By Stephen Lendman

Canada is more colony than sovereign state. Canadians perhaps wonder when it’ll grow up, act like an adult, and regain its rightful independence.  They’re also worried about a country junior partnering with imperial America, Israel, and other rogue NATO allies.

A previous article said the following:

On September 7, Foreign Minister John Baird said Canada closed its Tehran embassy. It expelled Iranian diplomats in Ottawa. They have five days to leave. He claimed a nonexistent Iranian threat. He took a page from AIPAC’s playbook. He bogusly called Tehran the gravest threat to global security.

He accused Iran of “providing increasing military assistance to the Assad regime.” He ignored Washington’s war Syria. He said nothing about Canada’s role.

He didn’t explain how America, rogue NATO partners, and regional allies recruit, arm, fund, train, and direct ravaging death squads. He was silent on what matters most.

He recited a litany of lies about Iran. He unconscionably pointed fingers the wrong way. Canada is a committed imperial partner. It’s one of 28 NATO countries. It supports the worst of Israel’s crimes.

It’s on the same slippery slope as America. It’s fast-tracking toward fascism. Sleeping with the devil rubs off.

Unless stopped, it’s just a matter of time before Canada crosses a rubicon of no return. It’s perilously close to full-blown imperial/ neoliberal/police state dark age harshness.

In her book “Holding the Bully’s Coat: Canada and the US Empire,” Linda McQuaig discussed Canada’s sacrificial subservience. It abandoned its traditions. It sold its soul to Washington. It became submissive junior partner.

Conservative and Liberal parties allied with America’s “war on terrorism.” They stopped short of participating in its Iraq “coalition of the willing.” They willingly marched in lockstep with its illegal Afghan war of aggression and occupation.

In February 2004, they partnered with America and France against Haiti’s Jean-Bertrand Aristide. They ousted a democratically elected leader. They crushed his popular movement. They ended his progressive reforms. They installed fascist harshness. They had unchallenged pillaging in mind.

Canada today operates as an appendage of imperial America. It abandoned its traditional commitment to equality, inclusiveness, and rule of law inviolability.

It’s plagued by a militaristic/imperial/neoliberal culture. It’s no longer a fair arbiter and promoter of just causes. The conservative Harper government is fast-tracking toward fascism.

In the 1980s, Canada’s downward trajectory began in earnest. Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney bonded with Ronald Reagan.

Corporate America remembers his December 1984 address. He appeared at the New York Economic Club. Business heavyweights packed the house to hear him. He didn’t disappoint.

He said “Canada (was) open for business.” His meaning was unambiguous. US corporations were welcome. Economic integration would proceed. America’s sovereignty henceforth took precedence over Canada’s. It’s been downhill ever since.

Before Stephen Harper became prime minister in February 2006, Liberal leader Paul Martin tilted hard right. In 2003, he succeeded Jean Chretien.

His 2005 defense policy review stressed integrating Canada’s military with America’s. He approved redeploying Canadian Afghan peacekeepers as combatants. Harper maintains the same policy. Canadians have no say.

He governs in lockstep with Washington. He abandoned Canada’s traditional even-handed Israel/Palestine agenda. In 2006, he threw its democratically elected Hamas government under the bus. Doing so showed contempt for Palestinian rights.

He showed no concern for 50,000 Canadians in harm’s way during Israel’s war of aggression on Lebanon. He called its death and destruction campaign “measured.”

Post-WW II, things were different. Canada’s internationalism evolved. It supported rule of law principles, endorsed peacekeeping, spurned militarism and imperialism, and worked cooperatively with other nations. No longer.

Harper’s government, Canadian elites, its business community and military support imperial/neoliberal/anti-populist policies. Ottawa replicates Washington. Essential social programs are eroding. Egalitarianism is disappearing.

What corporate Canada wants, it gets. Militarism grows stronger. So does police state harshness. Pandering to Washington is policy. Tortured logic follows the same destructive path.

McQuaig calls Harper America’s “unctuous little sidekick.” She compared Canada’s government, corporate, and military officials to 19th century compradors.

Modern-day ones are subservient US junior partners. Canada’s soul went on the auction block for sale. Like Americans, Canadians are force-fed the worst of all possible worlds.

Ottawa allied with Washington’s war on Libya. It’s partnered against Syria and Iran. It shamelessly supports what it should renounce.

Doing so makes it complicit in the supreme crime against peace. It’s guilty of crimes of war, against humanity and genocide. It’s leaders are war criminals.

