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.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969)
34th President of the USA
a Republican, in a letter written to his brother on November 8, 1954

"...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

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

Sir Winston Churchill
(1874-1965)

"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

"FASCISM: a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership together with belligerent nationalism."

American Heritage Dictionary

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: 31 May 2005

A message from NARAL.

The pro-choice bracelet is back!
Bracelets have officially become the activist ribbon of the new millennium: "Live Strong" in yellow, "Never Surrender" in purple, and now "Choice" in white! A pro-choice activist in California was motivated by her post-election frustration to sell bracelets of her own creation and donate the proceeds to support our work here at the NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation. You can order your own online - click here to get them now while supplies last!

Choice in the News

THE GOOD: "Duty to Dispense" bill introduced in California... In response to the disturbing trend of pharmacies refusing to fill women's birth control prescriptions, NARAL Pro-Choice California and State Senator Deborah Ortiz have combined forces to pass the "Duty to Dispense" bill. This bill would protect women - and all Californians - from wrongfully being denied access to the important medications they need. Click here for the full story.

THE BAD: Survey says up to 71% of Missouri pharmacies don't even carry morning-after pill... A report by the NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri Foundation has found that up to 71 percent of Missouri pharmacies do not stock or even order the morning-after pill (also known as emergency contraception or EC). "If we are serious about decreasing the number of unintended pregnancies in Missouri, we must be serious about increasing access to emergency contraception," NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri Executive Director Carolyn Sullivan said. In the report, the group says widespread access to EC could prevent half of Missouri's nearly 40,000 annual unintended pregnancies. Read more here.

THE UGLY: Hager brags he helped block access to the morning-after pill... We shouldn't have been too surprised, but earlier this month, The Nation and The Washington Post reported that David Hager, the notorious anti-choice appointee to the FDA, actually bragged in a speech about his role in making sure the FDA did not approve Plan B, the morning-after pill, for over-the-counter access. His unbiased colleagues overwhelmingly supported making Plan B available without a prescription. Get the full story here.

From Grist on-line magazine

Wisconsin power-plant expansion could have long-term eco-consequences

The fate of a Wisconsin coal-fired power plant could augur poorly for the environment, say its opponents. At issue is what does and doesn't count as a "new" power-generating facility: Under the Clean Water Act, new facilities are subject to strict regulations on cleaning technology; an addition to an existing facility, however, is subject to looser rules. The Oak Creek power plant south of Milwaukee wants to double its capacity with a pair of new generators -- old-school pulverized-coal units rather than newer, cleaner gasification units -- which it contends is an expansion and thus subject to the looser rules. So far Wisconsin authorities and the U.S. EPA have agreed. Opponents are steamed. "For them to argue this is an existing facility just boggles the mind," said a rep for an area manufacturer. New language inserted in the preamble to the Clean Water Act by the Bush administration seems to allow for this interpretation, though, and Oak Creek is "the poster child of the worst that can happen" as a result, says attorney Reed Super.

straight to the source: The Washington Post, Peter Slevin, 29 May 2005

Exxon says it won't dabble in clean energy -- too many darn subsidies

With oil prices soaring, Exxon is perfectly happy pumping and refining the black stuff, thanks. Despite persistent pressure from shareholder groups and activists, the company says it has no plans to invest in clean energies like solar and wind. You see, solar and wind are still a small sliver of the energy pie and they -- gasp! -- rely on federal subsidies. "It's an uneconomic niche and our business is not built around the expectation of a bunch of subsidies to make a profit," said Exxon's Scott Nauman, struggling to keep a straight face. "We want a business that is robust on its own merits." Of course, some greens point out that the oil industry gets billions in direct subsidies and tax breaks, and also benefits from externalizing the costs of its pollution onto the public, from massive public investment in roads and highways to carry oil-guzzling vehicles, from massive federal subsidies to agribusinesses that use petroleum-based fertilizers, and from a lax regulatory environment that allows automakers to delay improving fuel economy. Ah, those daffy greens.

straight to the source: ABC News, Reuters, 30 May 2005

From The Center for American Progress

HOMELAND SECURITY - PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE: The Bush administration recently announced plans to conduct a "high-level internal review of its efforts to battle international terrorism," planning to focus less on al Qaeda and more on "a broader 'strategy against violent extremism.'" However, key critics of the plan point out that "the policy review comes only after months of delay and lost opportunities while the administration left key counterterrorism jobs unfilled and argued internally over how best to confront the rapid spread of the pro-al Qaeda global Islamic jihad."

EDUCATION - RENEWED SUPPORT FOR EDUCATION: The Center for American Progress's Robert Gordon has some advice for progressives looking to weigh in on education in America: Think Big. In his recent article in the New Republic, Gordon says for far too long Democrats have allowed the education discussion to focus only on money. Progressives, he says, should not be content to merely attack No Child Left Behind; instead, there are serious questions to be answered surrounding culture and institutions. It's time, he charges, to "speak hard truths about our schools and support essential changes." His suggestions: big expansions for high-quality early education, renewed support for public school choice, greater accountability to a national standard and strengthening the quality of teachers.

ENVIRO - GIVING NATURE OVER TO THE ENERGY INDUSTRY: In the recently passed emergency military spending bill, Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) inserted an amendment that will "give energy companies the right to explore for oil and gas inside a sprawling national park" for the first time. Already signed by President Bush, the bill "allows drilling for natural gas under the Gulf Islands National Seashore - a thin necklace of barrier islands that drapes the coastline of the Gulf of Mexico."

Bush Breaks Nation's Promise to Veterans

Appearing yesterday at the Arlington National Cemetery to honor generations of sacrifices by American servicemen and women, President Bush said, "At our national cemetery, we take comfort from knowing that the men and women who are serving freedom's cause understand their purpose and its price." Yet the reality has been that the administration that most recently has sent those men and women to fight for freedom's cause has failed for live up to government's age-old promise to "care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan."

BUSH'S 2006 VA BUDGET HITS VETERANS HARD: President Bush's 2006 budget proposal included legislation that would raise veterans' premiums more than 100 percent on prescription drugs and add an annual $250 enrollment fee for veterans who want care for conditions not directly caused by military service and who generally earn more than $25,000 a year. The administration has recommended these same proposals in each of the past few years, only to have them beaten back by Congress each time. The user fee would increase costs for nearly 2 million veterans nationwide.

WAR VETERANS EXCLUDED FROM COST OF WAR ON TERROR: Conservatives in Congress rebuffed an effort to include $2 billion in emergency money for veterans' health care in the recently passed $82 billion Iraq war supplemental. The president's request increased the VA budget a mere 2.7 percent (including the increased co-pays and enrollment fees), hardly sufficient to deal with an expected influx of Afghanistan and Iraq war veterans in the coming years. Nearly 28,000 soldiers who served in Iraq and were discharged have already sought care at a VA facility. Of the nearly 245,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan already discharged from service, 12,422 have been in VA counseling centers for readjustment problems and symptoms associated with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. VA Secretary Jim Nicholson has said the budget circumstances are not "dire," yet Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Larry Craig (R-ID) was forced to increase the 2006 budget request by $1 billion. Dave Autry, a spokesman for the Disabled American Veterans, said, "Vets are owed a debt and the government has said they are eligible for health care. The government needs to pay for it. It's a continuing cost of our national defense."

BUSH WANTS TO SHUT DOWN VETERANS HOSPITAL IN HIS OWN BACKYARD: Veterans in Bush's backyard, near his ranch in Crawford, Texas, are protesting his administration's decision to close a VA hospital in their town. "It would be, in my opinion, a tragic mistake to shut down our hospital, especially during a time of war when tomorrow's veterans are in harm's way today," said U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Waco). In May 2004, then-VA Secretary Anthony Principi announced he would be closing three veterans hospitals nationwide and partially closing eight others. For his work, Principi was rewarded with an appointment to the chairmanship of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) commission.

VETERANS GROUPS SLAM BUSH BUDGET: More than 300,000 veterans' claims are pending before the VA, according to the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, and the number of claims pending for more than six months rose from 47,000 in 2003 to 75,000 at the end of March 2005. The deteriorating condition of VA health care has elicited plenty of criticism. The American Legion called Bush's budget "the wrong message at the wrong time to the wrong constituency." The Vietnam Veterans of America said the budget did a "disservice to those of us who donned the uniform to defend the rights, principles, and freedoms that we hold dear." And the Veterans of Foreign Wars decried Bush's decision as "especially shameful during a time of war."

Posted: 29 May 2005

This is so excellent, I felt compelled to reproduce the entire thing. The author's true name is Andrew Sullivan

Subject: Stemming the Flows of Compassion & Hypocrisy…
From: Demosthenes2
Date: May 25 2005 7:30AM

Compassion alone stands apart from the continuous traffic between good and evil proceeding within us. -
-Eric Hoffer

Yesterday, in the wake of the compromise cut by the Senate moderates and the Minority leader that curiously cut out majority leader Frist, the House passed legislation to expand federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Bush, for his part, has threatened to veto any such legislation should it pass, though he may find himself to be the next Dr. Frist (both in terms of competency and marginalization) should he do so as a majority (57%) of Republicans support embryonic stem cell research and achieving override may be easier than anticipated.

This is an issue that I have both some experience in and a vested interest in, so I'm going to address this from several perspectives because the administration makes it a point of pride to display its disdain for both science and metaphysics more complex than a first grade Sunday school primer.

As it happens, I have adopted one of those frozen embryos in a fertility clinic that this debate whirls around. My son—my six month old baby boy—is the blessing of embryonic adoption and that has without question transformed my life. It is troubling to hear so many talk about the disposition of these embryos when so few actually have any exposure to the process. So, having actually done more than talk about those frozen entities and done something about it, I'd like to take the opportunity to inform those who insist on meddling in the very private matters of those of us involved in these processes.

Tom DeLay stated that we those who vote in favor of this measure: "vote to fund with taxpayer dollars the dismemberment of living distinct human beings for the purposes of medical experimentation." Apparently DeLay shares Bush's disdain for science and metaphysics. Therefore a few points for both officials are in order.

First, 'conception', 'life' and 'living distinct beings' are not the same thing as 'fertilization', no matter how much it serves one's purposes to make it so. Fertilization and the creation of blastocysts is an unremarkable event that takes place daily. If that embryo doesn't implant, there is no conception, no life, no pregnancy. Every day millions of women have 'embryos' floating around in their uteri, flush them during menses and nobody bats an eye. These embryos that have not implanted and sunk a vein and begun the process of advancement are not, even by the most conservative of standards, life. Nobody posits funerals or mourns for the millions of these that are, with no awareness, flushed every day. Give a woman as many pregnancy tests with an embryo inside her that has not implanted as many times as you like—there will be no positive result, pee on as many EPT sticks as you like, no plus sign. This is why after an IVF transfer (the two week wait) people so anxiously wait—they are hoping—desperately—that they have CONCEIVED. It hasn't happened yet.

That embryo may or may not implant and create a conception, a pregnancy, but one thing is for certain—those women who get their period without ever knowing there was a fertilized egg that failed to implant are not flushing 'living distinct human beings.' There is the potential for a conception—nothing more. So, ladies—suck it up and deal—Bush and DeLay need you to stop menstruating post haste—just cross your legs and get thee to a an OB-GYN every 28 days. You see, we need to blood test you and ultrasound the hell out of your uterus in case you absent mindedly were about to flush a 'living distinct human being', because we're all about a 'culture of life'—just not yours. You're an incubator. We need to stem the flow of blood in this culture of death, and apparently that means your menstrual flow.

Secondly, these frozen embryos are so incredibly valuable to the administration that they cannot be used for embryonic stem cell research… because they need to be… THROWN OUT! What they fail to understand is that the disposition of these embryos, like banked chord blood or donated blood or tissue donation, lies with the donor. When you participate in an IVF cycle you sing a form that determines what happens to any leftover fertilized eggs. The choices are cryogenic preservation for: adoption, stem cell research, later transfer to the originating parent, medical research or destruction. DeLay, Bush and his cohorts are saving nothing. It's not as though these embryos in cryogenic willed for research are know suddenly going to be adopted or implanted. They won't—our 'culture of life' perversely demands that they be thrown into the garbage—that's how precious they are, and that's how much we value them. We must destroy life, according to the administration, to AVOID preserving life! Go back and re-read that sentence.

I love my son, profoundly, deeply, more than I ever though possible, but my son became my son when he grew in that womb and survived the transfer. There were four embryos transferred that day—and nobody mourned those other three that simply flowed out naturally, no more my son than the other hoped for pregnancies that were unsuccessful as we hoped each month and waited and prayed that this month the test would be positive.

The key to understanding this intellectual schizophrenia the administration subscribes to is understanding that the point is not to save those embryos—if that were the concern, they'd be scrambling to adopt them like I did—no, this is about the agenda of throwing a bone to their ill informed and zealous base.

The problem is they do a grave disservice to that base, to you, to embryonic adoptive parents like me, to the ill, to EVERYONE in confusing prophylactic measures (the prevention of implantation) with abortificents. It's not the case, and no amount of obfuscation will make it so.

The obfuscation and misdirection is important because it reveals both the real agenda here the actual consequences of these actions and the hypocrisy of the Bush standard: 'No destruction of life to save life.' Indeed. The problem is we're not doing that. We're preserving tissue rather than destroying it so we can throw it out as if the administration has some perverse new garbage disposal regulation (and that would be the first evidence of environmental concern form them!), and designating the sick and elderly as unworthy of not only our efforts but unworthy of even taking the time to make these distinctions.

The administration's actions give lie to their words. It is mind boggling to watch an administration that talks about a 'culture of life' or not 'destroying life to save life' and then blithely proceeds to slaughter tens of thousands to 'save lives and bring democracy' or that has no qualms about executing everyone from the incompetent to juveniles not for vengeance or for deterrence, but to destroy lives to save lives. It is astonishing to watch an administration that would willingly come meddle in your lives to dictate to when your life begins and ends in your hospital bed, in your bedroom, in your doctors office, and at the pharmacy but it is despicable to watch them continue in this vein so ill informed, with actions so ill considered and so triumphal in their ignorance.

That ringing in your ears is the cognitive dissonance from listening to the administration and the noise they make as they come to tell you what you will do, and why—in your bedroom… in the hospital… with your doctor, with your very life—and they'll define that for you, thanks very much. Because they'll preserve what they want and destroy what they want for different reasons and in different ways because they can't be bothered to make the distinctions—and they like it that way. And apparently, so do we.

