The JvL Bi-Weekly

 

James van Luik

Publisher & Editor & Compiler

 

Index 2 Signature:

http://www.geocities.com/channujames/index2.htm

[By clicking on this signature one has access to all articles of the JvL Bi-Weekly.]

[Also, I can be most easily reached through the following email address:

[email protected]]

 

Please forward the Bi-Weekly to any who might be interested

 

Monday, November 15^th, 2004

Volume 3, No. 18

 

8 Articles, 13 Pages

 

 

 

 

1. Global Spy Network

2. "Your Security Is in Your Own Hands"

3. Uranium Contamination

4. Supreme Disenfranchisement

5. The Next Election

6. Bush Can Run But He Cannot Hide From The Constitution

7. Government Gags Experts Over Nuclear Plant Risks

8. On Media and The Election

 

1. GLOBAL SPY NETWORK

BY

ANDREW BOMFORD

 

Listening in to our phone calls and reading your emails.

 

Imagine a global spying network that can eavesdrop on every single phone call, fax or email, anywhere on the planet.

 

It sounds like science fiction, but it's true.

 

Two of the chief protagonists – Britain and America – officially deny its existence. But the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has confirmation from the Australian Government that such a network really does exist and politicians on both sides of the Atlantic are calling for an inquiry.

 

On the North Yorkshire moors above Harrogate they can be seen for miles, but still they are shrouded in secrecy. Around 30 giant golf balls, known as radomes, rise from the US military base at Menwith Hill.

 

Linked to the National Security Agency (NSA)

 

Inside is the world's most sophisticated eavesdropping technology, capable of listening-in to satellites high above the earth.

 

The base is linked directly to the headquarters of the US National Security Agency at Fort Mead in Maryland, and it is also linked to a series of other listening posts scattered across the world like Britain's own GCHQ.

 

The power of the network, codenamed Echelon, is astounding.

 

Every international telephone call, fax, e-mail, or radio transmission can be listened to by powerful computers capable of voice recognition. They home in on a long list of key words, or patterns of messages. They are looking for evidence of international crime, like terrorism.

 

Open Oz

 

The network is so secret that the British and American Governments refuse to admit that Echelon even exists. But another ally, Australia, has decided not to be so coy.

 

The man who oversees Australia's security services, Inspector General of Intelligence and Security Bill Blick, has confirmed to the BBC that their Defence Signals Directorate (DSD) does form part of the network.

 

"As you would expect there are a large amount of radio communications floating around in the atmosphere, and agencies such as DSD collect those communications in the interests of their national security", he said.

 

Asked if they are then passed on to countries like Britain and America, he said: "They might be in certain circumstances."

 

But the system is so widespread all sorts of private communications, often of a sensitive commercial nature, are hovered up and analyzed.

 

Journalist Duncan Campbell has spent much of his life investigating Echelon. In a report commissioned by the European Parliament he produced evidence that the NSA snooped on phone calls from a French firm bidding for a contract in Brazil. They passed the information to an American competitor, which won the contract.

 

"There's no safeguards, no remedies," he said, "There's nowhere you can go to say that they've been snooping on your international communications. It's a totally lawless world."

 

Breaking the silence

 

Both Britain and America deny allegations like this, though they refuse to comment further. But one former US army intelligence officer has broken the code of silence.

 

Colonel Dan Smith told the BBC that while this is feasible, it is not official policy: "Technically they can scoop all this information up, sort through it, and find what it is that might be asked for," he said. "But there is no policy to do this specifically in response to a particular company's interests."

 

Legislators on both sides of the Atlantic are beginning to sit up and take notice. Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr had persuaded Congress to open hearings into these and other allegations.

 

In fact, he went to Britain to raise awareness of the issue. In an interview with the BBC he accused the NSA of conducting a broad "dragnet" of communications, and "invading the privacy of American citizens."

 

He was joined in his concerns by a small number of politicians in Britain. Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker has tabled a series of questions about Menwith Hill, but has been met with a wall of silence.

 

"There's no doubt it's being used as a listening centre," he said, "There's no doubt it's being used for US interests, and I'm not convinced that Britain's interests are being best served by this."

Back to Top

 

2. YOUR SECURITY IS IN YOUR OWN HANDS

(an excerpt)

BY

OSAMA BIN LADEN

 

You, the American people, I talk to you today about the best way to avoid another catastrophe and about war, its reasons and its consequences.

