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

How Bush really feels about you.

The Mars Society

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

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."

James Madison
(1751-1836)
4th President of the United States

"Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings."

Heinrich Heine
Almansor, 1823

"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?
Expediency asks the question - is it politic?
Vanity asks the question - is it popular?
But conscience asks the question - is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is
neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it
because it is right.

Dr. Martin Luther King

"My life is my message."

Gandhi

Posted: 30 Oct. 2004

Doris "Granny D" Haddock". Now this is my idea of an amazing woman.

At age 90, she walked from California to Washington DC to support campaign reform. The snow got so heavy, she skiied the last 100 miles!

Now, at age 94, she's running for the Senate. Read her own words at grannyD.com

Posted: 29 Oct. 2004

I've been disturbed for years now by the growing tendency to glorify the presidency. Remember, the president is just an elected official WHO SERVES THE PEOPLE, not the other way around. That's why I agreed with the following commentary.

The Security of Checks and Balances
commentary by security specialist Bruce Schneier

Much of the political rhetoric surrounding the US presidential election centers around the relative security posturings of President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry, with each side loudly proclaiming that his opponent will do irrevocable harm to national security.

Terrorism is a serious issue facing our nation in the early 21st century, and the contrasting views of these candidates is important. But this debate obscures another security risk, one much more central to the US: the increasing centralisation of American political power in the hands of the executive branch of the government.

Over 200 years ago, the framers of the US Constitution established an ingenious security device against tyrannical government: they divided government power among three different bodies. A carefully thought-out system of checks and balances in the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch, ensured that no single branch became too powerful. After watching tyrannies rise and fall throughout Europe, this seemed like a prudent way to form a government.

Since 9/11, the United States has seen an enormous power grab by the executive branch. From denying suspects the right to a trial -- and sometimes to an attorney -- to the law-free zone established at Guantanamo, from deciding which ratified treaties to ignore to flouting laws designed to foster open government, the Bush administration has consistently moved to increase its power at the expense of the rest of the government. The so-called "Torture Memos," prepared at the request of the president, assert that the president can claim unlimited power as long as it is somehow connected with counterterrorism.

Presidential power as a security issue will not play a role in the upcoming US election. Bush has shown through his actions during his first term that he favours increasing the powers of the executive branch over the legislative and the judicial branches. Kerry's words show that he is in agreement with the president on this issue. And largely, the legislative and judicial branches are allowing themselves to be trampled over.

In times of crisis, the natural human reaction is to look for safety in a single strong leader. This is why Bush's rhetoric of strength has been so well-received by the American people, and why Kerry is also campaigning on a platform of strength. Unfortunately, consolidating power in one person is dangerous. History shows again and again that power is a corrupting influence, and that more power is more corrupting. The loss of the American system of checks and balances is more of a security danger than any terrorist risk.

The ancient Roman Senate had a similar way of dealing with major crises. When there was a serious military threat against the safety and security of the Republic, the long debates and compromise legislation that accompanied the democratic process seemed a needless luxury. The Senate would appoint a single person, called a "dictator" (Latin for "one who orders") to have absolute power over Rome in order to more efficiently deal with the crisis. He was appointed for a period of six months or for the duration of the emergency, whichever period was shorter. Sometimes the process worked, but often the injustices that resulted from having a dictator were worse than the original crisis.

Today, the principles of democracy enshrined in the US constitution are more important than ever. In order to prevail over global terrorism while preserving the values that have made America great, the constitutional system of checks and balances is critical.

This is not a partisan issue; I don't believe that John Kerry, if elected, would willingly lessen his own power any more than second-term President Bush would. What the US needs is a strong Congress and a strong court system to balance the presidency, not weak ones ceding ever more power to the presidency.

From Howard Dean.

Some Republicans see the voting booth as a country club where a few people decide that others just don't belong. They reject the foundation of our democracy: we believe in the sacred principle of One Person, One Vote.

Now that fundamental right is under threat. Every day we hear of new GOP tactics to corrupt the system and prevent people from voting.

Our volunteers have made direct contact with voters in thousands of precincts. But the prospect of intimidation and legal manipulation grows every day. Please help us ensure that every American who wants to can get to the polls:

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/contribute

We finally started living up to the One Person, One Vote principle only a generation ago. For a hundred years after the Civil War our laws systematically blocked millions of people from voting. It took until 1965 to pass federal law that ended the schemes of Jim Crow.

We outlawed poll taxes and literacy tests because they are undemocratic. But those bad laws were made even worse by selective enforcement -- to discriminate against opponents of those in power.

The tactics today are the same as in the bad old days.

The 2000 election opened the eyes of the right-wing fringe that runs the Republican Party. When conservatives on the Supreme Court stopped votes from being counted in Florida, they saw an opportunity. They could again manipulate the legal system to justify denying people the right to vote.

Now we have a Republican in Ohio trying to throw out heavily Democratic new voter registrations because the paper isn't thick enough.

We have a Jeb Bush appointee in Florida drawing up a wildly inaccurate list of supposed "felons" that included thousands of innocent African-Americans -- but almost no Latinos (who are much more likely to vote Republican).

Republican officials in Pennsylvania tried to move polling places out of inner-city neighborhoods for "safety" reasons.

Right-wing Republicans question whether new voters -- particularly the young and the poor -- "deserve" to vote. They wonder out loud whether Americans who they think aren't "informed enough" or need a ballot in another language should be allowed to vote at all. Suggestions like these are disgusting and immoral.

They know that George Bush's failures have affected people who until now never gave politics a second thought. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Americans have registered to vote for the first time this year.

Republicans say they fear fraud. But they really fear defeat.

We cannot wait for judges or legislatures to stop them. We have to protect Americans at the polls on Election Day and defend against any attempt to tamper with our fundamental rights.

There are two ways you can help. Find your polling place and make sure that you and everyone you know votes:

http://www.mypollingplace.com

And make a contribution now to help get voters in swing states to the polls on Tuesday:

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/contribute

We have just a few days. Please act now.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

From Grist on-line magazine

DOLE-ING OUT FAVORS
A lobbying success story, from the maker of atrazine

The manufacturer of atrazine, an herbicide connected by studies to frog deformities and increased risk of prostate cancer in humans, spent $260,000 lobbying the U.S. EPA and other government bodies on behalf of the chemical. Not only that, but Syngenta Crop Protection enlisted the formidable lobbying talents of Viagra emissary and ex-senator Bob Dole, who met at least once with White House Deputy Chief of Staff Joe Hagin to discuss the issue. After reports began emerging about atrazine's ill effects -- biologist Tyrone Hayes testified to Congress that low levels of atrazine "chemically castrate and feminize" male frogs, fish, and other wildlife, and other tests indicate that men who work around the chemical are at risk of prostate cancer -- Syngenta hired PR firm Alston & Bird to lobby the White House, the Justice Department, and Congress on its behalf. Before Dole's meeting, Alston & Bird prepared a memo saying that the EPA should reregister atrazine by Oct. 31, 2003; after Dole's meeting, the agency did just that.

straight to the source: Duluth News Tribune, Associated Press, Frederic J. Frommer, 27 Oct 2004

Posted: 28 Oct. 2004

Yeah. Girls kick ass!. If you're into computer games, check out this all-female team of kick-ass game players.

From Grist on-line magazine

THE LION SHALL LAY DOWN WITH THE DAM
Bush administration tweaks dam regulations to favor industry

The Bush administration has just proposed a regulatory change that would grant the hydropower industry exclusive rights to appeal Interior Department rulings on dam licensing and operation -- and deny those rights to states, Indian tribes, and environmental groups. Many privately owned dams, built before laws protecting fish and other species were enacted, will come up for relicensing in the next few years, and the administration's proposed change could save the hydropower industry many millions in environmental mitigation settlements. Some lawyers inside the Interior Department say the change may be an unconstitutional violation of due process. Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) says the change "would protect utility profits at the expense of fish, wildlife, and conservation values." Tex G. Hall, president of the National Congress of American Indians, protests that the regulatory shift "undermines the very trust responsibility that Interior is supposed to be the lead department in protecting." The proposal is open to public comment until Nov. 8.

straight to the source: The Washington Post, Blaine Harden, 28 Oct 2004

do good: Submit a comment and tell Interior what you think of its plan

WONDER IF MICHIGAN LEFT COOKIES OUT FOR HIM
Energy secretary ladles pork into swing states as election approaches

$36 million for a power plant in Minnesota. $100 million for a clean-coal project in Pennsylvania. $235 million for a power plant in Florida. $19.7 million for a clean-coal facility in New Mexico. Being a swing state is a profitable vocation during an election season. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has been traveling to hotly contested regions like a federal Santa Claus, his bag filled with environmentally questionable pork. And he is not alone: Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, Treasury Secretary John Snow, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and numerous Education Department officials have all been traveling heavily in purple states, on the taxpayer's dime, "celebrating" this program and doling out money to that one. It's not unusual to see these kinds of shenanigans as an election approaches -- Clinton was no saint in this department -- but, says Deb Callahan of the League of Conservation Voters, "the Bush administration might have set a new standard for pre-election pork."

straight to the source: The Washington Post, Michael Dobbs, 28 Oct 2004

From the Center for American Progress.

MEDIA – U.S. GETS LOW MARKS FOR FREEDOM: Reporters Without Borders, a group that evaluates freedom of the press throughout the world, ranked the United States "22nd alongside Belgium and behind countries including Bosnia, France and Trinidad and Tobago on a media freedom index released this week." The report cited "violations of source confidentiality, persistent problems in granting press visas and the arrest of several journalists during anti-Bush demonstrations." Iraq ranked 148th and was described by the group as "the most deadly place on Earth for journalists in recent years."

TERRORISM
'Defeating the Jihadists: A Blueprint for Action'

Hot off the presses this week: a new report published by The Century Foundation that provides a detailed examination of the international jihadist network of terrorism. That network of radical Islamic terrorist groups has "conducted twice as many attacks in the three years since September 2001 as it did in the three years prior to that date." "Defeating the Jihadists: A Blueprint for Action," the result of a task force chaired by Richard Clarke, provides an assessment of the success and failures of the current strategy along with an action plan for the future. The book is available online at www.centuryfoundation.org.

A PLAN OF ACTION: All is not lost. The Century Foundation report has positive recommendations for a specific strategy to win the battle against the jihadists. These include: Invest in education and development in Islamic nations; reinvigorate efforts to combat terrorist financing; strengthen oversight of nuclear terrorism prevention efforts, accelerate security investments for ports, trains and chemical plants; and defuse sources of Islamic hatred for the United States.

SIN OF COMMISSION: "Defeating the Jihadists" finds that the Iraq war has been "counter productive" to the war on terrorism. "As a sin of commission," the report states, "the Iraq war alienated crucial allies in the battle against jihadists, made friendly Muslims into skeptics, made skeptics into radicals and created a sanctuary for itinerant jihadist insurgents." The International Institute for Strategic Studies in London found "the occupation of Iraq has helped al Qaeda recruit more members." Diverting money and attention into Iraq allowed al Qaeda to reconstitute, and today "the group has 18,000 potential operatives and is present in more than 60 countries."

