Fracking for Yats

frackThis week’s Scientific American asks “Can U.S. Fracked Gas Save Ukraine?” The article points out that Ukraine depends on Russia for about two thirds of its natural gas, which gives Putin and his oligarchs a big hammer. So, naturally, the oligarchs in Washington are angling to replace Russian gas with American gas, if they can. And American gas is projected to become much more plentiful, provided our oligarchs are allowed to keep fracking. Sadly, says the Scientific American analyst, the shipping terminals needed to bring U.S. fracked gas overseas won’t be built until 2015 at the earliest.

In anticipation, we can expect a new patriotic theme song from the lips of our energy oligarchs: Frack for Yats!

Yes, Washington has already spent about $5 billion, by official admission, pumping up the opposition to the elected Ukrainian government, some of which went, no doubt, to the neo-Nazi thugs who spearheaded the overthrow of that government last month, and who currently run the new regime’s police force.

Yatsenyuk, the replacement, who is Washington’s poodle, is currently at the White House with his paw out. He’ll get a billion or so, and pledges of more, provided he stays on his leash.

Forbes thinks he will. In a 2/27 article, Forbes’ writer compares Yats to Italy’s Mario Monti, “unelected and willing to do the IMF’s bidding.” After the honeymoon gifts are spent, look for Yats to turn his part of the Ukraine into the next Greece. He openly admires the Greek model and promises to help the IMF install it in Ukraine. “I’m going to be the most unpopular prime minister in the history of my country,” Yats predicted. “But this is the only solution.”

So, let’s all support more fracking in the U.S.!  Let’s poison our dwindling water supply, let’s generate worse air pollution, let’s trigger more earthquakes, let’s build more pipelines, let’s put more supertankers on the oceans.  We have to do it to support our oligarchs’ boy Yats in Kiev in his effort to save the hedge funds from a default on Ukraine government bonds, even if it means cramming austerity down the throats of the Ukrainian people who didn’t elect Yats and who will come to hate Yats’ guts.  Let’s frack over our country to help Yats fuck over his.

No way!

Lethal but Legal – Book Review

Lethal but Legal by Nicholas Freudenberg (Oxford U. Press 2014) takes on one of the great paradoxes of our time: we have the scientific capacity to support healthier, longer life spans for the earth’s population, but in fact we see the spread of novel plagues more devastating than the medieval Black Death. In place of bubonic plague, smallpox, and other old-time infectious scourges that killed millions, we kill tens of millions with scientifically engineered malnutrition and with alcohol, tobacco, and other noxious consumer products.

Freudenberg is Distinguished Professor of Public Health at City University of New York School of Public Health and Hunter College, and a public health community activist for many years.

The American food industry is Freudenberg’s Exhibit 1. This industry has come under intense scrutiny in the past couple of decades. Freudenberg’s chapters present a condensed array of much of this literature, pointing out how the major food producers tend to concentrate their production and marketing on “food” that contains high quantities of sugar, salt, and fat.

Highly sophisticated scientific research goes into designing this shit and into figuring out how to push consumer’s psychic buttons to keep buying it. The result is malnutrition on a massive scale, evidenced by rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and related diseases. People who consume this stuff feel full, but nutritionally they are empty.

Almost everyone in the US understands by now that tobacco is bad for you, and public health advocates have scored important victories against the industry. Nevertheless, as Freudenberg points out, industry profits are high. The companies have penetrated major foreign markets such as Russia, Indonesia, Latin America, and other areas of the third world, where tobacco education is weak and effective regulation is nonexistent. As a result, the number of people worldwide who die each year of tobacco-related diseases is growing, not diminishing.

Alcohol, long a major killer and wrecker of lives, is now in the hands of a far more concentrated set of industry giants than twenty years ago. With giantism comes multibillion dollar marketing, promotion, and control of governments. Freudenberg points out that marketing to minors has become a key industry strategy, and that, as before, the core of the industry’s market consists of pathological drinkers (alcoholics and alcohol abusers). Freudenberg is not fooled by the industry’s “drink responsibly” campaigns, which are mere windowdressing to deflect public dismay.

