After The War Comes The Opportunity

It is no surprise to learn that the American government is lining up potential investors in Georgia:

The US Department of Commerce is working with two private American-Georgian business associations to stage a trade summit in Tbilisi in late October. The initiative is part of a general effort to bolster investor confidence in Georgia.

The Bush administration has been a leading backer of Georgia as the Caucasus country rebuilds following Russia’s August invasion. The US Congress has already approved an administration-sponsored aid package worth as much as $1 billion. The idea for the business summit reportedly came from the "highest level" in Washington, and it is seen as a means to stimulate private-sector interest in Georgia’s economic recovery.

While the guest list for the summit has not been publicly released, organizers note that some Fortune 500 companies, as well as large private equity firms, have expressed an intention to attend. According to a partial list of confirmed companies made available to EurasiaNet, investors are considering multi-million dollar projects in several sectors including hydro-power production, power transmission, wind energy, hospitals and wine. The summit will be chaired by Deputy Commerce Secretary John Sullivan. In addition to organizing the Tbilisi summit, the US Trade Office is pushing Congress to expand Georgia’s eligibility for duty-free imports to the United States.

According to Tamara Koziridze, a deputy economic minister, the Georgian government is "hoping" that summit will bring new investment into the country. "We hope very much it will be productive in the sense that companies with a real interest in Georgia will participate and will have sufficient follow up," Kovziridze said.

What a fantastic opportunity for corporate America. Multi-million dollar contracts will be signed, huge swathes of the Georgian economy will be handed over to American companies and American hegemony in the region will be confirmed. It's almost like the US wanted Georgia (one of the fastest growing ecnomies in the region) to start a war it was bound to lose if only to pick up the pieces and have a tasty slice of future growth with the aid of a neo-conservative, anti-democratic Georgian leader. Good work chaps.

The Rich Need YOUR Help

Here's an interesting little paradox. Here we are, in the midst of an economic crisis where all the talk is of things getting worse before they get better. Amidst all this talk of crisis, there is re-assurance from both the Conservatives and the Conservatives Lite...sorry, Labour, that the rich must pay the price for their failures. Fine words. Question is, when taxpayers are bailing out the rich to a massive degree, are the rich really hurting? Well, it appears not according to this story in today's Guardian which highlights just how much the rich are really hurting:

Super times for superyachts as billionaires buy into maritime bling
Monte Carlo boat show finds demand for floating palaces higher than ever

While others panic about the financial crisis, this weekend's Monaco Yacht Show proved that the mega-rich have never been richer. Yacht brokers describe an eastern European new rich, boosted by oil wealth, keen to outdo their rivals. Middle Eastern viewers and occasional Latin Americans are following suit.

As the number of multi-billionaires grows, the superyacht industry is enjoying such a boom that demand for the most expensive models outstrips supply. Boats built to personal specifications have grown to such vast proportions that the labels superyacht and megayacht are no longer enough. Those on the dockside now talk of the gigayacht - multi-storey, 120-metre floating mansions that resemble cruise liners. The cost of the biggest new boats exceeds €200m.

So, are the rich really paying the price? Or is it the average tax payer?

No More Mr Nice Guy

For too long the media have focused on one side of the story when it comes to the debate about medication. Nice has been portrayed as a vicious, uncaring watchdog seeking to penalise those that require certain medications. That some of this criticism seems to emanate from various pharmaceutical concerns, barely seems worth mentioning. Finally, today's Observer goes some way to addressing this gross distortion and, in turn, reveals the real criminals in the drugs industry.

Professor Sir Michael Rawlins has finally spoken out about the media frenzy surrounding Nice, and what he says makes an awful lot of sense. Sure, the drug companies will be infuriated (and no doubt up their propaganda campaigns), but the truth is for all to see. Drugs companies are overcharging the NHS in order to protect their profits. This needs to stop. If things continue in this fashion, the NHS will be bled dry and the way will be clear for a privatised system somewhat like the one in the US. Free healthcare for all will become a curiosity of the past. Men, women and children will die as a result of a privatised system. Dramatic? Maybe. But there is no doubt that large sections of society will be severely affected by such a change.

Below is a short extract:

The drugs industry is overpricing vital new medicines to boost its profits, the chair of the health watchdog Nice warns today in an explosive intervention into the debate over NHS rationing.

Professor Sir Michael Rawlins spoke out after critics last week accused the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) of 'barbarism' for refusing to approve expensive new kidney drugs for NHS use, on the grounds that they were not cost-effective.

