February 15, 2002

Miscellaneous Subjects #129: Time to Be an Activist and Take a Stand


Hello everyone

Here is your last compilation for this week. But please make sure to check your emails for the next Meditation Focus to be sent out Saturday. This will be an important one...

Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator
http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000

P.S. See also my 2 latest media compilations:
#47 - The Great Demonizer Should First Look at Himself - archived at http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000/Archives2002/MediaCompilation47.htm and
#48 - The Corrupted Ones - archived at http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000/Archives2002/MediaCompilation48.htm


"Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others."

- Groucho Marx


CONTENTS

1. The United States of Enron-Pentagon, Inc.
2. A Message From Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
3. Campaign of Conscience for the Iraqi People
4. USA TO ATTACK IRAQ IN MAY
5. A no-questions-asked war
6. Center for Disease Control Infected with Fascism: Proposes Medical Dictatorship
7. Democracy for a Change
8. A YEAR OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY & SMOKE SCREAM


SEE ALSO:

US targets Saddam: Pentagon and CIA making plans for war against Iraq this year (Feb 14, 2002)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,649917,00.html
The Pentagon and the CIA have begun preparations for an assault on Iraq involving up to 200,000 US troops that is likely to be launched later this year with the aim of removing Saddam Hussein from power, US and diplomatic sources told the Guardian yesterday. President George Bush's war cabinet, known as the "principals committee", agreed at a pivotal meeting in late January that the policy of containment has failed and that active steps should be taken to topple the Iraqi leader. (...) A US State department official said he thought it very unlikely that the Iraqi regime would be prepared to accept the stringent programme of inspections the US will demand. As the American intelligence source put it, the White House "will not take yes for an answer", suggesting that Washington would provoke a crisis. He added that he expected the war to begin soon after the May ultimatum. US allies in the Middle East have been informed that a decision to attack Iraq has already been taken, and diplomats from the region said yesterday they were resigned to the inevitability of a war that may threaten the stability of a string of Arab regimes. "It is a nightmare situation for us," said one Arab diplomat in Washington. "We feel the Americans will take very drastic action and we have to be prepared for such a reality. But the public opinion in the street will not see this as a benign attempt to restore order, but as American imperialism." France, Germany and others in the European Union have been queuing up to make clear to Mr Bush that they will not support him in military action against Iraq. CLIP

America's Imperial War (By George Monbiot - February 12)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4354289,00.html
The liberals who supported the bombing of Afghanistan have aligned themselves with a ruthless military machine.

A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS - From Wounded Knee to Afghanistan
http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/interventions.htm

Carlyle's Way: Bush, Rumsfeld, Banker, bin Laden and the boys!
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=18338
"It should be a deep cause for concern that a closely held company like Carlyle can simultaneously have directors and advisers that are doing business and making money and also advising the president of the United States,"

Carlyle's Way - the biggest old boys network around (December 11, 2001)
http://www.redherring.com/mag/issue108/947.html
Making a mint inside "the iron triangle" of defense, government and industry.

The Real Undeclared War (Feb 12)
http://www.truthout.com/02.13F.Real.War.htm
We have been fighting, as we all know, an undeclared war against terrorists in Afghanistan. Maybe that war is over, maybe not. But there is another officially undeclared war going on. That is the war between truth and lies. A war of principles. CLIP

The day Ashcroft censored Freedom of Information
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=18612

Oppose Oil Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/179485431

Israeli Reservists Show Uncommon Bravery
http://commondreams.org/views02/0213-01.htm
"They are turning us into animals; they are giving free rein to the most sadistic elements among us," the dissident soldiers say on their website. "In all the accounts of the most vicious conflicts known to the 20th century, people have always lauded those few who refused to take part in the atrocities. "This is now our moment of truth, and every one of us has to decide if he is or is not of the human race." Now that we can't claim we didn't know, all that's left for us to do is take a stand.




1.

From: "Doug Mattern" <worldcit@best.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002

The United States of Enron-Pentagon, Inc.

By: Douglas Mattern - 02/14/02

In the largest military buildup since the Vietnam War, President Bush plans to increase military spending by $120 billion over the next five-years. This would bring the 2007 military budget to an astounding $451 billion.