It isn’t news, as Freudenberg readily concedes, that the driving power behind the modern spread of these weapons of misconsumption is the capitalist corporation. In every case, the harm to public health from these poisons is well known and often demonstrably clear to industry insiders, but the systemic pressures to generate not only profits, but growing profits, override and squelch any feelings of empathy for the consumer that might have infiltrated the ranks.

The profits are great, but the human costs are staggering. World Health Organization research predicts that by 2020, three out of four deaths in the world will be from Non-Communicable Diseases, such as the cancers, heart diseases, and diabetes associated with corporate comestibles.  NCDs cause trillions of dollars in economic losses and push millions of people below the poverty line each year. Treating such conditions accounts for more than 75 per cent of U.S. healthcare costs.

The dramatic improvements in public health seen in recent decades have stalled and researchers forecast that average life expectancy in the US will decline; for women, the decline has already begun. Along with chronic diseases, there is an alarming worldwide rise in deaths and disabilties due to civil (not war-related) injuries. Traffic injuries due to the spread of motor vehicle use and casualties from interpersonal or self-inflicted violence show dramatic increases.

Virtually every metric of public health shows continuing and often increasing gaps between rich and poor, men and women, whites and others. The ambitious goals of flattening such inequities, announced decades ago, have not come close to fulfillment; on the contrary, many gaps are widening.

In addition to the big three industries that make us sick, Freudenberg cites three principal auxiliaries: automobiles, guns, and drugs. The auto industry contributes to illness in three ways: through pollution, through injuries, and through promotion of a sedentary life style. As with tobacco, modest advances in emission controls and collision safety in the US are overwhelmed worldwide by chaotic escalation of auto use in much of the third world; it’s estimated that auto crashes globally killed 1.3 million people in 2010. Meanwhile the car companies continue to resist every safety measure. They lobby for highway subsidies, and oppose development – or promote destruction – of public transit, worldwide.

The firearms manufacturers follow the same path: relentless promotion, vociferous opposition to regulation, despite massive and growing evidence that guns claim far more lives than they save.

A similar hypocrisy animates the pharmaceutical industry. Yes, prescription drugs save lives, but they also take lives; prescription drug mortality, according to the US Food and Drug Administration, is a leading cause of death. Heavy promotion of inadequately tested drugs (Vioxx, for example), deceptive advertising, results-oriented “science,” the invention of “diseases” to match profitable drugs, and obstruction or co-optation of cheaper generic alternatives are among the profit-motivated abuses that have turned Big Pharma into a dirty word.

A few hundred (perhaps fewer) corporations preside over this massive global carnage. Despite the variety of their products, their strategies are remarkably similar: harness science in the pursuit of deception, spend billions to disseminate lies and illusions, buy up governments, promote public subsidies for their private profits, oppose regulation, and shift their costs onto others. And these corporate interests pervasively infiltrate the very bodies designed to build awareness of their activities, and pull the teeth from the language of unbiased research findings and policy recommendations.

From Lethal but Legal, p. 96.

From Lethal but Legal, p. 96.

After an introductory profile of these six horsemen of the apocalypse, Freudenberg sketches the recent historical background: the rise of a self-conscious corporate power movement, aggressively targeting the modest advances in the realm of consumer protection and environmental regulation achieved during the 1960s and 70s. Key to this retrograde movement was the expansion of US based corporations abroad, and their conversion into multinationals that were “American” only in name. Along with their revenue base, they became more powerful in politics, tailoring fiscal and monetary policies to the advantage of their billionaire owners. Virtually every sphere of politics and culture fell under their dominance.

