U.S. Will Monitor Calls to Lawyers

The Justice Department has decided to listen in on the
conversations of lawyers with clients in federal custody,
including people who have been detained but not charged with
any crime.

NON-TOXIC TIMES, The Seventh Generation Newsletter

Writing in Fireflies, in 1928, Rabindranath Tagore declared that "Trees
are the earth's endless effort to speak to the listening heaven." It's an
apt phrase that sums up our reverence for these mighty plants. Yet trees
do more than bring essential beauty to our lives. In addition to
providing the air we breathe, new studies have revealed that they offer a
number of surprising other benefits. And that, in turn, makes the recent
news of America's tree deficit all the more frustrating.

Recently, we've noticed more news about trees than you can shake a stick
at starting with a new study from American Forests which found that
American cities are running a "substantial tree deficit" and losing more
trees than they're gaining. Using satellite photos taken of 20
metropolitan areas over the last 25 years, researchers found that tree
cover has noticeably diminished as once green spaces have been replaced
with roads, parking lots, buildings and sidewalks. How many trees are we
talking about? Researchers estimate that over 634 million trees would be
needed to fully "re-tree" our country's urban areas and erase the losses
uncovered by the study.

It's an investment we should certainly make because trees in urban areas
perform a variety of useful functions that are often prohibitively
expensive to replicate with infrastructure. For example, trees and the
land they occupy absorb storm water run-off to prevent water pollution
and flooding. Trees also improve air quality by removing pollutants and
giving off fresh oxygen. And the shade they provide can lower air
conditioning costs by between 20-50%.

These, however, are just the obvious benefits of tree-filled spaces.
What's more intriguing about trees is the host of less apparent services
they provide. For example, a fascinating study published this August by
the Human-Environment Research Lab at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign found other a direct correlation between trees and
public safety. The report More Trees, Less Crime? Evidence From the Inner
Cities summarized a two-year examination of 98 buildings at the Ida B.
Wells housing project in Chicago. Researchers found that buildings
surrounded by high levels of trees and grass had 52 percent fewer total
crimes, 48 percent fewer property crimes, and 56 percent fewer violent
crimes than buildings with surrounded by barren ground. This finding
flies in the face of the popular belief that trees create crime by
providing more hiding places for criminals.

An older study at the University of Illinois reached a similar
conclusion. Analyzing two types of housing in Chicago, those with nearby
trees and those without, scientists found that people living in close
proximity to tree-filled spaces reported better relations with their
neighbors and less violence in their homes than people living in nearby
buildings surrounded by concrete.

Such discoveries should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the
Biophilia Hypothesis, a relatively new theory that says people have
evolved to require a closeness to nature in order to achieve both
physical and mental well being. According to theory proponents, chief
among them Pulitzer Prize winning scientist E.O. Wilson who coined the
term "Biophilia" (a love for all living things), human beings have an
inherent biological need to affiliate with nature. Writing in the 1993
book The Biophilia Hypothesis, Dr. Stephen Kellert says the theory
"proclaims a human dependence on nature that extends far beyond the
simple issues of material and physical sustenance to encompass the human
craving for aesthetic, intellectual, cognitive, and even spiritual
meaning and satisfaction." Such thinking is similar to that expressed in
the new field of ecopsychology, a discipline which postulates that ideas
of self and health do not stop at the boundary of our skin, that the
human mind and nature are, in fact, inseparable and that the health of
each depends very much on the health of the other.

The moral of the story is that we simply cannot yet know all we lose when
we lose nature whether it's a single tree cut down or an entire forest
lost. Preserving the earth and the great diversity of life it holds is
not merely about preserving the systems we rely on for our physical
health. As ongoing research is slowly revealing, it may also be very much
about preserving the foundations of our emotional health as well. All the
more reason to protect our environment from harm, lest both our inner
selves be harmed as well.

For a thought-provoking look at the ways that nature heals, and some
activities that can bring such inner restoration into our lives, we
recommend visiting Project NatureConnect at

212 Battery Street Suite A

Burlington, VT 05401-5281

phone 802.658.3773 fax 802.658.1771

The Other Round The Clock War

Passing the baton round the world

Nicholas Watt in London, Julian Borger in Washington, Luke Harding in Islamabad, Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles and Patrick Wintour Saturday November 10, 2001 The Guardian

In the ornate surroundings of Downing Street's state dining room, where prime ministers have entertained visiting heads of state for nearly two centuries, Alastair Campbell gave vent to the frustration of waging a propaganda war against Osama bin Laden.

Seated under a portrait of George II - the last British monarch to lead troops into battle, in 1743 - Tony Blair's communications chief grumbled to European and Arab journalists that Bin Laden enjoyed an unfair advantage.

"Bin Laden just sits in a cave and chucks out videos when it suits him," Mr Campbell said. "Unlike elected governments, he is subject to no scrutiny."

Mr Campbell's outburst gave a rare glimpse of the deep fear in London and Washington that the international coalition against Bin Laden could unravel if the allies lose the battle for "hearts and minds". The allies have watched in dismay as opposition to the war, in the west and throughout the Islamic world, has mounted in response to disturbing scenes of civilian casualties in Afghanistan filmed by the Qatar-based al-Jazeera television station.

Alarmed that they are losing the initiative in the run up to Ramadan, Britain and the US yesterday published glossy pamphlets setting out the case for the military action in Afghanistan. The leaflets, which are to be distributed from embassies around the world, reproduce statements of support from the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, and the Saudi government. Such propaganda tools will be used relentlessly by a series of 24-hour central information centres which are being set up in London, Washington and Islamabad to counter the "Taliban lies" about the allied bombing.

Officials say they want to overcome the problem of stories that "rise in the east". Pakistan is five hours ahead of London and 10 hours ahead of Washington, ensuring that the Taliban's accounts of overnight bombings in Afghanistan dominate the day's news across the globe.

