

JSTOR announced September 7 that it was giving the public free access to some of its earliest journals, and that it plans to do more to make content accessible or affordable to individuals.

Related article: Selling Secrets

JSTOR also stated that the content taken by Swartz was returned and that it received “confirmation that the content was not and would not be used, copied, transferred, or distributed.”

Swartz is the founder of Demand Progress, an internet freedom advocacy group, which he currently serves as an advisory board director. He also co-founded Reddit.com, watchdog.net, Open Library, Jottit, and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and co-authored the RSS 1.0 specification and helped launch Creative Commons.

Demand Progress is raising support for Swartz. The organization states on its website, “We stand with Aaron Swartz and his lifetime of work on ethics in government and academics.”

Swartz isn't the only one critical of intellectual property laws that prevent or severely curtail access to published journal articles, patents and metadata that are necessary to analyze and advance ideas.

His supporters include Greg Maxwell who, in protest of Swartz' prosecution, uploaded (on The Pirate Bay) 18,592 historical academic papers he’d legally obtained from JSTOR's Royal Society collection.

Piercing the Veil, More Drug Companies Reveal Payments to Doctors

Sun, 11 Sep 2011 19:20:00 -0600

by Charles Ornstein, Tracy Weber and Dan Nguyen, ProPublica

Eight pharmaceutical companies, including the nation's three largest, doled out more than $220 million last year to promotional speakers for their products, according to a ProPublica analysis of company data.

For the first time, all these companies have reported a full year of payments, allowing for head-to-head comparisons of how much they spent on physicians to help push their pills. Some appear to be paring back.

Firms with the highest U.S. sales last year didn't spend the most on physician marketers. Industry leader Pfizer, with sales of $26.2 billion, spent $34.4 million on speakers, ranking third among the eight companies. By comparison, Eli Lilly and Co. spent the most on speakers, $61.5 million, even though its sales were about half of Pfizer's.

"We continue to believe in the benefits and value that educational programs led by physicians provide to patient care," Lilly spokesman J. Scott MacGregor said in an email.

The data provide a preview of what the public can expect to see in 2013, when all drug and medical-device companies -- potentially hundreds -- must report such figures to the federal government.

Until 2009, pharmaceutical company payments to health professionals were closely held trade secrets. But several companies began reporting the information publicly under pressure from lawmakers or as a condition of settling federal whistle-blower lawsuits.

Company 2010 Speaker Payments 2010 US Sales

Lilly	$61,477,547	$14.3 billion
GlaxoSmithKline	$52,755,793	$13.6 billion
Pfizer	$34,382,574	$26.2 billion
AstraZeneca	$31,647,101	$18.3 billion
Merck	$20,365,446	$18.8 billion
Johnson & Johnson	$11,712,900	$12.9 billion
Cephalon	$4,241,080	$2.1 billion
ViiV Healthcare	$3,975,102	Unavailable

In October, ProPublica published a database called Dollars for Docs that included information from those companies. It allows the public to search for individual physicians to see whether they've been on pharma's payroll.

Today, ProPublica is updating that tool to include payments made to health professionals by 12 companies. Eight of those published data for all of 2010: Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Merck, Cephalon, Johnson & Johnson, ViiV Healthcare and AstraZeneca.

In addition to the payments made to speakers, some of the companies also disclosed how much they've spent on consulting, travel, meals and research.

In all, payments to doctors and other health-care providers in ProPublica's database total more than $760 million and cover reports from drug companies between 2009 and the second quarter of 2011.

Some Docs Pull Out

The new data offer a glimpse of how the firms have adapted their strategies over time, both to changes in the marketplace and to increased scrutiny of their sales techniques.

Many experts predict physicians will back away from working for the companies once their names and pay are publicly revealed.

It's too early to know if this is true, but ProPublica's analysis shows that the payouts to dozens of doctors and other health professionals took a steep dive last year.

Pulmonologist Veena Antony, for example, was paid at least $88,000 to give promotional talks for GlaxoSmithKline in 2009. But last year, the Birmingham, Ala., doctor gave them up out of concern that patients might think her advice was tainted.

"You don't even want the appearance that I might be influenced by anything that a company gave," she said.

Cancer specialist Nam Dang was a regular on Cephalon's speaking circuit, pulling in $131,250 in 2009. But those promotional gigs stopped, he said, after he took a job at the University of Florida in Gainesville, which bans such talks. In 2010, he received $10,000 for consulting for Cephalon and Pfizer.

Nurse practitioner Terri Warren, who runs a Portland, Ore., health clinic, earned at least $113,000 from Glaxo in 2009, mostly talking about its herpes drug Valtrex. In 2010, that dropped to $300 after the drug went off patent and Glaxo no longer had a financial incentive to promote it.