Iran responded to Canada suspending diplomatic ties. Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said:

“The decision by Canada showed that this country has sacrificed the interests of its nation for the sake of the Zionists by following their policies against Iran.”

He called Harper’s government “racist” and “hostile.” He added:

“The closure of the visa section of the Canadian Embassy in Tehran, freezing the bank accounts of Iranian nationals living in Canada, and prohibiting money transfers to Iranian students studying in that country are among the Canadian government’s numerous hostile measures against the Iranian nation and the Iranian community in Canada.”

Senior Iranian lawmaker Alaeddin Boroujerdi accused Harper of “blindly” following Britain, saying:

“The British government certainly seeks to lead its friends to the same path that it had taken. Therefore, this decision was in fact blind acquiescence by the Canadian government.”

He added that Canada allied with Washington and Israel’s attempt to undermine a historic NAM summit in Tehran. It perhaps reacted to its success. He also called on Iran’s Foreign Ministry to respond in kind.

Mehmanparast said expect it to be swift.

Britain is part of a US/UK/Israeli troika. It’s an axis of evil. Canada supports it. It threatens humanity. It’s involved in North African/Middle East/Central Asian imperial wars. It plans more. Independent nonbelligerent countries are targeted. Syrian and Iranian sovereignty are threatened.

Almost half a million Iranians live in Canada. Many reside in Toronto. Tehran planned a consulate to serve them. They’ll have no representation now.

On Friday, Netanyahu congratulated Harper. He called his move “a bold decision, (a) “moral step,” (a) “clear message to Iran and to the entire world.”

Tehran’s successful NAM summit endorsed peace, mutual cooperation, Iran’s peaceful nuclear program, and national sovereignty.

Netanyahu called it “a show of anti-Semitism and hate in Tehran.”

Every time he opens his mouth, he puts his foot in it. He displays racist scorn for Muslims, imperial brazenness, contempt for anyone not Jewish, and hostile rage.

Ottawa has had poor relations with Iran since the 1979 revolution. They became strained after former Canadian ambassador Ken Taylor helped rescue six Americans during the 1980 Tehran hostage crisis.

In 2003, they were further damaged after dual Canadian/Iranian citizen/freelance photographer Zahra Kazemi died in custody. He was arrested while taking photographs outside a Tehran prison.

Canada responded. It recalled its ambassador. Iran ordered him out after unsuccessfully trying to resolve the issue and agree on exchanging ambassadors.

Washington severed diplomatic relations in 1980. In November 2011, Britain recalled its entire diplomatic staff. It followed two days of protests.

Hundreds of Iranian students staged it outside London’s Tehran embassy. They pulled down Britain’s flag and demanded its envoy’s ouster.

Without justification, the Cameron government claimed Iranian leaders ordered it. It also expelled its diplomats from London.

Days earlier, Tehran downgraded ties to Britain. It was over London’s decision to impose sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank and false allegations about its nuclear program.

Washington, Britain and Israel target Iran for regime change. Top priority ahead is war. Not now, according to Time magazine.

On September 5, it headlined, “Worried About Israel Bombing Iran Before November? You Can Relax,” saying:

According to some Israeli analysts, Israel’s “war of choice” isn’t cancelled. It’s delayed. Internal opposition and public opinion are against it. Even Defense Minister Ehud Barak now wavers. He’s not called “Mr. Zigzag” for nothing.

Netanyahu wants Washington’s full commitment. In late September, he’ll meet Obama in New York. They’ll both address the UN General Assembly. Expect neither to sound benign.

Netanyahu’s saber-rattling bluster long ago wore thin, but not his hostile intent. He and Obama remain on the same page. Differences are mostly over timing and perhaps strategy.

“For now, the US looks likely to persuade Israel to sit on its hands.” Nonetheless, “it’s probably a safe bet that war talk will be revved up again come spring” or perhaps earlier post-election.

Canadian Foreign Minister Baird didn’t explain why he cut diplomatic ties now, not earlier. He denied perhaps knowing that war is more imminent than Time imagines.

“Unequivocally, we have no information about a military strike on Iran,” he said. In the fullness of time, we’ll know.

A Final Comment

In 1953, Chicago Tribune owner Colonel Robert McCormick called Canadian statesman/diplomat/later prime minister (1963-68)/Nobel Peace Prize laureate (1957) Lester Pearson “the most dangerous man in the English-speaking world.”

It was over Pearson’s refusal to cooperate with Senator Joe McCarthy’s witch-hunt communist hearings. They destroyed lives, ruined careers, accomplished nothing, and led to McCarthy’s own demise.

