White House Chronicle

News Analysis With a Sense of Humor

Sorry, but There Are Areas Where We Need More Government

by Leave a Comment

 
Who is going to finance advanced drugs? Who is going to guarantee the electric supply in 30 years? Whisper this: It will be the government.
 
In these two areas and others, the risks are now so large that private enterprise — so beloved in so many quarters — can't shoulder the risk alone. When development risks run into the billions of dollars, the market won't sanction private companies taking those risks.
 
Drug companies, among the richest of corporations, are running up against the the realities of risk. To develop a new drug, the pharmaceutical industry — known collectively as Big Pharma — has to commit well over a billion dollars.
 
It is a long and risky road. A need for the drug has to be established; a compound developed, after maybe thousands of failed efforts. Tests have to be conducted on animals, then in controlled human trials. If the drug works, the developers have to get it certified by the Food and Drug Administration. Then they have to market it and buy hugely expensive insurance — if they can get it — because it is almost a rite of passage that they will be sued.
 
Under this regime complex diseases, that may require multiple drugs, get short shrift not because the developers of drugs are greedy, but because they honestly cannot afford that kind of research.
 
The result is that the pharmaceutical companies increasingly look to universities and individual researchers — sometimes in teaching hospitals — to find new therapies; research that is paid for by the government through grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control, even from the Department of Defense. Even so, drug research is lagging and NIH is turning down eight out of 10 grant requests.
 
In electricity supply, too, there is trouble ahead.
 
The electric utilities, since deregulation, have become risk averse. Only two utilities, the Southern Company of Georgia and Scana Corporation of South Carolina are building new base-load nuclear power plants. These may be the last of the large nuclear power plants to be built in the United States. They are both located in states where electric utilities are regulated and where they can anticipate their costs being recovered in the rates, even during construction. The states are taking some of the risk.
 
For the rest of the country, and particularly the Northern and Western states, deregulation has had an unintended result: It has increased the risk of new construction and in so doing has set the utilities down the path of least resistance. They have turned to natural gas and — because of subsidies and tax breaks — to wind power, which has meant more gas power has to be installed to compensate for variance in the wind.
 
Coal is being edged out of the market for environmental reasons. So the electric utility industry is being pushed into a strategic position it has always said it wanted avoid: over-reliance on too few sources of power.
 
A kind of gas euphoria has gripped the nation as supplies from horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have shot up. When the 99 reactors now operating go out of service, as they get to the end of their lives, there will be nothing comparable to replace them.
 
Many companies, some of them small, are working on new reactor designs that would put the United States back into world leadership in nuclear, while answering criticism of the big light water plants of today. Most of them would even burn nuclear waste.
 
In a time of deficits, the government tends, both with new electrical generating systems and in medical research, to scatter money in the hope that this will lead to the huge private commitments that are needed.
 
Sadly, this creates a dynamic in which companies rush in to consume the seed money without being able to bring the product to to fruition. It is a push rather than a pull dynamic.
 
Government works well, even efficiently, when it establishes a pull dynamic, as in the space program and in supercomputers, or most military procurement. The Pentagon does not issue funds for companies to experiment with weapons systems: It commissions them.
 
The government may have to commission new drugs and new power technologies in the high-risk future. — For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The Ties Don’t Bind Anymore

by Leave a Comment

A nationwide alert, no, a worldwide alert, should be issued for the necktie. It is in great danger. It is disappearing. Soon it may be consigned to history, to live on only in old movies, like people smoking and men in hats.
 
I am not sure who signed the death warrant for the necktie, but I have my suspicions. It is a long chain of perfidy.
 
First, there was Hollywood. Actors who appear on TV talk shows – and most actors do more appearing on talk shows than acting, in the hope that this will get them jobs, so they can do more acting than appearing on talk shows – did in the necktie. One cannot calculate what these innocent little strips of cloth did to the Hollywood Hills crowd – but actors will not be caught in a suit and tie unless they are playing someone who wears a suit and tie.
 
Then there is the dotcom crowd; billionaires who declared by their actions that creative people ought to dress as though they worked for a landscaper not the estate owners. Remember Steve Jobs, who starred in many iterations of his own show “Genius in Jeans”?
 