"The Taliban have exploited the time difference to put out lies about overnight bombing raids which then dominate the day's news in Europe and America," one government source said. "It has been an open field for big fat lies and we are going to put an end to that."

Allan Percival, an old Whitehall hand who is the lord chancellor's chief press officer, has spent the last two weeks setting up the Islamabad office from scratch. The office will open next week close to Islamabad's verdant diplomatic enclave.

High-flier

Mr Percival, a former deputy to Mr Campbell in Downing Street, will return home next week. He will be replaced by Tanya Joseph, a bright young high-flier from the Downing Street press office, who will be the chief British representative in the Islamabad centre.

Ms Joseph and her American colleagues will set up the day for the allies when they respond to Taliban claims about overnight bombing raids early in the morning, while the London staff are still asleep. "This is a difficult job because it takes time to carry out battle damage assessments," one Whitehall source said. "But if we can prove that Taliban claims are untrue we want our office in Islamabad to pump that out from first light so that our view plays on the media in the Middle East and the very early morning bulletins in Europe."

They hope that their work will be made easier by new Pakistani restrictions on Taliban diplomats in Islamabad. Under pressure from the Pentagon, Pakistan told the Taliban ambassador, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, earlier this week to stop holding press conferences on the veranda of his suburban embassy.

Over the past four weeks Mullah Zaeef's briefings have become an enjoyable, and sometimes surreal, afternoon ritual. The ambassador would begin by reading out a tirade against America, before giving the latest figures on civilian casualties ("reports are pouring in"). Mullah Zaeef was often seated next to his translator, Ahmad Ratib, with his eye-patch, bushy beard, turban and fingerless right hand.

In response to the Pakistani restrictions, the Taliban are preparing a new PR strategy. There seems little doubt that President Pervez Musharraf, under more pressure from the White House, will soon sever diplomatic links with the Taliban, and send Mullah Zaeef and his colleagues home. Having kept journalists out of Afghanistan for two months, the Taliban have woken up to the fact they will soon be unable to talk to them in Pakistan. Three days ago the Taliban gave permission to the BBC to reopen its Kabul office.

This is likely to cancel any advantage allied spinners will gain from the closure of the Taliban embassy in Islamabad. Live reports from Kabul may upset their plans to "pass the baton" of the press operation to London just after lunch, at around 9am British time. From an office in the Foreign Office, which will be overseen by Mr Campbell from across the road in Downing Street, 15 British and US officials will feed "lines" to the media on both sides of the Atlantic for their lunchtime and breakfast news programmes.

Mr Campbell will then "pass the baton" to Washington at 2.30pm London time - 9.30am on the US east coast - when the three centres will hold a telephone conference call. Karen Hughes, Mr Campbell's formidable counterpart in the White House, is already chairing a daily conference call between London and Washington.

Only a handful of people take part in the conference call to ensure that lines of communication are simplified. When the Pakistan operation is up and running, Ms Joseph will join from Islamabad. Peter Reid, the head of communications at the British embassy in Washington, will join in, along with his American counterparts stationed in London.

Mr Reid leads a handful of British officials who are working in the Washington office, which is based in the Old Executive Building, next to the White House. They have been working alongside Dan Bartlett and Jim Wilkinson, two key Bush aides.

The Anglo-American team have set up shop in the building's most ornate chamber, the Indian Treaty Room where the UN charter was signed, with gilt decorations and elaborate painted designs on the wall and an English tiled floor below.

The room is filled with 30 desks and 30 flat-screen computer terminals, a row of televisions showing channels from around the world, apart so far from al-Jazeera (still awaiting a cable connection), and four clocks showing the time in Washington, London, Islamabad and Kabul. The centre piece is an electronic illuminated map of the world, which lights up longitude by longitude with the rising of the sun. It is intended to dramatise the 24-hour nature of the operation. As well as a London desk, there are desks for media-monitoring, terrorist financing, department of defence. On the wall, there is a grid detailing who has been assigned to explain, spin or rebut what at each hour of the day in each corner of the globe.

Amid the clutter of the office sits a New York fire department jacket given to Jim Wilkinson when he visited New York's ground zero. He describes it as "a reminder of the centre's purpose".

As night draws in over Washington's Potomac river, staff will "pass the baton" back to Islamabad at around 9pm US eastern time, which is 7am in Islamabad.

The aggressive new media operation was the brainchild of Ms Hughes and Mr Campbell, who is still haunted by memories of the 1999 Kosovo conflict when Nato bomb attacks on civilians prompted a backlash. The allied press operation in 1999 was initially a shambles, which led Mr Campbell to decamp temporarily to the Nato headquarters in Belgium.

Amid fears that Britain and America were in danger of repeating the same mistakes, Mr Campbell flew to Washington at the end of last month for talks with Ms Hughes. The two agreed that in addition to setting up a Millbank-style rebuttal unit, Britain and America should think of "good news" stories to try to turn round public opinion. A recent example was the millionth food drop over Afghanistan, a fact that was trumpeted by the allies.

The allies are also thinking of ideas "outside the box" to change Middle Eastern perceptions of the west. The state department is drawing up plans to use international sporting figures, musicians and actors to put the US message across.

This is being overseen by Charlotte Beers, one of America's best-known figures in advertising, who now works at the state department. "If I have to buy time on al-Jazeera I would certainly consider it," she said recently. Ms Beers, a 66-year old Texan, said that her task was to redefine the identity of the US "for audiences who are, at best, cynical... This is a war about a way of life and fundamental beliefs and values that we did not expect to ever have to explain and defend, such as freedom and tolerance."