SIN OF OMISSION: The report also finds that, as a sin of omission, "the Iraq war diverted massive and much-needed resources from the fight against jihadists." The report found, for example, that the war in Iraq gave Iran and Syria the "breathing room" they desperately needed to avoid an international response to their own terrorist activities. Similarly, the International Institute for Strategic Studies found "the threat of nuclear proliferation by North Korea and Iran has increased over the past year and will probably get worse because of continued US difficulties in Iraq."

Posted: 27 Oct. 2004

From Grist on-line magazine

THE PRICE IS FINALLY RIGHT
High oil prices raise interest in renewables, and this time it may stick

Whenever the price of oil spikes, interest in renewable energy spikes along with it -- but despite the perpetual hopes of advocates, interest recedes as prices go back down. This time, though, as oil tops $55 a barrel, it may be different. Really. For one thing, although most analysts agree that the current spike is temporary, the long-term trend is clear: Global supplies of oil and natural gas are dwindling, demand is rising, and prices will trend upward. In addition, renewables are finally more than a novelty. The Rocky Mountain Institute estimates that, at today's average wholesale prices, wind power is running 4.2 cents per kilowatt-hour, with oil power at 9.1 cents, natural gas at 6.8 cents, and nuclear at 10 cents. Large-scale wind farms and renewable-energy targets are springing up in many states. Home Depot is going to sell solar panels. Gas marketers in Seattle and elsewhere are blending ethanol with their gas to save money. FedEx is rolling out a fleet of hybrid trucks. It could be real this time! Really! We hope.

straight to the source: The Christian Science Monitor, Ron Scherer, 22 Oct 2004

straight to the source: The New York Times, Associated Press, 27 Oct 2004

Posted: 26 Oct. 2004

From Grist on-line magazine

WE FEEL YOUR CAMPAIGN
Environmental issues getting real play in some Senate races

All eyes are on the presidential race, along with most of the campaign resources of big enviro groups. But the balance of power in the Senate plays a huge role in the success or failure of any president's agenda, and this year environmental issues are playing notable roles in a handful of Senate races, from Florida to Colorado to Alaska and beyond. Get the dirt on the environmental foes and environmental heroes fighting for spots in the Senate -- in Muckraker, today on the Grist Magazine website.

today in Grist: Senate races where the environment matters -- in Muckraker

sign up: Receive word by email each time a new Muckraker column hits the scene

Posted: 25 Oct. 2004

From Grist on-line magazine

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE BENJAMINS
Neglect of clean energy hurts economy as well as environment

The lack of aggressive clean-energy policies at the federal level is taking its toll on the U.S. economy. As recently as a decade ago, U.S. companies claimed 50 percent of the market for solar photovoltaic panels, but now that number is down to 10 percent, with Japan and Europe dominating the world market. Likewise, Germany passed the U.S. as the primary source of wind-power technology a few years ago. Tax breaks and subsidies for wind and solar in the U.S. are extended a year at a time, leading some companies seeking predictability and stability to head overseas. Meantime, the Bush administration has funneled money to futuristic hydrogen technology without seriously upping spending on currently viable renewables, leaving the burgeoning wind and solar markets to other countries. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that if Kerry's goal of getting 20 percent of U.S. electricity from renewables by 2020 were met, 355,000 new jobs would be created. And importing less oil would mean more favorable trade balances.

straight to the source: Salon.com, Katharine Mieszkowski, 25 Oct 2004

From the Center for American Progress.

ENVIRO – BUSH ADMINISTRATION OPENS WILDERNESS FOR BUSINESS: The Bush administration is sending a "strong message" on the environment: "no more wilderness." The LA Times reports on how a Bush administration policy reversal is ending "decades of shielding the nation's untamed areas." Not only does the new policy cancel previous protections of land, "it withholds the interim safeguards traditionally applied to areas with wilderness potential until Congress decides whether to make them part of the national wilderness system." And the Interior Department is "barred – forever – from identifying and protecting wild land the way it has for nearly 30 years." The administration says it needs to balance concerns about wilderness with "other important uses such as energy development." But its position is better characterized by a memo from Utah's lead lawyer just before a major settlement in that state. "We need a clear statement," the lawyer wrote to an Interior Department attorney. "No more wilderness." Environmentalists say "the state got what it wanted, and so did wilderness protection opponents everywhere."

Posted: 24 Oct. 2004

From Grist on-line magazine

GRATEFUL DEADLOCK
Congressional paralysis dooms environmental legislation

Partisan bickering and electioneering in Washington, D.C., have led to an impasse on nearly all environmental legislation in Congress the past two years -- bills that enviros love as well as ones they hate. Other than the "Healthy Forests" initiative and a piece of brownfields funding, Congress has been deadlocked on environment-related measures. Bush's Clear Skies legislation, renewal of the industry tax for Superfund site cleanup, limits on carbon-dioxide emissions, changes to the Endangered Species Act -- all are stuck in limbo. The top dogs on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.), won't even meet in the same room. Perhaps because Jeffords says Bush is "killing people" with pollution and Inhofe says environmentalists are "all strong pro-abortionists, they're all pro-gun control people, flying under the flag of environmentalism." Sounds like somebody needs some cookies and milk and a nice long nap!

straight to the source: The Washington Post, Juliet Eilperin, 18 Oct 2004

From the Center for American Progress.

MEDIA – CARL CAMERON, GET YOUR RESUME READY: The Washington bureau chief of Sinclair Broadcast Group, Jon Lieberman, was fired yesterday after "accusing the media company of 'indefensible' conduct for planning to air a movie attacking Senator John F. Kerry's Vietnam record in the coming days." Lieberman – who also was the lead political reporter for the broadcast company – said he was compelled to speak out because ''I feel so strongly that our credibility is at issue here. . . . I feel our company is trying to sway this election."

MEDIA – SINCLAIR'S RETREAT: Yesterday, shareholders challenged Sinclair Broadcast Group's decision to air, commercial free, a highly partisan documentary smearing Sen. John Kerry. The shareholders demanded that those with opposing views be given an equal opportunity to air their views. The action was filed by Glickenhaus & Co., a Wall Street investment firm holding 6,100 shares of Sinclair stock, on behalf of its clients. General Partner Jim Glickenhaus said, "We are not partisan. We are investors. Sinclair's decision has caused harm to the value of our investment in Sinclair. We believe Sinclair must give equal time to an opposing point of view." Sinclair responded to the demand by announcing it will not air the documentary – "Stolen Honor" – in its entirety. Rather, the company plans to air "a special news program, called 'A POW Story,' that will include the documentary's allegations against Kerry in a 'broader discussion.'" According to Media Matters, which underwrote the original lawsuit, "should the program fall outside the boundaries of fairness and impartiality outlined in the demand letter, legal action may resume."

IRAQ – SENDING ANTI-FEMINISTS TO TRAIN IRAQI WOMEN: As part of its Iraqi Women's Democracy Initiative, The State Department announced this week that the Independent Women's Forum will receive $10 million in grants to "train Iraqi women in the skills and practices of democratic public life." The Forum, started in 1992 by opponents of Anita Hill's testimony at the Clarence Thomas hearing, touts opposing "radical" feminism as one of its main goals. The IWF has lobbied against the Violence Against Women Act, opposed efforts to strengthen the Equal Pay Act and has tried to weaken Title IX, which protects equal education opportunities. Martha Burk, Chair of the National Organization for Women, the Forum is "a right-wing anti-woman organization formed by the wives and handmaidens of conservative politicians." Members include vice-president's wife Lynne Cheney; former Enron board member and wife of former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, Wendy Lee Gramm; and wife of GOP activist Michael Ledeen, Barbara Ledeen.

VOTING
Ashcroft's Partisan Assault

For more than 35 years – starting with the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965 – the Department of Justice has fought to protect the right of citizens to vote and have their vote counted. Then John Ashcroft became attorney general. Now, Ashcroft is marshalling the resources of the federal government in an attempt to prevent eligible, registered voters from having their votes counted. On Monday, the Justice Department filed an 11th-hour brief in Michigan district court opposing efforts by civil rights groups (including the Michigan National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) to ensure that registered voters who appear in the right city, township or village – but the wrong precinct – have their votes counted. (Read how to make sure your vote counts.)

PROVISIONAL BALLOTING EXPLAINED: In 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to address problems with the deeply flawed 2000 federal election. One central provision is the requirement to allow a voter who doesn't appear on the registration to cast a provisional ballot. Before casting a provisional ballot, voters must attest that they are eligible and appearing in the appropriate "jurisdiction." The provisional ballot is later reviewed by an election official to determine whether the vote should be counted.

JUDGE REJECTS ASHCROFT'S BOGUS ARGUMENT: In its brief, the Justice Department – arguing to restrict the use of provisional ballots – acknowledged the key to the case lies in the term "jurisdiction." The Department of Justice argued that "Congress did not define the term 'jurisdiction'" when it passed HAVA. Therefore, the term is defined by "the laws of each state." So, according to the Justice Department, if Michigan decides each precinct is a jurisdiction, that is permitted under the law. One problem: Congress made clear that HAVA should be consistent with the National Voter Registration Act, which defines a jurisdiction as a city or town. Yesterday, federal Judge David M. Lawson not only ruled against the Justice Department's position but said its brief added "nothing to the arguments."

ASHCROFT WON'T PROSECUTE VOTER DISCRIMINATION: Since Ashcroft has taken the helm, the Civil Rights Division "has all but stopped filing lawsuits against communities alleged to have engaged in discrimination against minority voters." In more than three years, the Justice Department "has filed just one contested racial vote-discrimination case, in rural Colorado, which it lost."

ASHCROFT MANIPULATES REDISTRICTING LAW: The Justice Department is also tasked with passing judgment "on legislative redistricting in areas that have a history of discrimination." With Ashcroft in charge, the department's "actions have consistently favored Republicans." For example, in Mississippi the Justice Department "stalled the redistricting process for so long that a pro-Republican redistricting plan went into effect by default." In Texas, Tom DeLay (R-TX) "engineered passage of a revised congressional redistricting plan through the state legislature, which may mean a shift of as many as seven seats from the Democrats to the Republicans." Career officials in the Justice Department "produced an internal legal opinion of seventy-three pages, with seventeen hundred and fifty pages of supporting documents, arguing that the plan should be rejected as a retrogression of minority rights." Ashcroft overruled the recommendation and the new districts are in place for the 2004 election.

ASHCROFT POLITICIZES THE HIRING OF CAREER ATTORNEYS: In the past, the program for hiring new attorneys was "run by mid-level career officials, who were known for their political independence." At the insistence of Ashcroft, the program "has been run by political appointees." The new hiring method "has already had an effect" – especially in politically sensitive cases such as those involving voting rights. One current employee told the New Yorker, "Soon, there won't be any difference between the career people and the political people. The front office is replicating itself. Everyone here will be on the same page."