 

And in that regard, I say to you that security is an important pillar of human life, and that free people do not compromise their security.

 

Contrary to what Bush says and claims—that we hate freedom—let  him tell us then, "Why did we not attack Sweden?" It is known that those who hate freedom don't have souls with integrity, like the souls of those 19. May the mercy of God be upon them.

 

We fought with you because we are free, and we don't put up with transgressions. We want to reclaim our nation. As you spoil our security, we will do so to you.

 

I wonder about you. Although we are ushering the fourth year after 9/11, Bush is still exercising confusion and misleading you and not telling you the true reason. Therefore, the motivations are still there for what happened to be repeated.

 

And I will talk to you about the reason for those events, and I will be honest with you about the moments the decision was made so that you can ponder. And I tell you, God only knows, that we never had the intentions to destroy the towers.

 

But after the injustice was so much and we saw transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it occurred to my mind that we deal with the towers. And these special events that directly and personally affected me go back to 1982 and what happened when America gave permission for Israel to invade Lebanon. And assistance was given by the American sixth fleet.

 

During those crucial moments, my mind was thinking about many things that are hard to describe. But they produced a feeling to refuse and reject injustice, and I had determination to punish the transgressors.

 

And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same – and that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children.

 

We found no difficulties in dealing with the Bush administration, because of the similarities of that administration and the regimes in our countries, half of which are run by the military and half of which are run by monarchs. And our experience is vast with them.

 

And those two kinds are full of arrogance and taking money illegally.

 

The resemblance started when former Bush, the father, visited the area, when some of our own were impressed by America and were hoping that the visits would affect and influence our countries.

 

Then, what happened was that he was impressed by the monarchies and the military regimes, and he was jealous of them staying in power for  tens of years, embezzling the public money without any accountability. And he moved the tyranny and suppression of freedom to his own country, and they called it the Patriot Act, under the disguise of fighting terrorism. And Bush, the father, found it good to install his children as governors and leaders.

 

We agreed with the leader of the group, Mohammed Atta, to perform all attacks within 20 minutes before Bush and his administration were aware of what was going on. And we never knew that he as the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would leave 50,000 of his people in the two towers to face those events by themselves when they were in the most urgent need of their leader.

 

He was more interested in listening to the child's story about the goat rather than worry about what was happening to the towers. So, we had three times the time necessary to accomplish the events.

 

Your security is not  in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.

 

(Editor's note: The complete Bin Laden speech in English translation can be found at the following internet site):

 

http://english.aljazeranet/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

 

Back to Top

 

3. URANIUM CONTAMINATION

BY

CHRIS BUSBY

 

1. Rates of disease along the seacoast near Sellafield, Ireland nuclear reprocessing facility – Cancer Registry data from 1974-1989 was leaked, before the registry was later sacked. The Irish government paid Busby's group to conduct a health survey in the area.

 

2. Surface to land transfer of radioactive contaminants increases airborne contamination 1-2 kilometers inland. The health survey found a 10-11-fold increase in leukemia.

 

3. A 1998 BBC documentary announced the findings.

 

4. In February 2004, Welch TV produced a documentary on childhood leukemia in north Wales, now showing 15-20-fold increases in childhood cancers of several types.

 

5. Cover-up attempt – Members of Parliament pressured Wales to challenge the findings. COMARE was set up to investigate the Sellafield leukemia cluster.

 

6. Second Event Theory – Our cells normally take on average one hit per year. Naturally occurring radiation and manufactured contamination differ dramatically because concentration levels differ dramatically. Cell damage can initiate replication and cells in the phase of replication are very sensitive to radiation. A concentrated internal source of radiation can produce additional damage during this sensitive phase. A one micron particle of uranium can produce two hits to a cell within this period of about ten hours.

 

7. The Bystander Effect. – Not only the cell hit is affected by radiation. Targeted beam experiments showed that a cell 400 cells away responded with genomic instability. Thirty percent of cells in a community of cells show effects after just one cell is damaged. Think of this as micro-inflammation that can lead to chromosome damage and cancer.