"It's a business decision, clearly," said Warren, who felt her talks helped educate other health professionals about treating a taboo illness. "My money [from Glaxo] went into keeping this little clinic alive, and now we have to figure out some other way to do that."

Another group of physicians has ramped up speaking engagements and consulting.

Buffalo hematologist Zale Bernstein earned $49,250 from Cephalon in 2009. The following year, his pay jumped to $177,800 (plus an additional $35,500 for travel). Bernstein did not return calls for comment.

Pain specialist Gerald M. Sacks spoke and consulted for four companies in the database and was among the highest paid. The Santa Monica, Calif., doctor earned $270,825 from Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly and Cephalon in 2010, up from $225,575 in 2009. Those figures do not include travel costs and meals.

Over 18 months, Pfizer alone paid Sacks $318,250 for speaking. He did not return repeated calls for comment.

Pfizer's new disclosure also revealed an unusual recipient. Its top-paid physician consultant last year, Dr. Christiana Goh Bardon, runs a hedge fund in Boston that bets on the rise and fall of health-care companies. She was paid nearly $308,000 to "provide input on our BioTherapeutics business development plan," Pfizer spokeswoman Kristen Neese wrote in an email.

Bardon, who started her hedge fund after her Pfizer contract ended, was required to sign a confidentiality agreement and not allowed to invest in Pfizer or any of the biotech companies that Pfizer was looking at acquiring or partnering with for projects, Neese said.

Bardon said in a voice-mail message that she does not currently practice as a physician and her work was based on her business acumen.

Drug Companies Change Their Strategies

Some companies apparently have used fewer physician speakers and consultants since they began posting their data publicly.

Cephalon, a relatively small Pennsylvania company that specializes in pain, cancer and central nervous system drugs, paid physicians nearly $9.3 million in 2009 for speaking and consulting. That figure dropped to $5 million last year.

"There wasn't one big thing that happened that shifted the focus," said spokeswoman Jenifer Antonacci. Rather, the company's marketing strategies for its brands changed.

AstraZeneca cut its spending on speakers from roughly $22.8 million in the first half of 2010 to about $9.2 million in the second half.

The company's U.S. compliance officer, Marie Martino, said AstraZeneca typically holds most of its speaker events in the beginning of each year. But she acknowledged that the company's spending on promotional talks has been decreasing.

"We're in a period now where we don't have a lot of new indications [approved uses] or new products that have been introduced in recent months, and that really is the fundamental explanation for what you're seeing," Martino said.

AstraZeneca, like other companies, is also replacing some in-person speaking events with teleconferences, webcasts and video conferences.

Glaxo's spending on speakers also slowed in 2010, averaging about $13.2 million per quarter in 2010, down 15 percent from the last three quarters of 2009. (Glaxo did not report data in the first quarter of 2009.)

Company spokeswoman Mary Anne Rhyne said the company is working to reduce its speaker rolls by 50 percent. "We feel it is a better use of resources to use fewer speakers more often. This cuts down on training costs as well as lessens the number of contracts needed," she wrote in an email.

And Lilly's speaker payments dropped 10 percent from 2009 to 2010, which spokesman MacGregor said was likely due to "normal year-to-year fluctuation."

ProPublica's early analysis of the data is limited because so few companies report their spending and even then, disclose different information. Lilly, for example, reports every health professional it pays to speak, while Pfizer includes only those who can prescribe.

"It's really unclear how much money is being spent in any one of these areas," said Vincent DeChellis, a principal at NHHS Healthcare Consulting, which has studied the data. "As you get more and more companies participating and submitting this information, you're going to get an initial look" at what may be a multibillion-dollar practice.

When Massachusetts required drug and device companies to report payments to doctors in that state last year, 286 companies did so.

Scrutiny of speaker programs has prompted changes.

After ProPublica reported last year that some drug-company speakers had been sanctioned by their state medical boards, the firms pledged to toughen their screening procedures and exclude physicians with disciplinary records.

Separately, ProPublica found that universities were not enforcing their own policies barring physicians from giving promotional speeches. In response, a number of schools said they would begin using the payment rosters to check for rule-breakers.

Pharma's trade group said the focus of most companies right now is ensuring the accuracy of data that will be publicly released in 2013. But this transparency also must be put into context for patients, said Diane Bieri, executive vice president and general counsel for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

Doctors help develop new medicines, advise companies on marketing and help educate their peers about appropriate uses of new drugs, she said.

"If the only information that's available is that company A paid doctor B $75,000 for a consulting arrangement," she said, "that's typically not enough information to really educate the patient about what was involved in that relationship."

