« January 2008 |
Main
| March 2008 »
February 2008 archives
People have got to know whether their president is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook.
-- Richard Nixon, Press Conference 11/11/1973
Herewith an introduction to Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, president of Kazakhstan.
Mr. Nazarbayev was elected president of Kazakhstan by the Supreme Soviet on April 24, 1990. On December 1, 1991, Kazakhstan being on the verge of independence, he was elected by Kazakh citizens with 95 percent of the vote and most recently was elected in 2005 with 91 percent of the vote. The 2005 election was only slightly marred by the observation of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), an organization he now chairs, that there were "numerous and persistent examples of intimidation by the authorities" and an "overall media bias in favor of the incumbent." One month before the election Zamanbek Nurkadilov, an opposition leader, was said by authorities to have committed suicide. He did it by shooting himself once in the head and twice in the chest. Two months after the election, Altynbek Sarsenbayev, one of the opposition leaders was killed, reportedly by state security officials.
In May 2007, satisfied with the way he'd been performing, President Nazarbayev signed a constitutional amendment that permits him (and only him) to seek re-election indefinitely beginning in 2012 when his current term expires.
Mr. Nazarbayev presides over what has been called one of the most corrupt regimes in central Asia. He has closed newspapers, banned or refused to register opposition parties and permitted harassment of advocacy groups. Miklos Marschall, the regional director of Transparency International, an anti-corruption organization said of the president: "You don't have free elections, and the press is pretty much controlled by his family and a significant portion of assets in Kazakhstan are directly or indirectly controlled by his family." Marschall told the Washington Post in August, 2006. Although he went on to say that the president was making some step-by-step reforms, on the Transparency International Scale of corrupt countries, Kazakhstan is ranked 2.6, 1 being the most corrupt and 10 being least corrupt.
In 2006, Mr. Nazarbayev was a guest of Mr. Bush at the White House. Welcoming Mr. Nazarbayev 9 months after Mr. Nazarbayev had been reelected with 91 percent of the vote, a slightly envious Mr. Bush said: "I have watched very carefully the development of this important country from one that was in the Soviet sphere to one that now is a free nation . . . . And I welcome you here to the White House, and I'm looking forward to buying you lunch." After lunch Mr. Nazarbayev went to Kennebunkport to visit the first President Bush.
The visit to the White House was preceded by a visit to Kazakhstan in 2006 by Vice President Dick Cheney who in response to Mr. Nazarbayev's welcome said: "I think all Americans are tremendously impressed with the progress that you've made. . . in the last 15 years. . . . I'm delighted to have the opportunity to spend some time with you here in Astana. We met 10 years ago. . . and it's a pleasure to renew our friendship."
An even more prominent visitor than Mr. Cheney, however, was Bill Clinton who visited Mr. Nazarbayev in 2005. He arrived in a private jet owned by Frank Giustra of Canada who accompanied Mr. Clinton on the trip. All that happened when Dick Cheney visited was a friendship renewed. According to a story in the New York Times, three important things happened as a result of Mr. Clinton's visit.
The first was that Mr. Clinton voiced support for Mr. Nazarbayev's bid to lead OSCE (that had been critical of the 2005 election) notwithstanding the Bush administration's lack of support for that bid, saying: "I think it's time for that to happen, it's an important step, and I'm glad you're willing to undertake it." Then the next important thing happened.
Mr. Giustra's small company, newly interested in uranium mining, signed agreements enabling it to become partners in three state-owned uranium projects, agreements that are described as worth tens of millions of dollars. Then the last good thing happened.
The William J. Clinton Foundation got a $31.3 million gift from Mr. Giustra. That gift was only publicly disclosed in December 2007. More recently the foundation received another $100 million from Mr. Giustra.
When interviewed on Fox News and asked about her husband's visit to Kazakhstan and praise for Mr. Nazarbayev, Sen. Hillary Clinton said: "He went to Kazakhstan to sign an agreement with the government to provide low cost drugs for HIV/AIDS, a growing problem in Central Asia. . . ." Asked about the former president's praise for Mr. Nazarbayev she said that Dick Cheney also had good words for Mr. Nazarbayev when he visited the country.