So while we're stemming flows, of blood, of ignorance, of death, and abandoning any pretense of 'compassionate conservatism' how about stemming the flow of hypocrisy?

The zeal which begins with hypocrisy must conclude in treachery; at first it deceives, at last it betrays --Francis Bacon…

Posted: 27 May 2005

A message from NARAL.

The Senate may have reached a compromise to disarm the nuclear option, but don't think that means this anti-choice Congress is willing to compromise its far-right agenda.

This time, not only did our opponents take aim at our courts, they even turned their backs on women in the military.

By a vote of 56-43 the Senate confirmed Priscilla Owen, an anti-choice judicial activist from Texas, to a lifetime position on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

House Republican leaders refused to allow debate or votes on two amendments that would have provided compassionate health care to military women who’ve been raped. The first would have ensured that the morning-after pill, ordinary birth control pills that can prevent pregnancy after sex or assault, is made available to servicewomen at every military base. The second amendment would have allowed women to use their military health insurance for abortion care in cases of rape or incest. Given that sexual assaults against servicewomen rose 25 percent in 2004, it's appalling that anti-choice lawmakers refused to allow these amendments to even come to a vote.

Military women were also yet again denied the right to access abortion care at military facilities overseas when the House defeated an amendment to repeal a ban that forbids servicewomen and female military dependents from using their own money to pay for an abortion at overseas military hospitals.

Please express your outrage to your representative who voted against military women's access to abortion care. Click here to take action and learn more today.

From Grist on-line magazine

Studies link common chemicals to reproductive harm

Stronger evidence that a class of ubiquitous chemicals called phthalates -- found in a wide variety of plastics, nail polishes, fragrances, and other products -- are linked to adverse effects on the human reproductive system was made public Thursday. A study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found a strong correlation between the level of phthalates in the urine of 85 pregnant mothers studied and abnormal genital development in their infant sons, in particular (because we know you want the particulars) smaller penises and scrotums and a higher frequency of incompletely descended testicles. Says lead author Shanna Swan, "These changes are seen at phthalate levels below those found in one-quarter of the female population of the United States." A separate study released this week found that lab animals exposed to levels of the chemical bisphenol A many times below the U.S. EPA's "safe dose" during pregnancy had babies with impaired mammary glands, associated with a higher risk of breast cancer in humans.

straight to the source: San Francisco Chronicle, Jane Kay, 27 May 2005

straight to the source: Los Angeles Times, Marla Cone, 27 May 2005

straight to the source: Scientific American, Sarah Graham, 27 May 2005

From The Center for American Progress

MILITARY – BUSH ADMINISTRATION SELLING MORE ARMS TO UNDEMOCRATIC COUNTRIES: The New York Times reports on a study by the World Policy Institute that revealed "[t]he sale of military weapons to other countries, including many that were once barred from making such purchases, has increased sharply since the attacks on Sept. 11." In order to improve its relationship with new allies, the United States has sold weapons to countries that in the past could not receive American products because of their poor human rights records. In 2003, more than half of the top 25 recipients of weapons sales were countries the State Department has defined as undemocratic. In his remarks at his swearing-in, new U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman said trade can "deepen the roots of democracy." Unfortunately, as the Bush administration’s actions are showing, trade can also deepen the roots of undemocratic regimes.

HEALTH – U.S. UNPREPARED FOR FLU EPIDEMIC: The United States has no licensed vaccine to prevent avian flu, nor does it have enough drugs to treat the sick if there is an epidemic, according to Reuters. Health experts testifying before Congress yesterday said the Department of Health and Human Services does not have a plan for dealing with the epidemic. "Although many levels of government are paying increased attention to the problem, the United States remains woefully unprepared for an influenza pandemic that could kill millions of Americans," said Dr. Andrew Pavia, chairman of the Infectious Disease Society of America's Pandemic Influenza Task Force. Recall, last year, the Bush administration was also so unprepared for the flu season that President Bush was forced to call on young Americans not to get a flu shot and even said he was not getting one for himself.

ADMINISTRATION – BOLTON NOMINATION DELAYED BECAUSE WHITE HOUSE FAILS TO PRODUCE KEY DOCUMENTS: Instead of providing all the information it could to support its nominee on the Senate floor yesterday, the White House chose instead to withhold key information relating to John Bolton’s nomination as U.N. ambassador, forcing a delay of the final vote. The White House failed to produce information relating to Bolton’s handling of National Security Agency intercepts and documents relations to Bolton’s testimony on Syria’s weapons of mass destruction program. Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) said, "We are willing to vote 10 minutes after we get back in session, if in fact they provide the information." In an indication the White House will maintain its obstruction, Press Secretary Scott McClellan said, "They have the information they need."

ETHICS – DELAY’S SECRET CORPORATE CASH FUNNELLING CATCHES UP TO HIM: Reuters reports, "Ethics questions swirling around U.S. House of Representatives Majority Leader Tom DeLay mounted on Thursday when a Texas judge ruled that a committee formed by the powerful Republican had violated state law by failing to disclose $600,000 in mostly corporate donations." Hailing the victory as a win for good, clean government, an attorney leading the charges against DeLay said, "It sends a very clear message to corporations and lobbyists and other folks that this sort of secretive, underhanded activity is against the law and not allowed in Texas."

ETHICS – SANTORUM’S CAMPAIGN DONATIONS RAISE RED FLAG: "Two days before Sen. Rick Santorum introduced a bill that critics say would restrict the National Weather Service, his political action committee received a $2,000 donation from the chief executive of AccuWeather Inc.," according to the AP. The bill would restrict the AccuWeather service, which provides weather data to a variety of media outlets, from competing for certain services provided by the private sector and may even prevent the public distribution of certain weather data. Speaking to the allegations, Santorum said, "I don't think there's any coincidence between the [campaign contribution and the introduction of the bill].… It's just that I happened to have a fundraiser in the town he was in."

Posted: 26 May 2005

This is an atrocity and a clear violation of the Bill of Rights upon which all our freedoms as citizens depends.

Judge: Parents can't teach pagan beliefs
Father appeals order in divorce decree that prevents couple from exposing son to Wicca.

Challenging the court: Thomas E. Jones Jr. says a judge's order tramples on his and his ex-wife's constitutional right to share their religious beliefs with their son. -- Frank Espich / The Star
By Kevin Corcoran
kevin.corcoran@indystar.com

An Indianapolis father is appealing a Marion County judge's unusual order that prohibits him and his ex-wife from exposing their child to "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals."

The parents practice Wicca, a contemporary pagan religion that emphasizes a balance in nature and reverence for the earth.

Cale J. Bradford, chief judge of the Marion Superior Court, kept the unusual provision in the couple's divorce decree last year over their fierce objections, court records show. The order does not define a mainstream religion.

Bradford refused to remove the provision after the 9-year-old boy's outraged parents, Thomas E. Jones Jr. and his ex-wife, Tammie U. Bristol, protested last fall.

Through a court spokeswoman, Bradford said Wednesday he could not discuss the pending legal dispute.

The parents' Wiccan beliefs came to Bradford's attention in a confidential report prepared by the Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau, which provides recommendations to the court on child custody and visitation rights. Jones' son attends a local Catholic school.

"There is a discrepancy between Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones' lifestyle and the belief system adhered to by the parochial school. . . . Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones display little insight into the confusion these divergent belief systems will have upon (the boy) as he ages," the bureau said in its report.

But Jones, 37, Indianapolis, disputes the bureau's findings, saying he attended Bishop Chatard High School in Indianapolis as a non-Christian.

Jones has brought the case before the Indiana Court of Appeals, with help from the Indiana Civil Liberties Union. They filed their request for the appeals court to strike the one-paragraph clause in January.

"This was done without either of us requesting it and at the judge's whim," said Jones, who has organized Pagan Pride Day events in Indianapolis. "It is upsetting to our son that he cannot celebrate holidays with us, including Yule, which is winter solstice, and Ostara, which is the spring equinox."

The ICLU and Jones assert the judge's order tramples on the parents' constitutional right to expose their son to a religion of their choice. Both say the court failed to explain how exposing the boy to Wicca's beliefs and practices would harm him.

READ THE REST.

From Grist on-line magazine

Green campaigners target corporations as way to effect change

Environmental activists in the U.S., weary of battling with the largely unsympathetic Bush administration, have increasingly been targeting their efforts at other world power brokers -- transnational corporations. Their success to date has been fueled by a sort of guerilla advertising -- innocuously dubbed "market campaigns" -- in which activists creatively associate a company's brand with the harm they're doing to the environment. PR-conscious corporations, ever striving to be well-liked by both consumers and shareholders, often cave to the pressure, finding, like computer-maker Dell did after agreeing to offer a recycling service, that environmental benevolence isn't economic suicide after all. "What got us really going was that we found we can meet our business needs, we can meet our customers' needs, and we can do what the stakeholders are asking of us, all at the same time," said Dell spokesperson Bryant Hilton. Other successful campaigns have targeted Citibank, Bank of America, and JPMorgan Chase.

straight to the source: Scripps Howard News Service, Joan Lowy, 25 May 2005

From The Organic Consumers Association

EXPLOSIVE MONSANTO DOCUMENTS REVEAL SERIOUS HAZARDS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CORN
A May 22 headline news story in the London Independent has rocked Monsanto and the biotech industry and fueled the controversy over the safety of genetically engineered food. The story reveals that internal Monsanto documents, reviewed by EU scientists, show serious health damage to laboratory animals fed Monsanto's new genetically engineered "rootworm-resistant" corn. Rats who consumed the mutant corn developed smaller kidneys and exhibited blood abnormalities. Scientists say these are "red flags" for immune system damage and/or cancer tumor promotion. Although the EU will now likely ban Monsanto's new GMO corn, this same rootworm-resistant corn is already being grown and consumed on a major scale in the United States. Monsanto has denied that the corn can harm humans, but nonetheless refuses to turn over its data to the media, claiming that the lab studies are "Confidential Business Information."

Learn more and take action: http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.htm

From The Center for American Progress

CONGRESS – BUSH ADMINISTRATION BLASTED FOR SECRECY: Roll Calls reports that the Homeland Security and energy and water appropriations measures "passed by the Republican-controlled House include language scolding the Bush administration for its lack of responsiveness to repeated Congressional requests for information – an unusual sign of tension within the typically united Republican ranks." The House complaints are "unusual and a sign of the level of discontent on Congress' behalf toward the bureaucratic build-up in several agencies," in particular the DHS. Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security Hal Rogers (R-KY) said, "It hurts me to cut or withhold funds for an agency that desperately needs the money, but I don’t know what else we can do."

MILITARY – VETERANS SUE RUMSFELD FOR MEDICAL CARE: The chief financial officer of the U.S. Armed Forces Retirement Home referred to it as "streamlined health care services," but a class-action lawsuit filed yesterday on behalf of the more than 1,000 veteran residents alleges that "drastic budget cuts by the Defense Department have resulted in substandard medical care." According to the suit, over the past two years residents lost the ability to "get prescriptions and regular doctor checkups at the home" because of cuts made by the new DOD-installed management. With "their health in danger," the plaintiffs were "left … with no choice but to sue Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the home’s chief operating officer, Timothy Cox."

ADMINISTRATION – BUSH, CONSERVATIVES CONSOLIDATING POWER: The Washington Post witnesses a theme in how President Bush and congressional leaders are going about business these days. "The common theme is to consolidate influence in a small circle ... and to marginalize dissenting voices that would try to impede a conservative agenda." The next item on the agenda: "[T]he White House and Congress are setting their sights on how to make the judiciary more deferential to the conservative cause." The day after the election, Bush said, "I believe there will be goodwill, now that this election is over, to work together.… And it is with that spirit that I go into this coming session." Apparently, that statement was simply another way of reiterating "you are either with us or against us."

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS – PRO-DEMOCRACY DEMONSTRATORS BEATEN IN EGYPT: Pro-democracy demonstrators were beaten in Cairo yesterday. They had come out to protest yesterday's referendum on election "reforms" that actually bar most opposition politicians from running. The beatings were mostly carried out by pro-government thugs, although the Washington Post noted, "[j]ournalists and witnesses at the scene of several incidents, including this correspondent, saw riot police create corridors for stick-wielding men to freely charge the demonstrators. Women were particular targets." Asked about the riots, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, "I've not seen the reports that you're talking about."

ADMINISTRATION – POLL FINDS MOST AMERICANS THINK BUSH DOESN'T SHARE THEIR PRIORITIES: A CBS poll reveals, "Six in 10 Americans don't think the President shares their priorities for the country." After a few months of Terri Schiavo grandstanding, proposing Social Security benefit cuts for most Americans, pushing for the end of the Senate's check over judicial nominations, nominating a U.N. ambassador who doesn't believe there is such a thing as the United Nations, opposing embryonic stem cell research, and standing in strong support of Tom DeLay, more Americans now recognize that Bush is not speaking to the issues they care about.

THE NO-FLY LIST SYSTEM THAT DOESN'T WORK: According to Department of Homeland Security officials, the "government's no-fly list has shortcomings that could allow suspected terrorists and people with ties to terrorism to board U.S.-bound airplanes from overseas." Though airline officials are given a no-fly list against which to check their passenger manifest, the list does not contain "all names of suspected terrorists because some names require a security clearance to see them." Not until after the plane takes off are U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials able to screen the passenger list against the complete no-fly list. By the time the process is completed, "a plane is often midway over the Atlantic before the agency realizes it has a match on board." In the two most recent cases of Customs officials stepping in and ordering flights to land, the "apparent passenger 'hit' was false, but U.S. officials could not determine that until the passenger was removed and interviewed – a process that costs carriers hundreds of thousands of dollars in fuel, crew time and schedule changes."

JUDICIARY
Frist's Bait and Switch

Shortly after the announcement of a compromise on judicial nominations, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) indicated he would respect the agreement. On the floor of the Senate, Frist said, "we all ... have a role to play in ensuring its cherished nature remains intact. And, indeed, as demonstrated by tonight’s agreement and by the ultimate implementation of that agreement, we have done just that." In public yesterday, he urged quick votes on the three nominees the group of 14 senators pledged not to filibuster. Privately, however, he was pursuing a much different strategy. As part of the compromise, negotiators agreed that two judicial nominees - William G. Myers and Henry Saad - "will be filibustered or withdrawn." Nevertheless, according to a report in Congress Daily PM, Frist "will file for cloture on President Bush’s nomination of William Myers to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later this week." The move is designed to test "the resolve of 14 Republican and Democratic senators" who signed the deal.