Well Jobs was a genius, but he was also dressed like a slob, flaunting an everyman image when he was anything but. Now every man is going around the way Steve Jobs did, except minus the genius and the billions.
 

No! No! For me the suit and tie is my native habitat. It is where I am secure — as safe as ordering chardonnay.
 
It all began with my first day of school, when I first put on what was to become the suit of my life: shirt, tie, jacket, hat or cap. When I left school, my father bought me a suit, two shirts and four collars (those were the faraway days when shirts had detachable collars) and told me I would be paying rent if I chose to stay at home. Who said the good old days were so good?
 
My first serious sartorial crisis was at a newspaper in London. It was Saturday, and I ventured in in a sports jacket tie and flannels. The news editor (city editor) exploded.
 
“Are you going to a cricket match?” he demanded.
 
“No, sir, I thought it would be all right, as it is Saturday.”
 
“All right? It is not bloody all right! I cannot send you to Buckingham Palace dressed like that.”
 
“You want me to go to Buckingham Palace?”
 
“No! I want you to go home and contemplate a career change.”
 
So I stuck with a suit and tie, but it did not save me awkwardness. At a party in Tel Aviv, given so that I could meet members of the Knesset, I showed up in a summer suit and tie. I was the only man in a suit. The only man with a tie. The only man with a jacket. The odd man out.
 
I trailed around China, as a member of the press corps accompanying President Clinton on his visit. My colleagues joke about my formality of dress, so I took the plunge. When we went to the Great Hall of the People, off Tiananmen Square, to watch Clinton appear with Chinese President Jiang Zemin, I went casual.
 
By some secret telegraph, to which I was not privy, my colleagues dressed up; every man in a jacket and tie except me, looking ridiculous and disrespectful in a golf shirt. That is what happens when you let go of your principles.
 
Sometimes sartorial failure is collective. At a U.S.-Japan conference on the Big Island of Hawaii, the first morning the American delegation, including myself, showed up in island wear. The Japanese delegation wore formal suits. After the refreshment break, the Americans had rushed to their rooms to get into suits and the Japanese to get into island wear.
 
If President Obama were to appear at an international conference without a tie, it would be all over for the necktie; it would move from the endangered species category to the extinct. He would do it in as thoroughly as bareheaded Jack Kennedy did in the gentleman's hat. Are we better off, I ask you? — For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The Shame of Biomedical Research in the U.S.

by 4 Comments

When the dark shadow of incurable disease settles across a life, it is brightened only by the hope that science is on the job: The cavalry will come.
Horribly the cavalry — researchers in the big pharmaceutical companies and the government-run National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control — may not even have mounted.
 
New drug development is a murky business governed by huge risks, inertia, bureaucracy and politics.
 
I've been looking at the role of biomedical research and the development of new therapies and drugs through the lens of one disease, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), also known as Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. But it is symptomatic of the whole struggle for cures, which means funds. It is a peephole into a system in chaos; where good intentions, economic reality, public pressure, politics and bureaucratic apathy play a role in where the research dollars go.
 
I've been writing about CFS for several years now, so I understand the dilemmas those who are in charge of biomedical research in government and private industry face. It is a disease of the the immune system, like AIDS, but it is mostly a medical enigma. It is hard to diagnose because there are no normal markers in blood or urine. It prostrates its victims essentially for life. In its severest form, patients lie in bed in darkened rooms, often feeling that their bones are going to explode. It cries out for more research, as do many other little understood diseases.
 
A very small coterie of physicians — maybe not many more than 50 in the United States — specialize in CFS and have developed private clinics for research into alleviating therapies. None of them are set up to do major drug research in the way that pharmaceutical companies do.
 
Big Pharma — as the drug behemoths are known collectively — is at the heart of new drug development, aided by preceding biomedical research that takes place through government grants to researchers in universities, teaching hospitals and private clinics. It is a complex matrix.
 
A new drug can cost over $1.2 billion to develop. It is a very high-risk undertaking — maybe the riskiest investment decision made in the private sector is developing a new drug. It is also a tortuous undertaking.
 
