Iran Election Irregularities Update

As of this posting, still no reply back from MSNBC.com. Of course, I'm not surprised.

However, Diego Jimenez tweeted me this link to a BBC Q&A article on the election.

First off, here are the reasons for claims of voting irregularities:


"The way the result was announced was very unusual. It came out in blocks of millions of votes, in percentages, rather than being announced province-by-province as in past elections.

And as the blocks of votes came in, the percentages for each candidate changed very, very little. That suggested that Mr Ahmadinejad did equally well in rural and urban areas. Conversely, it suggested that the other three losing candidates did equally badly in their home regions and provinces.

This overturns all precedents in Iranian politics and there has been no explanation, despite repeated questions, from the authorities.

It is all very suspicious. But it does not necessarily mean there has been widespread electoral fraud. For example, a group of international pollsters did an independent telephone survey three weeks ago which suggested a two-to-one level of popular support for Mr Ahmadinejad over Mr Mousavi, with the other candidates on less than two percent each."

So, we have international pollsters predicting an Ahmadinejad win. We have suspicious circumstances with questions going unanswered. And we have the fact that there may not necessarily have been widespread electoral fraud.

We also have two powerful leaders with many followers vying for a top parliamentary position. As numerous commentators (and Pres. Obama) have said, Ahmadinejad and Mousavi's policy positions are, in effect, not much different from each other.

Could this be a case of a sore loser using the power of his popularity and multitude of followers to gain the upper hand? From the same BBC article:

"But there are two things happening at the moment. There are the street demonstrations and then there is a tense power struggle between leading figures in the ruling elite as well."

Two leading, elite rulers are struggling for power. What would make Mousavi not pull the "voting irregularity" and "fraud" cards out to use in his favor? Especially when he is well-aware of Ahmadinejad's global unpopularity and the effect global media will have on promoting his view of the election, however inaccurate it may be?

The fact that 99% of the coverage has been on protesters and virtually none on actual election statistics, pre and post polling, and vote-count evidence may signal that Mousavi's bluff has turned into a trump card.

Where is investigative journalism when you need it?

Iran Election, Iran Corruption, Iran Questions

I watched a video here, about Ahmadinejad's win over Mir Hossein Mousavi, and then read the article. I also read this one and can't help but think we're not getting the full story for some reason. Here's the analysis and what I mean:

Why is not the main focus of these articles on the actual, factual discrepancies Mousavi has in claiming that this election was a "charade?"

Why is Mousavi the only one slighted? The BBC article says: "Four candidates contested the election, with Mohsen Razai and Mehdi Karroubi only registering about 1% of the vote each."

So, what about Razai and Karroubi? Do they feel the election was tainted? Why are these two presidential candidates not questioned on this and given a voice; one or two sentences even?

Instead, it's about people protesting. "Thousands" according to the BBC article. And only in Tehran. Is no one protesting anywhere else? And exactly how many is "thousands?" Do they not have an accurate count? Why or why not? And who's doing the counting? In my opinion, these articles seem biased on the side of the protesters, something that does not happen when people protest in this country, but more on that later.

Ahmadinejad, in the aforementioned article, says that the foreign media has been helping to rile people up. Why is that angle not explored? Why not analyze the media coverage over this event and really investigate what he's saying? I mean, you can only prove him wrong, right? So, why isn't this done?

Next, according to the BBC's Iranian affairs analyst, the "margin of the win was so wide [for Mousavi] that it made a lot of people suspicious." OK, what does that mean? The margin of the win? What margin, how, and set forth by who? I don't know why these questions, many of which could be answered in a sentence or two, are missing from a major news organization's coverage of an election so interesting as this one.

The analyst goes on to say that, "Millions of people, especially the young, voted for change through the ballot box and by peaceful means and now there is shock and disappointment."

Again, what does this mean? How many millions? Why is this "news" article so vague? Where is the author getting this data from? Many millions in this country voted for change through the ballot box and by peaceful means in 2000 and 2004 and were similarly shocked and disappointed.

I just don't see any evidence how, exactly, the protesters have a legitimate grievance here. And I'm not saying there isn't one, I'm saying the media has not reported on what that might be. We have an official result: 64% for Ahmadinejad versus the 34% for Mr Mousavi, but that's it.


Fast forward two days. It's now Monday the 15th of June and here is the lead article from MSNBC.com on the situation in Iran. Again, no mention of what is actually corrupt in the election. All they mention is "voting irregularities." We had those here in 2000 and 2004 also. Why would you make no mention of what these voting irregularities are? Isn't the main thrust of this entire situation?

Maybe there is a media slant. Hardly any of the First World countries like Ahmadinejad. Continual focus on rioting and beating and one-liners and protest messages (which could be covered in another blog - so I'm not ignoring them as insignificant - it's just not the focus of the article here) could be used to let viewers think that those protesting have a legitimate cause they are fighting for. First and Third World countries can use propaganda. The BBC and CNN are no exceptions.

Of course the censorship is of grave concern and lends no credence to Ahmadinejad, but the censorship is not the cause of the protests - it's a reaction to it. So why not say what that cause is?

What are the voting irregularities? What is the evidence of fraud?

** Just called NBC news and was told that they would research the answer to these two questions and get back to me. I'll keep you posted.


One last thing: Check out this story on how there never was a significant ideological difference between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir Hossein Mousavi.

Who are We "Securing?"

At the end of last summer, I took a trip to Philadelphia's Old Town. Being a student of American politics, I was eager to look upon Independence Hall, the Liberty Bell, Ben Franklin's house and walk the cobbled streets where our founding fathers once tred.

Things always happen, whatever those "things" may be, when you least expect it. And sure enough, this happened during my visit. Before I get into that, however, let me set the context of my mental state. I was brought up being told (and believing) that this is the land of the free, that all men are created equal, that we should live free or die, and that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights....

So here I am, in what some may call the birthplace of American constitutional and political thought, in line, to see the Liberty Bell but what I see first are armed Wackenhut security guards and signs that say I am not allowed to chew gum or bring inside water bottles. I'm not kidding. And the building you're going into is not some pristine, richly-decorated, top-of-the-line visitor center. It is a very nice, light-filled building, however, and the flooring is slate tile while along the east side are picture and storyboards behind plexiglass. At the end of this rectangular building, behind guideropes that the Park Service meticulously monitor for those trying to stick a camera under, is the Bell itself. So, why no gum? Why no water bottles allowed? Why armed Wackenhut guards standing beside Park Service employees?

I fully understand making sure people don't put any part of their body under or past the ropes - it's a national treasure we're protecting. However, no gum? no water bottles? It was over 90 degrees outside that day - and yes, they were also doing full searches of our backpacks and belongings. Sweet land of liberty and the free? Methinks not.


After this experience, which really upset me quite a bit, I ended up on the banks of the Delaware River at one of the riverside parks and there was a U.S. Naval vessel docked there, the name of which I do not remember. In any event, to the left here is a picture of it. What is not shown, to the left of the ship on land, is a barricaded perimeter set up with a, I'm guessing, 24-hour guard watch. The soldier paced the area armed with an M-16. However, notice what is, or what is not, on the right side of the ship - any type of defensive protection! I didn't get a picture of it, but there were two guys on jet skis going up and down the river. What would be to stop them from getting close to this ship? What is there to stop them from having explosives on their skis and driving right at it? I would hope the land guard wouldn't be responsible for that area as well. So, why this lack of security - in this era of a "Global War on Terror" now that "everything has changed" in our post-9/11 world?

