Prevention of iodine deficiency should be priority

Iodine supplementation is probably the cheapest and most effect way to increase the human capital -- indeed, the wealth -- of a nation. Yet, this simple, clear-cut intervention -- one that addresses the entire range of social and economic problems in one swoop -- seldom seems to top the agenda of national policy makers or international development banks and agencies.

Thailand is known for having been one of the first developing countries to make serious progress in addressing iodine deficiency -- a syndrome that can lead to mental retardation or intellectual impairment.

Like many parts of the world, the soil in Thailand is deficient in iodine, so the only way to ensure children get sufficient quantities of this mineral -- allowing for the full development of their brains -- is through dietary supplementation.

In the West, this is achieved through adding iodine to salt.

However, in Thailand only two-thirds of cooking salt contains iodine. Also, Thai cooking may present added challenges because in many villages not salt but fish sauce tends to be the seasoning of choice. Efforts have been made to get "fish sauce" makers to add iodine. Sources inform me that the fish sauce industry has balked at this idea in the past, claiming iodine will "change the taste" of the sauce.

If you look at a map published in 2001 (coming soon), you see Thailand appears to have been relatively successful in its efforts to provide iodine to the population. But a more recent map (above) shows Thailand lagging behind other ASEAN countries. A 2003 WHO report singled out Thailand and Bhutan as model countries that had "virtually eliminated IDD," noting further that 79% of Thai households consume iodized salt and that Goitre prevalence in Thailand had decreased from 19% in 1989 to 2% in 2001. In 1997, the government even declared a "National Iodized Salt Day."

Were such accolades with respect to Thailand premature? Would the enthusiasm for making rapid progress on the issue dissipate?

It would seem so. More recent figures suggest that Thailand stumbled, failing to sustain its earlier progress.

Although Thailand was the first country in the region to make progress against iodine deficiency, of all countries in ASEAN, Thailand has made the least progress in recent years. This point is illustrated by the adjacent chart by Prof. C Eastman of the University of Sydney. His chart shows that from the mid 1990s to the mid 2000s -- a time when all other ASEAN countries were consuming vastly more iodized salt -- Thailand not only failed to match this progress, it would find itself lagging behind poor neighboring countries like Laos and Myanmar!

A 2006 study described the urgent "need for multimicronutrient interventions in North East Thailand." The study of schoolchildren reported that 83% had low urinary iodine levels. A glace at the map at the ICCIDD website (re-posted above) shows Thailand lagging well in behind other countries in the region in treating iodine deficiency.

The problem concerning iodine deficiency in Thailand mainly concerns "the Northern and North-eastern regions where soil does not contain iodine and villagers do not regularly eat seafood" according to a 2006 ICCIDD newsletter. It must be asked whether governments of the post 2006 coup era -- several of which have been under-represented by representatives from the Northern and North-eastern regions -- have shown adequate commitment to addressing this critical problem facing these residents.

Other ways to address the problem of iodine deficiency:

• A few weeks ago I blogged about a project called Cola Life. Perhaps iodine deficiency is something that that soft drink manufacturers could help to address.

• School lunch programs could be another means of delivering iodine to children in Thailand according to a recent study.

• A 2001 study found that a low-cost solution to the iodine deficiency in Thailand might be water iodization.

Irrawaddy Delta: one year after Cyclone Nargis

Al Jazeera recently visited the region ravaged by Cyclone Nargis last year.

Obama's oath

After reading Obama's speech about indefinite detention, I quoted Obama and commented in red:

. . . .we are treating these cases with the care and attention that the law requires and our security demands. Going forward, these cases will fall into five distinct categories. Obama took an oath to uphold the law of the land, not to do whatever -- in his opinion -- security demands. American law is not something you balance against security. Rather, security is something that happens within the framework of the law.

Then in another post I suggested that both Obama and Cheney misconceived the president's role as one of "Babysitter in Chief."

