MY POV
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!
|
||
|
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin 
PREVIOUS POV's
LINKS YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT: 34 Million Friends Campaign ACLU Alliance for Justice Americans United for Separation of Church & State The American Spectator Amnesty International Baghdad Burning Black Box Voting: site 1 Black Box Voting: site 2 The Bush Watch The Center for Responsive Politics Citizen Access Project Earthjustice Extreme Ashcroft FAIR The Funny Times Government Information Awareness Jim Hightower Law Enforcement Against Prohibition mediamouse Media Whores Michael Moore MoveOn Natural Resources Defense Council The Onion People for the American Way Randy's Soapbox Save America Save ROE The Sustainability Institute This Modern World U.S. Green Building Council Witness World Press Review
Own this patriotic message.
Causes & Commentary: MY POV archives: previous rants Censorship: a great evil Hemp: why aren't we growing it? ETC Group: terminator seeds Anti-Semitism: an essay 
The Mars Society
Do a good turn with a mouse click a day: The Animal Rescue Site The Breast Cancer Site The Child Health Site The Hunger Site The Rain Forest Site
Satire has never served a better purpose. Go see. Before they cart us off to the camps.
"...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...."
Benito Mussolini
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes
me to tremble for the safety of my country... Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
Abraham Lincoln, November 12, 1864
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided man."
Martin Luther King Jr., 1963
"CORPORATION, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility."
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
LINKS FROM FURTHER OUT ON THE EDGE: Mrs. Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian The Democratic Underground. If we have to go through the 60's again, let's try to get it right this time. Lileks.com White House
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarschall
"Authoritarian societies inevitably crumble because they silence the critics who could save them from errors of blind hubris. Dissent is not a luxury to be indulged in the best of times, but rather an obligation of free people, particularly when the very notion of dissent is unpopular." Robert Scheer
|
Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? "My life is my message."
Gandhi
Posted: 30 June 2004
Wouldn't it be nice to actually get the president we vote for? If you don't want a repeat of election 2000, pay attention to the voting machines. Here's some info from the Center for American Progress. Information Breakdown The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is meeting in Houston this week to review plans "designed to prevent the kind of controversies that called into question the results of the 2000 presidential election." President Bush has "woefully underfunded" the EAC, which is supposed to be in charge of fixing glitches for the 2004 election, did not have commissioners appointed until last January, and will be convening its Board of Advisers and Standards for the first time this week. They should have a lot to talk about: With the 2004 presidential election looming, recent controversies involving electronic voting machines and voter databases demonstrate time is running out for officials to allay fears about a repeat of the 2000 debacle. VOTING MACHINE BREAKDOWN: Last week, experts before the House Committee on Science warned "This year's Presidential election could have balloting snafus like those in Florida in 2000," if "ATM-like electronic voting systems" continue replacing punch-card systems in voting booths. Election officials who joined the experts testified that little progress had been made since Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002, "because the National Institute of Standards, charged to develop and certify e-voting standards, received no additional funding for the job." A recent New York Times editorial opined the oversight on voting systems was so poor that election officials ought to look to Las Vegas for guidance, where gambling machines are operated "honestly and accurately. Electronic voting, by comparison, is rife with lax procedures, security risks and conflicts of interest." STATES RESPOND: The voting machines have come under fire across the country for technical glitches and a lack of transparency. In Florida, where "touch-screen machines are used in 15 of the largest counties," an election watchdog group has asked Gov. Jeb Bush for an audit of the state's new voting machines. In California, 14 counties are "busily piecing together plans to bring paper ballots back to polling booths for the November presidential election" after a panel rejected Diebold touch-screen machines because they were rife with "technical problems." Maryland and Ohio have also "scaled back plans to buy e-voting machines," mostly made by Diebold. Diebold's CEO is Bush Pioneer Walden O'Dell, who wrote in a fundraising letter last August that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." QUICK FIXES NEEDED: A report released yesterday by a coalition of civil rights groups and computer security experts warned, "high-tech voting systems need quick fixes if they are to be used in the November election." Emphasizing short-term feasibility, the recommendations include an independent security review of machines, training programs for election officials, and procedures for monitoring election glitches. David Bear, a spokesperson for Diebold, sloughed off the recommendations, saying "some of these things have been done" by states like Maryland and Georgia. "They've shown that electronic voting is safe, secure and accurate." Apparently, not everyone in those states agrees: In Maryland on Friday, a group of activists "filed for an injunction preventing the use of Diebold machines in November. The group has described the suit as 'perhaps the last and only opportunity to avert…an electoral train wreck before it actually occurs.'" FELON LIST REDUX: Electronic voting machines are not the only problem threatening the upcoming election—in Florida, where studies found thousands of eligible voters were "wrongly tagged as felons" during the 2000 election, officials are struggling to explain errors found in the state's supposedly updated mechanism for purging felons from voter rolls. This week, the Miami Herald reported, "The accuracy of Florida's $2 million central voter database came under fire again…following revelations that the list does not include the names of thousands of former criminals whose right to vote was restored prior to 1977." A spokesperson for the Brennan Center for Justice, which made the allegations, said, "The one thing the state has ensured is that eligible voters are at risk. Once again…[t]he state's policy seems to be when in doubt, keep them out." State law prohibits news media or the public from having access to the purge list, so voters may not find out until election day that they "have been purged from the voter rolls because of mishandled paperwork or a typing mistake. Some may have been law-abiding citizens who just had the same name as a criminal."
