EvansMediaUSA

I'm sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth.

As the Iraq war grinds on, and it becomes more obvious that the nation is lurching towards disaster, many of us are literally starved for the truth. We hunger for leaders who will be candid about our circumstances, those who believe as Emerson did that truth is the "treasure of all men". Sadly, what we get instead is "uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics."

One of the major casualties of this war has been the truth. Even when most Americans accept that dissembling is an everyday part of politics, the level of mendacity practiced by the Bush Administration has plumbed new depths. Interestingly, it was Adolph Hitler who observed that everyday citizens, "more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

This has been the war of the big lie. As a consequence, America's political process has been severely damaged: for the principle of informed consent to work, citizens have to trust the government to provide them with accurate information. Thus, to restore democracy we need to return to the basics - tell the truth.

When George W. Bush accepted the Republican nomination 5 years ago, he sought to distinguish himself from Bill Clinton and Al Gore on the basis of his trustworthiness. Invoking a moral framework based upon duty and honor, Bush pledged to "lead this nation to a responsibility era."

Now we know the truth. Bush followed the teachings, not of honorable leaders such as Jefferson and Churchill, but of tyrants such as Hitler and Goebbels. In his conduct of the war in Iraq, the President borrowed a page from Lenin, who famously observed, "A lie told often enough becomes truth."

During the past two years, George Bush has stuck to his justification for the invasion of Iraq, that the US "saved the world from a tyrant, who was developing weapons of mass destruction, and cultivating ties to terror." Thanks to a series of leaked documents, we now know that he fabricated his entire case for the war; it was not a mistake, a well-intended action subverted by erroneous information, "faulty intelligence." Rather, it was a willful perversion of the truth.

Two months after 9/11, President Bush ordered Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to begin planning an invasion of Iraq. After eight months, on July 23, 2002, momentum had gathered and the British "war cabinet" gathered to consider their involvement. According to a secret transcript of the meeting, published May 1st in the London Sunday Times, the Brits were very aware that "facts were being fixed around the policy" of the Administration to take out Saddam Hussein. As the year progressed, the Bush Administration's propaganda campaign swung into full gear. The first phase convinced Congress, and the American people, that Iraq constituted an imminent threat. The second phase saw a wily feint in order to gain the approval of the UN and a reprise of weapon inspections - a condition that the Blair government insisted upon. The final phase systematically discredited the work of the UN; in his infamous February, 2003, UN speech, Secretary of State Powell insisted that Saddam had fooled the inspectors and had caches of WMDs hidden throughout Iraq.

A rereading of this treacherous history raises two questions: Why should the American public believe anything that the Administration says? Why don't the Democrats make Bush's dishonesty a major political issue?

Clearly the Administration's moral stance is that the ends justify the means; they have followed the advice of Niccolo Machiavelli, "politics have no relations to morals," This immorality stains their entire agenda; for example, it explains why the Bushies continue to insist that tax cuts for the wealthy benefit the economy. No one who cares about truth, or democracy, should believe anything that the Administration says.

The fascinating question is why haven't the Democrats made more of the Bush duplicity and venality? In the 2004 Presidential campaign, John Kerry decided to hold back, to talk about policy, rather than Bush's competence and credibility. Kerry set a tone of appeasement that continues to this day. With the notable exception of House Leader Nancy Pelosi, leading Democrats have coddled the Bush Administration, treating them as errant children rather than as vipers.

The gloves have to come off. Democrats must take the aggressive stance that John Lennon's song evokes. The war in Iraq, the stability of the Middle East, and America's credibility as an exemplar for democracy are too important to be left to the purview of "uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics." What we need is the truth, "just gimme some truth."

Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer and activist. He can be reached at boburnett@comcast.net.

WASHINGTON -- May 25 -- With the nuclear industry running an aggressive public relations campaign to promote itself as the solution to global warming, a report released today by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) demonstrates that the goals of the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act can be met while slashing America's reliance on nuclear energy in half.

"Nuclear power is not a solution to global warming. We can meet our energy needs, tackle global warming, and save consumers billions of dollars by taking advantage of America's vast supplies of renewable energy and energy efficiency," said U.S. PIRG Legislative Director Anna Aurilio.

The report, "A Responsible Electricity Future: An Efficient, Cleaner and Balanced Scenario for the U.S. Electricity System," conducted for PIRG by Synapse Energy Economics, shows the potential for a clean and secure energy future that relies on energy efficiency and renewable energy sources such as wind, biomass, and solar instead of polluting fossil fuels and nuclear power. Under this "balanced case," the U.S. could reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the electricity sector by 16 percent by 2010 compared to business-as-usual, while holding nuclear power generation steady and saving $3 billion annually.