Today Glenn Greenwald looks at how a false notion as the role of the president extends to the US news media. It seems these days, even the NY Times and supposedly liberal think tank "scholars" tend to misreport the actual constitutional responsibilities of an American president. Greenwald blogs:

The President doesn't have some broad, vague duty to "protect Americans." The Constitution really couldn't be clearer about the President's primary responsibility: it's to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

Today, many Americans have a false conception as to the actual role of the presidency -- an observation I previously blogged about in a post entitled "Memo to US Citizens: your president is not your Commander-in-Chief."

President Obama: Babysitter in Chief

Now let me be clear: we are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat.

- Barack Obama

If you take Obama and members of US Congress at their word, Americans today are frightened -- literally cowering under their beds -- over the prospect that some inmates held in Guantanamo will be transferred to Super Max prisons on the mainland. In a long speech intended to reassure his countrymen at this time of danger, Obama essentially promised that he would undercut the Constitution so as to permit "indefinite detention" of any terrorists who sound really scary.

Clearly Obama views his job, much as his predecessor defined his, as making sure Americans feel safe at night. He's their Babysitter in Chief. Yesterday, you had Grandpa Cheney declaring he could do a far better job.

What conclusions about the US are the big bad terrorists going to draw from such a spectacle?

A legitimate legal framework for prolonged detention?

Obama's speech on "Protecting Our Security and Our Values" today at the National Archives Museum can be read two ways. On the positive -- "hopeful" -- side, most notably you had this passage:

I have opposed the creation of such a Commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws.

On the other hand, you have various lines that ought to be of concern to anyone who does believe in separation of powers; the principle that no US political leader may act in place of judge and jury. I'm only quoting passages of Obama's speech that I found disconcerting (my own commentary in red):

For the first time since 2002, we are providing the necessary resources and strategic direction to take the fight to the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The same extremists?

Now let me be clear: we are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. I thought Bush tried that already.

And that is why I took several steps upon taking office to better protect the American people First, I banned the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques by the United States of America. Note: torture was already illegal before Obama banned it.

In short, they [enhanced interrogation techniques] did not advance our war and counter-terrorism efforts - they undermined them, and that is why I ended them once and for all. Because torture clearly didn't serve our purposes.

Let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: we are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders - highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety. The phrase "justice and national security" suggests that justice alone won't suffice. The implication is that criteria other than justice will determine whether someone stays locked-up. Is that in the Constitution?

. . . .we are treating these cases with the care and attention that the law requires and our security demands. Going forward, these cases will fall into five distinct categories. Obama took an oath to uphold the law of the land, not to do whatever -- in his opinion -- security demands. American law is not something you balance against security. Rather, security is something that happens within the framework of the law.

The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are best tried through Military Commissions. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot be effectively presented in federal Courts. How do you know whether someone has "violated the laws of war" until he has had a fair trial? Federal Courts routinely have heard cases dealing with sensitive information over the years. Why the Commissions? (By the way, will members of the prior US administration who "violated the laws of war" also go before Military Commissions? Surely even people charged with war crimes have the right to be tried in proper courts.)

Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people. I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States. As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Decisions about who can or cannot be released are decisions made by judges, not by a political leader! Who does the president think he is? At least one of Obama's examples is really strange: having "commanded Taliban troops in battle" in 2001 can surely be no grounds whatsoever for depriving anyone of justice in 2009.

. . . .I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees - not to avoid one. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we [who is we?] determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. Surely this kind of decision is for the courts alone to make, not merely oversee.

However, it was my judgment - informed by my national security team - that releasing these photos would inflame anti-American opinion, and allow our enemies to paint U.S. troops with a broad, damning and inaccurate brush, endangering them in theaters of war. Lame.

We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: "anything goes." Historically speaking, is terrorism such a unique challenge?

Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don't elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. "We need not sacrifice our security for our values!" Was that not the rallying cry of American Revolution? I'm being sarcastic. America was founded by people who decided to put their values before the security afforded by the might of the British Empire.

Right now, in distant training camps and in crowded cities, there are people plotting to take American lives. That will be the case a year from now, five years from now, and - in all probability - ten years from now. Neither I nor anyone else can standing here today can say that there will not be another terrorist attack that takes American lives. Yada yada yada.