Moreover, why is there this serious lack of security around a U.S. Naval vessel at the same time I have Wackenhut guards (with guns!) as well as the Park Service officials "guarding" me with requests to search my private person, take out my gum and trash my water bottle? All I'm trying to do is view a symbol of the "freedom and liberty" that this country tells the rest of the world it has.

Kucinich Introduces Articles of Impeachment

I bet you didn't know this happened last night. I sure didn't until just now, and I barely missed it.

I found nothing about in my daily readings of MSNBC.com, CNN.com, and other news sites. Luckily, I happened to looking at Alternet.org's video page and came across it here.

I then did a Google search on "Kucinich Introduces Articles of Impeachment" and found that CBS news devoted two whole paragraphs to it! Upon going to cbsnews.com, the only place I could find the story was under the category "most viewed stories." It's not under the main news stories and it's not under politics. So where the hell is it? (At least it's under most viewed!).

In any event - do you need more proof that our media corporations are manipulating news? Here is a story that is obviously important to a lot of people if it makes CBS news' most viewed list, yet the story is nowhere to be found on its site, let alone almost anywhere else in the mainstream media. Why? Give this some time and seriously think about this.

Why would the fact that a Congressman introduced Articles of Impeachment on the House floor NOT make headlines?

Wanna know what did make headlines?

Sleeping at work -- more of us are doing it (CNN)

$200 bird poop facial offered by spa (CNN)

Panda killed in China earthquake mourned (CBS)

Trial halted after jurors found playing Sudoku (Fox News)

Retired worker gets catfish named for him (MSNBC)



How is any of this crap news, let alone more important than Impeachment articles being brought upon a sitting president?

Don't just take my word for it. Watch and listen to Bill Moyers' speech at the National Conference for Media Reform.

Rumsfeld the Guilty; Citizens the Who Cares...

I don't know who to be more angry at: the media or my fellow citizens. Here is a news story about Donald Rumsfeld (former Secretary of Defense under W) talking to military analysts in December of 2006. Totally contradicting one of the many reasons President Bush gave for invading Iraq, Rumsfeld says he agrees "that Iraq needs an authoritarian dictator." On other parts of the taped meeting, "Rumsfeld suggests that the American public lacked the "maturity" to understand that the nation remained under threat from terrorists and that the only "correction" would be another attack on the U.S."

As of this writing, it is listed on MSNBC.com under the "other top stories" section. In fact, "Down to 2 on Idol" gets more prominent display and bigger font than this story. Making my way over to CNN.com, there is nary a word - either on it's front page or the politics page. Let's check out the always-balanced Foxnews.com: nope - not a peep there. How about the networks? Nothing on ABC or CBS.

So I'm angry at the media for not giving this story any weight, traction, or shred of existence (save MSNBC.com). It's still hard to believe that here is a story regarding one of the central figures in the disaster and humanitarian crisis that the Iraq war was destined to become not only clearly favoring authoritarian dictatorships (wasn't Saddam an authoritarian dictator?), but that the only way for the American public to be afraid of terrorists is for an attack to actually happen.

But all of my wrath cannot be spread upon the media alone - even though they're quite guilty of selling us a war based on roses and lies. A really good video highlighting the Bush Administration's successful manipulation of you and me can be seen here. It's of another guilty fellow, Douglas Feith the Undersecretary of Defense under Donald Rumsfeld, who says that Americans "misremember" what was really said about Iraq before the invasion.

No, the other half of my heartache, really, is caused by the towering heights of apathy and ignorance that my fellow citizens seem to posses about not just the Iraq war, but the economy, food shortages, and rapidly approaching irreversible climate change. The few people who actually want to talk about these issues are ignorant of a lot of important facts, or just plainly haven't thought about them much, if at all. Now, some may say that that's because they're much more focused on and consumed by rising gas prices, a recession, and falling wages. And I would probably agree with you, however, it is exactly these issues that are caused by, and can be ameliorated through, our government.

Who's the government? Not some people off in Washington, D.C. or even your state capitals. No, it's you and me. We the People. So when the leaders of this country - those of you reading this - don't do anything like call your representatives (they are there to represent your views), or write letters to the editor of your local newspaper, or hell, even read the damn thing - you're letting us all down. We the People, together, educated, and involved are the only ones who can solve these problems in ways in which we all benefit.

So the majority of you out there who still drive Hummers and other extremely pollutive vehicles or don't recycle or don't read the news or don't get involved in your communities and get to know and work with your neighbors....knock your shit off! You're pissin' me the #$!* off! Quit chasing the Jones' and drop back down to planet Earth, upon which our continued existence is questioned, and start doing things - no matter how small, that make a difference.

What if we don't have that much time left? Would you then wish you had done something now?

News in Review

I have nothing of real substance to say this week -aside from my post on the "liberal," pro-war newspaper the New York Times. Television and cable news still frame Clinton and Obama as a horse race - only talking about who's ahead of who; versus talking about the merits and demerits of each candidates health care, domestic or foreign policy platforms. So, here are some news stories I have found thought provoking. May they provoke thoughts in you as well.



The Land of the Almost Free to Speak Up: "Americans, she said, love to trumpet their freedom. But it’s hard to square that with political correctness that straitjackets communication for fear of giving unintended offense, hair-trigger litigiousness that requires major corporations to treat customers (”Caution: Coffee is hot”) like idiots for fear of being sued, zero tolerance policies and mandatory sentencing guidelines that remove human judgment from human encounters for fear of rendering unequal justice."



How Part of the Economy is Rigged Against Us: Leveraged Buyout - Private Equity - what do these terms mean? More to the point, what's going on with the economy and why are we in a recession while some money managers and such are making millions and oil and food companies are raking in record profits every quarter?



Celebrity Gossip = "Bona Fide Newscast": "Hard-hitting journalism is nearing extinction on television, and the Federal Communications Commission just threw another shovel-full of dirt on its grave when it recently ruled that Rupert Murdoch's TMZ and Pat Robertson's 700 Club meet the test for "a bona fide newscast.""



US Consumers Rank Last in World Survey of Green Habits: "Americans were least likely to choose the greener option in three out of four categories - housing, transportation and consumer goods_ according to the assessment. In the fourth category, food, Americans ranked ahead of Japanese consumers, who eat more meat and seafood."



Human Society Says Video Shows Abused Livestock: (Reason # 4,623 why I'm a vegetarian). "The Humane Society of the United States on Wednesday released new video taken at animal auctions in four states that showed sick and injured cows lying on the ground, and called on the U.S. government to prevent further cases of animal abuse at similar facilities." Video here.



EPA Might Not Act to Limit Rocket Fuel in Drinking Water:"An EPA official said Tuesday there’s a “distinct possibility” the agency won’t take action to rid drinking water of a toxic rocket fuel ingredient that has contaminated public water supplies around the country."

Comments on the News Round Up

Thomas Jefferson quote of the day: All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.



For about a fortnight now network and cable news have gone on and on about Obama's Preacher, the Rev. Wright. Long story short, Rev. Wright wrote a powerful sermon after 9/11 where he pointed out some of the reasons he (and coincidentally, Ron Paul among others) have for believing it was payback. (The book Blowback, with its title derived from "a term coined by the CIA to denote the unintended consequences of policies that were in many cases kept secret from the American public," speaks directly to this point of contention). So, Obama has been raked over the coals about the fact that he has not only been endorsed by Rev. Wright, but was a member of his congregation...20 years ago. Every major news media have taken and run with this story for days: asking Obama to denounce the endorsement, to denounce the preacher; and they've even attacked Rev. Wright.