Steven Kosiak, an analyst for the Center For Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, reports that 2003 military spending will be 11 percent higher than average expenditures during the Cold War, and by 2007 this will increase to 20 percent higher.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman asks why this huge buildup in response to an attack by maniacs armed with box cutters? More than one-third of the $68 billion allocated for new weapons in the 2003 budget is for cold war type weapons. Several billion dollars are allocated for cluster bomb systems that have been condemned by human rights groups around the world. There is no rationale for this level of military spending other than a clear intent for the United States to be the New World Empire, dominating the globe economically and militarily, including the militarization of space.

This astronomical military spending must be seen in light of Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut over a 10-year period, with nearly half of this money going to the richest 1 percent of Americans. So the question is where is the money to come from to pay for all the weapons? LA Times reporter Peter Gosselin gives us the answer, "President Bush relies on one source of new money more than any other to pay for his proposals: the trillions of dollars in Social Security funds being set aside for the start of the baby boom retirement."

The clear winner in this mad scheme is the military industry. As William D. Hartung of the World Policy Institute puts it, Bush's budget will "leave no defense contractor behind." The other winners are corporate America and the rich elite that is rapidly turning our democracy into a plutocracy.

The losers, of course, are working people and the environment, as funding for social and environment needs are transferred to military spending and tax cuts for the rich. It's becoming just one big Enron, or as New York columnist Frank Rich states it: "The United States of Enron."

In Latin America, Argentines are banging pots and pans over this kind of corruption. It's time for Americans to reach for their own pots and start banging. Or perhaps we should follow what the television anchorman did in the movie "Network" when he learned that corporations were ruling everything. He pleaded for people to go to their windows and shout "I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore." In the movie, windows opened and shouting spread across the country.

Only peaceful protest by enough of the American people can stop the mass giveaway of our wealth for the military, corporate America, the rich few, and put it back in good government to pay for the social, educational, medical, and environmental programs this country so desperately needs.

Douglas Mattern is president of the Association of World Citizens (AWC); a San Francisco based international peace organization with branches in 50 countries, and with UN NGO status. The website for AWC is http://www.worldcitizens.org

Douglas is a contributing writer for Liberal Slant - http://www.liberalslant.com




2.

From: "Reb" <reb@rebfile.com>
Subject: A Message From Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002

Dear Friend,

There is nothing patriotic about handing over our natural heritage to the oil industry. But that's exactly what the White House wants to do in the name of national security.

I'm asking you to join me in opposing the senseless destruction of our environment by going to http://www.savebiogems.org/declaration.asp and signing the Declaration of Energy Independence. The declaration calls on our government to pursue a sustainable energy future that will preserve -- not destroy -- our last, unspoiled wildlands.

We have little time to lose. With the nation's attention focused almost exclusively on the war against terrorism, the Bush administration has moved quietly but aggressively in recent months to open up fragile wildlands to giant energy corporations. In Utah, they were in such a hurry to lease millions of acres of our redrock canyonlands for oil and gas development that they skipped the environmental review that is required by law. My colleagues here at NRDC have already gone to federal court to block this illegal giveaway of redrock country.

But that's only the beginning. The Bush-Cheney energy plan -- hatched in closed-door meetings last year with Enron and other energy giants -- would pave the way for oil and gas companies to despoil an alarming number of our last wild places: the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, Wyoming's Red Desert, and many, many more.

President Bush says we need the oil to become more energy independent. Don't buy it! Using the tragic events of September 11th as an opportunity to advance the special interests of the oil industry will not enhance America's energy security. Our nation simply doesn't have enough oil to drill our way to self-sufficiency.

If we really want to declare energy independence, then the only answer is to dramatically reduce our appetite for oil. For starters, we could increase the fuel efficiency of our cars and light trucks to 40 miles per gallon. That would save nearly two million barrels of oil a day by the year 2012 -- more than all the oil we imported last year from Saudi Arabia.

The Declaration of Energy Independence sets forth plenty of other ways to slash our dependence on oil. It proves that fighting terrorism does NOT require the destruction of our own natural heritage.

Please do your part by visiting http://www.savebiogems.org/declaration.asp and signing the Declaration of Energy Independence. It will take you less than a minute. Then please forward this message to your family and friends. If millions of us sign the declaration, then the White House and Congress will be unable to ignore its message. And thank you for helping to save America's last wild places.