In an outspoken interview with The Observer, he warned of 'perverse incentives' to hike the prices of new drugs - including linking the pay of pharmaceutical company executives to their firm's share price, which in turn relied on keeping profits healthy. Traditionally some companies charged what they thought they could get away with, he said. 'We are told we are being mean all the time, but what nobody mentions is why the drugs are so expensive.'

Kidney cancer drugs could be produced for about a tenth of their current cost, Rawlins said. While developing such medicines from scratch added to these costs, as did some 'unnecessary' bureaucracy around clinical trials which should be scrapped, he said that was not the whole story. 'Part of the problem is that the pharmaceutical industry is looking at a very bad period in the future because a lot of their big earners are going off patent [allowing rivals to make cheaper versions], and many companies are looking at a 30 or 40 per cent reduction in the next five years unless they come up with new drugs,' he said. 'And so part of the cost is cushioning against that. The other thing, of course, is that the share price is very important to a pharmaceutical company.'

China - Human Rights - Bad, Economy - Gooooood

Much has been made of Bush's criticisms of China, but it wasn't all bad news for the Chinese government:

US President George W Bush has expressed "deep concerns" over China's human rights record in a speech on the eve of the Beijing Olympics.

"The US believes the people of China deserve the fundamental liberty that is the natural right of all human beings," he said in the Thai capital, Bangkok.

Mmm, very good. Almost makes you look like you give a shit. But what's this:

In his address, Mr Bush said the US recognised that the growth sparked by China's free market reforms was "good for the Chinese people" and the country's' purchasing power was "good for the world".

Ah yes, the free market reforms that were one of the driving forces behind the demonstrations in Tiananmen Square all those years back. Yes, Bush condemns the abuse of human rights whilst also giving a back handed compliment to one of the major factors in those abuses. You got to hand it to old Bushie - he sure knows how to pull the wool over the eyes don't he??

The City of London - Sponsored By Porsche

Once again, we see how easily the Tories defer to the interests of big business, even in the face of their new found passion for the environment. Eager not to upset the bigwigs at Porsche, Boris Johnson has proven that he has no bollocks whatsoever and caved in to the pressure exerted by the gas guzzling manufacturer. As always with the Tories, big business comes first, the environment a very distant last. Whilst the taxpayer is forced to pay compensation to the manufacturing giant, Boris Johnson and his capitalist chums are laughing all the way to the bank. Any chance a sweetener might have been involved? From The Guardian:

London mayor Boris Johnson is to pay about £400,000 to Porsche after agreeing to scrap a plan to levy a £25 charge on the most polluting vehicles in the capital, it emerged last night.

The luxury sports car specialist had begun a legal challenge to the proposal, put forward by the former mayor, Ken Livingstone, earlier this year.

Yesterday Johnson withdrew the proposal, and a court ruled that the Greater London Authority should pay Porsche's legal costs. The company says that it will give the money to Skidz - a charity which offers youngsters training in mechanical skills and maintenance.

Last night Jenny Jones, Green party assembly member, said she was appalled by the decision. "This is a mayor who is telling us he wants to see value for money, and to account for every penny, and here he is paying one of the richest car companies in the world hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money."

And how many green initiatives will be cut by the Tories when they come to power? Leaders of big business must be dropping to their knees and praying to the Almighty for a Tory victory. For the rest of us, Johnson's regime in London has shown has just how far they are prepared to go to protect the giants of capitalism. And you thought Labour were a bunch of right-wing economic extremists, Cameron's mob just might have the edge on them and that's no mean feat.

Chevron Shareholders Put Profits Before Human Rights

From the International Herald Tribune:

SAN RAMON, California: Activists are taking advantage of Chevron's annual shareholders meeting to blast the oil giant for alleged environmental and human rights abuses overseas.

At its corporate headquarters in San Ramon, California, on Wednesday, Chevron Corp. Chief Executive David O'Reilly faced intense criticism at the meeting for its past and present operations in Ecuador, Nigeria and Myanmar.

And outside, dozens of demonstrators waving "Clean Up Chevron" signs protested at the gates of its suburban campus.

But despite increasingly vocal complaints, Chevron shareholders voted against six proposals aimed at improving its human rights and environmental record abroad.

O'Reilly also told shareholders that he expects gas prices to fall over the next couple years as supply rises to meet increasing global demand.

Thai Critic of Tesco in UK

Tesco won't be happy. Kamol Kamoltrakul, one of the Thai men currently being sued for defamation by Tesco, is currently in the UK as a guest of Index on Censorship. From The Guardian:

Kamol Kamoltrakul wrote one of his monthly columns in a Bangkok business paper last year on Tesco's aggressive expansion in the south-east Asian state. The threat from western superstore chains to Thailand's thousands of "mom-and-pop" retailers has been a controversial issue there for the past seven years.