Yet, strangely, they are silent (crickets chirping here) about the Rev. John Hagee's endorsement of Senator John McCain. Frank Rich in today's New York Times, here, explains it all by saying that, "it is disingenuous to pretend that there isn’t a double standard operating here. If we’re to judge black candidates on their most controversial associates - and how quickly, sternly and completely they disown them - we must judge white politicians by the same yardstick."

Why are they silent about this; about someone who has made much more inflammatory and derogatory remarks than Rev. Wright has? Some of Rev. Hagee's beliefs are: "God created Hurricane Katrina to punish New Orleans for its sins," that the Roman Catholic Church is "the Great Whore," and that "most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews."

Are those in power and control of the media, racist? anti-black?, pro-McCain?, all of the above?





First there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, then there weren't. Then we were there to get rid of Saddam, then we weren't. Then we were there to bring democracy to Iraq, then we weren't. There were ties between Saddam and al Qaeda, then there were not. Al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to our invasion, then they were not.

Then Iran was training people to fight in Iraq, then they were not. And then Iran was making and sending weapons into Iraq...well...maybe not.





What's important is not who's starving or being oppressed. What's important is my stock price. Money, baby: gimme, gimme, gimme!

"Giant agribusinesses are enjoying soaring earnings and profits out of the world food crisis which is driving millions of people towards starvation, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. And speculation is helping to drive the prices of basic foodstuffs out of the reach of the hungry."




Guess what? I went to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and all I got was this stupid T-shirt! "As these astonishing mementoes [sic] show, the US authorities are promoting the world's most notorious prison camp as a cheap hideaway for American sunseekers – a revelation that has drawn international anger and condemnation."




I was a first-born kid and, according to this new study, it looks like we have it harder.

Where's The Balance?

In my last post, I gave a one-day sample of some major news corporations' websites top stories and compared them with other important stories published that same day.

The results from my little survey brought forth some interesting questions regarding what news corporations view as important and worthy of top-story recognition:

Worthy: Man gets out of jail with one-word blog

Not Worthy: Shops rations sales of rice as US buyers panic

Worthy: Man survives 500-foot fall into strip mine

Not Worthy: WWF warns Arctic ice melting faster than predicted


Which brings me to where I left off in the last post. With an agenda. Not mine, but the big news corporation's. What's their agenda? Why would a news company only present one side of a story?

Well, let's look at it this way. If I'm a researcher looking for answers to a specific question (and all I'm after is the truth), then I'm going to try and seek out all possible answers so that I may find out what the truth really is. Once I have all possible answers, I'll keep narrowing it down until I find one that fits best. I give all answers a fair shake at being the right one. It is only through testing, debate, discussion, retesting, etc., that I come to conclusions.

I don't want to favor one answer over another (unless evidence proves that's the correct one) because then I will taint my study and come to conclusions I want; not conclusions shown by independent verification.

Now, if someone has a vested interest in what is being studied, and therefore may desire a particular outcome, are they really the best person to conduct and/or report on this study?

If someone stands to make a lot of money if their product is deemed safe, and therefore to lose a lot of money if it is found unsafe, should they be the person, or have a hand in, testing or reporting the outcome of the tests? Isn't this called a conflict of interest? Bias?

Then why is it ok for the New York Times, one of our nations foremost newspapers, to show glaring evidence of bias? (After all - the were one of the biggest cheerleaders of the Iraq war, were they not?)



On Sunday, March 16, 2008, the NYT Sunday Opinion section published 9 articles on the Iraq War - five years on.

"To mark this week's fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, the Op-Ed page asked 9 experts on military and foreign affairs to reflect on their attitudes in the spring of 2003 and to comment on the one aspect of the war that most surprised them or that they wished they had considered in the prewar debate."


Who are these 9 experts and what did they have to say?

• L. Paul Bremer, III - former presidential envoy to Iraq: "Our soldiers were magnificent in liberating Iraq.

• Anne-Marie Slaughter - dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton: "Our government knew how to destroy but not how to build."

• Kenneth M. Pollack - a former director of Persian Gulf affairs at the National Security Council and a fellow at the Brookings Institution: "If we leave behind an Iraq more stable and less threatening to its neighbors than the one we toppled, I think the intelligence community's (and my own) mistakes about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration's exaggerations of that threat and its baseless insistence on links between Iraq and Al Qaeda will all lose their edge - even though they will not, and should not, be forgotten."

• Paul D. Eaton - a retired Army major general who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004 and who is an advisor to the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton: "Without hearings, the Army could not advance its case for increasing the number of troops and rearming the force."

• Richard Pearle - an assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute: "The right decision was made, and Baghdad fell in 21 days with few casualties on either side."

• Danielle Pletka - the Vice President for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute: "After all, for those of us who supported the war, rebutting arguments about weapons of mass destruction has become reflexive."

• Frederick Kagan - a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute: "I supported the 2003 invasion despite misgivings about how it would be executed, and those misgivings proved accurate."

• Anthony D. Cordesman - a fellow at the Center for Strategy and International Studies: "...I did not expect that we would discover no meaningful activity in rebuilding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and no Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda."

• Nathaniel Fick - a fellow at the Center for a New American Security and the author of "One Bullet Away: The Making of a Marine Officer." "We made bets not on whether it would happen, but when."

Eight out of the 9 commentaries are unarguably pro-war, with only Anne-Marie Slaughter's lone voice dissenting.

At least two of the 9 were in the Bush administration and had their hands deep in planning the war itself.

Two are from the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, that " is associated with neoconservative domestic and foreign policy views" and "has emerged as one of the leading architects of the second Bush administration's public policy" with "More than twenty AEI alumni and current visiting scholars and fellows have served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government's many panels and commissions."

One is from the Brookings Institution, a liberal centrist (though some argue it is too supportive of Bush administration policies) think tank.

One from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which includes Henry Kissinger as one of its board members one from the Center for a New American Security, which includes Richard Armitage (the "primary" source for leaking the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame).



How is this an unbiased assessment of where we were and where we are now? Where are the thoughts, then and now, of those major figures who opposed and/or seriously questioned the war from the start, like: Ron Paul, Barak Obama, Dennis Kucinich, Phil Donahue, Brent Scowcroft, Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Ambassador Joesph Wilson, former Iraqi weapons inspector Scott Ritter...

Why were none of these people asked to write for the New York Times' Op-Ed commentary?

Unbalanced, biased, pro-Bush, pro-war - and this is what many on the right call the bastion of liberal newspapers?

Mr. Toads Wild Ride

I'm not aware if you've heard a lot regarding the sad and quite disgusting lack of journalistic integrity at the most recent debate on ABC between Clinton and Obama; if not read about it here.

It's not just about being wrong on so many levels journalistically, it reeks of how far gone our democracy is and how much control We the People have given up. But I'll go 50/50 in terms of responsibility between the American citizen on the one hand, and how we get informed on the other. (For this post at least). A major part of the problem is our news media.

Let's just take a look at what the top stories are, listed in order, as of right now (12;39 pm EST, 4/26/08) from MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News.