 

8. Dose/Response relationships – The ICRP accepted risk-model presumes a steady increase in health effects. In fact, the effect is supralinear – like a hog's back, the chart line shows the highest level of damage at very low dose. As radiation dose increases, the death of cells increases, and the damage levels off. Plutonium particles may kill surrounding cells, whereas uranium may damage surrounding cells.

 

9. Uranium has a high atomic number – 94 electrons. Uranium acts like a magnet to radiation. Depleted uranium is four times more likely to absorb gamma radiation than lead. Like a Barbie doll with flecks of metallic, a person contaminated with uranium particles may attract additional radiation.

 

10. Epidemiology must be our first clue. Information on cancer incident rate is crucial, so one must knock on doors. You only need 4-5 people and a simple questionnaire.

 

(Editor's note: A new book just out describes cover-ups. The title is "Wolves of Water." Such information should be distributed specially in affected communities. I don't know how much politicians will respond in affected communities. It may very well be quite late with all the arguing, suppression of information, and prevaricating.)

Back to Top

 

4. SUPREME DISENFRANCHISEMENT

BY

STEVEN ROSENFELD

 

Tuesday's US presidential election vote should be the highest turnout in decades. But Americans are now realizing that Florida in 2000 was no fluke, but a broader reflection of voting in America. Indeed, the US has a deeply decentralized, fragmented and compromised system of voting – where Republicans can challenge new voters in key states because basic voting rights are not enshrined.

 

But there is an even bigger obstacle – and this is critical in the rush to Election Day – and that is realizing the current Supreme Court does not believe in voting rights in the way most Americans assume.

 

As voting rights scholar and activist attorney Jamin Raskin points out in his recent book, "Overruling Democracy: The Supreme Court vs. the American People," the current court does not believe in the principle of "one person, one vote." Instead it has a decade-long record, in case after case – culminating in their 2000 decision to stop the Florida recount and make George W. Bush president – of disenfranchising voters, limiting the right to vote and making political representation harder for minorities. As Raskin writes, "Behind Bush v. Gore lies a thick and unprincipled jurisprudence, hostile to popular democracy and protective of race, privilege and corporate power."

 

Raskin persuasively argues that this Supreme Court has subverted the very democratic principles that millions of new voters believe await them: the right to vote, participate, have access to the ballot, and faith their vote will count. Indeed, in Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court wrote, "the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote" in presidential elections. (Bush, 531 U.S. at 104). Moreover, in Bush v . Gore, the court was emphatic that state legislatures have the power to bypass the popular vote and select presidential electors. "The State legislature's power to select the manner of appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself." (Bush, 531 U.S. at 104).

 

That's the nightmare scenario of 2004. As millions of Americans join the new democracy movement, the Supreme Court has given this opening to the Republican Party: if Tuesday's vote is disruptive enough – polls not closing on time, allegations of voter fraud, lawsuits, perhaps violence by frustrated voters – then legislatures in the disputed states can come in and appoint its own electors. The popular vote would not matter.

 

That's not a crazy paranoid theory. Conservative legal scholars, including this Supreme Court, have repeatedly pointed out the Constitution has no specific clause giving individuals the right to vote. All the "one person, one vote" doctrine comes from Supreme Court rulings, mostly in the mid-20^th century, when the court was seen as liberal. But that's not today's court.

 

So consider the possibility that the more the GOP does to disrupt the vote, the more likely Karl Rove can be confident that there is a legal basis to push the selection of electoral college electors to legislatures in those states. What swing states have Republican majority legislatures? Colorado. Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin.

 

What does this mean for the democracy movement in 2004? It means people must turn out and vote in a tidal wave that washes away Republican tactics to produce another presidential coup. And then it means, once the election is over, a new constitutional amendment to firmly and finally assure the right of all Americans to vote – and at the same time, putting the electoral college where it truly belongs: in the dustbin of history.

Back to Top

 

5. THE NEXT ELECTION

BY

RALPH NADER

 

Let's face it. Most politicians use the mass media to obfuscate. Voters who don't do their homework, who don't study records of the politicians, and who can't separate the words from the deeds will easily fall into traps laid by wily politicians.