Sincerely yours,

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Senior Attorney Natural Resources Defense Council

=====

BioGems: Saving Endangered Wild Places A project of the Natural Resources Defense Council http://www.savebiogems.org

Forwarded as a public service by http://www.rebfile.com




3.

From: Campaign of Conscience <conscience@topica.email-publisher.com>
Subject: Campaign of Conscience for the Iraqi People - Update 2/12/02
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2002

Welcome to the Campaign of Conscience for the Iraqi People's update list. CLIP The threats of expanding the 'war on terrorism' to Iraq are real. We have a platform to confront this, and importantly, we have timelines to work with. In May/June the current six-month cycle of the Oil-for-Food plan will expire and the United States will indicate its next steps - we need to be ready.

In this update:

1) Peace Pledge gains momentum: more people say no to war!
2) Goal: Local Peace Pledge Hubs
3) Taking Action: Three things you can do now to prevent a wider war
4) News update: The "Axis of Evil" and beyond; who is the next US victim?
5) Peace is Possible: Iraq is ready to talk
6) Your feedback

***

1) Peace Pledge gains momentum

Congratulation! As of February 8, 2002, almost 1900 people from 37 countries, including 46 US states plus DC have joined us to oppose the ongoing economic and bombing war on Iraq, and to publicly denounce any escalation of the so-called "war against terrorism" to that country. Our thanks to everyone who is working to end the sanctions and prevent war. This can be the start of a mobilization to turn the world toward a just and sustainable peace.

CLIP - To sign this Peace Pledge, please go at http://www.peaceresponse.org/pledge

4) News update

* In the "State of the Union" address President Bush singled out Iraq as part of what he called "Axis of Evil."

* Secretary of State Powell told the House International Relations Committee that President Bush "still believes strongly in regime change" in Iraq, and that "the United States might have to do it alone". (New York Times, February 7, 2002).

* The Israeli press reported about the US and Israel's joint war game to test the "Iraqi scenario" in preparation for a possible US strike against Iraq in May (Haarets, February 5, 2002). Meanwhile on February 7, during a meeting with President Bush at the White House, visiting Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon promised to help the US if it attacks Iraq. (Daily Telegraph, February 8, 2002)

* Vice President Cheney's upcoming visit to 11 countries in the region, including four states bordering Iraq, has caused widespread speculation that the purpose of this trip is to pave the way for a full scale military intervention in Iraq (Reuters, February 7, 2002)

* The US agreed to resume its financial backing for the Iraqi opposition group, INC, which was earlier accused of corruption and poor bookkeeping. (BBC Persian Service, January 31, 2002).

* Britain, the US's closest ally in its "war against terrorism," openly expressed its dismay at Washington's hard line policies towards Iraq. During a visit to the US on February 1, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said that Bush's State of the Union address was motivated by US domestic politics, adding that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was implicated in the September 11 attacks. (Guardian, February 4,2002).

* Ludger Volmer, Germany's deputy Foreign Minister, made it clear that his country does not support a US attack against Iraq: "The United States has old scores to settle with Iraq... This terror argument can't be used to legitimize old enmities". (AP, February 4, 2002)

* French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine accused the US government of pursuing a "simplistic" foreign policy since September 11; calling the White Houses policy in the Middle East a "tragic mistake." Mr. Vedrine insisted that: " we cannot fight terrorism only with military means‡. We must deal with the root causes, the situation of poverty, injustice, humiliation and so on" (BBC news, February 7, 2002).

* Russia's President Vladimir Putin has warned the US not to take unilateral military action against Iraq. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, he said that the use of force against Iraq was "far from being the sole, universal or best solution". (BBC news, February 11, 2002).

* The CIA publicly confirmed that it has "no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups" (New York Times, February 6, 2002).

5) Peace is Possible

In light of Baghdad's new offer to hold talks with UN without pre-conditions, and Iraq's proposal to let the international weapons monitoring team return if the bombing and economic sanctions are lifted (Iraqi Ambassador to UN Mohammad Al-Douri, BBC news, November 29, 2001), we believe that starting dialogue with Iraq and resuming the activities of UN weapon's inspection team in Iraq is the only reasonable option.