Pearson’s ideas were mirror opposite Harper’s and other imperial aggressors. He wanted NATO involved with economic and social issues as well as defense. He supported an alliance for Western free market alternatives to communism.

He opposed nuclear weapons. He challenged Washington on policies he believed dangerous, provocative and destructive. In 1955, as Secretary of State for External Affairs, he was the first Western official to visit Moscow.

He spoke forcefully against colonial domination. He endorsed sovereign rights for all nations. He supported internationalism, conciliation, and peace. He was a worthy Nobel laureate.

His lecture stressed hard facts. Countries have a choice. “Peace or extinction” is in their hands. He added that nations cannot “be conditioned by the force and will of a unit, however powerful, but by the consensus of a group, which must one day include all states.”

Predatory nations can’t be tolerated, he believed. At the same time, he opposed communism and backed efforts to contain it. He erred supporting Washington’s Vietnam War. A later Temple University address challenged America’s Southeast Asian role.

Overall, he supported peace and peacekeeping. His Nobel lecture named “four faces of peace: prosperity, power, diplomacy and people.”

As prime minister, peacekeeping was prioritized. Canada has none like him today. Neither do other Western countries. War, not peace, matters most. So does imperial dominance.

Ottawa’s on board with Washington. Its traditions long ago eroded and died. Some wonder what defines it as a nation. Riding shotgun for America and supporting the worst of Israeli lawlessness give them reason for pause.

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour   

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

 

By Steve Ellner. THE SOCIALIST PROJECT

“You pay back a favour with favours,” said Joanna Figueroa, a resident of El Viñedo, a barrio in the coastal city of Barcelona in eastern Venezuela. She had pledged to work for the reelection of Hugo Chávez after receiving a house as part of the government’s ambitious Great Housing Mission programme.

She helped build it, as part of a “workers team” that included a bricklayer, a plumber and an electrician appointed by her community council. Her job was to mix cement. As Chávez followers keep saying of their feelings toward their president, “You pay back love with love.” The frequency with which the phrase is used shows the deep emotional bond that exists between Chávez and many Venezuelans.
Much is at stake in the presidential election due on 7 October. The opposition’s candidate, Henrique Capriles Radonski, calls himself a reformer, free of any sort of ideology. Even so, he belongs to the conservative Justice First Party (MPJ), which stresses private investment and questions the effectiveness of state economic controls. The opposition has grown wiser since its failed coup in 2002 and its decision to boycott national elections. Now, opposition leaders fervently defend the 1999 constitution – which they opposed at the time, despite its overwhelming adoption in a popular referendum – and have even achieved a degree of unity under Capriles, nominated after a primary in February.

The achievements of the Housing Mission, building thousands of homes for the poor and including barrio residents in their planning and execution, does much to explain Chávez’s lead in the polls. The opposition’s claims that it is winning have a hollow ring: Chávez opponent and media owner Rafael Poleo recently attributed the “barren” results of an opinion poll in May to Capriles’s “failure to go anywhere.” The Datanálisis survey gave Chávez a 43.6 per cent to 27.7 per cent lead over Capriles. It also indicated that 62.4 per cent of voters rate Chávez’s performance as above average; 29.4 per cent consider it poor. Datanálisis is the most credible of the polling agencies with an impressive record. That its findings favour Chávez must annoy its owner, Luis Vicente León, who openly sides with the opposition.

13 Years and Counting

Chávez’s lead is surprising as an erosion of support and enthusiasm for his movement is only to be expected after 13 years in power. His recent bout with cancer (his illness was originally announced without revealing the nature of the disease) might also not have helped. The opposition is quick to point out that the Chávez movement lacks a second-in-command who could step into the presidency and retain the nation’s confidence. And pro-establishment media, in Venezuela and abroad, tie the issue of Chávez’s health to the electoral contest: media expert Keane Bhatt notes that Reuters, Associated Press and the Miami Herald have stressed Capriles’s “youthful energy” in contrast to Chávez’s “frailty.”

The president’s illness has now made his movement pay attention to his leadership, and even he has begun to recognize the downside of his all-encompassing power: while ministers have come and gone, Chávez – whose face appears on most Bolivarian political posters – stands as the sole embodiment of a political process that now depends upon him.