This is one of the few times any Democrat has used Dick Cheney as justification for a bad decision. Should she become president one can only hope Sen. Clinton doesn't use Mr. Cheney as a role model for other bad decisions. That would bode ill for us all.
If you can't give me your word of honor, will you give me your promise?
-- Samuel Goldwyn, The Great Goldwyn
President George Bush can't keep his word even though the words are always the same. Having mouthed them so often you'd think he could remember them. What's not surprising is that the forgotten beneficiaries of his words are the people he sent to Iraq to get killed or wounded who now wish to be remembered by the man who sent them there to gratify his own ego. They should have learned from Hurricane Katrina.
Mr. Bush visited New Orleans shortly after Katrina had paid its respects. Standing in the Rose Garden on September 3 of that sad year, Mr. Bush said: "I know that those of you who have been hit hard by Katrina are suffering. . . The tasks before us are enormous, but so is the heart of America. In America, we do not abandon our fellow citizens in their hour of need. And the federal government will do its part . . . . We have a responsibility to our brothers and sisters all along the Gulf Coast and we will not rest until we get this right and the job is done." Mr. Bush is well rested. Anyone reading about New Orleans knows he didn't get it right and the job isn't done. Those living in New Orleans suffered because of nature's tragedy and were forgotten by the man who promised them help. Now it's the veterans' turn.
In his last State of the Union message, Mr. Bush received great applause when he said: "Our military families also sacrifice for America. . . . We have a responsibility to provide for them. So I ask you to join me in expanding their access to child care. . . and allowing our troops to transfer their unused education benefits to their spouses or children. Our military families serve our nation, they inspire our nation, and tonight our nation honors them." One week later he submitted his 2009 budget and dissed the veterans. No funds were included for transferring education benefits.
In submitting his $1.3 trillion budget he forgot to include the benefit that would cost between $1 billion and $2 billion dollars. That was not the end of ignoring the needs of veterans. According to a release from the Brain Injury Association of America, for the third year in a row, Mr. Bush has proposed the complete elimination of the Federal traumatic Brain Injury Program. The program "provides grants to state agencies and [other organizations] to improve access to health and other services for individuals with traumatic brain injury and their families." Susan Connors, president and CEO of the Brain Injury Association of America described the omission as "deeply disappointing" and went on to say that "President Bush just doesn't get it." Those two examples are not the only ones in which veterans who have withstood the onslaught from the enemy in Iraq have to defend themselves from the onslaught of the wolf in the White House parading in sheep's clothing.
According to a report on National Public Radio, during a visit by representatives of the Army Surgeon General's staff at Fort Drum Army base, officials from the Department of Veterans' Affairs were told they should stop helping injured soldiers complete paperwork related to their injuries. The forms completed forms determine what level of care and disability benefits the soldiers receive.
Rep. John McHugh who represents the area that includes Ft. Drum, the military base at which the instructions were given, told NPR that: "The Surgeon General of the Army told me very flatly that it was not the Army that told the VA to stop this help." That would have been the end of the matter but for one thing. A summary of the meeting prepared by one of the attendees surfaced and it contradicted the Surgeon General who had contradicted NPR.
Kevin Esslinger, a legal administration specialist at Ft. Drum , prepared the memorandum, according to NPR's report. It says that Col. Becky Baker of the office of the Surgeon General said the "Veterans Benefits Administration should discontinue counseling Medical Evaluation Board (MED) soldiers on the appropriateness of the Department of Defense MEB/OEB (Physical evaluation board) ratings and findings. There exists a conflict of interest." Responding to that comment Mr. Esslinger wrote in his summary that "a recent Department of the Army Inspector General inspection had noted the practice and had found it to be a useful service to the soldier." He went on to say the practice would be discontinued.
NPR's requests for interviews with Col. Baker and Surgeon General Eric Schoomaker were initially turned down. That's too bad. You would think the Surgeon General would have thought that the only thing more important than reassuring the country that veterans are receiving the best assistance and care available is making sure they get the best assistance and care available. His original silence suggested otherwise.