Forces Behind the Egyptian Revolution

Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:15:00 -0700

By Michael Collins

(Washington, DC) -- Two critical forces behind the Egyptian Revolution are missing from the front pages, or any pages, of the corporate media. They are the critical role of Egypt's union movement and the universal desire of all people to live in peace, freedom and dignity. Rarely mentioned are the grievances of Egypt's workers and their struggle to unionize. As a result, we've missed the connection between the struggle to unionize and the right to assemble.

The Egyptian people were poised for a mass celebration following what was supposed to be a farewell speech by former President Hosni Mubarak. For seventeen days, Egyptians massed in Cairo's Tahrir Square. There were protests in Alexandria, Port Suez, and other cities. The G-20 sates have been tentative in their support for the full set of demands by protesters and the broader Egyptian public. For example, President Barack Obama said Mubarak needed a, "credible, concrete and unequivocal path to democracy." What does a "path to democracy" look like? How long does it take to walk the path? Egypt's military leaders may have acted already.

Mubarak's contact with reality was extremely weak. He didn't get the message from the Egypt's Supreme Council of military leaders. Aljazeera reported that the council promised, "measures and arrangements … to safeguard the nation, its achievements and the ambitions of its great people." The news service concluded that a military coup had likely taken place already based on the announcement that the council will be in session indefinitely.

What role did the union movement play and how was that connected to the right to assemble and other fundamental human rights?

Egypt's Labor Movement

The Egyptian Trade Union Federation (ETUF) has been a part of the Egyptian government since 1957. The anti-worker organization created problems for workers when many enterprises were state owned. Things got worse with the introduction of a "market economy."

Egypt began a series of reforms in the 1990's that stacked the deck against workers and farmers. The government sold off the large state enterprises. New owners had little incentive to keep people in jobs or jobs in Egypt. The government enacted new measures to protect large farmers, with peasant farmers left on their own.

When conservative Prime Minister, Ahmed Nazif, took power in 2004, the situation became desperate. With the help of a new anti labor law, pressure mounted on Egypt's industrial workers. The ETUF had little to offer in support and frequently overruled the votes to strike of local chapters.

Two strikes drew the battle lines between workers and the government. In 2006, local union officials overturned a vote by 24,000 textile workers to strike in Ghazl al-Mahalla. When workers appealed to the EFTU, the official government union organization reminded workers that a 2003 labor reform law made it illegal to form unions independent of official government labor organization. The strike took place but was eventually broken.

The same labor movement that staged the 2006 strike and a follow up in 2007, called for a national strike on April 6, 2008 to raise the nation's minimum wage and protest high food prices. Mubarak's government sent in police who took over the factory in hopes of preventing the strike. Conflict broke out with violence on the part of police toward the union members calling for the strike. Police arrested workers. Trials, convictions and prison sentences followed quickly. Other members continued to protest.

An Egyptian writer noted, "In the 6 April uprising, the demands of the workers and the general population overlapped. People called for lower food prices as workers called for a minimum wage."

In addition, the April 6 Youth Movement emerged as a key player advancing the aims of the national strike. This is the same organization that has been central to rallying crowds throughout the country.

Food was a critical issue in 2008. The solution to that issue would have addressed food and other problems of economic exploitation in Egypt, a national living wage.

We didn't hear about the 2008 strike, however. We did about the 2008 "food riots." CNN News reported, Riots instability spread as food prices skyrocket, April 14, 2008. The words "strike" and "union" were never used, nor was there any reference to the basis for the strikes, a demand for a living wage. Huffington Post carried a lengthy article on the events, Egypt Grants Bonuses After Deadly Food Riots, April 8, 2008. The word "strike" appeared just once but the article failed to include anything mentioning a "union" or labor conflict.

Food is critical. But the desire to earn a living wage to afford food is more fundamental to the Egyptian people. They don't want a handout from their leaders, they want the right to determine their own future by organizing an independent labor movement. That desire flowed into the streets of Egypt in a movement larger than the union effort but the history of worker struggles is a key part of the history of this revolution. On January 30, 2010, workers in Tahrir Square formed the Egyptian Federation for Independent Unions. The organization is separate from the official union and in full defiance of current labor law adopted by the Mubarak regime.

Why Fundamental Rights Matter

The Egyptian people didn't require any special training to know what they deserved. The ability to assemble, plan, organize, and attempt to effect change in a civilized fashion emerged before conditions became intolerable.

The workers in Mahalla didn't need a year at the Harvard School of Government to learn their rights. The desire was fundamental. No study of Maslow's hierarchy of needs was required to tell them that there was more than just survival at stake. They knew that meeting the basic needs required an exercise of the more fundamental rights of freedom of association and action in a society that respected their rights as citizens.