Shifting investments to energy efficiency and renewable energy would pay off even more in the long run, according to the report. By 2025, the U.S. would reduce its CO2 emissions from power plants by 47 percent, reduce nuclear power generation by nearly half, and save $36 billion annually compared to business-as-usual.

The Climate Stewardship Act would reduce CO2 emissions from the electricity sector by 12 percent in 2010 compared to business-as-usual, according to the Energy Information Administration. The bill does not require deeper cuts after 2010.

"Nuclear power is the most dangerous and expensive of all energy sources. We shouldn't give even more hard-earned taxpayer dollars to the nuclear industry," said Aurilio.

Aurilio noted that none of the nuclear power industry's financial, security, safety, waste, or proliferation problems has been solved. For instance:

• The nuclear industry has received at least $70 billion in direct federal subsidies in the last 50 years and still cannot finance a new plant on its own.
  
  
• While the 9/11 Commission concluded that al Qaeda considered attacking nuclear plants, nuclear reactors and irradiated fuel pools still remain vulnerable to a terrorist attack.
  
  
• Nuclear waste remains a serious problem without a safe solution.
  

"There is no need to jeopardize our health, safety, and economy with increased nuclear power when we have cleaner, cheaper solutions to reduce global warming pollution," concluded Aurilio.

U.S. PIRG is the national advocacy office for the state Public Interest Research Groups. State PIRGs are non-profit, non-partisan public interest advocacy organizations.

The myth of the liberal media is so great that it threatens to completely squash fair and balanced reporting and the state of democracy in general, a media expert said Thursday night.

Jeff Cohen, co-founder of the media watchdog group Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting and a former media pundit for FOX and MSNBC, spoke to a crowd of about 75 people, detailing the myths surrounding media outlets and their news coverage and calling for more involvement from citizens in trying to reform mainstream media.

"They take the public's airwaves and restrict the flow of information," Cohen said about the mainstream media.

Former media pundit Jeff Cohen speaks about the myth of liberal media Thursday night in the Lillis Business Complex. (Photo/Lauren Wimer)

"I have a history of hanging out with right-wingers -- it was my job," Cohen said during a question-and-answer session.

Cohen said the "gigantic myth of the liberal media" is exemplified by the blatant right-wing agenda of those who control the mainstream media.

"The number-one fear is the fear of doing anything that would get you and your outlet accused of being liberal," Cohen said.

Cohen gave a brief history of his career with the media and said it was very obvious that people with left-wing views were intended to be overshadowed by right-wingers, describing tactics within the networks involving a mandated ratio of liberal opinions to conservative opinions.

Media conglomeration does not get the attention it deserves because the only outlets equipped to report on the issue are at the center of the issue, Cohen said.

"Most censorship in our country is corporate," Cohen said.

Other countries see their information and news outlets censored by the government, but in the United States, corporate control is such that corporations and the government are basically one and the same, Cohen said.

"The owners of the media would rather have us be inactive citizens" than informed citizens, Cohen said.

The rise of independent media is possible and is needed now more than ever before, Cohen said.

Cohen outlined three action points citizens can take to try to fight independent journalism's downfall and the rise of corporate control of information.

The first calls for involvement in activist organizations such as FAIR, the second proposes greater activism efforts to produce more independent media outlets and the third asks citizens to actively pursue policy reform at the national level concerning the need for media diversity and less conglomerated mainstream media.

"It's so much easier to build independent media, promote it and distribute it than ever before," Cohen said, citing the decrease in equipment costs the past few years have brought. "Those of us who are information-rich have a duty to those of us that are information-poor."

Eugene citizen Richard Glauber, who said he has two brothers who write for mainstream media outlets, attended Cohen's speech and said he was particularly struck by his speaking skills and his overall message.

"He's like a messenger of how to get more knowledge," Glauber said.

© 2005 Oregon Daily Emerald

Voters Dissatisfied  with
Bush, Congress

 NBC/WSJ Poll Reveals 'Angry Electorate'

By Mark Murray

WASHINGTON -- As the Senate marches closer toward a nuclear showdown over President Bush's judicial nominees, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that the American public is dissatisfied — with Congress and its priorities, with Bush's plan to overhaul Social Security and with the nation's economy and general direction. Moreover, a majority believes that the Senate should make its own decision about the president's judicial nominees, rather than just generally confirming them.