The result, Freudenberg writes, is that the “military-industrial complex” of which Eisenhower warned has been succeeded by a “corporate consumption complex.” This complex “has become the most powerful influence on the health of the world’s population and on the environment that sustains life.” The most problematic activity of this complex is what Freudenberg terms “hyperconsumption,” by which he means “patterns of consumption associated with premature death and preventable illnesses and injuries.”

Detailed profiles of the McDonald’s corporation (“A franchise for super-sizing children around the world”) and of the Pharma trade association stand as illustrations.

Buttressing the economic and political power that its money can buy is the complex’s ideological influence. It promotes a catechism of free-market, individualistic core beliefs which, needless by this point to add, are at direct loggerheads with its monopolistic, conformist actual practice.

A vast array of subsidized think tanks, academic departments, and a meretricious intelligentsia make a living pumping this garbage into the minds of the masses. It seems to work, at least for now; but public opinion polls show that a majority of Americans (and people in other countries) don’t trust corporations and want their influence scaled back.

To counter the corporate credo, Freudenberg proposes an alternative set of theses that rests on deeply and widely felt moral principles. It is worth quoting:

1. Making a profit by sickening others is wrong.

2. Parents, families, teachers, and health professionals, not corporations, should educate people about health, nutrition, and moral values.

3. Nanny corporations that seek to exploit children’s vulnerability and immaturity, not nanny states, are the real threats to health and freedom.

4. The goal of social policy should be to make healthy choices easy choices.

5. In a globalized world, economic activity anywhere affects people everywhere; shifting the harms of such activity to another region or country in order to protect one group is wrong.

6. Every generation has a responsibility to leave the world a better place for future generations. Knowingly bequeathing our children and grandchildren a burden of disease, damaged environments, or corrupted democracy violates most of the world’s moral codes.

7. Science belongs to all humanity; appropriating it to profit at the expense of health or the environment is wrong. (p. 152)

Counteracting corporate policies, like those policies themselves, needs to happen on a global scale, Freudenberg argues. A discussion of NAFTA and its impact on the economy and public health of Mexico is one of the most powerful case studies in the book. NAFTA opened the Mexican market to exports of US government subsidized corn and corn syrup, paved the way for Walmart and other big retailers to muscle into Mexico’s retail networks, and changed the diet of the average Mexican from a sustainable pattern based on local agriculture into a debilitating dependence on fast food, sodas, and other junk, with shocking increases in rates of obesity and diabetes.

Similar patterns are underway in China, India, South Africa, and Indonesia, among others.

NAFTA and the World Trade Organization have changed the whole framework of international commerce, from something that bore at least a resemblance to the free market template to a managed, closed-off commercial absolutism in which unaccountable big-corporate committees dictate terms to outside private parties and governments. Advocates of public health concerns are hermetically shut out of these bodies.

Foreign investment, tariff reductions, taxation cuts, and intellectual property laws are additional weapons by which the corporate consumption complex penetrates other countries and sickens their people.

In Part II, Freudenberg looks at countervailing efforts to promote public health and constrain corporate power. There are thousands of organizations at every scale of operation working on the issues Freudenberg has raised. He briefly surveys historic movements for food and drug safety, worker safety and health, and against child labor, as sources for a general sense of optimism that change can be made.

Among his more contemporary case studies is the food justice movement in New York City, the Black Community coalitions against the alcohol industry, the California Air Resources Board’s campaign against motor vehicle emissions, the Million Mom March against the gun industry, groups of medical professionals working to restrict the influence of Big Pharma, and the Corporate Accountability International’s (CAI) global campaign against Big Tobacco.

In the final chapter, Freudenberg returns to the paradox posed at the outset. He asks, “Can what is still the wealthiest nation in the world chart a new path in which our system of production and consumption is redirected to make health, sustainability, and democracy the priorities? … Or will a few hundred global corporations continue to have first call on these assets to advance their own profits at the expense of human well-being?”