His own English translation of his article, which he hands over, does not read in a particularly inflammatory style. It does contain a mistake: Kamol says: "The shocking truth is that 37% of [Tesco's] income comes from Thailand." And he goes on to make the case that Tesco's Thai profits are mostly returned to the UK "because of the complexity of accounting which can deduct a lot of expenses and show low profit". Kamol now says the 37% figure was a slip based on a misreading of figures and the correct number is more like 3.7%. But on the more general point, that Tesco ships profits out of Thailand, he claims: "I think I'm right." An economist by training, he says the limited information in the company's local financial reports suggests, for example, that they pay hefty royalties to their parent for use of the Tesco name.

Tesco said yesterday that royalties were charged by Tesco Stores Ltd to its Thai operations and to other foreign operations "for the provision of know-how and the use of brand and trademarks". This was described as "perfectly normal practice" in compliance with all relevant tax laws and agreed with both UK and Thai tax authorities.

Tesco said yesterday: "Tesco does not have a policy of using legal action to silence its critics. In fact until now we have never had to issue legal proceedings to defend our reputation. The ongoing cases in Thailand and the UK are entirely unrelated. Neither has anything to do with restricting free speech and it would be deeply misleading to suggest they do. The right to free speech does not of course imply the right to defame us.

"In Thailand Tesco Lotus has been seriously defamed in a sustained and malicious campaign over a number of months. In the UK, the Guardian made a series of very damaging allegations relating to Tesco's tax affairs despite our clear indications to the paper in advance that these were utterly false and that we would defend our reputation if necessary. The Guardian was given the opportunity to retract the allegations but chose not to do so.

"In both cases we have been left no option other than to take legal action - a step we would not consider unless we believed it was entirely justified. We still hope the matters can be resolved by agreement, but if not we will have to resort to the courts to restore our reputation."



This is the line that Tescoo has been sticking to ever since their actions have been revealed to the public. I wrote to Tesco and complained about their attempts to suppress free speech, threatening to boycott their stores until they drop the action. The response was essentially lifted from a statement prepared by their spokesperson (click on image):

There is no justification for this action. The consequences of a successful claim by Tesco is particularly worrying. Should they succeed, attempts to criticise large corporations, debate their impact on society or question their business practices will be seriously compromised. Considering the power that these organisations have in this increasingly privatised world, that should be a concern to everyone, Tesco shopper or otherwise.

What Would Milton Friedman Say?

Fuck 'em.

The International Monetary Fund has said that rising food prices threaten to undermine gains made in cutting poverty and further strain a global economy already hit by a financial crisis.

The warning comes after riots related to increasing food prices rocked Haiti and Egypt.

The increases are caused, in part, by drought in Australia and in central Europe, and more demand for food in increasingly Asian countries, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, IMF managing director, said on Thursday.

Strauss-Kahn's comments came on the eve of a meeting of finance ministers and central bank chiefs of the Group of Seven industrial countries in Washington DC.

The increased use of grains to produce biofuels, first heralded as a way to cut greenhouse gases, combined with increased demand for food in emerging market economies, is contributing to grain shortages and food riots.

Food prices, for instance, increased by 48 per cent since the end of 2006 until now, which is a huge increase, and it may undermine all the gains we have obtained in reducing poverty", Strauss-Kahn said.

Riots over food price rises began in southern Haiti earlier this week and quickly spread to the capital Port-au-Prince, where tens of thousands took to the streets.

Four were killed in the disturbance, while UN peacekeepers drove away rioters used rubber bullets and tear gas to drive away rioters from the presidential palace.

Food prices, which have risen 40 per cent on average globally since mid-2007, are most damaging to poor nations such as Haiti, the poorest country in the Americas.

Biofuel: It's the future (for corporate America)

Incidentally, if you want to do something to help, you could do worse than visit FreeRice - a website that will donate 20 grains of rice for every correct answer. It may not seem much, but it is a start.

Democrats Slap Down Free Trade Agreement With Colombia.....For Now

Good news concerning relations between the world's two largest terrorist states:

The US House of Representatives has defied the White House and voted to indefinitely delay action on a free trade deal with Colombia.

President George W Bush sent the free trade agreement to Congress early this week, using a "fast-track" process which requires a vote within 90 days.

The House instead voted to eliminate that rule and suspend action.

Colombia's trade minister, Luis Guillermo Plata, said the vote did not mean the 2006 trade pact was dead.

