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 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 |
Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? "My life is my message."
Gandhi Posted: 31 May 2004
These days, I refuse to eat beef unless it is hormone-free and 100% grass-fed. USDA's selective screens aren't enough, say some firms, scientists By Diedtra Henderson Denver Post Staff Writer Arkansas City, Kan. - Unlike at the nation's other slaughterhouses, severed cattle heads at Creekstone Farms pass by a $500,000 lab the company recently built to test all cattle for mad cow disease. Until an imported dairy cow tested positive for mad cow in Washington state in December, 30 percent of Creekstone's exports went to Japan. Asian buyers were willing to pay $220 more per animal than American buyers before Japan banned American beef. Creekstone's enhanced mad cow tests were aimed at restoring that lucrative market. Yet that testing isn't happening. Creekstone's lab remains spotless. Shelves that would have contained specialized testing machinery remain bare. The U.S. Department of Agriculture denied Creekstone's request to do the tests, standing by its plan to test fewer cattle that are more likely to be diseased, especially sick and older cattle. So Creekstone has squared off against the USDA - and large slaughterhouses that applaud the agency's ruling - saying that not allowing it to conduct the tests interferes with free enterprise and imperils jobs. The company vows to challenge the science the federal agency says underpins its mad-cow testing philosophy. At Creekstone's Kansas processing plant, as well as in the California State Assembly, in a Montana courtroom, in consumer advocacy offices across the nation and in jittery Texas meat markets, a growing number of people doubt the USDA's commitment to food safety. The USDA says Creekstone's $6 million proposal to test the 300,000 animals the company will slaughter is not scientifically sound. The agency says its $70 million mad cow testing plan is designed to look where it's most likely to find the disease - in 200,000 cattle that include "downers" or animals older than 30 months. "The tests themselves don't really detect the presence of (mad cow) in animals younger than 30 months of age. That's why we have the 30-months-of-age cutoff," said Jim Rogers, a spokesman for the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. "From a food-safety perspective, it might give the consumer a false sense of security," Rogers said. Science, industry divided It's a debate about science that has cleaved the scientific community as well as the beef industry: Does testing slaughtered cattle of all ages guarantee a safer beef supply? Whether Creekstone regains its Japanese market, the pipsqueak plant has crystallized the food-safety debate for consumers, activists and elected officials intent on pushing more aggressive testing for mad cow disease, formally known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Consider California. Proposed legislation making its way through that state's Senate would permit voluntary mad cow tests on all cattle slaughtered and for all meat products sold in California grocery stores. Consumer advocates continue to worry about the USDA's dueling roles - agriculture marketing and safety. "USDA isn't being driven by public-health concerns here," said Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of food safety for the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "They are being driven by their desire to restore the United States' ability to trade its beef products in the world market." A new working group that includes Colorado State University professor emeritus Gary Smith began meetings in mid-May aimed at restoring beef trade between the United States and Japan. Rogers said the agency's role is clear: "APHIS is not a human-health agency. APHIS is an animal-and-plant agency." Meanwhile, Midwest ranchers, alarmed by the agency's plan to relax its import ban on Canadian beef - in place since last May, when a Canadian animal tested positive for mad cow - pleaded their case to a federal judge in Montana. U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull granted a temporary restraining order and blasted the agency. "Two cases of BSE in Canadian-raised cows have been detected in the past 11 months, through very limited testing. If imported Canadian beef products contain the BSE agent, USDA's ... action may result in a fatal, noncurable disease in humans who consume those products," the judge wrote. Rogers said the agency did not contest the temporary restraining order. How many tests? In the meantime, however, it's not clear how many mad cow tests are enough. Scientists who specialize in food safety are split. BSE, nicknamed mad cow for the odd behavior of stricken cattle, is among a family of diseases that silently incubate for years before riddling animals' brains with holes. Ultra-sensitive blood tests in live animals have detected the malformed proteins up to three years before animals showed any obvious signs of problems. Humans have acquired an equivalent version by eating tainted meat products. California neurologist Stanley Prusiner was awarded a Nobel Prize for discovering the rogue proteins responsible for the always-fatal prion ailments. Prusiner is in the 100 percent testing camp, testifying before the U.S. House Food Safety Caucus that only Japan's policy of testing all cattle can eliminate abnormal prions from the food supply. A single prion protein begins a multiplication chain to create hundreds, thousands, millions, then billions - enough malformed proteins to destroy the animal's brain and spinal cord, he testified. Prusiner, however, has drawn criticism from his peers because a company he founded stands to profit if the USDA adopts 100 percent testing. Others say testing young animals isn't a matter of science but of economics. How many cattle does the United States need to test for its own consumers' peace of mind? "The 'how much is enough' question all depends on what your purpose is. If you will, that's kind of the elephant under the table," said William Hueston, director of the Center for Animal Health and Food Safety at the University of Minnesota. The USDA can accomplish its goal of yielding the most information about how many U.S. cattle have been exposed to mad cow by quickly and cheaply testing 201,000 to 268,000 cattle over the next 12 to 18 months, said Hueston, a former USDA veterinarian. In a commentary published in the New England Journal of Medicine, a world-renowned epidemiologist advised U.S. consumers to press for more stringent feed bans and even more testing. "Two hundred thousand is obviously an improvement, but still small compared with the number of cattle slaughtered (and found dead) each year," said Christl Donnelly, a professor at Imperial College London. The pickle, other researchers point out, is that the USDA is attempting to base mad cow surveillance decisions on science. "That's impossible, in the purest sense, because there is not sufficient science to guide them," said Jerry Gillespie, director of the Western Institute for Food Safety and Security at the University of California, Davis. The risk assessments the USDA uses are "dependent on the data you get in. And much of it is imperfect or inaccurate," Gillespie said. Mice have been injected with tainted blood but didn't develop the disease, said Neil Cashman, principal investigator at the Centre for Research in Neurodegenerative Diseases at the University of Toronto. Mad cow-tainted blood has been injected into the muscles of cattle and fed to calves. No mad cow developed that way, either. The most sensitive test would inject a cow's brain with mad cow-tainted blood. That experiment, Cashman said, has not been done. "Part of the issue is the actual experiments are unbelievably cumbersome and incubation periods can last years. With a conventional virus, you can get information in a relatively short amount of time. For BSE, it is in fact years," he said. The other stumbling block is few Canadian or American labs have been allowed to import what's considered a foreign-animal pathogen. "It's not a question of error bars. It's a question of a complete black hole," he said. "There are many such holes in our knowledge about BSE and, in fact, all prion diseases." Regional labs help In the meantime, the USDA plans to test up to 268,500 animals - compared with 20,543 last fiscal year - through the help of regional labs, including one at CSU. In the midst of