Iraq has taken encouraging steps in the past few weeks indicating a willingness to receive outside inspectors. For the first time in the past ten years, Iraq has agreed to allow the UN special investigator on human rights to visit Iraq. (Agence France Press, a French news organization, January 28, 2002). And a team of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency recently performed a limited four-day inspection of Iraq's nuclear facilities. According to the IAEA spokeswoman, Iraq has stated that it will allow a full-fledged IAEA inspection once UN sanctions are lifted (Radio Free Europe's Iraq Report, February 1, 2002)

CLIP

CONTACT INFO:

WWFOR-CoC, 225 N 70th St., Seattle, WA 98103, (206) 789-5565
Iraq@forusa.org
AFSC/Iraq, 1501 Cherry St., Philadelphia, PA 19102, (215) 241-7170
askaboutiraq@afsc.org

All of the previous messages are archived for your convenience at http://www.afsc.org/conscience/oldupdates.htm

For more background info, see also:
http://www.scn.org/wwfo
http://www.afsc.org
http://www.peaceresponse.org
http://www.endiraqsanctions.org
http://www.saveageneration.org




4.

From: http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/02/05/26214.html

2002-02-05

USA TO ATTACK IRAQ IN MAY

Israeli military sources claim that Iraq is to be attacked in May.

The Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot quotes Israeli military sources as claiming that the United States of America is planning to attack Iraq in May. These sources claim that the Pentagon has been given the go-ahead to draw up attack plans in the second phase of the war against terrorism.

It is further stated that contact is being made with opposition forces inside and outside Iraq, with a view to setting up a new government after Saddam Hussein and his regime is overthrown.

Binyamin Eliezer, the Israeli Defence Minister, intends to request the USA to co-ordinate their attack with Israel, during his visit to the USA this week. Eliezer declared that this time the USA will not ask Israel to show restraint if there are any attacks on this country by Iraq.

There have been repeated rumours that an attack on Iraq is imminent, and the State of the Union speech by George Bush last week, calling this country a member of an “axis of evil”, did nothing to dispel the suspicion.

One thing is a war against terrorism. Another is interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign nations. The dividing line is extremely fine. The stupidity of Osama Bin Laden made it possible for the USA to go globe-trotting, removing regimes which it deems hostile and replacing them with sycophants, all in the name of a war against terrorism.

This war is legitimised by two countries, the USA and the UK, with the rest of the world looking passively on. Such a situation has even brought the wrath of the NATO Secretary-General, Lord Robertson, who claims that “even super-powers need allies and coalitions to supply bases, fuel, air space and forces”.

See also:

Patten lays into Bush's America: Fury at president's 'axis of evil' speech
February 9, 2002
The Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/

Chris Patten, the EU commissioner in charge of Europe's international relations, has launched a scathing attack on American foreign policy - accusing the Bush administration of a dangerously "absolutist and simplistic" stance towards the rest of the world. As EU officials warned of a rift opening up between Europe and the US wider than at any time for half a century, Mr Patten tells the Guardian it is time European governments spoke up and stopped Washington before it goes into "unilateralist overdrive". "Gulliver can't go it alone, and I don't think it's helpful if we regard ourselves as so Lilliputian that we can't speak up and say it," he says in today's interview. Mr Patten's broadside came as the French prime minister, Lionel Jospin, warned the US yesterday not to give in to "the strong temptation of unilateralism". CLIP

Mr Bush's "axis of evil" speech appears to have been the last straw for EU policymakers. In today's interview, Mr Patten offers withering condemnation of the phrase. Besides balking at the word "evil", he disputes whether the three countries named are an axis at all, insisting there is no evidence that they are working together on weapons of mass destruction. But Mr Patten also expresses great irritation with Washington for undermining long-established EU efforts to reach out to Tehran and Pyongyang. "There is more to be said for trying to engage and to draw these societies into the international community than to cut them off," he says. But Mr Patten's greatest ire is reserved for America's go-it-alone approach to international relations. "However mighty you are, even if you're the greatest superpower in the world, you cannot do it all on your own." He calls on Europe's 15 member states to put aside their traditional wariness of angering the US and to speak up, forging an international stance of their own on issues ranging from the Middle East to global warming.

SHOCKWAVES FROM BUSH SPEECH RIPPLE AROUND WORLD
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/02/03/26191.html

Bush Issues New Threat to Iran, Iraq, N.Korea (Feb 11)
http://www.truthout.com/02.13C.Bush.Threat.htm




5.