Obama's remarks today deserve a strong response -- perhaps something like this.

Obama's failure to lead

Jennifer Loven at WaPo gets the lede right:

President Barack Obama fought Thursday to retake command of the emotional debate over closing Guantanamo, denouncing "fear-mongering" by political opponents and insisting that maximum-security prisons in the U.S. can safely house dangerous terror suspects transferred from Cuba.

Back in April I speculated that Obama was about to lose control of the torture debate to Cheney, blogging:

I'll say this for Cheney: unlike the current occupant of the White House, the former VP has spoken with a sense of conviction on the topic of torture.

Obama's speech today comes as more pretty words backed by scant recent evidence of decisive action. And it's rather late in the game. To paraphrase (and modify) that old Bush cliche: You're either with the Constitution, or your against it. I believe there is no "middle ground" in the torture debate on which a leader can stand. That's the main reason Obama has lost control of the debate.

Commission of Inquiry on Burma proposed

A distinguished panel of international jurists at the Harvard International Human Rights Clinic of Harvard Law School has issued a report calling on the UN to launch a "Commission of Inquiry" into human rights abuses in Burma:

Specifically, the report sought to evaluate the extent to which UN institutions have knowledge of reported abuses occurring in the country that may constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity in the country. The report finds that UN bodies have indeed consistently acknowledged abuses and used legal terms associated with these international crimes, including for example that violations have been widespread, systematic, or part of a state policy. This finding necessitates more concerted UN action. In particular, despite the recognition of the existence of these violations by many UN organs, to date, the Security Council has failed to act to ensure accountability and justice. In light of more than fifteen years of condemnation from UN bodies for human rights abuses in Burma, the Security Council should institute a Commission of Inquiry to investigate grave crimes that have been committed in the country.

A timely motion at the Security Council to initiate such an inquiry would be a most appropriate response to the recent shenanigans surrounding the persecution of Nobel Peace Prize recipient Aung San Suu Kyi. FT has the latest on her trial, from which foreign journalists have now been banned. You can download the Harvard report here (PDF).
__

Update: US Campaign for Burma is circulating a letter to members of Congress urging Obama to push for an inquiry at the UN Security Council.

Obama's Kangaroo Court

Contrary to his campaign pledge not to try Guantanamo Bay suspects by military commissions, Obama has rejected calls to bring terror suspects to trial in American courts and under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Rather, Obama, having decided to retain some of the powers George W. Bush granted himself over the lives of terror suspects, says there will be tribunals. As conservative columnist William Safire wrote in 2001:

Misadvised by a frustrated and panic-stricken attorney general, a president of the United States has just assumed what amounts to dictatorial power to jail or execute aliens. Intimidated by terrorists and inflamed by a passion for rough justice, we are letting George W. Bush get away with the replacement of the American rule of law with military kangaroo courts. . . .

No longer does the judicial branch and an independent jury stand between the government and the accused. In lieu of those checks and balances central to our legal system, non-citizens face an executive that is now investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and jailer or executioner. In an Orwellian twist, Bush's order calls this Soviet-style abomination "a full and fair trial." . . .

We should continue our bombardment of bin Laden's hideouts until he agrees to identify and surrender his entire terrorist force.

If he does, our criminal courts can handle them expeditiously. If, as more likely, the primary terrorist prefers what he thinks of as martyrdom, that suicidal choice would be his and Americans would have no need of kangaroo courts to betray our principles of justice.

As Glenn Greenwald blogged today:

What makes military commission so pernicious is that they signal that anytime the government wants to imprison people but can't obtain convictions under our normal system of justice, we'll just create a brand new system that diminishes due process just enough to ensure that the government wins.

At least since 9/11, beneath the theatrics of America politics, the country has become a battleground between two competing sets of values. On one hand: the values of loyalty and obedience (to king, party, or state). On the other, the rule of law. Traditionally, this is not a right-left issue. But in times of crisis, Americans have shown themselves easily (mis)led by those who embrace the former.