Of course, this will dismay President Bush who describes Colombia as an 'important ally' (mainly due to the rising influence of Chávez et al). I have little doubt that this is little more than electioneering on the part of the Democrats who only really appear interested in tweaking the legislation a little before allowing it to pass. Having said that, it is a little hypocritical to accuse the Democrats of 'playing politics' when the Republicans have been playing politics with Iraq and the 'war on terror', leading to the deaths of thousands.

In terms of the legislation, Bush has claimed that it is vital as a rebuke to "dictators and demagogues" in Latin America (I can't actually name a single 'dictator' in the region, although rewind to the 70s when US hegemony in the region was in its pomp, and I can name numerous examples). Susan Schwab, the US's trade representative, spat her dummy out and said:

"The House Democratic leadership has now slapped around a major US ally.

"This is the Democratic leadership's version of foreign policy."

What, you mean a (vaguely) more ethical policy?? Surely slapping a major US ally is better to screwing one over (although Blair seemed pretty keen to receive the punishment). Anyway, I digress. If you want to find out why opposing this agreement is so important, either watch this slideshow I have produced (tambien en Español) or watch the following clip by War on Want. Colombia: Pinochet's Chile with a democratic facade.

Pharma Firms End Trials Early For Larger Profits

Yet another story that exposes that big pharmaceuticals care more about their profits than your health:

The real benefit of some cancer drugs may be exaggerated because of a growing tendency for firms and investigators to call a premature halt to trials the moment a benefit appears, experts warn today.

Italian researchers writing in the cancer journal Annals of Oncology reveal a dramatic increase in the number of studies terminated early. They claim that in some cases drug companies are rushing with early, incomplete results to the licensing authorities. One reason, the researchers suggest, is a desire to get their drugs on the market ahead of their competitors.

Among 14 of these early results published between 2005 and 2007, 11 were used to support a licence application.

"This suggests a commercial component in stopping trials prematurely. In fact, this strategy could guarantee quicker access to the market for companies," said one of the authors, Dr Giovanni Apolone from the Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research in Milan.

Without the complete information gathered from a full-length trial, he says, it is not certain that a drug is both as effective as the investigators say, and safe in the long term. It can take years for the adverse effects of a drug to come out. The 25 prematurely halted trials in the study lasted, on average, for 30 months.

Given that a whole host of cancer charities have extensive links with pharmaceutical companies, perhaps one ought to be careful about which ones deserve our donations.

US A Threat to Free Speech in Iraq

Just a week ago, Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called on his followers to halt attacks on government forces as the security situation threatened to spiral out of control. That Iran was a crucial player in prompting al-Sadr to announce a ceasefire was, typically, a mere sideshow to the events in Iraq as witnessed through the prism of US hegemony. Al-Sadr has been seen as a vital bulwark to growing corporate control of Iraq's sovereignty for many people in Iraq. It is in this context, that we must view reporting of al-Sadr and any attacks that are made on his supporters. The final removal of al-Sadr as a serious voice of opposition in the region, will finally pave the way for a corporate takeover of Iraq and the completion of the neoconservative mission and thus enable the Iraq oil law to become binding. As one analyst from the Revenue Watch Institute, a group that advises policy-makers in the US and Iraq on the oil law, has said:

"Together with fair local elections, a resolution to Iraq's oil law conflict is the key to unlocking Iraq's development potential."

'Development potential' that would, as we know, benefit foreign oil corporations. Therefore, the neutralisation of al-Sadr's support is crucial to the establishment of a oil law that is in the interests of US corporate power.

Consequently, it comes as little surprise to learn of the latest action taken by US forces in the region. Tomorrow, al-Sadr had planned to march with 1 million Iraqis against the US presence within Iraq. The march would have given a very clear message to the forces of the empire. Let Iraqis govern themselves and allow them to put their interests above those of the global markets. This was, however, clearly intolerable for the forces of corporatism in Iraq. Consequently, US forces made their mark in Sadr city and sent a very clear warning: Iraq is under our authority. To reinforce this message, the US army launched airstrikes within Sadr city killing at least nine people (referred to as 'criminals' by the US army). Furthermore, due to intense fighting between Iraqis and US forces, at least 20 people were killed and 52 wounded, including women and children. There is little doubt why the US decided to act at this point, particularly when al-Sadr had been encouraging supporters to observe a ceasefire. A ceasefire, incidentally, that has done more to curb violence in Iraq than the so-called 'surge'

As a consequence of this action in Sadr city, al-Sadr has decided to call off the planned protest to mark five years of occupation. The reason for calling off the protest? According to al-Sadr himself:

"I call those beloved Iraqi people who wish to demonstrate against the occupation to postpone their march, out of my fear for them and my concern to spare their blood."