POLITICS – BUSH SUPPORTERS DIVORCED FROM REALITY: According to a new survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland, Bush supporters have a skewed perception of reality. "Majorities of Bush supporters and Kerry supporters agree that if Iraq did not have WMD or was not providing support to al Qaeda, the US should not have gone to war with Iraq." How to reconcile this with the facts? For Bush supporters, it's easier to ignore them. Against all known intelligence, "large percentages of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the war, and that Iraq was providing substantial support to Al Qaeda." Both of these have been widely disproved: the Duelfer report found Iraq had no WMD nor even a weapons plan before the war, while the 9/11 Commission Report found there was no operational relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

IRAQ – TENET CALLS IRAQ WAR "WRONG": In a surprisingly candid admission Wednesday, former Director of the CIA George Tenet "called the war on Iraq 'wrong'." The director also admitted that the Iraq war was "rightly being challenged." The candid comments were made to about 2,000 members of The Economic Club of Southwestern Michigan at Lake Michigan College's Mendel Center.

Human beings are not for sale.

Biopirates Selling Genetic Samples Extracted from Blood of Brazilian Indigenous Tribe

"Brazilian gov't probes into online trade of genetic samples"
http://www.chinaview.cn 2004-10-03 12:41:23
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-10/03/content_2048782.htm

RIO DE JANEIRO, Oct. 2 (Xinhuanet) -- The Brazilian government has investigated the presumed sale of genetic samples of Brazilian Indians through the Internet, local press reported on Saturday.

President of state-run National Indigenous Peoples Foundation (Funai), Mercio Pereira, has requested the federal police to investigate the case and the Foreign Ministry to take measures in view of the severity of the situation.

Company Coriel Cell, a US biotechnological firm, offered through its Internet site, genetic samples extracted from the blood of Karitiana and Surui Indians in the Brazil's Amazonian state of Rondonia, at a price of 85 US dollars, Funai said.

Leaders of the tribes admitted that some Brazilian and foreign researchers came to their villages years ago and collected blood from at least half of the 350 individuals living in their communities, Funai added.

The Brazilian Foreign Ministry was reportedly to have asked its diplomats in Washington to take measures to force the company to remove the mentioned information from the website.

Coriel Cell was accused in 1996 of offering a sample of genetic material of other Indian communities in Brazil.

Currently, some 700,000 Indians of 255 different ethnic groups,with 180 different languages, live in Brazil.

Posted: 21 Oct. 2004

From Grist on-line magazine

FEATHER REPORT
Birds in decline across North America

Last week we heard that amphibians -- the alleged environmental "canaries in the coal mine" -- are dying off in record numbers. But what if birds, not amphibians, are the better environmental indicators, as John Flicker of the National Audubon Society claims? Well, then ... we're still hosed. According to a new report by the group, close to 30 percent of bird species in North America are experiencing a "significant decline." By analyzing data on 654 species, collected from 1966 to 2003, the group discovered that 36 percent of shrub-land species are disappearing, along with 25 percent of forest species, 23 percent of birds in urban areas, 13 percent in wetlands, and a whopping 70 percent in North America's grasslands. The primary culprit, the report says, is loss of habitat. It calls for more habitat protections and increased preservation efforts by private landowners and homeowners.

straight to the source: San Francisco Chronicle, Associated Press, John Heilprin, 19 Oct 2004


THE HANSEN BOTHERS
More climate scientists come out against Bush

Andrew Revkin of The New York Times has written what may be the definitive account of the battle over science politicization in and around the Bush administration. The broad outlines are familiar -- the science community is more politically mobilized than it has been in decades, outraged at what it sees as the Bush administration's disregard for and manipulation of science -- but there are juicy new details for those interested in Bushian climate-change policy. Revkin reveals that the 2001 decision to backtrack on Bush's campaign promise to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions was based on a single, tendentious Energy Department study -- one that assumed that there would be no technical advances to make compliance cheaper, and that was contradicted by several other studies. Another interesting tidbit is that NASA scientist James Hansen, one of the pioneers of climate science, has spoken publicly for the first time in criticism of Bush, joining several others inside and outside of government in accusing his administration of suppressing and distorting inconvenient facts about global warming. It's worth a read.

straight to the source: The New York Times, Andrew C. Revkin, 19 Oct 2004

Posted: 17 Oct. 2004

Two articles: the New York Times skewers Bush, and how economists rate the candidates' economic plans.

The New York Times
John Kerry for President

Senator John Kerry goes toward the election with a base that is built more on opposition to George W. Bush than loyalty to his own candidacy. But over the last year we have come to know Mr. Kerry as more than just an alternative to the status quo. We like what we've seen. He has qualities that could be the basis for a great chief executive, not just a modest improvement on the incumbent.

We have been impressed with Mr. Kerry's wide knowledge and clear thinking - something that became more apparent once he was reined in by that two-minute debate light. He is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change. And while Mr. Kerry's service in Vietnam was first over-promoted and then over-pilloried, his entire life has been devoted to public service, from the war to a series of elected offices. He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core.

There is no denying that this race is mainly about Mr. Bush's disastrous tenure. Nearly four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency, Mr. Bush came into office amid popular expectation that he would acknowledge his lack of a mandate by sticking close to the center. Instead, he turned the government over to the radical right.

Mr. Bush installed John Ashcroft, a favorite of the far right with a history of insensitivity to civil liberties, as attorney general. He sent the Senate one ideological, activist judicial nominee after another. He moved quickly to implement a far-reaching anti-choice agenda including censorship of government Web sites and a clampdown on embryonic stem cell research. He threw the government's weight against efforts by the University of Michigan to give minority students an edge in admission, as it did for students from rural areas or the offspring of alumni.

When the nation fell into recession, the president remained fixated not on generating jobs but rather on fighting the right wing's war against taxing the wealthy. As a result, money that could have been used to strengthen Social Security evaporated, as did the chance to provide adequate funding for programs the president himself had backed. No Child Left Behind, his signature domestic program, imposed higher standards on local school systems without providing enough money to meet them.

If Mr. Bush had wanted to make a mark on an issue on which Republicans and Democrats have long made common cause, he could have picked the environment. Christie Whitman, the former New Jersey governor chosen to run the Environmental Protection Agency, came from that bipartisan tradition. Yet she left after three years of futile struggle against the ideologues and industry lobbyists Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had installed in every other important environmental post. The result has been a systematic weakening of regulatory safeguards across the entire spectrum of environmental issues, from clean air to wilderness protection.

The president who lost the popular vote got a real mandate on Sept. 11, 2001. With the grieving country united behind him, Mr. Bush had an unparalleled opportunity to ask for almost any shared sacrifice. The only limit was his imagination.

He asked for another tax cut and the war against Iraq.

The president's refusal to drop his tax-cutting agenda when the nation was gearing up for war is perhaps the most shocking example of his inability to change his priorities in the face of drastically altered circumstances. Mr. Bush did not just starve the government of the money it needed for his own education initiative or the Medicare drug bill. He also made tax cuts a higher priority than doing what was needed for America's security; 90 percent of the cargo unloaded every day in the nation's ports still goes uninspected.

Along with the invasion of Afghanistan, which had near unanimous international and domestic support, Mr. Bush and his attorney general put in place a strategy for a domestic antiterror war that had all the hallmarks of the administration's normal method of doing business: a Nixonian obsession with secrecy, disrespect for civil liberties and inept management.

American citizens were detained for long periods without access to lawyers or family members. Immigrants were rounded up and forced to languish in what the Justice Department's own inspector general found were often "unduly harsh" conditions. Men captured in the Afghan war were held incommunicado with no right to challenge their confinement. The Justice Department became a cheerleader for skirting decades-old international laws and treaties forbidding the brutal treatment of prisoners taken during wartime.

Mr. Ashcroft appeared on TV time and again to announce sensational arrests of people who turned out to be either innocent, harmless braggarts or extremely low-level sympathizers of Osama bin Laden who, while perhaps wishing to do something terrible, lacked the means. The Justice Department cannot claim one major successful terrorism prosecution, and has squandered much of the trust and patience the American people freely gave in 2001. Other nations, perceiving that the vast bulk of the prisoners held for so long at Guantánamo Bay came from the same line of ineffectual incompetents or unlucky innocents, and seeing the awful photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, were shocked that the nation that was supposed to be setting the world standard for human rights could behave that way.

Like the tax cuts, Mr. Bush's obsession with Saddam Hussein seemed closer to zealotry than mere policy. He sold the war to the American people, and to Congress, as an antiterrorist campaign even though Iraq had no known working relationship with Al Qaeda. His most frightening allegation was that Saddam Hussein was close to getting nuclear weapons. It was based on two pieces of evidence. One was a story about attempts to purchase critical materials from Niger, and it was the product of rumor and forgery. The other evidence, the purchase of aluminum tubes that the administration said were meant for a nuclear centrifuge, was concocted by one low-level analyst and had been thoroughly debunked by administration investigators and international vetting. Top members of the administration knew this, but the selling went on anyway. None of the president's chief advisers have ever been held accountable for their misrepresentations to the American people or for their mismanagement of the war that followed.

The international outrage over the American invasion is now joined by a sense of disdain for the incompetence of the effort. Moderate Arab leaders who have attempted to introduce a modicum of democracy are tainted by their connection to an administration that is now radioactive in the Muslim world. Heads of rogue states, including Iran and North Korea, have been taught decisively that the best protection against a pre-emptive American strike is to acquire nuclear weapons themselves.

We have specific fears about what would happen in a second Bush term, particularly regarding the Supreme Court. The record so far gives us plenty of cause for worry. Thanks to Mr. Bush, Jay Bybee, the author of an infamous Justice Department memo justifying the use of torture as an interrogation technique, is now a federal appeals court judge. Another Bush selection, J. Leon Holmes, a federal judge in Arkansas, has written that wives must be subordinate to their husbands and compared abortion rights activists to Nazis.

Mr. Bush remains enamored of tax cuts but he has never stopped Republican lawmakers from passing massive spending, even for projects he dislikes, like increased farm aid.

If he wins re-election, domestic and foreign financial markets will know the fiscal recklessness will continue. Along with record trade imbalances, that increases the chances of a financial crisis, like an uncontrolled decline of the dollar, and higher long-term interest rates.

The Bush White House has always given us the worst aspects of the American right without any of the advantages. We get the radical goals but not the efficient management. The Department of Education's handling of the No Child Left Behind Act has been heavily politicized and inept. The Department of Homeland Security is famous for its useless alerts and its inability to distribute antiterrorism aid according to actual threats. Without providing enough troops to properly secure Iraq, the administration has managed to so strain the resources of our armed forces that the nation is unprepared to respond to a crisis anywhere else in the world.