GRAHAM AND DEWINE TRY TO REWRITE THE DEAL, PART I: As Frist tries to destroy the deal, others are attempting to rewrite it. Yesterday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), one of the signatories of the compromise, said, "If there's a filibuster for a Supreme Court nominee in the future, where one of the seven Democrats who signed the letter participates [in the filibuster], all bets are off." The Hill reports that Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) joined Graham in "threatening to vote for the [nuclear] option should Democrats attempt to block nominees in circumstances that the two lawmakers would not consider 'extraordinary.'" But that's not what they agreed to on Monday. According to the text of the memorandum of understanding, Graham and DeWine agreed not to vote for the nuclear option during the 109th Congress, "in light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement." The senators have committed to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee only in "extreme circumstance," not as defined by Lindsey Graham and Mike DeWine, but as defined by their "own discretion and judgment." As long everyone excises their discretion in good faith, Graham and DeWine would violate the agreement if he voted for the nuclear option during the 109th Congress.

GRAHAM TRIES TO REWRITE THE DEAL, PART II: Sen. Graham is starting to distort the terms of the deal on Monday night. Appearing on Hardball, Graham said, "the deal is that five nominees who have been filibustered will get an up-or-down vote and some will be confirmed and some won't." Actually, the deal only provides that three nominees who have been filibustered will get a vote. But who's counting?

IT'S THE CONSULTATION, STUPID: The future of the agreement lies not in Congress, but in the White House. The deal encourages the president "to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration." If the president follows through with that suggestion "he will be less likely to nominate judges on the far political right," making their bipartisan confirmation more likely. Nevertheless, the Washington Post reports, "for all the appeals for bipartisan harmony, Bush is unlikely to nominate a consensus justice." A senior administration told the Post that Bush is "not going to shy away" from a fight. The story didn’t mention if the anonymous official still considered Bush to be "a uniter not a divider."

Posted: 23 May 2005

Be grateful there are still people of conscience in this country.

Librarian's brush with FBI shapes her view of the USA Patriot Act
By Joan Airoldi

It was a moment that librarians had been dreading.

On June 8, 2004, an FBI agent stopped at the Deming branch of the Whatcom County Library System in northwest Washington and requested a list of the people who had borrowed a biography of Osama bin Laden. We said no.

We did not take this step lightly. First, our attorney called the local FBI office and asked why the information was important. She was told that one of our patrons had sent the FBI the book after discovering these words written in the margin: "If the things I'm doing is considered a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal. Hostility toward America is a religious duty and we hope to be rewarded by God."

We told the FBI that it would have to follow legal channels before our board of trustees would address releasing the names of the borrowers. We also informed the FBI that, through a Google search, our attorney had discovered that the words in the margin were almost identical to a statement by bin Laden in a 1998 interview.

Undeterred, the FBI served a subpoena on the library a week later demanding a list of everyone who had borrowed the book since November 2001.

Our trustees faced a difficult decision. It is our job to protect the right of people to obtain the books and other materials they need to form and express ideas. If the government can easily obtain records of the books that our patrons are borrowing, they will not feel free to request the books they want. Who would check out a biography of bin Laden knowing that this might attract the attention of the FBI?

It is for this reason that libraries across the country have taken a strong stand against government intrusion. In the 1980s, it was revealed that the FBI had engaged in a secret "library awareness" program to track the books borrowed by patrons who had emigrated from communist countries. Determined to prevent such activities in the future, librarians helped pass laws in 48 states that bar the surrender of customer information except in compliance with a subpoena.

For our trustees, this sense of responsibility to protect libraries as institutions where people are free to explore any idea ran up against their desire to help their government fight terrorism. But they were resolute and voted unanimously to go to court to quash the FBI subpoena. Fifteen days later, the FBI withdrew its request.

But there is a shadow over our happy ending. Our experience taught us how easily the FBI could have discovered the names of the borrowers, how readily this could happen in any library in the USA. It also drove home for us the dangers that the USA Patriot Act poses to reader privacy.

Since the passage of the Patriot Act in October 2001, the FBI has the power to go to a secret court to request library and bookstore records considered relevant to a national security investigation. It does not have to show that the people whose records are sought are suspected of any crime or explain why they are being investigated. In addition, librarians and booksellers are forbidden to reveal that they have received an order to surrender customer data.

Our government has always possessed the power to obtain library records, but that power has been subject to safeguards. The Patriot Act eliminated those safeguards and made it impossible for people to ask a judge to rule whether the government needs the information it is after. In the current debate over extending or amending the Patriot Act, one of the key questions is whether a library or any other institution can seek an independent review of an order. Even the attorney general conceded in a recent oversight hearing that this is a problem with the law as written.

Fortunately for our patrons, we were able to mount a successful challenge to what seems to have been a fishing expedition. If it had returned with an order from a secret court under the Patriot Act, the FBI might now know which residents in our part of Washington State had simply tried to learn more about bin Laden.

With a Patriot Act order in hand, I would have been forbidden to disclose even the fact that I had received it and would not have been able to tell this story.

Joan Airoldi, a librarian, is director of the library district in Whatcom County, Wash.

Posted: 22 May 2005

From Working Assets.

Tell Congress to Keep Partisan Pressure off PBS

A recent New York Times expose brought to light efforts by Kenneth Tomlinson, the new head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and a good friend of Karl Rove, to tilt PBS programming to the far right. Tomlinson has even told CPB and PBS officials that "they should make sure their programming better reflected the Republican mandate."

Click here to take action!

Despite increased attention to the conservative attack on public broadcasting, the CPB has now cut funding for Bill Moyers' popular NOW program in order to hire conservative pundits from the Wall Street Journal. And what's more, the CPB is now taking on NPR by investigating the radio network's award-winning Middle East coverage in search of "bias."

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- the governing body that sets policy for public television and radio - was created to shield public broadcasting from political pressure. Click here to defend PBS from Karl Rove's ideological attack and tell your representatives in Congress to defend public broadcasting from partisan pressure.

From Grist on-line magazine

House blocks attempt to lift ban on coastal drilling; more to come

An attempt to weaken the U.S. moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling -- established by Congress in 1982 and renewed every year since -- was blocked yesterday in the House by a 262-157 vote. However, drilling opponents view it as just the first and easiest battle in what is likely to be an extended war. An upcoming bipartisan Senate measure may be more difficult to thwart: It would offer individual states potentially billions of dollars in oil and gas leasing revenues as incentive to lift the ban. "It's an effort to pick off one state at a time," said Mark Ferrulo of the Florida Public Interest Research Group. The push to get at the oil and gas along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and the Gulf of Mexico is driven in part by economics -- cash-strapped states are desperate for new sources of revenue -- and in part by the trendy but bogus argument that increasing domestic oil and gas production would lower gas prices and make America independent of foreign oil.

straight to the source: Los Angeles Times, Richard Simon, 20 May 2005

straight to the source: Planet Ark, Reuters, Tom Doggett, 20 May 2005

Space is getting awfully dirty

Litter encircles our planet, in the form of thousands -- or even millions -- of bits of space debris: abandoned satellites and rockets, chunks blown apart by collisions, radioactive fuel, and that one blue sock you lost. "It's sort of a classic environmental problem, not unlike air pollution or water pollution," says NASA's Nicholas L. Johnson. "If you wait until you start seeing negative consequences, then the environment is pretty far gone already, and cleaning it up can be very, very difficult." Indeed, despite amusing talk about using giant Nerf-style balls and litter-zapping lasers to tidy up space, "we do not yet have the technology to economically make any substantial improvements," says Johnson. Some objects reenter orbit and are vaporized by heat; the occasional object makes it to the earth's surface, like a 551-pound propellant tank that landed in Texas in 1997. But mostly, the stuff just accumulates, periodically bashing into working satellites or space stations.

straight to the source: The Baltimore Sun, Frank D. Roylance, 20 May 2005

From Grist on-line magazine

Navy Judge Finds War Protest Reasonable
By Marjorie Cohn
t r u t h o u t | Report

Friday 13 May 2005

"I think that the government has successfully proved that any service member has reasonable cause to believe that the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal."
-- Lt. Cmdr. Robert Klant, presiding at Pablo Paredes' court-martial

In a stunning blow to the Bush administration, a Navy judge gave Petty Officer 3rd Class Pablo Paredes no jail time for refusing orders to board the amphibious assault ship Bonhomme Richard before it left San Diego with 3,000 sailors and Marines bound for the Persian Gulf on December 6th. Lt. Cmdr. Robert Klant found Pablo guilty of missing his ship's movement by design, but dismissed the charge of unauthorized absence. Although Pablo faced one year in the brig, the judge sentenced him to two months' restriction and three months of hard labor, and reduced his rank to seaman recruit.

"This is a huge victory," said Jeremy Warren, Pablo's lawyer. "A sailor can show up on a Navy base, refuse in good conscience to board a ship bound for Iraq, and receive no time in jail," Warren added. Although Pablo is delighted he will not to go jail, he still regrets that he was convicted of a crime. He told the judge at sentencing: "I am guilty of believing this war is illegal. I am guilty of believing war in all forms is immoral and useless, and I am guilty of believing that as a service member I have a duty to refuse to participate in this War because it is illegal."

READ THE REST.

Here's a shout-out for my friend, Micah. Please support his battle against propaganda.

We're writing to let you know that our second book is finally available. If You're Not a Terrorist... Then Stop Asking Questions! is the hilarious follow-up to our hit debut, You Back The Attack! We'll Bomb Who We Want!

The book creates a stellar send-up of the Administration's War at Home, combining full-color World War-era propaganda posters with Bush-era critical political commentary to deliver a scabrous take on the State of our Union. Taking aim at corporate corruption, the Bush White House, Orwellian legislation, embedded reporters, the 2004 presidential elections and super-patriotism, this is a must for art collectors and rabble-rousers both!

Available in larger format than the previous book, on better paper, and also available in hardcover, If You're Not a Terrorist... is available now for $17.99 in paperback and $23.99 in deluxe hardcover.

At the moment, the only ways to get the book is directly from the publisher, Xlibris (a division of Random House), or to order it from your nearest bookstore (tell them to check the Books In Print computer).

http://www.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.asp?bookid=26203
Paperback ISBN#: 1-4134-9276-2
Hardback ISBN#: 1-4134-6637-0

If you enjoyed the first book, or even just surfing the Propaganda Remix Project, we're hoping you'll help support our work by ordering the second book.

Thanks!
The Propaganda Remix Project

From The Center for American Progress

RELIGION – FACULTY AND STUDENTS AT CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY WRITE LETTERS TO OPPOSE BUSH'S VISIT: On Saturday, President Bush is scheduled to deliver the commencement address at the religious Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The college's self-described purpose is to "engage in vigorous liberal arts education that promotes lifelong Christian service." In advance of his visit, one-third of the faculty members have signed a letter of protest that will appear in a half-page ad in the Grand Rapids Press on Saturday. "As Christians, we are called to be peacemakers and to initiate war only as a last resort," the letter says. "We believe your administration has launched an unjust and unjustified war in Iraq." More than 800 students, faculty and alumni also have signed a letter protesting Bush's visit that will appear Friday as a full-page ad in the Grand Rapids paper, saying, "In our view, the policies and actions of your administration, both domestically and internationally over the past four years, violate many deeply held principles of Calvin College."

BUDGET – BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT ON IMPENDING FISCAL DOOM: "There were no cameras, not a single microphone, and no evidence of a lawmaker or Bush administration official in the room," the Washington Post reports. "But what the three spoke about will have greater consequences than the current fuss over filibusters and Tom DeLay's travel." On Tuesday, the top budget experts from the right-wing Heritage Foundation and the left-leaning Brookings Institution sat down with Comptroller General David M. Walker to raise a red alert about impending "deficits of the scale we've never seen in this country or any major in industrialized country [sic]." With "startling unanimity" and "interchangeable" fiscal forecasts, the experts warned that, without titanic shifts in tax and spending levels, the United States "will fall victim to the huge debt and soaring interest rates that collapsed Argentina's economy and caused riots in its streets a few years ago."

ENVIRO – YOUR ICED TEA SHOULD'T BE THAT BROWN: "It doesn't take a medical degree to know that drinking poop is bad for us," writes Jeffrey Griffiths, a member of the EPA's National Drinking Water Advisory Council, in the Boston Globe. That hasn't stopped the Bush administration from proposing a new policy that "would allow sewage treatment plants to discharge inadequately treated human waste into lakes, rivers, streams, and coastal waters," which ends up in our tap water. Sure, pathogens from human waste can harm people in even small doses – particularly children, the elderly, and people with compromised immune systems. But the administration thinks that by weakening sewage restrictions, it can save a few bucks and "further defer or avoid maintenance, or improvements, to their sewer and rainfall collection systems." There's no way we're drinking to that.

PATRIOT ACT – SENATE INTEL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN SEEKS TO EXPAND THE POWERS TO INVADE PRIVACY: Ignoring the concerns of 383 communities in 43 states that have passed resolutions to scale back the Patriot Act, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is "working on a bill that would renew the Patriot Act and expand government powers in the name of fighting terrorism, letting the FBI subpoena records without permission from a judge or grand jury." So when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said last month that he was "open to suggestions for clarifying and strengthening the Act," that must have meant he was open to ideas to give the Bush administration even more power than it previously had to invade the privacy of U.S. citizens.

TORTURE – ARMY REPORT SHOWS EXTENSIVE ABUSE: A 2,000-page confidential file on the Army's criminal investigation into two detainee deaths in Afghanistan has presented a "narrative counterpart to the digital images from Abu Ghraib," the New York Times reports (see their moving interactive feature on the report here). The file "depicts young, poorly trained soldiers in repeated incidents of abuse," often "driven by little more than boredom or cruelty, or both." Detainees are regularly shackled or tied from the ceilings by their wrists and beaten "with virtual impunity." Frequently, harsher methods are used – the report describes how one detainee is forced to "pick plastic bottle caps out of a drum mixed with excrement and water as part of a strategy to soften him up for questioning." And accountability is rare. Though the leaked report suggests "there was probable cause to charge 27 officers and enlisted personnel with criminal offenses," only seven have been charged.

VETERANS – UNDERSTAFFED VA SELLS DISABLED VETERANS SHORT: "Staffing shortages and an outdated system for assessing claims are among the reasons for wide differences in disability payments for veterans," writes the AP. A report by the Department of Veterans Affairs found that 65 percent of claim assessors who were surveyed said they did not have enough staff to "ensure timely and quality service."