Finishing the Work

There are great powers and commercial interests lurking at the edges of this remarkable movement. The call for an "orderly transition" is just another form of paternalism. What is orderly? Time enough for Mubarak or his proxy to stay long enough to rig another election? Time enough for things to cool down enough to walk just a few steps forward rather than a revolution? Time enough for U.S. and European Union leaders to install a new leader to deliver what Mubarak did so well for 30 years?

The fundamental rights and the exercise of those rights by a sovereign people should be inviolable, particularly in a part of the world where the West claims that it is promoting democracy. The Egyptian revolution has at it's core, the demand for the elimination of a massively corrupt government and the opportunity to create an honest one in its place. That is a goal of people everywhere, a goal that will be met if those few obsessed with control for their own purposes would just step aside.

END

This article may be reproduced entirely or in part with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

Oxfam Report: Pakistan flooding crisis could worsen

Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:51:00 -0700

Malnutrition and homelessness are a continuing threat to victims of the July 2010 floods that stuck Pakistan. The flooding covered one-fifth of the country and put 14 million in urgent need of assistance.

In a report released today, six months after the floods, Oxfam said the disaster exposed the vulnerability of Pakistan’s poor and that reconstruction and comprehensive reform could be a “transformative moment” for the country. However, current government policies, relief organization coordination, and level of international financial help are not heading in that direction and more health emergencies loom. Oxfam is urging the government of Pakistan to reconsider its plan to end emergency relief operations in most areas as of January 31, 2011.

“Pakistan could salvage a new beginning from the debris of this disaster. If the country invests in disaster risk reduction then the devastation wrought by this disaster could be consigned to history. With bold steps - like redistributing land - a fairer and stronger country could emerge. We must seize this chance to address the causes of inequality and poverty to build back a better and more resilient Pakistan.” -- Neva Khan, head of Oxfam in PakistanAchievements of the relief effort

The relief effort was substantial according to Oxfam. More than 1.5 million people were rescued by military and civilian personnel, and aid -- in the form of money, food, tents, water, hygiene items, and other essentials -- was distributed to more than 1.4 million households by aid workers, troops, government staff, and Pakistani volunteers as of November 2010.

International donations did not keep pace with other disasters

Oxfam called the international donor response “patchy” and “disappointing.” According to the report, the United Nations appeal for emergency assistance garnered aid equal to about $3.20 for each flood survivor. In contrast, about $495 was donated per capita for the victims of Haiti’s 2010 earthquake.

The UN appeal for $2 billion to rebuild Pakistan remains only 56 percent funded.

Continuing threats

Many homes and agricultural lands in the south are still under water
High malnutrition rates
Widespread lack of adequate shelter and many in the north are displaced with nowhere to go due to the violent conflicts
Food crisis looms due to severely damaged farmlands

Oxfam briefing paper: Six months into the floods: Resetting Pakistan's priorities through reconstruction, January 26, 2011

The Plot to Destroy Social Security

Sat, 11 Dec 2010 15:54:00 -0700

Michael Collins

(Washington, Dec 10) Bill Clinton showed up at the White House for an "impromptu" press conference to discuss the president's tax compromise with the Republicans. Clinton disclosed that "I make a lot of money now" and, as a result, he would benefit from the program. Then he endorsed the compromise calling it the best deal Obama could make. Clinton was particularly high on the Social Security payroll tax reduction. "According to all economic analysis, [this is] the single most effective tax cut you can do to support economic activity. This will actually create a fair number of jobs. I expect it to lower the unemployment rate and keep us going." (Image)

Across town, United States Senator Bernie Sanders was telling the simple truth that Obama and Clinton avoided. Reducing the Social Security payroll tax agree that ending the tax holiday will be portrayed as a tax increase. from 6.2% to 4.2% as a one year tax holiday presumes that the normal rates will be restored at the end of the one year period. Who would restore those rates? The very same party that passed the Bush ten year "temporary" income tax reductions. That same party, the Republicans, now claims that ending the Bush temporary tax cuts represents the greatest tax increase ever. Just as they forgot that those tax cuts were temporary, the new Republican majority will forget the payroll cuts were temporary. Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Mike Johanns (R-NE)

Social Security has a dagger at its heart. In 2011, we will have a president who won't even fight for Social Security when he has a majority in Congress and a House of Representatives with a veto proof majority that won't repeal any tax cut until Hell freezes over.

The citizens of this country have been betrayed by the smoothest con artists around for the benefit of the ultra rich, with the ultimate demise of Social Security assured by a rock solid majority of Republican extremists waiting in the wings to occupy the 112th Congress.

Where's the opposition?