On a visit to Brazil in April 2010, he was asked about letting another leader emerge. “I do not have a successor in sight,” he answered. But there may be a change in thinking. Last year Chávez told a former adviser, the Spanish academic Juan Carlos Monedero, who had warned of the danger of “hyperleadership” in Venezuela: “I have to learn to delegate power more.” During his extended medical treatment, several top leaders filled the gap and emerged as possible successors: foreign minister Nicolás Maduro (a former trade union leader), who headed the commission that drafted the new labour law; executive vice president Elías Jaua (popular among the Chávez rank-and-file); National Assembly president Diosdado Cabello (a former army lieutenant with a pragmatic approach and strong backing among the armed forces). In May, the critical Monedero remarked that formerly “some of us saw the difficulties of continuing this process” without Chávez, but “now we have lost this fear because I see dozens of people who could continue the process without any problem.”

Pragmatism All Round

The key to Chávez’s political success is the continuous deepening of change. New programmes and goals, regularly formulated, invigorate the movement rank and file, as in the case of the Housing Mission. Chávez has come a long way since he was first elected president in December 1998, on a rather moderate platform to counter the polemical image he had acquired with his coup attempt seven years before. The moderate stage ended with the approval of a new constitution, the enactment of land reform and other radical social and economic legislation in 2001. Chávez embraced socialism in 2005, then nationalized strategic sectors such as telecommunications, banking, electricity and steel; since 2009 he has expropriated many smaller companies. These measures were accompanied by an escalation of rhetoric against the “bourgeoisie” and the “oligarchy” (terms which Chávez uses interchangeably) as well as against U.S. imperialism.

The expropriations were designed to achieve what Chávez calls “food sovereignty”: state-owned companies are now producing rice, coffee, cooking oil, milk and other foodstuffs. The latest in June was the production of sunflower oil-based mayonnaise, considered a superior variety. The increase in production and successful management of services, including food processing, banking and telecommunications, show that the government is capable of effective management. Difficulties in state-run heavy industries such as steel, aluminium and cement are the result of labour unrest and the lack of commercial networks. To overcome that, the government has expanded into commerce and sale of construction material direct to the community, eliminating middlemen (who are notorious for creating artificial scarcities).

The UN’s Economic Commission on Latin America reports a 21 per cent reduction of poverty rates between 1999 and 2010. But the middle classes do not like this change. A recent survey by the Venezuela Institute of Data Analysis says that though Chávez leads Capriles by 20 per cent, relatively privileged voters support Capriles (with 52.5%; 32.5% for Chávez). Many vehemently oppose Chávez, partly out of fear, provoked by accusations from the opposition aired in the private media, that he means to eliminate private property. There is some evidence of class resentment toward the poor, who receive privileged treatment from government programmes. To neutralize this, the government has passed measures favouring the middle class, such as the sale of dollars at a special preferential exchange rate for foreign travel.

As Chávez has distanced himself from past policies, Capriles claims to be forward-looking. He points out that at 40, he is not tied to the mistaken policies of pre-1998 Venezuela – even those implemented by parties that endorse his candidacy. Capriles associates the “old way of doing politics” with the intolerance and polarization that characterized the past, as well as the present under Chávez. As proof, he pledges not to scrap but to improve the Chávez social programmes, which have been successful. He proposes to introduce a “Missions Equal for All Law,” which would guarantee equal treatment for non-government supporters in social programmes.

But though the opposition recognizes the government’s social advances, the two leaders have conflicting economic policies, shown by their positions on company expropriations. For Chávez supporters, these help to create a mixed economy in the construction, banking and food sectors, in which monopolies and oligopolies now face competition from public companies, which combats artificially created scarcities. “We are in an election year, so why don’t we have the scarcities we had in previous electoral cycles?” asks Irán Aguilera, a state congressman and Chávez supporter. “The answer is that state companies fill the gap created by the private sector for political reasons.”

Capriles has pledged to refrain from expropriating companies. “I’m not going to squabble with businessmen or anyone else,” he says. He claims, without statistics, that production in companies taken over by the state has declined sharply. He omits any reference to restrictions or conditions on foreign investments, which he hopes will help him reach his goal of creating 3 million jobs during his presidency. In a proposal with neoliberal implications, Capriles calls for the transformation of the state-run social security programme into a mixed system that would include “voluntary individual savings.” In another electoral statement, the alliance of parties that support Capriles, the Democratic Unity Table (MUD), advocates making flexible the legislation that asserts state control over the oil industry “to promote competition and private participation in the industry.”

Capriles is not in the right place to go beyond the middle-class base of his MPJ party. He comes from a wealthy business family with multiple interests (real estate, industry, media), a background uncommon for Venezuelan politicians. He is also the former mayor of the municipality of Baruta, a fairly affluent community in Caracas. His boyish, middle-class appearance is hardly an asset in challenging Chávez’s popularity in the barrios.