What has to happen, he says, is to change the business and political practices of the multinational corporations. Toward that end, he offers a catalogue of lessons for popular movements, ranging from tactical advice (engage minds and emotions, target specific companies, propose alternatives, build partnerships, etc.) to strategic goals such as developing an alternative, healthy and ethical consumption ideology. It’s necessary, he concludes, to evict corporations from our minds, from our institutions and communities, and from our political system.

Freudenberg’s exposition throughout the book is densely factual, extensively documented, and clearly written. Freudenberg travels easily across the boundaries between medicine, politics, history, economics, and diplomacy, and has a knack for explaining highly technical topics in terms accessible to the lay person. His opinions are on the table, but his tone is never didactic or preachy (or at least it doesn’t seem that way to this reader). The book will not take the place of any of the specialized treatises devoted to one or another of the six deadly industries on which Freudenberg focuses. Nor will it supplant specialized studies about world health, the world economy, NAFTA, the WTO, and similar topics. However, it offers reliable, compact and well documented synopses of the best work that has been done in these different areas – itself a formidable accomplishment. What makes the work uniquely valuable is the synthesis of all of these problem areas into a single readable volume. I don’t know of another work that moves so comprehensively and systematically from a wide range of individual case studies to the global picture. Freudenberg makes this exceedingly difficult task look easy. The book comes from an academic press, but deserves a much wider readership.

Freudenberg’s analysis is tightly reasoned and supported by major bodies of research. There are some areas, however, where I felt there may be room for improvement. The term “hyperconsumption” is, I think, a misnomer. In terms, it means “excessive consumption.” To be sure, each corporation wants to maximize its sales, and getting people to consume bigger sodas and bigger bags of french fries is certainly a means toward that end. But seen from the societal standpoint, the hyperconsumption of one demographic goes hand in hand with the hypoconsumption, the food insecurity and hunger of another. Some 49 million Americans frequently go without food part of the month, including about 16 million children. Far from turning us into a “consumer society,” corporate rule is taking consumption out of the reach of millions. The picture is even more extreme on the global scale, where hunger is far more typical than excess consumption. Calls to “consume less,” which Freudenberg occasionally echoes, make sense for an affluent demographic, but ring hollow to the growing number of people at the bottom. It may also be worth pointing out in this context that the decay of the American infrastructure, notably water supply and sewage removal, is setting the stage for a comeback of traditional bacteria-borne scourges.  I’m sure that Freudenberg is not unaware of this point, but it would strengthen the book to acknowledge it more explicitly.

Freudenberg’s decision to limit the scope to just six industries is clearly defensible on the grounds of volume. A wider scope would make an unreadably long tome. Still, it might have been useful to include a few well-chosen paragraphs about industries such as chemicals, coal, nuclear, petroleum, mining, and other raw material and producer sectors. Although not “consumer” industries, both the harm and the operating methods would appear to have much in common.

The book could also benefit, in my opinion, by more systematically puncturing the corporate fiction. Sentences in which corporations are the subject of a verb (“Corporation A does XYZ”) remain, at bottom, spell-bound by the corporate veil. Corporations are nothing but masks worn by rich sons of bitches. Freudenberg knows this well, giving Mexico’s oligarch Carlos Slim as an example early on, but the point gets lost in most of the book. To drive home the injustice and brutality of what is going on, it’s important to be able to speak in personam. For example: So and so many millions of Americans suffer from cancer and other diseases so that Charles and David Koch can freely spew their chemical pollution into the air. The most important corporate reform is to hold this class of people and their lackeys accountable, haul them into modern-day Nuremberg trials, and put them in jail. Only after that is done can talk about revision of corporate priorities achieve real-world traction.

But, I suppose, a book published by Oxford University Press can’t speak in quite those bloodthirsty terms. Within the academic envelope, Freudenberg’s book is an outstanding piece of work, combining an enormous labor of research with a bright and optimistic activist’s passion. Well worth reading.