those testing plans, the agency is investigating why a red-flag animal that staggered and fell April 27 at the Lone Star Beef slaughterhouse in Texas wasn't tested for mad cow. Instead, the cow was whisked to a rendering facility and turned into meat and bone meal. A positive mad cow test within America's herds could have strengthened Creekstone's case. It already tests for domestic scourges, such as E. coli. Only USDA-approved labs can test for foreign-animal diseases, be they mad cow or rinderpest, a contagious, often fatal viral ailment. As it stands now, Angus cattle tethered to hooks tick along at a steady pace at Creekstone Farms' processing plant, transforming from very much alive to very much dead at a rate of 150 per hour. In as few as five hours, Creekstone would have learned whether a brain sample taken after slaughter was tainted with mad cow, a test result a federal lab would have confirmed. When the first wave of the USDA's enhanced mad cow tests begins Tuesday, Creekstone's lab may remain idle. The company, which is losing $200,000 in revenue daily because of closed Asian markets, has pared staff and hours for remaining workers. Another round of layoffs looms. Rising summer temperatures and the seasonal spike in steaks and burgers headed for barbecue grills give the company a bit of wiggle room to continue its fight. "This operation could absolutely close," said Bill Fielding, Creekstone's chief operating officer. But he says the company, like a cornered, small animal, "can fight 10 times our size when our existence depends on this." Posted: 26 May 2004
I really hate how often "politics" and "corruption" go hand-in-hand, as The Center for American Progress points out. Deregulation Binge A joint report by the Center for American Progress and OMB Watch details how four years of the Bush administration's dismantling of public safeguards in virtually every public policy area has lined the pockets of special interests and endangered public safety. From the environment and highways to homeland security and energy policy, the report finds President Bush has "put narrow corporate interests over the broader public good." A few of the report's more startling examples: In May 2002, the administration gave a present to the coal industry and violated the Clean Water Act when it lifted protections against "mountaintop mining" and "revoked the prohibition against dumping into rivers and streams for the sole purpose of disposing waste." That same year, Bush administrator John Graham forced the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to adopt an inferior standard on tire safety, favored by automobile manufacturers and putting drivers at risk. And in a continuing story, the administration has resisted, on behalf of the chemical industry, to considering serious safeguards that might protect the public from terrorist attacks on chemical plants. FROM THE LOBBY TO THE PENTHOUSE: One of the ways the administration has accelerated the rollback of public safeguards has been by appointing ex-industry lobbyists to regulatory positions. The Denver Post reports "President Bush has installed more than 100 top officials who were once lobbyists, attorneys or spokespeople for the industries they oversee…In at least 20 cases, those former industry advocates have helped their agencies write, shape or push for policy shifts that benefit their former industries." The American Progress report lists many of these administrators, such as Jeffrey Holmstead, previously a representative of corporate interests seeking to block environmental safeguards and now the EPA's air administrator, and Mark Rey, "who spent 20 years at a big-timber trade association" and now oversees the Forest Service. Such appointments have imperiled public health. In just one example, Holmstead has embraced controversial new air pollution regulations that drastically reduce emission standards for chemicals causing cancer and leukemia. The regulations "could save the wood products industry hundreds of millions of dollars." BANISHING THE MESSENGERS: When whistleblowers step forward to protest administration rollbacks, they are ignored, reassigned, or dismissed. Michael Kelly, a biologist for the National Fisheries Service, resigned less than two years after he "filed a federal whistleblower complaint concerning political interference in setting water levels prior to the massive Klamath fish kill in the fall of 2002," saying his recommendations had been ignored and that "the current political climate," rendered "futile" his attempts to affect administration policy. When 14-year FAA veteran Bogdan Dzaskovic identified serious problems in aviation security, he was transferred to "bureaucratic Siberia." A refusal to deal with legitimate criticism threatens public safety: Dzaskovic told the 9/11 commission, "The more serious the problems in aviation security we identified, the more the FAA tied our hands behind our backs and restricted our activities…It is counterproductive to beat employees down until they are afraid to raise serious issues about loopholes in our last line of defense." WORKING TO PREVENT SELF-REGULATION: Corporate interests have so infiltrated the White House that the administration is now going out of its way to prevent industries from regulating themselves. For instance, the LA Times reports that the Department of Agriculture (USDA) is doing everything it can to fight American ranchers who want to test all of their cows for Mad Cow. According to Knight-Ridder, that same department "is staffed with former executives of the meat industry, now in charge of regulating their former employers." USDA "Chief of staff Dale Moore, senior adviser Elizabeth Johnson, and Chuck Lambert, deputy undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs, all came from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. Deputy Undersecretary James Butler joined USDA after serving as partner in Butler & Son Charolais Ranch, a Texas cattle company, while Deputy Secretary James Moseley was managing partner of Infinity Pork L.L.C., an Indiana hog farm. Donna Reifschneider, the agency's administrator of inspection is the former president of the National Pork Producers Council." Posted: 22 May 2004
It's happening, people. It's happening. About Bill Nevins Bill Nevins, a published poet, journalist and teacher, was assigned to teach at-risk and other students at Rio Rancho High School and to establish a student writing club and performance-poetry team. Nevins' efforts were very successful. Hundreds of students packed the RRHS auditorium and joined nationally-famed New Mexico poets onstage for a December, 2002 poetry reading. Dozens of students joined the Write Club, developing literacy and public-expression skills in a multicultural, multilingual context under Nevins' guidance. A Slam Poetry Team formed, with students joyfully performing their original compositions at school, at local "open mikes" and over the RRHS closed-circuit tv public address system. Nevins and his student poets won high praise from teachers, administrators, parents, and the press. Nevins was asked to extend his poetry work to Rio Rancho's Independence High, an alternative public school. Nevins' innovative literacy and critical-thinking- enhancement work in his own classroom also was praised by colleagues and parents. Then things changed. In February, 2003, one of Nevins' Write Club members read her original, iconoclastic poem, "Revolution X" over the RRHS pa system. Immediately, a staff member identified on the school website as the RRHS Military Liaison publicly objected to the reading of the poem, deemed by him to be disrespectful to US government authorities, among other things. The RRHS administration questioned the student poet and "investigated" the poem for "profanity and incitement to violence", though neither were contained in this clever, inspirational poem. In March, 2003, Nevins was suddenly suspended from teaching and from coaching the Write Club/Poetry Team, which then disbanded. Public readings of student poetry were banned by the RRHS administration. A multicultural poetry assembly set for April was cancelled. Student protests against Nevins' removal were silenced by the school administration and at least one student who refused to stop speaking out was encouraged to drop out of RRHS. In May, 2003, still under suspension, Nevins was informed by the RRHS administration that his contract will not be renewed for the coming school year. A cloud of silence, censorship and fear hangs over the RRHS school district. A once-vibrant student literacy and critical-speaking/critical-thinking initiative has been crushed. In May, 2003, the RRHS Military Liaison and the Principal triumphantly raised a flag on school grounds and read out a poem telling critics of war policy to "shut your faces". Principal Gary Tripp told local press that this was "a high point" of his principalship. GO TO THIS PAGE FOR MORE LINKS. Posted: 22 May 2004