The US forces had achieved what they had hoped for. By indulging in shock tactics to frighten the supporters of al-Sadr, they have successfully frightened him into calling off a legitimate protest march against the ongoing occupation of Iraq. And yet, protests are a very potent symbol of a successful democracy, a democracy we were led to believe the neoconservatives were keen to spread. Instead what we are seeing is the suppression of voices that seek to threaten US hegemony in the region. Quite simply, it is US style corporatism or it is nothing. Anything that sits outsides the boundaries set by the occupying power is a threat to security and must be dealt with severely, regardless of civilian casualties. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who sought to curtail freedoms and ban the right to protest. It would appear that this alternative is no better. Unless, of course, you continue to see the world through the prism of US corporatism.

The Shock Doctrine

I am currently in the process of reading Naomi Klein's 'The Shock Doctrine' (maybe when I get round to it I can write a short piece about this fascinating book). Here is a little taster of what it has to offer.

Immigrants, Capitalists and Tax

Remember this:

Labour's 'open door' policy on immigration costs every household £350 a year, it was claimed yesterday.

David Coleman, an Oxford University academic, puts the total annual bill to the taxpayer at almost £8.8billion.

In a submission to a House of Lords committee, he said there had been an 'absent-minded commitment' to increase the population by one million every five years.

Perhaps not that individual story, but something like it repeated ad nauseum in papers such as the Daily Mail and the Express. A quick search on either paper's website should find a plethora of stories such as this one (a staggering 41,630 articles on the Daily Mail alone using the search terms 'immigrants', 'cost' and 'tax'). Of course, this created the usual fuss about immigration. After all, £8.8billion does appear to be an awful lot of money lost in taxpayers money. There is, however, a section of society that costs us far more and you are unlikely to ever see them on the front page of the Daily Mail day after day. Yes, you guessed it, those pesky capitalists.

For around three years now, Private Eye has been trying to extract information about tax lost due to avoidance and evasion from HM Revenue and Customs. In typical fashion, the department tried everything they could to get out of revealing such information, perhaps aware of how damaging this might be. Then, as is the norm in these days of 'burying bad news', the figures were released on budget day amongst a raft of other paperwork sure to distract the public. The figures were shocking and underlines that the section of society most deserving of our scorn and hatred are not the immigrant communities, but the capitalists. The following is taken from Accountancy Age:

HM Revenue and Customs dramatically abandoned its attempts to keep details of the 'tax gap' secret just before the Budget.

HMRC estimates the sum lost to tax avoidance and evasion to be somewhere between £11bn and £41bn each year. Total government tax receipts for 2008 are expected to reach £575bn. The take from corporation tax alone is only £52bn.

That means up to £41bn is lost every year due to capitalists avoiding their obligations, that's five times as much as the cost to the taxpayer of the 'influx of immigration' (as the Mail puts it). So, presumably we will see a prolonged attack by the mainstream media on this section of society. Don't count on it. The interests of the capitalists will always take priority over those seeking to improve their lives or fleeing from persecution. The real criminals in our society are not the immigrants, they are the capitalists and whilst sections of society continue to attack 'foreigners', the rich and sitting in their expensive yachts laughing at our stupidity. It's time for the laughter to stop.

Taiwan - China's Other Problem

"We are also determined to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

President G W Bush 8th March 2005

Whilst the media has been focused on the ongoing situation in Tibet and its struggle for freedom, the situation in Taiwan has been generally overlooked, and yet it exposes the double standard at the heart of US/UK foreign policy.

Taiwan first applied for UN membership in July of last year. The Chinese government, however, saw this as a threat to the unity of China and gave very clear warnings to Taiwan should they continue to proceed along these lines, threatening to use force if it continues to pursue a course of independence. Despite these continued threats, the Taiwanese government decided to press forward with a referendum on UN membership which was scheduled to take place today. What is particularly interesting about this fight for freedom and democracy, is the stance taken by the United States and the United Kingdom.

In the light of the Bush administration's 'commitment to democracy' (as opposed for their lust to control the earth's resources), one would expect there to be noises of encouragement emanating from the White House - no such luck. Instead, the United States government has been echoing similar sentiments to that of the Chinese government - this is not a welcome development. When discussing the proposed Taiwanese referendum towards the end of last year, Condoleeza Rice said the following:

"We think that Taiwan's referendum to apply to the United Nations under the name 'Taiwan' is a provocative policy.