And a woman is only a woman,
But a good cigar is a smoke. - Rudyard Kipling, The Betrothed, a poem inspired by an 1885 Breach of Promise case in which the plaintiff reportedly told her husband: "You must choose between me and your cigar."
It is not often I feel compelled to offer an apology to a corporation but one is required this week. Last week, in poking fun at Merck and Schering-Plough for having failed to disclose the results of their unfavorable tests of Vytorin and Zetia, I made fun of Phillip Morris for an ad that appeared in a 1943 issue of The Saturday Evening Post.
The ad touted the virtues of its cigarettes and their endorsement by leading doctors. It might seem to some that I was mocking Phillip Morris and that was not my intention. I have nothing but admiration for the company and had an article in the Wall Street Journal appeared just a few days earlier the column would have been written differently. The WSJ article described all the things Phillip Morris International, (PMI) is doing to make cigarette smoking more attractive in those countries that have not yet concluded they are harmful to a smoker's health.
One of the cleverest ideas devised by Phillip Morris addresses the undeniably difficult problem posed for smokers in those countries where cigarette smoking though not frowned upon, is nonetheless not permitted with the confines of public buildings, thus forcing smokers to sneak outdoors to enjoy their pleasures. To help those people, Phillip Morris has come up with a cigarette that is the opposite of the 1940's version of Pall Mall cigarette. That cigarette bragged that it was 20% longer than other cigarettes and, therefore, healthier because, as its commercial said: "Pall Mall's greater length, filters the smoke on the way to your throat." No one ever pointed out to the maker that once the first half-inch had been smoked the remaining length was the same as that of its competitors and the filtering advantage ceased to exist. That omission was not important, however, since nothing about cigarette advertising is designed to appeal to reason.
The cigarette that is the opposite of the 1940's Pall Mall is called Phillip Morris's "Marlboro Intense." It is one-half inch shorter than ordinary cigarettes but, according to its advertising, packs the same carcinogenic punch (my words - not Phillip Morris's) as the longer variety because it is more heavily infused with whatever it is that gives the smoker simultaneously pleasure and cancer. According to the WSJ, that cigarette is not only short but a bit fatter than ordinary cigarettes. Its advantage is that its pleasure and toxin can be inhaled in only 7 puffs whereas ordinary cigarettes require 8 or 9 puffs to achieve the same result, a definite benefit for those who, being short on time, are eager to shorten their lives as well by getting the same effect a long cigarette would give them. That is not the only creativity displayed by the company. It has also created the Heatbar, a smoke, but also a pollution-reducing device.
Everyone knows that a by-product of smoking is a pollutant known as "smoke." According to the WSJ the Heatbar looks a bit like an electric toothbrush. The cigarette is inserted into the device and the smoker then inhales. Inhaling causes the device to heat up "delivering a flavored aerosol, without causing any tobacco to burn." It releases 90% less smoke into the atmosphere. Whether it is less harmful to the user is not disclosed in the article and the company's website has distressingly little information about what will surely be a big hit among the environmentally concerned smoking crowd. Although not the sort of device one would expect to see Humphrey Bogart brandish in "To Have And Have Not" or any other films in which he starred, Phillip Morris hopes the device will find a place of honor in the smoker's world.
The foregoing is not intended to cast aspersions on PMI and the website of its soon-to-be-former corporate parent Altria would refute any attempt to do so. Under the rubric "Commitment to Responsibility" Altria says Phillip Morris International tracks "whether the company measures up to society's expectations of a major multinational company-and a tobacco company." It says it supports "strong and effective tobacco regulation for both its products and the industry", is "open about the health effects of smoking" and works "to address society's concerns about its products" and supports "minimum age laws" and "youth smoking prevention programs across the globe."
PMI is clearly a conscientious company and one can't fault it for continuing to market the only thing it knows how to make. One can only praise it for its efforts to improve the environment and accommodate its customers who have found themselves caught up in government regulations imposed by people who have never appreciated the pleasures that can be found in a well-timed smoke.