And while all of this might suggest bad news for Republicans, since the political party in charge often gets blamed when things aren't going well, the survey also indicates that the public isn't quite embracing the Democrats either. "It is just a sense of unhappiness with where we're at," said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff.

Perhaps the most revealing finding in the poll is the attitude toward Congress. Just 33 percent of the respondents approve of Congress' job. That's down 6 points since a poll in April and 8 points since January.

"The public is exceptionally displeased with the Congress," Hart said. "It is [its] lowest set of numbers since May of 1994," the year when congressional Republicans defeated their Democratic counterparts in the midterm elections to take control of both the House and Senate. According to this poll, by 47 percent to 40 percent the public says it would prefer Democrats controlling Congress after the 2006 elections.

Congress has wrong priorities

McInturff, the GOP pollster, points out that Americans are upset with Congress focusing on the battle over judges, Social Security, trying to restore Terri Schiavo's feeding tube and the ethical troubles surrounding their members, including Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, instead of focusing on the economy, gas prices and health care.

"There are some core day-to-day issues that they don't see being addressed," he said. "The people want us to head in a different direction and hear different things."

Still, McInturff argues, it's much too early to predict that the Democrats will overtake the Republicans in the 2006 elections. "There is a difference between dissatisfaction and being a viable [replacement]. And we have a long way to go to 2006," he said.

The survey, which polled 1,005 adults from May 12-16 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, also has some troubling findings for President Bush. Just 20 percent of those polled say the economy has gotten better over the past 12 months, an 11- point decline since January; 51 percent believe that removing Saddam Hussein from power was not worth the cost and casualties of that war; and only 36 percent support Bush's plan to allow workers to invest their Social Security contributions in the stock market.

Most don't support blanket approval for judges

That Social Security figure, which is virtually unchanged from April, is significant because it suggests that Bush hasn't moved the country any closer to supporting private accounts despite his months-long campaign for them.

Regarding the contentious debate over Bush's judicial nominees, just 34 percent say the Senate should generally confirm the president's judicial picks as long as they are honest and competent, while 56 percent argue that the Senate should make its own decision about the fitness of each nominee to serve.

Overall, according to the NBC/Journal poll, 52 percent believe the nation is headed in the wrong direction, while 35 percent think it's on the right track.

All of these findings, Hart says, are signs of an angry electorate. "If you are a member of Congress and you got the poll back, you better be looking over your shoulder," he said. "The masses are not happy."

© 2005 MSNBC Interactive

Uh, people, I hate to tell you this, but the story about Americans abusing the Koran in order to enrage prisoners has been out there for quite some time. The first mention I found of it is March 17, 2004, when the Independent of London interviewed the first British citizen released from Guantanamo Bay. The prisoner said he had been physically beaten but did not consider that as bad as the psychological torture, which he described extensively. Jamal al-Harith, a computer programmer from Manchester, said 70 percent of the inmates had gone on a hunger strike after a guard kicked a copy of the Koran. The strike was ended by force-feeding.

Then came the report, widely covered in American media last December, by the International Red Cross concerning torture at Gitmo. I wrote at the time: "In the name of Jesus Christ Almighty, why are people representing our government, paid by us, writing filth on the Korans of helpless prisoners? Is this American? Is this Christian? What are our moral values? Where are the clergymen on this? Speak up, speak out."

The reports kept coming: Dec. 30, 2004, "Released Moroccan Guantanamo Detainee Tells Islamist Paper of His Ordeal," reported the Financial Times. "They watched you each time you went to the toilet; the American soldiers used to tear up copies of Koran and throw them in the toilet. ..." said the released prisoner.

On Jan. 9, 2005, Andrew Sullivan, writing in The Sunday Times of London, said: "We now know a great deal about what has gone on in U.S. detention facilities under the Bush administration. Several government and Red Cross reports detail the way many detainees have been treated. We know for certain that the United States has tortured five inmates to death. We know that 23 others have died in U.S. custody under suspicious circumstances. We know that torture has been practiced by almost every branch of the U.S. military in sites all over the world -- from Abu Ghraib to Tikrit, Mosul, Basra, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.

"We know that no incidents of abuse have been reported in regular internment facilities and that hundreds have occurred in prisons geared to getting intelligence. We know that thousands of men, women and children were grabbed almost at random from their homes in Baghdad, taken to Saddam's former torture palace and subjected to abuse, murder, beatings, semi-crucifixions and rape.