Not that this comes as any great surprise. At least, not to those of us who think for ourselves. Independent Media TV Under Reported TV News Bad for Truth About Iraq By: Jim Lobe Inter Press Service News Agency Date: 10/04/2003 The more commercial television news you watch, the more wrong you are likely to be about key elements of the Iraq War and its aftermath, according to a major new study released in Washington on Thursday. And the more you watch the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News channel, in particular, the more likely it is that your perceptions about the war are wrong, adds the report by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA). Based on several nationwide surveys it conducted with California-based Knowledge Networks since June, as well as the results of other polls, PIPA found that 48 percent of the public believe US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist group; 22 percent thought troops found weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq; and 25 percent believed that world public opinion favored Washington's going to war with Iraq. All three are misperceptions. The report, Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War, also found that the more misperceptions held by the respondent, the more likely it was that s/he both supported the war and depended on commercial television for news about it. The study is likely to stoke a growing public and professional debate over why mainstream news media – especially the broadcast media – were not more skeptical about the Bush administration's pre-war claims, particularly regarding Saddam Hussein's WMD stockpiles and ties with al-Qaeda. "This is a dangerously revealing study," said Marvin Kalb, a former television correspondent and a senior fellow of the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. While Kalb said he had some reservations about the specificity of the questions directed at the respondents, he noted that, "People who have had a strong belief that there is an unholy alliance between politics and the press now have more evidence." Fox, in particular, has been accused of pursuing a chauvinistic agenda in its news coverage despite its motto, "We report, you decide". Overall, according to PIPA, 60 percent of the people surveyed held at least one of the three misperceptions through September. Thirty percent of respondents had none of those misperceptions. Surprisingly, the percentage of people holding the misperceptions rose slightly over the last three months. In July, for example, polls found that 45 percent of the public believed US forces had found "clear evidence in Iraq that Hussein was working closely with al-Qaeda". In September, 49 percent believed that. Likewise, those who believed troops had found WMD in Iraq jumped from 21 percent in July to 24 percent in September. One in five respondents said they believed that Iraq had actually used chemical or biological weapons during the war. In determining what factors could create the misperceptions, PIPA considered a number of variables in the data. It found a high correlation between respondents with the most misperceptions and their support for the decision to go to war. Only 23 percent of those who held none of the three misperceptions supported the war, while 53 percent who held one misperception did so. Of those who believe that both WMDs and evidence of al-Qaeda ties have been found in Iraq and that world opinion backed the United States, a whopping 86 percent said they supported war. More specifically, among those who believed that Washington had found clear evidence of close ties between Hussein and al-Qaeda, two-thirds held the view that going to war was the best thing to do. Only 29 percent felt that way among those who did not believe that such evidence had been found. Another factor that correlated closely with misperceptions about the war was party affiliation, with Republicans substantially "more likely" to hold misperceptions than Democrats. But support for Bush himself as expressed by whether or not the respondent said s/he intended to vote for him in 2004 appeared to be an even more critical factor. The average frequency of misperceptions among respondents who planned to vote for Bush was 45 percent, while among those who plan to vote for a hypothetical Democrat candidate, the frequency averaged only 17 percent. Asked "Has the US found clear evidence Saddam Hussein was working closely with al-Qaeda"? 68 percent of Bush supporters replied affirmatively. By contrast, two of every three Democrat-backers said no. But news sources also accounted for major differences in misperceptions, according to PIPA, which asked more than 3,300 respondents since May where they "tended to get most of [their] news''. Eighty percent identified broadcast media, while 19 percent cited print media. Among those who said broadcast media, 30 percent said two or more networks; 18 percent, Fox News; 16 percent, CNN; 24 percent, the three big networks – NBC (14 percent), ABC (11 percent), CBS (9 percent); and three percent, the two public networks, National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). For each of the three misperceptions, the study found enormous differences between the viewers of Fox, who held the most misperceptions, and NPR/PBS, who held the fewest by far. Eighty percent of Fox viewers were found to hold at least one misperception, compared to 23 percent of NPR/PBS consumers. All the other media fell in between. CBS ranked right behind Fox with a 71 percent score, while CNN and NBC tied as the best-performing commercial broadcast audience at 55 percent. Forty-seven percent of print media readers held at least one misperception. As to the number of misconceptions held by their audiences, Fox far outscored all of its rivals. A whopping 45 percent of its viewers believed all three misperceptions, while the other commercial networks scored between 12 percent and 16 percent. Only nine percent of readers believed all three, while only four percent of the NPR/PBS audience did. PIPA found that political affiliation and news source also compound one another. Thus, 78 percent of Bush supporters who watch Fox News said they thought the United States had found evidence of a direct link to al-Qaeda, while 50 percent of Bush supporters who rely on NPR/PBS thought so. Conversely, 48 percent of Fox viewers who said they would support a Democrat believed that such evidence had been found. But none of the Democrat-backers who relied on NPR/PBS believed it. The study also debunked the notion that misperceptions were due mainly to the lack of exposure to news. Among Bush supporters, those who said they follow the news "very closely", were found more likely to hold misperceptions. Those Bush supporters, on the other hand, who say they follow the news "somewhat closely" or "not closely at all" held fewer misperceptions. Conversely, those Democratic supporters who said they did not follow the news very closely were found to be twice as likely to hold misperceptions as those who said they did, according to PIPA. Posted: 21 May 2004