Mr. Kerry has the capacity to do far, far better. He has a willingness - sorely missing in Washington these days - to reach across the aisle. We are relieved that he is a strong defender of civil rights, that he would remove unnecessary restrictions on stem cell research and that he understands the concept of separation of church and state. We appreciate his sensible plan to provide health coverage for most of the people who currently do without.

Mr. Kerry has an aggressive and in some cases innovative package of ideas about energy, aimed at addressing global warming and oil dependency. He is a longtime advocate of deficit reduction. In the Senate, he worked with John McCain in restoring relations between the United States and Vietnam, and led investigations of the way the international financial system has been gamed to permit the laundering of drug and terror money. He has always understood that America's appropriate role in world affairs is as leader of a willing community of nations, not in my-way-or-the-highway domination.

We look back on the past four years with hearts nearly breaking, both for the lives unnecessarily lost and for the opportunities so casually wasted. Time and again, history invited George W. Bush to play a heroic role, and time and again he chose the wrong course. We believe that with John Kerry as president, the nation will do better.

Voting for president is a leap of faith. A candidate can explain his positions in minute detail and wind up governing with a hostile Congress that refuses to let him deliver. A disaster can upend the best-laid plans. All citizens can do is mix guesswork and hope, examining what the candidates have done in the past, their apparent priorities and their general character. It's on those three grounds that we enthusiastically endorse John Kerry for president.

The economy and the election

The dismal science bites back
Oct 7th 2004 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

George Bush comes out worst in our poll of academic economists

WOULD John Kerry or George Bush do a better job stewarding America's economy? Judging by the polls, voters are not sure. Within the past couple of months both candidates have had narrow leads on the issue. Ask economics professors, however, and you get a clearer answer.

In an informal poll of 100 academics, conducted by The Economist, Mr Bush's policies win low marks. More than 70% of the 56 professors who responded to our survey rate Mr Bush's first-term economic policies as bad or very bad. Fewer than 20% give positive marks to Mr Bush's second-term economic agenda, and almost six out of ten disapproved. Mr Kerry hardly got rave reviews either, but his economic plan still fared better than the president's did. In all, four out of ten professors rated Mr Kerry's economic plan as good or very good, but 27% gave it negative scores. (The complete numbers are available at www.economist.com/economistspoll.)

Are our economists partisans? We chose their names, at random, from among the referees of the American Economic Review, one of the profession's more prestigious publications. Conservatives often moan that university professors are all left-wingers. Though most of our professors claim they are not interested in working in Washington, 80% of those who would accept a policy job would prefer to work for Mr Kerry. However, even if you allow for some partisanship, the results are fairly striking.

A third of the economists reckon the economy is in good or very good shape; about half give a neutral response, and one in five deems the economy to be weak. They are almost equally split about how much responsibility the Bush administration deserves for the state of today's economy. Just over a third assign some or all credit or blame to the president; another third think he has had little or nothing to do with it.

Despite their diverse assessments of today's economy, the professors are overwhelmingly critical of the central plank of Mr Bush's economic policy—tax cuts. More than seven out of ten respondents say the Bush administration's tax cuts were either a bad or a very bad idea, and a similar proportion disapproves of Mr Bush's plans to make his tax cuts permanent. By contrast, Mr Kerry's plan to roll back the tax cuts for people with incomes over $200,000 wins the support of seven in ten of them. (This poll was taken before October 4th, when Mr Bush signed into law his fourth tax cut, which extended several popular components of earlier tax cuts that were due to expire at the end of this year, including the child tax credit.)

The broad condemnation of tax cuts seems to be linked to the professors' worries about America's fiscal health and the looming retirement of the baby-boom generation. Although Americans overall seem relatively unconcerned about the budget deficit, a large majority of the economists rate it as a serious problem for the economy, with almost one in five describing it as a crisis. And they back Mr Kerry by a large margin (79% to 18%) to do more to promote fiscal discipline than Mr Bush. In contrast, the boffins seemed much less concerned by the current-account deficit; only one respondent called it a crisis, and close to 20% deemed it either a small problem or no problem at all.

Health care also seems to be an issue that pushed our economists towards Mr Kerry. More than 70% of the academics reckoned health-care costs were a serious problem for the economy—and they preferred Mr Kerry's plans to control those costs by a margin of 59% to 25% (with the rest ducking the question).

There was some good news for Mr Bush on tax reform. More than 40% of the academics hail his plan to simplify the tax code as a good or very good idea—twice as many as think it bad or very bad. Mr Kerry's main tax-reform proposal—ending the ability of foreign subsidiaries of American firms to defer taxes on their profits—was less well received. Around a third of the professors thought that was a good or very good idea, a third were neutral, and a third thought it was a bad idea.

On entitlement reform, the academics' opinions are harder to interpret. They are evenly split on the merits of Mr Bush's proposal to reform Social Security by creating personal retirement accounts: 36% think it is a good or very good idea, 38% a bad or very bad idea. Oddly, most of them think Mr Kerry offers better plans for dealing with the baby-boomers' retirement, even though he has not actually made any concrete proposals for entitlement reform.

One area where the economists clearly favour Mr Bush is trade. Mr Kerry's ranting about outsourcing has irritated economists: a huge majority dismiss outsourcing as either a small or non-existent problem, and almost 60% give Mr Kerry's trade policy a bad or very bad rating. Although they are plainly not wild about Mr Bush's record on trade, they back him by a margin of almost two-to-one to do more to help free trade and globalisation than Mr Kerry would.

Posted: 16 Oct. 2004

This entry includes 3 articles: one about womens' rights and two about voter fraud.

I don't think I could add anything to the following article, except that I wish it had been written by a woman. This is not to detract from the author one whit, but ya know what I mean...

As Oprah Slaps Bush With 30 states poised to smack down women's rights again, the one true savior emerges By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

So there she was, the nation's most powerful and popular public female, kicking butt on a recent installment of her insanely beloved TV show with the help of celeb guests (Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, P. Diddy, Christina Aguilera) and galvanizing stunned women across the nation to participate in this election, or else.

There was Oprah, doing what she does so freakishly well, cheerleading and extolling and impressing upon, getting women up and getting them angry and demanding that they exercise their hard-won right to vote and demanding that they quit dissing their feminist ancestors, the ones who worked so damn hard for suffrage and for freedom of choice and for the right to tell powerful sexist Republican men where they can shove their repressive sexist antichoice bigotry.

This was her fabulous, much-needed message: Take your rights for granted at your peril, ladies. Move, or else. Choose how you want the laws to treat and respect you and your body -- or someone else, someone who hasn't touched a vagina for 30 years and who thinks sex is only tolerable in the dark, fully clothed and with a respectable prostitute, will choose for you.

Sound like a cliché? Same ol' quasi-feminist rally message? Not exactly. Not this time. Just imagine this:

Imagine Bush filches another election in November. Nations mourn, black clouds gather, children cry, colons spasm, the remaining shreds of the American experiment wither and die.

And within a very short time, as many as 30 U.S. states have recriminalized abortion and made repressing women and hating sex fun again, as young American females everywhere who thought their right to choose was pretty much incontrovertible and indisputable and unfailing and who therefore didn't bother to vote in '00 or '04 suddenly go, oh holy freaking hell.

Hello, 1950s. Hello, coat-hanger surgery. Hello, millions of despondent daughters of uptight parents. Hello, dead or mutilated teenage girls who suffer botched procedures. Hello, a fresh national nightmare, revisited, regurgitated, reborn. And hello again to smug right-wing males who've wanted to put women back in their place for the past 50 years. Check that: 200 years. Check that: forever.

Just a silly nightmare? Utterly impossible? A ridiculous liberal daydream? Not even close, sweetheart.

It's all about the Supreme Court, of course. Fact is, our next president will almost surely get to appoint a number of new high-court justices to replace those who will likely retire after enduring Bush's toxic first term. They hung in there, these few -- especially stalwarts Sandra Day O'Connor and moderate, pro-choice John Paul Stevens -- hoping to disallow the nation's highest judiciary from becoming overly stacked with homophobic self-righteous right-wing neocon wingnuts (hi, Justice Scalia!) who would have us revert -- morally, sexually, spiritually, misogynistically -- to 1953. Check that: 1853. Check that: 1353.

With the exception of nearly useless neoconservative sycophant Clarence Thomas, not a single justice now serving on the court is under 65. Many insiders say Stevens, O'Connor and bitter old man William Rehnquist (almost 80) are all likely to retire before 2008. BushCo's chosen replacements could easily tip the scales of the court the other direction, from its very precarious 5-4 progressive tilt to a very sneering 6-3 conservative one, a court that would then very easily overturn parts or even all of Roe v. Wade. Talk about a malicious legacy.

It gets worse. It gets nastier, more widespread. Because should Shrub swipe another term, he will also be on his way to naming more federal trial and appeals judges -- hundreds, by most counts -- than either Clinton or Reagan, the last two-term presidents. Bush could, in short and for all intents and purposes, stack the nation's courts with enough neoconservative, antichoice, antiwomen crusaders to make Strom Thurmond giggle in his grave.

Which brings us straight back to Oprah. Say what you will about the often weirdly effusive and overtly gushy and often slightly smarmy woman who just gave away 276 Pontiacs to her entire studio audience (hard to tell if that was an act of astounding generosity and beneficence, or some sort of weird punishment -- I mean, they were Pontiacs), but the woman can electrify and inspire and educate her millions of devoted viewers like nobody's business.

And if there's one famously disenfranchised and alienated and apathetic voting bloc that needs to get off its collective yoga butt and stand up and make itself known this election lest it lose an even larger chunk of its basic human rights than it even realizes, it's youngish women.

This is, after all, what so many women don't seem to know. That the Bush administration has already, in just a few short years, managed to roll back a truly astounding number of their basic rights, making it more difficult, for example, for doctors to perform abortions, or making it illegal for schools to discuss contraception or for hospitals to discuss pregnancy-termination options.

From demeaning and ineffectual abstinence-only programs to biased counseling to cutting all funding for international women's health organizations that provide care to poor women in third-world nations (hell, Bush hacked that one away in his first month in office), Dubya has done more than any president in the last 100 years to smack women upside their sexually empowered heads.

Oh and by the way, that suggestion currently being floated by some in Congress that the Iraq war has become so nasty and desperate that we might very well need to reinstate the military draft? That draft includes young women. And oh yes, Bush has already upheld the ban on abortions for servicewomen stationed overseas, even if they pay for it themselves. Feeling patriotic yet?

This has been the GOP's message to women since, well, forever: Be like Laura Bush -- submissive, matronly, heavily shellacked and ever flashing a disquieting mannequin grin, off in the corner reading stories to the kids and cutting lots of pretty ceremonial ribbons and keeping quiet about the Important Stuff and never having sex and always be standing just out of the spotlight, secondary and inferior and in the background. You know, right where you belong.

Truly and sadly, few indeed are the powerful and articulate public female voices in our major media to counter this ideological poison. Who, Barbara Walters? Not exactly hotly connected to youth and issues of the day. Katie Couric? About as female empowering as a terrier. Martha Stewart? Busy designing barbell cozies for the prison gym. The wholly queasy pseudo-feminists on the wholly awful "The View"? Please.

