A new vaccine that showed the first partial success in preventing AIDS infection is the result of decades of work by Bay Area scientist Donald Francis, a controversial disease fighter whose early role in combatting the epidemic became the basis of a movie.
"This definitely would not have happened without Don Francis," said Marcus Conant, an emeritus professor at UCSF and longtime AIDS physician. "He pursued the concept of an AIDS vaccine when almost everyone else said it couldn't be done."
Francis, 67, is a co-founder of Global Solutions for Infectious Diseases, the South San Francisco nonprofit that contributed half of the double-acting vaccine that proved 31 percent effective in preventing AIDS infections in a 16,000-person clinical trial in Thailand.
"I'm not sure if I'm elated, but I'm pleased," Francis said Thursday. "We're on the second step of the ladder now, when all these years we've been falling off the first step."
Francis started fighting AIDS in the early 1980s as a maverick scientist with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in San Francisco who argued that unprotected sex at gay bath houses and tainted blood transfusions were spreading the disease - exploits dramatized by actor Matthew Modine in "And the Band Played On," the HBO movie based on the book of the same name by the late Chronicle writer Randy Shilts.
In 1993, Francis left the CDC to join the biotech firm Genentech, which developed an experimental AIDS vaccine that is the ancestor of the formulation used in the Thai test.
Tim Mastro, former head of the CDC's HIV vaccine unit, said Francis tried to persuade the National Institutes of Health to fund clinical trials of the vaccine, and when it said no, he helped spin off the technology into the startup VaxGen, to raise private funds for the tests.
"Don has a really unique blend of scientific rigor, charisma and vision," said Mastro, now with Family Health International in North Carolina.
As president of VaxGen from 1996 to 2004, Francis helped raise about $200 million and oversaw clinical trials of the AIDS vaccine in North America and Thailand. But when the results were analyzed in 2003, that first Thai trial was a complete flop and the North American study was a failure, though it did show hints that the vaccine might benefit African Americans but not whites.
"It was a difficult time," said Francis, who joined other VaxGen veterans to co-found the nonprofit Global Solutions in 2004 to carry on the AIDS vaccine work.
The new and partially successful Thai trial, sponsored by the U.S. Army and the National Institutes for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, combined the Global Solutions vaccine with a different formulation created by the French firm Sanofi Pasteur.
Francis said the two vaccines, acting in different ways, produced results neither could show alone and showed that persistence despite failure could lead to success.
"I've had scientific successes and scientific failures," he said. "I'm looking at tomorrow instead of yesterday."
Friday, September 25, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Ralph Nader, Fiction Writer
Ralph Nader has been many things: lawyer, consumer-rights bulldog, political activist and perennial third-party presidential candidate. He has now added a new title to his business card: fiction writer. His latest book, Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!, is a 700-page populist fantasy in which a small group of billionaires and media moguls — led by Warren Buffett and including Ted Turner, George Soros, Bill Cosby, Yoko Ono and Phil Donahue — pool their massive resources to reform the U.S. With the help of a $15 billion war chest and a p.r. campaign starring a talking parrot, the group successfully unionizes Walmart, ends corporate influence on Congress, makes Warren Beatty the governor of California and legalizes industrial hemp. TIME talked to Nader about the origins of his book, its celebrity characters and the U.S.'s real-life political battles.
You say in your author's note that this book is not a novel. And yet it's not nonfiction. So what is it?
In the literary world, it's either called a work of speculation — "What if something happened?" "What if somebody did this?" — or a practical utopia. We haven't had many practical utopias. Russell Jacoby, a professor out in California, wrote a book called The End of Utopia in 1999, which argues that the idea of imagining better futures has diminished, as we wallow more and more in our desperate state of societal and governmental decay. So I tried to revive the genre, so to speak.
Was that your goal in writing the book? To create a practical utopia?
No. As you go through year after year, as many civic advocates do, being overwhelmed by the corporate lobbies and their allies in government, you say to yourself, 'If we only had more media, if we only had more money, if we only had more field organizers, if we only had better ideas and strategies.' That's what produced the book. What if we had a collection of superrich elderly, retired people who are very dismayed at the state of their beloved country, and what if they got together and really poured money in? What would happen? And what would happen is a major power collision with corporate goliaths and their government allies.
You mention your group of the superrich. How did you come up with that idea, with those characters?
First of all, the civil rights movement, contrary to popular impression, was funded in significant part by superrich people. The right-wing movement in this country is funded by people like Richard Scaife, who's put in a quarter of a billion dollars at least. I decided to pick [my characters] because they all brought something to the table: Barry Diller, media; Ted Turner, media; George Soros, the Open Society Institute and institution-building; Peter Lewis, insurance; Joe Jamail and Bill Gates Sr. on access to justice. They all brought something to it.
How does Yoko Ono fit into the group?
I wanted to have more women than I could find who were older and quite well-known. She brings moral sentiments and aesthetics. Aesthetics is a very understressed dimension of civic action: music, song, beauty, posters, logos, all these things.
Have you met all the people you based these characters on?
Oh yes. I've talked to or met a lot of them: Barry Diller, Phil Donahue, Bernard Rapoport, Leonard Riggio ...
Did you say to any of them, "I'm writing this book about you"?
Not until I finished it.
What did they say?
Well, I got through to eight of them; they were bemused, but obviously they weren't going to say much until they saw the book. But some of them were very pleased.
Did you ever consider making yourself a character in the book?
That's what Warren Beatty wants. He wants to make this a movie, but only if I'm in it.
The jumping-off point for the story is the government's response to Hurricane Katrina. Was that the genesis of the book idea for you as well?
It was one of them, yeah. Another of them was how demoralized they were, these superrich older people that I talked to. I said to them, "How could you be demoralized? You're sitting on 5, 6, 8 billion dollars. For a billion dollars, with field organizers in every congressional district, you can get a single-payer health-care system.' What's a billion dollars to these people?
The events in the book read like an unstoppable wave of progressivism. Isn't it kind of a fantasy to expect that to actually happen?
Well, I tried to unleash almost everything short of detonations [on the main characters]. I mean, the other side really unleashed about everything they had, but you see, they weren't used to being taken on by the big guys or in ways they'd never seen before. They're used to meat-and-potatoes lobbying: put the ads on, get the think tanks going, throw more money in the PACs. Very traditional.
And you think that would be their response in real life as well?
Well, if they were caught by surprise, sure.
What do you think about the current fight over health-care reform?
Well, it's going down heavily. Obama's not going to get a public option. By the time the thousand-page monstrosity of complexity and ambiguity gets to his desk, it's going to be a shred of what the majority of doctors, nurses and the people in this country want — which is full Medicare for all.
What's your take on President Obama thus far?
Weak. Waffling, wavering, ambiguous and overwhelmingly concessionary.
Is any of that enough to get you back into the political arena?
It's too early to say. One thing is, I always want the progressive agenda represented on the ballot, even in a rigged two-party tyranny. I wish other people would do it, but as far as me, it's too early to say.
Do you think third parties have a shot in the next elections?
Sure. They'll be called the Bloomberg Party. Some billionaire will come in like Perot and turn it into a three-way race. There's so many billionaires, and a few of them are quite enlightened. You don't need a right-wing billionaire because they've already got the Republican Party.
Read TIME's 1969 cover story on Ralph Nader.
Who's Looking At Natural Gas Now? Big Oil
In the energy world, Big Oil has long been the key player — with one notable exception: The natural gas business in the United States is dominated by small, independent companies. More than 80 percent of U.S. natural gas supplies are produced by companies with a market capitalization of less than $500 million. On average, these companies have only a dozen employees.