"All of this is detailed in the official reports. What has been perpetrated in secret prisons to 'ghost detainees' hidden from Red Cross inspection, we do not know. We may never know.

"This is America? While White House lawyers were arguing about what separates torture from legitimate 'coercive interrogation techniques,' the following was taking place: Prisoners were hanged for hours or days from bars or doors in semi-crucifixions; they were repeatedly beaten unconscious, woken and then beaten again for days on end; they were sodomized; they were urinated on, kicked in the head, had their ribs broken, and were subjected to electric shocks.

"Some Muslims had pork or alcohol forced down their throats; they had tape placed over their mouths for reciting the Koran; many Muslims were forced to be naked in front of each other, members of the opposite sex and sometimes their own families. It was routine for the abuses to be photographed in order to threaten the showing of the humiliating footage to family members."

The New York Times reported on May 1 on the same investigation Newsweek was writing about and interviewed a released Kuwaiti, who spoke of three major hunger strikes, one of them touched off by "guards' handling copies of the Koran, which had been tossed into a pile and stomped on. A senior officer delivered an apology over the camp's loudspeaker system, pledging that such abuses would stop. Interpreters, standing outside each prison block, translated the officer's apology. A former interrogator at Guantanamo, in an interview with the Times, confirmed the accounts of the hunger strikes, including the public expression of regret over the treatment of the Korans."

So where does all this leave us? With a story that is not only true, but previously reported numerous times. So let's drop the "Lynch Newsweek" bull. Seventeen people have died in these riots. They didn't die because of anything Newsweek did -- the riots were caused by what our government has done.

Get your minds around it. Our country is guilty of torture. To quote myself once more: "What are you going to do about this? It's your country, your money, your government. You own this country, you run it, you are the board of directors. They are doing this in your name. The people we elected to public office do what you want them to. Perhaps you should get in touch with them."

© 2005 Working for Change

CONTACT: NARAL Pro-Choice America 
Ted Miller, 202-973-3032

WASHINGTON -- May 16 -- NARAL Pro-Choice America, the nation's leading advocate of personal privacy and a woman's right to choose, activated a national campaign in targeted states to link Americans directly with their senators to urge them to oppose the "nuclear option," an effort by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to radically restructure the nation's courts.

"The majority of Americans know the 'nuclear option' is a dangerous power grab by the far right designed to clear the path for President George W. Bush's most divisive anti-choice judicial nominees. We're pulling out all the stops in our efforts to disarm the 'nuclear option.' This vote could come down to a handful of senators, and we're making sure that they hear from their constituents," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "Reducing the Senate to a rubber stamp for President Bush's ultra-conservative judicial nominees is a terrifying prospect. Americans expect far more from their elected officials."

The patch-through calls target Republican Senators in 12 states. Approximately 430,000 activists received a call from NARAL Pro-Choice America’s president, Nancy Keenan, allowing the activists to be “patched-through” directly to their Senator’s office. The calls are part of NARAL Pro-Choice America’s "Choose Justice" campaign. NARAL Pro-Choice America has mobilized its volunteer base in every part of the country and generated 100,000 petition signatures to senators urging them to oppose the "nuclear option."

And tell your friends.

Citgo is a U.S. refining and marketing firm that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company. Money you pay to Citgo goes primarily to Venezuela -- not Saudi Arabia or the Middle East. There are 14,000 Citgo gas stations in the US. (Click here http://www.citgo.com/CITGOLocator/StoreLocator.jsp to find one near you.) By buying your gasoline at Citgo, you are contributing to the billions of dollars that Venezuela's democratic government is using to provide health care, literacy and education, and subsidized food for the majority of Venezuelans.

Instead of using government to help the rich and the corporate, as Bush does, Chavez is using the resources and oil revenue of his government to help the poor in Venezuela. A country with so much oil wealth shouldn't have 60 percent of its people living in poverty, earning less than $2 per day. With a mass movement behind him, Chavez is confronting poverty in Venezuela. That's why large majorities have consistently backed him in democratic elections. And why the Bush administration supported an attempted military coup in 2002 that sought to overthrow Chavez.

So this is the opposite of a boycott. Call it a BUYcott. Spread the word.

Of course, if you can take mass transit or bike or walk to your job, you should do so. And we should all work for political changes that move our country toward a cleaner environment based on renewable energy. The BUYcott is for those of us who don't have a practical alternative to filling up our cars.

So get your gas at Citgo. And help fuel a democratic revolution in Venezuela.

Jeff Cohen is an author and media critic (www.jeffcohen.org)