Her plans will be discussed tomorrow when around 40 senior members of the US entertainment industry meet in Beverly Hills at the request of President Bush's senior adviser, Karl Rove, to discuss how they can best assist in convincing the world and a domestic audience of the rightness of the US cause. The atmosphere in Hollywood has been likened to the period after Pearl Harbour when studios produced such films as Wake Island, about American marines battling to hold a base on a Pacific island, as part of Hollywood's morale-boosting war effort.

The film business finds itself with the time to participate as many projects that dealt with violent themes have been cancelled and there is a reluctance to commit to new projects that may seem vacuous in the light of recent events.

Nervousness

Downing Street is also keen to think beyond the day-to-day demands of the media because of the need to confront the growing opposition to the war and the need to reassure British Muslims. The government showed its nervousness when the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, wrote a two-page article for the Mirror on October 30, the day after the veteran war reporter John Pilger had criticised the war.

"Seven weeks ago today the world was horrified by acts of terrorism never before imagined," Mr Straw wrote, showing the government's determination to counter opponents by offering vivid reminders of the events of September 11. Ministers have been deeply unsettled by the Mirror's sceptical coverage of the war, which has contrasted with loyal support from the Murdoch-owned Sun and the News of the World.

Beyond its work with the media, Downing Street has been refining its own message as it tries to assuage Muslim fears. In a key change, Mr Blair has toned down his message that the west is not waging war on Islam. On the advice of Jordan's King Abdullah, who said that this argument was not working, the prime minister now talks of a war between moderate and extremist wings of Islam.

This is a marked change of emphasis from Mr Blair's message in the immediate aftermath of the American bombings. In an article for the Daily Jang, Pakistan's largest Urdu-language newspaper, a week after the bombings, the prime minister wrote: "Those responsible are not communities nor religions but fanatical individuals."

The prime minister's new approach was echoed by Dr George Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who used a trip to the Middle East last week to plead for tolerance between Christianity and Islam. Dr Carey even appeared on al-Jazeera television dressed in full archbishop's regalia.

Downing Street and the White House are fervently hoping that the unprecedented round-the-clock media operation will change their fortunes. But Abul Taher, of the British Asian Eastern Eye newspaper, sounded a note of caution. "The more they spin, the more they appear to be losing it. What matters is the reality. As long as there are casualties there will be opposition to the war."

Brazil's Amazon Jungle Threatened

by Bill Rodgers

An estimated 15 percent of Brazil's huge Amazon rainforest has been destroyed with most of the deforestation occurring during the past 30 years. Deforestation, water, pollution, and other factors are adversely affecting the Amazon environment.

About 550,000 square kilometers of the Amazon jungle have been deforested during the past 30 years, as new roads have brought in farmers who have cleared the land of trees. Using the slash and burn technique - cutting and burning the trees and vegetation - they plant manioc, corn, and other crops.

But much of the land in the Amazon is not suitable for agriculture, because it no longer receives the nutrients that were part of the recycling process that existed when the forest was still standing. Instead, after a few harvests, the acidic soil turns barren and farmers are forced to move on to clear new patches of jungle.

But this process of deforestation is further aggravated; even when patches of primary growth forest remain untouched amidst cleared areas. Scientists are finding that these islands of trees, or forest fragments, are very vulnerable.

Heraldo Vasconcellos coordinates a joint project of the U.S. Smithsonian Institution and Brazil's National Amazonian Research Center, known as INPA, to study the process of forest fragmentation. Mr. Vasconcellos says he and other scientists have found that forest fragments do not survive very well.

"What happens is that once you isolate these fragments you find that wind from the outside, from the pasture areas, blows into the forest and because the trees have shallow roots there is a kind of knockdown effect," Mr. Vasconcellos says. "So you have a lot of trees, especially those near the border of the fragments, that die and as a result you have other trees coming and growing to replace (them). But usually these are what we call 'pioneer species'; species that are pre-adapted to go into large gaps. So you have in fact a change in the structure of the forests, and also you have a change in species composition. You lose species that are typical from the primary forest, and you gain species that are more associated with secondary forest."

These species gradually take over, replacing the deep forest trees that eventually die.

The impact on animal and insect life is similar; species that live in shady, humid habitats disappear. Mr. Vasconcellos says their studies show that of seven types of birds, only one survives in a forest fragment of one hectare.

The danger of this process of forest fragmentation is that over time potentially valuable species of trees and plants are being lost forever.

"If you lose those species you can be losing a lot of information that could be helpful for medicine or things like that," he says. "In some cases you can lose the function of the forest. For instance, if you lose a key pollinator and a given tree really depends on that, then you will lose the tree species as well. So you have a cascade effect as well that tends to multiply."

Increased population in the Amazon also damages the environment by producing pollution, especially water pollution. Sewage and chemical waste from industries are the main culprits. Geologist Joao Augusto Dantas says they pollute the small streams and rivers around the Amazon's major towns and cities. But Mr. Dantas, who specializes in water issues at the INPA in Manaus, says the huge volume of water flowing in the Amazon River, about 200,000 cubic meters per second, washes away these pollutants.

Still, he expresses concern about the problem. "When you talk about the big rivers, they are in very good health. But the smaller ones are almost dead in the big cities, and I think something has to be done for those small rivers," Mr. Dantas says.

The vast waters of the Amazon could become a more precious resource in the future, which is why Mr. Dantas believes it must be better protected. "The Amazon River is in good health for now, but this should not be a motive to be careless with nature. I think all efforts must be made to preserve this, and knowing that water will be the best merchandise for this century. The century that has just begun will be the century for water," he says.

Water pollution, deforestation, wildfires, and climate changes are all affecting the Amazon environment. Immense, vast stretches of rainforest still exist, virtually untouched. But population growth and development needs are creating greater pressure on the fragile tropical ecosystem.