And while plethoric are the powerful women working behind the media scenes, execs and pundits and writers, senators and world leaders and even forthright, independent wives, and while there are plenty of strong-willed, outspoken female celebs making their voices known, in terms of visibility and raw power and sheer reach, nobody can touch Oprah. Which is exactly why her message was so wonderful.

Here's the bottom line: 50 million eligible women didn't vote in 2000, and 22 million of them were single and nearly every one of them probably thought their vote doesn't matter and it isn't really worth it and who cares anyway because no matter who wins, everything's still pretty much run by rich powerful men anyway. Which is, you know, sort of true. But not quite.

Because as Oprah knows, there are powerful men who get it and who love women and who understand their issues and who have cool articulate daughters and opinionated self-defined multilingual firebrand wives (Hi, Teresa), and there are aww-shucks antichoice Texans with lifeless token wives who think your body is government property and you should just pipe down and keep your damn legs closed and go pray to an angry Republican God to forgive your plentiful vagina-induced sins.

Hey, it's your choice. But not for long.

Two articles about recent voter fraud. Dirty tactics of the worst sort.

The Poll Tax, Updated New York Times

hen members of Mi Familia Vota, a Latino group, were registering voters recently on a Miami Beach sidewalk outside a building where new citizens were being sworn in, the Homeland Security Department ordered them to stop. The department gave all kinds of suspect reasons, which a federal court has since rejected, but it looked a lot as if someone at Homeland Security just didn't want thousands of new Latino voters on the Florida rolls.

The suppression of minority votes is alive and well in 2004, driven by the sharp partisan divide across the nation. Because many minority groups vote heavily Democratic, some Republicans view keeping them from registering and voting as a tactic for victory - one that has a long history in American politics. It is rarely talked about publicly, but John Pappageorge, a Republican state legislator from Michigan, recently broke the taboo. He was quoted in The Detroit Free Press as saying, "If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election cycle." Detroit's population is more than 80 percent black.

A recent report by the N.A.A.C.P. and People for the American Way includes page after page of examples of how this shabby business works. On Election Day, "ballot security" teams head for minority neighborhoods. They demand that voters produce identification when it is not required, take photographs of voters and single out immigrant voters for special scare tactics.

Two years ago in the governor's race in Maryland, leaflets appeared in Baltimore saying that before voters showed up at the polls, they had to pay off all parking tickets and overdue rent. The same year in Louisiana, fliers were distributed in African-American areas to tell voters, falsely, that if they did not want to vote on Election Day, they could still vote three days later.

What is particularly discouraging this year is the degree to which government officials have been involved in such efforts. In South Dakota's hard-fought statewide Congressional race, poll workers turned away Native American voters who could not provide photo identification, which many of them do not have, even though the law clearly says identification is not required. In one heavily Native American county, the top elections official, who is white, wrote out instructions saying no one could vote without photo identification. In Texas, a white district attorney threatened to prosecute students at Prairie View A&M, a large, predominantly African-American campus, if they registered to vote from the school, even though they are entitled to by law.

And in Florida, the secretary of state, Glenda Hood, had a list prepared to purge felons from the voter rolls; the list had many errors and would have turned away an untold number of qualified black voters. She abandoned the list only when news organizations sued to make it public, then pointed out its many inaccuracies.

In addition to these blatant forms of vote suppression, elections officials have been adopting policies that appear neutral on their face but often have the effect, and perhaps the intent, of disproportionately disenfranchising minorities. With huge registration drives under way among minorities in swing states, some secretaries of state have adopted bizarrely rigid rules for new registrations.

In Florida, Ms. Hood is insisting that thousands of registration forms on which a citizenship box is not checked are invalid, even though elsewhere on the forms each applicant has sworn that he or she is a citizen. In Ohio, Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell was insisting until recently that any registration form that came in on anything less than 80-pound paper stock had to be rejected. The continued disenfranchisement of convicted felons in many states also has an unmistakable racial component.

The suppression of minority votes has continued because it is perceived as a winning tactic, and because it is rarely punished. This needs to change.

Trying to prevent members of minorities from voting can be a violation of federal and state law. Election officials, poll watchers and voters should be on the lookout for vote suppression, and should report it. And prosecutors should look for criminal cases to pursue. A few high-profile prosecutions of political operatives, and even elections officials, would go a long way toward ending a disgraceful American tradition.


George Knapp, Investigative Reporter
Investigation into Trashed Voter Registrations

(Oct. 13) -- Federal, state, and local officials are gathering information about allegations of voter registration fraud that were first raised Channel 8 Eyewitness News.

An employee of a private voter registration firm alleges that his bosses trashed registration forms filled out by Democratic voters because they only wanted to sign up Republican voters.

The allegations have set off a political firestorm stretching from Las Vegas to Washington D.C., and beyond.

As with everything else in this election year, it's now become a political football being tossed between the two parties, with charges and countercharges, but at its core, there still remains the matter of registration forms that were ripped up and tossed in the trash.

Who did it, and why? That's what official agencies will try to determine. On Tuesday afternoon, Las Vegan Eric Russell and his girlfriend took a packet of documents to the Las Vegas FBI office but left before filing a formal complaint about what Russell says was a deliberate effort to disenfranchise local voters.

Russell worked for a company called Voters Outreach of America, along with 300 other people. He says he got into a beef with the company over a pay dispute, and witnessed his bosses ripping up registration forms that had been filed by democrats.

"They were thrown away in the trash. I grabbed them out," said Eric Russell. One of those forms belonged to Daren Gray, who was shocked to learn that the re-registration form he filled out was never turned in.

"I'm pretty mad, upset. I'm still gonna vote," said Daren Gray. Russell doesn't know how many democratic registrations were tossed in the trash but guesses the number could be very high since Voters Outreach of America operated in Las Vegas for more than two months.

The FBI confirms that it is gathering information about the case but stopped short of calling it an investigation, saying it wants to talk to Russell again. Secretary of State Dean Heller issued a statement that his office is also taking a look, trying to figure out what if any laws might have been violated.

Nevada Democrats came out swinging Wednesday. "Most disturbing is that Voter Outreach of America is being paid by the National Republican Party and we ask how can people have faith in government if a national party is involved in trickery in depriving people the right to vote," said Clark County Commissioner Yvonne Atkinson Gates.

The Republican National Committee acknowledges that it hired Voters Outreach of America to register voters, but in a statement said it had zero tolerance for any kind of fraud.

Local party officials said there is no way the GOP would instruct the company to trash democratic registrations. However, similar problems have been alleged elsewhere. In Washoe County, the registrar says he too has turned over information to the FBI about Republican backed registration efforts.

In Oregon, the same company that was operating here has been criticized for its tactics in signing up voters. There, it used the name America Votes, which is actually the name of a Democratic organization.

Employees in Las Vegas say they too were told that the name of the company was America Votes. "They confused us with the name. They told us one thing and told the temp force something else. They told us America Votes," Russell said.

So, why has this company used the name of a Democratic organization as it signs up voters here and in Oregon? It's a question Eyewitness News is investigating.

In the meantime, Eric Russell is about to learn what it's like to stir the pot. He has already been attacked in other media accounts as a disgruntled employee who was fired and displayed a violent temper.

Russell was a disgruntled employee. He admits that if he had been paid, he probably wouldn't have talked. Even so, discrediting him doesn't explain the existence of the trashed registration forms.

Posted: 15 Oct. 2004

From Grist on-line magazine

FROG AND TOAD ARE DEAD
One-third of amphibians threatened with extinction

If it is true that amphibians are, as Conservation International's Russell Mittermeier puts it, "one of nature's best indicators of overall environmental health," then we are all in big trouble, because amphibians are having a seriously rough time of it. According to a massive new worldwide study involving more than 500 scientists from over 60 countries, published today in the journal Science, up to 122 species of amphibian have gone extinct since 1980, and up to a third of known remaining species may be rapidly nearing that same fate. "This has taken the scientific world completely by surprise," said survey leader Simon Stuart. While air and water pollution, habitat loss, overharvesting for food and medicine, and a fungal disease called chytridiomycosis, which may be worsened by climate change, all play a role in the decline of various species, biologists are still baffled by the extent of amphibian disappearances. They speak of some species experiencing "enigmatic decline," and they're at a loss for how to help them.

straight to the source: The Independent, Steve Connor, 15 Oct 2004

straight to the source: The Washington Post, Juliet Eilperin, 15 Oct 2004

straight to the source: Los Angeles Times, Marla Cone, 15 Oct 2004

POTOMAC DADDIES
Male bass in Potomac River laying eggs

Male bass in the South Branch of the Potomac River in West Virginia are laying eggs. This is not behavior that people in the know typically expect from male bass. While researchers assume that pollutants of some sort are responsible, this particular stretch of the Potomac does well on the usual water-quality tests. "It's counterintuitive to think we would have this type of problem out there," said Patrick Campbell of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. The culprit may be "emerging contaminants" -- caffeine, hormones, prescription drugs, endocrine disruptors -- that are not typically tested for, either in river water or drinking water. The U.S. EPA has set no standards for these pollutants, saying more research is necessary. Scientists have only recently developed equipment sensitive enough to detect them. Says researcher Vicki S. Blazer, "We really don't know what's going on."

straight to the source: The Washington Post, David A. Fahrenthold, 15 Oct 2004

===============================
THE DAILY MIS-LEAD
===============================
BUSH MISLEADS ON TAX CUTS

At Thursday's debate President Bush said most of his tax cuts "went to low- and middle-income Americans."[1] That statement is flatly false.

An analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that, in 2004, the top 20 percent of earners received 69.8% of the tax cuts enacted by President Bush.[2] While the middle 20 percent of earners received an average tax cut of $647, the top 20 percent received an average tax cut of $5,055.[3] As a result, those in the middle class are paying a greater share of the federal taxes today than they were four years ago.[4]

Sources:

1. "Transcript of Debate Between Bush and Kerry, With Domestic Policy the Topic," New York Times, 10/13/04.
2. "Tax Returns: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Bush Administration Tax Cuts," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 04/04.
3. "Tax Cuts Go Mostly to the Rich," OMB Watch, 2004.

Posted: 14 Oct. 2004

From The Center for American Progress.

WOMEN'S RIGHTS – BUSH DECIDES TO SIT THIS ONE OUT: AP reports, "The United States has refused to join 85 heads of state and government in signing a statement that endorsed a 10-year-old U.N. plan to ensure every woman's right to education, healthcare and choice about having children." Which right for women made the president balk? The White House claims it withheld its signature "because the statement included a reference to 'sexual rights.'"

SAUDI ARABIA – WOMEN NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE: The head of the Saudi Arabian elections committee, Prince Mansour, said that "women will not be able to participate in Saudi Arabia's first nationwide elections because authorities in the strictly segregated country did not have enough time to prepare for both sexes to run and vote." Mansour "also could not say whether women would be allowed to take part in the next round of municipal elections in 2009, stressing that would be up to the committee planning those polls."