 

In 2002, Connecticut Governor John Rowland was running for re-election against his Democratic opponent, William Curry. Again and again, the outspent Curry informed the media and the voters about the corruption inside and around the governor's office. At the time, the governor's close associates and ex-associates were under investigation by the US attorney. But to the public, Rowland was all smiles, flooding the television stations with self-serving, manipulative images and slogans. He won handily in November. Within weeks, the US attorney's investigation intensified as they probed the charges Curry had raised. Roland's approval rating dropped to record lows, and impeachment initiatives are now underway with many demands for his resignation. Curry has gained favor in the public eye, but the election is long past. Enough voters had been flattered, fooled and flummoxed to cost him the race.

 

Tom Frank, a Kansas author, recently wrote: "The poorest county in America isn't in Appalachia or the Deep South. It is on the Great Plains, a region of struggling ranchers and dying farm towns, and in the election of 2000, George W. Bush carried it by a majority of greater than 75 percent." Inattentive voters are vulnerable to voting against their own interests. They are vulnerable to voting for politicians who support big business and ignore their interests as farmers, workers, consumers, patients, and small taxpayers. Big business will not spur change in a political system that gives them every advantage. Change must come from the voters, and here's how:

 

A liberation ritual. Rid yourself of all preconceived, hereditary, ideological, and political straitjackets. Replace with two general yardsticks for candidates for elective office: Are they playing fair and are they doing right?

 

Stay open-minded. Avoid jumping to conclusions about a candidate based solely on their stance on your one or two primary issues. Don't disregard where they fall on twenty-five other realities that affect you and your family very deeply and seriously. If you judge them broadly rather than narrowly, you increase your influence by increasing  your demands and expectation levels for their performance. There are numerous evaluations of their votes (see Citizen.org or Commoncause.org for progressive perspectives) and positions to get you behind sly slogans like "Clear Skies Initiative" or "Leave no Child Behind."

 

Know where you stand. A handy way to contrast your views with those of the incumbents and challengers is to make your own checklist of twenty issues, explain where you stand and then send your list to the candidates. See how their list or their actual record matches up to your own.

 

As the tough questions. These are the questions that politicians like to avoid. They include whether they are willing to debate their opponents and how often, why they avoid talking about and doing something about corporate power and its expanding controls over peoples lives, or how they plan to shift power from these global corporate supremacists to the people. Ask them to speak of solutions to the major problems confronting our country. Politicians often avoid defining solutions that upset their commercial financiers (this includes a range of issues, such as energy efficiency, lower drug prices, reducing sprawl, safer food, and clean elections). Ask members of Congress to explain why they keep giving themselves annual salary increases and generous benefits, and yet turn cold at doing the same for the minimum wage, health insurance, or pension protections. All in all, it takes a little work and some time to become a super-voter, impervious to manipulation by politicians who intend to flatter, fool, and flummox. But I dare suggest that this education can also be fun, that the pursuit of justice can offer great benefits to the pursuit of happiness, and that such civic engagement will help Americans today becomes better ancestors for tomorrow's descendants.

Back to Top

 

6. BUSH CAN RUN, BUT HE CANNOT HIDE FROM THE CONSTITUTION

BY

RAMSEY CLARK

 

President Bush can run, but he cannot hide from the Constitution of the United States. The election does not pardon the President for past, or future "high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

 

Impeachment is not a partisan political issue. The House of Representatives, possessed of the "sole power of impeachment," is required to consider a bill of impeachment on the facts even if every member were of the same party, or political persuasion, as the President. The seven specific provisions of the Constitution setting forth the powers and duties of the Congress in considering impeachment intend that any President or other civil officer of the United States who has committed a high Crime or Misdemeanor: …shall be removed from Office."

 

The Power of impeachment assures the people against criminal acts and despotic ambitions by government officials.

 

We, the People have the power to require the House of Representatives to do its duty and act on a bill of impeachment after full investigation and consideration. If it fails to do so those House members who failed to perform this Constitutional duty can and should be voted from office. Remember that President Nixon resigned under threat of impeachment for Watergate less than two years after his landslide reelection in 1972.

 

Impeachment is Imperative

 

For the American people who support and defend the Constitution of the US, who want to prevent further crimes by a lawless administration, who believe we can redeem our country in the eyes of those we have assaulted and those who have witnessed this brutality and who dare to demand of future government leadership, NEVER AGAIN, impeachment is imperative. A decent respect to the opinions of mankind require that we Americans should declare the causes which impel us to impeach.