Paulo Adario of the environmental organization Greenpeace says the future of the Amazon will depend on public awareness, both in Brazil and internationally. "At the end of the day, who can save the Amazon are not environmental organizations like Greenpeace. It is the population, the public. We are the pushers, we form the armies, but the final decision will be taken by the Brazilian population and by the international audience," he says.

While the Amazon rainforest is in no danger of disappearing anytime soon, it is clearly under siege, a siege whose strength will only increase over time.

I've Learned

by Andy Rooney

I've learned.... That the best classroom in the world is at the feet of an elderly person.

I've learned.... That when you're in love, it shows.

I've learned.... That just one person saying to me, "You've made my day!" makes my day.

I've learned.... That having a child fall asleep in your arms is one of the most peaceful feelings in the world.

I've learned.... That being kind is more important than being right.

I've learned.... That you should never say no to a gift from a child.

I've learned.... That I can always pray for someone when I don't have the strength to help him in some other way.

I've learned.... That no matter how serious your life requires you to be, everyone needs a friend to act goofy with.

I've learned.... That sometimes all a person needs is a hand to hold and a heart to understand.

I've learned.... That simple walks with my father around the block on summer nights when I was a child did wonders for me as an adult.

I've learned.... That life is like a roll of toilet paper. The closer it gets to the end, the faster it goes.

I've learned.... That we should be glad God doesn't give us everything we ask for.

I've learned.... That money doesn't buy class.

I've learned.... That it's those small daily happenings that make life so spectacular.

I've learned... That under everyone's hard shell is someone who wants to be appreciated and loved.

I've learned.... That the Lord didn't do it all in one day. What makes me think I can?

I've learned.... That to ignore the facts does not change the facts.

I've learned.... That when you plan to get even with someone, you are only letting that person continue to hurt you.

I've learned.... That love, not time, heals all wounds.

I've learned.... That the easiest way for me to grow as a person is to surround myself with people smarter than I am.

I've learned.... That everyone you meet deserves to be greeted with a smile.

I've learned.... That there's nothing sweeter than sleeping with your babies and feeling their breath on your cheeks.

I've learned.... That no one is perfect until you fall in love with them.

I've learned.... That life is tough, but I'm tougher.

I've learned.... That opportunities are never lost; someone will take the ones you miss.

I've learned.... That when you harbor bitterness, happiness will dock elsewhere.

I've learned.... That I wish I could have told my Dad that I love him one more time before he passed away.

I've learned.... That one should keep his words both soft and tender, because tomorrow he may have to eat them.

I've learned.... That a smile is an inexpensive way to improve your looks.

I've learned.... That I can't choose how I feel, but I can choose what I do about it.

I've learned.... That when your newly born grandchild holds your little finger in his little fist, that you're hooked for life.

I've learned.... That everyone wants to live on top of the mountain, but all the happiness and growth occurs while you're climbing it.

I've learned ... That it is best to give advice in only two circumstances; when it is requested and when it is a life threatening situation.

I've learned.... That the less time I have to work with, the more things I get done.

On Preventing War

By Thich Nhat Hahn

The most important practice for preventing war is to stay
in touch with what is refreshing, healing, and joyful inside us
and around us. If we practice walking mindfully, being in touch
with the Earth, the air, the trees, and ourselves, we can heal
ourselves, and our entire society will also be healed. If the
whole nation would practice watering seeds of joy and peace
and not just seeds of anger and violence, the elements of war
in all of us will be transformed.

We must prepare ourselves, whether we have one minute,
ten years, or one thousand years. If we don't have time,
there is no use in discussing peace, because you cannot
practice peace without time. If you have one minute, please
use that minute to breathe in and out calmly and plant the
seeds of peace and understanding in yourself. If you have
ten years, please use the ten years to prevent the next war.
If you have one thousand years, please use the time to
prevent the destruction of our planet.

... Just by your way of looking at things and doing things,
you influence others. Approach everyone with love and
patience, and try to water the positive seeds in them.
We have to help each other, being skillful, kind, and
understanding. Blaming and arguing never help.

... In the practice of mindfulness, we nurture the ability to
see deeply into the nature of things and people, and the
fruit is insight, understanding, and love.

 Thich Nhat Hanh, 1991

Terrorism And Nonviolence

by Arun Gandhi, grandson of Mahatma Gandhi

Understandably, after the tragedy in New York and Washington DC on September 11 many have written or called the office to find out what would be an appropriate nonviolent response to such an unbelievably inhuman act of violence.

First, we must understand that nonviolence is not a strategy that we can use in a moment of crisis and discard in times of peace. Non violence is about personal attitudes, about becoming the change we wish to see in the world. Because, a nation's collective attitude is based on the attitude of the individual. Nonviolence is about building positive relationships with all human beings - relationships that are based on love, compassion, respect, understanding, and appreciation.

Nonviolence is also about not judging people as we perceive them to be -that is, a murderer is not born a murderer; a terrorist is not born a terrorist. People become murderers, robbers, and terrorists because of circumstances and experiences in life. Killing or confining murders, robbers, terrorists, or the like is not going to rid this world of them. For every one we kill or confine we create another hundred to take their place. What we need to do is to analyze dispassionately what are those circumstances that create such monsters and how can we help eliminate those circumstances, not the monsters. Justice should mean reformation and not revenge.

We saw some people in Iraq and Palestine and I dare say many other countries rejoice in the blowing up of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It horrified us, as it should. But, let us not forget that we do the same thing. When Israel bombs the Palestinians we either rejoice or show no compassion. Our attitude is they deserve what they get. When the Palestinians bomb the Israelis we are indignant and condemn them as vermin who need to be eliminated.

We reacted without compassion when we bombed the cities of Iraq. I was among the millions in the United States who sat glued to the television and watched the drama as though it was a made for television film. The television had desensitized us. Thousands of innocent men, women and children were being blown to bits and instead of feeling sorry for them, we marveled at the efficiency of our military. For more than ten years we have continued to wreak havoc in Iraq - an estimated 50, 000 children die every year because of sanctions that we have imposed - and it hasn't moved us to compassion. All this is done, we are told, because we want to get rid of the Satan called Sadam Hussein.