Accidental Death of an Anarchist

anarchistAccidental Death of an Anarchist, which opened at the Berkeley Rep this evening, is both the funniest and the most serious show I’ve ever seen at this theatre.  The author is Italy’s famous Dario Fo  — Nobel Prize for Literature, 1997 — and the setting is 1970 Milan, but the Rep has tweaked the script so that it might have taken place right here and yesterday.  Even Diane Feinstein’s speech on the CIA is in the dialogue.

The plot centers on the death of a suspect in police custody.  He was a railroad worker, member of a tiny anarchist group, and the police accused him of setting a bomb in the local railway station.  Somehow, the man fell to his death from a fourth-story window of the police station.  The police initially claimed he committed suicide, then changed their story to the equally unbelievable “accidental death.”  The action of the play takes place on two floors of the police station a few weeks after the incident.

At the start, a man is brought into the station on charges of impersonating various people, including a psychiatrist.  The man — played by the brilliant Steven Epp — pretends to be certifiably insane, and gives a convincing and hilarious demonstration of his lunacy.  But we soon learn that he is crazy like a fox.  He manages to impersonate a judge magistrate who is sent to examine the police responsible for the anarchist’s death, and through this disguise he eventually provokes the men to re-enact what really happened.  This exposition is side-splittingly funny.  I have never guffawed so explosively and spontaneously as when Epp appears in yet another disguise, that of a senior police inspector, to be interviewed by a reporter (the excellent Renata Friedman).

There’s quite a bit of what feels like ad libbing in the second half, though with a cast this skillful it’s impossible to tell what’s improv and what’s in the script.  In keeping with Fo’s commedia del’ arte style, actors frequently address the audience, step out of character, comment on the script, make jokes at their own expense, and otherwise break the invisible glass wall between the stage and the house.  At moments like this, the whole scene comes alive most wonderfully and ceases to be merely a spectacle, it becomes an experience.

The whole cast are marvelously skilled clowns, but Epp is over the top.  His seemingly indestructible vocal cords soar to heights of comic histrionics and dive in an instant to satiric magisterial gravitas, and he belts out a pretty good ballad, besides.  Physically, he’s a shape-shifting tornado, capable of everything and anything.  Ma is hilarious in a supporting role, and tops off the barbershop quartet with a honey-sweet counter-tenor.  Allen Gilmore cracked me up with his facial expressions and body language; he does a whale imitation in the second act that is side-splittingly funny.  Liam Craig provides a potato-head base line for the madcap antics of the other actors.

This piece has the same targets as some of Bertolt Brecht’s work, but the attack is satirical, thoroughly comedic.  There’s only a few didactic lines in it, delivered by Epp toward the end, and they’re short, sometimes obscene, completely adapted to the American context, and very funny, in the manner of standup comedy.  Fo’s sharp pen isn’t the only talent behind this script.

This play, and several others like it, made Fo hugely popular in Italy, and earned him powerful enemies.  It was clear to everyone that the piece referred to actual events, the murder of the railroad worker Guiseppe Pinelli in police custody.  Fo and his family were the targets of fascist retaliation.  The Reagan administration denied him a visa to visit the US in 1980.  He is currently 87 years old, living in Italy.  It’s a pity he could not attend this production by the Berkeley Rep.  He would have been proud.  The audience gave the production a well-deserved standing ovation.  Go see it if you can.

The Making of Meltaway Salad

P1320870To satisfy time after time, a salad needs to be complex.  Even cows seek out variety, chomping on dandelions, daisies, and other bits of herbal spice to enrich their diet of plain old verdure.  We humans can do so much more, especially if, like me, we live a few steps from the famous Monterey Market, a sort of everyday farmer’s market with local produce from around the world.  It’s no problem mixing organic baby greens from a greenhouse a mile away with fresh turmeric from Thailand. And the back yard contributes mustard greens and a Japanese kale.  My salad palette takes the orchestra as model.  There need to be high notes, middle notes, and low notes.  There needs to be sweet, middling, and bitter.  There needs to be soft and also crunchy, and you absolutely have to have a vivid palette of colors.  I’m particularly fond of root vegetables, raw, both for the trace minerals that the body needs and for their exotic, earthy tang. It’s the simultaneous mouth experience of these contradictories that satisfies and pleases, again and again.