 

President George W. Bush chose to wage a war of aggression against Iraq, which had not attacked the US and presented no imminent threat to our people, or legitimate interests. A small cabal, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby and Rove wrested decision making processes from established institutions of government to reinforce President Bush's desire to seize Iraq, defying international institutions, the opinions of human kind and the rule of law to commence a disastrous criminal military adventure.

 

A Campaign of Deceit and False Propaganda

 

War of aggression is the first offense listed in the Nuremberg Charter as a Crime against Peace. The Nuremberg Tribunal after hearing evidence of Nazi crimes in World War II convicted the leaders of waging wars of aggression, which it called "the supreme international crime."

 

At Nuremberg, the Chief US Prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, promised posterity that in the future all nations, including our own, would be held accountable for such crimes.

 

President Bush and key administration officials engaged in a lengthy campaign of deceit, concealment and false propaganda to create support for, and acceptance of, its war of aggression by claming Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, harbored terrorists, had close ties with and supported Al Qaeda and intended to attack the US, US citizens and US interests. A free society, democratic institutions and constitutional government cannot survive such deceit by its own government.

 

The US has made civilians and civilian facilities its direct object of attack. It has pursued assassination and summary executions as official policy. President Bush boasted of summary executions in his State of the Union message in  2003. Excessive and indiscriminate force and illegal weapons have been used. Many thousands of Iraqi citizens, whole families, women, children, elderly Iraqis have been killed as a result.

 

US military casualties exceed 10,000 including more than 1,100 deaths with many additional thousands returned to the US for physical and mental illnesses.

 

The US has employed torture, including torture to death, rape and sexual assault and humiliation, as approved and ordered policy from Afghanistan and Guantanamo to Iraq, inflicted on thousands of prisoners, many, if not most, without any evidence of wrongful conduct. And admitted 37 human beings have been murdered while being held in captivity by the US under these conditions. We know not how many more. All the mounting evidence makes clear that this program of torture and death is not aberrational conduct of rogue or undisciplined soldiers but is rather the policy adopted a the highest levels of the Bush/Rumsfeld chain of command. All this in violation of the Geneva Conventions, the International Convention Against Torture, the laws of all nations and common human decency.

 

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the US provides: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, Shall Be Removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

 

More than 100,000 Dead Based on a Lie

 

We learn from the prominent medical journal Lancet of the report by researchers at John Hopkins University, Columbia University and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad that the US war of aggression against Iraq and military occupation has cost "at least" 100,000 Iraqi lives already mostly civilians, women and children. Already President Bush has launched a massive aerial and ground assault on Falluja which may kill thousands of defenseless civilians.

 

Haiti, where President Bush forced the elected President Jean Bertrand Aristide from office, is in chaos with many thousands killed by widespread daily violence committed by US supported paramilitaries against Aristide supporters.

 

Near 500,000 have voted to impeach. Help increase that number into millions the Congress can not ignore.

 

Every American should choose whether to vote for impeachment entirely on the facts, straight up, or down, without political, or partisan fear, or favor. We owe this to the country, its future, the Constitution and our common heritage. Impeachment is Required Now.

 

Impeachment now is the only way we, the American people, can promise ourselves and the world that we will not tolerate crimes against  peace and humanity by our government. Knowing what we know, to wait longer is to condone what has been done and risk more.

 

ImpeachBush.org Members

Back to Top

 

7. GOVERNMENT GAGS EXPERTS OVER NUCLEAR PLANT RISKS

BY

MARK GOULD AND JONATHAN LEAKE

 

A bitter row has broken out inside a UK Government safety committee after two of its experts were barred from voicing fears that radiation from nuclear installations poses greater threat than previously thought.

 

Government lawyers have blocked a minority finding written by the two from being included in the committee's final report, which follows a three year investigation into the effects of low-level radiation.

 

Dr. Chris Busby and Richard Bramhall, members of the Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters, believe that the risk of cancer from low level radiation dangers is greater than realized.

 

They claim that previous methods of calculating the effects of emissions on people living near nuclear installations have underestimated the risk by a factor of up to 300.

 

If correct, the study could explain the clusters of cancer and leukaemia cases found close to nuclear installations in north Wales and Essex and near Sellafield in Cumbria. But the claims have divided members of the committee, with some supporting the gagging while others have accused civil servants of censorship.

 

A senior radiation scientist has already resigned in protest and the last meeting of the committee became a shouting match that members feared was going to degenerate in a fist fight.