But their business is booming. New production techniques in recent years have enabled companies to extract natural gas from shale rock formations deep underground. As a result, estimates of accessible natural gas reserves have been revised dramatically upward. Small gas producers can justifiably take the credit for the transformation of their industry.
"The major oil companies haven't been paying attention to the U.S. for decades," says Robert Hefner, a 50-year veteran of the natural gas business with a company of his own, GHK Exploration, in Oklahoma City. "It's been a lot of independents like us that have found all this gas, developed the technology and made it happen."
Hefner attributes the proliferation of small natural gas companies to the fact that individual landowners generally retain the mineral rights to their own property. "In America, if [your] dream is to drill a well, you can go out and drill a well," Hefner points out. "As a result, there's been about three-and-a-half-million wells drilled in America over the years, versus about a million and a half for the rest of the world."
Many of those natural gas wells are mom-and-pop operations, or began that way. Often they evolve into slightly larger companies, but even the publicly traded companies are generally small. Those that survive in the energy world have learned to leverage their size.
"We certainly don't have an advantage when it comes to capital," says J. Russell Porter, chairman and chief executive of Gastar Exploration, a Houston-based company with just 23 employees. "The large companies can spend a lot more money than we can. But we can be very quick on the draw, if you will, to seize an opportunity and buy into a new concept or a new area that we think could be prospective for natural gas. If we do that, we usually have a first-mover advantage."
The agility of small companies is an important strength in a field where the ability to move fast is key to maintaining a competitive edge. But there is also a more practical reason small companies dominate the U.S. natural gas business. Typically, a new gas well produces in abundance in the year after it's opened, but then production begins to decline. If a natural gas company is to keep production and revenue steady, it has to keep drilling new wells. The energy majors may not have the patience for that effort.
"Big oil companies like big projects that they can manage over 30 and 40 years," says Nikos Tsafos, natural gas analyst at PFC Energy in Washington. "They prefer those over the project that you need to stay on top of every single day, every single month."
There's no dispute on that point from the oil majors. "With a company our size, we have to have a larger scale," says Patrick McGinn, spokesman for Exxon Mobil's exploration arm. "We have to have a potential resource that has more capability for us to go after."
Managing Innovation And Risk
The natural gas industry, in fact, serves as a case study demonstrating how business strategies vary according to a company's size. From small to large, energy companies manage innovation and risk in ways appropriate to their own circumstances.
Gastar Exploration, like many other natural gas companies, is currently focused on the Marcellus shale formation in the Appalachian basin, perhaps the most promising area for natural gas development in the United States today. But the company has so far limited its activity in the area to a few shallow wells in West Virginia, choosing to let a few larger gas companies take the lead in the area.
"We look at what they're doing," says Gastar CEO Porter. "[We] let them drill some of the early wells, try to determine which drilling techniques work the best, and then once they have done that trial and error and established a pattern that works, we can go in and design our wells without having that trial-and-error phase, which can be very expensive."
The challenge of managing risk is important in any new industrial venture. In the natural gas business, the smallest companies in some ways can be the most adventurous. The new investments they make are tiny compared with what a large company would make. But they will still try to shift as much of the risk to their rivals as they can, just as Gastar is doing.
A Magnet For Big Oil
Paradoxically, the biggest energy companies follow a similar strategy, though in their case they try to shift risk to their smaller rivals. Shale production in the United States looks so promising right now that the big oil companies are thinking about getting back into the natural gas business. Exxon, for example, is looking at some possible shale "plays" in the United States, but — like Gastar — the company is biding its time before making a big move.
"We've taken a couple of years to really work on the technology that's required to do the exploration and production of these kinds of shale plays," says spokesman McGinn. "Doing the homework and doing the technology development takes some time for us, and we are willing to wait for that."
The possibility of Exxon's entry into the U.S. shale gas business would have major implications for a "micro-cap" company like Gastar Exploration, but Porter, Gastar's CEO, is not overly concerned.
"We can live on the fringes if necessary," he says. Or Gastar could just let the big oil companies take over some of its gas operations — for the right price.
"If Exxon came in and wanted to become a dominant player in the Marcellus shale, I'm sure there are lots of small operators who would be willing to sell out to them if they were willing to pay full value," Porter says. "There's always going to be another play for us to go invest in and start creating value all over again."
It's all part of the natural gas business game.
But their business is booming. New production techniques in recent years have enabled companies to extract natural gas from shale rock formations deep underground. As a result, estimates of accessible natural gas reserves have been revised dramatically upward. Small gas producers can justifiably take the credit for the transformation of their industry.
"The major oil companies haven't been paying attention to the U.S. for decades," says Robert Hefner, a 50-year veteran of the natural gas business with a company of his own, GHK Exploration, in Oklahoma City. "It's been a lot of independents like us that have found all this gas, developed the technology and made it happen."
Hefner attributes the proliferation of small natural gas companies to the fact that individual landowners generally retain the mineral rights to their own property. "In America, if [your] dream is to drill a well, you can go out and drill a well," Hefner points out. "As a result, there's been about three-and-a-half-million wells drilled in America over the years, versus about a million and a half for the rest of the world."
Many of those natural gas wells are mom-and-pop operations, or began that way. Often they evolve into slightly larger companies, but even the publicly traded companies are generally small. Those that survive in the energy world have learned to leverage their size.
"We certainly don't have an advantage when it comes to capital," says J. Russell Porter, chairman and chief executive of Gastar Exploration, a Houston-based company with just 23 employees. "The large companies can spend a lot more money than we can. But we can be very quick on the draw, if you will, to seize an opportunity and buy into a new concept or a new area that we think could be prospective for natural gas. If we do that, we usually have a first-mover advantage."
The agility of small companies is an important strength in a field where the ability to move fast is key to maintaining a competitive edge. But there is also a more practical reason small companies dominate the U.S. natural gas business. Typically, a new gas well produces in abundance in the year after it's opened, but then production begins to decline. If a natural gas company is to keep production and revenue steady, it has to keep drilling new wells. The energy majors may not have the patience for that effort.
"Big oil companies like big projects that they can manage over 30 and 40 years," says Nikos Tsafos, natural gas analyst at PFC Energy in Washington. "They prefer those over the project that you need to stay on top of every single day, every single month."
There's no dispute on that point from the oil majors. "With a company our size, we have to have a larger scale," says Patrick McGinn, spokesman for Exxon Mobil's exploration arm. "We have to have a potential resource that has more capability for us to go after."
Managing Innovation And Risk
The natural gas industry, in fact, serves as a case study demonstrating how business strategies vary according to a company's size. From small to large, energy companies manage innovation and risk in ways appropriate to their own circumstances.
Gastar Exploration, like many other natural gas companies, is currently focused on the Marcellus shale formation in the Appalachian basin, perhaps the most promising area for natural gas development in the United States today. But the company has so far limited its activity in the area to a few shallow wells in West Virginia, choosing to let a few larger gas companies take the lead in the area.
"We look at what they're doing," says Gastar CEO Porter. "[We] let them drill some of the early wells, try to determine which drilling techniques work the best, and then once they have done that trial and error and established a pattern that works, we can go in and design our wells without having that trial-and-error phase, which can be very expensive."
The challenge of managing risk is important in any new industrial venture. In the natural gas business, the smallest companies in some ways can be the most adventurous. The new investments they make are tiny compared with what a large company would make. But they will still try to shift as much of the risk to their rivals as they can, just as Gastar is doing.
A Magnet For Big Oil
Paradoxically, the biggest energy companies follow a similar strategy, though in their case they try to shift risk to their smaller rivals. Shale production in the United States looks so promising right now that the big oil companies are thinking about getting back into the natural gas business. Exxon, for example, is looking at some possible shale "plays" in the United States, but — like Gastar — the company is biding its time before making a big move.