"It unnecessarily raises tensions in the Taiwan Strait, and it promises no real benefits for the people of Taiwan on the international stage."

'
Provocative'? 'No real benefit?'. Unusual terms to describe the desire of the Taiwanese people to be free, an ideal that the Bush administration apparently believed in. How quickly these high ideals are abandoned when faced with a more serious foe than the pathetic offering of the Iraqi army. Could it be that the US only supports democracy when it knows it can defeat the enemies of this high ideal? When it could lead to a conflict they would likely lose, suddenly democracy doesn't seem that important anymore. And yet, Bush claims to 'support the growth of democratic movements' across the world.

It now appears that the movement towards independence has been nothing more than a blip in the recent history of Taiwan. Reports suggest that Ma Ying-jeou, of the Kuomintang party, has won the election by 17%. Ma has committed himself to even stronger ties with China and has proposed a formal peace treaty with Beijing. Although it is difficult to say how much impact the reaction to the referendum from Beijing and Washington has had on the poll (the referendum did not garner enough votes to be valid), the threat of military invasion from China would have done much to sow seeds of doubt in the minds of the Taiwanese. Furthermore, Ma has been particularly clever in his campaigning. Understanding that there was growing concern regarding the situation in Tibet, Ma criticised the authorities in Beijing to ease fears at home whilst also claiming he would not push the issue with China (thus preserving the facade of independence and pleasing both his masters in Beijing and Taiwan).

The real winners in this election has been the capitalists, who have been pushing for closer ties with China for some time. China has been a major source of business for Taiwanese capitalists in recent years, as one Taiwanese resident pointed out:

"Nowadays Taiwanese capitalists hire at least ten million workers in China and almost all Taiwan’s top 50 manufacturing companies have subsidiaries there. The mainland’s abundant cheap labour, cheap land, tax-breaks and subsidies for foreign companies, mean that China has actually become the main source of profit for Taiwanese capitalism".

Even in communist China's sphere of influence capitalism rules, no wonder the US was keen to turn a blind eye to the calls for democracy in Taiwan. As a result of which, it appears that the flame of democracy has been extinguished in Taiwan, and both China and the US have conspired to snuff it out.

Spain - An Election That Seems Very Familiar

For the second time in a row, I am witnessing the build-up to the Spanish election first hand. The last time I was here in the lead up to an election, I witnessed the way an entire country was affected by a horrendous terrorist attack. I also witnessed an incredible collective bravery the likes of which I have never seen before or since. The sight of thousands of Spanish people lining the streets of every major city in Spain in protest at the horror of 3/11 will stay with me for the rest of my life. It was a moment that had a profound affect on all those who participated, including myself. However, I think that this event lingered in my mind for rather different reasons.

Upon arriving back in England, I was horrified to learn that the collective bravery of the Spanish was ignored in favour of the preferred stereotype of foreigners as weak willed and scared of the terrorist threat. Although I had witnessed with my very eyes immense bravery, I was being told by every media outlet that the subsequent election showed how weak the Spanish are. People failed to understand the intense anger at the government. The fact that, had the PP won the election, there was a very real danger of violence spilling over in a country that had not long experienced the effect of citizens turning on one another, was casually overlooked. Sneering morons like Douglas Murray had their fill and the truth was somehow obscured.

The current period of pre-election campaigning had Zapatero's PSOE virtually guaranteed of victory. They are roughly 5 percentage points ahead of the Popular Party, and it is inconceivable that this lead will be surrendered. However, from a progressive's point of view, there is little to rejoice in these elections. Replace the PSOE with New Labour and the Popular Party with Cameron's Conservatives, and you have an almost identical political situation. As in the UK, there is very little to choose between the two parties. It would make little difference who was in power, as both parties are beholden to the capitalist economic system. The only other party remotely capable of challenging these two, is Izquierda Unida (or United Left). Much like the Liberal Democrats, they hover around the fringes of the political debate. However, unlike the libs, IU is a viable left-wing alternative to the parties of the establishment. One hopes very much that IU increase their vote across Spain and begin to wield influence although, for the moment at least, this seems unlikely.

This year's election result certainly will not send shockwaves across Europe as the last one did. Rather, this is a case of as you were as the main political parties fight over the much beloved 'centre-ground'. Ah, the surroundings may change, but the political system stays very much the same. And with that, one can be sure that the steady decline in voting, coupled with the erosion of individual liberty, will surely follow.