‘A Fraud and a Failure’

The MUD calls the Housing Mission “a fraud and a failure” and criticizes the government for expropriating land to build housing, and violating city zoning. Even so, the polling firm Hinterlaces indicates that, with a 76 per cent approval rating, the Housing Mission is the most popular government social programme. In May, information minister Andrés Izarra announced that the programme was on target with 200,000 units built since it began in 2011.

True to his military background, Chávez declared the Housing Mission to be an all-out war and enlisted the support of his entire government and movement. In some barrios, students in the makeshift high school programme, the Ribas Mission, receive scholarship money to form construction work “brigades.” But the centrepieces are the estimated 30,000 community councils, which date to a law passed in 2006: they hire skilled and unskilled workers, all of whom generally live in the community, and select the beneficiaries. The signature programme builds new houses in place of dilapidated ones. To avoid the previous misuse of funds, there are new mechanisms – paying workers only after jobs are satisfactorily completed, with cheques drawn on state-run banks rather than cash handled via community councils. Steps have been taken to avoid speculation through the resale of public houses. “There’s a learning curve in which mistakes made at an earlier stage due to the lack of effective controls are being corrected,” says Leandro Rodríguez of the National Congress’s Committee on Citizen Participation.

Chávez cleverly chose the eve of the 1 May holiday, at the height of the presidential campaign, to introduce the new Labour Law. This reduces the working week to 40 hours (from 44), bans outsourcing for ongoing jobs and increases pre- and post-natal paid time off to 26 weeks (from 18). It also re-establishes the old system of severance pay, which neoliberal-inspired legislation modified in 1997. On leaving a company, for whatever reason, workers will receive a payment based on their last monthly salary multiplied by the number of years of employment – a major trade union demand. Capriles has attacked the law on the grounds that it does nothing to deal with unemployment or to benefit those with unprotected casual jobs. He claims: “This is a law that Chávez came up with to help him win on 7 October.”

The outcome on 7 October will have a major impact throughout the continent. Capriles pledges to reestablish friendly relations with the U.S., and his close allies promise a thorough revision of Venezuela’s aid programmes and alliances with the rest of Latin America. They also plan cheap credit arrangements with China in exchange for oil. When the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited in June, Capriles criticized the plethora of agreements signed with Iran, insisting instead that the government “look after the interests of Venezuela by generating employment for Venezuelans.”

Chávez has been a major promoter of Latin American unity, leading to the South American bloc organizations: the Union of South American Nations (Uuasur) headed by Chávez confidant Alí Rodríguez Araque), the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (Celac) founded in Caracas last December), and the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), bringing together Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua. In June, the Latin American bloc energetically protested the removal of the pro-leftist president of Paraguay, Fernando Lugo, and by doing so, overshadowed the Washington-based Organization of American States and left the U.S. State Department on the sidelines. The firmest response came from Chávez who recalled his ambassador from Asunción and cut off the supply of oil, a measure criticized by Capriles.

Deepening of Change

A Chávez victory in October will mean further deepening of change in Venezuela. New expropriations will create a mixed economy in important sectors stimulating competition between public and private companies. Chávez’s proposals for 2013-2019 call for state incursions into commerce and transport, to the detriment of middlemen, through the creation of “centres of local distribution for the sale and direct distribution of products.”

Another far-reaching goal outlined in Chávez’s electoral platform is the expansion of the power of community councils. Several hundred “communes in construction” group a dozen or more community councils each to undertake projects covering a wide area, such as gas and water distribution. Chávez proposes to promote the creation of new communes to represent 68 per cent of the population. The communes are to be granted the same prerogatives as state and municipal governments, including budgeting, participation in state planning and, eventually, tax collection.

A Chávez victory will feed into the “left tide” in Latin America at a critical moment and will undermine U.S. influence. The record of the left-leaning bloc and its banner of Latin American unity has been mixed recently. In 2009, the right triumphed in the presidential elections in Chile, but the popularity of its president Sebastián Piñera subsequently plummeted. In 2010, centrist candidate Juan Manuel Santos was elected president in Colombia, but he soon rallied to the shared aim of Latin American unity under the auspices of the left, and he has even allowed himself to disagree with Washington on key issues. Only Paraguay, with the removal in June of President Fernando Lugo, is now out of step with its neighbours.