Obama may think he's being clever, forging some kind of "middle path" between the extremist approach of George W. Bush and the arguments of civil libertarians such as Bill Safire. But the search for a middle-path between tyranny and liberty is not the kind of project a successful political leader embraces. Why? Exemplifying values becomes an impossible task.

Surely Obama knows it. No doubt Obama realizes that waffling won't pay-off in the long run. Obama knows that during a crisis a leader should be perceived to have anchored himself to some core values. Moreover, Obama must be conscious that he is sacrificing something many supporters once gave him: Trust. These points cannot have escaped Obama.

Given the leadership vacuum on the right, the fact Obama has already gone a long way toward alienating supporters in his own party, and the observation that the majority of Americans can so easily be scared into following a leader perceived as "tough" during a time of crisis, it's not a stretch to conclude that the president is probably in the midst of a make-over; Obama is well on his way to having transformed himself into a creature of the new right. The makeover is not complete, but who cannot see it happening?

Many will accept this news cheerfully. After all, outside Pakistan or Afghanistan the Second American Emperor will likely be remembered for his benevolence. It's what what comes after Obama's imperium that should be giving them nightmares.

Indoctrination for national security

An article in today's NY Times is worth pondering. At a time when American education is faltering, and well paying skilled blue-collar jobs ever scarcer, a branch of the American Boy Scouts called "Explorers for Life" is preparing American children for the careers of the future:

The training, which leaders say is not intended to be applied outside the simulated Explorer setting, can involve chasing down illegal border crossers as well as more dangerous situations that include facing down terrorists and taking out “active shooters,” like those who bring gunfire and death to college campuses. In a simulation here of a raid on a marijuana field, several Explorers were instructed on how to quiet an obstreperous lookout.

. . . In a competition in Arizona . . . one role-player wore traditional Arab dress.

I have no objection to training kids in the care and handling of guns or target shooting -- that's one thing. But training kids to tackle the "War on Drugs," the "War on Terror," or any mission identifiable with any Fox News designated "enemy" is something else entirely. Also, it seems to me that children should have a chance to learn to be ordinary citizens before they are indoctrinated into the ethos of any law-enforcement agency.

Global citizenship quote

Socrates being asked of what country he was, answered: Of the world. For a high and lofty mind will not suffer itself to be penned by opinion within such narrow bounds but conceives and knows the whole world to be his own. We scorn and laugh at fools, who suffer their masters to tie them with a straw or small thread to a post, where they stand as if they were fettered fast with iron. Our folly is not inferior to theirs, who with the weak link of opinion are wedded to one corner of the world.

Justus Lipsius, The First Book of Constancy, IX

Financial crisis quote

The banking system has just been tested to see if it is adequately capitalized – a “stress” test that involved no stress – and some couldn’t pass muster. But, rather than welcoming the opportunity to recapitalize, perhaps with government help, the banks seem to prefer a Japanese-style response: we will muddle through.

“Zombie” banks – dead but still walking among the living – are, in Ed Kane’s immortal words, “gambling on resurrection.” Repeating the Savings & Loan debacle of the 1980’s, the banks are using bad accounting (they were allowed, for example, to keep impaired assets on their books without writing them down, on the fiction that they might be held to maturity and somehow turn healthy). Worse still, they are being allowed to borrow cheaply from the United States Federal Reserve, on the basis of poor collateral, and simultaneously to take risky positions.

Joseph Stiglitz

What kind of change is this?

From a NY Times update on the ongoing saga of the Hurricane Katrina recovery:

“I need the trailer,” said Mr. Hammond, 70. “I ain’t got nowhere to go if they take the trailer.”

....workers who assist the homeless are finding more elderly people squatting in abandoned buildings.

Though more than 4,000 Louisiana homeowners have received rebuilding money only in the last six months, or are struggling with inadequate grants or no money at all, FEMA is intent on taking away their trailers by the end of May ...

“All I can say is that this is a temporary program, it was always intended as a temporary program, and at a certain point all temporary programs must end,” said Brent Colburn, the agency’s director of external affairs. He said there would be no extensions.