"We've taken a couple of years to really work on the technology that's required to do the exploration and production of these kinds of shale plays," says spokesman McGinn. "Doing the homework and doing the technology development takes some time for us, and we are willing to wait for that."
The possibility of Exxon's entry into the U.S. shale gas business would have major implications for a "micro-cap" company like Gastar Exploration, but Porter, Gastar's CEO, is not overly concerned.
"We can live on the fringes if necessary," he says. Or Gastar could just let the big oil companies take over some of its gas operations — for the right price.
"If Exxon came in and wanted to become a dominant player in the Marcellus shale, I'm sure there are lots of small operators who would be willing to sell out to them if they were willing to pay full value," Porter says. "There's always going to be another play for us to go invest in and start creating value all over again."
It's all part of the natural gas business game.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Another Terror Suspect Turns Out To Be FBI Informant
FBI says imam Ahmad Afzali worked both sides and tipped off suspects
The Queens imam arrested in the Denver terrorism probe is an FBI informant the feds say became a double agent - tipping suspects that they were in the government's crosshairs.
Ahmad Afzali, 37, insisted he's been loyally helping the government root out extremists since 9/11.
His lawyer, Ron Kuby, calls him a fall guy.
"I think the FBI is angry that they blew this case, and they want to blame poor Imam Afzali for blowing the investigation," Kuby said.
Afzali told the News just hours before he was arrested Saturday night for lying to the feds that "someone is trying to set me up."
His parents immigrated to Fresh Meadows from Afghanistan when he was 7. They owned pizzerias and were wealthy enough to give their son every new gadget, schoolmates said.
He became religious in high school, and preached at the Masjid Hazrat Abu Bakr Islamic Center, New York's largest Afghan mosque, until 2007, when he opened a funeral business.
Afzali has a wife, three kids, and a taste for luxury cars - always in white, neighbors said.
In interviews last week, he told The News he was always happy to help the FBI.
"They come for information, and I always help," he said. "I have helped them many times."
According to the government, agents approached Afzali Sept. 10 and showed him a photo of Najibullah Zazi, 24, a fellow Afghan immigrant who moved from Queens to Denver.
The next day, Sept. 11, FBI wiretaps caught Zazi's father telling his son he'd gotten a call from Afzali warning him the FBI was showing his photo.
The father was urging his son to call Afzali when call-waiting beeped: Afzali was on Zazi's other line.
"They asked me about you guys," the imam told the suspected terrorist, according to a transcript. "They came to ask me about your characters."
He continued, "I'm not sure what happened. And I don't want to know ...I told them that 'they are innocent, law abiding.'"
Afzali told Zazi to take comfort that the FBI was just asking around about them.
"Trust me, that is a good sign," he said. "The bad sign is for them coming to you guys and picking you up automatically."
Afzali told Zazi: "Listen, our phone call is being monitored."
Hours later, Zazi called the imam to say his rental car had vanished. Afzali allegedly asked if there was any "evidence" in the car and Zazi said no.
The car contained bomb making notes, the FBI says.
According to the government, when questioned April 17, Afzali said it was Zazi who called him, not the other way around.
He allegedly denied tipping Zazi to the probe or asking about evidence in the car - and even denied saying the call was being taped.
Kuby said that charge made no sense. "Why on earth would he lie about the contents of a conversation that he knows is being recorded?" he said. "It would be insane for him to lie about that!"
Kuby said his client might have been confused about who called whom, but was trying to help. "The government asked him to make contact with (Zazi) and find out what he was up to," Kuby said. "So he left out a bunch of things. He's not a trained stenographer. He is doing everything they want him to do."
Prosecutors are skeptical. "Why would he ask Zazi about 'evidence' in his car?" said one official close to the case.
Cousin John Afzali, 42, manager of the family-owned pizzeria Valentino's, called the charges "bogus."
"He's a good guy. He's not extreme. I don't think they got the right person," he said.
Neighbors and friends said they couldn't image Afzali was mixed up in terrorism.
"This guy's got more money than God," said Steven Hayes, 37, who went to Parsons Junior High and Jamaica High School with Afzali. "I'm shocked. Not this guy."
He is famous in the neighborhood for his parade of fancy new cars, from Jaguars to BMWs to Hummers, which he polishes lovingly in his driveway.
"Whatever the latest car comes out, he's got it," said neighbor Yossi Matato, who said he recently saw a new white Jaguar at the house.
The president of the Masjid Al-Saaliheen mosque in Fresh Meadows, who did not want his name used, said Afzali came to see him Friday so upset that he cried.
"He was very sad and scared. He didn't want to be involved," the mosque president said. "He said, 'they asked me questions but I had no idea. I hope they don't turn it around on me.'"
He said yesterday's celebation of the annual Eid holiday was ruined for Muslims worried about what the arrests meant. "The whole community is in full upside-down shock. Everybody is afraid, everybody is talking about it," the imam said.
The Queens imam arrested in the Denver terrorism probe is an FBI informant the feds say became a double agent - tipping suspects that they were in the government's crosshairs.
Ahmad Afzali, 37, insisted he's been loyally helping the government root out extremists since 9/11.
His lawyer, Ron Kuby, calls him a fall guy.
"I think the FBI is angry that they blew this case, and they want to blame poor Imam Afzali for blowing the investigation," Kuby said.
Afzali told the News just hours before he was arrested Saturday night for lying to the feds that "someone is trying to set me up."
His parents immigrated to Fresh Meadows from Afghanistan when he was 7. They owned pizzerias and were wealthy enough to give their son every new gadget, schoolmates said.
He became religious in high school, and preached at the Masjid Hazrat Abu Bakr Islamic Center, New York's largest Afghan mosque, until 2007, when he opened a funeral business.
Afzali has a wife, three kids, and a taste for luxury cars - always in white, neighbors said.
In interviews last week, he told The News he was always happy to help the FBI.
"They come for information, and I always help," he said. "I have helped them many times."
According to the government, agents approached Afzali Sept. 10 and showed him a photo of Najibullah Zazi, 24, a fellow Afghan immigrant who moved from Queens to Denver.
The next day, Sept. 11, FBI wiretaps caught Zazi's father telling his son he'd gotten a call from Afzali warning him the FBI was showing his photo.
The father was urging his son to call Afzali when call-waiting beeped: Afzali was on Zazi's other line.
"They asked me about you guys," the imam told the suspected terrorist, according to a transcript. "They came to ask me about your characters."
He continued, "I'm not sure what happened. And I don't want to know ...I told them that 'they are innocent, law abiding.'"
Afzali told Zazi to take comfort that the FBI was just asking around about them.
"Trust me, that is a good sign," he said. "The bad sign is for them coming to you guys and picking you up automatically."
Afzali told Zazi: "Listen, our phone call is being monitored."
Hours later, Zazi called the imam to say his rental car had vanished. Afzali allegedly asked if there was any "evidence" in the car and Zazi said no.
The car contained bomb making notes, the FBI says.
According to the government, when questioned April 17, Afzali said it was Zazi who called him, not the other way around.
He allegedly denied tipping Zazi to the probe or asking about evidence in the car - and even denied saying the call was being taped.
Kuby said that charge made no sense. "Why on earth would he lie about the contents of a conversation that he knows is being recorded?" he said. "It would be insane for him to lie about that!"
Kuby said his client might have been confused about who called whom, but was trying to help. "The government asked him to make contact with (Zazi) and find out what he was up to," Kuby said. "So he left out a bunch of things. He's not a trained stenographer. He is doing everything they want him to do."
Prosecutors are skeptical. "Why would he ask Zazi about 'evidence' in his car?" said one official close to the case.