But none of these developments matches the significance of the elections in Venezuela. A defeat for Chávez would represent (whatever his rival may say) a return to pre-1999 Venezuela. Another term in office would extend Chávez’s reign to 18 years; that’s a great deal, perhaps too much. Even so, Venezuela’s social transformation over so long a period, under a democratically elected president, is without parallel in contemporary history. •

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Steve Ellner began teaching at the Universidad de Oriente in Venezuela in 1977, is currently an adjunct professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University. This article first published in Le Monde Diplomatique.

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

 

Kristine Mattis, TGP/CJT contributing editor

In 1900, the first year from which we have health statistics about the leading causes of death in the United States, cancer was eighth on the list. Today, cancer is the second leading cause of death in this country and, any moment now, is poised to usurp heart disease as the nation’s number one killer.

I am four years past my own cancer diagnosis, which occurred when I was 36 (and, ironically, in the midst of finishing a Master’s degree about environmental risk prevention, an interest of mine for almost twenty years). The many doctors I have visited since then all repeat the mantra that I was far too young for such an occurrence of cancer. Like most people, physicians think that cancer is an old person’s disease, and that cancer incidence is increasing due to an aging populace with an increasing lifespan. This, despite the fact that cancer is actually the second leading cause of death in U.S. adults aged 25-44, after accidents. Within four years, I and three friends, all in our 30s, had cancer. Two of us are alive. Two of us are not.

My doctors all seem to regard my cancer as simply a fluke, never inquiring about, investigating, or even considering potential causes save for “genetic predispositions.” Because I had no previous history of illness of any kind, and no risk factors (I maintain a healthy weight, exercise regularly, eat a vegetarian diet full of whole, natural foods), and because I now seem to be back to being disease free, most of the half-dozen doctors I have visited since my diagnosis do not concern themselves with the reasons why I acquired cancer. They either assume a “genetic susceptibility” and urge me to undergo genetic testing, regardless of the fact that my family history does not support that hypothesis, or they ignore the question of etiology entirely.

The population-level statistics about cancer deaths in relation to other causes of death belie the notion that cancer runs in families and that genetic predisposition is an important factor in cancer etiology. If cancer were mainly due to heritable genetics, it would almost definitely be decreasing due to natural selection. Evolution normally does not maintain deleterious genes that do not confer any known benefit. Certainly, genetic susceptibility may account for differential diagnoses among individuals and populations, but just as some people are more susceptible to cold, flu, allergies, or poison ivy outbreaks, neither these ailments nor cancer are caused by heritable factors. They could not and would not occur without exposures to certain agents.

The recent Stand Up 2 Cancer telethon aimed to raise money for cancer research, most of which goes toward studies about genetic factors related to the disease and toward treatment. As I previously mentioned, genetic factors merely increase one’s odds, but without exposure to a causal agent, they would, for the most part, be nullified. Those who study risks know the general formula of: Risk = Hazard + Exposure. In the case of cancer, genetic susceptibility is simply a hazard, without the exposure to the other underlying hazard, the carcinogen, risk is eliminated. Of course, people require treatment. But how much money does cancer treatment cost us all? What about those who cannot afford treatment? How much harm do the treatments – themselves carcinogenic – wreak?

I heard a scientist speak on the radio about how, with the advancement of cancer therapies, we will soon be more likely to live with the disease, much like people live with diabetes. But what happens when we use up our natural resources needed to provide such therapies? While our society seems concerned about what might occur when our energy resources are exhausted, we seem to forget about the many other resources we so mindlessly consume, as if there exists an endless supply. They are not never-ending. What happens when we run out of the chemicals needed for chemotherapy or radiation therapy? Although this scenario is still quite distant, it is far from implausible. When this occurs, will we be left with a world rife with often long-lasting carcinogenic pollutants and no means to deal with their effects on our health?

When not implicating heritable genes, we like to attribute cancer to lifestyle factors, particularly obesity, but obesity is merely related to cancer in that it increases the body’s ability to store carcinogens, in adipose tissue (i.e., fat cells). Likewise, poor diet increases exposure to potentially carcinogenic agents in food, and along with lack of exercise, decreases immune and endocrine function, which help the body prevent and rid itself of cancer. None of these lifestyle factors are a direct cause of the disease.