How many travesties does the Bush adminstration have to commit before we GET HIM OUT OF OFFICE? Found at Bush Greenwatch. Bush Officials Weaken Organic Food Standards: Public Shut Out The Bush Administration is giving Americans new reason to watch what they eat. Over the course of 10 days last month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued three "guidances" and one directive -- all legally binding interpretations of law -- that threaten to seriously dilute the meaning of the word organic and discredit the department's National Organic Program. The changes -- which would allow the use of antibiotics on organic dairy cows, as well as synthetic pesticides on organic farms, and more -- were made with zero input from the public or the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), the advisory group that worked for more than a decade to help craft the first federal organic standards, put in place in October 2002. The USDA insists the changes are harmless: "The directives have not changed anything. They are just clarifications of what is in the regulations that were written by the National Organic Standards Board," stated USDA spokesperson Joan Shaffer. "They just explain what's enforceable. There is no difference [between the clarifications and the original regulations] -- it's just another way of explaining it." But Jim Riddle, vice chair of the NOSB and endowed chair in agricultural systems at the University of Minnesota, argues that what the USDA is trying to pass off as a clarification of regulations is in fact a substantial change: "These are the sorts of changes for which the department is supposed to do a formal new rulemaking process, with posting in the federal register, feedback from our advisory board, and a public-comment period. And yet there is no such process denoted anywhere." Organic activists suspect that industry pressure drove the policy shifts. They point out that the USDA leadership has long-standing industry sympathies: Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman served on the board of directors of a biotech company; both her chief of staff and her director of communications were plucked right out of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. One practice favored by large agribusiness is the use of antibiotics on cows. A USDA guidance issued on April 14 will allow just that on organic dairy farms -- a dramatic reversal of 2002 rules. [1] Under the new guidelines, sickly dairy cows can be treated not just with antibiotics but with numerous others drugs and still have their milk qualify as organic, so long as 12 months pass between the time the treatments are administered and the time the milk is sold. "This new directive makes a mockery of organic standards," said Richard Wood, a recent member of the FDA's Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee and executive director of Food Animal Concerns Trust. Another new guidance put out on the same day would allow cattle farmers to feed their heifers non-organic fishmeal that could be riddled with synthetic preservatives, mercury, and PCBs, and still sell their beef as organic. And the following week, on April 23, the USDA took the startling step of issuing a legal directive that opens the door for use of some synthetic pesticides on organic farms. Last but certainly not least, another guidance released on April 14 narrows the scope of the federal organic certification program to crops, livestock, and the products derived from them, meaning that national organic standards will not be developed for fish, nutritional supplements, pet food, fertilizers, cosmetics, or personal-care products. Despite the USDA's demurrals, activists view the department's changes as a serious threat to hard-won standards for organic products. The National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture and other groups are investigating possible industry influence into the USDA's process, and some environmental groups are preparing to take legal action. ### This story was jointly produced by BushGreenwatch and Grist Magazine. For more on this story, visit Grist Magazine. Posted: 21 May 2004
Sign the petition. If you're not getting the Grist e-magazine, you should sign up for that, too. DO GOOD Take Action to Defend the Scientific Process An alliance of prominent scientists has accused the Bush administration of distorting and interfering with science on a wide variety of issues, including many related to the environment and human health. The scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates and 19 recipients of the National Medal of Science, say the Bushies have censored reports on climate change and other problems, stacked federal scientific advisory panels with people who share their (often controversial) views, and more. Call on your senators and representatives to step in and restore scientific integrity to the policy-making process. Do good: Take action and fight the misuse of science Posted: 21 May 2004
How un-American can you get? SPECIAL MIS-LEAD: BUSH OUTSOURCED FUNDRAISING & VOTER OPERATIONS According to a new report, the Bush Administration has taken its strong support for outsourcing further than previously thought -- opting to move key political operations offshore. India's Hindustan Times reports that, during a 14 month period from 2002 to 2003 when the Republican Party was playing up patriotism, its fund-raising and vote-seeking campaign was performed in part by two call centers located in India [1]. According to the report, the Republican National Committee shipped the India operation its voter database for 125 local staff to use to "solicit political contributions ranging between $5 and $3,000 from thousands of registered Republican voters." While the contract for running the campaigns was originally awarded to Washington-based Capital Communications Group, "for cost and efficiencies gains, the company outsourced the work to HCL Technologies that in turn sent it offshore." Public pressure has forced President Bush has to downplay his support for outsourcing. But this new story is consistent with his Administration's actions in support of shipping American jobs overseas. Late last year, the New York Times reported that the Bush Commerce Department co-sponsored a conference at the lavish Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York that was designed to "encourage American companies to put operations and jobs in China" [2]. Then, this year, the President's top economic adviser said outsourcing was "a plus for the economy" [3]. Sources: 1. "Bush campaign ran from Noida call center", Hindustan Times, 05/16/2004 2. "In business, Washington pursues two China policies", International Herald Tribune, 12/11/2003. 3. "Bush Econ Advisor: Outsourcing OK", CBS News, 02/13/2004. Visit Misleader.org for more about Bush Administration distortion. Some extra bits from The Center for American Progress. RIGHT-WING INSENSITIVE QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Being poor is a state of mind, not a condition." – HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson's explanation yesterday to the House Financial Services Committee about why he refused to discuss housing the poor. ENVIRO – EPA STEPS UP FOR WOOD INDUSTRY: Relying on a "risk assessment generated by a chemical industry-funded think tank, and a novel legal approach recommended by a timber industry lawyer," the Environmental Protection Agency "approved an air pollution regulation this year that could save the wood products industry hundreds of millions of dollars." Among other things, the LAT reports the regulation, which was "ushered through the agency by senior officials with previous ties to the timber and chemical industries," ignores new scientific studies of possible health risks and drastically reduces emission standards for chemicals causing cancer and leukemia. Who wins from the EPA's new regulations? "Ultimately, 147 or more of the 223 facilities nationwide could avoid the pollution-control requirements. The exemptions will save the industry as much as $66 million annually for about 10 years in potential emission control costs." Posted: 20 May 2004
A refreshing moment of sanity in a crazy world. This came from The Center for American Progress. JUSTICE – GREENPEACE 1, ASHCROFT 0: A federal judge yesterday dismissed trumped up charges against the environmental group Greenpeace, "ending an unusual case that drew the ire of free-speech advocates and critics of the Bush administration." The organization was being prosecuted by the U.S. attorney's office under "an obscure 1872 law intended to dissuade brothel owners from boarding ships to lure sailors with prostitutes and liquor. The law had not been used in 113 years." Greenpeace's attorneys didn't even have to counter the charges: "U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan in Miami dismissed the case shortly after the prosecution presented its last witness following 1 1/2 days of testimony." Posted: 19 May 2004