Posted: 30 June 2004
Let the technology battles begin. 10 Patents Used To Limit Free Expression By Daniel Terdiman, Wired News The Electronic Frontier Foundation is spoiling for a fight, and on Wednesday it named the top 10 patents it wants killed, or at least redefined. The EFF said all 10 patents are in some way illegitimate and are being used to limit free expression. As part of its Patent Busting Project, the EFF in mid-June began soliciting the public for submissions of patents that were both potentially invalid and used to stifle online innovation. The organization received nearly 200 suggestions, 10 of which it will now formally ask the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to re-examine. "These patent owners have been threatening people that just can't defend themselves," said Jason Schultz, staff attorney at the EFF. "They're trying to claim ownership over some fundamental part of software of the Internet that people use every day, and they're threatening small companies or individuals that can't afford lawyers." The owners of the 10 patents include some of the biggest names in media and entertainment, as well as some smaller firms and one individual. In each case, Schultz said, the EFF believes the owner has far overstepped its rights under the patents. The 10 patents, in order of importance to the EFF, are: 1. Acacia Technologies' digital media transmission patent, which the company defines as covering "the transmission and receipt of digital content via the Internet, cable, satellite and other means." The EFF is worried that Acacia, which has already sued several large communications companies, is unfairly targeting small audio- and video-streaming websites. 2. Clear Channel's Instant Live patent, which covers technology used to produce instant recordings of live concerts. The media giant recently bought the patent and is now going after artists who choose to give fans CDs of their shows. 3. Acceris Communication's voice over IP technology patent. Schultz said Acceris is targeting smaller VOIP players. "They're sending (the) patents to investors," said Schultz, "trying to intimidate the investors." 4. Sheldon Goldberg's patents covering online gaming and real-time ladder rankings. Goldberg's attorney has sent a series of cease-and-desist letters to small gaming websites. 5. Ideaflood's personalized subdomains patent. Schultz said the EFF is afraid Ideaflood may try to go after LiveJournal members, as well as others using subdomain addresses. 6. NeoMedia Technologies' patent that claims to control methods for accessing computers based on identification codes, such as bar codes. Already, NeoMedia has sued three developing companies for infringement. "Allowing them to control all look-up functions over a network," said Schultz, "is extremely dangerous." 7. Test Central's Internet test-making technology patent. The EFF is afraid Test Central will use its patent to scare off distance-learning organizations. Indeed, the company has already contacted several institutions, including some universities. 8. Nintendo's video-game emulator patent. The entertainment powerhouse has patented the technology for emulating its old games, something Schultz said used to be allowable under the fair-use doctrine. "A bunch of small game companies are writing these emulators, and they're really no threat to Nintendo," said Schultz. "But Nintendo is being a big bully." 9. Firepond's patent covering automatic message-interpretation and routing systems. This patent, said Schultz, would effectively control the technology that allows consumers to call companies and have their calls routed based on a spoken command. 10. Seer Systems' patent covering the generation, distribution, storing and performing of musical work files. The company claims control over a method of compiling music files as single files for distribution over the Internet, the EFF said, and is targeting small developers of technology for creating music and sound. Now that the EFF has selected the patents it will challenge, Schultz said, the organization will collect data it can use to demonstrate to the Patent Office that it should re-examine each case. According to Phil Mann, a Seattle patent attorney with 21 years of experience, the re-examination process is designed to give the public a method to oppose patents. "It allows members of the public to ask that the patent be examined once again in light of new information," said Mann, "in the hope that the Patent Office will say, 'Oh, we made a mistake. That patent should not have been granted in the first place.'" Not surprisingly, the owners of the patents contacted for this story disagree with the EFF. Charles Jensen, CEO of NeoMedia, argued that his company bought its patent in 1995. "It's been reviewed by many of the biggest companies there are, and all of them say they're valid," Jensen said. "We believe our patents are valid, very powerful patents." Similarly, Jim Posch, CEO of Test Central, said the EFF and other critics misunderstand its efforts to protect its intellectual property. "We have invested millions of dollars in our methods, (and) the patent protects this investment," said Posch. "If you invent a better toothbrush handle, you can patent it; (it's) the same thing with our testing methods. As with the toothbrush, one patent on the handle (doesn't) prevent others from going into the toothbrush business." In a statement, Clear Channel CEO Brian Becker vigorously defended the company's Instant Live patent. "We want the practice of live recordings being made available immediately after concerts to be in widespread use and welcome all legitimate and serious conversations with those interested in licensing our patent," Becker said in his statement. "But we will not conduct licensing conversations in public or via the media. Nor will we put artists in the middle of those business negotiations -- or try to hide behind them as we negotiate." The EFF's Schultz hopes this process will help get rid of some bad patents, educate the public about the process of challenging them and protect Internet-based expression technologies. "The consensus is that a lot of bad patents are leaking through the cracks of the examination process," he said. "We feel ... the ones that we've targeted here are not only invalid, but are being abused." © Copyright 2004, Lycos, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Posted: 29 June 2004
Tidbits from the Center for American Progress. ECONOMY – TWO MILLION WITHOUT BENEFITS: According to a new report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, despite recent job growth, "a record two million unemployed have gone without benefits." Here's the problem: The federal "Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation [TUEC] program quit providing additional aid to individuals newly exhausting their regular benefits" last December. It was way too soon. During past downturns in the early 1980s and 1990s, the temporary federal benefit programs in place "did not end until there were more jobs than there were at the start of the downturns to which they responded. By contrast, as of today, there are still 1.3 million fewer jobs than there were at the start of the downturn." The report concludes: "If the labor market continues to generate jobs at a healthy clip and long-term unemployment drops significantly, several months or so from now the absence of a temporary federal benefits program will be appropriate. The findings here, however — that a record two million individuals have already been denied aid due to the end of the TEUC program and the continued pattern of monthly records — suggest not only that the program ended too soon but also that, for the time being, it is still needed." ENVIRONMENT – THE TOXIC REPORT CARD: A new report card by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shows there has been a spike in toxic waste emissions by US factories, "only the second increase in 17 years." In fact, "nearly 5 billion pounds of toxins were released into the environment in 2002, the EPA reports." And, according to the Christian Science Monitor, former EPA officials and environmental watchdogs warn the damage is even greater than reported, since "government regulators are seriously underreporting the actual amounts of such dangerous pollutants as mercury, arsenic, and lead." The Bush administration has relaxed regulations for power plant emissions standards and mercury. Posted: 26 June 2004
Waxman is right. This is an outrage and retaliation for the scientific community speaking out against the wrong-headed policies currently in place. It is reason #10,999 why we must get rid of the Bush mis-Administration. Waxman: U.S. Imposes New Limits on Scientists WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government is making it harder for scientists to speak to their global colleagues and restricting who can attend an upcoming major AIDS conference, a congressman charged on Thursday. Rep. Henry Waxman said he has a letter showing that the Health and Human Services Department has imposed new limits on who may speak to the World Health Organization. Under the new policy, WHO must ask HHS for permission to speak to scientists and must allow HHS to choose who will respond. "This policy is unprecedented. For the first time political appointees will routinely be able to keep the top experts in their field from responding to WHO requests for guidance on international health issues," the California Democrat wrote in a letter to HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson. "This is a raw attempt to exert political control over scientists and scientific evidence in the area of international health," Waxman wrote. "Under the new policy the administration will be able to refuse to provide any experts whenever it wishes to stall international progress on controversial topics." An HHS spokesman was not immediately available for comment. Waxman also complained that HHS had cut back a list of scientists planning to attend the International AIDS Society conference in Bangkok, Thailand, next month. The conference is considered the premiere meeting for AIDS experts. Waxman said that 40 presentations scheduled for the conference were withdrawn after HHS decided that only 50 U.S. scientists could attend. "The scientific community was outraged by this pullback," he wrote. "I ask you to rescind this ill-advised policy until it can be adequately reviewed and justified," Waxman wrote of the restrictions on WHO requests. He also urged Thompson to review his decision on the Bangkok conference. Posted: 25 June 2004