Cousin John Afzali, 42, manager of the family-owned pizzeria Valentino's, called the charges "bogus."
"He's a good guy. He's not extreme. I don't think they got the right person," he said.
Neighbors and friends said they couldn't image Afzali was mixed up in terrorism.
"This guy's got more money than God," said Steven Hayes, 37, who went to Parsons Junior High and Jamaica High School with Afzali. "I'm shocked. Not this guy."
He is famous in the neighborhood for his parade of fancy new cars, from Jaguars to BMWs to Hummers, which he polishes lovingly in his driveway.
"Whatever the latest car comes out, he's got it," said neighbor Yossi Matato, who said he recently saw a new white Jaguar at the house.
The president of the Masjid Al-Saaliheen mosque in Fresh Meadows, who did not want his name used, said Afzali came to see him Friday so upset that he cried.
"He was very sad and scared. He didn't want to be involved," the mosque president said. "He said, 'they asked me questions but I had no idea. I hope they don't turn it around on me.'"
He said yesterday's celebation of the annual Eid holiday was ruined for Muslims worried about what the arrests meant. "The whole community is in full upside-down shock. Everybody is afraid, everybody is talking about it," the imam said.
Monday, September 21, 2009
U.S. charges Obama fund-raiser in $290 million fraud
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Hassan Nemazee, a fund-raiser for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, has been indicted for defrauding Bank of America, HSBC and Citigroup Inc out of more than $290 million in loan proceeds, U.S. prosecutors said on Monday.
The announcement follows last month's indictment of Nemazee, head of a private equity firm and an Iranian American Political Action Committee board member, on one count of defrauding Citigroup's Citibank.
The new indictment adds allegations that he defrauded two other banks, Bank of America and HSBC Bank USA, in a similar fashion by falsifying documents and signatures to purportedly show he had hundreds of millions worth of collateral.
The office of the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan and the FBI said he used the proceeds of his scheme to make donations to election campaigns of federal, state and local candidates, donations to political action committees and charities.
He bought property in Italy and paid for maintenance on two properties in New York.
His lawyer could not immediately be reached for comment.
As of August 2009 Nemazee owed Bank of America about $142 million and owed Citibank about $74.9 million, the indictment said. He drew on a line of credit he fraudulently obtained from HSBC to pay the Citibank loan.
Nemazee, 59, typically donates more than $100,000 annually to Democratic political candidates. He is listed as one of the top "bundlers" of contributions to Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, according to OpenSecrets.org, a website run by the Center for Responsive Politics research group.
"For more than 10 years, Hassan Nemazee projected the illusion of wealth, stealing more than $290 million so that he could lead a lavish lifestyle and play the part of heavyweight political fundraiser," United States Attorney Preet Bharara in Manhattan said in a statement.
Nemazee was arrested at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey on August 23 as he was checking in for a flight to Italy, according to court papers. He was released on bail.
If convicted on three counts of bank fraud, Nemazee faces up to 30 years in prison and millions of dollars in fines. He is also charged with identity theft.
The case is: U.S. v. Nemazee, 09-mj-1927 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan)
The announcement follows last month's indictment of Nemazee, head of a private equity firm and an Iranian American Political Action Committee board member, on one count of defrauding Citigroup's Citibank.
The new indictment adds allegations that he defrauded two other banks, Bank of America and HSBC Bank USA, in a similar fashion by falsifying documents and signatures to purportedly show he had hundreds of millions worth of collateral.
The office of the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan and the FBI said he used the proceeds of his scheme to make donations to election campaigns of federal, state and local candidates, donations to political action committees and charities.
He bought property in Italy and paid for maintenance on two properties in New York.
His lawyer could not immediately be reached for comment.
As of August 2009 Nemazee owed Bank of America about $142 million and owed Citibank about $74.9 million, the indictment said. He drew on a line of credit he fraudulently obtained from HSBC to pay the Citibank loan.
Nemazee, 59, typically donates more than $100,000 annually to Democratic political candidates. He is listed as one of the top "bundlers" of contributions to Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, according to OpenSecrets.org, a website run by the Center for Responsive Politics research group.
"For more than 10 years, Hassan Nemazee projected the illusion of wealth, stealing more than $290 million so that he could lead a lavish lifestyle and play the part of heavyweight political fundraiser," United States Attorney Preet Bharara in Manhattan said in a statement.
Nemazee was arrested at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey on August 23 as he was checking in for a flight to Italy, according to court papers. He was released on bail.
If convicted on three counts of bank fraud, Nemazee faces up to 30 years in prison and millions of dollars in fines. He is also charged with identity theft.
The case is: U.S. v. Nemazee, 09-mj-1927 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan)
Scientist: CIA methods may have altered suspects' memories
WASHINGTON — Prolonged stress from the CIA's harsh interrogations could have impaired the memories of terrorism suspects, diminishing their ability to recall and provide the detailed information the spy agency sought, according to a scientific paper published Monday.
The methods could even have caused the suspects to create — and believe — false memories, contends the paper, which scrutinizes the techniques used by the CIA under the Bush administration through the lens of neurobiology.
"Solid scientific evidence on how repeated and extreme stress and pain affect memory and executive functions ... suggests these techniques are unlikely to do anything other than the opposite of that intended," according to the paper in the scientific journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
Shane O'Mara, a professor at Ireland's Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience, said he reviewed the scientific literature about the effect of stress on memory and brain function after reading descriptions of the interrogation methods. Those were detailed in previously classified legal memos released in April.
O'Mara did not examine or interview any of those interrogated by the CIA, a fact noted by the agency in commenting on his work.
"The CIA's former interrogation program was conducted pursuant to legal guidance from the Department of Justice. It produced intelligence on which our government acted to disrupt terrorist operations. Those are facts," CIA spokesman George Little said.
The methods could even have caused the suspects to create — and believe — false memories, contends the paper, which scrutinizes the techniques used by the CIA under the Bush administration through the lens of neurobiology.
"Solid scientific evidence on how repeated and extreme stress and pain affect memory and executive functions ... suggests these techniques are unlikely to do anything other than the opposite of that intended," according to the paper in the scientific journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
Shane O'Mara, a professor at Ireland's Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience, said he reviewed the scientific literature about the effect of stress on memory and brain function after reading descriptions of the interrogation methods. Those were detailed in previously classified legal memos released in April.
O'Mara did not examine or interview any of those interrogated by the CIA, a fact noted by the agency in commenting on his work.
"The CIA's former interrogation program was conducted pursuant to legal guidance from the Department of Justice. It produced intelligence on which our government acted to disrupt terrorist operations. Those are facts," CIA spokesman George Little said.
ATTN Parents and Grandparents: Are bath-time photos child pornography?
Last fall A.J. and Lisa Demaree took a memory stick with family photos to the printing center at the Wal-Mart store in Peoria, Ariz. Some of the photos showed their three young girls, all under 5 years old, partially nude in the bathtub. The Demarees say these were innocent pictures that all families take. But a Wal-Mart employee felt otherwise and contacted the police who agreed that this was a child pornography situation.
The police report read, "The young girl appeared to be posed in a provocative manner." A report issued by Peoria authorities described the photos as "child erotica" and "sex exploitation."
Child Protective Services searched the Demaree home and took custody of the children for a month while the state investigated. The watched family videotapes and found a few in which the children were playing unclothed. Lisa was suspended from her school job for a year, and both of their names were placed on the sex offender registry. The couple spent $75,000 on legal bills.
The Demarees were eventually cleared of any charges and their daughters returned, but they are now suing the state and Wal-Mart for what they call unfair accusations.