Bushworld, land of doublethink. Dowd: Welcome to Bushworld, where things aren't what they appear to be Maureen Dowd THE NEW YORK TIMES WASHINGTON -- It's their reality. We just live and die in it. In Bushworld, our troops go to war and get killed, but you never see the bodies coming home. In Bushworld, flag-draped remains of the fallen are important to revere and show the nation, but only in political ads hawking the president's leadership against terror. In Bushworld, we can create an exciting Iraqi democracy as long as it doesn't control its own military, pass any laws or have any power. In Bushworld, we can win over Fallujah by bulldozing it. In Bushworld, it was worth going to war so Iraqis could express their feelings ("Down With America!") without having their tongues cut out, although we cannot yet allow them to express intemperate feelings in newspapers ("Down With America!") without shutting them down. In Bushworld, it's fine to take $700 million that Congress provided for the war in Afghanistan and 9-11 recovery and divert it to the war in Iraq that you are insisting you are not planning. In Bushworld, you don't consult your father, the expert in being president during a war with Iraq, but you do talk to your Higher Father, who can't talk back to warn you to get an exit strategy or chide you for using Him for political purposes. In Bushworld, it's OK to run for re-election as the avenger of 9-11, even as you make secret deals with the Arab kingdom where most of the 9-11 hijackers came from. In Bushworld, you get to strut around like a tough military guy and paint your rival as a chicken hawk, even though he's the one who won medals in combat and was praised by his superior officers for fulfilling all his obligations. In Bushworld, it makes sense to press for transparency in Mr. and Mrs. Rival while cultivating your own opacity. In Bushworld, you can reign as the antiterror president even after hearing an intelligence report about al-Qaida's plans to attack America and then stepping outside to clear brush. In Bushworld, those who dissemble about the troops and money it will take to get Iraq on its feet are patriots, while those who are honest are patronizingly marginalized. In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq, even as they increasingly merge the two in America. In Bushworld, you can claim to be the environmental president on Earth Day while being the industry president every other day. In Bushworld, you brag about how well Afghanistan is going, even though soldiers like Pat Tillman are still dying and the Taliban are running freely around the border areas, hiding Osama and delaying elections. In Bushworld, imperfect intelligence is good enough to knock over Iraq. But even better evidence that North Korea is building the weapons that Saddam could only dream about is hidden away. In Bushworld, the CIA says it can't find out whether there are WMD in Iraq unless we invade on the grounds that there are WMD. In Bushworld, there's no irony that so many who did so much to avoid the Vietnam draft have now strained the military so much that lawmakers are talking about bringing back the draft. In Bushworld, we're making progress in the war on terror by fighting a war that creates terrorists. In Bushworld, you don't need to bother asking your vice president and top Defense Department officials whether you should go to war in Iraq, because they've already maneuvered you into going to war. In Bushworld, it's perfectly natural for the president and vice president to appear before the 9-11 commission like the Olsen twins. In Bushworld, you expound on remaking the Middle East and spreading pro-American sentiments even as you expand anti-American sentiments by ineptly occupying Iraq and unstintingly backing Ariel Sharon on West Bank settlements. In Bushworld, we went to war to give Iraq a democratic process, yet we disdain the democratic process that causes allies to pull out troops. In Bushworld, you pride yourself on the fact that your administration does not leak to the press, while you flood the best-known journalist in Washington with inside information. In Bushworld, you list Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack as recommended reading on your campaign Web site, even though it makes you seem divorced from reality. That is, unless you live in Bushworld. Posted: 19 May 2004
Scary. The Jesus Landing Pad by Rick Perlstein, The Village Voice t was an e-mail we weren't meant to see. Not for our eyes were the notes that showed White House staffers taking two-hour meetings with Christian fundamentalists, where they passed off bogus social science on gay marriage as if it were holy writ and issued fiery warnings that "the Presidents [sic] Administration and current Government is engaged in cultural, economical, and social struggle on every level"—this to a group whose representative in Israel believed herself to have been attacked by witchcraft unleashed by proximity to a volume of Harry Potter. Most of all, apparently, we're not supposed to know the National Security Council's top Middle East aide consults with apocalyptic Christians eager to ensure American policy on Israel conforms with their sectarian doomsday scenarios. But now we know. "Everything that you're discussing is information you're not supposed to have," barked Pentecostal minister Robert G. Upton when asked about the off-the-record briefing his delegation received on March 25. Details of that meeting appear in a confidential memo signed by Upton and obtained by the Voice. The e-mailed meeting summary reveals NSC Near East and North African Affairs director Elliott Abrams sitting down with the Apostolic Congress and massaging their theological concerns. Claiming to be "the Christian Voice in the Nation's Capital," the members vociferously oppose the idea of a Palestinian state. They fear an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza might enable just that, and they object on the grounds that all of Old Testament Israel belongs to the Jews. Until Israel is intact and David's temple rebuilt, they believe, Christ won't come back to earth. The Middle East was not the only issue discussed at the March 25 meeting. James Wilkinson, deputy national security advisor for communications, spoke first and is characterized as stating that the 9-11 Commission "is portraying those who have given their all to protect this nation as 'weak on terrorism,' " that "99 percent of all the men and women protecting us in this fight against terrorism are career citizens," and offered the example of Frances Town-send, deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism, "who sacrificed Christmas to do a 'security video' conference." Tim Goeglein, deputy director of public liaison and the White House's point man with evangelical Christians, moderated, and he also spoke on the issue of same-sex marriage. According to the memo, he asked the rhetorical questions: "What will happen to our country if that actually happens? What do those pushing such hope to gain?" His answer: "They want to change America." How so? He quoted the research of Hoover Institute senior fellow Stanley Kurtz, who holds that since gay marriage was legalized in Scandinavia, marriage itself has virtually ceased to exist. (In fact, since Sweden instituted a registered-partnership law for same-sex couples in the mid '90s, there has been no overall change in the marriage and divorce rates there.) READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE. Posted: 19 May 2004
More good tidbits from The Center for American Progress. BUDGET – RHETORIC? MEET REALITY: According to the NYT, the Bush administration has been engaged in "taking credit for spreading largess through programs that President Bush tried to eliminate or to cut sharply." Here's how it works: administration officials loudly trumpet money going into crucial programs, like health care and law enforcement. What they forget to mention is that the money was allocated by Congress against the president's wishes; in reality, Bush has tried to cut the programs. Case in point: "In April, Secretary Thompson announced that the administration was awarding $3.1 million in grants to improve health care in rural areas of Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico and New York. He did not mention that the administration was trying to cut the same rural health program by 72 percent, to $11.1 million next year, from $39.6 million." In another instance, "Justice Department officials recently announced that they were awarding $47 million to scores of local law enforcement agencies for the hiring of police officers." That would be good news, providing you forget that Bush "just proposed cutting the budget for the program, known as Community Oriented Policing Services, by 87 percent, to $97 million next year, from $756 million." CORPORATE – ENRON CAUGHT ON TAPE: Transcripts of phone conversations of Enron executives obtained by the Justice department reveal shocking details of the company's efforts to manipulate energy markets. In the recordings, "employees spoke of 'stealing' up to $2 million a day from California during the 2000-01 energy crisis and suggested that their market-gaming ploys would be presented to top management, possibly including Jeffrey K. Skilling and Kenneth L. Lay." Another trader bragged "about taking money from 'Grandma Millie' in California." BUDGET – TAX CUTS FOR RICH KIDS: This morning the WP calls a new child tax credit proposal, targeted at families earning as much as $309,000, "unnecessary, misguided and irresponsible." The bill, up this week in the House of Representatives, "is the most egregious part of a House tax-cutting spree that altogether would add more than $500 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to estimates by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. The House would not only make permanent the $1,000-per-child tax credit enacted as part of the 2001 tax cut but would dramatically increase the income limits for eligibility." Meanwhile, "For families earning less than $10,750, however, the House bill would do nothing. Thus, a family with a parent working full-time at the minimum wage ($10,300) would get no benefit from the bill." This is not the first time the president's child tax credit proposals have left lower income children behind. Posted: 17 May 2004