DELAY – MORE ACCOUNTING GIMMICKS FROM TOM DELAY: As if Tom DeLay weren't in enough trouble already, "[a]n interim federal audit of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's principal fund-raising committee has found that the group engaged in some inappropriate accounting of receipts and expenditures, prompting it to revise all campaign reports for 2001 and 2002." DeLay's aides refused to disclose what they did wrong in its filings to prompt the revisions, and judging from ARMPAC's previous record, there's probably a good reason why. "The committee's revised filings, published Wednesday by the FEC, omitted $15,523 in contributions it had previously listed and included $51,755 in expenditures it did not previously report.… For the first time, the revised filings also listed as short-term debts some items listed as expenditures."

IRAN – WHITE HOUSE RELYING ON ABUSIVE 'CULT' FOR INTEL: "A controversial exile movement cited by President George W. Bush as a source of information on Iran's nuclear ambitions is condemned for psychologically and physically abusing its own members in a new report by Human Rights Watch," Newsweek reports. The exile group, known as Mujahedine Khalq (MEK), has "a history of cultlike practices" that include forced involvement in "extended self-criticism sessions," violent abuse, and months-long assignments in solitary confinement. That hasn't stopped the White House or several members of Congress from relying on the group for advice and intelligence. On March 16, Bush even claimed that Iran's hidden nuclear program had been discovered not thanks to international inspections but "because a dissident group [MEK] pointed it out to the world."

DAILY GRILL
"Senator Byrd's inappropriate remarks comparing his Republican colleagues with Nazis are inexcusable. These comments lessen the credibility of the senator and the decorum of the Senate. He should retract his statement and ask for pardon."
– Sen. Rick Santorum, 3/3/05

VERSUS

"I mean, imagine, the rule has been in place for 214 years that this is the way we confirm judges. Broken by the other side two years ago, and the audacity of some members to stand up and say, how dare you break this rule. It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942. 'I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city. It's mine.'"
– Sen. Rick Santorum, 5/20/05

Posted: 12 May 2005

A thought-provoking entry from Bruce Schneier's blog:

May. 12th, 2005 09:49 am Should Terrorism be Reported in the News?

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/05/should_terroris_1.html

In the New York Times, columnist John Tierney argues that the media is performing a public disservice by writing about all the suicide bombings in Iraq. This only serves to scare people, he claims, and serves the terrorists' ends.

Some liberal bloggers have jumped on this op-ed as furthering the administration's attempts to hide the horrors of the Iraqi war from the American people, but I think the argument is more subtle than that. Before you can figure out why Tierney is wrong, you need to understand that he has a point.

Terrorism is a crime against the mind. The real target of a terrorist is morale, and press coverage helps him achieve his goal. I wrote in Beyond Fear (pages 242-3):

Morale is the most significant terrorist target. By refusing to be scared, by refusing to overreact, and by refusing to publicize terrorist attacks endlessly in the media, we limit the effectiveness of terrorist attacks. Through the long spate of IRA bombings in England and Northern Ireland in the 1970s and 1980s, the press understood that the terrorists wanted the British government to overreact, and praised their restraint. The U.S. press demonstrated no such understanding in the months after 9/11 and made it easier for the U.S. government to overreact.

Consider this thought experiment. If the press did not report the 9/11 attacks, if most people in the U.S. didn't know about them, then the attacks wouldn't have been such a defining moment in our national politics. If we lived 100 years ago, and people only read newspaper articles and saw still photographs of the attacks, then people wouldn't have had such an emotional reaction. If we lived 200 years ago and all we had to go on was the written word and oral accounts, the emotional reaction would be even less. Modern news coverage amplifies the terrorists' actions by endlessly replaying them, with real video and sound, burning them into the psyche of every viewer.

Just as the media's attention to 9/11 scared people into accepting government overreactions like the PATRIOT Act, the media's attention to the suicide bombings in Iraq are convincing people that Iraq is more dangerous than it is.

Tiernan writes:

I'm not advocating official censorship, but there's no reason the news media can't reconsider their own fondness for covering suicide bombings. A little restraint would give the public a more realistic view of the world's dangers.

Just as New Yorkers came to be guided by crime statistics instead of the mayhem on the evening news, people might begin to believe the statistics showing that their odds of being killed by a terrorist are minuscule in Iraq or anywhere else.

I pretty much said the same thing, albeit more generally, in Beyond Fear (page 29):

Modern mass media, specifically movies and TV news, has degraded our sense of natural risk. We learn about risks, or we think we are learning, not by directly experiencing the world around us and by seeing what happens to others, but increasingly by getting our view of things through the distorted lens of the media. Our experience is distilled for us, and it’s a skewed sample that plays havoc with our perceptions. Kids try stunts they’ve seen performed by professional stuntmen on TV, never recognizing the precautions the pros take. The five o’clock news doesn’t truly reflect the world we live in -- only a very few small and special parts of it.

Slices of life with immediate visual impact get magnified; those with no visual component, or that can’t be immediately and viscerally comprehended, get downplayed. Rarities and anomalies, like terrorism, are endlessly discussed and debated, while common risks like heart disease, lung cancer, diabetes, and suicide are minimized.

The global reach of today’s news further exacerbates this problem. If a child is kidnapped in Salt Lake City during the summer, mothers all over the country suddenly worry about the risk to their children. If there are a few shark attacks in Florida -- and a graphic movie -- suddenly every swimmer is worried. (More people are killed every year by pigs than by sharks, which shows you how good we are at evaluating risk.)

One of the things I routinely tell people is that if it's in the news, don't worry about it. By definition, "news" means that it hardly ever happens. If a risk is in the news, then it's probably not worth worrying about. When something is no longer reported -- automobile deaths, domestic violence -- when it's so common that it's not news, then you should start worrying.

Tierney is arguing his position as someone who thinks that the Bush administration is doing a good job fighting terrorism, and that the media's reporting of suicide bombings in Iraq are sapping Americans' will to fight. I am looking at the same issue from the other side, as someone who thinks the media's reporting of terrorist attacks and threats has increased public support for the Bush administration's draconian counterterrorism laws and dangerous and damaging foreign and domestic policies. If the media didn't report all of the administrations's alerts and warnings and arrests, we would have a much more sensible counterterrorism policy in America and we would all be much safer.

So why is the argument wrong? It's wrong because the danger of not reporting terrorist attacks is greater than the risk of continuing to report them. Freedom of the press is a security measure. The only tool we have to keep government honest is public disclosure. Once we start hiding pieces of reality from the public -- either through legal censorship or self-imposed "restraint" -- we end up with a government that acts based on secrets. We end up with some sort of system that decides what the public should or should not know.

Here's one example. Last year I argued that the constant stream of terrorist alerts were a mechanism to keep Americans scared. This week, the media reported that the Bush administration repeatedly raised the terror threat level on flimsy evidence, against the recommendation of former DHS secretary Tom Ridge. If the media follows this story, we will learn -- too late for the 2004 election, but not too late for the future -- more about the Bush administration's terrorist propaganda machine.

Freedom of the press -- the unfettered publishing of all the bad news -- isn't without dangers. But anything else is even more dangerous. That's why Tierney is wrong.

And honestly, if anyone thinks they can get an accurate picture of anyplace on the planet by reading news reports, they're sadly mistaken.

From The Center for American Progress

HEALTH CARE – THE DOCTOR WILL PREACH TO YOU NOW: Last December, the Food and Drug Administration made the extraordinarily rare decision to disregard the expert advice of its advisory panel and reject over-the-counter sale of Plan B, an emergency contraceptive. Key members of the advisory committee accused the agency of a "political" decision that "ignored scientific evidence and yielded to pressure from social conservatives." Meet Dr. W. David Hager, a "highly controversial figure" who preaches that "Christians such as himself were at 'war' with people who would take faith and values out of medical care." A videotape of a "previously unreported public sermon" delivered by Hager shows the "outspoken evangelical doctor on the panel [acknowledging] … that he was asked to write a memo to the FDA commission soon after the panel voted 23 to 4 in favor of [Plan B]." Furthermore, the "minority report" memo is believed to have "played a central role in the rejection of that recommendation." In fact, the same flawed reasoning – a dearth of information on how the availability of Plan B would affect young girls – that Hager cited in the memo exactly matches the reasoning the FDA cited for its rejection of over-the-counter sales of Plan B. Hager has been inconsistent as to whether the request to write the memo came from "outside the agency" or "an FDA staff member."

HEALTH CARE – WHEN PHARMACISTS DENY CARE: The issue of pharmacists endangering patients' health and denying their rights by refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control and emergency contraceptives has gained nationwide attention. Now, the state of Wisconsin is "investigating a claim by a Milwaukee mother of six who said she had to resort to an abortion after a former Walgreen pharmacist refused to fill her prescription for emergency contraceptive, and then berated her as a murderer." Walgreen's policy "allows pharmacists to refuse to fill a prescription for moral reasons … but it prohibits them from discussing their reasons with the customer and requires them to notify a manager, who will make arrangements for the prescription to be filled elsewhere." The attorney for the woman, who for now is going by the name Jane Doe, stated, "The pharmacist crossed the line. It's one thing to conscientiously object. But you cannot intend to inflict emotional harm on a woman when she is making a very important and often very emotional decision in her life."

TAXES
Podesta Advises Bush on Reform

Yesterday, Bush's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform had a public meeting to hear suggestions about how to improve the system. Reform is badly needed after the last four years; President Bush's tax schemes have made the system more complex, shifted more of the burden to the middle class and exploded the federal deficit. Among the presenters yesterday was American Progress President John Podesta, who presented our comprehensive plan for progressive tax reform. (Hey, Byron York, are you paying attention?) Podesta explained that, including payroll taxes, a cook at a high-school cafeteria making $25,000 a year effectively pays 30 percent of his or her income in federal taxes. A two-earner family making $85,000 a year effectively pays 40 percent in taxes. Meanwhile, a millionaire pays just 15 percent on his or her investment income. The American Progress plan is fiscally responsible reform that simplifies the system, restores fairness and increases economic opportunity.

FAIRNESS – TAX ALL INCOME THE SAME: Under the Bush administration's tax policies, middle-class Americans are shouldering more of the burden. The American Progress plan corrects that by simplifying the rate structure and taxing each source of income at the same rate – whether it is dividends from investments or wages.

SIMPLICITY – REDUCE THE NUMBER OF TAX BRACKETS: President Bush has added over 10,000 pages to the federal tax code. The American Progress plan would make the system far simpler. The number of tax brackets would be reduced from six to just three – 15 percent (for income up to $25K), 25 percent (for income between $25K and $120K) and 39.6 percent (for income over 120K). The plan would also eliminate the need for the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) – a special rate initially created to ensure that the very rich pay some taxes. Without reform, the AMT would impact 36 million Americans by 2010.

INTEGRITY – CLOSE LOOPHOLES: The American Progress plan would close loopholes in the corporate income tax code, including the "Bermuda" loophole that allows U.S. firms to avoid paying taxes by moving their operations overseas.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY – REDUCE THE DEFICIT: The federal government is on pace to rack up another $1.4 trillion in debt over the next ten years. The American Progress plan is fiscally responsible, reducing the revenue shortfall by $478 billion compared to the administration's budget. At the same time, the American Progress plan would include a tax cut for the 70 percent of Americans who earn up to $200,000, providing an average cut of over $600.

OPPORTUNITY – INCENTIVES FOR ALL AMERICANS TO SAVE: The American Progress plan would create new opportunities for tens of millions of Americans to save and create wealth. The current deduction system is upside-down – providing a greater incentive to save if you have a higher income (and pay a higher marginal tax rate). The plan would create a new across-the-board 25 percent refundable tax credit for retirement savings. This would provide the same incentives for every American – whether an investment banker or a secretary – to save, including the 33 million Americans who don't earn enough to have income tax liability.

Posted: 11 May 2005

If a high school student can do it...

Cortez sophmore builds model hydrogen car

By Kelsey Warner
Cortez Journal, Colorado

CORTEZ - While Micah Hinton aspires to be a heavy metal drummer, his real talent may be for engineering.

The sophomore at Southwest Open School in Cortez demonstrated this recently when he built a model car powered by hydrogen and placed it on display in a gallery at the school.

Hinton first suggested the idea while studying renewable energy in a class combining science and math taught by Colin Biard.

The notion baffled the teacher. "I never knew they existed," Biard said.

Hinton's car - about the size of a football - runs on distilled water. A solar panel provides energy to begin the reaction that splits hydrogen from water. The car is so efficient it can even motor and create hydrogen at the same time.

"When it's running, it's making water," Biard said. "When it's stopping, it's turning it back into hydrogen."

As a result, the fuel source is never depleted, and the car never needs a fill-up.

"It lasts forever," said Hinton, 15. "It will run off pure hydrogen."

Of course, he said, a life-sized version could look a bit different.

"On a commercial level, you're actually combusting hydrogen," Hinton said, so a solar panel would not be necessary.

During the six-week project, Hinton learned basic electrolysis and a little physics.

"It's interesting to me that you can use water as fuel," he said.

His teacher offered an additional review.

"This is an amazing gizmo," Biard said. "Micah had a lot of fun doing it."

I still stronly suspect that the Ohio presidential vote was rigged.

Black Box Voting Update: New Consumer Reports (May 4-10, 2005)

(You have permission to publish this in whole or in part, as long as you link back to http://www.blackboxvoting.org. Please distribute to your lists. All Black Box Voting reports use ORIGINAL research, backed up with credible documents and/or videotape.)

1. SOMETHING’S COOKING IN COOK COUNTY -- $45 million deal for new voting machines flying under the radar in Cook County (Chicago) ­ Black Box Voting has learned that a decision is expected this month for a joint RFP issued a year ago by Cook County and the Chicago Board of Elections. One of the leading contenders for the contract is Diebold Election Systems. The imminence of this contract award stunned even die-hard voting activists in the Chicago area, who are mobilizing now … more: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/5559.html

2. MONEY TRAIL REPORT #1 -- Large payments from Diebold are fueling influence-peddling in Ohio and Cook County/Chicago. Black Box Voting has learned that the payments are going through a small corporation called ACG Group LLC, formed by two Democrats and a Republican. The Republican, Pasquale Gallina, was once business partners with two convicted felons, and has been involved in a number of ethics controversies. One of the Democrats, former Ohio Secretary of State Anthony Celebrezze, passed away shortly after forming ACG Group. The other Democrat is a prominent Hispanic voting rights leader, Dr. Juan Andrade, Jr., founder of the U.S. Hispanic Leadership Institute. Andrade admitted to Black Box Voting in a videotaped interview that he has been taking payments from Diebold, but said he wasn’t sure if it should be characterized as "lobbying."