 

The committee's official report – which has majority support – will be published this autumn and says the risk is greater than previously thought, but only by a factor of 10.

 

Lawyers at DEFRA, the environment ministry, have sent letters to all 12 members of the committee warning them that they could be sued for defamation if they include Bramhall and Busby's minority report.

 

Michael Meacher, who set up the committee while he was environment minister in 2001, is furious that not all the experts' views will be represented. "I have written to Elliott Morley, the current environment minister, asking for an explanation," he said.

 

The committee was created to examine concern that the government's method of estimating the risk of cancer to people living near nuclear installations was inadequate. Such calculations were based on the radiation doses received by casualties from the Hiroshima bomb used against Japan in 1945.

 

There have long been doubts about such data, partly because they are so old and partly because Hiroshima victims were exposed to a short and very intensive dose of external radiation.

 

By contrast, people living near nuclear sites tend to experience a different form of radiation  - suffering small doses over a long period of time from eating or breathing contaminated particles.

 

Such radiation is thought to do proportionately more harm because it is inhaled or ingested and so can attack the body's most delicate organs.

 

Recognizing the complexity of the science, Meacher set up the committee with representatives of the nuclear industry, green groups and independent scientists and asked them to include a range of views in their findings, including any minority reports.

 

Busby and Bramhall say that since Meacher was sacked the committee has been taken over by people with pro-nuclear views who have done their best to suppress opposing opinions.

 

"The basis of these calculations is completely wrong and as a consequence people living near Sellafield and other installations have been suffering elevated rates of cancers and all sorts of other diseases," Busby said. "The other members of the committee and DEFRA may not agree with our report by they should still be publishing it."

 

Some other committee members disagree. They point out that both men are ardent anti-nuclear campaigners and claim that their report was riddled with inaccuracies.

 

"The extreme views held by these two meant that the committee became completely polarized with members shouting at each other in anger and exasperation," one said.

 

"In the end we could not be associated with a minority report that was factually wrong, so it was referred to the lawyers."

 

Fears that the committee is being gagged are echoed by Marion Hill, a senior scientist with 30 years' expertise in radiation safety. Hill, who emphasizes that she is not a member of the green lobby, resigned from the committee in February. In her letter of resignation she accused the committee chairman, Professor Dudley Goodhead, and Ian Fairlie, another member of the secretariat, of biasing the report process so that Busby and Bramhall's views were marginalized.

 

She said yesterday: "It's a complete failure when you have a scientific committee that is not allowed to write anything about disagreements over science."

Back to Top

 

8. ON MEDIA AND THE ELECTION

BY

ROBERT W. McCHESNEY

 

Perhaps the most important function our media serves is to provide voters with the information they need to make sound decisions in the voting booth. If people don't know what they're voting for, our democracy is in serious trouble.

 

Unfortunately, it appears that we're in serious trouble.

 

This election has been marked by a staggering amount of voter ignorance. Polls show that voters – especially Bush supporters – were grossly misinformed about their candidate's position on a broad range of issues. Surveying supporters of the President, a University of Maryland PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll found:

 

                        72% still believe that there were WMDs in Iraq.

                        75% still believe that Iraq was providing substantial support for Al Qaeda.

                        66% still believe that Bush supports participation in the International Criminal Court.

                        72% still believe that he supports the treaty banning land mines.

 

How do we know who our candidates are and what they stand for when the media fixates on polls, controversy and spin instead of the issues? How do we have meaningful elections when people don't know what they're voting for?  Our Founders understood this; that is why they inscribed freedom of the press into the First Amendment of the constitution.

 

Our media are responsible for giving us a balanced inspection of all claims, careful fact checking, and reasoned analysis. But that was all but abandoned in this presidential campaign. And it is exactly what we would expect. As a result of media consolidation and pressures to cut costs, media corporations have gutted investigative journalism and hard-hitting analysis. Hence we got hours and hours of coverage of the baseless and idiotic "swift boats for truth" story and barely a look at what the actual policies of this administration are, and how they affect the people of the nation and the world.