Brent Colburn, quoted above, worked for the Obama campaign. Obama appointees such as Colburn have only recently taken charge of FEMA -- one of the most mismanaged organizations in US history. Colburn himself was appointed to FEMA on April 14 -- three weeks ago; FEMA's new director, Craig Fugate, was appointed on April 22 -- just two weeks ago. What can these people possibly know of the situation on the ground?

To think that Obama appointees would consent that thousands of trailer residents should be imminently evicted by this most disfunctional government agency? This population of trailer residents! According the the Times, those about to be kicked out of their trailers at the end of May "are elderly, disabled or both, including double amputees, diabetes patients, the mentally ill, people prone to seizures and others dependent on oxygen tanks."

Were victims of the Asian tsunami treated with any more disregard by their governments?

Bangkok riots: Who controlled the blue shirts?

Who are the blue shirts? And more importantly, who controls them?

Responding to questions about his extensive eyewitness account posted at New Mandala, photojournalist Nick Nostitz reflects on the activities of the "blue shirt" protesters he witnessed in Pattaya. Nick believes that the presence of this group was significant in relation to the subsequent turmoil in Thailand:

In Pattaya as well, from what i have seen, police had a token presence, but the military led the operations. Here i wonder why you do ignore the point of the Blue Shirts, and their attacks against Red Shirts, for me the key factor why the up till then mostly peaceful protests went so out of hand. Without the actions of the Blue Shirts there would not have been the invasion into the Royal Cliff, after which the emergency decree resulted, after which the arrest of Arisaman followed, etc.

Suthep stated that the Blue Shirts were only local residents who supported the government. This is a false statement. Why is the government so sluggish on answering any questions regarding the Blue Shirts? Why is the Thai media not investigating the Blue Shirts properly? My photos here show how Blue Shirts and military have cooperated. Were the Blue Shirts a plan that backfired, or where the actions of the Blue Shirts a deliberate plan to turn the up till then mostly peaceful protests into a riot? These are issues that should be pointed out, and investigated.

But strangely things are very quiet around the Blue Shirts. We only have very strong evidence [JOTMAN: see here and here] that Newin was involved (and from his history we know that plans like this are very much up his alley), but Newin alone could not possibly have ordered security forces to work with the Blue Shirts, especially because more than a few military officers did not like the placing of the Blue Shirts (as was confirmed to me in private conversations). Given the chain of command, Suthep - the deputy prime minister responsible for internal security - must have been involved as well. If not, the Thai state is in more dire straights than we can possibly imagine, because then some unknown individuals can make top-level decisions without top-level people being informed.

When you go back and read the relevant section of Nick's live-blogged report, the evidence behind Nick's assertion-- and it's implications -- become even more clear to you. This is how Nick described the situation, as he witnessed it, in Pattaya, just prior to the storming of the ASEAN summit hotel:

At about 6 am I went to the security zone around the Royal Cliff Hotel. On the bottom of the hill there was a roadblock by the security forces, the first line was the Border Patrol Police (BPP), the second line was the Army. I was at the Tourist Police station halfway up the hill when suddenly several hundred Blue Shirts walked out from within the security zone. One blue pickup truck with Blue Shirts sitting in the open back appeared transporting wooden clubs. I took photos. The Blue Shirts objected, but I did not care. A soldier told them to drive further down the road. I followed on foot. At the bottom of the hill, several dozen Blue Shirts hung out at the road block. Several Blue Shirts carried the pieces of wood through the Army and the BPP lines, and distributed them to their friends, who lined up in front of the BPP. I recognized some Blue Shirts as PAD guards, and they also remembered me from the Government House occupation. Others of the Blue Shirts very much looked like soldiers (I was told later on that they were Navy personnel from Satthahip).

Soon a large group of Red Shirts appeared with a mobile stage. At first there was a loudspeaker duel between Red Shirts and Blue Shirts, soon the two groups faced each other from a distance of less than 200 meters. Nirmal Ghosh called me, he was at a different access road, and told me that a brief clash between Blue and Red Shirts had already happened there, but that when a small bomb was thrown, Blue Shirts retreated behind military lines. Where I was standing a clash was beginning to build itself up. More than 1000 Red Shirts were facing maybe 300 Blue Shirts. At the last moment, when the groups were only 50 meters away from each other, negotiations were held, and soon after the Red Shirts left.