Andrade acknowledged that Diebold is making payments directly to him and also that monies are flowing from Diebold through the ACG Group. According to Andrade, these payments are then paid out to others. When asked what the payments to others are buying, Black Box Voting was told that the Diebold funds pay "subcontractors." When asked what the subcontractors do, Andrade said that they do "largely public persuasion." However, nothing about this appears to be very public, and the amounts paid to Andrade, uncovered by Black Box Voting through documents obtained from a source inside Diebold, amount to an unusually high amount, at $20,000 per month. More: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/5595.html

MONEY TRAIL REPORT SERIES: Watch www.blackboxvoting.org for new money trail reports throughout the month of May. Upcoming stories: OHIO players ... Hired Guns and Revolvers … Anatomy of a Bribe …

3. BIG MEETING BREWING IN SACRAMENTO MAY 19: Activists are urged to come to Sacramento to request statewide decertification of Diebold. At a meeting at the Secretary of State Building at 10:00 a.m. May 19, Diebold Election Systems will attempt to certify a number of new products. Black Box Voting will present evidence of new violations of California law, and is urging a moratorium on new spending and decertification of Diebold in the state of California. More: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/5557.html

4. DISABILITY COMPLIANCE TRIGGERS NEW REMOTE ACCESS RISKS: Black Box Voting has been conducting tests for remote access through telephone lines, in real elections offices, with permission of local officials, using the actual software used in the Nov. 2002 general election. Black Box Voting has identified a problem with security which occurs if a single Diebold touch-screen is added to optical-scan (paper based) locations. The remote access configuration used with the touch-screen can act as the single "bad apple" enabling easier access into the rest of the voting system. More: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/5512.html

5. LOS ANGELES VOTING SYSTEM OWNED BY MALAYSIAN GAMBLING COMPANY: Black Box Voting has been looking into the situation in Los Angeles, where an unusual voting system is used, the InkaVote. That system is owned by International Lottery and Totalizator Systems (ILTS). A politically-connected Malaysian gambling outfit owns ILTS. According to SEC filings, Berjaya Lottery Management -- a gaming subsidiary of Berjaya Group Berhad with ties to former prime minister Mahathid, located in Malaysia -- owns 71% of the voting stock in ILTS, the company that makes InkaVote. More: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/4624.html

* * * *

NEW INFORMATION POSTED SEVERAL TIMES A DAY at http://www.blackboxvoting.org ­ Comprehensive updates from mainstream news sources, new documents in the archive, video clips from investigations, new consumer reports

From Grist on-line magazine

Court rules that Cheney may keep task-force deliberations secret

In a major political and legal victory for the Bush administration, a federal appeals court has ruled that Vice President Dick Cheney is not obliged to release records on his secretive 2001 energy task-force meetings, effectively ending the long-running legal challenge brought by the Sierra Club and open-government advocate Judicial Watch. The court originally ruled that Cheney had to cough up the documents, but the administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which sent the case back to the appeals court with the stern suggestion that it reconsider. It did. The ruling relates to the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act, which says government committees must seek advice in the open. Breaking with past rulings, the court narrowly defined what constitutes committee membership (having a vote or a veto) and essentially accepted at face value the word of senior administration officials that energy executives were not committee members thus defined. Said Judicial Watch's Tom Fitton, "Today's decision means that now the public may never know the truth about how these policies were formulated."

straight to the source: Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage, 11 May 2005

USDA pays freelance writer to tout Farm Bill's green cred

In an effort to manufacture some green credibility, an Agriculture Department agency hired a freelance "journalist" to produce five articles on the conservation benefits of its Farm Bill programs. Paid at least $7,500 for his work, freelancer Dave Smith was instructed to push his stories to hunting and fishing magazines. The contract between Smith and the Natural Resources Conservation Service -- a government agency that works with landowners on issues related to wildlife habitat, water conservation, and soil erosion -- was uncovered by The Washington Post via a Freedom of Information Act request. It's just the latest deal to come to light whereby the Bush administration has paid so-called journalists to tout its policies in the press. Smith, dude, Armstrong Williams cleared $241K! Looks like you got punk'd.

straight to the source: The Washington Post, Christopher Lee, 11 May 2005

From OrganicConsumers.org

USDA COVER-UP OF MAD COW CASES
The USDA has refused to respond to allegations that it has been covering up cases of Mad Cow disease in the U.S. for well over a decade. Lester Friedlander, a former USDA veterinarian, says he was told by USDA officials as far back as 1991 that if his testing laboratory ever found evidence of Mad Cow disease, he was to tell no one. He and other scientists say they know of cases where cows tested positive for the disease in laboratories but were ruled negative by the USDA. Mad cow is a concern to public health because humans can contract a fatal brain illness known as variant Creutzfeldt Jakob disease from eating beef products contaminated with the mad cow pathogen. TAKE ACTION! Sign the Mad Cow petition: http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow.htm

From FAIR

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2511

MEDIA ADVISORY:
Smoking Gun Memo?
Iraq Bombshell Goes Mostly Unreported in US Media

May 10, 2005

Journalists typically condemn attempts to force their colleagues to disclose anonymous sources, saying that subpoenaing reporters will discourage efforts to expose government wrongdoing. But such warnings seem like mere self-congratulation when clear evidence of wrongdoing emerges, with no anonymous sources required-- and major news outlets virtually ignore it.

A leaked document that appeared in a British newspaper offered clear new evidence that U.S. intelligence was shaped to support the drive for war. Though the information rocked British Prime Minister Tony Blair's re-election campaign when it was revealed, it has received little attention in the U.S. press.

The document, first revealed by the London Times (5/1/05), was the minutes of a July 23, 2002 meeting in Blair's office with the prime minister's close advisors. The meeting was held to discuss Bush administration policy on Iraq, and the likelihood that Britain would support a U.S. invasion of Iraq. "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided," the minutes state.

The minutes also recount a visit to Washington by Richard Dearlove, the head of the British intelligence service MI6: "There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

That last sentence is striking, to say the least, suggesting that the policy of invading Iraq was determining what the Bush administration was presenting as "facts" derived from intelligence. But it has provoked little media follow-up in the United States. The most widely circulated story in the mainstream press came from the Knight Ridder wire service (5/6/05), which quoted an anonymous U.S. official saying the memo was ''an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during Dearlove's meetings in Washington.

Few other outlets have pursued the leaked memo's key charge that the "facts were being fixed around the policy." The New York Times (5/2/05) offered a passing mention, and the Charleston (W.V.) Gazette (5/5/05) wrote an editorial about the memo and the Iraq War. A columnist for the Cox News Service (5/8/05) also mentioned the memo, as did Molly Ivins (WorkingForChange.com, 5/10/05). Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler (5/8/05) noted that Post readers had complained about the lack of reporting on the memo, but offered no explanation for why the paper virtually ignored the story.

In a brief segment on hot topics in the blogosphere (5/6/05), CNN correspondent Jackie Schechner reported that the memo was receiving attention on various websites, where bloggers were "wondering why it's not getting more coverage in the U.S. media." But acknowledging the lack of coverage hasn't prompted much CNN coverage; the network mentioned the memo in two earlier stories regarding its impact on Blair's political campaign (5/1/05, 5/2/05), and on May 7, a short CNN item reported that 90 Congressional Democrats sent a letter to the White House about the memo-- but neglected to mention the possible manipulation of intelligence that was mentioned in the memo and the Democrats' letter.

Salon columnist Joe Conason posed this question about the story:

"Are Americans so jaded about the deceptions perpetrated by our own government to lead us into war in Iraq that we are no longer interested in fresh and damning evidence of those lies? Or are the editors and producers who oversee the American news industry simply too timid to report that proof on the evening broadcasts and front pages?"

As far as the media are concerned, the answer to Conason's second question would seem to be yes. A May 8 New York Times news article asserted that "critics who accused the Bush administration of improperly using political influence to shape intelligence assessments have, for the most part, failed to make the charge stick." It's hard for charges to stick when major media are determined to ignore the evidence behind them.

From The Center for American Progress

ETHICS – ABRAMOFF GETS WHAT HE PAYS FOR WITH DELAY: Shady lobbyist Jack Abramoff represented the Northern Mariana Islands in the 1990s to aid them in their quest to avoid U.S. labor laws. To this end, Abramoff flew dozens of lawmakers and their aides for luxurious vacations to the balmy islands, including one 1997-98 New Year's trip for DeLay and his wife. It was on this trip that DeLay called Abramoff "one of my closest and dearest friends." That friendship had its perks: The National Journal now reports that, in 1998, DeLay helped kill a "congressional fact-finding trip that was being planned as part of an investigation of sweatshop conditions in the garment industry in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands." Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) was leading a fact-finding investigation into worker abuse in the islands' garment industry when DeLay's office threatened the lawmaker with loss of his subcommittee chairmanship if he continued the investigation. A former aide recalls, "We were under very strict orders not to deal with the Marianas … Hoekstra made it very clear that he was told to lay off the Marianas." Another former aide charged Hoekstra returned to his office one day in mid-1998 after a meeting in the majority whip's office, the congressman was "pissed off," complaining to some of his staff, "They shut us down."

RELIGION – EXCOMMUNCATION IN NORTH CAROLINA: East Waynesville Baptist Church may never be the same again after the church's pastor effectively tried to excommunicate members of the congregation over their political beliefs. According to several corroborated accounts, Reverend Chan Chandler instructed the congregation that "if they voted for John Kerry or were Democrats, they were against the church. They had a choice to 'repent' their sin or leave." Now these church members are being asked to return, but the damage has already been done: "Things will never be the same here until he leaves. This all started over politics and our right to vote for whoever we wanted to." Of the ousted members who chose to return to services, some felt it necessary to even bring their attorneys along. Through his own lawyer, Reverend Chandler asserts that, "No one has ever been voted from the membership of this church due to an individual's support or lack of support for a political party or candidate." However, Chandler is a controversial figure in the community "who has received strong criticism from local clergy."

DAILY OUTRAGE
If Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) has his way, Americans are going to lose access to free weather data that was collected with their own tax dollars. Why? Private, for-pay weather providers based in his state are tired of the competition, so Santorum has introduced a bill to "severely limit the public and law enforcement's access to the National Weather Service."

IRAQ – ADD $82 BILLION TO THE TAB, AND KEEP IT OPEN: The bill for the war in Iraq continues to skyrocket. Yesterday, "the Senate gave final passage … to an $82 billion emergency war-spending bill, sending President Bush a measure that will push the cost of the Iraq invasion well past $200 billion." According to Army officials, "more money will be needed as early as October." According to the Congressional Research Service by 2010, costs for the war "are likely to exceed half a trillion dollars." The bill includes "$1.28 billion to construct and operate a U.S. embassy in Baghdad." To put that in perspective, it's about as much as the Freedom Tower that will be built on ground zero, which will be the tallest building in the world.

MEDIA – MORE 'JOURNALISTS' ON ADMINISTRATION PAYROLL: Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher were just the beginning. Documents obtained by USA Today reveal the Agriculture Department paid freelance writer Dave Smith $9,375 in 2003 to "write articles for hunting and fishing magazines describing the benefits of NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) programs." None of the articles "identified Smith as having been paid by the government."

ENVIRO – PENTAGON LAUNCHES ATTACK ON NATURE: The Pentagon is on its fourth try at getting Congress to "loosen major environmental laws to allow military training exercises around the country to proceed unimpeded." Pentagon officials are claiming that the changes are "essential to preserve the quality of training and to avoid lawsuits over possible violations of [environmental] statutes." In congressional testimony from last year, however, a senior Pentagon official was unable to provide any "examples of complaints involving existing environmental laws." Furthermore, the Defense Department is already "widely regarded as one of the nation's leading polluters, producing vast amounts of chemicals from ordnance that leach into groundwater, as well as air pollution from military vehicles. The Environmental Protection Agency lists more than 130 Superfund sites on military bases." A spokesperson with the Natural Resources Defense Council noted that, "Congress would never consider letting the nation's biggest corporate polluter off the hook. Why, then, would Congress grant immunity to America's, and the world's, largest polluter?"

Posted: 7 May 2005

One about censorship.

Row After Columnist's Article On Stolen 2004 Election
Mainstream Journo Penning Election Reform Column Has Article Rejected for First Time in Career
5-7-5

What began innocently enough with a watershed article several weeks ago by Tribune Media Service's Robert Koehler on the need for Election Reform and an investigation into the results of Election 2004, has now erupted into a full-fledged firestorm resulting Wednesday afternoon in the unprecedented rejection of Koehler's latest column by the higher-ups at TMS where Koehler is both a columnist and editor!

Tribune Media Services is the syndication arm of the Tribune Company which, in turn, is the parent company to the Chicago Tribune.

Koehler's original ground-breaking column from April -- the first by an American Mainstream Media journalist that we know of to out-and-out charge that the 2004 Election was stolen -- was written a few days after Koehler attended the National Election Reform Conference last month in Nashville. The piece was headlined "The Silent Scream of Numbers: The 2004 election was stolen - will someone please tell the media?"

He followed it up the next week with another stunner headlined "Democracy's Abu Ghraib - If they can disable an election, what's coming next?"

While both pieces were distributed via TMS to syndicate member newspapers, only a handful chose to run either of those two columns.

Most notably, however, despite Chicago Tribune itself having chosen to run neither column, their "Public Editor", Don Wycliffe, found it appropriate to write a column in the Trib's pages wherein he rebutted Koehler's original piece. Wycliff's rebuttal, as reported here previously, attempted to discredit Koehler's column, Koehler himself, and those of us who might give a damn about democracy and the responsibility that the people (and yes, that would include the media) have to remain vigilant in order to sustain it.

Wycliff's column, citing the "moral example" of Richard Nixon (yes, not kidding) as the figure whom American's ought to follow in regards to potentially stolen elections, has erupted in a torrent of email directed towards the misguided and/or misinformed Wycliff and in support of Koehler.

Koehler once again hits a home-run with this week's column in response to Wycliff's. Or at least he would have had the Masters of Tribune Media Services not killed the article for the first time in Koehler's career!...