First a target has to be selected where there is a large enough patient cohort to establish a market. Then the science begins. Diseases that are straightforward, in medical terms, edge out those where the causes may be multiple and the resolution may require a cocktail of drugs. Understandably, a rifle shot is more appealing than a shotgun blast. Eight out of 10 drugs fail and are abandoned at some point. The winners have to pay for the losers.
 
If, after years of research, a compound that may work is discovered, the laborious business of testing it on animals must precede human trials with control groups and years of analysis. Finally the drug must be approved by the Food and Drug Administration which looks for efficacy, safety, risk benefit and manufacturing stability.
 
Into this already difficult world of new drug development, enter the politicians.
 
Some believe private enterprise will shoulder all the risks and is the right place for research. Others don't understand the vital role that government research grants — administered by NIH and CDC — play in the development of biomedical knowledge: the essential precursor to new drugs and therapies. Its funding is on a see-saw; it was down under sequestration and funding is restored but not boosted under the new budget deals. It tops out at $29.9 billion, a decline of 25 percent since 2003, according to The Atlantic magazine.
 
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome — which has 1 million Americans suffering hopelessly every day — gets about $6 million a year from NIH. What's wrong with that largesse? Well, remember, it costs $1.2 billion to develop a new drug once the biomedical case is made. As they say, you do the math – and don't expect the cavalry to ride to the rescue anytime soon.
 
Across the board, researchers are dependent on government funds augmented by foundations and charitable giving. Yet biomedical research pays as a national investment. American drugs are an export commodity, the cost of healthcare is contained and, yes, the suffering is reduced even as life is extended. China, by the way, has said it will surpass the United States in actual biomedical research dollars in five years. — For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate

State of the Union: Inspire Us to Explore, Mr. President

by 2 Comments

On Jan. 28, President Barack Obama will deliver the State of the Union address to both houses of Congress, the Cabinet, the Supreme Court and, via television, the nation and the world.
 
I think I know what he will tell us. I think I know what he will trumpet; the economy, the thaw with Iran, the domestic oil and gas outlook and, of course, the courage of our troops and the resilience of our people.
 
I would rather he told us something quite different.
 
I would rather he told us that we are facing wrenching changes in the way we work and the nature of work. I wish he would tell us that we are in such a high state of computerization that we have to create entirely new concepts of work, and that the new will replace the old.
 
He could use the examples of travel, and even golf. A century ago the travel industry was confined to the very rich. Now it is global and almost everyone travels, and that has created the world's largest industry. Golf was for the few now it is an enormous employer: a mega-industry in its own right.
 
I hope he will tell us that while computers take away, they also give back and whole new areas of activity will emerge. The unemployed and underskilled are, alas, the footsoldiers in this war of change. The president should acknowledge the hurt and seek to ameliorate it.
 
I hope he will tell us that one of our strengths is that we are a people who explore and while we explore, we will open new frontiers with new jobs.
 
I hope he will urge major new funding for the National Institutes of Heath so that it can fund all of the worthwhile biomedical projects seeking funding, instead one out of 10, as at present.
 
I hope that he will ask Congress to open the spigot for biomedical research. It is a great area for American genius to again lead the world in drugs and therapies, bringing down the cost of healthcare. A pill trumps a stay in the hospital.
 
I hope that he will point out that the government does some things well, from inventing the Internet to the technology of modern oil recovery. The research, he could say, would be done in universities and private institutes, but some of the risk would be undertaken by the government. He should tell his audience that although the government has had some big failures, it has also backed some extraordinary winners. Government can work well with industry, as it did with Mitchell Energy & Development Corp., in creating the technologies that have led to the oil and gas boom.
 
He should tell us inspiring stories of the world that is to come; for example, how 3D manufacturing is going to change the way things are made, manufacturing with less waste and more precision.
 
And I hope he will tantalize us with the endless possibility extended by a graphene, new product from graphite. Graphene is the stuff of science fiction, but it is here and now; companies around the world are filing patents in the thousands for applications for its use.
 