I walked up the hill. There was a large group of Red Shirts in front of the Hotel where the ASEAN Summit was to be held. Apparently one or two Red Shirts were shot by Blue Shirts, but I am still confused about when exactly that happened, during the brief clash, or during the previous night. Red Shirt leader Arisamun Pongruengrong demanded that the government deliver the responsible Blue Shirts to justice. He held a press conference inside the entry area of the conference building of the Hotel. Several Red Shirts have shown off a sack of blue shirts that they found during their approach to the Hotel. After a lull of about one or two hours, suddenly Red Shirts walked into the grounds directly in front of the Hotel doors.*

At this point came "the invasion into the Royal Cliff, after which the emergency decree resulted, after which the arrest of Arisaman followed, etc."

Would it be going too far to conclude that the blue shirts had deliberately instigated the riots, presumably in order to discredit the red shirt movement?

A recent post by Bangkok Pundit is especially worth reading. BP examines news sources detailing the possibility of a connection between the blue shirts and certain military leaders, including Gen Prawit, Gen Anupong and Gen Prayuth -- who have some things in common.

____
* Nick's photos, posted at New Mandala, further document what he has described. Another eyewitness, of course, was Nirmal Ghosh who filed this report concerning the blue shirts.

The following posts point you to the work of various live-bloggers who witnessed the turmoil in Bangkok of early April:

• Red Shirt protests in Bangkok of April 8-10
• Red shirts protest in Pattaya, site of ASEAN summit
• State of Emergency in Bangkok
• Army crackdown on protesters in Bangkok

Geithner behind banking fraud cover-up?

Sweden did it in the early 90s with respect to its entire banking industry. It is standard procedure for the US government to take over a failing bank. So why has the Obama Administration refused to temporarily nationalize America's woefully mismanaged major banks?

It seems Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner -- who served as one of the top US regulators throughout the rise of the sub-prime debacle -- did not think nationalization a good idea. Why not?

William K. Black, a professor of economics and law with the University of Missouri who led investigations into the S&L crisis of the 1980s, has an interesting theory. He told PBS’ Bill Moyers Journal:

Black: [They] don't want to change the bankers, because if we do, if we put honest people in, who didn't cause the problem, their first job would be to find the scope of the problem. And that would destroy the cover up....

Geithner is ... covering up. Just like Paulson did before him....

These are all people who have failed. Paulson failed, Geithner failed. They were all promoted because they failed....

Until you get the facts, it's harder to blow all this up. And, of course, the entire strategy is to keep people from getting the facts....

Moyers: Are you saying that Timothy Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, and others in the administration, with the banks, are engaged in a cover up to keep us from knowing what went wrong?

Black: Absolutely....

They're deliberately leaving in place the people that caused the problem, because they don't want the facts. And this is not new. The Reagan Administration's central priority, at all times, during the Savings and Loan crisis, was covering up the losses.

In other words, the foxes are (still) guarding the hens.

Here's the video of the interview:

Hat-tip: Mercola

Is Obama serious about tax haven reform?

At the G20 last month, one real sign of progress appeared to be G20 nations' renewed resolve to start clamping down on tax havens. Headlines across the US this week proclaim Obama's professed intention to crack down on overseas tax-havens.

I met Richard Murphy, an authority on tax havens, at the G20 summit in April. I wondered what he had to say about Obama's recent initiative. Murphy reflects on the shortcomings of Obama's much-touted "clamp-down":

What companies are seeking is a system of operating beyond accountability, without (in the literal sense) government control. In effect they have made the declaration that they are above the law; that for them there is no society. In so doing they reflect the attitude of the neo-liberal hard right who would demolish all semblance of society in the pursuit of individual greed – and will, if they succeed destroy civilisation as we know it.