I had fun making and editing this video, The Making of Meltaway Salad.  It took a couple of hours to do all the washing, peeling and slicing, but thanks to a video editing program, you get to see my lightning knife dispatch it all in about one minute.  (Yes, I still have all my fingers!)  Johann Sebastian B. provided the accompaniment for the frantic first half of the film;  his Goldberg Variations are often mislabeled a lullaby, but there’s nothing soporific about this selection.  In the second half, the verdant opus is composed on a canvas consisting of a shining bowl.  It proceeds smoothly to the strains of Schubert, performed by an eight-piece ensemble in which my cousin-in-law Tom Morrison is the bassoonist.  Altogether in less than three minutes you see an afternoon of effort that provides almost a week of healthy and delicious nutrition.

“Eat this salad twice a day, and your pounds will melt away.”

 

Talking Sense About Ukraine

Seamus Milne

Seamus Milne

Lots of sound and fury about Ukraine, with a pre-war atmosphere to it. Political posturing setting new heights of ridicule and hypocrisy. Tons of garbage in the press.

Among the clearer, more rational voices is this piece from the Guardian by Seumas Milne:

Diplomatic pronouncements are renowned for hypocrisy and double standards. But western denunciations of Russian intervention in Crimea have reached new depths of self parody. The so far bloodless incursion is an “incredible act of aggression“, US secretary of state John Kerry declared. In the 21st century you just don’t invade countries on a “completely trumped-up pretext”, he insisted, as US allies agreed that it had been an unacceptable breach of international law, for which there will be “costs”.

That the states which launched the greatest act of unprovoked aggression in modern history on a trumped-up pretext – against Iraq, in an illegal war now estimated to have killed 500,000, along with the invasion of Afghanistan, bloody regime change in Libya, and the killing of thousands in drone attacks on Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, all without UN authorisation – should make such claims is beyond absurdity.

It’s not just that western aggression and lawless killing is on another scale entirely from anything Russia appears to have contemplated, let alone carried out – removing any credible basis for the US and its allies to rail against Russian transgressions. But the western powers have also played a central role in creating the Ukraine crisis in the first place.

The US and European powers openly sponsored the protests to oust the corrupt but elected Viktor Yanukovych government, which were triggered by controversy over an all-or-nothing EU agreement which would have excluded economic association with Russia.

In her notorious “fuck the EU” phone call leaked last month, the US official Victoria Nuland can be heard laying down the shape of a post-Yanukovych government – much of which was then turned into reality when he was overthrown after the escalation of violence a couple of weeks later.

The president had by then lost political authority, but his overnight impeachment was certainly constitutionally dubious. In his place agovernment of oligarchs, neoliberal Orange Revolution retreads and neofascists has been installed, one of whose first acts was to try and remove the official status of Russian, spoken by a majority in parts of the south and east, as moves were made to ban the Communist party, which won 13% of the vote at the last election.

It has been claimed that the role of fascists in the demonstrations has been exaggerated by Russian propaganda to justify Vladimir Putin’s manoeuvres in Crimea. The reality is alarming enough to need no exaggeration. Activists report that the far right made up around a third of the protesters, but they were decisive in armed confrontations with the police.

Fascist gangs now patrol the streets. But they are also in Kiev’s corridors of power. The far right Svoboda party, whose leader has denounced the “criminal activities” of “organised Jewry” and which was condemned by the European parliament for its “racist and antisemitic views”, has five ministerial posts in the new government, including deputy prime minister and prosecutor general. The leader of the even more extreme Right Sector, at the heart of the street violence, is now Ukraine’s deputy national security chief.