The nation's largest organization for seniors, AARP, endorsed the Obama payroll tax cuts. The organization did this despite the fact that the Obama compromise offers little in the way of benefits for seniors.

The allegedly liberal publication, Mother Jones, just ran a piece by Obama apologist Kevin Drum claiming that there's every reason to believe that the payroll tax holiday will be over in just one year promised in this deal. It's another example of tortured logic listing Republican avarice and concluding they'll honor their word.

The self styled advocates for a FDR revival, New Deal 2.0, ran two opinion pieces supporting the Obama deal. One argued it was that the president praised the deal claiming that this was the "best deal" that Obama could get. A third piece noted that Obama didn't know much about FDR's Social Security proposal but left the president untouched on the Trojan Horse payroll tax reduction. What would FDR do? Capitulate and equivocate. Hardly.

The largest organization representing seniors, 40 million strong, just caved. They and the president got some cover by two organizations that advertise as being of the left who also caved.

That leaves Senator Sanders, those who will support him for real filibuster, focused advocates for the program, and citizens of the United States. The House Democratic Caucus rejected Obama's proposal to some fanfare. But their objections were on how the bill was rolled out and specifics like a $5 million threshold for any estate tax.

Addictions 101

Two key features of the bipartisan political establishment are an addiction to stealing money from the people for their patrons, the corporate and ultra rich elite, and total denial that taking the peoples' money to satisfy this relentless craving is both harmful and morally unacceptable.

The Money Party is at the peak of its craving for more money earned their old fashioned way, through expropriation from the masses. They will not be denied. They are Hell bent on making their once false prophesies that Social Security is bankrupt into a living reality.

We are nothing to them.

END

This article may be reproduced in whole or in part with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

Status of legal challenges to the health insurance reform law

Tue, 12 Oct 2010 09:30:00 -0600

The ink used to sign the Affordable Care Act into law was barely dry before opponents – from state legislators and religious groups to anti-abortion activists and private citizens -- began filing lawsuits charging that the legislation was unconstitutional.

In the first challenge heard in court, Thomas More v. Obama, a federal judge in Detroit ruled Oct. 7 that the reform law’s insurance mandate met the constitutional standard. The Christian law firm that filed the suit says it plans to appeal.

TPM.com has summarized the five known lawsuits challenging the law.

“The constitutional challenges to the health care reform law fall generally into two categories,” according to TPM’s Brian Beutler. “In the first, states claim that their own laws trump the federal law -- an argument that legal experts consider to be almost a sure loser. The second argument is that the insurance mandate exceeds the power given to Congress in the Commerce Clause. That argument is less radical than the first, but is rooted in contemporary conservative legal philosophy that courts have occasionally validated in recent years, albeit under limited circumstances.”

Full story: TPM's Guide To The Major Health Care Reform Lawsuits.

Mayo Clinic launches social media training hub for health care providers

Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:48:00 -0600

With yesterday’s public launch of its Center for Social Media, the Mayo Clinic is embarking on a new project to advance its own online social networking skills while helping other health-related organizations connect their medical staff with patients online.

Apparently, U.S. hospitals can use the guidance. Only about 762 of the more than 5,000 hospitals in the U.S. have a social networking presence, according to Ed Bennett's Hospital Social Networking List.

"Health care has lagged behind other industries in applying social media tools," said Lee Aase, one of the staff running the center. "Social media interest and activity among hospitals and health care professionals has grown remarkably, though, with the number of hospital Twitter accounts, for example, doubling in the last year.”

The Center for Social Media is the latest addition to the Mayo Clinic’s social media offerings which it began in 2005 with podcasts. In addition to dozens of blogs and podcasts, the clinic boasts 60,000 Twitter followers, more 20,000 Facebook connections, a medical provider channel on YouTube -- the most popular provider in that category, according to the clinic.

Planned services include employee training through webinars, in-person and on-site workshops and online curriculum; consulting and coaching for organizations planning to implement social media strategies as part of their business goals; and conferences, such as the Mayo Clinic/Ragan Communications Social Media Summit in September.

Victor Montori, MD, a Mayo Clinic endocrinologist, is the center’s interim medical director. "While hospitals and health care workers will likely be our main focus for these services externally, we also expect to help health-related nonprofits, professional organizations and patient associations," Montori said. "We want Mayo Clinic to be the authentic voice for patients and medical providers, and also to provide platforms where their voices can be heard."

A global public health policy based on science, not demagoguery

Tue, 29 Jun 2010 07:21:00 -0600

by Bonnie Bricker and Adil E. Shamoo. Edited by Erik Leaver

As the swine flu threat level grew at the end of April, World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Margaret Chan said, "it really is all of humanity that is under threat during a pandemic."