Graphene is a two-dimensional material — meaning that it is a single layer of carbon atoms and yet is incredibly strong — and could bring about changes only wizards might have thought possible. Its early applications are going to be in cell phone screens, computer chips and the like. But in time, when manufacturing is perfected, it could replace a slew of big, heavy materials like concrete and steel. Supposing you could wrap a power plant in it? How about a roadbed that would never wear out? Those applications are in the out years, but look for computer and telephone screens that fold like bedsheets in the near future.
 
I wish that the president would give us a glorious transcendental speech that would astound his friends and undercut his enemies; a call to embrace the future as a rich and extraordinary place, more magical than the present — which is not without magic, when you think about it in terms of the human pilgrimage.
 
Lay it on us, Mr. President, the joy of being American and alive in 2014 — in the exploration society. — For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate
 

Denigrating the Unemployed; at Christmas, Yet

by 1 Comment

 
In order to execute an abomination, it helps to create myths about the victims: the Jews aim for world domination, all gypsies are thieves, all blacks abuse government assistance programs.
 
It's a national abomination that 1.3 million Americans lost their extended unemployment benefits over Christmas. Bring forth the myth: Extending benefits only causes the unemployed to prolong their search for work, or not to look for work at all. End the benefits and they'll find work.
 
This suggests that suddenly unemployment will fall nationally from 7 percent to who knows? Myths are great for ratiocination. Want to bet that ending extended unemployment benefits won't move the unemployment number at all?
 
Being unemployed isn't a vacation. It's not a glorious excuse to watch television at home and snigger at working stiffs who get a paycheck, have savings, take vacations, hope for promotions, and whose children will be able to afford to go to college.
 
Unemployment means cold economic fear — fear of not being able to provide for yourself and your loved ones; fear that your marriage will crumble; fear that your children will have the humiliation of not having the clothes, the electronic gadgets, the sports equipment, the vacations, the meals out and the college education, without which one is doomed to second-rateness.
 
What happens when a breadwinner loses a job? Fear for the future becomes a constant companion: it erodes the good times of family life and confiscates future plans. The specter of hunger and homelessness pushes out laughter and dreams. Worry moves in and begins to dominate a household; an unwelcome but palpable presence.
 
People who are sick to their stomachs with economic worry don't laugh much. Joblessness silences the normal joys of life.
 
Unemployment is not something I've read about. As a young man, I suffered its debilitating privations both in London and in New York. I was even evicted from an apartment in New York because I couldn't pay the rent. Where will I go? How will I eat? What will become of me. These survival fears are multiplied a hundredfold when there are dependent children.
 
The jobless, although they may be so through no fault of their own, blame themselves and sink into self-flagellating despair. The desire to work where there is no work is a hunger to belong, a hunger to be useful, a hunger to provide for loved ones, and a hunger for the simple dignity of going to work.
 
Going to work is a beautiful thing. Not going to work is an ugly thing – ugly in all the horrors that can descend on a person or a family.
 
Unemployment insurance is not the solution, but it's a help; it's not a substitution, just a help – a desperately important shelter in a storm. It's not, as one conservative commentator suggested, about paying people not to work. It's about paying people to live, until they find work in an economy that is changing the very nature of work.
 
In his masterpiece “The Sun Also Rises,” Ernest Hemingway wrote:
 
“How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked.

“Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually, then suddenly.”
 
If Congress follows Senate Majority leader Harry Reid's plan to pass a three-month unemployment benefits extension when it reconvenes on January 6, then a ghastly Christmas nightmare will be somewhat alleviated for 1.3 million Americans, who gradually or suddenly fell out of work – and some into bankruptcy – and will still have to pound the pavements, looking for those elusive jobs that will bring hope and dignity back into their shattered lives.
 
No unemployment checks for our fellow Americans is an abomination, originating with congressional indifference, buttressed by conservative mythology. — For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate

The Shadow of 1914

by Leave a Comment

The new year is beginning with the shadow of an old year flitting around the retina of our consciousness. That year is 1914; the year that Europe was convulsed in the world's worst war – 9 million dead.
 