Now we are getting ready to do this all over again to get rid of another Satan called Osama Bin Laden. We will bomb the cities of Afghanistan because they harbor the Satan and in the process we will help create a thousand other bin Ladens.

Some might say, "We don't care what the world thinks of us as long as they respect our strength. After all we have the means to blow this world to pieces since we are the only surviving super-power. Do we want the world to respect us the way school children respect a bully? Is that our role in the world?

If a bully is what we want to be then we must be prepared to face the same consequences a school-yard bully faces. On the other hand we cannot tell the world "Leave us alone..." Isolationism is not what this world is built for.

All of this brings us back to the question: How do we respond nonviolently to terrorism?

The consequences of a military response are not very rosy. Many thousands of innocent people will die both here and in the country or countries we attack. Militancy will increase exponentially and, ultimately, we will be faced with another, more pertinent, moral question: What will we gain by destroying half the world? Will we be able to live with a clear conscience?

We must acknowledge our role in helping create monsters in the world and then find ways to contain these monsters without hurting more innocent people and then redefine our role in the world. I think we must move from seeking to be respected for our military strength to being respected for our moral strength.

We need to appreciate that we are in a position to play a powerful role in helping the "other half" of the world attain a better standard of life not by throwing a few crumbs, but by significantly involving ourselves in constructive economic programs.

For too long our foreign policy has been based on "what is good for the United States." It smacks of selfishness. Our foreign policy should now be based on what is good for the world and how can we do the right thing to help the world become more peaceful.

To those who have lost loved ones in this and other terrorist acts, I say I share your grief. I am sorry that you have become victims of senseless violence. But let this sad episode not make you vengeful because no amount of violence and killing is going to bring you inner peace. Anger and hate never do. The memory of those victims who have died in this and other violent incidents around the world will be better preserved and meaningfully commemorated if we all learn to forgive and dedicate our lives to helping create a peaceful, respectful, and understanding world.

Arun Gandhi

Founder Director, M. K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence

650 East Parkway South

Memphis TN 38104

"War cannot be humanized,
 it can only be abolished."
Albert Einstein


"Part of the happiness of life consists not
 in fighting battles but in avoiding them.
 A masterly retreat is in itself a victory."
 Norman Vincent Peale


"Faith is the bird that feels the light
 when the dawn is still dark."
Sir Rabindranath Tagore


"All we are saying is
 Give Peace a Chance."
John Lennon

The Gods of Economic Growth Transcend the Threat of Terrorism

by Naomi Klein

   Growth is the only god at these negotiations and any measures that
could slow profits even slightly are being treated by believers as if
they are on the side of the infidels and evil doers.

by Kevin Reikes

   Why aren't Democrats defending our values? Why are they caving in to
corporate welfare? Is it their need to raise money from many of the same
donors that fund the GOP?

   AUDIO and TEXT produced by Steven Rosenfeld.

LOSING THE PR BATTLE

Overdrawing Our Account in the Bank of International Sentiment

by David Corn

   The solution to America's image problem is not just a matter of
refining our message and hiring expensive messengers. It's eliminating
the dissonance between our words and our deeds.

Insurance Industry Makes the Case for Corporate Welfare

by Steven Rosenfeld

   The insurance industry -- which sees itself as a pillar of the
private sector and a stalwart defender of the 'free market' -- wants to
become another "welfare queen" in pinstripes and fancy shoes.

by M. W. Guzy

   "We can unite in the face of human carnage, but the old divisions
reappear when it comes time to slaughter a cash cow."

   AUDIO and TEXT produced by Sharon Basco.

"Buy Now, Save Later" Follows the Money

A Joint Report by Citizens for Tax Justice, Public Campaign, and the
Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy

   Campaign contributions are a great investment, offering donors a
return in good times and bad. A new report shows the payoff is
especially good right now, in war time.

Draconian Law Enforcement is not a Solution to Terrorism
by Michael Ratner

   "The domestic consequences of the war on terrorism include massive
arrests of immigrants ... and the passage of legislation granting
intelligence and law enforcement agencies much broader powers to intrude
into our private lives."

A Vulnerable Target

by Brian Halweil

   Attacking the nation's food supply would be easy and potentially
devastating. So why aren't we ready for it?

by Olivia Wu

   "Flags on posters and shopping bags shows us how our country is able
to turn almost everything into a marketing tool."

   AUDIO and TEXT produced by Sharon Basco.

Tips, Leads, and Links

by The TomPaine.com Staff

   Right Wing Watch ... Exponential Hunger ... Recession-Proof
Investment ... Election Reform 101 ... WTO all Wet ... and more.

San Francisco Solar Plant

Press Conference City Hall, San Francisco

Local Power is currently preparing several California cities to build some of the largest renewable energy projects in the world in response to the state's energy crisis. While continuing in its groundbreaking national work on community-wide electricity purchasing laws, we view the state's energy crisis as an unprecedented opportunity for large-scale community-based conservation and renewable resource development. Our work consists of educating local governments about building solar, wind and other renewable resources in the immediate term, offering technical assistance to local officials throughout a city or county's solicitation process, and developing (unprecedented) generic "Community Power" bidding document and contract templates adapted to the particular budgetary, risk management, and revenue bonding conditions facing local governments.

As "Community Choice" legislation (AB48x by Assemblymember Migden-SF) awaits passage in the state legislature, we are now offering policy guidance and technical assistance for the energy crisis to city officials throughout California, focusing our efforts in the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles County, and San Diego County.