While the statement is technically correct, the director-general could have expressed the threat differently. WHO, as the organization most responsible in leading efforts on behalf of global health, should have been more careful to avoid adding heat to a potentially combustible discussion of swine flu. Instead of promoting a rational, reasoned response to the crisis, Chan's statement helped inflame sentiment against immigrants in the United States and across the globe.

The current strain of swine flu emerged in Mexico on May 5, 2009. The rate of infections in humans was rapid and alarming, with high mortality rates among young and formerly healthy patients. The Mexican government's quick and open action, with some help from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) toward the flu was exemplary. The Mexican government quickly reacted to the potential epidemic, shutting down all opportunities for mass public contact in schools, sports, and businesses. Mexican health officials also took the unprecedented step of quarantining infected individuals during treatment. These actions quickly reduced the spread of the virus.

Dr. Richard Besser, the CDC's acting director, introduced reason into U.S. public discussion on May 5, when he modified his public health guidance on the swine flu virus with “a science-based decision that involves a lot of judgment.” The CDC wisely avoided the use of the WHO director-general's characterization of the swine flu as a threat to all humanity. Moreover, the CDC's rapid and continuous flow of accurate information to the public was a model for every government agency facing public crises in the future.

Stating that the virus has been less serious in the United States than initial reports indicated, Besser, along with U.S. Secretary for Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, also expressed concern about the effects of initial guidance for communities with cases of the virus. Noting that closures of schools led to children being dropped off in libraries, and parents being threatened with dismissal from their jobs if they took off two weeks to be with children home from closed schools, the administration's officials have introduced a reasoned approach to health policy. The officials also shared how, when, and what vaccine will be developed. This is a level of transparency that garners public trust.

At the beginning of this flu scare, as alarms sounded from every media outlet, demagogues used initial reports of the virus to inflame sentiment against immigrants, especially those from Mexico, even calling for people to stop using businesses that hired immigrants. Unfortunately, the potential damage that the flu could produce was augmented further by similar comments from presumed experts widely touted by the media.

While it may be true that shutting the borders, stopping foreign flights from entering American space, and stopping all food imports into the country might decrease our exposure to the swine flu, there are added consequences to severe measures — especially if the spread of the disease is less virulent than expected. With such actions, other nations would boycott our exports, citizens would stop going into public areas, and markets that are teetering on survival would finally collapse under the weight of our fear.

For a virus that is no more dangerous than the flu that spreads each year, we should be careful to respond proportionately to all of the data we have been given, making sure the public also understands the factors used to determine an appropriate response. This will enable the public to have an informed discussion — which will be especially important if epidemiological patterns indicate that a virus is changing and becoming more virulent.

Given a reasoned and open discussion that includes all of the factors used for public health advisories, the public is far less likely to fall prey to demagoguery and hate speech against those who may have contracted the virus. A fully informed public can then embark on a discussion in which those risks and benefits are weighed. While there may not be full agreement on how we prioritize those risks and benefits, there will be a base of knowledge to help the country determine its course — and information, not demagoguery, can prevail.

This is most likely the first chapter in what may well be a longer story with this virus. Fortunately, this first pass at handling a potential crisis has provided some valuable lessons. First, transparency, rapid dissemination of information to the public, and less inflammatory language, are needed to communicate to and educate the public. Careful discussions regarding treatment, the development of a vaccine and the use of quarantine, should be shared as part of a public discussion. Helping the public accept the harsh measure of quarantine, if necessary, will help us to implement such a policy.

The swine flu outbreak provides a classic teachable moment to the global community and the American people. Many people tend to view science as a practice limited to the results from the laboratory. Science also must take those results and place them within a context of risks and benefits that constitute the totality of the issue. The world community is ready and able to deal with important and critical issues if given sufficient and accurate information. The basis of democratic values is, after all, an informed electorate. Let's help the demagogues to pack their bags — and let's hope informed discussion of issues has begun.

Adil E. Shamoo, is a senior analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus and a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. He writes on ethics and public policy. Bonnie Bricker is a teacher and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.

This work by Institute for Policy Studies is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. Based on a work at www.ips-dc.org.

Green Power: Here if you can afford It

Thu, 03 Jun 2010 14:08:00 -0600

Green power is a government-endorsed, but not mandated, source of electricity for homes, businesses, automobiles, machinery and all kinds of appliances. The term “green power” refers to energy derived from the sun (solar energy), water (hydro energy), geothermal, wind, and plant and waste (biomass energy) resources, all of which are renewable. Renewables have many advantages over fossil fuels like oil, coal and natural gas. Unfortunately, cost savings is not one of them.

About 50 percent of American households now have the option to buy green power energy from their local utility company or an alternative energy company. However, consumers pay more if they sign up to get their energy from renewable energy sources rather than from fossil fuels.