Here's the spiked column, received from Koehler via email, not yet posted on his website, Common Wonders

For release 5/5/05

CITIZENS IN THE RAIN

By Robert C. Koehler
Tribune Media Services

"Where there is a free press the governors must live in constant awe of the opinions of the governed." - Lord Macaulay (one of many stirring quotes on the sacred role of the Fourth Estate adorning the lobby of the Chicago Tribune)

My fantasy of the mainstream media actually doing their job, and living up to the words they carve in marble to describe their own importance, is an 80-point (Terri Schiavo- or even Pope John Paul II-sized) headline running across the top of tomorrow's paper: ELECTION RESULTS IN DOUBT.

That would stop a few hearts. But the nation's major newspapers, even as they struggle with declining readership, have no intention of being quite that relevant to their readers - no intention, it appears, even to begin the process of looking into the hornets' nest of vote fraud allegations abuzz in meticulously researched reports on electronic voting (see uscountvotes.org) or the voluminous Conyers Report on what happened in Ohio on Nov. 2 (see truthout.org/Conyersreport.pdf).

Isn't our democracy at stake? Doesn't that matter?

"If John Kerry and the Ohio Democratic Party and all the other folks who had the most to gain from the election were making this challenge, I would get interested. But when the people with the most at stake don't step up, I'm suspicious."

So Don Wycliff, the Chicago Tribune's public editor, wrote to me in an e-mail exchange a few days ago, explaining why he, if not the Tribune itself, had no intention of investigating the issue with any seriousness.

It followed a strange breach in the Tribune's deathly silence on the irregularities of the 2000 and 2004 elections, which came about after readers began bombarding the Tribune with mail suggesting they run a column I had written, "The Silent Scream of Numbers," addressing these irregularities and reporting on a national election-reform conference in Nashville last month.

My column didn't run, but Wycliff wrote a column, "When Winning Isn't Everything," dismissing their concerns and telling them to ponder the moral leadership of Richard Nixon, who patriotically swallowed his close defeat in 1960 without complaint. In others words, shut up and get over it.

Wycliff was speaking only for himself, not "the media," but because his column was one of the few pieces to appear in a major publication even acknowledging that a huge number of Americans are distraught at mounting evidence of large-scale disenfranchisement in 2004 (and no guarantee that 2006 and 2008 will be any different), his words, by default, have special resonance. They stand in for the prejudices of the media as a whole.

Of all my objections to what he wrote, his contention that Kerry has the most at stake in all this is the most dispiriting, and most reflects the wrongheaded, "horse race" coverage of elections the media have shoved down our throats for as long as I can remember.

In his column, Wycliff even used a sports analogy, pointing out that "it's not the pregame prognostication and expert opinions that count, but the numbers on the scoreboard after the contest has actually been played." The Bush team won; the Kerry team lost. And the voters must be the equivalent of sports fans then, either jubilant or disappointed when the game is over, but couch potatoes either way, not participants.

Anyone else just a little bit offended? As one of the hundred or so readers who responded to the column (and cc'd me) put it, "Winning isn't everything, but fair elections are everything."

Nearly a week after Wycliff's column ran, the Tribune has printed only one letter in response to it - and this letter was about Nixon. It didn't have a word to say about the 2004 election. So much for my naïve optimism that an actual debate would ensue on the pages of the Trib.

Once again I quote exit-poll analyst Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."

The stakes are getting higher and higher. Could it be we can't have election reform without media reform? The "respectable press" refuses to confer the least legitimacy on the citizens who are questioning this election and demanding accountability in the voting process.

How do we make them care? How do we make them look for themselves? How do we make them stand outside with us in the rain, waiting to cast our ballot for democracy?

Robert Koehler, an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist, is an editor at Tribune Media Services and nationally syndicated writer. You can respond to this column at bkoehler@tribune.com or visit his Web site at commonwonders.com.

Here's a large amount of information on how dangerous MSG is in creating obesity and food addiction. As with the tobacco industry hiding the truth about nicotine, the food additive industry has spent decades hiding the truth about MSG.

By John Erb
5-2-5

I wondered if there could be an actual chemical causing the massive obesity epidemic, so did a friend of mine, John Erb. He was a research assistant at the University of Waterloo, and spent years working for the government.

He made an amazing discovery while going through scientific journals for a book he was writing called The Slow Poisoning of America. In hundreds of studies around the world, scientists were creating obese mice and rats to use in diet or diabetes test studies.

No strain of rat or mice is naturally obese, so the scientists have to create them. They make these morbidly obese creatures by injecting them with MSG when they are first born. The MSG triples the amount of insulin the pancreas creates, causing rats (and humans?) to become obese; they even have a title for the race of fat rodents they create: "MSG-Treated Rats."

I was shocked too. I went to my kitchen, checking the cupboards and the fridge. MSG was in everything! The Campbell's soups, the Hostess Doritos, the Lays flavored potato chips, Top Ramen, Betty Crocker Hamburger Helper, Heinz canned gravy, Swanson frozen prepared meals, Kraft salad dressings, especially the 'healthy low fat' ones. The items that didn't have MSG had something called Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein, which is just another name for Monosodium Glutamate. It was shocking to see just how many of the foods we feed our children everyday are filled with this stuff. They hide MSG under many different names in order to fool those who catch on.

But it didn't stop there. When our family went out to eat, we started asking at the restaurants what menu items had MSG. Many employees, even the managers, swore they didn't use MSG. But when we ask for the ingredient list which they grudgingly provided, sure enough MSG and Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein were everywhere. Burger King, McDonalds, Wendy's, Taco Bell, every restaurant, even the sit down ones like TGIF, Chilis', Applebees and Denny's use MSG in abundance. Kentucky Fried Chicken seemed to be the WORST offender: MSG was in every chicken dish, salad dressing and gravy. No wonder I loved to eat that coating on the skin, their secret spice was MSG!

So why is MSG in so may of the foods we eat? Is it a preservative or a vitamin? Not according to my friend John. In the book he wrote, an expose of the food additive industry called The Slow Poisoning of America,

http://www.spofamerica.com/

he said that MSG is added to food for the addictive effect it has on the human body. Even the propaganda website sponsored by the food manufacturers lobby group supporting MSG at:

http://www.msgfacts.com/facts/msgfact12.html

explains that the reason they add it to food is to make people eat more.

A study of elderly people showed that people eat more of the foods that it is added to. The Glutamate Association lobby group says eating more benefits the elderly, but what does it do to the rest of us?

'Betcha can't eat just one', takes on a whole new meaning where MSG is concerned! And we wonder why the nation is overweight?

The MSG manufacturers themselves admit that it addicts people to their products. It makes people choose their product over others, and makes people eat more of it than they would if MSG wasn't added. Not only is MSG scientifically proven to cause obesity, it is an addictive substance!

Since its introduction into the American food supply fifty years ago, MSG has been added in larger and larger doses to the prepackaged meals, soups, snacks and fast foods we are tempted to eat everyday.

The FDA has set no limits on how much of it can be added to food. They claim it's safe to eat in any amount. How can they claim it is safe when there are hundreds of scientific studies with titles like these?

= = = = =

The monosodium glutamate (MSG) obese rat as a model for the study of exercise in obesity. Gobatto CA, Mello MA, Souza CT, Ribeiro IA. Res Commun Mol Pathol Pharmacol. 2002

= = = = =

Adrenalectomy abolishes the food-induced hypothalamic serotonin release in both normal and monosodium glutamate-obese rats. Guimaraes RB, Telles MM, Coelho VB, Mori RC, Nascimento CM, Ribeiro Brain Res Bull. August 2002

= = = = =

Obesity induced by neonatal monosodium glutamate treatment in spontaneously hypertensive rats: an animal model of multiple risk factors. Yamamoto M, Iino K, Ichikawa K, Shinohara N, Yoshinari Fujishima Hypertens Res. March 1998

= = = = =

Hypothalamic lesion induced by injection of monosodium glutamate in suckling period and subsequent development of obesity. Tanaka K, Shimada M, Nakao K, Kusunoki Exp Neurol. October 1978

= = = = =

Yes, that last study was not a typo, it WAS written in 1978.

Both the medical research community and food "manufacturers" have known MSG's side effects for decades!

Many more studies mentioned in John Erb's book link MSG to Diabetes, Migraines and headaches, Autism, ADHD and even Alzheimer's.But what can we do to stop the food manufactures from dumping fattening and addictive MSG into our food supply and causing the obesity epidemic we now see?

Even as you read this, George W. Bush and his corporate supporters are pushing a Bill through Congress, and it's called the:

"Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act" also known as the "Cheeseburger Bill". This sweeping law bans anyone from suing food manufacturers, sellers and distributors. Even if it comes out that they purposely added an addictive chemical to their foods.

Read about it for yourself at: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/8458081 .htm

Last month the House of Representatives passed the "Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act" to protect the food and beverage industry from civil lawsuits. Under the measure, known as the "Cheeseburger Bill,"people who buy food or drinks couldn't sue the companies that made them, the stores that sold them or the restaurants that served them if they got fat from the products, so long as the products met existing laws. The Senate is expected to take up a similar bill later this year."

The Bill has already been rushed through the House of Representatives, and is due for the same rubber stamp at Senate level. It is important that Bush and his corporate supporters get it through before the media lets everyone know about MSG, the intentional Nicotine for food.

Several months ago, John Erb took his book and his concerns to one of the highest government health officials in Canada. While sitting in the Government office, the official told him "Sure I know how bad MSG is, I wouldn't touch the stuff!" But this top-level government official refused to tell the public what he knew.

The big media doesn't want to tell the public either, fearing legal issues with their advertisers. It seems that the fallout on the fast food industry may hurt their profit margin.

So what do we do?

The food producers and restaurants have been addicting us to their products for years, and now we are paying the price for it.

Our children should not be cursed with obesity caused by an addictive food additive.

But what can I do about it?

I'm just one voice, what can I do to stop the poisoning of our children, while guys like Bush are insuring financial protection for the industry that is poisoning us.

I for one am doing something about it. I am sending this email out to everyone I know in an attempt to show you the truth that the corporate owned politicians and media won't tell you.

The best way you can help save yourself and your children from this drug-induced epidemic, is to forward this email to everyone.

With any luck, it will circle the globe before governments can pass the Bill protecting those who poisoned us.

The food industry learned a lot from the tobacco industry.

Imagine if big tobacco had a bill like this in place before someone blew the whistle on Nicotine? Blow the whistle on MSG.

If you are one of the few who can still believe that MSG is good for us, and you don't believe what John Erb has to say, see for yourself. Go to the National Library of Medicine, at http://www.pubmed.com

Type in the words "MSG Obese", and read a few of the articles for yourself.

We do not want to be rats in one giant experiment, and we do not approve of food that makes us into a nation of obese, lethargic, addicted sheep, waiting for the slaughter.

Put an end to this, and stop the Slow Poisoning of America. Let's save our children.

John Erb

From Grist on-line magazine

Bush administration replaces Clinton roadless rule with more roadful one

The Bush administration yesterday gave the heave-ho to the sweeping Clinton administration roadless rule, which put some 58.5 million acres of national forests off-limits to development. In its place, a new rule will put 34.3 million acres of that land back into play, at the discretion of governors, who will have 18 months to petition the feds either to open national-forest land in their states to development or keep it protected. Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey claimed that "the way [the Clinton rule] was done developed a substantial amount of ill will." As more than 90 percent of the public comments on the Clinton rule were positive, while more than 95 percent (nearly 1.8 million) on the Bush rule were negative, said "ill will" likely came primarily from the oil, gas, logging, mining, and road-building industries. Said a spokesflack for the Independent Petroleum Association of America, "We have to find ways and work with local communities to evaluate these lands and see if they are best for oil and gas activities, recreation, whatever." Whatever, please.

straight to the source: Los Angeles Times, Bettina Boxall, 06 May 2005

From The Center for American Progress

HEALTH – FDA SET TO BAN GAY MEN AS SPERM DONORS: Touting the new rules as aimed at preventing the spread of AIDS, Food and Drug Administration officials are set to "implement new rules recommending that any man who has engaged in homosexual sex in the previous five years be barred from serving as an anonymous sperm donor." The FDA's decision comes from a conviction that "gay men collectively pose a higher-than-average risk of carrying the AIDS virus" whereas critics of the decision point out that the agency ought to "[adopt] a screening process that focuses on high-risk sexual behavior by any would-be donor, gay or straight." In the words of Leland Traiman, who opposes the rule change, "Under these rules, a heterosexual man who had unprotected sex with HIV-positive prostitutes would be OK as a donor one year later, but a gay man in a monogamous, safe-sex relationship is not OK unless he's been celibate for five years." In fact, it is more the "symbolic aspect" of the rules change that troubles gay-rights groups; adequate safety assurances are available to address concerns of HIV transmission by any donor, irregardless of sexual orientation.

HOMELAND SECURITY
Sneak Attack

Lawmakers yesterday forced what was originally known as the Real ID bill through the House of Representatives; it's scheduled to pass the Senate next week. Didn't hear much debate over this sweeping bill before it passed? That's because there wasn't any. This version of the Real ID Act never received a hearing in either chamber of Congress. In a particularly odious trick, it was tacked on to the $82 billion supplemental appropriations bill which was designed to fund U.S. troops in Iraq. That bill must pass; thus the Real ID Act gets a free ride without any serious or conscientious discussion. The New York Times sharply criticizes the maneuver, saying, "Attaching a bad bill to a vital one is a sneaking business, making it nearly impossible for thoughtful members of Congress to vote against it." The legislation does little to keep Americans safe; nothing in the bill involves major reform to immigration policies. Instead it's a poorly conceived, hasty piece of legislation which targets asylum seekers, puts a huge burden on states to clean up a federal mess and grants overreaching powers to the Department of Homeland Security.

SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF: Thanks to the Real ID Act, it will become more difficult for people persecuted for their religious beliefs to receive asylum in the United States. The legislation shifts the burden of proof of persecution onto the shoulders of applicants. For example, it requires documented evidence of torture, something "people on the run rarely have." (As the ACLU put it, that's like asking "asylum seekers to prove what amounts to … a note from their persecutor.") As a result, many refugees tortured, raped and brutalized on the basis of their race, national origin or political opinions would be turned away.

NOT SAFER: Proponents of the bill, namely Rep. James Sensenbrenner(R-WI) claim the clampdown on asylum seekers is necessary "to prevent another 9/11-type attack by disrupting terrorist travel." Not so fast; current law already bars anyone who poses a security risk from being granted asylum.

YOU THOUGHT THE DMV WAS FUN BEFORE: Don't like the long lines at your local Department of Motor Vehicles? Well, bring something to read because, thanks to Real ID, the lines at DMV are about to get a whole lot longer. Under the new legislation, everyone applying for a drivers' license will be required to show birth certificates, a photo ID, proof of their Social Security number and various other documents to prove name and address. Then, in a new logistical nightmare, DMV employees must verify each document by whichever agency issued it. ("How, precisely," writes the Rocky Mountain News, "is a motor-vehicle clerk in Denver supposed to verify a Chinese or Iraqi birth certificate?") The Washington Post sums up the problem, saying, "This will turn motor vehicle departments across the country into de facto enforcers of immigration law, add a huge bureaucratic burden and force many states to set up dual systems – in effect making states pay for federal policy failure." And it's not cheap. According to Cheye Calvo of the National Conference of State Legislators, it will cost states between $500 and $700 million to meet these new demands.

NOT SAFER: Jeff Lungren, spokesman for the House Judiciary Committee, said Real ID was "aimed at preventing another 9/11-type of attack by targeting terrorist travel." As proof, he charged 18 of the 9/11 hijackers used state-issued IDs and drivers' licenses to board the plane. Actually, all of the 9/11 hijackers had viable passports and visas (some gained using fraudulent documents) which allowed them to get licenses.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, ABOVE THE LAW: Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff is on the brink of becoming the most powerful man in the country. This new bill gives him the authority to bypass Congress and the courts to waive any law – federal, state or local – that he wants while he's building a fence along U.S. borders. And there's no recourse; the legislation "shields the waiver decisions from court scrutiny" and also "strips courts of any power to order remedies for anyone harmed by the consequences of such decisions." This means child labor laws, civil rights laws and minimum wage requirements are all at risk. (For example, Chertoff could "give no-bid contracts for border construction to private companies and then shield those contractors from all employment discrimination and workplace safety laws.") It also exempts the DHS from all environmental laws, putting thousands of acres of national parks, forests and wildlife refuges at risk of serious damage.

NOT SAFER: Few believe the fence will do much to limit the number of undocumented immigrants into the United States. Border security does need to be strengthened. However, it would make more sense to fully fund and enforce existing border security measures instead of sneaking half-measures through Congress with no debate. Border patrols are still underfunded and undermanned. Terror watch lists still aren't reliable and the consolidated terror list the DHS was supposed to finish by last December still doesn't exist. And last year, border agents admitted that due to a lack of resources, "they've been forced to release most illegal immigrants back onto American streets within hours of catching them — even some who are criminals or from countries known to produce terrorists."

Posted: 5 May 2005

An enlightening video from True Majority.

Nuclear weapons, a mind boggling issue?

Doesn’t need to be. Check out this quick loading 90-second movie we made to explain what’s going on and what’s at stake. http://www.truemajorityaction.org/bensbbs

From Grist on-line magazine

Ancient empires crushed by changing climate -- not that you should worry

Elizabeth Kolbert continues her exploration of climate change in the second of a three-part series in The New Yorker. She begins with a look at the world's first great empire, founded 4,300 years ago on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Around 25 years ago, archeologist Harvey Weiss uncovered one of that empire's great cities and -- through careful analysis of the layers of sedimentation -- discovered that, around 2200 B.C., all signs of life (even earthworms!) abruptly vanished. His theory, controversial at the time, was that "climate change," namely a vicious drought, had wiped the city out. Paleoclimatologist Peter deMenocal verified Weiss' theory by studying sediment cores from a nearby sea. Since then, the theory that cultures rise or fall based on the contingencies of climate has been applied to the disappearance of a number of civilizations around the world. Meanwhile, NASA scientists say present-day climate change is accelerating. Care to connect the dots?

straight to the source: The New Yorker, Elizabeth Kolbert, 02 May 2005

see also, in Grist: Don't Do as the Romans Do -- Jared Diamond's Collapse traces the fates of societies to their treatment of the environment

U.K.-based weekly Economist exhaustively analyzes global oil situation

Market-lovin' U.K. weekly The Economist has a cover package on oil this week. The major topic, of course, is the recent spike in oil prices. The grumpy Economist editors are bothered by what they consider some pervasive myths. First, "energy independence" is a chimera as long as we're burning oil; oil is fungible and price hikes hit all consumers equally. Second, while China is growing quickly, it still represents a small sliver of global oil demand and likely will for the foreseeable future. Third, the major private oil companies, despite their current health, will be in trouble in the long term, because the big remaining oil reserves are in the hands of state-owned oil firms, mostly in the Middle East. Fourth, they argue, the world is not running out of oil -- new technologies will enable increasingly efficient extraction for a long time to come. However, the mag advises policy makers and oil firms to move quickly to alternate energy sources, to cushion against oil shocks.

straight to the source: The Economist, 28 Apr 2005

From FAIR

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2508

ACTION ALERT:
CPB Exerting Political Pressure on Public Television
Chair cites dubious evidence of public television's "liberal bias"

May 5, 2005

A front-page New York Times story (5/2/05) added to mounting evidence that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) under chair Kenneth Tomlinson is pressuring public television officials to produce more conservative programming, and to rein in shows it perceives as liberal.

"The Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is aggressively pressing public television to correct what he and other conservatives consider liberal bias," reported the Times, adding that CPB pressure has prompted "some public broadcasting leaders-- including the chief executive of PBS-- to object that his actions pose a threat to editorial independence." An unnamed senior FCC official used even starker terms, telling the Washington Post (4/22/05) that the CPB under Tomlinson "is engaged in a systematic effort not just to sanitize the truth, but to impose a right-wing agenda on PBS. It's almost like a right-wing coup. It appears to be orchestrated."

As a private, non-profit institution, the CPB is tasked by Congress to distribute funds to public broadcasters with a view toward balance. Although it was intended to shield public broadcasting from political influence, the CPB has long since become a mechanism for transmitting Congress' ideological desires to public broadcasters.

Tomlinson says the CPB is only trying to rectify liberal bias in public television-- a dubious role for an official tasked with shielding public broadcasters from prevailing political winds. But Tomlinson has presented little evidence of any pervasive left-wing bias in public broadcasting; in fact, his only specific criticisms seem to be aimed at the program Now, which was, until recently, hosted by Bill Moyers.

Tomlinson was instrumental in the development and funding of the Journal Editorial Report, a program that features the Wall Street Journal's hard-right editorial board and was supposed to be a "balance" to Now (although unlike the Editorial Report, Now frequently had guests whose views differed from those of the show's producers). The CPB's ideological influence has grown as it has become increasingly staffed by White House-friendly board members and officials. In addition to Tomlinson, major Republican Party donors Cheryl Halpern and Gay Hart Gaines were added to the board in 2003. Earlier this year Ken Ferree, a former aide to FCC chair Michael Powell, was made both chief operating officer and interim president of the CPB.

If Tomlinson and his CPB colleagues are doling out public broadcasting funds based on the premise that PBS's left-wing slant must be corrected, then they should first be required to show the public that such a bias exists. Contrary to those familiar charges, a 1999 FAIR study found that the news and public affairs programming available on PBS affiliates displayed an elite, pro-business slant. The FAIR survey examined the regular public affairs programming-- news, talk/interview, business and documentary-- during a two-week period in late 1998. The findings indicated that PBS shows often mirrored the narrow range of debate available in the mainstream media:

-- Government officials (50 percent), professionals (31 percent -- overwhelmingly journalists) and corporate /Wall Street representatives (11 percent) dominated the debate over domestic politics, leaving little room for consumer advocates or public interest voices.

--Only 22 percent of the sources were women;

--On economic stories, corporate/Wall Street sources dominated (75 percent), with labor unions rarely being heard (1.5 percent of sources). Not a single representative of organized labor appeared in discussions of corporate mergers or of layoffs.

If the CPB is truly interested in "balance" on PBS, they might want to investigate why so many affiliates regularly air business and investment programs (Nightly Business Report, CEO Exchange, Wall Street Week With Fortune), some of which are distributed by PBS, but have no shows devoted to labor or consumer rights. They might ask why PBS stations have long featured talkshows hosted by conservatives (McLaughlin Group, Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg, Tony Brown's Journal) but none hosted by progressives. (The Tavis Smiley Show, arguably the closest thing to a progressive talkshow on public TV, mostly interviews actors, musicians and other cultural figures.)

PBS has also demonstrated a curious double-standard when it comes to policing conflicts of interest. In 1993, PBS distributed The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power, a documentary series funded by PaineWebber, a company with significant oil interests; almost every expert featured was a defender of the oil industry. PBS carried Living Against the Odds, a 1991 special on "risk assessment" funded by the oil company Chevron that asserted, "We have to stop pointing the finger at industry for every environmental hazard." In 2002, PBS distributed Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy, a look at globalization funded by global corporate entities like BP, FedEx and Enron.

Yet PBS has rejected documentaries dealing with labor issues-- even historical features dealing with 19th century labor struggles-- because they received funding from labor unions. Defending Our Lives, a film about domestic violence, was rejected in 1993 because one of its producers was the leader of a battered women's support group. In 1997, Out at Work, a film about workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians, was rejected because it was partially funded by unions and a lesbian group.

The whole point of public broadcasting is to be an alternative to commercial media outlets-- in part by creating a platform for dissenting, marginalized and controversial views that for-profit networks won't air. To try and apply Republican appointees' notions of "balance" to every PBS or NPR program, as the CPB has suggested, would almost certainly stifle those voices.

The CPB has recently appointed two ombudsmen to, as NPR reported (4/28/05), "review the journalism that airs on PBS and NPR member stations, along with programs from other public broadcasters such as Pacifica Radio and Minnesota Public Radio."

Given the current partisan make-up of the CPB, this arrangement could serve as a cover to de-fund programming that Republican members of the CPB find objectionable, and to promote and enhance funding for shows that serve and promote conservative interests.

ACTION:
Let the CPB know that it is the left and not the right that has been traditionally excluded from public broadcasting. Remind them that public broadcasting is supposed to serve as a platform for dissenting and controversial views-- not simply another forum for conservative and corporate voices.

CONTACT:
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Phone Numbers:
202-879-9600
800-272-2190

mailto:comments@cpb.org

From buzzflash.com

And on the Eighth Day, Man Destroyed the Earth

Confronting Conservative Apathy to Environmental Destruction
by Dr. Teresa Whitehurst

"Poet Maya Angelou poignantly noted,"When somebody tells me,"I’m a Christian", I always say,"Already? All these years, and I’m still trying!" Though joking, she was making an important point: If we are serious about following Jesus’ teachings, we must never assume that we are"done" or have reached the point in life wherein we can stop holding ourselves accountable…" Jesus on Parenting: 10 Essential Principles That Will Transform Your Family

Why do so many conservatives yawn, laugh derisively or change the subject at the first mention of Earth Day? How can they be so apathetic to the same earth that their preachers praise as"God’s creation"? Why don’t all Christians hold the Bush administration accountable for decisions that threaten our water, our air, and life itself? Having listened to countless conservative sermons on the subject, and to evangelicals and fundamentalists (not necessarily the same people), I’ve discovered that their denials of scientific evidence regarding environmental destruction aren’t really believed at a deep level. Instead, this"reactive thinking" has been learned from others.

Reactive thinking is a rehearsed mental security system of sorts, composed of unexamined assumptions and learned replies that defend the individual from complex, unpleasant or frightening realities. Reactive thinking accounts for most of the trouble that environmentalists are running up against, now that the pollution-friendly Bush administration is in control. This applies especially to the conservative Christian Bush supporters who should, being Christian, care that human beings are ruining the world that they believe God created in seven days.

READ THE REST.

From The Center for American Progress

ETHICS – CORRUPTION ALLEGATIONS ROIL CONGRESS: Scandal-plagued super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff's web of influence is growing. Abramoff reportedly "paid at least a portion of the expenses for two members of Congress" – Reps. James Clyburn (D-SC) and Bennie Thompson (D-MS) – and two staff members to then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX) "during a pair of trips in the mid-1990s to the Northern Mariana Islands," the Washington Post reports. And they're not the only ones on the lobbyist dole. The Hill also reports that five congressmen traveled to Ireland in 2003 for a four-day international trade seminar, and a lobbying firm picked up the $25,000 bill. Reps. Martin Meehan (D-MA) and Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) yesterday unveiled "a sweeping proposal to tighten lobbying restrictions and reporting requirements," which the Boston Globe notes will "be a tough sell" in the conservative-controlled Congress.

ENVIRO – THE LESS YOU KNOW: One of the many odious elements of the energy bill passed by the House of Representatives last month "would exempt many federal energy projects from the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act." The result? If the bill makes its way through the Senate and is made law, "oil-and-gas projects will no longer be analyzed for their environmental effects or be open to public comment," USA Today reports. The change is being "welcomed by the energy industry, which has long complained about meeting federal regulations while seeking to increase production of gas and oil." And Rep. John Peterson (R-PA), "who wrote the part of the energy bill allowing the exemptions, says the looser environmental requirement would spur energy production without harming the environment." Except reality shows otherwise – in one case noted by USA Today, the law spurred major changes in an energy project planned at the historic, endangered Nine Mile Canyon.

PROPAGANDA – FAUX NEWS BANNED, FOR NOW: Score one for Orwell. One of the Bush administration's favorite public manipulation tools – prepackaged, government-produced video segments disguised as "news reports" – is now officially off-limits. "Congressional negotiators have agreed to bar government agencies for one year from issuing video news releases that do not clearly identify themselves as the source," Reuters reports. The measure, sponsored by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), was included in the emergency supplemental spending bill now being negotiated in Congress. Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and John Kerry (D-MA) have introduced a bill – the Truth in Broadcasting Act – that would make this rule change permanent.

DEMOCRACY – DISENFRANCHISING KUWAITI WOMEN: Conservative legislators in Kuwait's Parliament "created a constitutional roadblock that effectively killed a measure that would have allowed women to participate in city council elections for the first time." Later in the day, they announced that the elections would be held on June 2, which ensures that "women will [not] be able to take part in elections for another four years, when city council seats are again up for grabs." Though the city council of Kuwait "holds little political significance, winning the right for women to run for office there was seen as a first step in gaining the right to run for Parliament." These latest setbacks undermine the promises of the prime minister, who had vowed "to push through full political rights for women during the current parliamentary term [and also] said he would appoint a female cabinet minister once women get suffrage." The voting limits set by the Kuwaiti Constitution make the voting population only 15 percent of the total population.

GENOCIDE – DARFUR ACCOUNTABILITY ACT STRIPPED FROM BILL: Last month, both the House and Senate unanimously passed amendments to the war-time supplemental bill that called on the Bush administration to ratchet up its diplomatic efforts to help end the crisis in Darfur. Yet today, on Holocaust Remembrance Day, the House is expected to pass the supplemental bill, and surprise, surprise, those Darfur provisions won't be included. What happened? After pressure from the White House (including a letter from administration officials to House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis), the Darfur Accountability provisions were stripped from the bill. Thankfully, it's not all bad news. The conference report does include $50 million to strengthen and expand the African Union mission in Darfur, along with increases in disaster aid for Sudan and other crises. (For more, see this excellent new Darfur overview by Bradford Plumer in Mother Jones magazine, or the Human Rights Watch presentation, "Darfur Drawn: The Conflict Through Children's Eyes.")

Posted: 2 May 2005

AP. Several research projects in South Dakota and neighboring states are looking to hydrogen as a fuel source that could reduce air pollution, global warming and dependence on foreign oil.

Hydrogen is seen as an ideal alternative to fossil fuels since it doesn't release carbon dioxide, a leading cause of global warming. But because there is no abundant natural source of pure hydrogen, it must come from other sources.

And that's where the Midwest comes in with its supplies of ethanol, wind energy and even cow manure, officials say. "We hope this region can be an absolute leader in the production of hydrogen," Rolf Nordstrom of the Minneapolis-based Upper Midwest Hydrogen Initiative said in a speech last month to an energy conference in Sioux Falls. Midwest researchers are working on several ideas.

At South Dakota State University in Brookings, scientists want to build a manure digester that would turn the resulting gas into a renewable source of hydrogen. Plans are on hold because of a shift in federal funding. But Kevin Kephart, director of the South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station, said researchers are ready to build once the money is there. The University of North Dakota and the University of Minnesota are trying to make hydrogen from wind power, with a working fuel station near Minot, ND. Other UND and University of Minnesota researchers want to turn ethanol into hydrogen inside a car's engine, eliminating the need to store compressed hydrogen gas. Engineer Brad Stevens of UND's Energy and Environmental Research Center in Grand Forks, N.D., said his project could be generating hydrogen from nearby wind turbines by the end of the year.

Transmitting the electricity to a fueling station near Minot will help show the process can work even though wind turbines and fueling stations won't always be near each other, he said. A project at the West Central Research and Outreach Center in Morris, Minn., also plans to make wind into hydrogen.

But researcher Mike Reese says the hydrogen will be used to generate electricity when the wind isn't blowing, potentially making wind power more reliable. At the University of Minnesota's Twin Cities campus and at UND, scientists are working on ethanol-based hydrogen. Ethanol is among the best options for on-board hydrogen production because it's easily stored and it turns into hydrogen more easily than natural gas, said Ted Aulich of UND. The initiative has set a goal of 11 refueling stations, allowing hydrogen vehicles to travel from Madison, Wis., to Sioux Falls to Manitoba. Nordstrom said hydrogen could mean a lot for states such as South Dakota.

From The Center for American Progress

SOCIAL SECURITY – AMERICANS NOT SECURE WITH BUSH PLAN: President Bush, who has put Social Security at the top of his second-term agenda and held a press conference last week to unveil the details of his plan, got "his worst rating so far on the issue" – 35 percent approval, 58 percent disapproval – in a USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday. The idea Bush endorsed last week of "progressive indexing" – which includes a sharp cut in benefits for middle-class Americans – was opposed by 54 - 38 percent. If they had to choose, 53 percent of Americans would rather pay higher taxes to deal with Social Security shortfalls, while just 38 percent would choose lower benefits. President Bush has vowed not to raise taxes to save the pension system.

ENVIRO – ENERGY BILL COMPENSATES BIG OIL: AP reports, "a provision in a House-passed energy bill would require federal compensation to private companies for costs associated with oil and gas leases that can't be developed." Specifically, the provision states that "if a permit denial or some other government action prevents a lease from being explored or developed," taxpayers will be responsible for forking over billions to the oil companies to "compensate" them. This comes at a time when oil industry executives are awash in so much cash from soaring gas prices that they literally don't know "how to spend the windfall."

IRAQ – FREE PRESS UNDER ATTACK: More than 150 new newspapers and several local TV and radio stations sprang up immediately after the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq – "one of the biggest success stories of the U.S.-led invasion." In recent months, however, Knight Ridder reports Iraqi police have "begun cracking down on local journalists, creating a wave of fear reminiscent of Saddam's era." Reporters Without Borders, an international watchdog group for press freedom, "tracked the arrests of five Iraqi journalists within a two-week period and issued a statement on April 26 asking authorities 'to be more discerning and restrained and not carry out hasty and arbitrary arrests.'" The cases include a photographer for a Baghdad newspaper who says Iraqi police beat and detained him for snapping pictures of long lines at gas stations, a reporter for another local paper who received death threats from police recruits and a local TV reporter who says she's lost count of how many times Iraqi authorities have confiscated her cameras and smashed her tapes.

IRAQ
'Significant Risk'

In his press conference last week, President Bush was asked if the toll the war in Iraq was taking on the U.S. military would make it difficult to respond to any new global threats. Bush answered: "The person to ask that to, the person I ask that to, at least, is to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, my top military advisor. I say, do you feel that we've limited our capacity to deal with other problems because of our troop levels in Iraq? And the answer is, no, he doesn't feel we're limited. He feels like we've got plenty of capacity." Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard B. Myers, in fact, was asked that question yesterday in his analysis of the Pentagon's ability to deal with new enemies. His response was quite different from the president's. Myers acknowledged the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had strained the capability of U.S. forces and stressed the military "to a point where it is at higher risk of less swiftly and easily defeating potential foes."

ONGOING CHALLENGE: Last week, Myers admitted the insurgency in Iraq was attacking 50 or 60 times a day in Iraq, back up to violence levels similar to a year ago. (The New York Times describes the new bloodshed as "a surge in insurgent mayhem.") Since last Thursday, when Iraqi lawmakers approved their new Cabinet, about 150 Iraqis and U.S. soldiers have been killed. The unrelenting carnage is taking its toll on U.S. support for President Bush's management of the conflict. According to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, only 42 percent of Americans approve of how President Bush is handling the war in Iraq. Fifty-six percent disapprove.

ARMOR SHORTAGE: Myers's report also said that while the United States still could win any new wars, there would be higher casualties and more strain on equipment. Equipment shortages have deadly consequences for troops. A quarter of all American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan – 400 lives – were in unarmored vehicles. Last month, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office reported, "bureaucratic delays within the Army had delayed release of funds" to purchase armor for vehicles. The New York Times last week profiled the experiences of marines from Company E, a unit which lost more than one-third of its 185 troops during a six-month stint in Ramadi, Iraq, last year due in large part to "a lack of armor but also by a shortage of men and planning that further hampered their efforts in battle, destroyed morale and ruined the careers of some of their fiercest warriors."

RECRUITMENT SHORTAGE: The Army is already showing signs of strain, announcing yesterday that it missed its recruiting goals for the third straight month. Recruiters "nationwide obtained less than 60 percent of the April goal of 6,600 new recruits into the active-duty force." Today the Army is 10 percent below its year-to-date target. The Marines also report missing their recruiting goals for the fourth month in a row, bringing them 2 percent shy of their year-to-date target. The Army Reserve has also missed its recruiting targets for the past four months.

QUALITY SHORTAGE: Recruiting for an increasingly unpopular war is a difficult task. According to the New York Times, the ongoing strain on the military has led to a new problem: Army recruiters who are pressured to break the rules. Some recruiters have been busted for squelching mental health and police records. There have been cases of falsified documents, cheat sheets "slipped to applicants before the military's aptitude test." In one case, Army recruiters helped a high school student purchase chemicals to cleanse traces of pot and mushrooms from his system so he could fake out the drug test. Nearly one in five of all recruiters has been caught committing "recruitment improprieties" in 2004; some Army officials say that number is even higher, as for every transgression that is found "at least two more are never discovered." One recruiter said that "one in every three people he had enlisted had a problem that needed concealing, or a waiver." A reason the problem is so widespread: many of the rule breakers are never disciplined. Last year, only three out of every 10 recruiters caught cheating were relieved of duty. Playing fast and loose with qualification rules has serious consequences for the American military, however; many recruiters admit doubts about the quality of some of the soldiers who are destined for the front lines of battle.

WHAT TO DO: In its new report "For Soldier and Country: Saving the All-Volunteer Army," the Center for American Progress outlines what needs to be done to shore up the country's troop levels. First, the Pentagon should add at least 86,000 soldiers to the Army, to "allow the army to add two peacekeeping and stabilization divisions to the force, double the size of the Special Forces, and add more military police, civil affairs personnel, and engineers to the active component." Second, it's crucial to amend backdoor draft policies by "reducing the military service obligation to four years of active service and modifying stop loss so that no solider is extended more than once." Third, the White House must improve pay and benefits for troops and for their families. And finally, it's time to repeal the unworkable "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which is counterproductive to vital military readiness.

DAILY OUTRAGE
Last year, ABC refused to air a commercial by the progressive United Church of Christ promoting its inclusive policy towards gays and racial minorities. Yet the same network chose to air an advertisement last night by James Dobson's Focus on the Family. Apparently tolerance is "too controversial" for ABC, but Dobson – who recently compared Supreme Court justices to KKK members – is a-okay.

DAILY GRILL
"I don't think the rationale for the war hinged on the existence of stockpiles."
Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, The New Yorker, 5/9/05

VERSUS

"I'd like to spend a moment, if I can, stressing in particular the crucial task of eliminating weapons of mass destruction. We have begun detailed planning for this task, which includes securing, assessing and dismantling Iraq's WMD capabilities, its facilities and stockpiles. This will be a huge undertaking."
Feith, Senate Testimony, 2/11/03

Posted: 1 May 2005

Joyous Beltane May Day to you. Let's start with a nice dissident voice.

More Madness at the Bush News Conference
by Mike Whitney

Thursday night’s press conference gave us a solid example of how elite interests dominate the news cycle.

Consider this. At the same time Bush was braying about fixing the Social Security system, the violence in Iraq was reaching a crescendo (13 bombs went off in Baghdad on Friday killing 50 civilians and 3 American servicemen), the convicted fraudster, Ahmad Chalabi, was assuming his position in the Iraqi cabinet as oil minister in the new Iraqi government, and the journal Science was releasing a report confirming that "Climate scientists have found the heat exchange between earth and space is seriously out of balance -- validating forecasts of global warming." (Adding that if carbon dioxide levels continue to grow things could"spin out of control")

None of these topics found their way into the presidential press conference. Instead, Bush was given an open platform on prime time TV to assail the most successful government program ever initiated, which, by conservative estimates, will be solvent until 2051.

What we heard in Bush’s 10-minute monologue was nothing more than a sales pitch for the program of rich constituents. The first order of business was to confirm that the administration’s only plan for the current energy crunch is more drilling, less regulation and bigger subsidies for the American energy giants. (a.k.a. the new Bush Energy Bill) In a time when the rate of consumption of resources has reached unsustainable levels, this is sheer lunacy.

The second major theme was Social Security, a topic on which Bush continues to follow the explicit strategy laid out by the conservative Cato Institute:

1. Maintain constant criticism of Social Security to influence the media and to undermine public confidence in the soundness of the program.

2. Build a network of influential supporters of private accounts, including Wall Street brokers who would profit from them.

3. Divide and conquer the opposition by assuring retirees and those nearing retirement that their benefits would be fully paid.

Is this a fair rendering of the Bush approach? Discredit the system and guide the flock towards privatization?

So, what was the American media’s response to Mr. Bush’s palavering?

READ THE REST.

A couple of books to think about.

The I Hate Corporate America Reader : How Big Companies from McDonald's to Microsoft are Destroying Our Way of Life (I Hate)
by Clint Willis

Americans are beginning to take note that large corporations are at the heart of what ails our country-from job losses to mad cow disease to pollution to rising cancer rates to obesity to empire building. Every week brings new headlines of some new outrage by companies ranging from the former Enron and Halliburton to McDonald's and Wal-Mart; meanwhile, other crimes are hidden from public view. This book will energize, empower, entertain, and mobilize readers who are disgusted with the behavior of the corporate powers-that-be. Some of America's most influential writers-such as Molly Ivins, Erik Schlosser, Arianna Huffington, Jim Hightower, and others-offer their views on price-fixing and other anticompetitive practices that boost consumer prices, anti-labor tactics (often illegal), near-slave wages and working conditions, marketing practices, drug tests, and other activities that destroy worker and consumer privacy, overseas sweat shops (complete with sex slaves) run by U.S. companies, environmental violations that lead to higher cancer rates and other disease, armies of corporate lobbyists who bribe our lawmakers and judges, unsafe products that endanger our lives and our children's lives, corporate downsizing, benefit cutbacks, and job exporting, and-last, but not least-overpaid executives and board members who rip off shareholders and workers.

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
John Perkins

John Perkins started and stopped writing Confessions of an Economic Hit Man four times over 20 years. He says he was threatened and bribed in an effort to kill the project, but after 9/11 he finally decided to go through with this expose of his former professional life. Perkins, a former chief economist at Boston strategic-consulting firm Chas. T. Main, says he was an "economic hit man" for 10 years, helping U.S. intelligence agencies and multinationals cajole and blackmail foreign leaders into serving U.S. foreign policy and awarding lucrative contracts to American business. "Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars," Perkins writes. Confessions of an Economic Hit Man is an extraordinary and gripping tale of intrigue and dark machinations. Think John Le Carré, except it's a true story.

Perkins writes that his economic projections cooked the books Enron-style to convince foreign governments to accept billions of dollars of loans from the World Bank and other institutions to build dams, airports, electric grids, and other infrastructure he knew they couldn't afford. The loans were given on condition that construction and engineering contracts went to U.S. companies. Often, the money would simply be transferred from one bank account in Washington, D.C., to another one in New York or San Francisco. The deals were smoothed over with bribes for foreign officials, but it was the taxpayers in the foreign countries who had to pay back the loans. When their governments couldn't do so, as was often the case, the U.S. or its henchmen at the World Bank or International Monetary Fund would step in and essentially place the country in trusteeship, dictating everything from its spending budget to security agreements and even its United Nations votes. It was, Perkins writes, a clever way for the U.S. to expand its "empire" at the expense of Third World citizens. While at times he seems a little overly focused on conspiracies, perhaps that's not surprising considering the life he's led.
--Alex Roslin

christymarx.com | site map | Christy Marx: Writing Credits