While some carcinogenic agents are naturally occurring, the vast majority are now man-made. Though we know what causes cancer – ionizing radiation (e.g., nuclear radiation), non-ionizing radiation (e.g., ultraviolet light from the sun), chemical agents (e.g., polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), biological agents (e.g., human papillomavirus), and materials (e.g., asbestos) – we rarely talk about avoiding and abolishing the causes, save for sun exposure and viral agents. Why do we work on remediation rather than precaution? Clearly, it is because every other known cause is explicitly linked to capitalism and industry. No one is allowed to disrupt the corporate industrial machine. It is verboten to speak ill of the main drivers of the economy, which coincidentally, are also the main drivers of human (and other biological) death.

So, while the celebrity contingent of the 1% are on TV asking us 99% to donate our hard-earned and paltry wages toward cancer research, we might want to think about why we are not being asked to contribute to cancer prevention. And to be clear, prevention is not equivalent to detection. Mammograms (also carcinogenic) and colonoscopies, for example, merely detect breast or colon cancer. They do not prevent oncogenesis. Prevention means, at the very least, the elimination of the carcinogenic exposures, and at best, the eradication of cancer-causing agents themselves.

We might want to consider how much agony is felt from a diagnosis of cancer by patients and friends and family of those patients. We might want to ponder how much excruciating pain cancer therapy inflicts upon its subjects. We might want to reflect upon how much heartbreak cancer deaths bring to those who are left behind. And we might want to remember that cancer is, to an extremely large extent, preventable. We merely need the will and effort to value biological and ecological health above economic growth.

Kristine Mattis is a teacher, writer, scientist, activist, and agitator. She is currently a PhD student in the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at UW-Madison. Before returning to graduate school, Kristine worked as a medical researcher, as a reporter for the congressional record in the U.S. House of Representatives, and as a schoolteacher. She and her partner blog when they can at www.rebelpleb.blogspot.com

 

__________

ADDENDUM
The Stand Up To Cancer media barrage, the official story (WIKI)
As anyone can see, given the excessive media coverage, this effort is dear to the priggish establishment players behind it. Whats more, from their capitalistoid perspectives, it is the thing to do, and woe to those who find fault with it.

Stand Up To Cancer (SU2C) is a charitable program of the Entertainment Industry Foundation (EIF) established by media, entertainment and philanthropic leaders who have been affected by cancer. SU2C aims to raise significant funds for translational cancer research through online and televised efforts. Central to the program is a telethon that was televised by three major broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) in over 170 countries on September 5, 2008. SU2C made over $100 million after that evenings broadcast.

The telethon returned on Friday, September 10, 2010 at 8/7c to ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, Bio., Current, Discovery Health, E!, G4, HBO, HBO Latino, MLB Network, Mun2, Showtime, Smithsonian Channel, Style Network, TV One and VH1.

The Telethon returned on Friday, September 7, 2012 at 8/7c to ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, E!, VH1, Style Network, Smithsonian Channel, Ion Television, TBS, Encore, Starz, HBO, Showtime, HBO Latino, Bio., MLB Network, LMN, Mun2, Palladia and Logo.

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?

If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.
 Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

 

Paul Craig Roberts

If political conventions are ranked on a one to ten scale for intelligence, I give the Republican Convention zero and the Democrats one.

How can the United States be a superpower when both political parties are unaware [or indifferent to] of everything that is happening at home and abroad?

The Republicans are relying for victory on four years of anti-Obama propaganda and their propriety programed electronic voting machines. For nearly four years Republican operatives have flooded the Internet with portraits of Obama as a non-US citizen, as a Muslim (even while Obama was murdering Muslims in seven countries), and as a Marxist (put in power by the Israel Lobby, Wall Street, and the military/security complex).

Most Republican voters will vote against Obama based on these charges despite the curious fact that no committee in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives held a hearing to determine if Obama is a citizen. If Obama were not a citizen, why would the very aggressive House Republicans not capitalize on it.  It would be easy for a Congressional committee to determine if Obama were a citizen. Despite the propaganda, the Republicans in office have shown no interest in the propaganda charges spread by Republican operatives over the Internet.

Either Republicans have no confidence in the charges and do not want to end up proving with Congressional hearings that Obama is a citizen, or the Republicans, having destroyed every other aspect of the US Constitution, reducing it to “a scrap of paper,” feel that making an issue of the last remaining Constitutional provision other than the Second Amendment would be the height of hypocrisy and don’t want to risk opening the constitutional issues that Republicans have run roughshod over.

If the Republicans can destroy habeas corpus, due process, violate both US statutory and international law, ignore the separation of powers, and create a Caesar, why can’t the Democrats run a non-citizen?

