Cuban Government Needs to Unleash the Creativity and Enteprise of Its People

When I studied economics, a Professor pointed out that the nature of an economic system didn't necessarily determine whether it was a democracy. Think of Sweden, for example, socialist but also democratic with the kinds of freedoms we think of as American.

Fearful of a slide back to the bad old days of domination by the U.S., the Mafia and corrupt banks, the government of Cuba today is still locked into a system that not only forbids basic freedoms but also stifles the enterprise and creativity of the Cuban people.

We saw today an example of both when we visited an art project housed in a former derelict water tank. It had been filled with garbage, a vestige of the days when railroad locomotives used steam and needed water. Fourteen years after the first artist decided to use the space to revitalize a neighborhood and create a space for artists, the Muraliento Community Project is full of young people making crafts, painting, sculpting, making music and dancing. All done without any financial support of the government, just sweat equity and donations.

The restrictions on private enterprise and bans on foreign investment show throughout Havana: crumbling building facades, streets empty of traffic since people can't afford cars, people commuting on foot to work for miles every day because other transportation is so unreliable and scarce. Elevators in many places have human operators, and the insides of the cars have been polished down to the bare metal. Here at the high-end Hotel Nacional, the elevator floor indicators have given up, pointing perpetually, dispiritedly, down at the floor or stuck on a floor number.  Our room is spacious, but the tub enamel is peeling and the fixtures need repair. Housing is in short supply. The government after Castro's revolution invested in schools and hospitals, with great results, but there was nothing left to build or renovate housing, so 10 families live in buildings designed for one.

Some of the grandest homes are in the possession of people who used to be a servants to people who left after Fidel deposed Batista, expecting to return.  Our guide, Carina, told us about a relative who pays only 20 pesos a month for the privilege of living in and actually owning such a house. The owners told their servants to stay put, with this unexpected result.

The hardest time for the people of Cuba came in the 90s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which had been Cuba's principal supporter. Cubans call it "the special time," a euphemism for several years when food was very scarce and everyone struggled. They dealt with it through ingenuity and recycling, and learning, for example, to grow food organically instead of with chemical fertilizers.

Today, thanks in large part to tourism, things are better.  And all the people we've met have been cheerful, unfailingly polite and friendly, and bursting with energy. If you don't dance here, there is something wrong with you. But these people deserve better.

There's certainly no question that our continued embargo hurts, but much of Cuba's troubles now stem from the frozen policies of a government still very fearful of change.

Cuba Still Paying for Throwing Out the Mafia, CIA and Corrupt Banks

We're staying in the Hotel Nacional, a favorite of Mafia financier Meyer Lansky. With the support of the CIA and the money laundering services of American banks, they had turned Havana into a sewer of gambling, prostitution and drugs. Meanwhile the Cuban people were poor and illiterate.

Today, as we walked the squares of Old Havana, we saw the faded glory of monumental buildings like this Hotel, stuck in a time warp since we Americans instituted the embargo after Castro's revolution.   The people of Cuba, meanwhile,  are literate and healthy, yet unable to afford--or even have the chance to buy, as private enterprise is still so limited--not just new cars but even toiletries and household goods so universal and cheap for us. They've made lemonade out of lemons, repairing old Chevy's, Buicks and Fords, painting them Pepto Bismol pink, lime green and sky blue, and driving tourists around who are old enough, like us, to remember actually owning such cars.

It's odd being in a country devoid of almost everything commercial. There are no billboards advertising products, only ones that preach propaganda. One I saw compares the continuing embargo to genocide.

An overstatement, for sure, but close enough to the truth to be uncomfortable.

As our photographer-guide, Joel, told us, "Sometimes we don't have all we need, but we are happy people."

Sure, thousands of Cubans have left here, risking their lives at sea, for the freedom of speech and press and assembly that we have, and the opportunities of our free-market economy.

But it is inexcusable that we continue the embargo while we support repressive other dictators all over the world.

Surely it is time to admit the CIA was defeated by a college educated guerrilla named Fidel. As Trump supporters have become fond of saying recently, to those of us horrified by his election, can't we just get over it and allow the Cubans to prosper?

Off to Cuba with Road Scholar on Friday

After many years of wanting to visit Cuba, Harry and I are finally going this Friday, leaving on a direct flight from Miami. That's a new convenience, but the old U.S. State Department rules still apply, so we will be following a program of people-to-people cultural exchange with the tour group, Road Scholar.

The emphasis for this trip is photography, so Harry is in for a treat. He will be getting tips from Cyrus McCrimmon, a Pulitzer Prize winning photographer.

I hope to blog about everything while Harry takes the pictures.

Not expecting luxury there, but do hope for lots of wonderful music and art and color.

