Thanks for the Wiki-link about the “Opium Wars”. I didn’t know much about that before.

From the article:

Following the Battle of Plassey in 1757, in which Britain annexed Bengal to its empire, the British East India Company pursued a monopoly on production and export of Indian opium. Monopoly began in earnest in 1773, as the British Governor-General of Bengal abolished the opium syndicate at Patna. For the next fifty years opium trade would be the key to the East India Company's hold on the subcontinent.

So the scheme seems to be:

Find something addictive to sell…or create an addictive need for some product [ie: cigarettes] and then monopolize the production/transport and sale of the product through any means necessary.

In my opinion, one example is the American highway system. The Government created and stoked fear of “the commies” in the populace and then used that fear to [among other things] create a huge need for petroleum. [US highway system and automobiles instead of mass transit] Then they could profit not only from the product itself, but from the wars required to obtain it and maintain top-dog status in the system.

The price was manipulated-starting out small to get the populace hooked, then slowly increasing the amount, when there was no longer a viable choice, since the mass-transit infrastructure had been starved to emaciation.

About the highway system [from Wikipedia]:

One of Eisenhower's enduring achievements was championing and signing the bill that authorized the Interstate Highway System in 1956. He justified the project through the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 as essential to American security during the Cold Wa. It was believed that large cities would be targets in a possible future war, and the highways were designed to evacuate them and allow the military to move in. […] Noticing the improved ability to move logistics throughout the country, he thought an Interstate Highway System in the U.S. would not only be beneficial for military operations, but be the building block for continued economic growth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower

Eisenhower argued for the highways for the purpose of national defense. In the event of an invasion by a foreign power, the military would need good roads to be able to quickly transport troops around the country. […] Another result of the act was the direct subsidization of the suburban road infrastructure, making commutes between urban centers to suburbs much quicker, furthering the flight of citizens and businesses and divestment from inner cities, and compounding vehicle pollution and excessive petroleum use problems.[citation needed] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956

It's ironic that "beware the MIC" Eisenhower was a big proponent of the highways/petroleum addiction.

“Public Option Enemy No. 1 [Rick Scott]” [Mother Jones] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/07/public-option-enemy-no-1

Scott isn't foolish enough to say he opposes reform outright. Instead, his group says it wants to promote health care reform that focuses on "choice" (of doctors), "competition" (between private insurers), "accountability" (standardized insurance claim forms and tax reform), and "personal responsibility" (of patients). Not everyone thinks that's real change.

Digby: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/bernie-madoff-of-health-care-by-digby.html

It seems to me that it should be somebody's job to expose this man. He's the most evil of evil CEOs. He should be a reviled and loathed character on par with the lowliest criminals at this point, and yet he's on TV lying about health care for his own profit. How can this be?

From Digby’s Update: Chris Hayes [The Nation]: “Healthcare Enemy #1”, 3/11/09

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090330/hayes?rel=hp_currently

Having Scott lead the charge against healthcare reform is like tapping Bernie Madoff to campaign against tighter securities regulation. You see, the for-profit hospital chain Scott helped found--the one he ran and built his entire reputation on--was discovered to be in the habit of defrauding the government out of hundreds of millions of dollars.

[…]

Congressman Pete Stark, a veteran of the last bruising round of fighting over healthcare reform, remembers Scott all too well. Stark recently sent his colleagues a letter hoping to refresh their memories. Calling Scott a "swindler," the letter said, "If he is the conservative spokesperson against healthcare reform, there is no debate."

From The Nation article referenced above:

But in Washington there's no such thing as permanent disgrace, and as the healthcare debate heats up, Scott has established himself as a go-to source for reporters looking to hear from the opposition. He's been quoted in the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. He's been on Fox, of course, railing against President Obama's efforts to control healthcare costs. He appeared on CNN, where (as Media Matters noted) host Jessica Yellin never saw fit to notify viewers that the man she introduced as running "a media campaign to limit government's role in the healthcare system" once ran a company that profited mightily from ripping off that government.

The article was purely from the perspective of the detainee. Hardly objective reporting.--farragut

The six years Wakil spent in detention without a voice resulted in "objective reporting" during that time?

March 19, 2001

Taliban Explains Buddha Demolition

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/19/world/taliban-explains-buddha-demolition.html?scp=1&sq=Taliban%20Explains%20Buddha%20Demolition&st=cse&pagewanted=2&pagewanted=print

"[...] An adviser to the Taliban leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, Mr. Rahmatullah gave for the first time here the Taliban's version of events: how a council of religious scholars ordered the statues destroyed in a fit of indignation.

The destruction, according to his account, was prompted last month when a visiting delegation of mostly European envoys and a representative of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization offered money to protect the giant standing Buddhas at Bamiyan, where the Taliban was engaged in fighting an opposition alliance.

Other reports, however, have said the religious leaders were debating the move for months, and ultimately decided that the statues were idolatrous and should be obliterated. [...]"