It was also the war from which the world never fully recovered. In its destruction of the old order in Europe, World War I laid the blueprint for the rest of the century; its emancipations and its enslavements, its triumphs and its horrors.

The century following World War I has been a century in which blood and ideas have flowed freely. As a consequence of the war and the Treaty of Versailles which ended it:

1. The Russian Revolution ushered in communism, and later the Cold War.

2. Britain and France carved up the Middle East with boundaries that created new countries, such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia, without regard to the promises that had been made to the Arabs during the war or regard for their sensibilities.

3. The Ottoman Empire fell, making way for modern Turkey.

4. The Austro-Hungarian Empire fell, changing the face of central and eastern Europe.

5. Monarchical rule ended in Europe.

6. Germany was so emasculated by the peace that the ascent of Adolf Hitler was possible.

7. Mechanized war was perfected with industrialized killing by gun, bomb and, for the first time, aircraft was unleashed.

8. The combatants lost the cream of their crop of young men, many of who would have risen to affect the 20th century after the war. The consequences of the loss of a generation of a young men can be speculated upon, but not calculated.

9. The stage was set for the United States — which played a decisive role in the war from the spring of 1917 on, but was not as deeply affected as the European powers — to become the dominant nation in the later part of the 20th century and to this day.

10. The social order throughout Europe began to liberalize. Its feudal underpinnings would remain until World War II, but there was a loosening of the old bonds of class across Europe.

11.  Women were beginning to share their gifts with society.

12. African colonies were taken from Germany and handed to Britain for a kind of safe-keeping, but not for the imperial expansion that Britain had been enjoying for two centuries. Britain, France, Portugal and Holland remained the colonial powers — Britain's possessions were many times greater than the rest put together.

13. Fury at the colonial system was building, especially against British control of what are now India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. The beginning of the end of the colonial concept had begun, but it had many hurdles and another world war to go before it all ended in an avalanche of independencies.

 
World War I began with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne and his wife, Sophie, in Sarajevo. The Balkans were the tinder for the war, but the fuel was everywhere: it was the growth in nationalism and its arrogance; a lack of enough understanding of what a modern war would look like; militarism in many countries, and especially in Germany, where the high command found a fatal friend in Kaiser Wilhem II.
 
As tensions in Europe escalated, the players scrambled for allies and these alliances led to the broader war. For example, the German High Command did not think that Britain would join the war, despite Britain's commitments to France and Russia: It thought Britain could and would remain neutral.
 
The great myth of the time was that the European powers were so intertwined in their trading relationships that war would cost too much and so peace was secure. Yet all the ingredients of combustion were present in 1914, and they were abetted by a lack of great leaders in all the countries that would fling themselves at each other.
 
It was a time of crushing mediocrity in European governance. That may have been the real cause of the world's greatest, most terrible miscalculation, 100 years ago: a leadership vacuum. Beware. Happy New Year. –For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate


 

Christmas Is Winning the ‘War’

by Leave a Comment

The sinister forces that are supposed to be vanquishing Christmas, in what is called the “War on Christmas,” are in retreat. In fact, they are celebrating it.

Across secular Europe the creches are on display and decorations adorn street lamps. In most towns and villages, the central square is transformed into a Christmas market with a skating rink and stalls selling good things to eat and, even better, to drink. A million amplifiers blast carols in many languages. More traditional carolers go door to door.

Across the United States Christmas fever has been building, like the strains of Maurice Ravel's “Bolero,” since Thanksgiving. It is humanity's greatest festival; a wonderful collective indulgence, a surrender simultaneously to our profound and trivial selves.

The “War on Christmas” is an argument advanced by commentators on Fox Cable News that centers on skirmishes over the First Amendment. Fox actually publishes on the Internet a map of sites where it believes the forces opposed to Christmas are in hand-to-hand combat with the defenders of the Baby Jesus. Really!

The crux of the argument from the “war” people is that Christmas is a religious celebration that has been taken over by the ungodly. In fact, historically, it is an ungodly festival that was taken over by Christianity. It was a pagan festival that became a Christian festival and adjusted to the lands where it spread—and to the religious intensity of the time.