DELAY – ETHICS COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN THREATENED: The Hill reports, "House ethics committee Chairman Joel Hefley (R-CO) said last week that Republican lawmakers have threatened him in the wake of his panel's recent admonishments of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX)." Hefley, who has issued two ethics committee admonishments, said, "I've been attacked; I've been threatened." Hefley refused to say "who or how many of his colleagues had threatened him, or what retaliation had been threatened." Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) – a key DeLay ally – likened Hefley "to a judge who dismisses drunk-driving charges but nevertheless publicly berates the accused as an obnoxious and odious driver."

VOTING – FLORIDA MACHINES CRASH IN TEST: AP reports, "A public test of Palm Beach County's electronic voting machines was postponed because a computer server crashed." Elections Supervisor Theresa LePore blamed "a power failure during Hurricane Jeanne [that] caused temperatures in the building to rise, which may have damaged computer equipment." Jeanne struck Florida two weeks ago.

SCIENCE
The Stem-Cell Debate

Actor Christopher Reeve died this week, leaving behind a legacy greater than his movie roles: since his life-altering accident in 1995, Reeve was a committed activist for the advancement of stem cell research. Many scientists believe stem-cell research could one day be used to treat spinal injuries as well as Alzheimer's, strokes, brain injuries, Parkinson's, diabetes and heart defects. Unfortunately, scientific advances have been stymied by the White House ban on federal funds for the development of new stem-cell lines for new research. Private companies and scientists abroad continue to make advances; bowing to pressure from the far-right, however, President Bush has limited federal funds to a handful of stem-cell lines created before August 2001. Public opinion is increasingly in favor of stem-cell research: a recent nationwide poll shows 53 percent of Americans support the science. And it's one issue many people across the ideological spectrum agree on. Sen. Orrin Hatch, the conservative lawmaker from Utah, has been a strong proponent for stem cell research, saying, "Being pro-life means helping the living." First Lady Nancy Reagan, Ron Reagan, and former Secretary of State Ed Schultz have also become staunch advocates in recent years.

NEW ADVANCES: A huge reason to fight for a broader stem cell policy: Scientists are continuously learning new ways these valuable cells can be used. The cells have long been valued for their potential to transform into any cells and tissue needed by the body. Just last week, however, scientists reported the discovery that the cells "also produce druglike compounds that can help ailing organs repair themselves." The scientists believe adult stem cells – which opponents to embryonic stem cell research favor using for research – would not able to produce these same chemicals. Other advances in only the past month show the versatile cells can be used as "biological pacemakers" and in fighting blindness.

LIMITED TO LINES THAT DON'T WORK: Scientists agree the stem cell lines currently available for federal funds, all of which were created before 2001, are tainted and inferior. These lines were developed using mouse cells, which means they are considered contaminated and will never be able to produce usable human therapies. In the past four years, technology has advanced and new lines developed by private companies have been grown without the use of mouse cells.

THE ETHICS TEST: Conservative Leon Kass, the chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, has defended banning the development of new stem cell lines created after August 2001, saying it "upholds important moral values." As Elizabeth Whelan of the American Council on Science and Health and Henry Miller of the Hoover Institution argue, "if it is morally acceptable to use cell lines from embryos created before that magical date, why is it not also right to create stem cell lines from the estimated half-million unused, unwanted fertility clinic embryos destined to be destroyed?" Embryonic stem cells are found in the center of a "blastocyst," a cluster of about 150 cells which forms a few days after the joining of a sperm and egg, and are no larger than the period at the end of this sentence. To obtain the cells, the blastocyst must be destroyed. Thousands of these blastocysts are currently destroyed anyway; about 400,000 have been created as part of in vitro fertilization. Once a couple becomes pregnant, extra embryonic cells currently are incinerated. Kass further buttresses his argument by proudly pointing out the flourishing research conducted by private companies, which do use embryos left over from in vitro fertilization.

NO FUNDING = NO REGULATION, NO SAY: Stem cell research in the private sector and abroad is charging on, full-speed ahead. One result of barring federal funds from being used to develop new stem cell lines for research is to take any government oversight out of the equation. Even Kass agrees on this point, writing, "it is a Pyrrhic victory to keep the federal government out of certain activities, if the price of such a stance means that worse practices are allowed to proceed without oversight or regulation in the private sector."

From Grist on-line magazine

THY ROD AND THY STAFF, THEY DISTURB ME
Bush's EPA and Interior stocked with industry lawyers and lobbyists

New York Newsday is running a series called "Erasing the Rules" about the Bush administration's coordinated efforts to remove or weaken regulations on industry. Of particular interest to Gristians will be the third installment, about the administration's staffing of the U.S. EPA, Interior Department, and Agriculture Department with lawyers and lobbyists drawn directly from industries those agencies regulate. While Bush has had little luck persuading Congress to weaken the Clean Air Act or allow drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- perhaps because open debate on these unpopular measures draws undue public attention -- he has been able to drastically alter the regulatory landscape, thanks in part to agencies staffed with industry veterans. Newsday's analysis of public personnel records shows that Bush's appointments at the top level have been markedly less diverse than Clinton's, who spread them more evenly over lawyers and lobbyists, nonprofit workers, and academics. "With this administration, it seems like everybody at the political level here has either a close attachment with industry or with an ultra-conservative think tank or legal organization," said a long-time EPA attorney who elected, probably wisely, to remain anonymous.

straight to the source: New York Newsday, Dan Fagin, 12 Oct 2004


LET A THOUSAND SPECIES BLOOM
Organic farming increases biodiversity, research indicates

According to the largest review yet done of studies comparing organic to conventional agriculture, organic farming increases biodiversity at every level, from bacteria to birds to mammals. The two groups that conducted the reviews -- English Nature, a government group, and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds -- had no vested interest in organic farming. They concluded that organic farming fosters biodiversity by using fewer inorganic fertilizers and pesticides and by adopting critter-friendly practices like mixing arable and livestock farming. Of particular note to the Royal birders was the flourishing on organic farms of lapwings, a bird species that has declined by 80 percent in the U.K. The researchers, whose results were published in the journal Biological Conservation, did not rule out that farmers inclined to go organic were simply more green to begin with, but either way, we like what we're hearing.

straight to the source: New Scientist, James Randerson, 11 Oct 2004


TRICKY RICHARD
Pombo uses taxpayer dollars to campaign for Bush

Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.), chair of the House Resources Committee, has sent at least 100,000 flyers to voters in swing states praising President Bush's environmental policies -- at taxpayer expense. He's also given his committee staff a month of vacation time immediately preceding the election, presumably so they can focus on helping Republican candidates get reelected -- that's paid vacation, mind you, again at taxpayer expense. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) called these two moves a "combined unprecedented crescendo of politicization" of House committee budgets. Individual House members must cease sending taxpayer-funded mailings 90 days before an election and must submit their mailings for approval by the House Administration Committee, but committees face no such restrictions. Pombo has requested more funds for official postage than any other committee chair -- $250,000 this year, though he only ended up getting $50,000. Prior to 2003, the largest annual committee postage budget was $8,000.

straight to the source: The Washington Post, Juliet Eilperin, 13 Oct 2004


THE WHITE MAN'S HALLIBURTON
White House favoring Halliburton over clean water

OK, you might want to sit down, because we've got a real shocker here: The Bush administration, headed by two former oil executives, one of whom was the CEO of Halliburton, from which he still receives payments, may be pulling strings to help shield the company against environmental regulation. The issue in question is "hydraulic fracturing," a relatively new technique for extracting oil and gas that generates about a fifth of Halliburton's energy-related revenue -- $1.5 billion a year. Since a group of Alabamans sued in 1995, saying the practice fouled their drinking water and seeking to have hydraulic fracturing regulated under federal drinking-water law, Halliburton has lobbied aggressively to avoid such regulation. The U.S. EPA recently finished a study of the practice, concluding that it is benign, but agency insiders have heaped scorn on the report, saying it was produced by a highly biased panel containing at least one Halliburton employee. One 30-year EPA veteran last week submitted a statement to Congress and the EPA inspector general seeking whistle-blower protection and calling the report "scientifically unsound and contrary to the purposes of the law."

straight to the source: Los Angeles Times, Tom Hamburger and Alan C. Miller, 14 Oct 2004

Posted: 13 Oct. 2004

An extremely worrisome and thought-provoking article.

An American in London
By Carol Gould
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 12, 2004

Something remarkable has been happening to me in the past nineteen days. Wherever I go, no-one launches abuse at me. When I open my mouth to speak, I am received with civility and the occasional ’ Have a good one.’ I am not attacked or intimidated to the point of abject fear and loathing. Where have I been visiting for the past two and a half weeks? And where do I live?

The answer lies in a conversation I had with my sister in a charming ice cream parlor in Philadelphia’s historic Suburban Station this afternoon. I looked up from my dessert and said, ‘My God, I’ve gone for nineteen days without anybody -- not taxi drivers, shop clerks or waiters -- launching an abusive tirade at me.

Here is the background scenario: Exactly one month ago today, I was traveling on a London bus when a well-dressed woman boarded with her equally-respectable son in his school uniform. Ahead of her was an elderly American woman, who said, ‘I beg your pardon, I didn’t mean to bang into you.’ This prompted a tirade from the Englishwoman -- let’s call her Lady E -- that resembled a verbal assault by a brownshirt against a hapless Jewish pedestrian in 1933. The American -- call her Mrs. A -- sat down and cowered as the tirade continued: ‘I rejoice every time I hear of another American soldier dying! You people all deserve to die in another 9/11. You are destroying the world.’ Mrs A fought back: ‘I personally am NOT destroying the world.’ This only provoked Lady E more, and as the bus driver and passengers laughed, she screamed into the American’s face ‘I wish every one of you would leave this country and not set foot in it ever again,’ and Mrs A began to wince, crying. ‘Thank you for ruining my day and my trip.’ At this point Lady E lunged at the American and began to shake her. I jumped up and shouted at the top of my voice for the driver to stop and for her to leave the woman alone, prompting Lady E to come over to me and grab me. ‘Another bloody American accent! You come here and think you can strut about, well, you are scum.’ Thankfully, the woman next to me pushed her away. I left the bus as the American woman sat sobbing.

Did I imagine this? No. Was the Englishwoman a crazy? No.

A few weeks before, I had attended a party at which I was lambasted, intimidated and mocked by a group of people I had known for some twenty-odd years. It reminded me of a comment made to me by an American expatriate shortly after 9/11: ‘Now I know what the Jews felt like in pre-war Germany.’