Obama has made the mistake of tipping at the mechanics of this process. That is a mistake. I know his advisers have suggested he should have looked at unitary taxation as the solution to this issue. I have argued for this. We need it.

The reality is that in accounting and tax we are being faced with choices: choices about who governs. Not a choice about on whose behalf there is government: a choice about who governs. Is it government or is it corporations and the elite that controls them? The Left has to get its head round this issue. It has to tackle it, and embrace solutions that ensure the power of government by and for the people of the world survives. If it doesn’t we all go down with it.

Obama has done something useful. But he could have done so much more. It’s not a day to celebrate.

For the specifics, visit Richard's blog.

As Richard points out, business groups are acting ticked-off by Obama's recent proposal. Don't cry for them. As Richard hints, the fuss is likely for show; theater that has the effect of making the public believe that a "socialistic" president wants to over-regulate capitalism. When he's still doing nowhere near enough.

I think it should by now be clear to everyone that the Obama Administration is firmly on the side of the American banking and business establishment.

* Photo: by Jotman. Shows Richard asking UK PM Gordon Brown a question about tax havens at the G20 (for a video of the question, and Brown's response see this post)

Seven mysteries blogged

Some happenings Jotman has blogged about:

Spontaneous celebrations
In search of Obama's madrasah
Was rising income equality cause of Thailand coup?
Taxi to see "the big gun"
Protest leader recalls day of terror
The ghost on the bus
Encounter with an infantry battalion

US to sell Thailand aerial spy cams

Given Thailand's recent record on human rights, should a US company be selling the Thai military advanced surveillance equipment?

Did a US factory farm cause the swine flu outbreak?

The evidence is compelling. The first Mexican boy to come down with swine flu lived near a factory farm owned by Smithfield Foods. The WSJ reported:

. . . community members grew concerned because the farm was situated in a dust-filled valley, which they worried would lead to hog waste mixing with the dust and causing respiratory problems.

When it was learned that five-year-old La Gloria resident Edgar Hernandez had contracted swine flu, locals began blaming Smithfield. Some people complain that a lagoon filled with pig waste has a foul stench. Edgar's mother says the farm creates a problem of flies, and wants authorities to do something about it. (Her son no longer shows signs of being ill.)

This video raises further questions:

Is Russia becoming a more open society?

Russian Jotman reader Sanjuro writes:

Interesting things are apparently happening in Russia. . . . it appears that Putin has finally began to fade as the political strongman, and Medvedev is slowly and somewhat reluctantly showing glimpse of independence.

Only glimpses so far, but the liberal opposition and the online intelligentsia seem to find some inspiration in that, although they haven't taken any active steps. For now, it's just the online discussions that are sort of picking up, compared to what was seen in 2001-2008. There's growing realization that the fat years are finally over, and that the lean years are here to stay. I guess that's the reason that is forcing the society to at least demonstrate some (marginal) willingness to engage in reconciliation.

Sanjuro detailed for us some events that have led him to suggest that times are really changing in Russia:

• Journalist Svetlana Bakhmina, an ex-Yukos accountant, was released from jail early.
• Mr. Medvedev mentioned his intention to start a blog on LiveJournal.
• Scores of federal and regional level official have rushed to declare their incomes.
• Vladimir Pronin, a supposedly "untouchable" Moscow police chief was fired by Medvedev.
  

Sanjuro provides further background on these incidents here.

Update:
NY Times has published an article that looks at this issue.

Thomas Friedman: American values indefensible

Thomas Friedman:

. . . justice taken to its logical end here would likely require bringing George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and other senior officials to trial, which would rip our country apart. . .

What "justice" is Thomas Friedman referring to? It seems to me he's talking about American justice; American laws; the US Constitution. Therefore, another way of phrasing Friedman's remarks would be to say that the American way is too fragile to be tested; a bully like Cheney too tough to be confronted; the country's core values wrong for the times.

Sound familiar? Osama bin Laden said:

America is weak despite its apparent strength.

Is bin Laden's assessment of the United States about to be proven correct? Thomas Friedman evidently shares it.