MSNBC

- Democrats fear lasting racial divide
- McCain teams up with Huckabee
- Newsweek: If Clinton wins it's payback time
- Half say presidential campaign too negative
- Beach closed after killer shark attack
- Bell's fiancee: 'They killed Sean all over again'
- Mugabe's rivals win parliament
- Report: 14-year-old girl killed in Gaza clashes
- Heavy security thwarts Japanese torch protests



CNN

- Bell's Fiancee: 'They killed Sean all over again'
- Man gets out of jail with one-word blog
- Truck driver questioned in train station accident
- Zimbabwe recount shows opposition ahead
- Chicago cops out in force to deter shootings
- FBI investigates possible kidnap for ransom
- Atheist soldier claims harassment
- Man survives 500-foot fall into strip mine
- Ticker: Obama plays b-ball with WNBA star



Fox News

- Experts debate cause of rising oil prices
- Dems on road to victory?
- Fla. Official: Buy clothes, not booze
- Turkey confirms mediation between Syria, Israel
- R.I. illegals face crackdown amid state budget crisis
- Boy, 7, faces Grand Theft Auto after SUV joyride
- Fiancee of groom shot by cops: 'It's not over'
- Airlines lure fliers with gourmet menus, star chefs
- NFL draft day: College stars turn pro



Most of these news stories, while I won't say they aren't worth reporting, are, to put it bluntly, crap. Who ranked these as "Top Stories?" I mean, a school board official emailing parents who were complaining about school uniforms to prioritize their spending is a top news story? A man getting out of jail because he text-messaged his friends is a top news story? And what about half of whoever was polled saying the campaign for president is too negative. How is this news? How do these stories contribute in any way to the fact that I've watched gasoline go up almost 35 cents the last week?

Now, some of these stories are very newsworthy, don't get me wrong. Mugabe's rivals win parliament is good and debating rising oil prices is very good. But you really have to read between the lines here, and see the news that is not making it onto these three major news corporations' website. Let's go have a look at news posted today and then yesterday:

- U.S. weighing readiness for military action against Iran (Washington Post)
- Many states appear to be in recession as deficits grow (New York Times)

- Shops rations sales of rice as US buyers panic (The Guardian)
- Experts fear nation's waterways need rescuing - from us (Associated Press / Common Dreams)
- Town in the Andes face crisis as glaciers melt (San Francisco Chronicle)
- WWF warns Arctic ice melting faster than predicted (Agence France Presse / Yahoo News)
- Hundreds of EPA scientists report political interference (Los Angeles Times)





These are very serious issues being reported by mainstream, reputable news sources. Why have not MSNBC, CNN, or FOX News picked any of them up as a top story? Arctic ice melting faster than predicted? Um...isn't this a little more serious than a man trespassing in a mine falling 500 feet? Or how about even more evidence that "during much of the Bush administration, there have been reports of the White House watering down documents on climate change, industry language inserted into EPA power-plant regulations and scientific advisory panels' conclusions about toxic chemicals going unheeded." Surely that has to be more important than who Obama played basketball with?

The most logical conclusion I can come up with is that the corporations who own these major networks must have a very large stake in political and economic policy outcomes. Not only do they own the networks listed above, but they also own newspapers, radio stations, other TV stations, and major corporations like Microsoft, NBC, General Electric, HBO, the Atlanta Braves, DC Comics, Time magazine, People magazine, LA Dodgers, LA Kings, LA Lakers, and HarperCollins Books, just to name a few.

With such a HUGE stake in national, and indeed global, finance, would it not be in these corporations best interest to help sway public opinion in their favor? What is their incentive to do otherwise? In any event, it's a moot point. Just taking my totally unscientific, yet very interesting survey sample of what was reported on major national news networks versus news from other major national and European sources in the last two days, it would seem that there are many very important, very time-sensitive issues out there not being reported on nationally.

Could this be one reason why Americans are apathetic to politics? Could the triviality and absurd reality of major network and cable news turn people off to any type of serious debate about current issues and our future? The President of the United States, right after 9/11 tells Americans to go shopping; with a recession gearing up for full-force in 2008, this same guy gives us a tax rebate so we will go shopping.

Are you picking up what I'm putting down? Could there be a connection here?

Just a Recap of Sorts

Losing easy access to the Internet sometimes makes me feel like I've dropped off the face of the planet. On the other hand, there's a whole other world out there; free of "news," free of soundbites and talking points; free. I'd advise you to go be free sometime in the next few days. It's good for the soul.

I'm working on a few deeper issues for some upcoming blogs but in the meantime, here are some continuing story follow-ups as well as some interesting things to read:



Is Organic Food Really Healthier?

"In the late 1990s, researcher Anne-Marie Mayer looked at data gathered by the British government from the 1930s to the 1980s on the mineral contents of 20 raw fruits and vegetables. She found that levels of calcium, magnesium, copper, and sodium in vegetables, and of magnesium, iron, copper, and potassium in fruit had dropped significantly."

"....researchers at the Rodale Institute in Pennsylvania were seeing a tradeoff between use of synthetic fertilizers and food nutrient values in the Institute's Farming System Trial (FST). The FST is the longest-running side-by-side comparison of organic and conventional farming systems in the US."




Pope Ignores the War, Gets Free Pass on Sex Abuse


"While still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith -- the Vatican office that once ran the Inquisition. In that capacity he sent a letter in May 2001 to all Catholic bishops throwing a curtain of secrecy over the widespread sexual abuse by clergy, warning the bishops of severe penalties, including excommunication for breaching "pontifical secrets."

"Lawyers acting for the sexually abused accused Ratzinger of "clear obstruction of justice."

"Very few American bishops have been disciplined. And when Bernard Cardinal Law was run out of Boston for failing to protect children from predator priests, he was given a cushy sinecure in Rome; many believe he should be behind bars.

"In an interview with the Catholic News Service in 2002, Ratzinger branded media coverage of the pedophilia scandal "a planned campaign ... intentional, manipulated, a desire to discredit the church."

"It is nice that the Pope has now changed his tune. Nicer still for him, he found himself mostly in the congenial atmosphere of Washington, where very few powerful miscreants are held accountable."

Climate Change May Put 'World at War': "Climate change could cause global conflicts as large as the two world wars but lasting for centuries unless the problem is controlled, a leading defence think tank has warned."

It's not "save the planet" or "save the Earth" or even "save the climate;" it's Save Humanity. Really. The planet, the Earth, the climate - they will all go on without us. It's ourselves we should really be worried about.



Arctic Ice Melting Fast in Summer Sun: Ummm...see above. "New Arctic sea ice is now so perilously thin on average that it melts under the sunshine of clear summer skies it once could survive, American researchers conclude in a study published today."



One would think that the "greatest country in the world" wouldn't have this problem: " For the first time since the Spanish influenza of 1918, life expectancy is falling for a significant number of American women." What with our bridges collapsing, high infant mortality rates, being the biggest spender on missiles, guns, and bombs, invading sovereign nations, and lacking health care for its citizens...maybe we aren't so "great" after all?



This is a good blog-summary of a lot of things I've been talking about lately.



Pssst....Do Something!




You and me, the American citizen and taxpayer, (aka: the U.S. Government) shouldn't be giving money to bail out airlines or give huge subsidies to oil companies. No. Give that money to people who are really doing something to help our society, like this man, the Segway inventor who just invented a water regenerator.