I've never much cared for the Reagans, but I truly admire Nancy Reagan for this. Data is from The Center for American Progress. SCIENCE – THANKS, NANCY: Under pressure from former first lady Nancy Reagan, the White House took its first step towards reversing its ban on using federal funds for stem-cell research. The NYT reports that "the Bush administration has acknowledged that additional lines, or colonies, of embryonic stem cells could speed scientific research." While the announcement denied the President would "sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos," advocates for patients "say it could mark the first step toward easing limits" on research outlined by President Bush in 2001. Posted: 15 May 2004
This defines the term "miscarriage of justice." The Bush Admiinstration doesn't know the meaning of shame. U.S. Takes Greenpeace to Court in Unusual Trial Thu 13 May, 2004 17:42 By Michael Christie MIAMI (Reuters) - Greenpeace, charged with the obscure crime of "sailor mongering" that was last prosecuted 114 years ago, goes on trial on Monday in the first U.S. criminal prosecution of an advocacy group for civil disobedience. The environmental group is accused of sailor mongering because it boarded a freighter in April 2002 that was carrying illegally felled Amazon mahogany to Miami. It says the prosecution is revenge for its criticism of the environmental policies of President Bush, whom it calls the "Toxic Texan." Sailor mongering was rife in the 19th century when brothels sent prostitutes laden with booze onto ships as they made their way to harbor. The idea was to get the sailors so drunk they could be whisked to shore and held in bondage, and a law was passed against it in 1872. It has only been used in a court of law twice, the last time in 1890. Greenpeace says the decision by the U.S. Attorney's Office to prosecute the organization rather than just the activists who boarded the APL Jade freighter is a sea change in policy, and a conviction would throttle free speech everywhere. It would also be a sharp blow against Brazilian efforts to halt the trade in a hardwood so precious it is known as "green gold." It yields fatter profit margins than cocaine and is blamed for the destruction of vast swathes of the Amazon. "Illegal logging goes on and they're bringing it to Miami and making loads of money, and we're going to trial," said Sara Holden of Greenpeace International. The case is unprecedented, not just because of the bizarre nature of the crime. Six Greenpeace activists were charged after the 2002 protest in choppy waters off Miami, pleaded guilty and sentenced to time served -- the weekend they spent in jail. But U.S. prosecutors were not satisfied, and 15 months later came up with a grand jury indictment of the entire organization for sailor mongering. FREE SPEECH CONCERNS U.S. prosecutors argue Greenpeace did something like that when two "climbers" clambered aboard the Jade to hang a sign demanding, "President Bush: Stop Illegal Logging." If convicted, Greenpeace could be placed on probation, and pay a $10,000 fine. As significant as the prosecution itself, are the implications, free speech campaigners say. Not once since the Boston Tea Party have U.S. authorities criminally prosecuted a group for political expression. "It's ominous," said attorney Maria Kayanan of law firm Podhurst Orseck, which worked with the American Civil Liberties Union on a "friend of court" brief to back a Greenpeace demand that the government reveal who ordered the prosecution. "It will be very chilling because advocacy groups whose members chose to engage in acts of protest which happen to violate the law will be loathe to act at all." Greenpeace hopes to focus on mahogany during the trial, which will begin on Monday with jury selection in the U.S. District Court in Miami, under Judge Adalberto Jordan. In one line of defense, its attorneys will argue that the activists were highlighting a crime, and giving Washington an opportunity to live up to its commitment to protect mahogany as a signatory to global treaties listing the wood as endangered. Greenpeace Amazon campaigner Paulo Adario said a mahogany tree could be bought in the Amazon for $30. Once turned into dining tables and chairs for sale in New York or London, that same tree could be worth as much as $120,000. Along the way, Amazon Indians are driven from their villages, officials bribed and activists assassinated. Country-sized chunks of rain forest fall to chainsaws as other loggers take advantage of the roads the mahogany hunters carve to get at less valuable woods that would not otherwise have been worth trying to reach. "Mahogany is a red wood, it's red like blood, it's red like shame," Adario said by phone from the Amazon port of Manaus. "The U.S. government should help us to change at least the shameful color of mahogany (but) they are prosecuting us." Posted: 14 May 2004
This is far more obscene than Janet Jackson's breast. Data comes fromThe Center for American Progress. CORPORATE – CEO PAY OUT OF CONTROL: Reuters reports, "The median compensation for chief executives at the largest U.S. companies rose to $4.6 million last year, up from a median $3.6 million in 2002." The 27% pay hike for CEOs "exceeds the 11.5% rise in 2002" and stands in stark contrast to stagnating wages for average workers. In 2002, the "median household income fell by $500, or 1.1 percent." The Corporate Library, which conducted the study, said the massive raises for CEOs "shows that calls for pay restraint are being ignored." Posted: 13 May 2004
Juicy tidbits from The Center for American Progress. PATRIOT ACT – OPENING ARGUMENTS: A Manhattan federal judge yesterday "widened the public's glimpse into a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union challenging some terms of the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act, after the government sought to keep virtually every detail of the case under a court seal, or secrecy order." The A.C.L.U., which is contesting a provision in the law that lets the F.B.I "require telephone, Internet and other communications companies to provide basic information about their customers, including addresses and call records," had originally been forced to file its suit under seal, for fear of being in violation of the law they sought to contest. As the law stands, the F.B.I can send a subpoena, known as a national security letter, "which includes an order barring the company from informing the customer of the investigation or discussing it with anyone...The F.B.I. can acquire data on customers even if they are not suspected of terrorist activity." MEDIA – MOORE FINDS DISTRIBUTORS: AP reports "Miramax Films chiefs Bob and Harvey Weinstein plan to buy back Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9-11' — which Walt Disney Co. blocked Miramax from releasing — and distribute it themselves." Under the deal, the brothers, "who have a thorny relationship with parent company Disney, would not be able to distribute the movie through Miramax. They would have to find a third-party company." Disney chief executive Michael Eisner had expressed concern that releasing Moore's film, which "criticizes President Bush's handling of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and connects the Bush family with Osama bin Laden's," could endanger Disney's tax breaks for its theme parks in Florida, where the president's brother Jeb is governor. VOTING – THE ELECTION SHOULD NOT BE AUTOMATED: In another blow to electronic voting, "A scathing internal review of the iVotronic touch-screen voting machines used in Miami-Dade and Broward, Fla., counties, written by a Miami-Dade County elections official, has raised fresh doubts about how accurately the electronic machines count the vote." Meant as a panacea in the wake of the 2000 presidential election debacle, electronic voting has come under increased scrutiny in recent months, with critics contending "the headlong rush into electronic voting was a mistake because the systems are unproven." The new review of iVotronic, "one of the main systems in use nationally," concludes there is a "'serious bug' in the voting machine software that results in votes potentially being lost and voting machines not being accounted for in the voting system's self-generated post-election audit." Posted: 12 May 2004
I think no further comment is needed. For additional info, go to organicconsumers.org and sent Monsanto a free fax. Multi-Billion$$ Monsanto Sues More Small Family Farmers Percy Schmeiser is a farmer from Saskatchewan Canada whose Canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto's genetically engineered Round-Up Ready Canola by pollen from a nearby farm. Monsanto says it doesn't matter how the contamination took place, and is therefore demanding Schmeiser pay their Technology Fee (the fee farmers must pay to grow Monsanto's genetically engineered products). According to Schmeiser, "I never had anything to do with Monsanto, outside of buying chemicals. I never signed a contract. If I would go to St. Louis (Monsanto Headquarters) and contaminate their plots--destroy what they have worked on for 40 years--I think I would be put in jail and the key thrown away." Rodney Nelson's family farm is being forced into a similar lawsuit by Monsanto. Support Schmeiser, Nelson and hundreds of other family farmers who are being forced to pay Monsanto to have their fields contaminated by genetically modifeid organisms. Sign OCA's "Millions Against Monsanto" petition. These petitions will be physically delivered to Monsanto and related court hearings. Monsanto Brings Small Family Dairy to Court Oakhurst Dairy has been owned and operated by the same Maine family since 1921, and Monsanto recently attempted to put them out of business. Oakhurst, like many other dairy producers in the U.S., has been responding to consumer demand to provide milk free of rBGH, a synthetic hormone banned (for health reasons) in every industrialized country other than the U.S. Monsanto, the number one producer of the rBGH synthetic steroid, sued Oakhurst, claiming they should not have the right to inform their customers that their dairy products do not contain the Monsanto chemical. Given the intense pressure from the transnational corporation, Oakhurst was forced to settle out of court, leaving many other dairies vulnerable to similar attacks from Monsanto. Posted: 7 May 2004
Once again, women's rights are threatened by the neo-conservative right. Learn more at The Center for American Progress. SCIENCE – NO PLAN B: In a blow to its reputation "as a science-based agency," the Food and Drug Administration yesterday "rejected over-the-counter sales of the emergency contraceptive Plan B." The decision was "an unusual repudiation of the lopsided recommendation of the agency's own expert advisory panel, which voted 23 to 4 late last year that the drug should be sold over the counter and then, that same day, 27 to 0 that the drug could be safely sold as an over-the-counter medication." Officially, the FDA is supposed to "base its decision about converting a drug to over-the-counter status on a very narrow issue: whether the drug can be used safely and effectively without the supervision of a physician." However, in this case, conservative politics trumped science. The WSJ reports, "In a New England Journal of Medicine editorial in April, three physicians, including one on the FDA panel, slammed the agency for allowing politics to affect the deliberations. 'A treatment for any other condition, from hangnail to headache to heart disease, with a similar record of safety and efficacy would be approved quickly,' they wrote." Posted: 6 May 2004
Another example of how the media plays politics. This information is from The Center for American Progress. House of Bush, House of Mickey At the direction of CEO Michael Eisner, the Walt Disney Company is prohibiting its Miramax division from distributing a new Michael Moore documentary, "Fahrenheit 911," that is critical of the President's policies and exposes his connections to prominent Saudis. According to Moore's agent, Eisner expressed particular concern that distributing the movie "would have endangered Disney's tax breaks for its theme parks in Florida, where the president's brother Jeb is governor." Eisner's decision also illustrates his cozy and conflicted relationship with the Bush family, particularly Gov. Jeb Bush. JEB BUSH CONTROLS 7.3 MILLION SHARES OF DISNEY STOCK: As governor of Florida, Jeb Bush serves as a trustee for the state employees' pension fund. That fund owns approximately 7.3 million shares of Disney stock. According to the Orlando Sentinel on 3/2/04, how the state votes those shares in board of director elections is "a closely watched decision with political as well as economic dimensions." In the last board election, in which Eisner ran unopposed, Jeb Bush and the other trustees symbolically withheld their support for Eisner. If the trustees were to continue opposing Eisner in future elections it could endanger his "two-decade reign at the top of the company." EISNER TELLS JEB BUSH HOW IMPORTANT THEIR RELATIONSHIP IS TO DISNEY: Disney's agreement with the state of Florida "gives the entertainment company near complete control over 40,000 acres" in the central part of the state. Disney's theme parks operate "free from government oversight – it is in effect the government – and can do almost whatever it wants with its land." According to the 4/28/01 Palm Beach Post, Michael Eisner, in a private speech to Jeb and his executive staff, stressed he was acutely aware "the success and result of [Disney's] relationship with the state is taken for granted." A member of Jeb's staff, apparently appreciative of his remarks, then asked Eisner "what more the state could do for his company." BUSH/EISNER MUTUAL ADMIRATION SOCIETY: During the 2003 first quarter earnings conference call, Eisner cited the patronage of the Bush family to ease investor concerns about Disney's cruise lines. Eisner told analysts on the call "we were very happy that when the President and Jeb Bush's son and his wife and about 16 grandchildren went on over Christmas...they all had a very good time." In the days after 9/11, many Americans were wondering what they could do to help their country. President Bush urged the country to "Go down to Disney World in Florida. Take your families and enjoy life." According to the 12/11/01 Village Voice an ecstatic Eisner blasted out an e-mail touting President Bush as "our newest cheerleader." EISNER IS A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTOR TO GEORGE AND JEB: Eisner told reporters yesterday that he was refusing to distribute the film because Disney is "such a nonpartisan company, do not look for us to take sides." Yet Eisner has taken the side of George W. Bush and Jeb Bush against their political opponents when he contributed to their campaigns. IMPACT OF MEDIA CONSOLIDATION EXPOSED: The fiasco illustrates the perils of excessive media consolidation – Disney is refusing to distribute a film because of the effect it may have on tax breaks for a theme park. Yesterday, Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) called for hearings into "the pattern of politically based corporate censorship of the news media and the entertainment industry." Eisner's decision comes on the heels of decisions to pull content critical of President Bush by Sinclair Media and CBS. Posted: 4 May 2004