Frankly, I don’t like what is happening in Britain and am shocked and dismayed at the level to which anti-Americanism has peaked in recent months. Does anyone say ‘George W Bush’ or ‘Donald Rumsfeld’ or Dick Cheney’ when they fly into these tirades? No. In fact, the visceral, hurtful and in-your-face America-hatred goes back long before the days of the Bush 43 regime. When Bill Clinton was in the White House I attended a Human Rights Conference at my local synagogue in St John’s Wood. During the tea break I asked a man at one of the booths for a leaflet. Instead of welcoming me and asking for a donation, he had detected my accent and duly launched into a loud and red-faced screeching session about the evils of the American Empire and of the ‘Naziism’ and ‘Fascism’ promulgated by the United States. A black man came over and began shouting about America having ‘invented slavery’ and soon a delicate elderly lady joined the fray to bellow about the Zionists running America (did she mean Robert Rubin, Dennis Ross, Sandy Berger -- after all, it was the pre-Wolfowitz/Perle time zone) and the ‘genocides’ perpetrated by Americans since the days of William Penn. I remember wondering why I had ventured out on a Sunday to be with like-minded people concerned about human rights issues, only to be reduced to a gibbering jelly as the ugly, strident and deeply uncivil crowd soon grew around me. (Remember what it was like being surrounded in the school playground at recess by all the bullies?) The English are not known for public displays of fury except perhaps at soccer matches, but there is something about an American accent that brings out their pent-up rage.

This brings me to an incident that was the cherry on the sundae. Just before leaving for the United States nineteen days ago, I went to my favorite tape duplicating shop to have copies made for the actors who had appeared in the video of my new play in London. I handed the master tape to the proprietor, whom I have known for some ten years. He seemed unusually agitated and flushed. He looked at the material and snarled, ‘Is this another one of your Jewish-Holocaust things?’ I was speechless. He scowled and continued, ‘You know, Carol, I want to get something off my chest that I’ve been dying to say to you for years. Number one, just don’t say Israel to me. Number two, you people should look at yourselves in the mirror and wonder why every so often there is a Holocaust or massacre or pogrom. You bring it on yourselves. Just look at the way you are and then figure out why the rest of the world wants to flatten you. Number three, America throwing money at Israel has to stop, and hopefully all hell will break loose. Israel is not a country. I just hear the word and I turn peuce.’ By this time his anger was so visceral that I wanted to head for the door, but I had to take a stand. ‘Let me tell you,’ I said, ‘If the USA or Israel came under threat I know many Americans who would die for either country,’ to which he replied, ‘ Israel is not a country. The Jews have no right to a country. What makes you people think you have a right to a country? ‘ Me: ‘There are over a hundred Christian countries and fifty-five Muslim countries.’ He:’ The Jews have no right to a country.’ Me:’ What, a strip of land the size of Wales?!’ He (grinding his teeth and close to hitting me) ‘ Just say Israel and I can’t be depended upon for the consequences of my actions, Carol.’ His litany of offences committed by the Jews, Americans and Israel continued for another twenty minutes or so and I came away realizing that a man who had always greeted me with genteel, cheery sweet nothings was actually a rabid Jew-hater.

So, what does this all mean in the scheme of things? I have lived in Europe for all of my adult life and from the day I arrived as a youngster have been aware of an oft-blatant anti-Semitism and resentment of Americans amongst colleagues, teachers, social circle and neighbors. What is significant about this rage is that it emanates not from the great unwashed but from the educated and intellectual classes. We all know about the academic boycotts of Israeli scholars. We all know about poor Philip Lader, former US Ambassador to the Court of St James who was reduced to tears on BBC ‘Question Time’ on 15 September 2001 as the moderator, Davis Dimbleby, sat and dispassionately watched a crazed studio audience stomping its feet and shouting anti-American epithets two days after the Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. What I find so frightening is that I cannot conduct business or even take a taxi ride in London, Bournemouth or Edinburgh without a scathing tirade about the scurrilous Yanks. The day after 9/11 I was obliged to keep a consultant’s appointment and the minicab driver informed me that the ‘yellow Americans’ on the four hijacked planes were typical of the way ‘the Yanks do battle’ -- they chicken out and let the Brits do the dirty work. I was in such a state of shock from the events of 9/11 that I could not find an answer, and he continued with a further lecture about the cowardice and stupidity of Americans and their pilots when they are threatened, and added the assertion that had Brits been on those planes, not one would have come down.

Getting back, however, to the ’Independent’ and ’Guardian’ reading classes, my hunch is that the daily dose of relentless America-bashing in the European media,

combined with the abundance of criticism of Israel has created an atmosphere of anger and hostility that for the first time in my lifetime makes me fearful for my safety in my beloved adopted country, Great Britain. The anger of the video manager went beyond a whining session. He was physically smoldering every time he said ‘Jewish,’ Israel’ or ‘Holocaust’ ( this is now the tool used by more than one person I have encountered in polite circles to accuse Jews of ‘manufacturing an excuse’ for a state). The fury of the otherwise elegant woman on the bus fell just short of serious assault.

The paradox is that we have Islamic extremists in our midst in Britain preaching all manner of mayhem and holding ‘festivals’ to celebrate the ‘magnificent nineteen of September 11th.’ In 1998, when I was producing a documentary about the three monotheistic faiths, I filmed with ease at the local church and synagogue. When it came time to film at the mosque, my cameraman, a Libyan, beseeched me to stay at home, as I would be ‘killed’ if I came to the London central mosque on a Friday. He explained that ‘the crazies’ came out in force on the Sabbath and that if they realized I was American there would be an incident that would reverberate as strongly as the killing of Yvonne Fletcher in April, 1984 outside the Libyan Embassy. He begged me to stay away and I did. It was the first time I had ever stayed away from my own production shoot. Throw your minds back, dear reader, to that date: 1998. There was no wall in Israel and no Intifada. Bill Clinton was President and there were no neo-cons to blame for the Gulf’s ills. But event then, the hatred of America and of Jews was already a palpable force in British life.

There are some 260,000 Jews in Britain and more than two million Muslims, but at dinner parties all one hears about is the ‘birthplace of terror, Menachem Begin’s Israel’ and the ‘world’s number one terrorist state, the United States.’ Last November when President Bush visited the United Kingdom and London’s Mayor, Ken Livingstone, boycotted the State Banquet, ordinary folk gathered in Trafalgar Square to burn and stomp on the Stars and Stripes.

I hesitate to blame my own profession, the media. However, the ‘Guardian’ ran a lead article by Faisal Bodi in January 2001 entitled ‘Israel Simply Has No Right to Exist,’ and on a daily basis Robert Fisk, whom my British friends and colleagues think is God, runs an ’Independent’ piece brutally critical of the United States and Israel. I have stopped attending meetings of my trade union, the National Union of Journalists, because I cannot listen to incessant vitriol about the crimes of my native country, the United States and of Israel when we should be dealing with the problems unions are supposed to address. It is likely the readers of this paper do not know that many British trade unions, including that of the teachers, have been adopting resolutions condemning Israel and the United States. Yes, the Sharon government is the one I have loved the least and yes, there is much to worry about in present American policy, but how many American unions spend hours devising resolutions to censure their most trusted and valued ally? How many Americans invite expat Brits to their dinner table only to abuse and intimidate them, especially if they are Jewish? Another mantra thrown at me daily these days is the news that the United States is one giant Fundamentalist Christian nation peopled by raging Bible-thumpers on every street. I have had otherwise enlightened colleagues tell me that the USA is ‘running wild with religious extremism that threatens the world far more than bin Laden.’ I am also informed that coupled with the religious fervor is the ‘dangerous fact that America, Carol, has no culture to speak of, and that is a lethal mix.’

When I am tearfully overcome with emotion when ‘Jerusalem’ is played every year at the Last Night of the Proms, I am received with considerable bemusement. Many people want to know how on earth an American could ’feel’ British and others are very blunt with, ’But shouldn’t you people really become Israelis?’

Where will it all end? I know Jews -- including Anglo-Jews -- who have ceased socializing because of the abuse they receive from old friends. The much-loved British actress Maureen Lipman and her eminent playwright husband, the late Jack Rosenthal, attended an Israel Solidarity Rally in London two years ago much to the astonishment of her fans. In her long career Lipman had never been political but one suspected she felt as marginalized as the rest of us who turned up for the rally (it was severely hampered by pro-Palestinian demonstrators with loud-speakers.)

I know expat Americans -- including non-Jews-- who receive punishing dressings-down at social and professional gatherings. The standard reprimand contains the list of American misdemeanors: the Project for the New American Century taking over the world’s governments; Wolfowitz, Perle and other ‘Zionists’ bullying the Bush and Blair Administrations into waging war with Iraq to allow Israel to expand across the Gulf and beyond and American Jews running the world’s media, banks and industries. When Barbara Amiel, wife of beleaguered Hollinger executive Conrad Black, stopped writing for the British papers when her husband fell under a cloud there was unmitigated glee amongst the chattering classes and expressions of joy that we would no longer have to read ’ Zionist diatribes.’

Here is what I perceive as the explanation: Europe has always been a seething hotbed of anti-Semitism. England, sadly, has the distinction of being the very first country to expel its Jews and initiate the Blood Libel. The Jews were not allowed back into England until the time of Cromwell and feel to this day that they worship by the grace of the Sovereign. It is impossible to convey to Americans inside the United States, or to American Jews, the open loathing of both groups that dominates daily life outside the United States today. What is so disturbing to me is that I am no longer accepted at face value in my daily encounters. If the media set out some years ago -- even before Bush 43 -- to turn the public against America and Israel, they have done a magnificent job. I have stopped counting the number of unfair accusations hurled at both nations in the course of a day on the airwaves or in the print media. Long ago I stopped wearing a flag pin (how wonderful to be able to wear one as I walk down a Philadelphia street without fearing for my life). Just the other day I had a tongue-lashing from an old acquaintance about the ‘appalling flags the Americans put outside their homes, like Nazis all over again.’

In a recent review of James Naughtie’s book, The Accidental American, Lord Gilmour in The Guardian (18 September issue) asserted that the ‘neo-cons’ or ‘axis of evil’ who comprise Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton, Libby, Abrams, Perle and others are ‘not only passionate about Israel, they are Likudists to a man.’ He adds that the American ‘Likudists’ are happy to let Sharon create more ‘apartheid settlements.’ Imagine what it is like these days to emerge from one’s home to attend a dinner party or tea and be browbeaten about ‘Zionists’ running America as if it is a criminal offense to be ‘passionate’ about Israel. And, Dammit, I AM passionate about the remnant of my people who made a go of it after the Euro-generated Holocaust. Lord Gilmour quotes a Blair aide making the other accusation that is hurled at Americans abroad these days: ‘the only special relationship is between America and Israel.’