The essence of lying is in deception, not in words. - John Ruskin, Modern Painters
The news about the newest cholesterol lowering drugs and disclosure of the fact that there had been non-disclosure. It was reminiscent of the cigarette ads of many years ago. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
An ad for Philip Morris that appeared in the May 22, 1943 Saturday Evening Post was full of great news about Philip Morris cigarettes, even though by then their creator knew they were killing their friends and devotees. The ad's headline in large letters cheerfully inquired: "Smoking Less or Smoking More*?" The asterisk referred one to a small note that proudly proclaimed: "Gov't Figure show all-time peak in smoking". That was followed by the statement that "You're safer smoking PHILIP MORRIS!" It then went on to proudly state that those cigarettes were "Scientifically Proved less irritating for the nose and throat."
Having gotten through the hype, the ad continues in a more sober vein stating that: "Reported by eminent doctors-in medical journals. Their own findings that when smokers changed to Philip Morris 'every case of irritation of the nose or throat-due to smoking-either cleared up completely, or definitely improved!'" The additional good news imparted by the ad was that the subject of the tests that proved the beneficial effects of smoking were "actual men and women" as distinguished from "laboratory analysis" thus demonstrating conclusively that Philip Morris cigarettes were "far less irritating to your nose and throat." The only caveat to the obviously unmitigated benefits of switching to Philip Morris was the equivalent to today's warning that they might kill you. It stated: "NOTE we do not claim curative power for Philip Morris. But, man! What solid proof they're better . . . . . safer. . . to smoke." There's no indication what text was omitted from the ellipses.
It was all brought to mind by Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals full-page ads trumpeting the virtues of Zetia and Vytorin, the latter being a combination of Zetia and Zocor, a statin. The drug companies conducted a test called "Enhance" that ended almost two years ago. They forgot to disclose the results of the test until January 14, 2008. Among the results was the fact that Zetia failed to slow the accumulation of fatty plaque in the arteries and might have contributed to its formation. The tests also disclosed there might be adverse effects on the liver when Zetia was used in combination with statins, the drugs that lower cholesterol.
Dr. Harlan N. Krumholz, a Yale cardiologist faulted the drug companies' failure to disclose the results of the study when they became available. Commenting to the New York Times he said: "People may have been on this drug without the ability to know that there was additional data that may have thrown into question its effectiveness. That's extremely unfortunate, and that's an understatement." Dr. Steven E. Nissen, the chairman of cardiology at the Cleveland Clinic, described the results of the tests to the Times as "shocking" and went on to say that the test results were "as bad a result for the drug as anybody could have feared."
It was not only a bad result for patients. It was also a bad result for stockholders in the two companies since the two drugs generated $5 billion in sales in 2007. Although the tests only raised the possibility of damage to the liver and threw into doubt whether or not those taking the drugs lowered their risk of heart attack, the tests actually did lower-the companies' profits from sales of the drugs. Following disclosure of the report, the stock price dropped as it is expected that sales of the drugs will follow suit. Fortunately for stockholders, the two drug companies are not sitting quietly by. They have begun an advertising campaign to counter the bad results of the study believing, as all drug companies do, in the magical power of advertising.
In full-page ads in major newspapers around the country they describe the study one that has "generated a lot of confusion," although apparently not in the minds of the doctors quoted above. The ad states that the "American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association agree that lowering bad cholesterol is important," conveniently overlooking the fact that while the drug lowered bad cholesterol it increased the growth of fatty plaque in the arteries when compared with patients taking Zocor alone. There is one difference between today's ad and the cigarette ads of yore. Less than half of the Vitorin and Zetia ads extolled the virtues of the drugs. The remainder described in excruciating detail all the terrible things that might happen to those taking the drug as is the requirement in drug advertisements.
The ad won't help those who have taken the medication. They can only hope it hasn't harmed them. Whether it helps the stockholders to whom the companies appear to have greater loyalty, only time will tell.