President Obama's June 2 speech on the economy and energy policy

If you can afford it and if it is offered in your state, there are many good reasons to switch to green power. Green power is less harmful to the environment than fossil fuels. The burning of fossil fuels emits greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. Methane is released during the production of coal and oil, and also from raising cattle. These types of gases are contributing to climate change. Scientists know that changes in climate are having a harmful effect on people, animals, and plant and sea life, and that it will gradually increase.

By buying 100 percent of their energy from green power electricity, people could reduce their green gas emissions by 50 percent, thereby reducing their impact on climate change. That is not possible now, because not everyone has access to green power and if they do have access, costs are generally much higher than traditional energy sources.

Still, there are numerous ways that individuals can reduce their impact on the environment right now. Some people are switching to driving electric hybrid and diesel cars, using solar powered lights or low energy light bulbs, purchasing non-toxic cleaning products and products wrapped in recyclable packaging, and using latex rather than oil-based paint for house painting.

More and more Americans think we need to make a greater effort to use energy from renewables and be conscientious when buying products. Something has to change. If every person in the world consumed as much energy as the average American does, we would need three or more Earths to provide the resources we consume.

Most Americans also want the federal government to develop a fair energy policy for now and in the future. However, Congress has been very slow to act on green power issues because it is politically unpopular to regulate businesses and limit energy consumption. Despite tax incentives and grants for developing alternative energy sources, large companies have resisted the development of alternative energies because they don’t want to make initial investments and do not want to lose future profits from selling fossil fuels.

Small progress has been made. Unlike the previous administration, President Obama has said he supports a “clean energy economy” but that it will only come about through government efforts individual Americans making choices that will protect the environment.

We know that it will take more than government assurances to make the changes needed. It will require sincere efforts to create sound policies on the part of elected officials. It will mean that citizens have to make better choices in each and every local and national election and when they purchase any product or service. Only when more people make a commitment to choose products and energy made from renewable resources, and reject those made from fossil fuels, will America prevent more environmental disasters. Only then will it disengage in battles over oil.

References:

“A New Foundation for Energy and the Environment” whitehouse.gov

“Buying Green Power.” The Green Power Network, U.S. Department of Energy

“Ecological Footprint Quiz.” My Footprint. 2010. Center for Sustainable Economy.

“How To: Get Green Power.” Treehugger.com

Welsa Stone is a St. Paul, Minn. high school student. She plans to attend the College of Visual Arts in fall, 2010.

The facts behind Israel's "Gourmet Gaza" claims

Tue, 01 Jun 2010 09:01:00 -0600

The IMEU offers the following facts and figures on Israel's blockade and how, after more than 1,000 days, it has affected life for the roughly 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza:

1. Is Israel's blockade of Gaza legal?

No. The stated aim of Israel's blockade is to apply "pressure" or "sanctions" to weaken the economy of Gaza and decrease support for Hamas. [1] This amounts to collective punishment of Gaza's civilians, and as such is a violation of international humanitarian law (Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949). Further, as an occupying power, Israel is required under Articles 55, 59 and 60 of the Fourth Geneva Convention to ensure free, unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief and is prohibited from impeding the full realization of the occupied people's human rights. Israel's blockade impedes Gazans' rights to food, to an adequate standard of living, to work, and to the highest attainable standard of health.

2. Israel claims that it allows necessary humanitarian provisions to enter Gaza. Is this true?

No. The amount of goods allowed into Gaza by Israel falls far short of the minimum required to avoid malnutrition, poverty, and prevent or treat a variety of illnesses. According to Amnesty International's recently-released annual report, the siege has resulted in "mass unemployment, extreme poverty, food insecurity and food price rises caused by shortages." Consider the following statistics:

61 percent of households face food insecurity, defined as inadequate physical, social or economic access to food, and rely on assistance from aid agencies. An additional 16.2 percent are considered vulnerable to food insecurity. [2]

65 percent of the food insecure are children under the age of 18. [3]

Unemployment is at 40 percent [4]

10 percent of children under five are stunted (low height for age, usually attributed to a chronic lack of protein and micronutrients, including iron and essential vitamins), a steadily increasing trend over recent years, according to UNICEF. [5]

More than 10 percent of children are chronically malnourished, according to the World Health Organization, a significant increase since siege began.

The number of children under five suffering from acute malnutrition nearly doubled between 2006 and 2008 from 1.4 to 2.4 percent, according to UNICEF.