As pointed out in this piece from The Center for American Progress, we continue to face two dangers from the current FCC: one is censorship, the other is media consolidation, which creates an easy path for censorship.. MEDIA –PLAYING MONOPOLY: With the Bush administration endorsing efforts to "gut longstanding rules designed to prevent the growth of media monopolies," FCC commissioner Michael Copps on Monday "blasted his agency for its role in the 'Clear Channelization' of American radio." Speaking at the Future of Music Coalition's policy summit, Copps charged "that the Republican-controlled panel has shortchanged the public by giving the go-ahead to further media consolidation." Despite widespread public opposition to media consolidation, the Bush administration and its allies have backed Federal Communications Commission chair Michael Powell and his monopoly-friendly policies. "'Step by step, rule by rule, bit by bit, (this commission) has allowed the dismantling of a whole variety of public interest protections and flashed the green light for more consolidation,' Copps said." Posted: 2 May 2004
The Bush administration is doing its best to make sure minority votes aren't counted.. Vanishing Votes by Gregory Palast n October 29, 2002, George W. Bush signed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Hidden behind its apple-pie-and-motherhood name lies a nasty civil rights time bomb. First, the purges. In the months leading up to the November 2000 presidential election, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, in coordination with Governor Jeb Bush, ordered local election supervisors to purge 57,700 voters from the registries, supposedly ex-cons not allowed to vote in Florida. At least 90.2 percent of those on this "scrub" list, targeted to lose their civil rights, are innocent. Notably, more than half--about 54 percent--are black or Hispanic. You can argue all night about the number ultimately purged, but there's no argument that this electoral racial pogrom ordered by Jeb Bush's operatives gave the White House to his older brother. HAVA not only blesses such purges, it requires all fifty states to implement a similar search-and-destroy mission against vulnerable voters. Specifically, every state must, by the 2004 election, imitate Florida's system of computerizing voter files. The law then empowers fifty secretaries of state--fifty Katherine Harrises--to purge these lists of "suspect" voters. If you're black, voting in America is a game of chance. First, there's the chance your registration card will simply be thrown out. Millions of minority citizens registered to vote using what are called motor-voter forms. And Republicans know it. You would not be surprised to learn that the Commission on Civil Rights found widespread failures to add these voters to the registers. My sources report piles of dust-covered applications stacked up in election offices. READ THE REST. Posted: 1 May 2004
I'm reposting this article here as a way of spreading the word.. Secret Service Attempting to Use Patriot Act to Demand User Info From Black Box Voting by repost Thursday April 29, 2004 at 04:04 PM Thursday, April 29 2004 The Secret Service Wants Your Name: Will "subpeona" this web site By Bev Harris And by the way, they read every word. Hi, agent Mike. This "investigation" no longer passes the stink test. He says not to tell folks about the "investigating" they are doing. I have cooperated ad nauseum to this absurd investigation of the "VoteHere hack" which looks to me like it is something entirely different. I'll tell you what it looks like to me: A fishing expedition. It appears that they may be using the Patriot Act to circumvent some of the civil rights protections laid down in the 60s. You see, it is illegal for a government agency to go in and demand the list of all the members of a group. And you can't investigate leaks to journalists by going in and grabbing the reporter's computer. After the Diebold memos were leaked, and my web site was shut down, around the time of the California recall election, I started getting solicited to accept VoteHere software. I didn't bite, because it was obvious that this was an entrapment attempt. Okay, a word about VoteHere: This is the company that has no visible means of support. It doesn't seem to sell anything. Its board is heavily infested with defense industry types -- a former CIA director (Robert Gates, now heads George Bush School of Government); it had Admiral Bill Owens, also Vice-Chairman of SAIC and a member of the Defense Policy Board with Perle and Wolfowitz, a very close friend of Cheney; currently headed by former Washington Secretary of State Ralph Munro. VoteHere announced that it would be releasing its software for review, back in July 2003. It was planning to release it in September, and was supposed to do so to Dr. David Dill's web site. It never released the code, just a bunch of literature about its product. (It did release some, but not all, of its code this month, making a big splash about it). About a week into October, I got solicited with an email "click this link" for VoteHere software. Now who would fall for that? Why would anyone in their right mind grab the stuff in some clandestine manner when it was being released into the open momentarily? And this is a company that never sells anything. Who gives a shit anyway, what its software does? It now is trying to peddle yet another alternative to a voter verified paper ballot, an idiotic solution where we turn over auditing of the vote to a handful of cryptographers who work for a private company with defense industry ties. No one I know thinks that is even a viable concept, so why would we care to examine the software these cryptographers make up? I was in the ending stages of writing my book, putting new chapters online every few days, at that time. Like I'm going to hack into VoteHere (those who know me realize that I couldn't hack my way out of a paper bag) -- this was just dumb. I turned down the software. In early January this year, VoteHere does a press release that it was "hacked" in October and tries to blame it on the activism community. I published an article expressing doubt that we'd gotten the whole story. Now, I have been interviewed by the Secret Service on this VoteHere "hack" story about five times. They never spend much time on the hack. Most of the time is spent on the Diebold memos, which they claim they are not investigating. Here's the deal: The leaking of memos to journalists is not something the government can come in and demand to investigate very easily. Under the Patriot Act, "hacking" crimes were turned over to a new division, called the CyberCrimes division, and placed under the auspices of the Secret Service. And let me tell you what they want from me now: They want the logs of my web site with all the forum messages, and the IP addresses. That's right. All of them. A giant fishing expedition for every communication of everyone interested in the voting issue. This has nothing to do with a VoteHere "hack" investigation, and I have refused to turn it over. So, yesterday, they call me up and tell me they are going to subpeona me and put me in front of a grand jury. Well, let 'em. They still aren't getting the list of members of BlackBoxVoting.org unless they seize my computer -- which my attorney tells me might be what they have in mind. Also, Agent Mike told me he just "happened" to be on the plane with me a couple weeks ago. What's that supposed to do? Scare me? "You were going to Oakland," he said. Yeah, and Diebold lawyer's memos appeared in the Oakland Tribune, but guess what, Mike: That was the first hop of three on my way to Dallas. I left that morning for a speech at the Dallas Democratic Forum that evening. Never even got off the plane. Better luck next time. And if they were really investigating what they said -- a VoteHere "hack" can someone explain why they want the logs from the web site BlackBoxVoting.org -- it was SHUT DOWN due to Diebold cease & desists during the period of the supposed "hack." And (you know who you are) -- consider this a heads up: If you start bumbling around in my house with U.S. marshalls, the very first thing that will happen is mainstream news coverage that you are misusing the Patriot Act to get at membership lists and private correspondence for a fishing expedition on stuff that isn't even the subject of a legitimate investigation. Yeah, I'm not a happy camper. Taking the pulse of our democracy nowadays, it doesn't feel very healthy, does it? Bev Harris P.S. Everyone say hi to Mike. Please pass this along, and/or get your group involved: We need exactly 2,004 Clean-Up Crew members to volunteer as poll workers, election judges, and poll watchers, with a checklist of problems to hunt for and a hotline to litigators and the media. E-mail with "Volunteering!" in the subject line to join the Clean-Up Crew. www.blackboxvoting.org/ 
"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.
"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."
|
|