Hope you'll tune in to see if my expectations are realized.

Tactics Against Planned Parenthood Not “Citizen Journalism”

-->

The perpetrators of what we now know was an illegal attempt to smear Planned Parenthood defend their behavior as “citizen journalism.”

It’s not. Trying to lure a hated target into an illegal act and depicting it in the worst light possible is not any kind of journalism. These are the tactics of  self-appointed moral/religious police on the right who are much more dangerous to American liberty than the supposed threat of Islamic Sharia Law. The now-indicted DavidDaleiden from the so-called “Center for Medical Progress” should not be allowed to get away with defending himself as some sort of journalist.

I was the sort of journalist at The New York Times and Newsday who did investigations of many subjects—dating services, transmission repair shops, pyramid schemes, pool and fence retailers, auto industry warranty practices, pricing by the oil and insurance industries, to name some. But in most cases it was readers who complained that set me off in pursuit, not my own burning desire to expose a hated target.  Sometimes I did literally put myself in the place of a customer, sitting in the audience to hear the revivalist-quality sales presentation of a pyramid scheme, for example. I used my real name but declined to say I was a reporter. At the New York Times, we had an expert set up a car with a simple transmission problem and took it to several shops to see whether they would give us an honest diagnosis and price. Before any of these stories were published, the subjects were given the opportunity to correct any errors I might have made, and to explain their actions. That is how good journalists work.

In contrast, Daleiden posed as a representative of a biotechnology company and tried to buy human organs from Planned Parenthood. Such a sale would have been illegal; Planned Parenthood never even responded to that effort. He apparently falsified his California driver’s license so he could assume a different identity, an act for which he has now been indicted on felony charges.

If there’s any comparison to make, it’s with law enforcement sting operations. So Delaiden is a sort of citizen police, but in his case he’s not trying to help enforce existing laws. No, he’s out to enforce his religious beliefs about abortion despite Supreme Court decisions, the desires of the American public or the needs of women.

The irony, of course, is that some of the people in the anti-abortion camp are also among those ranting about the threat of Islamic Sharialaw being imposed in the U.S. Amazing how easy it is to justify the exact behavior we abhor. ##

Verizon Killing Phone Network Critical to Public Safety

-->

            I find myself in familiar terrain.  One of the first stories I wrote for Newsday when I became that newspaper’s first consumer reporter was about AT&T.  At the time, if you wanted a phone, the only game in the country was Ma Bell. Upstarts were daring to attach what Ma called “foreign” equipment to “their” telephone network.

            AT&T fought back, but lost, and my future husband ran a very successful business providing customers with less expensive, better-made phone equipment with capabilities that they really wanted. And the AT&T monopoly ended.

            Today, my husband is retired but here I am fighting with one of AT&T’s monopolistic Baby Bells, Verizon, over what we thought was a simple problem: a hum so loud on the copper phone line we’ve had for decades that we couldn’t hear the caller.

            But let me tell you the end of this story right away: Verizon is in the process of dismantling the copper system, the plain old telephone service (POTS)  that in emergencies is the most reliable communications network yet invented. This network works when the power goes out, not just for hours, but days and weeks. The consumer need have no special equipment, need not plan ahead so they’ll be able to call 911 or reach out to a relative or friend.

Another critical benefit of the copper system is that emergency responders know immediately the address of a caller to 911. How fiber optic service will work in such emergencies is still an open question. Furthermore, most medical alert systems and alarm systems use the copper network.

Yet, Verizon insists that a fiber optic telephone line is an upgrade over the copper service, an argument bought by the New York State Public Service Commission.

But consider this:

·      With only fiber optic and cell service you and I will have to plan ahead to be able to communicate in an emergency and will have to spend money to do so. In contrast the copper system has been bought and paid for and requires no individual action to make it work in emergencies.

·      Fiber optic lines must have electricity on the customer’s premises to work. If you buy the battery back-up sold by Verizon, that line will work for only 8 hours. 

·      Cell service does not work everywhere. In my home in Huntington, we have to have a booster to get service. The booster needs electricity.

·      In a major emergency, like 9/11, cell phone towers have been overwhelmed with calls. And, your cell phone is not registered to a particular physical address that emergency responders can see.

·      Your cell phone has to be kep charged. In an extended outage, what if your street is blocked by downed trees and you can’t get to some community center to plug in?

·      If you have a car, and have bought a car charger (you’ll spend $7 or so for one that plugs into your cigarette lighter), you could charge your cell phone that way. But what about people who don’t have a car?

Yes, these are worst case scenarios, but isn't planning for the worst what must be done?

The point is that Verizon is pushing responsibility for emergency communications on to each of us instead of maintaining a regulated system that provides protection to us without our having to think about it.

All of this is why we had kept our original copper line, with the phone # everyone knew for us, secure in the knowledge that it would work after a hurricane hit and we lost electricity for a week and more, which has happened several times.

POTS service works because copper wire conducts electricity and every customer is connected by a loop to and from the phone company’s central office. When the power goes off, batteries at the central office send power down the line when, and only when, you lift the receiver to make a call.

So we called for service on our POTS line, and got a surprise.

“Can’t fix it,” said the technician. “We need to switch you to a FIOS line.”

Say what? It didn’t take long for me to learn that this was a case not of “can’t”  but “won’t.”

Eliminating the copper system is Verizon’s plan, without regard to the fact that it is a crucial part of the telecommunications emergency infrastructure. People who live on Fire Island got a taste of this after Hurricane Sandy when Verizon announced it would not rewire the copper, but instead install Voice Link, a type of wireless network. Public protest stopped that, but Fire Island is now dependent on fiber optics.

The fact is that Verizon has unilaterally decided that its bottom line is more important than public safety or public choice.

In 2012, Verizon’s Chief Financial officer, Fran Shammo, told the Oppenheimer Holdings Technology, Internet, and Communications Conference that “we are really proactively going after these copper customers in the FiOS footprint and moving them to FiOS. So if you are a voice copper customer and you call in that (sic) says you are having trouble on your line, when we go out to repair that we are actually moving you to the FiOS product. We are not repairing the copper anymore.”

To add insult to injury, money that customers are paying for copper service, and on which Verizon is earning a tidy profit,  is instead being used to build out Verizon’s more profitable fiber and wireless networks. According to a very recent letter from the Communications Workers of America (CWA) to regulators where Verizon operates, “Verizon spends less than one percent of the rate it charges for basic (copper line) phone service and less than half a percent of the rate it charges for a voice/DSL bundled service (also dependent on copper lines) on the upkeep if its copper network.”

The CWA further estimates that Verizon is spending a measly $3.50/year on maintenance for each copper line, and that covers “poles, cables, wire, pedestals, terminals, batteries and other plant and equipment needed to build, maintain, repair and service its copper network.”

A lot of people have eliminated their old copper phone service in favor of cell phones and fiber optics without realizing their vulnerability.  This is particularly true of poor people and Hispanics. 
But the 8 million people the CWA estimates who still use Verizon's copper service rely on it for medical alert systems, alarm systems, fax machines, card readers, etc. 

State regulations require Verizon to make its copper system compatible with all those uses.
No such rules exist for fiber optic lines, so lack of regulation is another powerful incentive for Verizon to eliminate POTS lines. Entities like New York’s Public Service Commission regulate the prices and terms of copper service, but not FIOS or wireless.

 “Verizon's efforts to force people off copper in my area of Rhode Island rise to the level of harassment,” Verizon customer Karen Anne Kolling of North Kingstown, RhodeIsland told Ars Technica, an online publication for technologists and IT professionals. 

Kolling’s story is nearly identical to ones told by Verizon customers from the East Coast to California, where the Utility Reform Network asked regulators last year to take emergency action to stop Verizon from forcing customers off copper service. Besides the ones who spoke with Ars, others have registered their frustrations in official government proceedings. In May, Public Knowledge and 11 other public interest groups asked the FCC to investigate these complaints and consider enforcement actions. 

The FCC hasn't taken any action in response, even though it appears that when customers are forced off copper lines and on to fiber optics, they pay new connection fees even though they are being strong-armed to make the change.  Complaints to the Illinois Attorney General include reports of customers being told they could not order standalone basic phone service but had to bundle it with another service, like cable TV. 

AT&T’s monopoly is gone, but its spawn is still displaying the same, tyrannical behavior May Bell was noted for.

In our case, despite a complaint to the NY State Public Service Commission and other efforts, we were forced to give up our copper phone line. Now we are left to rely on the FIOS phone line installed as part of our TV/Internet package, and our cell phones. We've installed two batteries that will keep us in communication with the world for less than a day, or as long as we can keep our cell phones charged by our cars. 

If the worst case scenario befalls us, and one of us needs to call 911,  after an extended outage, we'll simply be out of luck.

Before Verizon gets any further with its destruction of the copper line system and putting the public in jeopardy, regulators and our elected officials should hold public hearings so everyone understands what is happening. At the very least, Verizon should be forced to keep up copper service in areas where cell phone coverage is poor or non-existent. ## 

Drone Pilots Burn Out From the Horrors of Being Remote Control Assassins

Two stories in the New York Times yesterday made me furious: One about the Air Force   cutting the number of drone flights per day because they can’t replace the burned out pilots fast enough; and the other about how the U.S. is going to lose leverage and influence in the Far East if Congress doesn’t give Obama authority to fast track the Trans Pacific Trade Agreement.

            What the stories have in common is our continuing delusion as a country that we can forever be, and should be, the most powerful country in the world. Our dominance must be total not only militarily but also economically—we must control the world banking system and the global market.  This paradigm ensures that we will never have peace.  So much profit is involved in making perpetual war, and those profiteers in the energy and defense industries have Congress in their grip. Meanwhile people in other nations that want a bigger piece of the economic pie--who'd just like a roof over their heads, not a McMansion--continue to struggle against our domination.

Caught in the middle are the patriotic Americans who go to work every day as remote control assassins. Since last August, they have “flown” 3,300 drone sorties and launched 875 missile and bomb strikes just in Iraq against the Islamic State. This doesn’t count the strikes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. By engaging in a remote control war, our political leaders prevent Americans from feeling the impact of these killings and the cost to us.

What are we doing to these drone pilots? Aren’t we sentencing them to a life of anguish and guilt? Who could get up every morning and know that each day you will probably be killing people and not have that sear your soul, break your heart, destroy your compassion as a human being? They know that the missiles and bombs they launch kill not only "terrorists" but also innocent children, women and men.

Our fight against terrorism and terrorists is inextricably linked to the demand that we continue to control the world economy. The Times story about the Pacific trade agreement whined on and on about how defeat of the agreement might weaken our claim to leadership in Asia, as if that were the only option that protects our interests. But what interests are we protecting? Left out of the story were the downsides of the deal as best we know them, given that the details of the deal are still a highly guarded secret. But from the reactions of Senators like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who have read the text in a guarded room in which they are not even allowed to take notes, there is danger to workers’ rights and the environment. I trust them on this one, and not Obama. 

Can't we grow up and learn to share our prosperity? Can't we develop a vision of a peaceful world? I can hear the objections, that Russia and China and Iran and Syria and ISIS and Al Qaeda want to kill us. But where does it end? Who, better than we to seek a different way?

Roundup “Probable Cause of Cancer;” Science Dispute Similar to Talc Findings

-->

Officials at the International Agency for Research on Cancer just concluded that Roundup, the most widely used herbicide in the world, “probably” causes cancer. But way back in 1991, the Environmental Protection Agency dismissed studies leading to that conclusion.

Monsanto, the chemical behemoth whose smart marketers came up with such a cute name for poison, responded angrily to the conclusion of the international group which consists of 17 reviewers from around the world. The company said the reviewers were “cherry picking” the data to support their case.

The current situation with talc echoes the opposing views on Roundup. While the FDA has denied petitions to warn women that talc use may increase the risk of ovarian cancer, the international agency concluded in 2007 that talc is “possibly” carcinogenic, a lower level of concern than “probably.”

The international agency also did something in regard to Roundup that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration failed to do with talc: They looked at the raw data of a study of glyphosate (the chemical name for Roundup) and interpreted its results themselves. This lead to a finding of evidence of causing cancer, while the original authors of the study found the opposite.

One of the studies on which the FDA relied in rejecting the labeling petitions was done in 2003 by supposedly impartial researchers from a consulting company, Meta-Analysis Research Group. This group analyzed the results of 16 earlier studies.

The study first concludes that talc is responsible for a 33% increased risk of ovarian cancer for women who uses talc, and then in the next breath, dismisses the finding as caused by “selection bias and/or uncontrolled confounding.”

The FDA quoted these words exactly in its response to the petitions for warning labels.

The lead author of that study was Michael Huncharek, the scientific director of Meta-Analysis Research Group. This firm’s website  boasts of a client list including, yes, the baby-powder maker Johnson & Johnson.  Meta-Analysis's list of accomplishments hints at more, saying it:

Provided litigation support to a major environmental law firm representing a consumer products company centering on alleged health risks associated with the use of consumer grade talc…and

Successfully represented a major consumer products company before the US FDA in response to a Citizens Petition seeking a cancer warning label on their personal hygiene products.

So it seems we have Dr. Huncharek, to thank for helping to persuade the FDA that no warnings are needed. He is a practicing radiation oncologist, a doctor who administers radiation to cancer victims.

Huncharek’s firm did not respond to an email asking if Johnson & Johnson had paid for the talc study.

So how valid are the conclusions he reached after his analysis?  Dr. Daniel Cramer, the researcher who has been studying the link between ovarian cancer and talc for decades, said Huncharek’s group “always concluded the way the sponsor wanted.”

This dispute might have been aired if the FDA had agreed to a hearing on the risks of talc. But when it denied the petition for labeling, it also denied the need for a hearing.

So what’s next? Time, I think, for women to make themselves heard directly. On-line petition anyone?