We Continue the Backslide

We just had our house fitted for FIOS, the new fiber optic internet package the other day. In so doing, the router was put on the opposite side of the house so we must rewire it. At the moment, my PC is cut off from the rest of the world - so my posts may be a bit sporadic and short. If you're reading this for the 2nd or even 5th time, check out some of my earlier posts. :)

Onto some not so good news, but some things that are giving us a clear signal of what our economy is doing and where it is going:

Student loan economic trouble: "Sallie Mae, the largest U.S. student loan company, on Thursday affirmed its 2008 profit forecast, but warned of a “train wreck” in the $85 billion education financing market without urgent government intervention."

Gas pices pass $3.40; expected to rise higher: "Overall, crude prices have jumped more than 4 percent this week, in part due to the falling dollar, as well as a host of supply and demand concerns in the U.S. and abroad."

Merrill Lynch about to cut 3,000 jobs: "Merrill Lynch & Co., the world’s largest brokerage, on Thursday said it would cut another 3,000 jobs after more than $6.5 billion of fresh write-downs pushed it to a loss for the first quarter."

I posted a blog a few weeks regarding the unbelievable fact that 2 airlines went bankrupt in the same week, with another one announcing it will cease to exist at the end of May, putting thousands of people out of work. Yet at the same time, we've got presidential hopeful Bush Light (McCain) as well as the President himself saying that the economy is strong and this is just but a slight bump in the road, yada, yada, yada. What uber rich planet are they living on? Surely not the one where I have don't have a taxpayer-funded travel account, pay $3.15 a gallon for gas and hope I don't get hurt because I have no health insurance.

Where is the media on this? They report exactly what Bush says like it's the truth, yet blow Obama's "American's are bitter" statement totally out of proportion. We ARE bitter! What happened to fact checking and presenting all sides of an argument? Especially in the face of the numerous lies and chicanery the Bush Administration has been guilty of these past 7 years. Liberal biased media my a$$. Criticism of this "liberal media bias" here.



Here's some GOP hypocrisy for you: Why is David Vitter still in office and not Eliot Spitzer?

"Happy" Tax Day

Today is the day that most of us pay our taxes. What exactly does all this money we're shelling out go for? Let's see: some of it goes to pay members of Congress and the Executive branch a salary, free travel for government business (including golf trips), as well as lifetime health care.

However, in 2007, nearly 40% of every dollar went towards military spending. Remember, that war over there in Iraq? Yeah, well, there are some solid people who are brave enough to stand up in the face of adversity and declare that killing people to settle differences and achieve peace doesn't work. Knowing full well that it's our tax money that pays for these wars, they have decided to stop paying the portion of their taxes that go for war.

This morning on Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman interviews a Portland, Oregon couple who have not paid for war in 30 years. You can read the transcript here.


According to Goodman, "the total amount allocated for the Iraq war through fiscal year 2008 is more than $520 billion." The questions us Americans should be asking are: how many bridges could be brought out of "deficiency" ratings with that money? how many children could we feed and give health care to with that money? how many of our roads could we fix with $520 billion? how many schools could we buy new books and gym equipment for?

It'll be a great day when schools get ALL the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.

And don't give me this crap about "protecting America." Again: Iraq did NOTHING to us and had NO weapons of mass destruction. Al Qaeda was NOT in Iraq until AFTER we invaded that sovereign country. All we're doing is making more enemies, killing innocent civilians, pissing more people off, and giving people good reason to hate us. I miss Ron Paul.



Also in today's tax news: Fewer Large Corporations Audited by IRS (but more smaller ones are)



As a Cardinal, he did nothing. While he has chosen to meet with President Bush, he has chosen to not meet with people who were sexually abused by priests. Yet, the Pope says he is "deeply ashamed" over sexual abuse in the Catholic church. Oh really? Words do nothing to fix the problem of Church officials moving known child molesters to another parish. How about a little more action Mr. Pope?

"Jason Berry, a New Orleans writer who first drew national attention to clergy sex abuse in the 1980s, said the root of the problem is that the Vatican doesn’t punish bishops who shelter offenders. "Until the church creates a genuine system of justice to redress these wrongs the abuse crisis will continue...""




A very good argument for doing something about global overpopulation?

"Oshiya, or "pusher", is an informal Japanese term for a worker who stands on the platform of a railway station during the morning and evening rush hours, and pushes people onto the train. This video is a good example of just how crowded it gets on Japanese trains." Watch here.

Two Blurbs and Some Fun

I've been sitting here at my computer, half staring at the monitor and half looking through random websites and articles I've saved. Nothing has motivated me to write today - nothing of substance anyway.

I mean, we have Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker telling a Senate Committee that they have no idea when things will be better or what "better" will even look like. But as soon as they see it, they'll begin bringing my step-brother, many high school and college friends, and the rest of our troops home. Idiots and bad news - not going there today.

This guy here, Dr. James Hansen is the head of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and he is "call[ing] for a sharp reduction in C02 limits.Hansen says the EU target of 550 parts per million of C02 - the most stringent in the world - should be slashed to 350ppm. He argues the cut is needed if “humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilisation developed”. Bush says joining the Kyoto Protocol which aims to lower CO2 in our atmosphere, would be bad for the economy. But now we're in a recession, so the economy sucks and the air I breathe is still polluted.

Ok, I lied. I guess I did have two things of substance on the top of my mind. But I was short about them. Now...onto some fun things!



This is funny: The End of the World



Good engineering, but this can't be safe, I'm sure.



A canoe made out of used chopsticks is here.



" Einstein@Home is a program that uses your computer's idle time to search for spinning neutron stars (also called pulsars) using data from the LIGO and GEO gravitational wave detectors. Einstein@Home is a World Year of Physics 2005 project supported by the American Physical Society (APS) and by a number of international organizations."



It's all about perspective: Sidewalk Chalk Guy

Going.....Going.....

I'm sure it's a good thing that President Bush stopped saying how great our economy is doing; sooner or later people would actually begin to realize how out of touch with planet Earth (and America in particular) he really is. If this is the beginning of the end, it's happening a lot faster than I expected. Now, that's not to say that we're heading towards a depression or full economic collapse, but I think it could easily go in that direction.

The title of this article from the Independent UK doesn't help me sleep any better at night: USA 2008: The Great Depression. According to the article, "Food stamps are the symbol of poverty in the US. In the era of the credit crunch, a record 28 million Americans are now relying on them to survive - a sure sign the world's richest country faces economic crisis."




What has really struck me as an ominous sign is the abrupt end of two of the United States' major airlines and a charter airline. Champion Air, with about 550 employees, announced on Monday, March 31, 2008 that they will cease operations effective May 31, 2008. Also on Monday, Aloha Airlines went out of business laying off about 1,900 workers. And today, Thursday, April 3, 2008, ATA Airlines went out of business laying off about 2,200 workers while it was reported that workers in the banking sector will see 200,000 of their co-workers, if not themselves, laid off in the next 12 to 18 months. The article on commercial banks cutting their workforce, found here, compares these record cuts to the record cuts made just last year when 153,000 employees were let go as well as Citigroup's firing of 20,000 people "with at least 2,000 more to come."

According to the White House web page on the economy here, "The U.S. economy is structurally strong, but we are experiencing a period of economic challenge." What exactly do they mean when they say "structurally strong?" What exact "structure" are they talking about? The workers aren't strong, they're getting laid off in record numbers. The businesses aren't strong, they're going out of business one after the other. How this administration is still in office is one question I really wish I could answer.