 

The complicity of our major media in subverting public discourse runs even deeper. The handful of enormous media corporations that own most of our major local TV stations and networks raked in $600 million from presidential TV ads alone, shattering previous records and subjecting voters to half-truths and distortions from both sides. Political ad revenues now constitute well over 10% of commercial broadcasting revenue up from less than 3% in 1992. Overall, federal elections cost $3.9 billion this year, representing a near 30% increase since 2000.

 

An iron law in commercial broadcasting is that you do not do programming that undermines the credibility of your sponsors. The result: more political ads and little-to-no critical journalism that exposes the spin and lies in these TV ads. A more brash insult to our intelligence can hardly be imagined. This also explains why the corporate media giants are as enthusiastic about campaign  finance reform as the NRA is regarding gun control.

 

Lastly, media companies have a conflict of interest; they benefit from seeing the re-election of George W. Bush and his industry-friendly policies. Viacom, owner of Sumner Redstone, makes it clear when his CBS was enmeshed in "Rathergate" that he was a supporter of the president – because the president would allow Viacom to get much larger and face less competition.

 

All in all, we face a situation that could scarcely have been imagined by our nation's founders. Our "fourth estate" is hardly an independent sector in service of the citizenry. It a is a massive industry dedicated to serving the needs of its owners. It is a central tension in our democracy, and one that we must address if we are to get off this downward spiral of misleading political campaigns driven by massive contributions from corporations and wealthy individuals. Reforming the media is not the only issue that faces our nation, but it is an unavoidable one.

 

So what are we going to do about it? Reform means giving citizens more outlets of independent news and analysis that isn't beholden to the bottom line. It involves giving citizens more access to their own airwaves to let Americans know what's really going on in their cities and neighborhoods. It involves making sure that access to information is equitable and affordable.

 

For the most part, the Bush Administration is no friend to media reform, but there is cause for hope. Liberals and conservatives alike oppose letting the big media corporations get bigger, and we are going to work hard together to prevent further consolidation of our media. Liberals and conservatives alike favor journalism over spin and dislike the commercial marinating of our culture. There was a reason President Bush did not brag about his plans to let media companies get bigger and have less competition on the campaign trail – he knows Americans from all walks of life oppose the idea. For him, this is an issue best kept behind closed doors.

 

While the short-term prospects for structural reform at the federal level are limited, there is important defensive work to be done. Remember that three million Americans organized in 2003 to stop the FCC from relaxing media ownership rules. And we are much stronger as a movement today than we were 18 months ago. We can continue to make headway on a number of issues and plant seeds for eventual victories. Now is the time for the media reform movement to do the foundation work to prepare for big fights in coming years down the road. We have to think in terms of the long haul if we are gong to be effective.

 

In addition, there is a great deal of optimism for a number of victories at the state and local level. If we get enough citizens to take a stand, politicians will be forced to act. There are promising activist-driven efforts underway to challenge local cable providers so they ensure funding and channel 'set-asides' for independent and diverse programming. Amazing noncommercial wireless technology has the potential to deliver more diverse  TV offerings, and provide phone and internet as affordable public utility like water, sewers, and electricity.

 

The past few months remind us again that media reform is not a left-versus-right technocratic or obscure issue; it addresses the singular importance of media to a self-governing society. Never again should we allow our media system to send the voters to the polls without the information they need to make well-reasoned decisions. There is a national emergency when voters go to the polls ignorant of the most elementary facts about our economy, foreign policy, health care, and environment. It is unacceptable.

 

Now is the time to plug in and take action to create a better media system so that when the next election comes along, Americans actually have a clue about what their candidates stand for. As Saul Alinsky put it, the only way to beat organized money is with organized people.

 

(Editor's note: It is plain that American politics has two possibilities for rectification. These ideas might well be spread about and discussed by people of good will.

Firstly: I would propose a constitutional convention similar to that of 1787. Thomas Jefferson commented at that time that such a convention should take place about every twenty five years. It is worth reading why he and others thought this was a good idea. And it is also worth learning why another constitutional convention never took place.

And/or, secondly: since the federal government wishes to sterilize social welfare, i.e. health, education and welfare by cutting federal income taxes to corporations and individuals, and eliminating federal contributions to the states it is worth discussing a return to the Articles of Confederation. The constitution of 1787 replaced these Articles. People such as James Madison wanted a strong central government. This, the Articles of Confederation did not provide. It provided for 13 individual country-states each of which on a voluntary basis gave money and services to the central government.) Back  to Top