I am aware that many Americans are leaving their homes abroad and returning home after decades in foreign countries. Notwithstanding the loss of free medical care and pills (and that is one hell of a sacrifice!) afforded by their adopted countries, they can no longer endure the daily abuse and the ugly posters and stickers that proliferate across European cities. When the many anti-war rallies were held in February 2003 young people in European cities were seen wearing headbands with slogans wishing death upon Jews and Israel. I went to hear Seymour Hersh speak and he suggested that Americans with dual nationality value the other passport and to ‘keep that villa in Italy.’ I see it, dear Sy, from a different perspective: Europe created the Holocaust, the Inquisition and other genocides. Anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism proliferated long before the Bush Administration came onto the scene in 2000. Anti-Americanism is not a result of Abu Ghraib or of a Rumsfeldian pronouncement. It is a disturbing and hurtful form of psychosis that is rapidly eroding the all-important special relationship.

At present I do not yet fear for my life in jolly little St John’s Wood, but it sure is heaven strolling around the artists’ studios at the Torpedo Factory in Alexandria, Virginia and being greeted as me, not as a bloody American or an accursed Jew.

Posted: 7 Oct. 2004

From Grist on-line magazine

ENFANT, TERRIBLE
Most-polluted places in California see highest infant mortality rates

The results of a San Francisco Chronicle analysis of infant morality rates in California zip codes are, while depressing as hell, not surprising: In short, pollution kills babies. Agricultural waste, toxic chemicals, smog -- while these sources of pollution are difficult to link to any single infant death, and their interaction is not well understood, it is clear that areas with high pollution levels have dramatically higher rates of infant mortality (death before the age of one). Rural zip codes in California's highly polluted Central Valley see infant mortality rates among Hispanics -- whose rates nationally are generally lower than those of whites -- almost twice the state average. According to the World Health Organization's 2002 rankings, the U.S. ranks 36th out of 196 countries for high infant mortality. Decades-long efforts to reduce that rate have largely focused on better medical care, but a growing body of research suggests that pollution, particularly air quality, deserves attention too.

straight to the source: San Francisco Chronicle, Reynolds Holding and Erin McCormick, 04 Oct 2004


IT'S WORSE THAN YOU THINK
Energy bill a prime example of legislative process run amok

The Boston Globe is running a three-part series on how the Republicans now in control of Congress are reshaping the legislative process. It ain't pretty. Part two follows the path of the massive (and currently stalled) energy bill, which began with closed-door meetings of the Cheney energy task force, thought to be influenced largely by energy-industry folks, without significant input from environmental or consumer advocates, and then wound its way to congressional conference committee meetings, from which Democrats were almost completely excluded. In the process, parties with vested interests in energy policy spent a jaw-dropping $387.8 million lobbying Congress, and tens of millions more contributing directly to politicians involved in the process. For their efforts, they got a phone-book-sized bill larded with billions of dollars in subsidies, tax breaks, and regulatory rollbacks, benefiting everyone from the nuclear industry to developers of mega-malls. The broad story is familiar, but the details reveal just how far off the rails the legislative process has gone. For those with a strong stomach, it is required reading.

straight to the source: The Boston Globe, Susan Milligan, 04 Oct 2004

straight to the source: The Boston Globe, 05 Oct 2004

Posted: 1 Oct. 2004

I wonder how many people have to write about voter fraud before something gets done about it? This is from the New York Times.

Sacrifice and Sabotage
By BOB HERBERT
Published: October 1, 2004

Viola Gregg Liuzzo is not a name that rings many bells anymore.

Mrs. Liuzzo, a white woman who lived in Detroit, was 39 years old, married and the mother of five when she decided, early in 1965, to head south to volunteer her services in the brutal struggle to get blacks the right to vote. She told her husband it was something she just had to do.

She participated in the now legendary march along Route 80, the Jefferson Davis Highway, from Selma to Montgomery, Ala. The march was led by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. When it was over, Mrs. Liuzzo offered to drive some of the marchers back to Selma in her two-year-old Oldsmobile.

On the return trip to Montgomery on the night of March 25, Mrs. Liuzzo was accompanied only by a black teenager. On a desolate stretch of the highway, they were overtaken by a car filled with enraged Ku Klux Klansmen and an undercover F.B.I. agent. Mrs. Liuzzo was shot in the face and killed. The car ended up in a ditch. The teenager survived by pretending he was dead.

Last night's presidential debate was an important exercise in American-style democracy. But democracy has no real meaning when citizens qualified to vote are deliberately prevented from casting their ballots, or are intimidated to the point where they are too frightened to vote.

Disenfranchisement comes in many guises. Two professors at the University of Miami did an extensive analysis of so-called voter errors in Miami-Dade County that has not previously been reported on, and that gives us an even more troubling picture of the derailment of democracy in Florida in the 2000 presidential race.

Bonnie Levin, a professor of neurology and psychology, and Robert C. Duncan, a professor of epidemiology, said the purpose of their study was to examine the demographics associated with the uncounted votes in Miami-Dade, a county that disqualified 27,000 votes.

Most of the public attention surrounding Florida's disputed election focused on "under-votes," when machines failed to record a vote for some reason - because of the notorious dimples or hanging chads in punch-card ballots, for example.

Professor Levin told me yesterday that the study convinced her that a much bigger problem in Miami-Dade involved "over-votes," instances in which ballots were reported to have been disqualified because individuals cast votes for more than one presidential candidate.

In their analysis, the professors factored in variables associated with increased errors, such as advanced age or lower education levels. What they found startled them. The instances of voter errors, after taking all relevant variables into account, was much higher - higher than could reasonably have been expected - in predominantly African-American precincts. And, peculiarly, there was an especially high amount of over-voting among blacks.

"Although African-American and Hispanic precincts are similar in terms of household income and education, the African-American precincts have many more over-votes and under-votes," the professors wrote. "Interestingly, they differ strongly in party affiliation (African-American predominantly Democrat, Hispanic more Republican)."

Surprise, surprise.

Dr. Levin said she did not believe these were the kinds of honest errors one would expect to find in an analysis of voting patterns. Something else was at work. "The data show that it was so specific to certain precincts," she said. "It was so targeted toward African-Americans. There was nothing random about it."

She said, "The most important finding was that education was not a predictor for African-Americans."

Now, in the 2004 presidential election, we're already seeing widespread vote-suppression efforts, from the failed attempt by the Jeb Bush administration to use bogus, biased lists of alleged felons to efforts in many parts of the country to prevent the registration of new voters, especially African-Americans.

The people trampling on voting rights today are following the same ugly tradition that resulted in the disenfranchisement of millions of black Americans and led to the murder of Viola Liuzzo and others.

At one time it was the Democratic Party that produced the grandmasters in the art of disenfranchisement. Now that torch has been passed to the Republicans. President Bush could put a stop to it, but so far he's chosen not to.

Posted: 1 Oct. 2004

From Grist on-line magazine.

PLEASE HOLD FOR THE NEXT AVAILABLE WILDLIFE PROTECTION
Bush administration puts Forest Service wildlife protections on hold

The Bush administration issued a temporary rule yesterday suspending strict wildlife protections used by national forest managers since 1982. That year, the Reagan administration instructed forest managers in the U.S. Forest Service to maintain "viable populations" of fish and wildlife. Since then, the viability rule has been the basis of several lawsuits forcing the agency to cut back on logging; it is, said Andy Stahl of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, the agency's "only rule protecting wildlife." The new temporary rule instructs forest managers that the old rule is "not in effect," though they may still follow it if they so desire. Administration officials did not say when a final ruling will be made, but many enviros view the temporary rule as a harbinger of similarly grim things to come.

straight to the source: Los Angeles Times, Bettina Boxall, 30 Sep 2004

WHO YOU GONNA BELIEVE, US OR SOME "INSPECTOR"?
EPA inspector general blasts Bush admin's power-plant rules

The U.S. EPA came under harsh criticism yesterday from environmental fringe extremists ... oh, wait, no ... actually, from its own top investigative official. The agency's inspector general issued a scathing report saying that enforcement of clean-air laws has been crippled by the Bush administration's decision to substantially revise the new-source review rule, which requires that power plants upgrading their equipment install the latest pollution-control technologies. The Bush EPA proposed changing the rule to say that the new upgrades must cost at least 20 percent of the value of the generating unit for the requirements to kick in -- a change that top officials claimed would have no adverse effect on enforcement efforts. In fact, after interviewing numerous agency employees, Inspector General Nikki L. Tinsley concluded that even though the new rule has not been instituted yet, current lawsuits have been stymied and it has become more difficult to launch new enforcement actions. Enviros hailed the report even as officials in the agency's political (as opposed to enforcement) wing dismissed it.

straight to the source: The New York Times, Michael Janofsky, 01 Oct 2004

straight to the source: Los Angeles Times, Elizabeth Shogren, 01 Oct 2004

UTAH, YOU'VE BEEN NORTON'D!
Interior Department protecting Utah rivers from wrong threat

Last month, Interior Secretary Gale Norton splashily announced the Three Rivers Withdrawal: Nearly 200 miles of prized territory along Utah's Green, Colorado, and Dolores rivers would be withdrawn from consideration for new hard-rock mining claims. The proposal had been on her desk for 18 months, so some enviros suspected the timing of the announcement had quite a bit to do with burnishing Bush's tattered environmental credentials during an election year. But hey, protections are protections, right? Well, not so much. According to a review of Interior Department land-use records by the Environmental Working Group, mining is not what most threatens the area. The real threat is oil and gas development -- and oh yeah, three days before Norton's announcement, the Bureau of Land Management auctioned off oil and gas leases on some 5,000 acres of territory surrounding the rivers.

straight to the source: The Salt Lake Tribune, Robert Gehrke, 01 Oct 2004

straight to the source: Denver Post, Associated Press, 12 Sep 2004

Posted: 29 Sept. 2004

From Grist on-line magazine.

TOMORROW, TOMORROW, I LOVE YA, TOMORROW
Bush administration postpones action on enviro issues until after election

The Bush administration is pushing off a number of controversial environment-related moves until after the election. For example: Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham had requested a report from the National Petroleum Council on how to boost U.S. oil-refining capacity, to be released tomorrow. The U.S. EPA was expected to strongly object to the council's recommendations, which were to include the easing of several environmental regulations. Funny story: Turns out Abraham now has "a scheduling issue," according to an Energy Department spokesflack, and the report will be delayed until late November -- coincidentally, after the election. The same kooky scheduling issues seem to be afflicting a number of coming regulations on roadless areas, meat processing, and prescription drugs. While it's not unusual to delay some regulations in an election year, says Gene Kimmelman of Consumers Union, "What is unusual this time is the clear pattern of holding back regulatory decisions that will benefit the largest industry players and will drive up prices and marketplace risks for consumers." Marty Hayden of Earthjustice warns of "a fire sale such as we've never seen post-election."

straight to the source: MSNBC.com, Reuters, Tom Doggett, 29 Sep 2004

straight to the source: The New York Times, Stephen Labaton, 27 Sep 2004

Posted: 29 Sept. 2004

There's a huge mess in Florida, and I'm not referring to the hurricanes. The outright fraud and unethical practices, combined with paperless voting machines, is a set-up to once again throw the election to Bush. Read on.

Excerpts: Something rotten in the state of Florida

Of the many weird and unsettling developments in Florida since the presidential election mel