In an interview with Michael Pollan, author of In Defense of Food?, here, he talks about how he came to value a more balanced interaction with nature and human farming efforts. Pollan also discusses his opinions on why we eat food (not just for nutrition), what goes into our food, and how mom's good advice on what to eat has gone the way of the rotary phone. Here's a sample:

The more you process the food, the more profitable it is. If I go to the supermarket, I can buy a pound of organic oats for 79 cents. Now that's a lot of oats, and no body's making much money. But if you turn it into Cheerios, suddenly you have a brand. You've got your little doughnut shape, you've got an ad campaign, and suddenly you're charging four bucks for a few ounces of oats.

Then you come up with a Honey Nut Cheerio Cereal Bar with a layer of artificial milk in the middle. Now you've got a convenience food that's very much your own, because you've got this special formula to make your fake milk. And kids can eat them in the car or on the way to school. Now you're charging $10 or $20 for a few penny's worth of oats. That's the gist of the food industry. That's the economic imperative.

If you don't think the United States is an empire or even if you know we are, this video animation by Howard Zinn is a great watch. It's simple, effective, and tells you what you weren't taught in school.

Welfare We Should All Be Concerned About

We supposedly live in a free-market, Capitalist economy. That means that through competition and risk, the best companies and products win. Consumers will only buy a defective or poorly-made product once (maybe twice). After that, they steer away from that product or company and tell their friends about their negative experience. Those friends tell other friends and because they somewhat trust each other, few people continue to buy the defective or bad product. And the good products and services win.

That's a very simple version of what is meant by the "free-hand of the market" that we hear so many Capitalist ideologues pontificating about these days. Especially in light of the recent buyout of Bear Stearns by J.P. Morgan, it's very relevant today to point out that it's all crap.

Here's a very brief and simple run-down of what happened: Bear Stearns, an investment bank, made some risky investments. They turned out to be very bad and very risky investments. Because of said bad, risky investments, Bear Stearns was about to go under. (Kind of like what happens if you have a mortgage and car payment and blow all of your money at the blackjack table in Atlantic City).

So, what did the Federal Reserve do? They gave J.P. Morgan a $30 billion line of credit (interest loan), so they could buy out Bear Stearns. How is this the free-hand of the market working?

Who's gonna bail me out if I blow all of my money at the blackjack table in A.C.? Moreover, who's gonna help bailout the millions of Americans who have lost their home due to foreclosures from rigged mortgage interest rates? Oh, that'd be welfare....consumers must learn from their mistakes....read the fine print....etc. But if you're a big-business economic leader, it's somehow ok?

If we live in a Capitalist economy like Bush and most government officials say we do, then why doesn't the Fed act like it? Why is it ok to bend the rules - but only in their favor?

But wait...the Bush administration has proposed sweeping new changes to our financial infrastructure here. Too good to be true however, it's just bait and switch. Paul Krugman breaks it down here, with a nice insider view of what's really going on. For more on the housing crisis by Krugman, check out this video.



I kind of saw this coming. Cell phones and radiation and our brains are not a very good mixture. The more time elapses, the more studies are starting to show that these convenient devices are quite harmful to our well-being.



Why are none of the presidential candidates talking about Iraq anymore? My step-brother is over there. I care about what's going on - as I'm sure many in and out of the military and many with no military connections at all, still do. So, why are we receiving less and less coverage?



President Bush gets booed by many in the crowed while throwing out the first pitch. Warms my heart.



Free speech, private property, and T-shirts: Read.



Why don't we ask what's best for the Iraqi's? Watch and listen, here.

"Oh My God"

I'm short on time this week - and so much is happening that I want to write about it all! Alas, I can't, though wish I could. So, for this Friday, I'm trying something a little different. I'm posting the lyrics to one of my favorite songs - a song you won't hear on corporate dominated radio - by Michael Franti. It's called Oh My God, and I'll put links in where I feel that what he's talking about relates to current issues of the day. If you like the song - please buy it from iTunes (or wherever). May it move your soul.

Oh My God

Oh my, oh my God

Oh mama they got us livin’ suicide

Singin’ oh my, oh my God

Oh mama they got us livin’ genocide

Oh my, Oh my God

Slam bam I come unseen

But like gasoline you can tell I’m in the tank

Like money in the bank

I smell appealing, but I’m toxic, can send you reeling

Without an inklin’, keep ya thinkin’

‘Cause you gave cash to the feds, left your school district for dead

Fuck you up in the head, but still they sayin’ nothin’s wrong

Selling fire-water but outlawin’ the bong

Still believing the system is workin’

While half of my people are still out of workin’

Anonymous notes left in the pockets and coats

Of judges and juries from ‘Frisco and Jersey

Threats and protests politicians mob debts

Trumped up charges and phony arrests

Stage a lethal injection, the night before the election

‘Cause he got donations from the prison guard’s union

Oh my, oh my God

Oh mama they got us livin’ suicide

Singin’ oh my, oh my God

Oh mama they got us livin’ genocide

Oh my, Oh my God

Listen in to my stethoscope on a rope

Internal lullabies, human cries

Thumps and silence, the language of violence

Algorithmic, cataclysmic, seismic, biorhythmic

You can make a life longer, but you can’t save it

You can make a clone and then you try to enslave it?

Stealin’ DNA samples from the unborn

And then you comin’ after us

‘Cause we sampled a James Brown horn?

Scientists whose God is progress

A four-headed sheep is their latest project

The CIA runnin’ like that Jones from Indiana

But they still won’t talk about that Jones in Guyana

This ain’t no cartoon, no one slips on bananas

Do you really think that that car killed Diana?

Hell, I shot Ronald Regan, I shot JFK

I slept with Marilyn she sung me “Happy Birthday”

Oh my, oh my God

Oh mama they got us livin’ suicide

Singin’ oh my, oh my God

Oh mama they got us livin’ genocide

Oh my, Oh my God

Well politicians got lipstick on the collar

The whole media started to holler

But I don’t give a fuck who they screwin’ in private

I wanna know who they screwin’ in public

Robbin’, cheatin’, stealin’

White collar criminal

McDonald eatin’, you deserve a beatin’

Send you home a weepin’, with a fat bill for your Caribbean weekend

For just about anything they can bust us

False advertising sayin’ “Halls of Justice”

You tellin’ the youth don’t be so violent

Then you drop bombs on every single continent

Mandatory minimum sentencin’

‘Cause he got caught with a pocket full of medicine

Do that again another ten up in the pen

I feel so mad I wanna bomb an institution

singin’

Oh my, oh my God

Oh mama they got us livin’ suicide

Singin’ oh my, oh my God

Oh mama they got us livin’ genocide

Oh my, Oh my God

Recaps and Roundabouts

I'm very happy indeed that I've begun to see the mainstream media continue to do follow-up articles on very important stories. The only way a democracy can function is if its citizens are educated; and articles that follow a story through to conclusion are wonderful and much-needed.



Sedatives and Sex Hormones in Our Water Supply: Democracy Now's Amy Goodman explores what's in our water, how it got there, and the current state of pharmaceuticals in our drinking water.



France Won't Rule Out Opening Ceremony Boycott: It's better than nothing, but still not good enough. "French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Tuesday that he cannot rule out the possibility he might boycott the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics if China continues its crackdown in Tibet."



The Real Rev. Wright: The Footage Fox and the Other Networks Won't Show: An awesome and moving video of Obama's preacher telling telling the bare, dirty, glorious truth to his congregation. This is a must watch.



TV, film, game violence threatens public health: Bowling for Columbine explored the topic of fear and if it makes the United States a more violent nation. (If you have yet to see it, please do). Parents were up in arms over the very popular Grand Theft Auto video game series where you can carjack, kill, knife, and sleep with prostitutes anytime you want. And if you get out of the car and go kill the prostitute, you get all your money back. How can this be good for us?