This morning the Demarees appeared on "Good Morning America." "I don't' understand it at all," A.J. told "GMA." "Ninety-nine percent of the families in America have these exact same photos."
"It took us a long time to take a picture [again]," Lisa told "GMA." "I even worry about them in their bathing suits now, if I get a shot of them in their bathing suits and they're tilting their heads a certain way or their hips are sticking out a little bit, all I think of is 'Does someone think that it was posed? Or how is that going to be perceived?'"
"Honestly we've missed a year of our children's lives as far as our memories go," Lisa added, "As crazy as it may seem, what you may think are the most beautiful innocent pictures of your children may be seen as something completely different and completely perverted."
What do you think? Were the Demarees treated unfairly? Are bath-time photos innocent or child pornography?
The police report read, "The young girl appeared to be posed in a provocative manner." A report issued by Peoria authorities described the photos as "child erotica" and "sex exploitation."
Child Protective Services searched the Demaree home and took custody of the children for a month while the state investigated. The watched family videotapes and found a few in which the children were playing unclothed. Lisa was suspended from her school job for a year, and both of their names were placed on the sex offender registry. The couple spent $75,000 on legal bills.
The Demarees were eventually cleared of any charges and their daughters returned, but they are now suing the state and Wal-Mart for what they call unfair accusations.
This morning the Demarees appeared on "Good Morning America." "I don't' understand it at all," A.J. told "GMA." "Ninety-nine percent of the families in America have these exact same photos."
"It took us a long time to take a picture [again]," Lisa told "GMA." "I even worry about them in their bathing suits now, if I get a shot of them in their bathing suits and they're tilting their heads a certain way or their hips are sticking out a little bit, all I think of is 'Does someone think that it was posed? Or how is that going to be perceived?'"
"Honestly we've missed a year of our children's lives as far as our memories go," Lisa added, "As crazy as it may seem, what you may think are the most beautiful innocent pictures of your children may be seen as something completely different and completely perverted."
What do you think? Were the Demarees treated unfairly? Are bath-time photos innocent or child pornography?
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Romney, Torture, and Teens The former governor's connections to abusive "tough love" camps
When Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said he’d support doubling the size of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, he was trying to show voters that he’d be tough on terror. Two of his top fundraisers, however, have long supported using tactics that have been likened to torture for troubled teenagers.
As The Hill noted last week, 133 plaintiffs filed a civil suit against Romney’s Utah finance co-chair, Robert Lichfield, and his various business entities involved in residential treatment programs for adolescents. The umbrella group for his organization is the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools (WWASPS, sometimes known as WWASP) and Lichfield is its founder and is on its board of directors.
The suit alleges that teens were locked in outdoor dog cages, exercised to exhaustion, deprived of food and sleep, exposed to extreme temperatures without adequate clothing or water, severely beaten, emotionally brutalized, and sexually abused and humiliated. Some were even made to eat their own vomit.
But the link to teen abuse goes far higher up in the Romney campaign. Romney’s national finance co-chair is a man named Mel Sembler. A long time friend of the Bushes, Sembler was campaign finance chair for the Republican party during the first election of George W. Bush, and a major fundraiser for his father.
Like Lichfield, Sembler also founded a nationwide network of treatment programs for troubled youth. Known as Straight Inc., from 1976 to 1993, it variously operated nine programs in seven states. At all of Straight’s facilities, state investigators and/or civil lawsuits documented scores of abuses including teens being beaten, deprived of food and sleep for days, restrained by fellow youth for hours, bound, sexually humiliated, abused and spat upon.
According to the L.A. Times, California investigators said that at Straight teens were “subjected to unusual punishment, infliction of pain, humiliation, intimidation, ridicule, coercion, threats, mental abuse… and interference with daily living functions such as eating, sleeping and toileting.”
Through a spokesperson, Lichfield has dismissed the similar charges against WWASPS to The Hill as “ludicrous,” claiming that the teens who sued “have a long history of lying, fabricating and twisting the story around to their own benefit.”
Straight would use virtually identical language in its denials: In the 1990 L.A. Times article cited above, a Straight counselor downplayed the California investigators’ report by saying, “Some kids get very upset and lie and some parents believe them.” Both Straight and WWASPS have repeatedly called their teen participants “liars” and “manipulators” who oppose the programs because they want to continue taking drugs or engage in other bad behavior.
Curiously, however, both programs regularly admitted teens who did not actually have serious problems. In 1982, 18-year-old Fred Collins, a Virginia Tech student with excellent grades, went to visit his brother, who was in treatment for a drug problem at Straight in Orlando, Florida.
A counselor determined that he was high on marijuana because his eyes were red (this would later turn out to have been due to swimming in a pool with contacts on). He did admit to occasional marijuana use, but insisted he was not high at the time, nor was he an addict. Nonetheless, he was barraged with hours of humiliating questions, strip-searched, and held against his will for months until he managed to escape.
He won $220,000 in a lawsuit he filed against the program for false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, and battery. Ultimately, Straight would pay out millions in settlements before it finally closed. However, to this day, there are at least eight programs operating that use Straight’s methods, often in former Straight buildings operated by former Straight staff. They include: Alberta Adolescent Recovery Center (Canada), Pathway Family Center (Michigan, Indiana, Ohio), Growing Together (Florida), Possibilities Unlimited (Kentucky), SAFE (Florida), and Phoenix Institute for Adolescents (Georgia).
Sembler has never admitted to the problems with Straight's methods. In fact, when he recently served as Ambassador to Italy, he listed it among his accomplishments on his official State Department profile. Although all of the programs with the Straight name are closed, the nonprofit Straight Foundation that funded them still exists, though under a different name. It's now called the Drug Free America Foundation, and it lobbies for drug testing and in support of tougher policies in the war on drugs.
One of the plaintiffs in the current case against WWASPS, 21-year-old Chelsea Filer, spoke to me when I was researching a TV segment on the industry. She told me that she was forced to walk for miles on a track in scorching desert heat with a 35-pound sandbag on her back. “You were not allowed to scratch your face, move your fingers, lick your lips, move your eyes from the ground,” she said. When she asked for a chapstick, “They put a piece of wood in my mouth and I had to hold it there for two weeks. I was bleeding on my tongue.”
Why was Filer subject to such punishment? “I had less interest in school and more interest in boys and my mom was worried about me,” she says, explaining that her mother believed that the program was nothing more than a strict boarding school.
Because she has attention deficit disorder, Filer was unable to consistently follow the exacting rules, and repeated small violations were seen as ongoing defiance. “It broke my heart that my mom had no belief in me,” she says, describing how, because WWASPS had told her mother to dismiss complaints as “manipulation,” her mother ignored her pleas to come home.
“I’m not a bad kid,” she continued, “I never used drugs, I was never in trouble, I have no criminal record. I know my mom was worried about me—but so many times I told her that this is too much. I would gladly have gone to prison instead.”
WWASPS is linked with facilities Academy at Ivy Ridge (New York), Carolina Springs Academy (South Carolina), Cross Creek Programs (Utah), Darrington Academy (Georgia), Horizon Academy (Nevada), Majestic Ranch Academy (Utah), MidWest Academy (Iowa), Respect Camp (Mississippi), Royal Gorge Academy (Colorado), Spring Creek Lodge (Montana), and Tranquility Bay (Jamaica).
Although it has settled several lawsuits out of court, the organization has never publicly admitted wrong-doing. However, the U.S. State Department spurred Samoa to investigate its Paradise Cove program in 1998 after receiving “credible allegations of physical abuse,” including “beatings, isolation, food and water deprivation, choke-holds, kicking, punching, bondage, spraying with chemical agents, forced medication, verbal abuse and threats of further physical abuse.” Paradise Cove closed shortly thereafter. That same year, the Czech Republic forced the closure of WWASP-linked Morava Academy following employees’ allegations that teens were being abused.
The former director of the Dundee Ranch Academy Program in Costa Rica went to local authorities after seeing medical neglect and other severe abuse, although human rights abuse charges were ultimately dropped against the owner, Robert Lichfield’s brother Narvin. That program closed in 2003.
Police in Mexico have shut down three WWASP-linked facilities: Sunrise Beach (1996), Casa By The Sea (2004) and High Impact (where police videotaped the teens chained in dog cages).
In 2005, New York’s Eliot Spitzer forced WWASP to return over $1 million to the parents of Academy at Ivy Ridge students, because the school had fraudulently claimed to provide legitimate New York high school diplomas. He fined Ivy Ridge $250,000, plus $2000 in court costs. A civil suit has been filed for educational fraud in New York as well, by a different law firm.
Straight's Sembler currently heads the Scooter Libby Defense Fund, in addition to his work for Romney, and has worked tirelessly to keep the Vice President's former Chief of Staff out of prison, even after his conviction on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. After all, if running programs that impose these kinds of "treatments" on American teenagers is not a prison-worthy offense, why should lying to a court be?
The Romney campaign is aware of the WWASP suits, and should be familiar with the Straight suits. If not, it's worth asking: Does Romney support these types of tactics for at-risk youth? Or does he take the line the organizations founded by his fundraisers take—that these dozens of lawsuits are merely from bad kids who make up lies?
Coming from the man who wants to double the size of Guantanamo, these aren't insignificant questions. If Romney doesn't believe the aggressive tactics he supports for use against enemy combatants ought to be used against troubled teens and youth drug users, he should say so, and show he means it by removing these men from his campaign.
As The Hill noted last week, 133 plaintiffs filed a civil suit against Romney’s Utah finance co-chair, Robert Lichfield, and his various business entities involved in residential treatment programs for adolescents. The umbrella group for his organization is the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools (WWASPS, sometimes known as WWASP) and Lichfield is its founder and is on its board of directors.
The suit alleges that teens were locked in outdoor dog cages, exercised to exhaustion, deprived of food and sleep, exposed to extreme temperatures without adequate clothing or water, severely beaten, emotionally brutalized, and sexually abused and humiliated. Some were even made to eat their own vomit.
But the link to teen abuse goes far higher up in the Romney campaign. Romney’s national finance co-chair is a man named Mel Sembler. A long time friend of the Bushes, Sembler was campaign finance chair for the Republican party during the first election of George W. Bush, and a major fundraiser for his father.
Like Lichfield, Sembler also founded a nationwide network of treatment programs for troubled youth. Known as Straight Inc., from 1976 to 1993, it variously operated nine programs in seven states. At all of Straight’s facilities, state investigators and/or civil lawsuits documented scores of abuses including teens being beaten, deprived of food and sleep for days, restrained by fellow youth for hours, bound, sexually humiliated, abused and spat upon.
According to the L.A. Times, California investigators said that at Straight teens were “subjected to unusual punishment, infliction of pain, humiliation, intimidation, ridicule, coercion, threats, mental abuse… and interference with daily living functions such as eating, sleeping and toileting.”
Through a spokesperson, Lichfield has dismissed the similar charges against WWASPS to The Hill as “ludicrous,” claiming that the teens who sued “have a long history of lying, fabricating and twisting the story around to their own benefit.”
Straight would use virtually identical language in its denials: In the 1990 L.A. Times article cited above, a Straight counselor downplayed the California investigators’ report by saying, “Some kids get very upset and lie and some parents believe them.” Both Straight and WWASPS have repeatedly called their teen participants “liars” and “manipulators” who oppose the programs because they want to continue taking drugs or engage in other bad behavior.
Curiously, however, both programs regularly admitted teens who did not actually have serious problems. In 1982, 18-year-old Fred Collins, a Virginia Tech student with excellent grades, went to visit his brother, who was in treatment for a drug problem at Straight in Orlando, Florida.
A counselor determined that he was high on marijuana because his eyes were red (this would later turn out to have been due to swimming in a pool with contacts on). He did admit to occasional marijuana use, but insisted he was not high at the time, nor was he an addict. Nonetheless, he was barraged with hours of humiliating questions, strip-searched, and held against his will for months until he managed to escape.
He won $220,000 in a lawsuit he filed against the program for false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, and battery. Ultimately, Straight would pay out millions in settlements before it finally closed. However, to this day, there are at least eight programs operating that use Straight’s methods, often in former Straight buildings operated by former Straight staff. They include: Alberta Adolescent Recovery Center (Canada), Pathway Family Center (Michigan, Indiana, Ohio), Growing Together (Florida), Possibilities Unlimited (Kentucky), SAFE (Florida), and Phoenix Institute for Adolescents (Georgia).
Sembler has never admitted to the problems with Straight's methods. In fact, when he recently served as Ambassador to Italy, he listed it among his accomplishments on his official State Department profile. Although all of the programs with the Straight name are closed, the nonprofit Straight Foundation that funded them still exists, though under a different name. It's now called the Drug Free America Foundation, and it lobbies for drug testing and in support of tougher policies in the war on drugs.
One of the plaintiffs in the current case against WWASPS, 21-year-old Chelsea Filer, spoke to me when I was researching a TV segment on the industry. She told me that she was forced to walk for miles on a track in scorching desert heat with a 35-pound sandbag on her back. “You were not allowed to scratch your face, move your fingers, lick your lips, move your eyes from the ground,” she said. When she asked for a chapstick, “They put a piece of wood in my mouth and I had to hold it there for two weeks. I was bleeding on my tongue.”
Why was Filer subject to such punishment? “I had less interest in school and more interest in boys and my mom was worried about me,” she says, explaining that her mother believed that the program was nothing more than a strict boarding school.
Because she has attention deficit disorder, Filer was unable to consistently follow the exacting rules, and repeated small violations were seen as ongoing defiance. “It broke my heart that my mom had no belief in me,” she says, describing how, because WWASPS had told her mother to dismiss complaints as “manipulation,” her mother ignored her pleas to come home.
“I’m not a bad kid,” she continued, “I never used drugs, I was never in trouble, I have no criminal record. I know my mom was worried about me—but so many times I told her that this is too much. I would gladly have gone to prison instead.”
WWASPS is linked with facilities Academy at Ivy Ridge (New York), Carolina Springs Academy (South Carolina), Cross Creek Programs (Utah), Darrington Academy (Georgia), Horizon Academy (Nevada), Majestic Ranch Academy (Utah), MidWest Academy (Iowa), Respect Camp (Mississippi), Royal Gorge Academy (Colorado), Spring Creek Lodge (Montana), and Tranquility Bay (Jamaica).
Although it has settled several lawsuits out of court, the organization has never publicly admitted wrong-doing. However, the U.S. State Department spurred Samoa to investigate its Paradise Cove program in 1998 after receiving “credible allegations of physical abuse,” including “beatings, isolation, food and water deprivation, choke-holds, kicking, punching, bondage, spraying with chemical agents, forced medication, verbal abuse and threats of further physical abuse.” Paradise Cove closed shortly thereafter. That same year, the Czech Republic forced the closure of WWASP-linked Morava Academy following employees’ allegations that teens were being abused.
The former director of the Dundee Ranch Academy Program in Costa Rica went to local authorities after seeing medical neglect and other severe abuse, although human rights abuse charges were ultimately dropped against the owner, Robert Lichfield’s brother Narvin. That program closed in 2003.
Police in Mexico have shut down three WWASP-linked facilities: Sunrise Beach (1996), Casa By The Sea (2004) and High Impact (where police videotaped the teens chained in dog cages).
In 2005, New York’s Eliot Spitzer forced WWASP to return over $1 million to the parents of Academy at Ivy Ridge students, because the school had fraudulently claimed to provide legitimate New York high school diplomas. He fined Ivy Ridge $250,000, plus $2000 in court costs. A civil suit has been filed for educational fraud in New York as well, by a different law firm.
Straight's Sembler currently heads the Scooter Libby Defense Fund, in addition to his work for Romney, and has worked tirelessly to keep the Vice President's former Chief of Staff out of prison, even after his conviction on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. After all, if running programs that impose these kinds of "treatments" on American teenagers is not a prison-worthy offense, why should lying to a court be?
The Romney campaign is aware of the WWASP suits, and should be familiar with the Straight suits. If not, it's worth asking: Does Romney support these types of tactics for at-risk youth? Or does he take the line the organizations founded by his fundraisers take—that these dozens of lawsuits are merely from bad kids who make up lies?
Coming from the man who wants to double the size of Guantanamo, these aren't insignificant questions. If Romney doesn't believe the aggressive tactics he supports for use against enemy combatants ought to be used against troubled teens and youth drug users, he should say so, and show he means it by removing these men from his campaign.
$50000 reward for Obama Birth Info
The vast majority of the leftist mainstream and alternative “conservative” media have repeatedly called any American who has demanded that Barack Hussein Obama release his supposed Hawaiian birth certificate to prove he is a natural-born citizen, as is required under the United States Constitution, a fringe-kook-conspiracy-theorist-wing-nut.
So here is my question with $50,000 cash to anybody in the media who can answer the following 3 part question:
1. What hospital in Hawaii was Barack Hussein Obama born in?
2. Who was the attending physician who delivered BHO?
3. What time was BHO born?
Any 12 year-old signing up for Little League would have to provide this information on their BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Yet not one person in the entire media has been able to provide the answers to the very simple questions I have posed above.
$50,000 cold hard cash to anybody in the media who can show me the actual authenticated long-form birth certificate which answers the above questions.
So far NOBODY in the media has.
And until they do, there is no doubt in my mind, we have a foreign-born usurper in the White House.
And that means we, my friends, are living under TYRANNY…
So here is my question with $50,000 cash to anybody in the media who can answer the following 3 part question:
1. What hospital in Hawaii was Barack Hussein Obama born in?
2. Who was the attending physician who delivered BHO?
3. What time was BHO born?
Any 12 year-old signing up for Little League would have to provide this information on their BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Yet not one person in the entire media has been able to provide the answers to the very simple questions I have posed above.
$50,000 cold hard cash to anybody in the media who can show me the actual authenticated long-form birth certificate which answers the above questions.
So far NOBODY in the media has.
And until they do, there is no doubt in my mind, we have a foreign-born usurper in the White House.
And that means we, my friends, are living under TYRANNY…
Carter: US might have been involved in 2002 Chavez coup
The United States knew about an abortive coup against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in 2002, and may even have taken part, former US president Jimmy Carter has told a Colombian newspaper.
"I think there is no doubt that in 2002, the United States had at the very least full knowledge about the coup, and could even have been directly involved," Carter said in an interview with El Tiempo published Sunday.
The former US leader said it is understandable that Chavez continues to blame the United States for the failed overthrow attempt.
The Venezuelan president, considered a bulwark of leftism in Latin America, was overthrown by a civilian-military junta for about 48 hours in April 2002, before returning to power.
Then-president George W. Bush denied any US involvement in the abortive coup and called on Chavez, a fierce US critic, to "learn a lesson" from the attempted overthrow.
Carter told El Tiempo that he believed Chavez was elected in a "fair" vote in 1999, had carried out necessary reforms for Venezuela and ensured that "those who are traditionally excluded are able to get a larger share of the national wealth."
But he also said he was worried by the Venezuelan leader's drift towards "authoritarianism."
He added that he felt Chavez's popularity at home and his influence abroad had been "diminished."
Carter said US President Barack Obama had told him he would eventually like to have normal relations with Venezuela.
"But he (Chavez) has made this almost impossible," Carter said, adding that "international relations would be better if he would stop his attacks and insults against the United States."
"I think there is no doubt that in 2002, the United States had at the very least full knowledge about the coup, and could even have been directly involved," Carter said in an interview with El Tiempo published Sunday.
The former US leader said it is understandable that Chavez continues to blame the United States for the failed overthrow attempt.
The Venezuelan president, considered a bulwark of leftism in Latin America, was overthrown by a civilian-military junta for about 48 hours in April 2002, before returning to power.
Then-president George W. Bush denied any US involvement in the abortive coup and called on Chavez, a fierce US critic, to "learn a lesson" from the attempted overthrow.
Carter told El Tiempo that he believed Chavez was elected in a "fair" vote in 1999, had carried out necessary reforms for Venezuela and ensured that "those who are traditionally excluded are able to get a larger share of the national wealth."
But he also said he was worried by the Venezuelan leader's drift towards "authoritarianism."
He added that he felt Chavez's popularity at home and his influence abroad had been "diminished."
Carter said US President Barack Obama had told him he would eventually like to have normal relations with Venezuela.
"But he (Chavez) has made this almost impossible," Carter said, adding that "international relations would be better if he would stop his attacks and insults against the United States."
Health reform's 'gang of 6' reaps political cash
The bipartisan "gang of six" senators who helped craft the health care reform bill going before a key Senate committee Tuesday represent less than 3 percent of the U.S. population - but they hold a lot of power at a crucial policy-shaping moment in Congress.
That's why, analysts say, health care industry lobbyists have showered them with more campaign cash on average than other senators this year, in an attempt to influence the outcome.
Three Republican and three Democratic senators in the group, all of them members of the Senate Finance Committee, received an average of $74,600 from health industry lobbyists, according to The Chronicle's analysis of records through June.
That is about 25 percent more than the average of $59,632 in such donations that the gang's other Senate colleagues raked in from lobbyists for the pharmaceutical, hospital, insurance and nursing home industries, according to the analysis, which was based on records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit watchdog group.
"Money buys access," said Henry Brady, a professor of public policy and dean of the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley.
Campaign contributions - along with volatile public opinion, confusion about what's in the reform plans in Congress and a lack of clarity from President Obama on his vision of reform - could also "swing some Democrats to the center on health care," said Larry Berman, a professor of political science at UC Davis.
"I'm not saying it's the only thing, but it could be a factor," Berman said.
Grassley, Baucus at top
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee who is seen as key to influencing other conservatives, received the most this year - $223,600. Committee chair Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., was second with $141,000.
In times of rowdy town hall meetings, middle-of-the-road Washington legislators hold more power in this increasingly pitched battle for a simple reason: They are seen as holding opinions that could be influenced, analysts said.
"There is not a quid pro quo but there is an expectation that a contribution gives you a chance to be heard by the member," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks the influence of money on politics and government.
"Money is a huge consideration for members of Congress, who are constantly running for re-election," she said. "Their constituents aren't always running up to them on Capitol Hill. But these lobbyists are."
Baucus' $856 billion, 10-year bill, which is scheduled to be amended and voted on beginning Tuesday, has been criticized by liberals and conservatives across Capitol Hill.
Conservatives blasted the plan for increasing the tax burden on some Americans. The plan imposes a 35 percent excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans that cost more than $8,000 a year per person, or $21,000 a year per family.
Liberals dislike the Baucus plan because it does not allow consumers to choose a government-run insurance option, which could hold down costs by promoting competition with private insurers.
Baucus' bill would allow cooperatives to sell insurance as a form of competition for private insurers, but Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said co-ops "seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many areas of the country."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco has held off on a House vote until the Senate acts. She has not decided how to move forward.