Why didn’t the Republican convention raise the issue about the Obama regime’s claim that the executive branch has the power to assassinate US citizens without due process of law? No such power exists in the US Constitution or in US statutory law. This gestapo police state claim exists only as an assertion. Republicans ignored this most important of all issues, because they support it.

Why didn’t the Democrat convention raise the issue that the Republicans took us to wars based on 9/11 assertions without ever conducting an investigation of 9/11? No qualified high-rise architect, structural engineer, physicist, chemist, or national security expert believes a word of the US government’s 9/11 story.  Neither do the first responders who were on the scene and witnessed and experienced the event.

Many experts keep their opinions to themselves, because otherwise the federal grants to their universities are over and done with or their architectural and engineering businesses are boycotted by patriotic former clients.

Regardless of these risks, there are 1,700 architects and engineers who have sent a petition to Congress that they do not believe one word of the official explanation and who demand a real investigation.

Why did not either party raise the question of how can the US economy recover when corporations have offshored millions of US middle class jobs, both manufacturing jobs and professional service jobs. For at least a decade, the US economy has been able to create only lowly paid domestic non-tradable (not exportable) service jobs, such as waitresses, bartenders, and hospital orderlies.

Both parties talk total nonsense about jobs. The Republicans say they can create jobs by not taxing the rich. The Democrats say they can create jobs by financing jobs programs. The Republicans say that the Democrats’ jobs programs simply take money from business investments and give it to those who patronize bars and the drug trade. The Democrats say that the low taxes of the Republicans just subsidize yachts, exotic cars, private aircraft, and $800,000 wrist watches for the one percent, most of which is produced abroad.

Neither political party will admit that when US corporations offshore their production for US markets, Americans are removed from the incomes associated with the production of the goods and services that they consume. Offshoring is defended by both moronic political parties as “free trade.” In fact, offshoring is the gift of what was US GDP to China, India, and the other countries to which US corporations locate their production that they sell to Americans. US GDP goes down, the GDP of the countries who make the American goods sold to Americans goes up. The idiot free market economists call the de-industrializing of America “free trade.”

As an intelligent economist–an oxymoron– would know, destroying consumer incomes by moving their jobs to other countries, leaves consumers without incomes to purchase the imported offshored goods.

Neither American political party recognizes this disconnect. Neither party can afford to recognize it, as both parties are dependent on corporate campaign financing, and offshoring boosts executive bonuses and share prices. A political party that opposes offshoring of US jobs simply does not get financed.

So, the great “superpower,” the “indispensable nation,” the world hegemon, is going into an election, and no one knows what are the stakes.

Why did not either political party ask: if Washington has demonized Iran, why did the 120 countries that comprise the non-aligned movement convene in Iran last week?

Is Washington’s propaganda failing? Can Washington no longer convince the world that the countries that Washington wants to destroy are evil and must be destroyed?

If Washington’s propaganda is failing, the world rule of the hegemonic power will not succeed. As world rule is Washington’s goal in keeping with the neoconservative ideology, then Washington is failing and is not the superpower it pretends to be.

Most credible foreign policy experts, none of which either political party has, believe that Washington has thrown away US “soft power” by its obvious lies and unjustified military attacks on seven Muslim countries, its encirclement of Russia with missile bases, and its encirclement of China with air, naval, and troop bases.

In other words, Washington’s moral force no longer exists. All that exists is financial and military force, and both will fail as they are insufficient.

Neither party asked why the US is at wars with Muslims for Israel. Why should Americans be losing lives and limbs for Israel while going broke and running up enormous war debts for our children and grandchildren? The answer from both parties is to blame the country’s bankruptcy on what Washington does for its own economically disenfranchised citizens. America’s financial problems are all the fault of Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, housing subsidies, Pell grants–any and every thing that gives a leg up to the non-one percent.

In short, the attitude of both parties is: if you are not the one percent, you are disposable.

Both Obamacare and the alternative Republican voucher program dispose of ill Americans who confront potentially terminal diseases. The American people and the ill no longer count; only the budget counts. Letting the elderly die sooner is cheaper. We can therefore afford more wars for hegemony and more tax cuts for the one percent.

Have any peoples in human history ever been less represented by their government and political parties than Americans?

The US government represents Israel and the one to ten percent. Everyone else is disposable. Regardless of the political party whose lever is pulled in November, every American who votes will be voting for Israel and for their own demise.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Improbably, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is the father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury. He is a columnist and was previously the editor of the Wall Street Journal. His latest book, “How the Economy Was Lost: The War of the Worlds,” details why America is disintegrating.

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.