From: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=12755

David Corn
WorkingForChange
02.04.02

A no-questions-asked war

Bush can’t fight for justice and human dignity while ignoring them During his much-acclaimed State of the Union speech, George W. Bush did his usual we're-fighting-for-freedom-and-liberty-for-everyone schtick. (Yeah, tell that to dissidents harassed or imprisoned in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Uzbekistan -- all vital partners in the war-on-terrorism coalition.) But the boy-president-turned-man-president went much further, proclaiming "America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, respect for women, private property, free speech, equal justice and religious tolerance."

Now you'd have to be blind to not see where I am heading. Let's concede that's one helluva standard for conduct at home and abroad. Alas, it's been routinely ignored by this administration, as it has pursued the war overseas and within America's borders.

Limits on the power of the state? In the aftermath of September 11 -- before the fires were out at the World Trade Towers -- Bush rushed to assume more power for the government. At his insistence, Congress, with only modest discussion and debate, passed the sweeping USA Patriot Act, which included wide-ranging provisions that granted the feds more ability to spy on people. With his executive order permitting the establishment of military tribunals that could try (and then execute) non-citizens suspected of terrorism, Bush assumed powers that conservative columnist William Safire characterized as dictatorial.

Free speech? Bush's attorney general, John Ashcroft, accused civil libertarian critics of the White House of treason. Equal justice? Many of Bush's anti-terrorism measures, enacted either through legislation or executive order, distinguished between citizens and non-citizens and yanked due-process rights from the latter. CLIP

You can read more of David Corn's work at http://www.workingforchange.com/column_lst.cfm?AuthrId=21




6.

From: http://www.life-enhancement.com/displayart.asp?id=645

Center for Disease Control Infected with Fascism: Proposes Medical Dictatorship

The November 12, 2001 National Law Journal reports1 that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the idiots who told the post office that there was nothing to worry about with mailed anthrax because anthrax spores cannot get out of a sealed envelope (!), have now proposed a "model health law" for states that is very dangerous for our constitutional rights. We have published this special supplement to our newsletter to get the news out about this terrible idea so that those concerned with freedom of health choice can be prepared to fight it.

The model state "Emergency Health Powers Act" drafted for the CDC was written at the Center for Law and the Public's Health at Georgetown University and Johns Hopkins University. Center director Lawrence O. Gostin says it is designed to give officials the power to act decisively in the event of an attack or outbreak of new diseases.

Under the proposed act, officials could treat, vaccinate, and quarantine individuals on a compulsory basis. States would have broad emergency powers to confiscate property and facilities, from subways to drug companies. Health officials would be able to immediately take over health care facilities and ration medicine and other supplies if shortages developed. They could compel a person to submit to a physical exam or test without a court order or be charged with a misdemeanor offense and face the possibility of forced isolation. Physicians and other health workers could be forced to do the testing or face criminal liability. (Whatever happened to the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude?) Officials could compel people to be vaccinated or treated for infectious diseases, though not those likely to suffer serious harm from vaccination. Court orders would be required to quarantine anyone, but in an immediate threat situation, officials could quarantine first and go to court later. To add insult to injury, the law would shield officials and their agents from civil liability, except in cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct.

Gene W. Matthews, legal adviser to the CDC, says the main need is for consistency and modernization of state laws. "From the CDC's viewpoint, it is not in anyone's interest to have 50 states all running off in different directions on this." There are many of us, however, who believe that competition between the states on approaches to regulation of medicine is the only way to preserve freedom of choice in medicine. This proposal would destroy that competition, a part of federalism, which was written into the constitution as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, as well as the limits of the Commerce Clause.

One scholar, George Annas of Boston University School of Law, calls it "the old Soviet model of public health - lots of power and no standards for applying it." As Annas notes, the law gives "tremendous powers to unnamed and unaccountable public health officials to order people examined, treated, vaccinated, or quarantined and do it with immunity unless acting with actual malice. . . . It's hard to imagine the country this statute was written for."