Blue Dog Democrats
In the House, the key players are the conservative, Blue Dog Democrats. Their 52 members are self-described fiscal conservatives who largely represent southern and Midwestern districts that swing back and forth between Democrats and Republicans.
Blue Dogs have received an average of $31,467 from health care lobbyists this year, more than the $27,385 average of other House members, according to federal figures compiled by The Chronicle.
But that dynamic doesn't hold true among California Democrats. The Golden State's seven Blue Dogs received less on average than their generally more conservative Blue Dog colleagues in other states, and less than California's other Democrats.
One reason: California is home to some of the House's top leaders, including Pelosi and committee chairs, including Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont, and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles. Committee chairs generally pull in more campaign contributions because of the power they wield over the legislative flow.
"The feeling among the health care lobbyists may be that the California Democrats wouldn't be able to contradict their leadership," Berman said.
Online: Find out how much in campaign contributions your senator or representative received from the health care industry at sfgate.com/ZIES.
Health care money to members of Congress
Senate's "Gang of six"
Six Senate Finance Committee members who negotiated a health reform plan that goes before the committee Tuesday represent about 3 percent of the nation's population but received 25 percent more in campaign funds from health care interests than their Senate colleagues through June 30.
Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa - $223,600
Max Baucus, D-Mont. - $141,000
Kent Conrad, D-N.D. - $51,000
Mike Enzi, R-Wyo. - $18,000
Olympia Snowe, R-Maine - $9,000
Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. - $5,000
California senators
Barbara Boxer, D - $42,500
Dianne Feinstein, D - $15,500
House Blue Dogs
The fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats are a key constituency in the health care debate, receiving more campaign contributions, on average, than other members of the House of Representatives, except in California, which is home to powerful House committee chairs and leaders.
California Blue Dog Democrats
Mike Thompson, St. Helena - $81,750
Dennis Cardoza, Atwater (Merced County) - $38,000
Adam Schiff, Glendale (Los Angeles County) - $22,800
Joe Baca, San Bernardino - $13,650
Loretta Sanchez, Garden Grove (Orange Co.) - $7,900
Jane Harman, Venice (Los Angeles County) - $5,750
Jim Costa, Hanford (Kings County) - $1,000
Average, California Blue Dogs - $24,407
Average, Blue Dogs in other states - $31,467
Bay Area House members
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco - $188,900
Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto - $86,300
George Miller, D-Martinez - $33,500
Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton - $32,850
Pete Stark, D-Fremont - $31,751
Barbara Lee, D-Oakland - $25,650
Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose - $17,750
Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma - $12,425
Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough - $12,000
Mike Honda, D-San Jose - $11,500
Source: Federal election records through June 30, compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics and analyzed by The Chronicle.
That's why, analysts say, health care industry lobbyists have showered them with more campaign cash on average than other senators this year, in an attempt to influence the outcome.
Three Republican and three Democratic senators in the group, all of them members of the Senate Finance Committee, received an average of $74,600 from health industry lobbyists, according to The Chronicle's analysis of records through June.
That is about 25 percent more than the average of $59,632 in such donations that the gang's other Senate colleagues raked in from lobbyists for the pharmaceutical, hospital, insurance and nursing home industries, according to the analysis, which was based on records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit watchdog group.
"Money buys access," said Henry Brady, a professor of public policy and dean of the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley.
Campaign contributions - along with volatile public opinion, confusion about what's in the reform plans in Congress and a lack of clarity from President Obama on his vision of reform - could also "swing some Democrats to the center on health care," said Larry Berman, a professor of political science at UC Davis.
"I'm not saying it's the only thing, but it could be a factor," Berman said.
Grassley, Baucus at top
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee who is seen as key to influencing other conservatives, received the most this year - $223,600. Committee chair Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., was second with $141,000.
In times of rowdy town hall meetings, middle-of-the-road Washington legislators hold more power in this increasingly pitched battle for a simple reason: They are seen as holding opinions that could be influenced, analysts said.
"There is not a quid pro quo but there is an expectation that a contribution gives you a chance to be heard by the member," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks the influence of money on politics and government.
"Money is a huge consideration for members of Congress, who are constantly running for re-election," she said. "Their constituents aren't always running up to them on Capitol Hill. But these lobbyists are."
Baucus' $856 billion, 10-year bill, which is scheduled to be amended and voted on beginning Tuesday, has been criticized by liberals and conservatives across Capitol Hill.
Conservatives blasted the plan for increasing the tax burden on some Americans. The plan imposes a 35 percent excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans that cost more than $8,000 a year per person, or $21,000 a year per family.
Liberals dislike the Baucus plan because it does not allow consumers to choose a government-run insurance option, which could hold down costs by promoting competition with private insurers.
Baucus' bill would allow cooperatives to sell insurance as a form of competition for private insurers, but Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said co-ops "seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many areas of the country."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco has held off on a House vote until the Senate acts. She has not decided how to move forward.
Blue Dog Democrats
In the House, the key players are the conservative, Blue Dog Democrats. Their 52 members are self-described fiscal conservatives who largely represent southern and Midwestern districts that swing back and forth between Democrats and Republicans.
Blue Dogs have received an average of $31,467 from health care lobbyists this year, more than the $27,385 average of other House members, according to federal figures compiled by The Chronicle.
But that dynamic doesn't hold true among California Democrats. The Golden State's seven Blue Dogs received less on average than their generally more conservative Blue Dog colleagues in other states, and less than California's other Democrats.
One reason: California is home to some of the House's top leaders, including Pelosi and committee chairs, including Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont, and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles. Committee chairs generally pull in more campaign contributions because of the power they wield over the legislative flow.
"The feeling among the health care lobbyists may be that the California Democrats wouldn't be able to contradict their leadership," Berman said.
Online: Find out how much in campaign contributions your senator or representative received from the health care industry at sfgate.com/ZIES.
Health care money to members of Congress
Senate's "Gang of six"
Six Senate Finance Committee members who negotiated a health reform plan that goes before the committee Tuesday represent about 3 percent of the nation's population but received 25 percent more in campaign funds from health care interests than their Senate colleagues through June 30.
Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa - $223,600
Max Baucus, D-Mont. - $141,000
Kent Conrad, D-N.D. - $51,000
Mike Enzi, R-Wyo. - $18,000
Olympia Snowe, R-Maine - $9,000
Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. - $5,000
California senators
Barbara Boxer, D - $42,500
Dianne Feinstein, D - $15,500
House Blue Dogs
The fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats are a key constituency in the health care debate, receiving more campaign contributions, on average, than other members of the House of Representatives, except in California, which is home to powerful House committee chairs and leaders.
California Blue Dog Democrats
Mike Thompson, St. Helena - $81,750
Dennis Cardoza, Atwater (Merced County) - $38,000
Adam Schiff, Glendale (Los Angeles County) - $22,800
Joe Baca, San Bernardino - $13,650
Loretta Sanchez, Garden Grove (Orange Co.) - $7,900
Jane Harman, Venice (Los Angeles County) - $5,750
Jim Costa, Hanford (Kings County) - $1,000
Average, California Blue Dogs - $24,407
Average, Blue Dogs in other states - $31,467
Bay Area House members
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco - $188,900
Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto - $86,300
George Miller, D-Martinez - $33,500
Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton - $32,850
Pete Stark, D-Fremont - $31,751
Barbara Lee, D-Oakland - $25,650
Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose - $17,750
Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma - $12,425
Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough - $12,000
Mike Honda, D-San Jose - $11,500
Source: Federal election records through June 30, compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics and analyzed by The Chronicle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