Neo-Nazis in office is a first in post-war Europe. But this is the unelected government now backed by the US and EU. And in a contemptuous rebuff to the ordinary Ukrainians who protested against corruption and hoped for real change, the new administration has appointed two billionaire oligarchs – one who runs his business from Switzerland – to be the new governors of the eastern cities of Donetsk and Dnepropetrovsk. Meanwhile, the IMF is preparing an eye-watering austerity plan for the tanking Ukrainian economy which can only swell poverty and unemployment.

From a longer-term perspective, the crisis in Ukraine is a product of the disastrous Versailles-style break-up of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. As in Yugoslavia, people who were content to be a national minority in an internal administrative unit of a multinational state – Russians in Soviet Ukraine, South Ossetians in Soviet Georgia – felt very differently when those units became states for which they felt little loyalty.

In the case of Crimea, which was only transferred to Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev in the 1950s, that is clearly true for the Russian majority. And contrary to undertakings given at the time, the US and its allies have since relentlessly expanded Nato up to Russia’s borders, incorporating nine former Warsaw Pact states and three former Soviet republics into what is effectively an anti-Russian military alliance in Europe. The European association agreement which provoked the Ukrainian crisis also included clauses to integrate Ukraine into the EU defence structure.

That western military expansion was first brought to a halt in 2008 when the US client state of Georgia attacked Russian forces in the contested territory of South Ossetia and was driven out. The short but bloody conflict signalled the end of George Bush’s unipolar world in which the US empire would enforce its will without challenge on every continent.

Given that background, it is hardly surprising that Russia has acted to stop the more strategically sensitive and neuralgic Ukraine falling decisively into the western camp, especially given that Russia’s only major warm-water naval base is in Crimea.

Clearly, Putin’s justifications for intervention – “humanitarian” protection for Russians and an appeal by the deposed president – are legally and politically flaky, even if nothing like on the scale of “weapons of mass destruction”. Nor does Putin’s conservative nationalism or oligarchic regime have much wider international appeal.

But Russia’s role as a limited counterweight to unilateral western power certainly does. And in a world where the US, Britain, France and their allies have turned international lawlessness with a moral veneer into a permanent routine, others are bound to try the same game.

Fortunately, the only shots fired by Russian forces at this point have been into the air. But the dangers of escalating foreign intervention are obvious. What is needed instead is a negotiated settlement for Ukraine, including a broad-based government in Kiev shorn of fascists; a federal constitution that guarantees regional autonomy; economic support that doesn’t pauperise the majority; and a chance for people in Crimea to choose their own future. Anything else risks spreading the conflict.

—————

To this I want to add a couple of observations.  For the past three decades, Ukraine has been governed by criminal gangs.  The label “kleptocracy” is almost a euphemism.  The same can be said for Russia.  The major difference is that Russia has vast supplies of petro-energy and Ukraine does not.   Its treasury looted by oligarchs, Ukraine warned foreign lenders already in 2012 that it was on the brink of default.  What we have seen in the past year is a clash between hyenas slavering over the kill.  The Russian hyenas offered an “aid” package advertised at $15 billion that would have integrated Ukraine more tightly into the strangle hold of the Russian oligarchs.  The EU and the IMF, whose puppet, the ex-banker Turchynov, now poses as the government of Ukraine, plan a package that will lock Ukraine as a vassal to Western banks and hedge funds in perpetuity. Ukraine, or the portion of it that remains under the control of Kiev, will become the new Greece.

Washington’s policy is almost certainly aimed at breaking up Ukraine, much as it re-Balkanized Yugoslavia and foments separatism elsewhere.  Whether this succeeds depends largely on Russia.  Unless the Europeans can neuter the neo-Nazi thugs who spearheaded the coup of Feb. 22 and who now hold ministries in the Kiev regime — and who enjoy the support of Washington — a diplomatic solution that preserves Ukraine’s territorial integrity will be difficult to achieve.  Russia, far from backing off its intervention in Crimea, has every incentive to try to reassert itself in Kiev, and it certainly has the means to do so.  When the elephants fight, the grass gets trampled.

A Writer’s Tool Worth Paying For

scrivenerWhile I’m in the mood to do product reviews, I have to give a shoutout to Scrivener.  Created and maintained by the Literature & Latte group in the UK (literatureandlatte.com), Scrivener is the writing tool I have been looking for for years.  They say that Shakespeare wrote his plays in one flow without corrections and with no cutting and pasting.  I’ve never written like that, except when doing translations.  My original writing is more like building a mosaic.  I may collect many hundreds of stones over years, most of which I eventually discard, and the ones I keep I may rearrange a dozen times before I’m ready to print.  OK, even that sounds cleaner and more organized than it really is.  Writing nonfiction, let’s be honest, is a mud wrestling match with chaos.

Scrivener is a writing tool that lets me win those matches.  In one of its personalities (and it has several) it is a textbase.  Yes, a database optimized for text items, which includes pdf files, jpegs, videos, and some other formats.  You name them what you want, give them index tags, colors, keywords and other attributes.  You annotate them, organize them in folders, groups, or collections.  You list them in hierarchies of any number of levels, move them up or down, in or out, as you like.  You have powerful search functions.  And of course you can view, write, and edit.  The beautiful thing is, it’s not linear.  You’re not strapped to the one-track structure of word processing software.  It works the way that I work.

Scrivener is a writer’s tool, but I also use it as a lawyer.  I copy all the key documents in a lawsuit into Scrivener.  Typically you get documents from the other side as if they’d been dropped out of a window and reassembled down below in random order.  In Scrivener I can easily organize them chronologically and/or by topic and/or by person.  When I go into a deposition or a negotiation or trial, I’ve got all the necessary papers neatly arrayed in an electronic binder, and I can pop them up on screen in one or both of two available editing windows (and I can print them with my printer, see next post).  Chaos is defeated.  I win.

Microsoft Word, in my opinion, is barely worth paying for. It used to be essential to my office because I had written macros to automate many of the routine law office tasks, but as Microsoft issued new versions, the macros stopped working, and eventually I said the hell with it.  I can do nearly everything I need to do in Libre Office, which is free.  But Scrivener is worth paying for.  It’s actually ridiculously cheap ($40).  I’d pay much more.  This is great software.  Every serious writer who isn’t Shakespeare should try it out.

Lawyer’s Best Friend: A Fast Little Printer

depoAs a lawyer I sometimes take depositions.  The witness sits across the table from me, I ask them questions, the court reporter takes it all down.  Typically, in a deposition you confront the witness with documents — emails or letters they’ve written, reports, charts, whatever matters in the lawsuit.  Some cases involve thousands of pages, and there’s inevitably a moment in the deposition when you need to show the witness a document that you didn’t bring with you.  Oops!  You can’t bring all those boxes, and even if you did, you wouldn’t be able to locate quickly the exact paper you need.

BUT you can have all those documents on your laptop in PDF format — you should, anyway! — and if you had a way to print them … .  I read reviews of a dozen portable printers and I picked one that I like so much I’m doing this shameless promo for it, in the hope you’ll click on the ad and buy one, for which I will get a few cents from Amazon.  It’s the Brother HL2270DW.  It fits into a suitcase, it’s reasonably light, and it’s incredibly fast.  Rated at 27 ppm, it spits out the first page in just a few seconds.  I can pick and print the document I want, in multiple copies, so fast that the other side may not even realize what’s happening.  The paper tray holds 250 sheets, it prints duplex if you want it, and it connects via USB, net, or wifi.  And it’s a laser, so you don’t have to worry about the inkjet heads drying up.  The court reporter told me she had never seen an attorney bring a printer to a deposition.  I predict that when the word gets out about this little rocket, everybody will bring one.