There is no mention of snow in the Bible; but thanks to Northern and Eastern Europeans, snow is part of Christmas. In hot Africa and India, shop windows are decorated with cotton wool and children sing “Good King Wenceslas” with the acceptance that snow is part of their Christmas, too. Yes, people who have never seen snow can dream of a white Christmas. That is just part of the great cultural snowball that is Christmas.

There is a silliness attending those who persist in believing that forces of atheism, secularism, and all the other religions, especially Islam, are out to rip the religious soul out of Christmas. Not quite. In Islam, Jesus is a prophet and a messiah and to be a believer, you must accept him. Others love the story of the nativity without accepting it as a threat to their beliefs.

One of the joys of Christmas is that it is such a wondrous bundle of beliefs, cultural agglomerations and ethnic inclusions that to strip out any of them is to do violence to the best time of year all over the world. Charles Dickens' masterpiece “A Christmas Carol” may embody the Christian spirit, but it features ghosts; Father Christmas comes from a union of German and Nordic mythology with the first Christian saint, Nicholas, who was known for his gifts to the poor. The old man who lives at the North Pole is now a global figure – incidentally, Megan Kelly — of many ethnicities. There is an Indian version, a Turkish version and a Brazilian version of him. I doubt any of these three is thought of as Caucasian.

Christmas is a festival of many splendors: decorations, from Russian icons to tinsel made in China; flora, from fir trees and mistletoe to ferns, in tropical climes; food, from German stollen to Mexican bacalao; music, from Bach to Broadway.

Much of the argument nowadays is about Christmas greetings, “Merry Christmas” versus “Happy Holidays.” My father, who read the King James Bible every day, had never read the U.S. Constitution, never heard of the separation of church and state, and who lived all his life in British Africa, used to say, “Season's Greetings” or “Compliments of the Season.” His argument was that “not everyone is a Christian, but everyone has Christmas." Quite so. Merry Christmas. — For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate

 

 

 

 

 

The Mandela Doctrine and McCain’s Heresy

by 1 Comment

What does one do about John McCain? Why can he not play the senior statesman? He is a veteran who has endured more than anyone should endure during his imprisonment in North Vietnam. He is a Churchill scholar. He has been a distinguished senator, a worthy presidential aspirant and a powerful voice for many causes.
 
But he cannot help himself: the ill-considered statement is his trademark. Without knowing anything about the situation on the ground in Syria, McCain was foursquare for American intervention. Now he said President Obama shaking hands with Cuban President Raul Castro was akin to Neville Chamberlain's shaking hands with Adolf Hitler.
 
McCain knows much more about the events of 1938 than this cheap shot suggests – I have heard him hold forth in front of the Churchill Society on the unfolding of the Third Reich's European strategy. So he knows better than to compare Obama's handshake with Castro to Chamberlain's grasp of Hitler's contaminated paw.
 
It is little understood these days in the United States how few were Chamberlain options, and how he owed it to the British people to forestall war until they were somewhat more ready to fight it. That is why Churchill joined the cabinet — and why, at the time, he accepted Chamberlain's action.
 
But that is not the point. In his way, McCain's remark trashes the Mandela doctrine, laid out in “Long Walk to Freedom,” Mandela's 1995 autobiography: “If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.”
 
Mandela's stature grew as his personal serenity and sense of high moral purpose began to be known not only outside Robben Island, but also inside the prison as he began to affect his jailers.
 
Mandela was schooled by the Methodist missionaries, who educated him to persevere and to seek peace; to turn the other cheek. This was one part of his inner strength. The other came from his birth as a nobleman of his tribe; someone in line to be its king if the wider struggle had not been paramount.
 
From Mahatma Gandhi, who had led a civil rights campaign for Indians in South Africa in the first decade of the 20th century, from the missionaries and from his birth, Mandela knew who he was. He also had a selflessness. He could have been released from prison a decade earlier, if he had been prepared to renounce violence. He was not.
 
Unlike Gandhi, Mandela thought violence was a necessary tool in the struggle. Many otherwise good white South Africans thought he should have been put to death – much in the same way we feel about terrorists today.
 