65 percent of children aged 9-12 months, and 35 percent of pregnant women are anemic. [6]

According to a recent poverty survey conducted by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the number of Palestinian refugees completely unable to secure access to food and lacking the means to purchase even the most basic items, such as soap, school stationary and safe drinking water ('abject poverty') has tripled since the imposition of the blockade in June 2007

A majority of Gazans experience rolling blackouts of up to 12 hours a day, every day as a result of a chronic shortfall in electricity production resulting from the blockade [7]

Due to insufficient wastewater treatment capacity, Gaza's water authorities release 60-80 million liters a day of raw and partially treated sewage into the Mediterranean Sea, in order to avoid sewage flooding residential areas.

Water supply for domestic use is insufficient, raising hygiene and health concerns. In order to pump water to households, the water wells must receive electricity in synchronization with electricity supply to the same households. Almost all the households receive water for only 5-7 hours a day.

3. Does the blockade prevent the functioning of Gaza's economy?

Yes. Export of Palestinian goods, the import of raw materials and access to Gaza's natural resources have been severely restricted. For example:

Roughly 118 truckloads of strawberries and cut flowers exports were permitted to leave Gaza between December 10, 2009 and May 2010. Before the blockade, an average of 70 truckloads a day left Gaza during strawberry season. [8]

Since January 2009, the Israeli navy has illegally restricted Palestinian fishermen's access to three nautical miles offshore, yet in practice Israel often limits fishermen to only two nautical miles, reducing their catch by 47 percent. [9]

46 percent of Gaza's agricultural land is inaccessible or out of production either due to destruction of lands caused by Israeli military attacks or by its "security buffer zone." [10]

Roughly 90 percent of Gaza's factories are closed or are functioning at less than 10 percent capacity because of the inability to obtain raw materials and the inability to export finished products [11].

The Israeli human rights organization Gisha provides the following example of how the blockade aims to prevent economic development: "Israel permits Gaza residents to receive small packets of margarine, considered a consumption item. Israel bans, however, the transfer of large buckets of margarine, because the buckets are designed for industrial use, rather than home consumption, meaning that they could be used to allow a local factory to produce biscuits - and thus engage in economic activity. Similarly, requests to permit empty cans into Gaza - intended for the preservation and marketing of Gaza-produced tomato paste - have been refused, but requests to transfer prepared, Israeli-made tomato paste are permitted." [12]

4. What are some of the items Israel has prohibited from entering Gaza?

sage

cardamom

cumin

coriander

ginger

halva

vinegar

nutmeg

chocolate

fruit preserves

seeds and nuts

biscuits and sweets

potato chips

gas for soft drinks

dried fruit

fresh meat

plaster

wood for construction

cement

iron

glucose

industrial salt

plastic/glass/metal containers

industrial margarine

tarpaulin sheets for huts

fabric (for clothing)

flavor and smell enhancers

fishing rods

various fishing nets

buoys

ropes for fishing

nylon nets for greenhouses

hatcheries and spare parts for hatcheries

spare parts for tractors

dairies for cowsheds

irrigation pipe systems

ropes to tie greenhouses

planters for saplings

heaters for chicken farms

musical instruments

size A4 paper

writing implements

notebooks

newspapers

toys

razors

sewing machines and spare parts

heaters

horses

donkeys

goats

cattle

chicks [13]

[1] Gisha. Restrictions on the transfer of goods to Gaza: Obstruction and obfuscation, January 2010

[2] Farming without Land, Fishing without Water: Gaza Agriculture Sector Struggles to Survive, FAO, May 2010

[3] Ibid

[4] Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, 2009

[5] IRIN. OPT: Signs of worsening malnutrition among children, April 2009

[6] Ibid.

[7] OCHA. The Humanitarian Monitor, April 2010

[8] Farming without Land, Fishing without Water: Gaza Agriculture Sector Struggles to Survive, FAO, May 2010

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Gisha. Restrictions on the transfer of goods to Gaza: Obstruction and obfuscation, January 2010

[12] Ibid.

[13] Gisha. Partial List of Items Prohibited/Permitted into the Gaza Strip. May 2010.

"The following list is approximate and partial, and it changes from time to time. It is based on information from Palestinian traders and businesspersons, international organizations, and the Palestinian Coordination Committee, all of whom "deduce" what is permitted and what is banned based on their experience requesting permission to bring goods into Gaza and the answers they receive from the Israeli authorities (approved or denied). It is not possible to verify this list with the Israeli authorities because they refuse to disclose information regarding the restrictions on transferring goods into Gaza. It should be noted that Israel permits some of the "prohibited" items into Gaza (for example: paper, biscuits, and chocolate), on the condition that they are for the use of international organizations, while requests from private merchants to purchase them are denied. For more information, see: Gisha, Restrictions on the Transfer of Goods into Gaza: Obstruction and Obfuscation, January 2010