Prozac, Drug Companies and the "Normality Myth"

See the man on the right? The man with the self-satisfied grin that cries out "rich bastard"?? Well, he's been, allegedly, selling a lie. A lie, allegedly, that has made him a lot of money. You may, at this point, be wondering why I am using the phrase "allegedly" so frequently at the moment. Well, I'm a coward and he is a CEO of a major pharmaceutical and they tend to be a little litigious. This man is, in fact, Sidney Taurel the chairman and CEO of Eli Lilly, the manufacturers of Prozac. A drug that is the centre of a new storm of controversy surrounding the drug industry.

The following is lifted from The Independent:

The pharmaceutical industry came under assault from senior figures in medical research yesterday over its practice of withholding information to protect profits, exposing patients to drugs which could be useless or harmful.

Experts criticised the stranglehold exerted by multinational companies over clinical trials, which has led to biased results, under-reporting of negative findings and selective publication driven by the market, which was worth £10.1bn in the UK in 2006, amounting to 11 per cent of total NHS costs.

The latest attack was triggered yesterday by an analysis of published and unpublished trials of modern antidepressants, including Prozac and Seroxat, showing they offer no clinically significant improvement over placebos (dummy pills) in most patients. But doctors said patients on the drugs should not stop taking them without consulting their GPs.

While I would accept that, in some cases, the prescribing of such drugs is necessary, the massive growth in their usage has been part of a disturbing trend in the last twenty years. What we have seen in the recent past is an attempt by certain sections of the medical profession trying to sell us the myth of "normal behaviour". This myth sought to stigmatise any extremes in human behaviour as abnormal, particularly if these were negative emotions. Suddenly, we no longer feel sadness or sorrow, we feel "depression". Suddenly, we were told that this is not "normal" behaviour and treatment must be sought. As Christopher Lane explained in his book, "Shyness: How Normal Behavior Became a Sickness":

"Before you sell a drug, you have to sell the disease."

This has certainly proved to be the case. And the drug companies have been quick to seize an opportunity to diagnose a new illness and sell us a wonderful "cure".

However, it is not only financial gain that has proved an attractive aspect of the "normality myth". It is one thing creating a myth for financial gain, sustaining the momentum behind the initial surge is more difficult to maintain. In order for this to occur, there needs to be more than just a massive marketing campaign, there needs to be a massive cultural shift. And this is where the establishment, and particularly the media, come into play. While the "normality myth" is an opportunity for the drug companies, they need a concerted effort by various other interests to propagate this myth and make it believable. This myth has particular advantages for the establishment. A society that conforms to an agreed behaviour pattern is much easier to control. By prescribing drugs such as Prozac to people behaving outside these norms, they hope to normalise their behaviour and thus make them easier to manage. A people that behave within certain boundaries are easier to predict. People who behave outside the realms of the "normality myth" are hard to predict and, therefore, difficult to control. In short, the growth of the industry surrounding the "normality myth" has been part of an effort to make it easier to predict an otherwise unpredictable populace.

The exposure of the reality of this particular aspect of the drug industry should come as no surprise to those who follow developments within the industry. The pretence that they are there for the common good is exactly that, pretence. Drug companies are there to seek out opportunities and make a profit. If that means concocting an illness to further their business, so be it. To believe anything else is to be incredibly naive.

Privatisation - A Socialist Plot

I seem to remember recently being upbraided for describing the current government as slightly to the right on the political spectrum. And then, I read this piece in today's Guardian and wondered how on earth anyone could seriously suggest we are living under a socialist government:

The prime minister has defended the accreditation of in-company qualifications after it was announced that staff at McDonald's could gain the equivalent of an A-level in burger bar management.

The fast food giant, Network Rail and the airline Flybe are the first three companies to win government approval to become an exam board.

The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has approved a pilot "basic shift manager" course, which will train staff in everything they need to run a McDonald's outlet, from marketing to human resources and customer service skills.

The budget airline Flybe will start piloting their "airline trainer programme" in the summer, which will cover everything from engineering to cabin crew training.

And so the corporate take-over of our education system continues at a fearless pace. Privatisation and socialism eh? How anyone could suggest that this country is a socialist enclave and yet keep a straight face is beyond me.

Nuclear Power - Brown Just Keeping It in the Family?

Could Gordon Brown's decision have any relationship to his brother's job as Head of Media for EDF, the leading player in the nuclear market (they intend to build four more reactors in the light of the government's decision)? Or it could it possibly be related to Brownite Ed Balls' father-in-law, Tony Cooper, a career lobbyist for the nuclear industry. You might, but I couldn't possibly say.

Venezuela - The Truth Behind the Spin

With the upcoming referendum in Venezuela, there has been the usual talk of opposition to Hugo Chavez. The Guardian had a short taster (sadly this 'taster' is not available on the website, so you will have to take my word for it) on the front page yesterday insinuating that Chavez was attempting to stay in power until 2030, when all he is proposing is the exact same rules that apply to our Prime Minister ie he can stand for election as many times as he likes. The BBC has also weighed into the debate (remember the BBC described Chavez as a 'militant') with their latest piece about the opposition movement to Chavez:

Hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans have protested against changes to the constitution proposed by the president.

Venezuelans are due to vote on the proposals - which include the removal of presidential term limits - in a referendum on Sunday.

Critics accuse President Hugo Chavez of a power grab, but supporters say the changes will deepen democracy.

It is the latest in a series of student-led rallies, ahead of the "yes" campaign's final march on Friday.

However, correspondents say the "no" campaign is gaining force.

No official crowd estimates were available but an opposition politician put the figure at about 160,000.

Talking up the opposition there. Of course, what the BBC (and other media outlets) fail to recognise is the situation behind the scenes. Luckily, bloggers like RickB at Ten Percent do their job for them. This from his blog [original source]:

On November 26, 2007 the Venezuelan government broadcast and circulated a confidential memo from the US embassy to the CIA which is devastatingly revealing of US clandestine operations and which will influence the referendum this Sunday… The memo sent by an embassy official, Michael Middleton Steere, was addressed to the head of the CIA, Michael Hayden. The memo was entitled ‘Advancing to the Last Phase of Operation Pincer’…

The US operatives emphasized their capacity to recruit former Chavez supporters among the social democrats (PODEMOS) and the former Minister of Defense Baduel, claiming to have reduced the ‘yes’ vote by 6% from its original margin. Nevertheless the Embassy operatives concede that they have reached their ceiling, recognizing they cannot defeat the amendments via the electoral route. The memo then recommends that Operation Pincer (OP) [Operación Tenaza] be operationalized. OP involves a two-pronged strategy of impeding the referendum, rejecting the outcome at the same time as calling for a ‘no’ vote. The run up to the referendum includes running phony polls, attacking electoral officials and running propaganda through the private media accusing the government of fraud and calling for a ‘no’ vote.

The ultimate objective of ‘Operation Pincer’ is to seize a territorial or institutional base with the ‘massive support’ of the defeated electoral minority within three or four days (before or after the elections – is not clear. JP) backed by an uprising by oppositionist military officers principally in the National Guard. The Embassy operative concede that the military plotters have run into serous problems as key intelligence operatives were detected, stores of arms were decommissioned and several plotters are under tight surveillance.

The key and most dangerous threats to democracy raised by the Embassy memo point to their success in mobilizing the private university students (backed by top administrators) to attack key government buildings including the Presidential Palace, Supreme Court and the National Electoral Council. The Embassy is especially praiseworthy of the ex-Maoist ‘Red Flag’ group for its violent street fighting activity.

So, it looks like there will be yet another attempt to instigate a coup in Venezuela. This time the claims of a power grab will be used as the pretext and the media are happy to play along. No doubt we will see a repeat of the footage that was broadcast during the last coup attempt that suggested that supporters of Chavez were firing onto groups of protesters. The truth is that the US is eager to find a way to oust Chavez due to his rising influence in the region. What scares them more than anything else is that a successful alternative to US imperialist capitalism might take hold in the Southern hemisphere and spread across the globe. One hopes that this proves to be the case.

Total - We're The Good Guys.....Honest Guv'

Apologies if this is already common knowledge, but I have been catching up on the news this last week after a hectic few days. Whilst popping into my local, friendly Total garage today, I came across a leaflet outlining its justification for remaining in Burma. The leaflet was predictably full of false sentiment and one passage in particular caught my eye:

'Our presence in Burma brings responsibility, but a decision to leave the country would entail similar responsibilities. If TOTAL left Burma, we would be replaced immediately by other operators who may not apply the same social or ethical standards. There would be no real impact on the State's revenues or on the political debate, but there would certainly be a negative impact on the Burmese people. As long as we believe our operations on the Yadana project contribute to the welfare of the people of Burma, TOTAL is committed to staying and demonstrating that our presence is more beneficial than our absence.'

Yes, all those other oil companies are nasty wicked people, we are good and kind and pure. Mmmmmmm.

The leaflet also draws attention to their website: http://burma.total.com. The website itself is a perfect example of corporate propaganda. Some of it needs to be seen to be believed. The image of Total as an altruistic, benevolent organisation is, frankly, absurd in the extreme. They are in business to make profit, all other considerations are secondary, least of all human rights.