Yet when apartheid fell, not least thanks to Mandela's great partner in the making of the new South Africa, former President F.W. de Klerk, Mandela insisted on peace and reconciliation, saving a troubled, beautiful land from more bloodshed.
 
Mandela shook the hands of his enemies; those who had imprisoned him for 27 long years. He shook their hands just as McCain had gone back to Vietnam and shook hands there.
 
In that atmosphere of celebrating the life a man who had the genius to shake the hands of those who wanted him dead, and then to have reconciled with them, it would have been a travesty of Mandela's legacy for Obama not to have shaken the bloodstained hand of Castro. That is what Mandela would have wanted and would have done himself.
 
It is probably what McCain would have done, too, had he won the presidency. — For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate

David and Goliath, or, the Sick and the Bureaucracy

by 10 Comments

Malcolm Gladwell, the New Yorker writer, has grown rich with a series of books exploring the sociological dimensions of success and failure. In his latest, “David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits and the Art of Battling Giants,” Gladwell celebrates the many Davids who triumphed over the odds because they were nimble and resourceful.
 
If he wants to observe a classic David-versus-Goliath rumble, Gladwell might want to go to Washington on Tuesday (Dec. 10). He will see a frail woman go up against the federal government with a humble petition and a small following of mostly very sick people.
 
Her name is Susan Kreutzer and she suffers from the debilitating and mysterious disease Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), also known as Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, which is the name patients favor.
 
Kreutzer and others will begin their demonstration at 9a.m. outside the headquarters of the Department of Health and Human Services on Independence Avenue, where she will hand over a petition. Then she will move up the street to Capitol Hill to demonstrate and hand-deliver petitions to members of Congress. She will end her day of petitioning her government outside the White House.
 
Kreutzer has no idea how many, if any, demonstrators will join her, but she assures me she has the required permits to demonstrate. Another time, only six demonstrators turned out,, but they unfurled a huge banner and stood on he street telling the oft-ignored story of their suffering to anyone who would listen.
 
Telling your story in Washington without a big-bucks lobbying firm or celebrity friends is not an easy assignment. Not only is there the high chance of being ignored but there is also the chance of being discounted as one of the apocalyptic “end of days” proselytizers, or those who believe the CIA has it in for them and who habitually assemble at the White House and elsewhere. In other words, it is easy to be dismissed as a “crazy.”
 
But Kreutzer, who will have a warm-up demonstration on Dec. 9 in San Francisco at the HHS offices there, believes in the strength of small voices, of a murmur in the cacophony of Washington petitioning. “I feel I have to do this,” she said.
 
This year, the victims of CFS are particularly upset with HHS and its dependent agency the National Institutes of Health. They are fuming at the decision of NIH to seek a new clinical definition of their disease, supplanting the Canadian Consensus Criteria, which has been the diagnostic gold standard for researchers who are deeply committed to finding a cure for a disease that affects as many as 1 million Americans and another 17 million people worldwide.
 
It is a disease that simply confiscates normal life and substitutes an existence in purgatory, where victims can be confined for decades until death. Sometimes they will be so sick they must lie in darkened rooms for months or years; sometimes they can function for a few hours a day, usually followed by collapse. Dysphasia — word confusion — increases. Lovers leave, spouses despair and the well of family compassion runs dry.
 
The first and major complaint of all those in researching the disease and those suffering from it is that NIH spends a trifling $6 million on this circle of hell that could have been invented by Dante.
 
The second and immediate source of anger laced with despair is that NIH has, apparently arbitrarily, decided to have the clinical definition of the disease reclassified by the Institute of Medicine and has diverted a precious $1 million to this purpose. Thirty-six leading researchers and physicians from the United States, risking retribution in funding, protested the move but were ignored. They were joined by colleagues from abroad, bringing the blue-ribbon protesters to 50.
 
Still nobody knows why the move to reclassify the disease. One school of thought is that NIH would like to abandon the current and well-accepted diagnostic criteria, known as the Canadian Consensus Criteria, in order to treat the disease as more of a mental one rather than a physical one.
 