Take a political break and watch this; it wouldn't be so funny if it weren't so true! Eddie Izzard comments on the end of the world, but more so about computers and humans.

China, Tibet, and Freedom

No Olympic Games Without Democracy!



This short post today closely resembles my feelings, blogged about here, concerning the lip service paid by the United States to liberty, freedom and democracy. We talk the talk - big time - but do nothing to stand behind what we say.

Once again, a nation of people, proudly independent even though repressed, stood up to their oppressors and were virtually ignored by the Bush Administration. According to this article, President Bush " has long said the United States and China have “a complex relationship,” and that complexity was on full display this week." It sure was. It displayed that we only want to "free" people if they happen to have lots and lots of oil under their sand.

In all truthfulness, it comes down to money. According to this story, Tibetans have learned to keep "their requests modest. They know few countries have the appetite to cross China, particularly at a time the world is counting on the emerging superpower to keep the global economy ticking as the United States appears headed into a recession." Oppression, domination, lack of freedom, and that liberty Bush can't live without sure was on full display this week as he said not a word. It's the economy, stupid.

And yet, once again, the mainstream media is all but ignoring this connection between money and our condoning of severe human rights abuses. (Read all about this connection here). It's there if you dig a few pages deep (like stories on boycotting the Olympics, here and here). The latter story reports on the boycott effort by Reporters Without Borders and its online petition says that ""Given the massive human rights violations in China, it seems unacceptable to us that the Chinese government be allowed the right to host the world's most prestigious sporting event," it reads in part."

The Chinese government has promised improvements in its human rights abuses but has failed to keep those promises: the government blocks access to thousands of news and political web sites as well as currently holds in prison about 80 journalists and Internet users. The full story on China and why we should boycott is here.

If you feel like signing the petition to boycott the Olympic games in Beijing, go here. When the total number of people reaches one million, it will be sent to China's president Hu Jintao. As of today, 719,494 people have signed it.

*(Photo: Brian Sokol / The New York Times)

Genetically Modified Foods - Beware!

"The results will be essentially new organisms, self-perpetuating and hence permanent. Once created, they cannot be recalled"



Genetically modified foods - like canola oil and Pasta Roni - are being deceptively pushed into our diets everyday. One example is "Round-up Ready" corn sold and manufactured by Monsanto. More about that here. Simply put, Monsanto makes Round-up, it's the liquid weed killer you can buy at your local nursery; you spray it on the leaves of the plants where it's absorbed and blocks an enzyme the plant needs to live.

Here's where I have serious issues with entire fields of "Round-up Ready" corn:

• The corn seeds are genetically modified in a violent way (a "gun" and high velocity is used to ram the new DNA into the cell).
• The plants are not the only thing that is getting sprayed with this chemical. It also lands onto and is absorbed by the soil. Where do the plants get their vitamins, minerals, and nutrients that make them good for us to eat? The sun and the soil. And here we are dumping hundreds of gallons of a toxic chemical on them week?
• Round-up then gets into the soil and mixes with the water used to irrigate the corn; the corn "drinks" up the water/chemical mixture where it then becomes part of the cellular structure of the plant.
• Humans are supposed to eat this "Round-up Ready" corn that has been grown in a bath of chemical herbicide and believe it's safe.
• (Does any of the chemical herbicide get into our aquifers and drinking water supply?)
  

According to Howstuffworks.com, Round-up contains glyphosphate - the main ingredient used to stop the plants from producing that enzyme. And, "most people react badly to glyphosphate (and other chemicals mixed with it) when ingested or applied to the skin, so you want to avoid any contact with the chemical."

So, Round-up (which contains glyphosphate) is sprayed on corn fields hundreds of gallons at a time. The corn ends up "drinking" the Round-up as it's mixed with water and/or rain. Glyphosphate ends up in the cellular structure of the corn (it could be said that the plant has "ingested" the glyphosphate). I go to the store, buy the "Round-up Ready" corn or a product made with it, take it home, and eat (ingest) it. Does anyone else see a problem here?

Oh, and Monsanto, Con-Agra and other big-business "leaders" in the field of genetically modifying our food supply pay big bucks for lawyers and lobbyists so that they don't have to label foods that have been genetically modified. That and the FDA's role is here.

Many people including genetic scientists and biologists agree that genetically modified foods need hard, rigorous study, and that they are unfit for human consumption.

Thanks to a recent lawsuit, internal FDA documents revealed "that agency scientists warned that GM foods might create toxins, allergies, nutritional problems, and new diseases that might be difficult to identify."

In addition, a panel of experts from the Royal Society of Canada reported that "it was "scientifically unjustifiable" to presume that GM foods are safe," and the UK's Royal Society reported in 2002 that "genetic modification could lead to unpredicted harmful changes in the nutritional state of foods."

One independent study published on GM foods being fed to animals "showed evidence of damage to the immune system and vital organs, and a potentially pre-cancerous condition." Two other studies "showed evidence of a potentially pre-cancerous condition." Moreover, seven other studies were designed specifically not to identify these details.

For a very good account of genetically modified foods, read Seeds of Deception.

Truth, Liars, and a Very Lonely Girl

"If we could share our time, would I disappoint your fantasies?"


Why is it so hard for people to tell the truth, to be honest with one another; especially those we say we love? What propels one to lead people on, gain their trust and confidence, only to throw up brick walls after they've abruptly changed course?

While I in no way condone it, I can understand why President Bush felt he needed to lie to the American people about the real reasons for attacking Iraq: American hegemony, further military expansion, and disaster capitalism; you can't just tell ordinary citizens that these are the reasons hundreds of thousands of innocent people and, as of this week, almost 4,000 American soldiers are going to die. No, evil-doers, people who hate you, your country, and your religion work much better to stoke the fires of fear.

Especially because Bush put his rationale in writing, and especially because all reasons have since been proven false, it angers me even more that Congress, and we as a nation, let him get away with it. Bush earned impeachment 5 years ago today.



Is there some unknown law that engenders the masses to lie to each other as well? Like some trickle-down theory of wayward, selfish thinking? If the president is put on a pedestal and allowed to lie, cheat, and steal (from American taxpayers with no-bid contracts to his friends) and allowed to get away with it, then maybe we should all just give up this silly notion of being honest with each other. Lie as you must, betray those you will, hurt those you may. It's the American way, right?

Lies about the My Lai Massacre

Lies about the Iraq War reversed

Lies by Bush about the economy uncovered



The Jones' can keep up with themselves. It's time for a new paradigm in thinking, a new understanding of who and what we are. There's a Hindu salutation: Namaste, that loosely translated means: the Divinity in me sees and acknowledges the Divinity in you. It means We. It means Us. It means we are One.

And “when you come from ‘we are all One,’ it is virtually impossible to find that hurting another ‘feels good.’ So-called ‘irresponsible behavior’ vanishes. It is within these parameters that evolving beings seek to experience life. "

Drug Free America

No one knows what the long-term effects of drinking tiny amounts of pharmaceuticals will have on the human body. According to a recent study that analyzed the drinking water in 28 out of 62 water suppliers, a sex hormone was detected in San Francisco's drinking water and antiepileptic and antianxiety medications were found in parts of southern California's water supply. The study also showed that if you live in Philadelphia, you're drinking tiny amounts of at least 56 pharmaceuticals or byproducts "including medicines for pain, infection, high cholesterol, asthma, epilepsy, mental illness, and heart problems." I guess if you have chronic pain, an infection, high cholesterol, respiratory problems, or other ailments, this could be welcome news.

Or could it? And what if you don't have any of these illnesses and are a healthy human being? Why is marijuana so evil, even with its medicinal properties, yet every three minutes a commercial has me wondering if I need to go ask my doctor for a pill to cure blindness, baldness, asthma, erectile dysfunction, hearing loss, heartburn, sleep problems and a host of other issues; never mind the fast-speaking voice that says side effects may include dizziness, drowsiness, loss of appetite, temporary blindness, cramps, pain, and in some cases death. And now many of these drugs are ending up in our drinking water and "the federal government doesn’t require any testing and hasn’t set safety limits for drugs in water." Why are we ok with this?





There was coast-to-coast Republican uproar over Bill Clinton's infidelity while in the Oval Office. Never-ending calls for impeachment were shown on every news cast, written about in every paper, and continually spoke of inside Congress.

Yet, after nearly 4,000 soldiers and close to 900,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, and a host of reports and studies show outright lies and fabrications on the rationale the Bush Administration gave for the Iraq War, barely a blip of incredulity, disgust or outrage appears on the radar of the MSM or Congress.

A review of more than 600,000 documents captured during the United States' invasion of Iraq have shown absolutely no evidence of any connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. "The new study of the Iraqi regime's archives found no documents indicating a "direct operational link" between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report." Warren Strobel of McClatchy Newspapers has the story here.

It is interesting to take a look back and see just exactly what members of the Bush Administration have said regarding their insistence of a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda. These quotes are all from the BBC here:

• "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda." (17 June 2004 - President Bush)
• "There's overwhelming evidence... of a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq". (January 2004 - Vice President Cheney)
• "Within a week, or a month, Saddam could give his WMD to al-Qaeda." (November 2002 - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld)

How much money, time, energy, and blathering was spent and wasted on an oral fixation that should have been much more important to his wife and daughter than an entire nation? And how much consideration is now given for our immoral actions in Iraq; something that not to be kept in the family but thrown open to the nation for discussion and analyzation?

Maybe most everyone listened to Bill O'Reilly back in February of 2003 when he said, "Once the war against Saddam Hussein begins, we expect every American to support our military, and if you can't do that, just shut up."

The Week of Follow-Ups

It seems that this weeks' news wire is abuzz with the continuing saga of many stories. That's good. All too often a story gets a prominent spotlight only to vanish backstage and never be heard or seen from again. (Did we ever find out who sent the anthrax to Congress? Or who placed the put-options on United and American Airlines stock days before 9/11?)



Global warming - peak oil: I tend to put them in the same category since the latter is causing the former, but also because they're both happening at the same time. It's going to create quite a calamity, as I've blogged about here. Thankfully, I'm not the only one to see this and recognize other facts like how over 99% of Americans are dependent on the 0.3% of us that grow our food. Tom Whipple and the coming storm is here.



According to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have the power to...provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...[and] to regulate commerce with foreign nations...."

What part of that does the Bush Administration not understand? And will Democrats or Republicans in Congress do anything about it? Let's bet they won't.

The following is from: Bush officials: Congress irrelevant on Iraq.

"The Bush administration also feels it does not need to seek the authorization of Congress to ratify two pending agreements with Iraq: a “Strategic Framework” that would govern “normalized” relations with the U.S., and a Status of Forces Agreement that would govern the “authorities and protections” of U.S. troops in Iraq past Dec. 31, the expiration of a U.N. resolution that the administration says authorizes their presence."



Our precious supply of fresh drinking water is running out. The FDA thinks you don't need to know about cloned meat or milk. And Monsanto, of Agent Orange fame, is trying its hardest to keep you from knowing the dangers of rBGH - or recombined Bovine Growth Hormone. They're injecting dairy cows with it. It's genetically modified. It's linked to cancer. Read all about it here. If you want to live long and prosper - Buy Organic!



Our friend Hillary "I"ll say whatever I have to in order to be elected President" Clinton has contradicted her policy platform yet again. Yesterday, I wrote about her ties to corporate America. Today it's her lack of ties to the American worker.

Three years ago, she helped negotiate a deal for 23 high-tech "Marine One" presidential helicopters being made by numerous companies - including European ones. However, "this past week, [she] derided the Pentagon's decision to award a $40 billion defense contract to build mid-flight refueling tankers to a team consisting of Northrop Grumman and EADS, a European company." Sam Stein has blogged his analysis here.

Are any Americans paying attention to this? If your priest, pastor, car salesman, father-in-law, school teacher, or any such person in a position of authority consistently changed their story only for the benefit of selling you a car or getting some extra bills in the collection plate, would you stand for it? If you're a Hillary supporter, why is this ok? Someone help me on this...please...



This would definitely be a follow-up on my hypocrisy rant: with an endorsement from this guy, John Hagee, how can McCain seriously represent anything approaching Christian morals or American values?



Do not watch this if you're a human being. This really has nothing to do with the fact that this guy is an American. It does, however, have everything to do with what war does to the consciousness of a human being. The last paragraph of this story explains it well.


Something fun, something light, something cool...Volk Hände.

Holding Feet to the Fire

Last night was a telling night in primaries across Ohio and Texas. Much air-time and hot air was wasted on whether or not Hillary or Obama should concede defeat were either to not win these two battleground states. Back and forth go the talking heads, arguing and debating on how many delegates and superdelegates there are voting for who and why and where and what the hell is going on?! Really. I mean, where is substance and issues and background on these two candidates?

I found some here. Watch this video of a CBS news clip regarding the time Hillary Clinton served on the Board of Wal-Mart. Yep, the anti-union, sweatshop-laden, mom & pop shop destroying, women-hating Wal-Mart. (They'll pay for Viagra, but not birth control). How ironic that once Hillary decides to run for President, her views change and she's now pro-labor, pro-American-made goods, and pretty much for everything Wal-Mart is against. Just one more reason I'm quite leery of Hillary and won't be voting for her.

Here's an informative and humorous look at sweatshop & child labor: Pranktivism.



I'm a big proponent of the truth. Therefore, things like this and this, really piss me off. If the Iraq war really is the defining war of our time, so vitally important that our government makes sure we are really terrified of Al Qaeda Islamo-fascist, freedom-hating, Arabs, then why are these two twins and the Five Brothers allowed off the hook? Mitt Romney said, in August of last year, "it's time, in my view, for the people of America to show a surge of support, including our leaders in Washington, for these families and for the troops."

Oh, ok. Just support the troops and their families; those willing to live with the death or mutilation of their loved ones, and all is good...I don't have to actually sacrifice anything myself. I support the troops and life is good because I'm not one of them....is that it Mitt? I'm glad you lost, buddy.



Questions, questions, too many questions:

Wasn't this supposed to happen? Here is an article from January of 2003 - two months before we invaded the innocent country. "I don't think they're planning as far as I know to use Iraqi oil to pay for the invasion, but they are going to use it to pay for the occupation." Oh, really?


Why doesn't this make headline news? Whether they're lying or not - we could hold their feet to the fire, couldn't we? Then again - we like being the bully on the block - where we have a little less than 10,000 nuclear warheads. And we want more!

Why do we think we're smarter than mother-nature; smarter than an evolutionary biology that has been continually perfecting itself over millions and millions of years?