These people are a brilliant inspiration. An abandoned Brooklyn warehouse heralds the onset of hipster environmentalism by Amanda Griscom Thinking outside the loft. Catch the aboveground S train in Brooklyn and you'll whiz through the neighborhood of Crown Heights, an industrial pocket of warehouses and factories that once stored and manufactured everything from artillery to pickle jars. These days, the buildings you pass appear to be abandoned relics in a bleak concrete landscape. But then, just as T.S. Eliot is coming to mind -- "What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow / Out of this stony rubbish?" -- you hurtle by a bright green oasis of richly vegetated roofs and a glossy black array of solar panels on a refurbished 1850s warehouse. This anomalous building has just been renovated by Brooklyn sculptor Benton Brown, 31, and his wife, Susan Boyle, 30. Both novices in the fields of construction and engineering prior to this project, Brown and Boyle managed to achieve a mind-boggling feat of ingenuity and perseverance. Over two and a half years, they transformed a 14,000 square-foot derelict brewery and ice-storage house into an apartment building of such style, sustainability, and sophisticated engineering that it establishes the couple as pioneers among a new generation of green builders. Next month, Brown and Boyle will finally declare their project complete. The building houses six loft units complete with radiant heating, natural ventilation, Energy Star appliances, a rain-water collection system, a high-efficiency condensing boiler, and vast expanses of super-insulated, floor-to-ceiling glass windows. Solar energy provides nearly half of all the building's electricity. READ THE REST. Posted: 25 June 2004
A couple of reports from GRIST, one positive, the other not so good. Western Governors Adopt Ambitious Renewable Energy Goals Western governors agreed this week to a resolution calling for development of renewable energy in the region, a plan they hope will stabilize energy costs for consumers and make the region an exporter of energy -- nay, the "Saudi Arabia of wind and solar energy," according to the group's statement. Co-sponsored by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D), the Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative establishes aggressive targets: 30,000 megawatts of clean energy produced in the West by 2015, and energy efficiency gains of 20 percent by 2020. The bipartisan resolution was passed unanimously on the third day of the annual meeting of the Western Governors Association. Officials established a working group that will study individual states' needs for two years and make recommendations, likely to include a call for state and federal subsidies. The resolution comes at a time when the Bush administration is calling for increased oil and gas exploration in western states. straight to the source: Los Angeles Times, Julie Cart, 23 Jun 2004 U.S. Accused of Trying to Isolate United Nations Population Fund United Nations officials, diplomats, and NGO workers are accusing the Bush administration of attempting to isolate the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) by bullying groups with which it works. Enviros, family-planning advocates, and other folks with a basic sense of decency have long criticized the administration (and previous administrations) for withholding millions of dollars in support for the UNFPA, bowing to pressure from conservative anti-abortion groups that claim the fund -- which, among other things, educates poor women on their family planning and birth control options -- promotes abortion, a charge the agency denies. In April, the administration withdrew its support for a major international conference on health issues involving UNFPA. It has privately warned other groups like UNICEF and the World Health Organization that their funding could be jeopardized if they work with the UNFPA. Four Democratic members of Congress sent a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell last week demanding a legal explanation for the administration's actions. straight to the source: The New York Times, Christopher Marquis, 21 Jun 2004
Posted: 25 June 2004
Good news from the Center for American Progress. FCC Effort Rejected A bad week for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and its backers in the Bush administration, culminated with a federal appeals court on Thursday ordering the FCC to reconsider the rules it issued last summer, which made it possible for large broadcasters to run roughshod over smaller competitors and dominate markets. Earlier this week, the Senate voted to repeal a separate set of FCC rules, also geared to spur consolidation. The LA Times called the latest ruling - which blocks attempts to legalize ownership of more radio and television stations in the same market - a "major setback to broadcasters and their government regulators." FCC commissioner Michael Copps, who has previously "blasted his agency for its role in the 'Clear Channelization' of American radio," acknowledged his commission had "now heard from the American people, Congress, and the courts. The rush to media consolidation approved by the FCC last June was wrong as a matter of law and policy." COURT SAYS NO LOGIC BEHIND RULES CHANGES: In a rebuke to the logic FCC Chairman Michael Powell has used to legitimize media consolidation, the court ruled the commission fell "short of its obligation to justify its decision to retain, repeal or modify its media ownership regulations with reasoned analysis." The ruling accused the FCC of employing "several irrational assumptions and inconsistencies" in its formula for ensuring media diversity. One example: in New York City, "the Dutchess County Community College television station was accorded the same market share as the ABC station," and granted "greater weight than the combined share of The New York Times and a radio station" owned by the Times. THE REAL LOGIC BEHIND RULES CHANGES: Chairman Powell, without any evidence, says that the court's ruling will "make it dramatically more difficult" for the FCC to set limits on media consolidation. In fact, the decision will make things difficult only for the small group of big broadcasters which have ponied up millions to ensure the administration is on their side. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the National Association of Broadcasters has contributed $912,781 in PAC money and $368,552 in soft money. Meanwhile, the Center for Public Integrity found FCC officials had "been showered with nearly $2.8 million in travel and entertainment over the past eight years," most of it courtesy of the huge conglomerates the commission is supposed to be regulating. And the support hasn't been merely monetary. Last year, Clear Channel sponsored pro-war rallies attended by up to 20,000 people. COURT RULING VALIDATES PUBLIC'S CONCERNS: Thursday's ruling, "a victory for an unusual alliance of public interest groups…whose supporters flooded the FCC with more than 2 million letters, e-mails and faxes," was the culmination of what has been an unlikely public campaign against the proposed regulations. When the FCC first announced a review of its media ownership rules in 2002, "nearly everyone thought it was a slam dunk that the commission would relax or eliminate" rules limiting media consolidation. But as Robert McChesney writes in this month's American Prospect, the review "caused a spectacular and wholly unanticipated backlash from the general public," demonstrating Americans' "explicit dissatisfaction with the status quo and a desire to make the system better." The FCC, buffeted by support from the Bush administration, pressed on, but Thursday's court ruling represents the latest in a string of victories for public activists, beginning last September, when the "Republican-controlled Senate defied the White House" by voting to overturn proposed rule changes. MAKE SURE THE FCC FOLLOWS THROUGH: The court's decision is motivating calls for the Bush administration to change its direction on media consolidation. A new web site sponsored by the Consumers Federation of America (CFA) is dedicated to a nationwide campaign "to ensure that the most important sources of news and information cannot be controlled by a handful of giant companies." And then there's this... MEDIA - DEFENSE COMPANY BUYS THEATERS?: Just days before the release of Michael Moore's film "Farenheit 9/11," (which analyzes the Bush-Saudi relationship), the Washington Post reports the Bush-Saudi connected Carlyle Group purchased Loews Cineplex Theaters. The $2 billion deal is part of Carlyle's larger efforts to buy up more telecommunications/media companies. While the deal is not expected to affect whether Loews will air Moore's movie, the timing raises questions about why a Saudi-Bush connected company that made its name in the defense industry just happens to be buying up media enterprises at the same time the pubic begins to look more critically at the Bush-Saudi relationship. And Carlyle's ties to the Bush and Saudi royal families are deep: Former President George H.W. Bush has worked for the company after he left office, as has his former Secretary of State James Baker, helping "to secure lucrative contracts, including enormous ones in Saudi Arabia, and then sell them at a high profit." Posted: 24 June 2004
This should, tragically, come as no surprise. Bush has been waging war on the environment since he got into office. Toxic pollution rose in 2002, reversing trend CNN WASHINGTON (AP) -- Toxic chemical releases into the environment rose 5 percent in 2002, marking only the second such increase reported by the Environmental Protection Agency in nearly two decades, and the first since 1997. Some 4.79 billion pounds were released in 2002, the latest for which figures are available, not including releases from metal mining, the EPA reports. The agency stopped including that data because of a recent court decision in an industry challenge. The increase reversed a recent trend, and was a big turnaround from last year's report by EPA that chemical releases in 2001 had declined 13 percent from a year earlier. Sen. Jim Jeffords, I-Vermont, a senior member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the 2002 increase "proves that the policies of the Bush administration have moved us backward, not forward, on the environment." The biggest polluters in recent years have been hard-rock mining companies and coal-burning power plants, and 2002 was no exception, according to the EPA. READ THE REST. Posted: 24 June 2004
A little something from a website I just stumbled across: mediamouse 06.23.04 - Major Decline in Job Quality in United States Over Past Three Years According to CIBC World Markets, a large corporate bank operating throughout the world, the quality of jobs available in the United States has decreased dramatically over the past three years. Their Employment Quality Index (EQI) measures job stability, relative compensation, and part-time vs. full-time employment, arriving at a combined number that has decreased 8 points over the last three years. CIBC reports that this reflects a trend towards lower-paying, less stable, self-employed, and part-time jobs—all of which are replacing higher paying jobs. The findings are significant in that they confirm what activists and unions have been saying for years, specifically that the higher paying jobs are being replaced by service industry jobs. No mention of the shift towards low-paying service industry jobs would be complete without citing Wal-Mart a company that is notorious for its lack of benefits, low wages, and fighting the unionization of its workforce. Wal-Mart’s high profitability and low wages are seen by many corporate executives as a future model of business, however, it is a model that has come under attack in recent years. While labor unions have made little progress in organizing Wal-Mart workers, attention has been drawn to the company’s low wages and aggressive and pro-sprawl business practices, prompting a rise in anti-walmart sentiment around the country. Adding to this criticism is a recent proposal by SIEU president Andrew Stern that organizing Wal-Mart workers should be a major priority as well as a class action lawsuit representing 1.6 million women who were discriminated against while working for Wal-Mart. Posted: 22 June 2004
The gap continues to grow between the rich and the poor. It's a gap that this country can't afford to ignore. "Recreating the 1920s in America ... " By JOE ATKINS OXFORD - The late Ronald Reagan used to claim Calvin Coolidge as his favorite president. Ah, the 1920s, those golden years of "Silent Cal"--Prohibition-happy preachers and bootleggers, union-busting police and National Guardsmen, unhinged Wall Streeters carving out a grand canyon between the rich and poor, a blissful and obliging press. Yes, the Gipper loved those simpler times just before the chickens came home to roost and the policies and politics of Republicans Harding, Coolidge and Hoover created the Great Depression. Reagan was a likeable man admirably committed to his beliefs. But lost in all the media hagiography since his death on June 5 is the fact that he wanted to recreate the 1920s, a time of cutthroat capitalism and a government that essentially served two roles--as a welcome mat to big business, and a uniformed bully to disgruntled others. The aggravating problem for Reagan's progeny, men like George W. Bush and Haley Barbour, is that the Democrat who fixed the Harding-Coolidge-Hoover mess gave us a living legacy no modern-day Republican can match. Franklin D. Roosevelt not only helped the nation overcome the Great Depression, but with New Deal programs like Social Security and federal guarantees on bank deposits he also put a human face on an America that had grown ugly with greed and selfishness. Yet, the progeny continue to work hard to realize Ronald Reagan's dream and wage an all-out war on the most important New Deal legacy left by FDR, the vision of a society in which people actually work together rather than claw at each other's throat. In Bush we have a president whose own legacy will be massive tax cuts to the wealthy, a vengeful, bloody and tragic war, the outflow of millions of blue and white-collar jobs, nothing less than class warfare on working-class Americans. Business Week, hardly a radical magazine, reported recently that one fourth of working Americans-28 million of them-earn less than $9.04 an hour, poverty level for a family of four. Bush claims jobs are being created. Yet half of the10 fastest growing jobs are menial-cashiers, janitors, retail clerks. College education, long the ticket out of a life of menial work, is 14 percent more expensive than just a year ago. Meanwhile, the mid-range CEO salary is $1.8 million, not counting the other millions in perks. It's the Wal-Marting of America. Vice President Dick Cheney believes Wal-Mart is "one of our nation's best companies," but the average wage of its 1.4 million workers is between $8 and $9.64 an hour (depending on your source). Many of them live below the poverty line and qualify for food stamps and Medicaid. Wal-Mart posted sales of $259 billion in 2003, the most of any publicly traded company, and the Waltons remain of the world's richest families, but Wal-Mart workers don't reap the benefits. Haley Barbour wants to make Mississippi a microcosm of America. Now that he has successfully limited business and medical culpability in lawsuits by injured citizens, he is likely to turn his attention to Workers' Compensation or other perceived threats to the total and absolute rule of big business. Mississippi, recently ranked as one of the top states in the nation in the "wealth friendliness" of its taxation policies, will continue to be a great state for the rich and a miserable state for the poor. The Harding-Coolidge-Hoover triumvirate of the 1920s ultimately laid a golden egg in October 1929. For the nation's sake, let's hope their progeny aren't completely successful in recreating the 1920s. Posted: 21 June 2004
Could CBS now stand for Certain B. S.? From The Center for American Progess. MEDIA - CBS HYPOCRISY: During the Super Bowl this year, CBS refused to run an ad about the economy produced by Moveon.com, saying it was prohibited from running "advocacy" ads that dealt with "controversial issues of public importance." Apparently, that doesn't apply to conservative advocacy ads attacking former President Bill Clinton. As the watchdog group Media Matters has found, the network apparently threw that policy out the window and ran a new TV advertisement paid for by the right-wing advocacy Citizens United (led by David N. Bossie). "Amidst the hype surrounding the release of former President Clinton's new book, 'My Life'," the group's web site stated, "Citizens United sets the record straight by exposing the real legacy President Bill Clinton left for America." The ad claims Clinton is "responsible" for "leaving us vulnerable to terrorists." Posted: 17 June 2004
This is utterly appalling and absolutely inexcusable. This is how we treat the citizens of our allies?! If so, how can we doubt other allegations of mistreating people who are prisoners? Have we become a nation of mindless thugs? Welcome to America When writer Elena Lappin flew to LA, she dreamed of a sunkissed, laid-back city. But that was before airport officials decided to detain her as a threat to security ... The Guardian Somewhere in central Los Angeles, about 20 miles from LAX airport, there is a nondescript building housing a detention facility for foreigners who have violated US immigration and customs laws. I was driven there around 11pm on May 3, my hands painfully handcuffed behind my back as I sat crammed in one of several small, locked cages inside a security van. I saw glimpses of night-time urban LA through the metal bars as we drove, and shadowy figures of armed security officers when we arrived, two of whom took me inside. The handcuffs came off just before I was locked in a cell behind a thick glass wall and a heavy door. No bed, no chair, only two steel benches about a foot wide. There was a toilet in full view of anyone passing by, and of the video camera watching my every move. No pillow or blanket. A permanent fluorescent light and a television in one corner of the ceiling. It stayed on all night, tuned into a shopping channel. After 10 minutes in the hot, barely breathable air, I panicked. I don't suffer from claustrophobia, but this enclosure triggered it. There was no guard in sight and no way of calling for help. I banged on the door and the glass wall. A male security officer finally approached and gave the newly arrived detainee a disinterested look. Our shouting voices were barely audible through the thick door. "What do you want?" he yelled. I said I didn't feel well. He walked away. I forced myself to calm down. I forced myself to use that toilet. I figured out a way of sleeping on the bench, on my side, for five minutes at a time, until the pain became unbearable, then resting in a sitting position and sleeping for another five minutes. I told myself it was for only one night. As it turned out, I was to spend 26 hours in detention. My crime: I had flown in earlier that day to research an innocuous freelance assignment for the Guardian, but did not have a journalist's visa. Since September 11 2001, any traveller to the US is treated as a potential security risk. The Patriot Act, introduced 45 days after 9/11, contains a chapter on Protecting The Border, with a detailed section on Enhanced Immigration Provision, in which the paragraph on Visa Security And Integrity follows those relating to protection against terrorism. In this spirit, the immigration and naturalisation service has been placed, since March 2003, under the jurisdiction of the new department of homeland security. One of its innovations was to revive a law that had been dormant since 1952, requiring journalists to apply for a special visa, known as I-visa, when visiting the US for professional reasons. Somewhere along the way, in the process of trying to develop a foolproof system of protecting itself against genuine threats, the US has lost the ability to distinguish between friend and foe. The price this powerful country is paying for living in fear is the price of its civil liberties. None of this had been on my mind the night before, when I boarded my United Airlines flight from Heathrow. Sitting next to an intriguingly silent young man who could have been a porn star or a well camouflaged air marshal, I spent most of the 11-hour flight daydreaming about the city where he so clearly belonged and that I had never visited. My America had always been the east coast: as tourist, resident, journalist, novelist, I had never ventured much past the New York-Boston-Washington triangle. But I was glad that this brief assignment was taking me to sunkissed LA, and I was ready to succumb to LA's laid-back charm. The queue for passport control was short. I presented my British passport and the green visa waiver form I had signed on the plane. The immigration official began by asking the usual questions about where I was staying and why I was travelling to the US. It brought back memories of another trip there to write a series of articles about post 9/11 America for the German weekly Die Zeit. I had written about commuters who preferred the safety of train travel to flying, and about a wounded New York that had become a city of survivors. I had seen a traumatised, no longer cockily immortal America in a profound state of mourning. But it had seemed to me that its newly acknowledged vulnerability was becoming its strength: stunned by an act of war on its own soil, Americans had been shocked into a sudden hunger for information about the world beyond their borders. "I'm here to do some interviews," I said. "With whom?" He wrote down the names, asked what the article was about and who had commissioned it. "So you're a journalist," he said, accusingly, and for the first time I sensed that, in his eyes, this was not a good thing to be. "I have to refer this to my supervisor," he said ominously, and asked me to move to a separate, enclosed area, where I was to wait to be "processed". Other travellers came, waited and went; I was beginning to feel my jetlag and some impatience. I asked how long I'd have to wait, but received no reply. Finally, an officer said, noncommittally, "It seems that we will probably have to deport you." I'm not sure, but I think I laughed. Deport? Me? "Why?" I asked, incredulously. "You came here as a journalist, and you don't have a journalist's visa." I had never heard of it. He swiftly produced the visa waiver (I-94W) I had signed on the plane, and pointed to what it said in tiny print: in addition to not being a drug smuggler, a Nazi or any other sort of criminal, I had inadvertently declared that I was not entering the US as a representative of foreign media ("You may not accept unauthorised employment or attend school or represent the foreign information media during your visit under this program"). My protestations that I had not noticed this caveat, nor been alerted to it, that I had travelled to the US on many occasions, both for work and pleasure, that I had, in fact, lived there as a permanent resident and that my husband was a US citizen, as was my New York-born daughter, all fell on deaf ears. He grinned. "You don't care, do you?" I said, with controlled anger. Then I backtracked, and assumed a begging, apologetic mode. In response, he told me I would have to be "interviewed", and that a decision would then be taken by yet another superior. This sounded hopeful. Finally, after much scurrying around by officers, I was invited into an office and asked if I needed anything before we began. I requested a glass of water, which the interrogating officer brought me himself. He was a gentle, intelligent interrogator: the interview lasted several hours and consisted of a complete appraisal of my life, past and present, personal and professional. He needed information as diverse as my parents' names, the fee I would be paid for the article I was working on, what it was about, exactly, and, again, the names of people I was coming to interview. My biography was a confusing issue - I was born in one country, had lived in many others: who was I, exactly? For US immigration, my British passport was not enough of an identity. The officer said, pointedly, "You are Russian, yet you claim to be British", an accusation based on the fact that I was born in Moscow (though I never lived there). Your governor, went my mental reply, is Austrian, yet he claims to be American. After about three hours, during which I tried hard to fight jetlag and stay alert, we had produced several pages that were supposed to provide the invisible person in charge with enough material to say yes or no to my request to be allowed entry. My interrogator asked one last obligatory question, "Do you understand?" "Yes, I understand," I sighed, and signed the form. The instant faxed response was an official, final refusal to enter the US for not having the appropriate visa. I'd have to go back to London to apply for it. At this moment, the absurd but almost friendly banter between these men and myself underwent a sudden transformation. Their tone hardened as they said that their "rules" demanded that they now search my luggage. Before I could approach to observe them doing this, the officer who had originally referred me to his supervisor was unzipping my suitcase and rummaging inside. For the first time, I raised my voice: "How dare you touch my private things?" "How dare you treat an American officer with disrespect?" he shouted back, indignantly. "Believe me, we have treated you with much more respect than other people. You should go to places like Iran, you'd see a big difference." The irony is that it is only "countries like Iran" (for example, Cuba, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe) that have a visa requirement for journalists. It is unheard of in open societies, and, in spite of now being enforced in the US, is still so obscure that most journalists are not familiar with it. Thirteen foreign journalists were detained and deported from the US last year, 12 of them from LAX. After my luggage search, the officer took some mugshots of me, then proceeded to fingerprint me. In the middle of this, my husband rang from London; he had somehow managed to locate my whereabouts, and I was allowed briefly to wipe the ink off my hands to take the call. Hearing his voice was a reminder of the real world I was beginning to feel cut off from. Three female officers arrived to do a body search. As they slipped on rubber gloves, I blenched: what were they going to do, and could I resist? They were armed, they claimed to have the law on their side. I was an anonymous foreigner who had committed a felony, and "those were the rules". So I was groped, unpleasantly, though not as intimately as I had feared. Then came the next shock: two bulky, uniformed and armed security men handcuffed me, which they explained was the "rule when transporting detainees through the airport". I was marched between the two giants through an empty terminal to a detention room, where I sat in the company of two other detainees (we were not allowed to communicate) and eight sleepy guards, all men. I would have been happy to spend the night watching TV with them, as they agreed to switch the channel from local news (highlight: a bear was loose in an affluent LA neighbourhood) to sitcoms and soaps. Their job was indescribably boring, they were overstaffed with nothing to do, and so making sure I didn't extract a pen or my mobile phone from my luggage must have seemed a welcome break. I listened to their star-struck stories about actors they had recently seen at LAX. We laughed in the same places during Seinfeld, an eerie experience. I was beginning to think I could manage this: the trip was a write-off, of course, but I could easily survive a night and a day of this kind of discomfort before flying back. But then I was taken to the detention cell in downtown LA, where the discomfort became something worse. Though my experience was far removed from the images of real torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, it was also, as one American friend put it, "conceptually related", at distant ends of the same continuum and dictated by a disregard for the humanity of those deemed "in the wrong". American bloggers and journalists would later see my experience as reflecting the current malaise in the country. Dennis Roddy wrote in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "Our enemies are now more important to us than our friends ... Much of the obsession with homeland security seems to turn on the idea of the world infecting the US." On a more practical level, this obsession, when practised with such extreme lack of intelligence (in both senses of the word), as in the case of my detention, must be misdirecting valuable money and manpower into fighting journalism rather than terrorism. Ordinary Americans, rather than the powers that be, are certainly able to make that distinction. According to an editor at the LA Times, there has been a "tremendous" response from readers to the reporting on my case, and I have received many emails expressing outrage and embarrassment. The novelist Jonathan Franzen wrote, "On behalf of the non-thuggish American majority, my sincere apologies." These would have been comforting thoughts the following morning when I was driven back (in handcuffs, of course) to the communal detention room at LAX, and spent hours waiting, without food, while the guards munched enormous breakfasts and slurped hot morning drinks (detainees are not allowed tea or coffee). I incurred the wrath of the boss when I insisted on edible food. "I'm in charge in here. Do you know who you are? Do you know where you are? This isn't a hotel," he screamed. "Why are you yelling?" I asked. "I'm just asking for some decent food. I'll pay for it myself." A Burger King fishburger never tasted so good. And it occurred to me that a hotel or transit lounge would have been a better place to keep travellers waiting to return home. As documented by Reporters Without Borders and by the American Society of Newspaper Editors (Asne) in letters to Colin Powell and Tom Ridge, cases such as mine are part of a systemic policy of harassing media representatives from 27 friendly countries whose citizens - not journalists! - can travel to the US without a visa, for 90 days. According to Asne, this policy "could lead to a degradation of the atmosphere of mutual trust that has traditionally been extended professional journalists in these nations". Asne requested that the state department put pressure on customs and immigration to "repair the injustice that has been visited upon our colleagues". Someone must have listened, because the press office at the department of homeland security recently issued a memo announcing that, although the I-visa is still needed (and I've just received mine), new guidelines now give the "Port Directors leeway when it comes to allowing journalists to enter the US who are clearly no threat to our security". Well, fine, but doesn't that imply some journalists are a threat? Maybe we are. During my surreal interlude at LAX, I told the officer taking my fingerprints that I would be writing about it all. "No doubt," he snorted. "And anything you'll write won't be the truth." Posted: 17 June 2004
The unPatriot Act needs to go. Here is a report from the Center for American Progress. Civil Liberties Restoration Act 2004 Yesterday, members of the House and Senate introduced legislation that would roll back some of the Bush administration's "most egregious and ineffectual post-9/11 policies," including "arbitrary and indefinite detentions, secret hearings, severe restrictions on due process, and violations of privacy and First Amendment rights." The bill, called the Civil Liberties Restoration Act (CLRA), reflects a consensus among security experts that many of the administration's post-9/11 policies, including elements of the Patriot Act and immigration policy, have undermined national security and eroded civil liberties. A coalition of human rights, civil rights and civil liberties groups is urging Congress to pass it immediately. Read American Progress CEO John Podesta's statement on the bill. CLRA WOULD FOCUS RESOURCES: The CLRA would sharpen post 9/11 Bush administration policies by making them more focused and effective. A few of CLRA's proposals: require criminal databases relied upon daily by state and local law enforcement to comply with accuracy requirements; establish an independent immigration court to promote fair hearings by a competent, impartial tribunal; mandate public reports on data-mining to Congress, to ensure accurate information is collected and used. Such measures would "increase the government's access to information that may be critical to preventing future terrorist attacks," and aid in the effective appropriation of counterterrorism funds. The CLRA was sponsored by Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), John Corzine (D-NJ), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Russ Feingold (D-WI), and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), as well as Reps. Howard Berman (D-CA) and William Delahunt (D-MA). CLRA WOULD END INEFFECTIVE INITIATIVES: In staff statement #10, the 9/11 commission analyzed four "immigration-related programs" intended by Attorney General John Ashcroft to disrupt terrorist activities after 9/11. The analysis suggests government programs not only violated civil liberties, but wasted precious counterterrorism resources. One example was Ashcroft's designation of "special interest" aliens, which mandated individuals with immigration violations be "held until they were 'cleared' of terrorist connections by the FBI and other agencies" in hearings closed to the public and the press. "The 'clearance' process approved by the Justice Department was involved and time consuming, lasting on average 80 days." Ashcroft's other initiatives were also judged time-consuming and ineffective—none of them uncovered any terrorists. By focusing efforts and reducing redundancies, CLRA would more "effectively utilize the resources appropriated for counterterrorism efforts," while still protecting Americans' civil liberties. AMERICANS REJECT PATRIOT ACT: President Bush has campaigned to extend the Patriot Act, but the American people have grown increasingly wary. A Thomson Wadsworth Criminal Justice Survey shows 95 percent of Americans "feel that the Patriot Act was passed too quickly, without considerable thought on how it may impact existing laws or public policy." And "in the past two years, more than 300 cities and four states have passed resolutions calling on Congress to repeal or change parts" of the Act. "The municipal resolutions…affirm, for the most part, that city employees aiding federal authorities in national security investigations will not violate the rights of people under investigation, such as monitoring political and religious gatherings where people are engaging in activities protected by the First Amendment." Posted: 16 June 2004
It is very important the we maintain the separation of church and state. This nation was not founded by right-wing christians. It was not founded as a "christian" nation. It was founded to provide not only freedom OF, but also freedom FROM any one religion assuming a position of dominance or power over this country. We must remain vigiliant to keep that freedom in place. THE DAILY MIS-LEAD =============================== BUSH MISLEADS ON SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE President Bush said at a press conference yesterday, "I think it is very important for people who are serving to make sure there is a separation of church and state."[1] The comments, however, stand in stark contrast to new legislation that the White House is pushing that would give religious institutions taxpayer funding and allow religious charities to become directly involved in political campaigns. Just this month the President renewed his call to use government money to subsidize religious organizations,[2] and he has ordered various government agencies to establish "faith based centers"[3] within their operations. On Capitol Hill, the President's conservative allies tried to pass a proposal that would have allowed clergy to endorse candidates for political office without endangering the tax-exempt status of their congregations.[4] Opponents "called it a 'back-door' attempt to help reelect President Bush, whose campaign is focusing on churches." Earlier this month, the Associated Press reported that the Bush campaign "is trying to recruit supporters from 1,600 religious congregations in Pennsylvania - a political push that critics said Wednesday could cost churches their tax breaks"[5] unless Congress passes the new legislation. An e-mail from the Bush campaign's Pennsylvania office asked churchgoers to "serve as a coordinator in your place of worship.'' The message also said the campaign planned to "undertake activities" in places "accessible to the congregation." The Internal Revenue Service prohibits political campaign activity -- for or against any candidate -- from taking place at all organizations that receive tax-exempt status under a section of the federal tax code. This prohibition includes most churches and religious groups. Posted: 16 June 2004
This is from MoveOn.org. There is a new group that has cynically taken a name that it hopes will confuse people, called moveamericaforward, run by right-wingers and actively doing whatever it can to prevent theatres from running this documentary. In the name of freedom of speech, if nothing else, please support the following message: Last night, I got a chance to see a sneak preview of Michael Moore's new film Fahrenheit 9/11. It is an incredibly powerful movie that lays bare the cynicism and greed behind Bush's war policy. And the astonishing and revealing footage in it has the power to change the course of the 2004 election. (There's a full review below.) Given how devastating the movie is to President Bush's carefully crafted facade, it's hardly surprising that right-wing groups who call Moore a "domestic enemy" are using censorship and intimidation tactics to try to get it pulled from theaters. That's why we've got to do everything we can to make the opening a huge success. Today, we're asking MoveOn members to pledge to see the film on the opening night -- Friday, June 25th. (If you can't make it on Friday, pledging to go on Saturday or Sunday is fine, too). It'll be fun, of course -- you'll be watching the movie with lots of other MoveOn members. It'll also send an unmistakable message to the media and theater owners that the public is behind this movie. To see the Fahrenheit 9/11 trailer and pledge to see the movie on the opening weekend, go to: http://www.moveonpac.org/f911/?id=2948-1431018-opsEOs0UnDzl2xLM5JEFng Then please pass this message on to your friends, family, and co-workers. Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't just the most powerful and complete indictment of the Bush administration that I've ever seen - it's one of the best movies I've ever seen. It's a knockout blow: a poignant, darkly funny film that deftly interweaves footage of the President, his allies, and the Americans his policies betrayed. As Fox News' reviewer put it, the movie "is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty - and at the same time an indictment of stupidity and avarice." (See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122680,00.html for the full review.) Despite years of television coverage on Iraq and the war on terror, most of the movie consists of footage you'd never see on TV. There are heart-breaking interviews with troops in Iraq, chilling scenes of the civilian consequences of that war, and footage of Bush so candid and revealing that it's hard to imagine how Moore got his hands on it. In one unforgettable scene from the morning of September 11th, Bush blithely reads a children's book to a classroom of kids for seven long minutes after his chief of staff quietly informs him that the second plane has hit the World Trade Center and "we're under attack." The film is filled with this stuff, and it's hard to imagine seeing it and not being moved, shocked, and outraged. Fahrenheit 9/11 opens with footage of Bush administration officials putting on their TV makeup. Paul Wolfowitz sticks his comb in his mouth, slathers it with spit, brushes it through his hair, and grins a toothy grin. Colin Powell eyes the camera nervously as a makeup artist dusts his face. And, moments before President Bush goes on TV to somberly announce the beginning of the Iraq war, we see him goofing around, making funny faces at the folks behind the camera. These candid portraits encapsulate the genius of Moore's documentary. Compared to his other films, there's little pranking or moralizing. Moore basically stays out of the picture: he doesn't have to indict the Bush administration, because with powerful and indisputable video, Bush and the rest indict themselves. As Moore unravels Bush's story, he joins it with the stories of the real Americans who have shouldered the burden of the post-9/11 war policy. In Flint, Michigan, we hear from a group of inner-city kids whose only option for education and a better life is to enlist in the Army - and then, in a scene that's both humorous and deeply creepy, join two Marine recruiters as they case a local mall for possible enlistees. We watch a California peace group that was infiltrated by the local police department under the Patriot Act. And, in the final heartbreaking scenes, we witness the pain of a mother who lost her son in Iraq. In the hands of other directors, the content could easily feel exploitative. But Moore is grounded by a patriotism that rings through every frame of the film. Compassion and love of country give the film its striking authenticity: it's clear that what stings most about the President's behavior, for the subjects of the film, is Bush's betrayal of our country's soul. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a film with the power to change hearts and minds. It's brilliant, funny, moving, and authentic. And together, we can make it a huge success. Watch the trailer and pledge to see the film opening night at: http://www.moveonpac.org/f911/?id=2948-1431018-opsEOs0UnDzl2xLM5JEFng Posted: 16 June 2004
Do you want to see the draft return? To see military service required for all young men and women? If you are concerned, now is the time to write to our Congresscritters about the following (use the links to read the bills themselves and see the sponsors): H.R.163 Title: To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors (14) Related Bills: S.89 Latest Major Action: 2/3/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Executive Comment Requested from DOD. COMMITTEE(S): Committee/Subcommittee: Activity: House Armed Services Referral, In Committee Subcommittee on Total Force Referral S.89 Title: A bill to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Hollings, Ernest F. [SC] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors (None) Related Bills: H.R.163 Latest Major Action: 1/7/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. STATUS: (color indicates Senate actions) 1/7/2003: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. Posted: 10 June 2004
From the GRIST daily e-newsletter. Bush Pollution Plan Falls Short on Saving Lives More than 90 percent of the 23,600 deaths caused in the U.S. each year by pollution from old coal-fired power plants could be prevented if the federal government adopted tough emissions regulations, according to a new study, but President Bush's preferred pollution-control plan falls far short of that mark. The study -- conducted at the request of a coalition of enviro groups by Abt Associates, a consulting firm that often does research for the U.S. EPA -- compared Bush's Clear Skies plan with two other legislative proposals and found that while his would save 14,000 lives per year, the competing plans would save 16,000 and 22,000. Enviros intend to make this an issue in the presidential campaign; they note that three swing states -- Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida -- now have the highest numbers of deaths from power-plant pollution. The study sponsors have set up a website that lets people track down power plants in their area and see how much pollution they emit and how many deaths they cause. straight to the source: Reuters, Chris Baltimore, 09 Jun 2004 straight to the source: The New York Times, Michael Janofsky, 10 Jun 2004 straight to the website: National Campaign Against Dirty Power Posted: 8 June 2004
From the GRIST daily e-newsletter. HAIR-RAISING NEWS Shampoos and Other Personal Products May Pose Health Risks Do you know how toxic your shampoo is? Many personal-care products contain ingredients whose health effects are untested or, worse, ingredients known to pose health risks or even cause cancer, according to a new report from the Environmental Working Group and other nonprofits. Only 11 percent of the 10,500 chemical ingredients used in personal-care products in the U.S. -- a category that includes deodorant, toothpaste, and makeup -- have been tested for safety, and those tests were not overseen by the feds but rather by an industry scientific review board. EWG found that a number of shampoos and dark hair dyes contain known or probable human carcinogens. Most individual ingredients don't pose worrisome risks, the report says, but because people use many different products each day -- an average of 10 for U.S. adults -- risks could add up. The report authors argue that personal-care products should be subjected to the same sort of testing required for additives and pesticide residues in food. But until they are, EWG has compiled a product guide that tells people which products are most safe and which are best avoided. straight to the product guide: Skin Deep LIFE INTIMIDATING ART Feds Go After Artist Critical of Biotechnology The FBI is using the Patriot Act to go after an artist whose work calls into question the safety and morality of genetic modification of crops and other uses of biotechnology. Steve Kurtz -- an art professor at the University at Buffalo and cofounder of an artists' collective that creates works using bacteria and DNA, among other materials -- called 911 last month after his wife suffered apparent heart failure, which proved fatal. Police and emergency workers who responded to the call were suspicious when they saw lab equipment at Kurtz's house, so they notified the FBI, which swooped in, sealed off the home for days, confiscated a computer, equipment, and papers, detained Kurtz for questioning, and subpoenaed three of his colleagues. Authorities determined that Kurtz's home contained no toxic materials and posed no public health threat, but still a federal grand jury will convene on June 15 to look into Kurtz's "possession of biological agents." Artists and civil-rights advocates say it's a chilling, even McCarthy-esque abuse of federal power. straight to the source: Wired News, Mark Baard, 04 Jun 2004 straight to the source: The New York Times, David Staba, 07 Jun 2004 straight to the source: The Washington Post, Lynne Duke, 02 Jun 2004 Posted: 8 June 2004
What really infuriates me is that I will never get back the thousands of dollars this personally cost me in power bills. More Enron Tapes, More Gloating (CBS) The Department of Justice reportedly has thousands of hours of Enron employees recorded during the West Coast power crisis. Now, some in Congress want all the tapes released. "I want to make sure that no federal agency suppresses this information, makes the case harder for us to get relief," says U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. After CBS broadcast the voices of Enron energy traders gloating over the crisis they helped create, more tapes were released. In one tape, an employee says, "You gotta think the economy is going to f------g get crushed, man. This is like a recession waiting to f-----g happen." The tapes show Enron tried to bring California to its knees. Elsewhere on the tapes, another employee says, "This is where California breaks." "Yeah, it sure does man," says another. And they proposed to do that by exporting energy out of the state so the company could drive up prices even more. "What we need to do is to help in the cause of, ah, downfall of California," an employee is heard saying on the tapes. "You guys need to pull your megawatts out of California on a daily basis." "They're on the ropes today," says another employee. "I exported like a f------g 400 megs." "Wow,'' says another employee, "f--k 'em, right!" Traders can be heard manipulating the market, using now-infamous schemes with names like death star, ricochet and fat boy. One employee is heard asking, "You want to do some fat boys or, or whatever, man, you know, take advantage of it." In fat boy, Enron traders used fake power sales to hide megawatts, shrinking the supply of energy and driving up prices. They also used the oldest trick in the book: lies. "It's called lies. It's all how well you can weave these lies together, Shari, alright, so," an employee is heard saying. The other employee says, "I feel like I'm being corrupted now." The first employee adds, "No, this is marketing," "OK.'' The tapes could affect dozens of cases already filed against the company by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer. "If these are ever heard by a jury, they're going get strung up," says Lockyer. After hearing the tapes, the state's two U.S. senators demanded an immediate $8.9 billion refund. At a recent hearing Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. said, "All I can tell you is you have to listen to what's happening out there to ordinary people who you are responsible to help through this." With Enron and other major energy companies in bankruptcy, big refunds are unlikely. But the tapes could provide the evidence states and cities need to break contracts they were forced to sign at the height of the energy crisis. © MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. Posted: 6 June 2004
I'm sorry if this sounds cold of me, but I didn't much care for Reagan when he was alive, so I don't feel any great loss now that he's gone. I don't wish that sort of slow death on anyone and I feel compassion for Nancy Reagan because I know first-hand the loss she's suffering. I cannot forget, however, that Reagan was a tool for the red-baiters of the McCarthy era and helped go after his fellow actors when he was President of SAG, and I'm not entirely pleased by the "conservative" legacy he's left behind which has given us the likes of DeLay and Hastert. Sorry, not the kind of legacy I want to be stuck with. On to cheerier things. Here are some links of interest garnered from the Kleiner's Korner e-newsletter. The Free Energy Directory describes itself as: Directory of Tesla technologies and other advanced devices that move us away from fossil fuels and other planet-depleting energy sources, and toward abundance of 'free energy' that extracts inexhaustible power from the Æther. An Atlas of the Universe. Did you know that our galaxy is surrounded by seven dwarves? Seven dwarf galaxies, to be precise. This is a page that, as Douglas Adams would say, gives one a sense of perspective. Bullfrog Films says of itself: Over the last 30 years, Bullfrog Films has become the leading US publisher of independently-produced, environmental videos, that point the way to living healthily, happily, and with greater concern for the other inhabitants of this planet, and for our descendants. We also distribute world-famous performing arts programs from Rhombus Media. Posted: 2 June 2004
It's hard for Bush to kick the oil habit, given that it represents so much money and power for him, so it's up to us to kick Bush out of office and put some forward-thinking plans into place...before the day after tomorrow arrives. The Center for American Progress says: Bush Touts Failed Policies Asked about surging crude oil and gas prices on Tuesday, President Bush once again pushed for the passage of his failed energy legislation, imploring Congress to "pass the energy bill." But the flaws in the president's failed plan are well-documented. Rather than committing resources to renewable energy sources that could clean up the environment and help America achieve real energy independence, the bill would encourage our reliance on fossil fuels and exhaust our natural resources. In fact, far from validating the president's previous legislation, the current oil crisis underscores America's need to break from the very policies Bush has proposed. LEGISLATION WOULD MAKE THINGS WORSE: The president dissembled on Tuesday about the effect his legislation could have had, implying the passage of his energy bill would have lowered gas prices and helped the country "become less dependent on foreign sources of energy." But Bush's energy bill, written by Vice President Dick Cheney's secret energy task force with the help of oil industry executives – including former Enron executive Ken Lay – was a subsidy-laden giveaway which would have done little to promote conservation or alternative fuels. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) estimates the plan would "increase pollution, despoil the environment, threaten public health and accelerate global warming. Moreover, it would have no impact on energy prices, and no practical effect on U.S. dependence on foreign sources of oil." DRILLING IN THE ARCTIC IS NO SOLUTION: The president also reiterated his assertion that the answer to America's energy needs was drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. "Had we drilled in ANWR back in the mid-'90s," he said, "we'd be producing an additional million barrels a day, which would be taking enormous pressure off the American consumer." In fact, while drilling in the region could potentially despoil one of "the world's last truly pristine wild places," the U.S. Geological Survey estimates the amount that could be recovered economically from the refuge would total roughly 3.2 billion barrels, only about a six-month U.S. supply. Moreover, "it would take 10 years for that oil to reach the pump, and even when production peaks -- in the distant year of 2027 -- the refuge would produce less than 2 percent of the oil Americans are expected to use that year." FALLING BEHIND ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE: The NYT reports Europe has been less affected by the current spike in oil prices because of its growing investment in alternative sources of energy, such as windmills and solar cells, which has reduced the continent's dependence on foreign oil. America, meanwhile, has remained "on the sidelines" as foreign powers pursue alternative technologies. Plans such as the Apollo Project, a bold new initiative to "end America's dependence on foreign oil," could help America catch up. Instead, President Bush's budget has slashed funding for renewable energy programs. In his 2004 budget, "Funding for wind power...was cut by 5.5 percent. Geothermal technology also received a 3.8 percent funding hit." (Read American Progress CEO John Podesta's case for the Apollo Project here.) DRYING UP THE LAND: More proof that America needs to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels: According to federal documents, "nearly three-fourths of the 40 million acres of public land leased for oil and gas development in the continental United States aren't producing any oil or gas." Nevertheless, "the Bush administration pushes to open more environmentally sensitive public lands for oil and gas development." In the face of the nation's dwindling resources, Cheney's Energy task Force "asked the [Bureau of Land Management] three years ago to find ways to open new federal lands to oil and gas leasing and to speed up the approval of drilling permits." BUSH POLICIES MAKE GAS PROBLEM WORSE: The Bush administration has made matters worse with policies that encourage consumption, such as providing "massive tax breaks to purchasers of SUVs." Although high gas-prices may be tempering enthusiasm for the gas-guzzling vehicles, the administration's tax policies have left a loophole allowing some buyers to "write off the entire cost of a new Hummer, or more than 30 other monster trucks or SUVs." Posted: 1 June 2004
Support free media. CPB Playing Politics with Public Broadcasting CauseNET for June 1, 2004 The New Yorker Magazine released an article yesterday entitled, "Big Bird Flies Right," which exposes several recent incidents that demonstrate the way ideologues within the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) are seeking to shape public TV and public radio. The CPB provides federal funds to public broadcasting and its primary mission has always been to serve as a "heat shield," protecting programming from political interference. But instead of serving as a "heat shield," CPB now is an agent of partisan wrangling. CPB decided to provide funding to two programs -- one hosted by Tucker Carlson, who speaks for conservatives on CNN's "Crossfire," and one moderated by Paul Gigot, editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal. At the same time, "Now with Bill Moyers," which receives no CPB funds, will be cut from an hour to 30 minutes. The Bush Administration has an apparent litmus test for choosing members of the CPB. The White House interviewed CPB board candidate Chon Noriega, a UCLA media professor and co-founder of the National Association of Latino Independent Producers, and asked him whether the CPB should intervene in programming "deemed politically biased." When Professor Noriega said intervention should be used only in extraordinary circumstances, the appointment process ground to a halt, and the White House has asked Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) to put forward another candidate. In contrast to Noriega's qualifications, President George W. Bush's most recent CPB appointees, Gay Hart Gaines and Cheryl Halpern, and their families, have given more than $800,000 to Republicans since 1995. Both these appointees have backgrounds that raise questions about their suitability to serve on the CPB board. During her confirmation hearing last fall, Halpern indicated that she would welcome giving CPB members the authority to intervene in program content when they felt a program was biased. Gaines chaired Newt Gingrich's political committee GOPAC. Gingrich (R-GA), as House Speaker, proposed cutting all federal assistance to public TV. Referring to the recent events at CPB, Bill Moyers told The New Yorker author Ken Auletta: "This is the first time in my 32 years of public broadcasting that CPB has ordered up programs for ideological instead of journalistic reasons." There is a problem with the CPB. Whether it is a Democratic or Republican President who appoints them, CPB board members tend to be big political donors who often come with specific ideological agendas. This seems particularly true of the current board. We cannot let partisan warriors drive an ideological stake in the heart of public broadcasting. At a time when media ownership is increasingly consolidated into fewer corporate hands, we must ensure that the editorial independence of public broadcasting is held sacred. We are calling on our nearly 300,000 members and supporters to call and fax the CPB TODAY to send a clear message that we won't tolerate playing politics with public broadcasting. Call CPB Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson at 1(800) 272-2190 Send A FAX by clicking here! 
|
|