I approached HHS for a comment and for a word with Dr. Howard Koh, the assistant secretary in charge, but have received no response.
 
Will this David, Susan Kreutzer, fell this Goliath, HHS? — For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate
 

Europe and Its Slippery Energy Slope

by 2 Comments

BRATISLAVA, Slovakia — Europe, at present the world's largest market and largest economic bloc, is decline and living standards are in danger. That was the sober message at an energy conference here, delivered by a battery of speakers from across eastern Europe.
 
The narrative is that energy is what is dragging Europe down – not low birthrates and pervasive social-safety networks, but increasing dependence on expensive energy imports and hopelessly tangled markets.
 
Although delegates gathered to discuss the particular problems of eastern Europe, many had comments about the energy dependence across Europe; its labyrinthine regulations in nearly all 28 countries, its inability to form capital for large projects like nuclear, and governments intruding into the market.
 
The result is a patchwork of contradictions, counterproductive regulations, political fiats and multiple objectives that leave Europeans paying more for energy than they need to and failing to develop indigenous sources, such as their own shale gas deposits in Ukraine and Poland. It also leaves countries dependent on capricious and expensive gas from Russia, unsure of whether they can build needed electric generating plant in the future and poorly interconnected, sometimes by both gas pipelines and electric lines.
 
Good intentions have also had their impact. The European Commission has pushed renewable energy and subsidized these at the cost of others. The result is imperfect markets and, more important, imperfectly engineered systems.
 
Germany and other countries are dealing with what is called “loop flow” – when the renewables aren't performing, either because the wind has dropped or the sun has set, fossil fuels plant has to be activated. This means that renewable systems are often shadowed by old-fashioned gas and coal generation that has to be built, but which isn't counted toward the cost of the renewable generation.
 
With increasing use of wind, which is the most advanced renewable, the problem of loop flow is increased, pushing up the price of electricity. Germany is badly affected and the problem is getting worse because it heavily committed to wind after abandoning nuclear, following the Fukusima-Daiichi accident in Japan.
 
Frank Umbach, associate director of the European Center for Energy and Resource Security at King's College, London, said energy costs in Germany are now driving manufacturing out of the country and to the United States.
 
Umbach said that as Britain de-industrialized 15 years ago, Germany was beginning to go the same way. He said Britain had been able to sustain itself through financial services and other service sector jobs, but that was not a prospect for Germany, the industrial mainstay of the European Union. Now Britain, with its new nuclear policy, is trying to re-industrialize, he said.
 
Umbach urged that Europe get serious about shale gas and even burning coal. His argument was that there are environment safeguards available and that more are being developed, such as the new less environmentally assaulting techniques in hydraulic fracturing (fracking) used to extract tightly bound natural gas from shale formations.
 
Several speakers said the region has to face the reality that it is no longer able to generate the capital it needs for liquefied natural gas terminals, nuclear power plants and unconventional gas recovery in Ukraine, Poland and in the Black Sea offshore Romania and Bulgaria.
 
Many countries, particularly in eastern Europe, still balk at foreign ownership of their energy infrastructure and have actively driven away investment. Poland, for example, has frightened off shale gas developers from the United States by insisting that as the resource is developed, 50 percent of the developing company must be ceded to the state. The companies left.
 
In other places, the Czech Republic, for example, landowners have no claim to the resource under their land; that remains the property of the government and, therefore, they are hostile to any development on their property, whether it is for oil, gas or minerals.
The United Kingdom, by contrast, declared a spokesman for its energy ministry, Hergen Haye, is open for business. That means if the Americans, the Chinese of the Middle Easterners want to “buy into” Britain's new nuclear undertaking, “they are welcome.”
 
Europe's sad energy situation was summed up by Iana Dreyer of the EU Institute for Security Studies. She said Europe is still the largest trading bloc in the world, the largest economic machine and the largest market, but that it is slipping. By 2030, she calculated, Europe will have slipped to No. 3, behind the China and the United States, unless it can untangle its energy Gordian knot.
 
Europeans here cite the United States as the way to go in energy. It makes a body feel good. — For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate