Saturday, June 10, 2006

June Wildlife eNews

Feature Story Gray Wolf (c) Corel Corp

Saving the Wolves -- Shifting the Burden

Getting wolves back to their wild homes doesn’t end with a successful reintroduction. Farmers and ranchers make their livelihood in close quarters with these predators. Losing livestock to wolves -- although rare -- can cost ranchers thousands of dollars. But for nearly a decade, Defenders has been there to help with the Bailey Wildlife Foundation Wolf Compensation Trust. Over the last decade, Defenders has paid more than $665,000 in compensation to those who have suffered livestock losses to wolf predation -- shifting the burden from individual ranchers to the millions of people who support the wolves’ reintroduction to the wild.

Read More Read More Send this to a Friend


Action of the Month Al Gore in 'An Inconvenient Truth' Paramount Classics

Al Gore's Omen

Barely a week after opening, one of the scariest movies of all time has people all abuzz. No, it’s not about the demon-child Damien -- but something far more ominous for our wildlife and us: global warming. Former VP Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth has already made its way into the 10 top grossing films last weekend -- even though it only premiered in select theaters.

As the film opens in more cities in the coming weeks, you can help ensure that as many people as possible see this critically important film. The more people that see the documentary in the early weeks, the more theaters will carry it.

Take Action Now:


Feature Story Drilling for Oil

Energizing Bad Policy

The last few weeks have seen a flurry of action on energy-related issues -- with a mixed bag of results for our wildlife and our natural heritage. Although the House of Representatives voted to keep a drilling ban off our coasts, Big Oil is far from giving up on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, off our coasts, and on other public lands. Using high energy prices as cover, it seems that some in Congress are more than willing to sacrifice wildlife and wildlands for short sighted gains.

Read More Read More Send this to a Friend
Wildlife Hero

Planning for the Future -- and the Future of Wildlife

Retired from a career at the U.S. Geological Survey, Carroll Ann Hodges is now serving her third four-year term on the town council in Woodside, California. She is working to encourage community landowners to donate private lands through conservation easements to protect habitat for the area’s wild animals including coyote, foxes, and bobcats like the one she was thrilled to see while out riding last fall.

“An animal was trotting along ahead of me,” Carroll Ann happily reports. “Once I saw the tell-tale short tail, I realized it was a bobcat. A moment later, I saw her two kittens trailing behind her. I wasn’t 10 feet away from them!”

Carroll Ann has been a member of Defenders for nearly 25 years -- and now her support will go even further. By including Defenders of Wildlife in her estate plans, Carroll Ann is ensuring that the wild animals she cherishes will benefit from her generous support today -- and long into the future.

If you would like to learn more about including Defenders of Wildlife in your will or estate plans, please contact us.

Join us for a telephone seminar on smart ways to plan your estate in light of recent tax law changes:
Estate Planning Phone Seminar:
June 22 12pm -2pm (eastern)

Carroll Ann Hodges
Read More Send this to a Friend


Founded in 1947, Defenders of Wildlife is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization with more than 480,000 members and supporters that works to protect endangered species and their habitat.

Defenders can be contacted at: 1130 Seventeenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036

The Huffington Post's Weekly Digest 6.9.06

The Huffington Post Huffington Post HomeHuffington Post HomeForward to a Friend

This week, we replaced the weekly digest with a daily HuffPost e-mail update. The Daily Brief highlights the day's top news story, my latest blog post, and a selection of the most interesting and newsworthy takes from HuffPost's roster of over 700 bloggers.

Signup for the daily brief

Enjoy today's Brief below. But be sure to sign up in order to receive our collection of daily news and views Monday through Friday.

Murtha: "We Cannot Win This...It Is A Civil War...Al Qaeda Is A Small Part Of This"...

soldierweb.jpg

From media.t1host.net

Few people will mourn the death of infamous Al Qaeda terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed by US troops in Iraq on Wednesday, but some politicians would like the Bush administration to focus on the future of Iraq.

Administration officials marked Zarqawi's death as a victory, but warned that the insurgency in Iraq is far from over. Although Zarqawi has been a "real thorn" in the American side, violence in Iraq stems from a number of groups, many of them not linked to Al Qaeda. Zarqawi's death may have symbolic importance in the United States, but Representative John P. Murtha (D-Penn.), a former Marine and fierce critic of the Iraq war, emphasized, "We cannot win this. It is a civil war they are involved in. Al Qaeda is a small part of this."

Click here to read the whole story.

Click here to discuss it on HuffPost.

ON THE BLOG TODAY

Arianna Huffington: Carville and Greenberg Bury the Lede! (Hint: It's Iraq)

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: Zarqawi's Death Should Be a Call for Debate on Iraq Policy

Alan Dershowitz: "Targeted Killing" of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

Peter Beinart: In Praise of Mark Malloch Brown


Forward to a Friend
Huffington Post HomeThe NewsThe BlogEat The PressContagious Festival

© 2006 HuffingtonPost.com, LLC. All rights reserved. | User Agreement | Privacy Policy

560 Broadway, Suite 308, NY, NY 10012

STRAIGHT STUFF ON THE GAY HUFF

POCKET PARADIGM

The simple solution: if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay.
- Sam Smith

SENATORIAL INQUIRY

Sam Smith

1. The Ten Commandments outlaw killing and adultery but that doesn't
seem to bother your colleagues as much as gay marriage. Why do you think
the Ten Commandments are less important to them than the gay marriage?

2. Would you accept a compromise in which we outlawed not only gay
marriages but support of deadly wars or cheating on your wife? If not,
why not?

3. The Ten Commandants say "You can work during the six weekdays and do
all your tasks. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to God your Lord. Do
not do anything that constitutes work. [This includes] you, your son,
your daughter, your slave, your maid, your animal, and the foreigner in
your gates." You have not yet formalized this into a constitutional
amendment and so your maids, slaves, animals and proximate foreigners
are running around hog wild on Sundays. Isn't this more dangerous than a
few gays getting married and shouldn't you tackle it first?

4. Exodus tells us to kill those who work on Sunday. This seems to
conflict with the federal code, not to mention the Ten Commandments.
Shouldn't we worry more about the need for increased Seventh Day
slaughter than about gay marriage?

5. Since religions differ sharply on this issue, if this amendment
passes it will directly conflict with the First Amendment which says,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Which one should we then
follow?

6. Since Republicans believe so firmly in the sanctity of marriage, how
do you explain the following from the New York Daily News in August
2004: "With thousands of Republicans set to invade the city this summer,
high-priced escorts and strippers are preparing for one grand old party.
Agencies are flying in extra call girls from around the globe to meet
the expected demand during the Aug. 30-Sept. 2 gathering at Madison
Square Garden."

7. Explain the moral difference between a Republican politician opposing
gay marriage and one participating in gay sex which, according to police
and news reports, happens from time to time. Do we need an amendment
preserving the sanctity of illicit sex?

8. If this were 1956 instead of 2006, would you have supported a ban on
inter-racial marriages, which most states had? How does the current
amendment differ in spirit - rather than merely the target - from the
one proposed in 1911: "Intermarriage between negroes or persons of color
and Caucasians . . . within the United States . . . is forever
prohibited."

9. Have you ever had contact with a woman during her period of menstrual
uncleanliness, something outlawed by the Bible? Should we have a
constitutional amendment to prevent this sort of thing from happening
again?

10. How would you deal with the issue raised by Professor Emeritus James
Kaufman of the University of Virginia: "Lev. 25:44 states that I may
indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased
from neighboring nations." Do you think this biblical right should be
also codified in a constitutional amendment? How will this affect our
plans for construction of a border wall?

11. Leviticus reminds us of other sins far more prevalent than gay
marriage. For example, "These shall ye eat of all that are in the
waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and
in the rivers, them shall ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales
in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of
any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination
unto you. . . ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their
carcasses in abomination." Do we need a constitutional amendment to ban
the eating of shrimp, crab, lobster, clams & mussels?

12. Homosexuality has been found by scientists in 450 other species.
Isn't it a bit late to be trying to suppress it in ours?

13. If gay marriages produce some gay children, why do heterosexual
marriages do the same?

14. Since we're going back to first principles, would you mind adding a
section that makes wives the husband's property?

15. Which of these other steps - all Biblically endorsed - should be
taken to preserve the sanctity of marriage: allowing men to take on
concubines in addition to their wives, stoning to death any new wife
found not to be a virgin, requiring women to marry the man who raped
them, banning interfaith marriages, and banning divorce?

16. Given the foregoing, is it fair to describe those pushing the
marriage amendment as heretical, hypocritical and blasphemous
Christians? History shows that such people are far more dangerous, on
average, than gays. Shouldn't we do something about them before we worry
about those gay weddings?

The Courage to Face the Consequences

By Ray McGovern
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Friday 09 June 2006

Hope is here. The cold light of truth is piercing the cloud of lies conjured by Donald Rumsfeld and others about the war in Iraq - even in the defense secretary's own bailiwick.

A Matter of Conscience ...

Several months ago, US Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada decided that US involvement in Iraq is illegal and immoral. Like so many of us, Watada concluded that intelligence was manipulated to "justify" the invasion. Unlike so many of us, he has had the courage to stick his neck out and pay the price for resistance.

We should, I suppose, give the neck its due. It is a pleasant thing - a convenient connection between head and torso. We do not risk it out of caprice. But if there is nothing for which we will risk that neck, then it has become our idol. And necks are not worthy of this status. Finally, an active duty US Army officer has refused to engage in that kind of idol worship.

No publicity seeker, Watada earlier this year quietly submitted a request to resign from the Army. The request was denied. He then refused to deploy to Iraq with his unit this summer, and is prepared to face prison rather than violate his conscience. Meanwhile, he fully expects the kind of ostracism encountered by those few Army enlisted men who objected to the torture at Abu Ghraib. In what might well be the understatement of the month, Watada says he may be "the most unpopular person at Fort Lewis."

... and a Gift for Dan Berrigan

Watada may not realize this, but he has presented a pearl of great price to long-time war resister, Jesuit priest and poet Dan Berrigan, who celebrates his 85th birthday this weekend in New York. Facing ridicule and ostracism for acting on their principled opposition to the war in Vietnam, Dan and his late brother Phil were no strangers to prison - or to profound disappointment at the dearth of those willing to witness in the way of Watada.

In No Bars to Manhood, Dan wrote:

"Of course, let us have peace," we cry, "but at the same time let us have normalcy, let us lose nothing, let our lives stand intact, let us know neither prison nor ill repute nor disruption of ties ... " There is no peace because there are no peacemakers. There are no makers of peace because the making of peace is at least as costly as the making of war - at least as exigent, at least as disruptive, at least as liable to bring disgrace and prison, and death in its wake.

Dan Berrigan will be encouraged by Watada's resistance. And so, I hope, will Faiza Al Araji, one of the courageous Iraqi women who came to the US in March to give first-hand testimony to the suffering of the Iraqi people. Executive manager of Arab Water Treatment Co., Faiza is a highly educated engineer who took a month off to appeal to US citizens to do something to end the tragedy of her people.

I had the privilege of sharing speaking duties with her on several panels arranged by progressives in California. It was painful. Faiza would pour out her heart, only to be met with expressions of sympathy - and impotence. After three successive days of this, she found a way to express her outrage without wearing out her welcome. We were in Santa Cruz, speaking to a standing-room-only audience. After Faiza's account of the horrors being experienced by her people elicited the all-too-familiar, hand-wringing moans of "what can we do," she lost it.

Candid Sharing ...

Returning to her seat next to me on the panel, she grabbed my notebook and filled the top page with what she really wanted to say. Her poignant words, as she wrote them:

So, Iraqis are in the middle between American people who don't know what to do alway? and American Administration who had plans to war and never listen!

Where is the key to help poor Iraqis?

In the beginning of my meeting I feel sad for American people but after passing of time my people are dying and Americans still asking stupid questions like what can I do?

I feel sick.

Faiza could see it. We are, for the most part, blissfully (perhaps studiously?) unaware of our own power - the power we still enjoy as Americans, even as the claws of fascism creep steadily closer. We in the dominant culture often feel impotent, despite the power of our inherent privilege. Perhaps it's a subconscious thing. Maybe we prefer to remain in denial because, otherwise, we would have to look in the mirror and decide whether we have the courage to put that power into play.

... and Becoming Aware

At the Servant Leadership School in Washington, DC, we are constantly grappling with the debilitating accoutrements of white privilege and unexplored racism. At one point an African-American trainer threw up his hands, looked at us, and - as calmly as he could - explained:



If someone has their foot on my neck, I will say once, please get off my neck. If you continue to stand on my neck and explain how you didn't know you were there and why you were there and how difficult it is to move, I cannot be nice about it any more. It's not about conversation; in the end it's about getting your foot off my neck.

And so, we are back to necks. We must stop the hand wringing and find ways to get our country's foot off Iraq's neck.

What can we do? Get together with a few friends and figure it out! If we were willing to put something on the line, if we were willing to stick out our own necks, as Lt. Watada has done, things could change.

Ray McGovern was an Army officer (1962-1964) and an analyst with the CIA for the next 27 years. He is on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) and last month took advantage of an opportunity to confront Rumsfeld directly about the lies he told - and continues to tell - about the war in Iraq. Ray now works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC.

Biofuel Challenges Big Oil


By Charles Shaw
In These Times

Thursday 08 June 2006


(Photo: In These Times)

As oil surpasses $75 a barrel and gas hits $3 a gallon, Americans might find it hard to imagine higher costs. But this auto-centric perspective overlooks the hidden costs of our petroleum addiction.

"The diesel engine is the backbone of the American economy," says Matt Atwood, project manager for Biodiesel Systems, LLC, an independent, Madison, Wis.-based start-up. "While accounting for only 12 percent of our total fuel consumption, it transports 70 percent of the nation's goods to market in shipping containers hauled by semi-trucks." Diesel also accounts for transporting 18 million tons of freight and 14 million people every day, to the tune of $6 trillion a year, or about 51 percent of our GDP.

But what if diesel and petrochemicals could eventually be replaced by localized, sustainable industries of natural, renewable materials that are non-toxic and biodegradable?

This is the solution offered by the European Association for Bioindustries, known as EuropaBio. EuropaBio claims that industrial biotechnology has the potential to revolutionize industry by reducing pollution and waste, decreasing the use of energy, raw materials and water, and creating new materials and biofuels from our waste products - including biodegradable plastics and building materials, as well as renewable fuels like biodiesel and ethanol.

The key to industrial biotechnology, according to Novozymes, the "world leader" in enzyme technology, is new "cellulosic" technology. This involves genetically engineered enzymes that break down agricultural and forestry waste (and eventually, garbage and other unused organic matter) into usable energy and building material.

BIO (Biotechnology Industry Organization), the American biotech lobby group, has recently begun promoting a sustainable "bio-based economy." But opponents have called this new industrial paradigm everything from a "Trojan Horse to push the acceptance of GMO crops" to something "worse than fossil fuels."

They are concerned that the production of biofuel from crops consumes more energy than it produces, and therefore causes more air pollution, soil and water depletion and pollution, forest destruction and harm to animals.

In April, John Peck of the National Family Farm Coalition led a panel discussion in Chicago on GMOs during BioETHICS 2006, a conference that took place the same week as the annual BIO convention. Peck dismissed ethanol outright, explaining its recent vogue as an industry response to "vast quantities of [surplus] low quality Bt [GMO] corn that has hardly any market" and that producers want to "dump it at taxpayer expense into domestic ethanol production."

Peck says the ethanol industry is almost exclusively controlled by Big Agro corporations like Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland, subsidized to the tune of $.51 per gallon. But, BIO has not been shy about their enthusiasm for government funding of this industry. They have called it a means to "end US addiction to oil" and they envision turning the "nation's breadbasket" into "the energy fields of the United States."

Regardless of whether ethanol is the answer, many believe that the paradigm shift itself is the imperative - but point out that it will take time and effort. "New technology must be introduced in gradients, and significant investment is needed to do it, regardless of corporate corruption," says Vinay Gupta, who worked on the Pentagon-co-funded report, "Winning the Oil Endgame."

Gupta points out that even the US Department of Energy said a successful transition to the post-petroleum era would require several decades and a significant portion of our remaining fossil fuels. "The first step is conservation, which frees up the necessary oil to begin building the new infrastructure, like Biodiesel refineries," he says.

Novozymes CEO Steen Riisgaard acknowledged that concerns about arable land use are valid, but argued that cellulosic enzyme technology will redress them. EuropaBio claims that biomass is still attractive as a fuel source because "the CO2 it produces is offset by the CO2 absorbed by the plants that go into making it as they grow."

Both sides agree that biomass can be grown without planting vast new fields of GMO crops. Advocates like Peck believe that the burgeoning biomass supply market should remain localized and democratic, outside of corporate control.

This was one of the factors that convinced Biodiesel Systems' Atwood to get into this business. "Biodiesel can take this faucet of money being pointed at other nations to purchase oil and point it back at Midwest farmers," he says.

But even for a new technology with clear benefits, principled opposition runs deep. "For almost every problem you can imagine, a non-biotech approach is cheaper, more effective, and healthier for land and people," says Friends of the Earth's Bill Freese. "Only political will is lacking. Many of us who oppose biotech do so in part for the sake of creating space for these healthier alternatives."

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

A LITTLE BIT OF TIME




Well, my trip has been postponed until next week but I still find my hands full catching up with everything that didn't get done at home while I was gone. My how time flies when you're having such a good time!!!!!!!!!...............LOL.............. Anyway, I have found a moment to try and dig through my e-mail backlog and came up with a couple of things. Please check out the first post of today about Greg Palast's new book. This is all for today and here is a picture of where I've been in Montana. This is called "Lone Peak" in Big Sky...............PEACE................Scott

Stand Up for Democracy With Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

By Thom Hartmann
Common Dreams

Sunday 04 June 2006

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has written a brilliant new article about the biggest political story in the history of the United States: An American politician illegitimately took the office of president by outright theft and fraud. Although such high crimes and misdemeanors have been rumored in previous elections, none in the history of the republic have been so thoroughly documented. George W. Bush is not the legitimate president of the United States.

Schoolchildren read (in the few remaining civics classes in America) about the multiple pollings and tense standoff that led to Thomas Jefferson's election as president in "the Revolution of 1800," because newspapers of the day looked into and reported on such things. But - unless we speak out - odds are that few will read about what happened in Ohio in 2004 in future history books, because modern newspaper editors are increasingly corporate appendages, and many of today's "reporters" worry more about currying favor with institutional power than investigating stories that may inconvenience or upset their "sources."

Kennedy's story - "Was The 2004 Election Stolen?" - broke on Thursday, June 1, 2006, when Rolling Stone magazine put it on their website and it appeared on other websites including www.commondreams.org. It hit the newsstands soon thereafter. In the article, Kennedy lays out the details of exactly how the Republican Party, in several states but particularly in Ohio, engaged in a criminal conspiracy to both steal the 2004 election and to cover up the evidence of that theft.

The subtitle of the article lays out Kennedy's foundational premise: "Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House." And that's just the beginning of the story, which includes ballot-box stuffing, electronic voting machine manipulation, "caging" in defiance of a court order banning Republicans from the notorious practice, threats and intimidation of Democratic voters by imported Republican goon squads, and multiple illegal uses of the office of the Secretary of State to disenfranchise Democratic voters.

The Republican rebuttals/attacks have already begun, starting with a particularly tragic hit-piece in one of the higher-profile "online magazines" that claims to authoritatively quote so-called but unnamed "experts" who doubt Kennedy's sources, and takes a clip of Ohio law so out of context as to essentially reverse its meaning in support of the Republican talking points.

The day Kennedy's article came out, Republican callers began dialing into talk radio shows complaining about "massive Democrat (sic) voter fraud by registering illegal immigrants" (to quote a caller to my Air America Radio program on 6/2/06). Clearly the meme Republicans will put out if Kennedy's story gets traction in the mainstream media is that "election fraud is something both parties do," and they'll use that meme to push even harder for more Republican-helpful restrictions on voters who are old, urban, or poor enough not to have or easily acquire two forms of government-issued ID. We can't let them - this is about real crimes, and the destruction of democracy in our republic.

Kennedy's article is an in-depth, on-the-ground report from Ohio about the 2004 election. In it, he acknowledges that he is building on the work of many who preceded him - this was a story not particularly difficult to uncover, even though the mainstream media has chosen to ignore it. Seminal investigations were done by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman of the Columbus, Ohio Free Press, and by Michigan Congressman John Conyers, who held hearings in Ohio that resulted in a summary report now available in book form titled What Went Wrong In Ohio (all referenced by Kennedy).

Just after the 2002 elections, I wrote an article for Common Dreams ("If You Want To Win An Election, Just Control The Voting Machines") outing Senator Chuck Hagel's odd journey from voting machine peddler to the US Senate (being elected on his own machines). Six months later, in the summer of 2003, MoveOn.org commissioned me to write a round-up article about voting machine problems which they emailed to over 2 million members, and was published on AlterNet. In both articles (and others since), I was building on the work of Bev Harris of www.blackboxvoting.org, Lynn Landes, and many others, just as Kennedy has done.

It's not like the theft of the 2004 election is a secret to anybody who is looking. Mark Crispin Miller devoted an entire (brilliant) book to the topic, "Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them)", and BBC investigative reporter Greg Palast lays it out in a chapter of his new book "Armed Madhouse" and articles on his website www.gregpalast.com.

Kennedy, however, has a name and reputation that demands instant recognition in the mainstream American media. And he didn't just recycle the work of those who preceded him - he went to Ohio, talked with elections officials, looked over records, investigated the investigators, and only included in his story those facts he felt were sufficiently solid that they could, as he told me, "convince a jury." In fact, he is calling for criminal investigations into his evidence, for indictments of culpable Republican officials, and jury trials.

Even with such a credible and high-profile figure involved, however, the response so far of America's corporate-owned mainstream media to Kennedy's article evokes echoes of the media's handling of similar Republican Party crimes in Florida in the 2000 election.

Although it was reported - in The New York Times, no less - that Al Gore got more votes than George W. Bush in a statewide recount of Florida "no matter what standard was chosen to judge voter intent," most Americans don't know to this day that Gore actually won the 2000 election. The reason is a small percentage of Republican spin and a large percentage of journalistic cowardice in the mainstream media following 9/11. (This cowardice is limited to the USA, by the way - the story was extensively covered in most of the rest of the world.)

In the 2000 case, The New York Times, on November 12, 2001, published a story summarizing the work of the newspaper consortium that spent nearly a year counting all the ballots in the 2000 Florida election. They found that a statewide recount - the process the Florida Supreme Court had mandated and which had begun when George W. Bush sued before the US Supreme Court to stop the recount - "could have produced enough votes to tilt the election his [Gore's] way, no matter what standard was chosen to judge voter intent."

The Times analysis further showed that had "spoiled" ballots - ballots normally punched but "spoiled" because the voter also wrote onto the ballot the name of the candidate - been counted, the results were even more spectacular. While 35,176 voters wrote in Bush's name after punching the hole for him, 80,775 wrote in Gore's name while punching the hole for Gore. Katherine Harris decided that these were "spoiled" ballots, and ordered that none of them should be counted. Many were from African American districts, where older and often broken machines were distributed, causing voters to write onto their ballots so their intent would be unambiguous. As the Times added in a sidebar article with a self-explanatory title by Ford Fessenden, in the 2000 election in Florida: "Ballots Cast by Blacks and Older Voters Were Tossed in Far Greater Numbers."

The November, 2001, New York Times article went on to document how, in a statewide recount, there was no possible doubt that Al Gore won Florida in 2000:

"If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards [all the ones that were used by either party], and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin. For example, using the most permissive ''dimpled chad'' standard, nearly 25,000 additional votes would have been reaped, yielding 644 net new votes for Mr. Gore and giving him a 107-vote victory margin. ...

"Using the most restrictive standard -- the fully punched ballot card -- 5,252 new votes would have been added to the Florida total, producing a net gain of 652 votes for Mr. Gore, and a 115-vote victory margin.

"All the other combinations likewise produced additional votes for Mr. Gore, giving him a slight margin over Mr. Bush, when at least two of the three coders agreed."

And yet all of this information was buried well after the 17th paragraph of the story, which carried the baffling headline "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote."

As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pointed out to me in an interview on my radio program on June 2, the reason the Times chose to bury the lede of their story and instead imply in the headline and first few paragraphs that Bush had legitimately won the 2000 election was because just a month earlier the US had been struck on 9/11 and The Times' publisher didn't want to undermine the president's legitimacy in a time of national crisis.

In a case eerily prescient of the Times' 2004 decision to delay reporting on Bush's illegal wiretapping of Americans until after the election, the Times' publisher and editors decided in November of 2001 that that wasn't a good time to reveal that Bush was an illegitimate president and that Al Gore actually had won the election, both by the majority vote and the electoral vote. (Although, to their credit, at least they reported that Gore got the most votes in Florida, as did The Washington Post, which also ran the story but buried it deep within an article that similarly seemed to imply Bush won legitimately. USA Today passed over it altogether, simply saying that Bush won.)

The big question for today is whether media history will repeat itself. Will the mainstream media do any first-source on-the-ground investigative reporting into the theft of the 2004 election, or simply treat it as a political "difference of opinion"? And if they do engage in the hard work of first-source reporting as the Times and their consortium did in 2001, and the results again come back that Bush is an illegitimate president, will they again bury that fact seventeen paragraphs into a story with a misleading headline and opening as they did when, in 2001, they counted the ballots and found that Al Gore got more votes than George W. Bush did in Florida?

So far, it seems that the mainstream media is going to pass on doing any of their own first-source reporting, while Kenneth Blackwell begins the process of destroying evidence, which he'll be legally authorized to do in the next few months.

For example, on Friday, June 3, 2006, CNN briefly interviewed Kennedy, but treated the story as a political one rather than an example of investigative reporting. Instead of interviewing Kennedy about the details and substance of the story, Wolf Blitzer had on with Kennedy the infamous Terry Holt, spokesman for the Bush/Cheney campaign and a likely co-conspirator in the crime, instead of an investigative reporter who had examined Kennedy's evidence. Just as when Holt was confronted by Anderson Cooper in August of 2004 about the administration's manipulation of terror alerts during the campaign, Holt similarly ridiculed the idea of Republican election crimes, and Blitzer didn't challenge him - or let Kennedy finish most of his sentences.

Three days after Kennedy's story broke in Rolling Stone, a Google news search shows no national "mainstream" media having picked up the story as a serious news report, or having done any follow-up reporting into the issues he raises whatsoever. An email reply from an editor at The Seattle Times, asking why they're not covering the story, is characteristic of the response from many other national newspapers: "We subscribe to many news services for our national and foreign coverage. However, Rolling Stone is not one of them."

The question should not be, "Is this a story we can quote or should investigate because it was first reported in a major newspaper?" Instead, it should be, "Is there credible evidence that the election of 2004 was stolen by Republicans engaged in openly criminal activity?" And, of course, "Are they preparing to do the same in 2006 and 2008?"

Our national mega-corporate-owned media - now so driven by ad dollars that sensationalized "missing white girls" trump real news - will only respond if enough of us raise enough questions with their editors and writers. Or if more of our members of congress (you can call your congressperson or senator at 202 225-3121) - particularly the "media darlings" like Joe Biden and (gulp) Chuck Hagel, who are ubiquitous on the Sunday talking-head shows - begin to speak out with the rare courage Congressman John Conyers showed when he pursued his investigation despite a virtual news blackout from the mainstream media.

Let them know what you think. Democracy begins with you, after all. Tag - you're it!

Associated Press: http://www.ap.org/pages/contact/contact.html

The New York Times: http://nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html#b

The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-adv/mediacenter/html/about_contact.html

National Public Radio: http://www.npr.org/contact/

CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/08/01/eveningnews/main15218.shtml

NBC News: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10285339/

ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Reference/story?id=54216

Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/services/site/la-contactus,0,1439615.htmlstory

Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/placead/chi-contactus,1,3223097.htmlstory?coll
=chi-navrailhome2-nav&ctrack=1&cset=true

Miami Herald: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/contact_us/

--------

Thom Hartmann is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author, and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show carried on the Air America Radio network and Sirius. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books include "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection," "We The People: A Call To Take Back America," "What Would Jefferson Do?" and "Ultimate Sacrifice." His next book, due out this autumn, is "Screwed: The Undeclared War on the Middle Class and What We Can Do About It."

Defending What Makes Us Strong

transparent
June 6, 2006
transparent

nil

nil

nil

nil



The ideals we should stand for as a nation are under attack every day by the Far Right.

Tax fairness, equal rights and free speech are essential components for a strong America. Support our work to defend what makes us strong with a secure online contribution today.

-- Ralph G. Neas, President
People For the American Way

nil

nil nil nil


nil

nil

nil

nil

ACTION

Urge Your Representatives in Congress to Cosponsor Reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act

Tell Congress: Don't Whitewash White House Abuses

nil

nil nil nil


nil

nil nil

PFAW Recommends:

This new, easy-to-read handbook for progressive political action provides readers with concrete steps they can take do defend our democracy from the radical right.

Learn more!

Buy 50 Simple Things now and part of your purchase will support our work!

Buy it!

nil
nil nil nil


nil

nil

nil

nil

Listen to the excellent Air America Radio interview with PFAW co-founder Norman Lear.

nil

nil nil nil


nil

nil nil

Support our campaigns with a donation!

Spread the word by forwarding this Alert!

Stay informed by subscribing to PFAW Action Alerts!

nil
nil nil nil

Defending What Makes Us Strong

Sensible Priorities: Repeal of Estate Tax Unaffordable and Immoral

Equal Rights: Federal Marriage Amendment Vote is Here, Bush Supports Discrimination

Free Speech
: ‘Flag Desecration Amendment’ Would Weaken First Amendment

IN FOCUS
Immigration Reform Bills Lacking, Need Serious Work



Repeal of Estate Tax Unaffordable and Immoral

The Senate is poised to vote on legislation by Republican Senator John Kyl that would permanently repeal the Estate Tax at the behest of a handful of America’s wealthiest families. It would cost the national treasury no less than a trillion dollars within its first decade – the Right’s ‘starve the government’ strategy truly epitomized.

Chances are no one you know will save a penny from this reckless tax cut. And chances are no one you know will ever have his or her estate taxed. However, oil company executives, the Walton family and several Bush administration officials (including Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld) will all reap millions while the rest of us foot the bill.

It’s common sense. Passing another trillion dollars in crippling debt onto future generations will drain the government’s capacity to effectively provide for Americans in areas like health care and education and burden taxpayers and consumers with significant additional costs. Join the hundreds of organizations and millions of Americans who are speaking out and saying don’t let it happen!

Call your senators toll-free at 1-800-459-1887 and tell them to vote NO on repeal of the Estate Tax.

After you make your calls, please let us know how they went with our online call report form.



Federal Marriage Amendment Vote is Here, Bush Supports Discrimination

Yesterday, our president offended the values of millions of Americans when he endorsed amending the Constitution to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples. We’ll see similar kowtowing to the Right’s extreme base when senators vote on the so-called ‘Marriage Protection Amendment’ in the next few days.

As a constitutional amendment, the measure requires a vote of two thirds to pass, and sadly, that’s the only reason it won’t. But senators need to hear from their constituents that writing discrimination into our Constitution is unacceptable. Close to half of U.S. senators, if not more, are going to bend to the will of Pat Robertson, James Dobson and others to either shore up the support or avoid the wrath of the Religious Right on Election Day.

Right-wing groups are already trying to use the vote as a political weapon against senators around the country. But we're not letting them get away with it. Thanks to your efforts, some senators who have been targeted by the Right have been denouncing their tactics on the Senate floor.

If you have not done so already, please e-mail your senators now and urge them to OPPOSE the ‘Marriage Protection Amendment.’



‘Flag Desecration Amendment’ Would Weaken First Amendment

The ‘Flag Desecration Amendment’ is moving through the Senate and could come to a floor vote as early as next week. At stake is the very freedom at the heart of our democracy.

Congress has already rejected constitutional amendments on the flag three times, but the issue is back for the sake of election year demagoguery – and this time the vote in the Senate will be dangerously close. With states poised to ratify the amendment, literally one or two votes in the Senate will determine if, for the first time in our history, we curtail the liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Our First Amendment freedom of expression is not only meant to protect speech that is universally popular. Over the decades, the Supreme Court has addressed the issue several times, holding that it is a “bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment… that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive and disagreeable.”

Please write a letter to the editor of your local paper and simultaneously let your senators know that you oppose the ‘Flag Desecration Amendment’ and let others in your community know why they should too.

http://www.pfaw.org/go/FlagLTE

If your letter gets published, please send us a copy or a link, or let us know how we can find it by e-mailing capitolhill@pfaw.org.

nil nil nil
nil

IN FOCUS:
Immigration Reform Bills Lacking, Need Serious Work


On May 25, the Senate voted 62 - 36 in favor of S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. PFAW supported passage of the bill as a good-faith attempt at real reform, but as the bill heads to conference committee, amendments are needed to fix some troubling provisions.

Major problems with the Senate’s approach include that it provides for:

• a three-tiered earned legalization program, which would force an estimated two million undocumented immigrants to remain in the shadows with no path to legal status,
• the indefinite detention of immigrants; and
• an expansion of the range of offenses classified as aggravated felonies.

While provisions of the Senate bill must be fixed, the conference committee must use S. 2611 as the starting point for any final bill, working to correct its flaws and thoroughly rejecting the punitive, enforcement-only approach taken by the House in H.R. 4437.

PFAW encourages the House and Senate to work together in crafting comprehensive immigration reform legislation that recognizes immigrants' contributions to America and reflects true American values by providing immigrants with critical due process and judicial review protections.

nil
nil nil nil


Unless otherwise noted, all material in this email was brought to you by People For the American Way, a (501)(c4) organization.


To contact us online, please use the web form at:
http://www.pfaw.org/go/contact_us/

PFAW © 2006