In public health, it is the health of the collective that is the unit of analysis, not the health of the individual. If such a system is made compulsory, there is little or no freedom of health choice for individuals and little concern with the fate of individuals. "Everything that is not compulsory is forbidden," the famous mantra of the Nazis, would become the order of the day when bureaucrats seize medical supplies and then "ration" them. We would expect that the best physicians, those whose focus is on the treatment and care of individual patients, will be frustrated (if not outraged) trying to care for their patients under such a system, and many would probably retire from practice, leaving behind a health care system of physicians who are willing to do what they are told to do by the state and whose largest concern is keeping their noses clean. The CDC bureaucrats behind this apparently studied at the Dr. Mengele School of Public Health (Mengele's "research" was supposedly done for the public health): send out storm troopers to round up people at gunpoint, then stick needles full of what is purported to be "medicine" into them, all for the good of the state.

Peter D. Jacobson of the University of Michigan School of Public Health calls the proposal an "excellent starting point" but thinks there are major questions remaining. One of those, he says, is whether the public's general distrust of government has changed since September 11. In other words, can the government get away with this breathtaking power grab?

What You Can Do: Inform your contacts, especially people involved with civil liberties and with health issues; write your Congresscritters; write letters to newspapers and to magazines, especially those concerned with health. Get the news out. The only way laws such as this can be passed is by sneaking them through when people aren't looking.

Ref:
1. Marcia Coyle, "Pushing Tough State Health Laws," National Law Journal, pp. A1, A11, Nov. 12, 2001.




7.

From: http://www.public-interest.co.uk/D4AC/index.htm

Democracy for a Change

* is an initiative based on the premise that 'Democracy' ('demos'=people and 'kratia'=power) is our highest civic governance ideal;

* asserts that we thus currently live, not in a Democracy, but in a Plutocracy, that is, governance by the wealthy;

* asserts that the present method of funding political parties and the political process, corrupts the ways the rules are made which affect our daily lives;

* asserts that: "When the electorate pay the piper, only then will they be able to call the legislative tune, and make Democracy a reality.";

* urges electors to press their elected representatives to legislate immediately the funding of the political process, ONLY from individual registered voters (and
then up to a low limit), to be matched by the legislature, with absolutely no funding from any other source - corporate, union or any other special interests;

* asserts that Democracy extends beyond the mere giving away of one's power every few years to persons whose opinions and decisions are governed by
financial forces unaccountable to the electorate. Thus, Citizens' Vetoes on all existing legislation; Referendum on any proposed legislation; and Recall of any
and all officials, elected or otherwise,who are breaking the law, should be the normal democratic state of governance.

* asserts that 'Democracy' only exists when the people have full recall powers of both legislation and officials.

- David J. Weston, Democracy for a Change.

For further info. contact <dweston@cqm.co.uk>




8.

WEEKLY GRIST
07 Feb-13 Feb 2002
http://www.gristmagazine.com

1.
A YEAR OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY
From going it alone on global warming (read: doing nothing) to opening up more federal lands to all types of nasty, extractive industries, it's been a long, rough ride for U.S. environmentalists in Bushlandia. Sure, you already know this -- but the devil is in the details. Mathew Gross takes a close look at environmental policy in the first year of the Bush administration, only on the Grist Magazine website.

Beating around the Bush -- a look at the president's first year in office -- by Mathew Gross
http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/imho/gross021202.asp

CLIP

7.
SMOKE SCREAM
The levels of pollutants spewed into the air over New York City following the Sep. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center exceeded even those of burning oil wells during the Gulf War, according to a new study released Monday by scientists from the University of California at Davis. The study, which was the most thorough analysis of the dust and smoke following the attacks, found elevated levels of sulfur, silicon, titanium, vanadium, and nickel -- all in very fine particles that can contribute to a range of health problems, including emphysema. The findings bolster support for allegations by some New York legislators that U.S. EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman misled New Yorkers by reassuring them that the air was "safe to breathe" one week after the attacks. They may also help the case of some 1,300 people who plan to sue the city this week for injuries, health problems, and damages stemming from alleged negligence during the post-attack recovery and cleanup.

Long Island Newsday, Associated Press, Andrew Bridges, 11 Feb 2002
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-attacks-air-study0212feb11.story?coll=sns%2Dap%2Dnation%2Dheadlines

Los Angeles Times, John J. Goldman, 12 Feb 2002
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-000010957feb12.story?coll=la-news-science

CLIP

To subscribe to WEEKLY GRIST, send a blank email message to weekly-grist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com







BACK TO THE FIRST HOME PAGE OF THIS SITE