Our leading project is sponsored by the President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Tom Ammiano has announced his support of Local Power's proposal that the City initiate competitive bidding for construction of a 50 MW solar photovoltaic "Community Power" network.

This will be the world's largest solar utility.

It will produce six times the output of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District's system, currently the largest. Depending on the technology used, the Plant will cover at least 138 acres of rooftops throughout the city. In terms of scalability, this could serve 50,000 apartments with 1kw systems, 450 large commercial buildings with 125kw systems, 167 extremely large commercial buildings with 300kw systems, or 50 Walmart-scale monster buildings with 1MW systems. The Plant will serve 5% of the entire community's peak electricity consumption, - the threshold for a Stage 2 Alert - and result in a massive greenhouse gas reduction.

The 1997 Kyoto treaty set a 7% reduction target by 2012, but U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have increased significantly since then. With the Bush administration calling for more domestic oil drilling and nuclear power development as the answer to climate change, the San Francisco Solar Plant will serve as a model for other cities looking to protect their communities against blackouts and address climate change at the same time.

Community Power

We are now preparing similar proposals for other cities and counties in our network throughout California. The RFP model, which we call "Community Power" for its resemblance to Community Choice, is a model for large-scale development of renewable distributed generation by local governments. (1) Like Community Choice, the Community Power RFP transfers the risks associated with energy supply to the private sector, a major parameter for risk-averse local governments. (2) Community Power can operate under a variety of energy crisis outcomes for cities, including a Community Choice law, public power takeover, or neither. (3) In the likely event that the Community Choice bill becomes law in coming months, Community Power will provide a needed stimulus to trigger bulk wholesale power competition in a failed deregulated energy market.

California faces not one energy crisis but two: an electricity price crisis and an electric pollution crisis. The electric industry is the largest contributor to global warming. While the U.S. has patently failed in its efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions that have, in fact, increased since the Kyoto treaty, California's energy crisis offers a unique opportunity for an offensive strategy to build renewable energy and conservation on an unprecedented scale, and to show that there can be a light at the end of the Climate Change tunnel. Local Power's efforts to promote Community Choice have already resulted in Kyoto compliance for one metropolitan area, and the San Francisco project alone will approach Kyoto-level reduction targets - if not actually meet them.

While the opportunity to do something about global warming is new to California cities, the issue is not new. Cities were singled out at the 1992 Rio Summit as the key government level in the effort to reduce greenhouse gases, in response to which California cities currently consume more than half of the green power sold in California for their municipal facilities. Unfortunately - until Community Choice becomes law - these "Green RFPs" are limited to municipal facilities. While green-powered municipal facilities comprise 2-5% of a community's consumption and are too small to have any appreciable impact on global warming, they demonstrate a mainstream political will to meet the Rio Summit challenge at the local level. Given the opportunity with resources and authority (Community Choice and Community Power), they will do just that.

The premise of the Community Power project is that a low-risk, revenue-bondable municipal RFP for massive renewable energy deployment is an unprecedented opportunity to both protect communities against blackouts and raise the bar on the scale of public commitment in the fight against global warming. California's energy market crisis provides an historic window of opportunity for cities to meet the challenges made at Rio in 1992. With blackouts looming, the political will to build solar, wind, and other clean energy capacity on an unprecedented scale will be at its height this Summer. With five years of local government networking and education around Community Choice in place, Local Power is poised to lead this effort.

Community Choice

Since 1996, Local Power has been developing structural, quantifiable solutions for local governments to meaningfully impact the problem of Global Warming. Paul Fenn drafted and filed the original Community Choice law for Massachusetts in 1995 when he directed the state's Senate Energy Committee. Community Choice authorizes local governments to aggregate their electricity customer base and to contract with a supplier to provide energy. The second state to pass the law, Ohio (1999), demonstrates the significance of large volume purchasing through local government. Under the state's Community Choice law, one hundred cities in the Cleveland area of Cuyahoga County recently signed a contract for their 450,000 customers with Green Mountain Power. The contract resulted in three dramatic outcomes, (1) those cities collectively reduced their output of carbon dioxide emissions by 30%, (2) did it for a lower price than they had previously paid for an energy mix of 60% coal and 40% nuclear, and (3) increased Green Mountain's national customer base from 100,000 to 550,000 overnight, representing a massive new opportunity in the green electricity market.

With technical support from Local Power, 12 California cities passed resolutions asking for a Community Choice bill in 1999-2000. Legislation was drafted by Paul Fenn in January 2000 and sponsored by Assemblymember and Appropriations Committee Chair Carole Migden (D-SF) in January 2001. AB48x passed the Assembly Energy Costs and Availability Committee in March with a vote of 19 to 1 and the Assembly Appropriations Committee in May with a unanimous vote. With broad support this legislation is expected to become law some time this summer. Local Power's coalition of cities and counties for Community Choice now provides fertile ground for the Community Power project.

City officials including Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown, San Francisco Board of Supervisors President Tom Ammiano, Marin County Board of Supervisors President Hal Brown, and Southern California Cities Joint Powers Consortium Executive Director Albert Vera, as well as the League of California Cities, the California Association of Counties, and 30 California cities and counties led by San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Marin County and the Los Angeles County-based Consortium (representing 500,000 residents), have endorsed the legislation, many by municipal and county resolutions. Organizations including CALPIRG, League of Women Voters of California, Greenpeace, TURN (The Utility Reform Network), Global Exchange, as well as Ralph Nader, have also endorsed. Industry groups such as the Western Power Trading Forum and Green Mountain Power now recognize the need for Community Choice as a key structural reform to AB1890, and are counted as strong supporters.

Many members of the coalition of 30 cities and counties endorsing of the California Community Choice bill are now looking to Local Power for education and technical support on the energy crisis. Many are now deciding whether to rubber stamp permits for natural gas fired power plants, or consider alternative energy sources. Community Power is essentially the second phase of Community Choice, moving the same solicitation-based model from bulk power procurement to new infrastructure development. Given the volatility of the state's wholesale power market, many cities view local power generation as the first step in establishing rate security for their communities. The opportunity to pursue a sustainable energy policy is therefore immediate.

The Community Choice coalition will prove significant in building public support for solar, wind, and other renewable resources on a scale that has not been seen before. Specifically, Local Power is positioned to get projects on the books that will demonstrate the viability of large-scale renewable energy as a serious, big business solution to both the energy crisis and global warming.

Staff

Paul Fenn is the Director of Local Power, based in Oakland, California. Fenn authored the original "Community Choice" bill, Senate 447, in 1994, while serving as director of the Massachusetts Senate Committee on Energy under the chairmanship of Senator Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford). He organized a coalition of municipalities, consumer, environmental and good government groups in opposition AB1890 in 1996, acted as advisor in the drafting of Ohio's Community Choice law in 1999, and more recently drafted the California Community Choice bill, AB48x, sponsored by California Assemblywoman Carole Migden (D-San Francisco). Beginning in January 2001, Fenn organized support among political leaders in San Francisco to build the world's largest solar utility (50 MW) in response to the energy crisis. Fenn also wrote the platform and propaganda for Jerry Brown's 1998 mayoral bid in Oakland, California. Fenn also has substantial experience in the design, permitting, real estate acquisition, and deployment of wireless telecommunications systems such as cellular, PCS and GSM. He has worked as a contractor for General Cellular, Western Wireless, and Voicestream in the U.S., and for Motorola, and Lucent Technologies, and the International Committee of the Red Cross in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Macedonia. Fenn received his Masters degree in Intellectual History from the University of Chicago in 1992.

Julia Peters, Manager of Local Power, began organizing and fundraising for political causes in 1986 as a canvasser with the Ralph Nader-inspired Public Interest Research Group (PIRG). After serving as the Administrative Director and then Statewide Canvass Director for the California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG), she was promoted to National Canvass Director for the Boston-based Fund for Public Interest Research, the training and technical arm of the PIRGs, in 1991. Before leaving the PIRGs in 1995, Peters organized political action and fundraising campaigns for national environmental and consumer protection legislation in 16 states. In 1996 Peters returned to California to become the statewide field director for the radical Campaign Finance Reform initiative, Proposition 212. Sponsored by the coalition, Californians Against Political Corruption, 212 called for $100 contribution limits, mandatory spending limits, and a 75% in-district contribution requirement on political fundraising. 212 received 49% of the vote. In 1998 Peters became campaign manager for former California Governor Jerry Brown's Oakland mayoral bid, which received 59% of the vote in the June primary in a field of eleven candidates, electing him to Mayor.

Local Power

4281 Piedmont Avenue

Oakland, California 94611

http://www.local.org

mailto:paulfenn@local.org

mailto:jpeters@local.org

510 451 1727

Police State

by Kelly Patricia O'Meara

If the United States is at war against terrorism to preserve freedom, a new coalition of conservatives and liberals is asking, why is it doing so by wholesale abrogation of civil liberties? They cite the Halloween-week passage of the antiterrorism bill - a new law that carries the almost preposterously gimmicky title: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" (USA PATRIOT Act). Critics both left and right are saying it not only strips Americans of fundamental rights but does little or nothing to secure the nation from terrorist attacks.

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, one of only three Republican lawmakers to buck the House leadership and the Bush administration to vote against this legislation, is outraged not only by what is contained in the antiterrorism bill but also by the effort to stigmatize opponents. Paul tells Insight, "The insult is to call this a 'patriot bill' and suggest I'm not patriotic because I insisted upon finding out what is in it and voting no. I thought it was undermining the Constitution, so I didn't vote for it - and therefore I'm somehow not a patriot. That's insulting."

Paul confirms rumors circulating in Washington that this sweeping new law, with serious implications for each and every American, was not made available to members of Congress for review before the vote. "It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote - at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote."

And why would that be? "This is a very bad bill," explains Paul, "and I think the people who voted for it knew it and that's why they said, 'Well, we know it's bad, but we need it under these conditions.'" Meanwhile, efforts to obtain copies of the new law were stonewalled even by the committee that wrote it.

What is so bad about the new law? "Generally," says Paul, "the worst part of this so-called antiterrorism bill is the increased ability of the federal government to commit surveillance on all of us without proper search warrants." He is referring to Section 213 (Authority for Delaying Notice of the Execution of a Warrant), also known as the "sneak-and-peak" provision, which effectively allows police to avoid giving prior warning when searches of personal property are conducted. Before the USA PATRIOT Act, the government had to obtain a warrant and give notice to the person whose property was to be searched. With one vote by Congress and the sweep of the president's pen, say critics, the right of every American fully to be protected under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures was abrogated.

The Fourth Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is joining with conservatives as critics of the legislation, the rationale for the Fourth Amendment protection always has been to provide the person targeted for search with the opportunity to "point out irregularities in the warrant, such as the fact that the police may be at the wrong address or that the warrant is limited to a search of a stolen car, so the police have no authority to be looking into dresser drawers." Likely bad scenarios involving the midnight knock at the door are not hard to imagine.

Paul, a strict constructionist (see Picture Profile, Sept. 3), has a pretty good idea of what Americans may anticipate. "I don't like the sneak-and-peak provision because you have to ask yourself what happens if the person is home, doesn't know that law enforcement is coming to search his home, hasn't a clue as to who's coming in unannounced . and he shoots them. This law clearly authorizes illegal search and seizure, and anyone who thinks of this as antiterrorism needs to consider its application to every American citizen."

The only independent in the House, Rep. Bernie Sanders from Vermont, couldn't support the bill for similar reasons: "I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and I'm concerned that voting for this legislation fundamentally violates that oath. And the contents of the legislation have not been subjected to serious hearings or searching examination."

Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU and professor of law at New York University, tells Insight, "The sneak-and-peak provision is just one that will be challenged in the courts. We're not only talking about the sanctity of the home, but this includes searches of offices and other places. It is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and poses tremendous problems with due process. By not notifying someone about a search, they don't have the opportunity to raise a constitutional challenge to the search."

Even before the ink on the president's signature had dried, the FBI began to take advantage of the new search-and-seizure provisions. A handful of companies have reported visits from federal agents demanding private business records. C.L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho), another of the three GOP lawmakers who found the legislation unconstitutional, says he knew this provision would be a problem. "Section 215 authorizes the FBI to acquire any business records whatsoever by order of a secret U.S. court. The recipient of such a search order is forbidden from telling any person that he has received such a request. This is a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech and the Fourth Amendment protection of private property."

Rep. Otter says the PATRIOT law gives federal agents unconstitutional police powers. Otter added that "some of these provisions place more power in the hands of law enforcement than our Founding Fathers could have dreamt and severely compromises the civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. This bill, while crafted with good intentions, is rife with constitutional infringements I could not support."

Like most who actually have read and analyzed the new law, Strossen disagrees with several provisions not only because they appear to her to be unconstitutional but also because the sweeping changes it codifies have little or nothing to do with fighting terrorism. "There is no connection," insists Strossen, "between the Sept. 11 attacks and what is in this legislation. Most of the provisions relate not just to terrorist crimes but to criminal activity generally. This happened, too, with the 1996 antiterrorism legislation where most of the surveillance laws have been used for drug enforcement, gambling and prostitution."

"I like to refer to this legislation," continues Strossen, "as the 'so-called antiterrorism law,' because on its face the provisions are written to deal with any crime, and the definition of terrorism under the new law is so severely broad that it applies far beyond what most people think of as terrorism." A similar propensity of governments to slide down the slippery slope recently was reported in England by The Guardian newspaper. Under a law passed last year by the British Parliament, investigators can get information from Internet-service providers about their subscribers without a warrant. Supposedly an antiterrorist measure, the British law will be applied to minor crimes, tax collection and public-health purposes.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act in this country, Section 802 defines domestic terrorism as engaging in "activity that involves acts dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the United States or any state and appear to be intended: (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping."

The ACLU has posted on its Website, www.aclu.org, a comprehensive list of the provisions and summarizes the increased powers for federal spying. The following are a sample of some of the changes as a result of the so-called USA PATRIOT Act. The legislation:

a.. minimizes judicial supervision of federal telephone and Internet surveillance by law-enforcement authorities.

b.. expands the ability of the government to conduct secret searches.

c.. gives the attorney general and the secretary of state the power to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and deport any noncitizen who belongs to them.

d.. grants the FBI broad access to sensitive business records about individuals without having to show evidence of a crime.

e.. leads to large-scale investigations of American citizens for "intelligence" purposes.

More specifically, Section 203 (Authority to Share Criminal Investigative Information) allows information gathered in criminal proceedings to be shared with intelligence agencies, including but not limited to the CIA - in effect, say critics, creating a political secret police. No court order is necessary for law enforcement to provide untested information gleaned from otherwise secret grand-jury proceedings, and the information is not limited to the person being investigated.

Furthermore, this section allows law enforcement to share intercepted telephone and Internet conversations with intelligence agencies. No court order is necessary to authorize the sharing of this information, and the CIA is not prohibited from giving this information to foreign-intelligence operations - in effect, say critics, creating an international political secret police.

According to Strossen, "The concern here is about the third branch of government. One of the overarching problems that pervades so many of these provisions is reduction of the role of judicial oversight. The executive branch is running roughshod over both of the other branches of government. I find it very bothersome that the government is going to have more widespread access to e-mail and Websites and that information can be shared with other law-enforcement and even intelligence agencies. So, again, we're going to have the CIA in the business of spying on Americans - something that certainly hasn't gone on since the 1970s."

Strossen is referring to the illegal investigations of thousands of Americans under Operation CHAOS, spying carried out by the CIA and National Security Agency against U.S. activists and opponents of the war in Southeast Asia.

Nor do the invasion-of-privacy provisions of the new law end with law enforcement illegally searching homes and offices, say critics. Under Section 216 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Modification of Authorities Relating to Use of Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices), investigators freely can obtain access to "dialing, routing and signaling information." While the bill provides no definition of "dialing, routing and signaling information," the ACLU says this means they even would "apply law-enforcement efforts to determine what Websites a person visits." The police need only certify the information they are in search of is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation."

This does not meet probable-cause standards - that a crime has occurred, is occurring or will occur. Furthermore, regardless of whether a judge believes the request is without merit, the order must be given to the requesting law-enforcement agency, a veritable rubber stamp and potential carte blanche for fishing exhibitions.

Additionally, under Section 216, law enforcement now will have unbridled access to Internet communications. The contents of e-mail messages are supposed to be separated from the e-mail addresses, which presumably is what interests law enforcement. To conduct this process of separation, however, Congress is relying on the FBI to separate the content from the addresses and disregard the communications.

In other words, the presumption is that law enforcement is only interested in who is being communicated with and not what is said, which critics say is unlikely. Citing political implications they note this is the same FBI that during the Clinton administration could not adequately explain how hundreds of personal FBI files of Clinton political opponents found their way from the FBI to the Clinton White House.

And these are just a few of the provisions and problems. While critics doubt it will help in the tracking of would-be terrorists, the certainty is that homes and places of business will be searched without prior notice. And telephone and Internet communications will be recorded and shared among law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, all in the name of making America safe from terrorism.

Strossen understands the desire of lawmakers to respond forcefully to the Sept. 11 attacks but complains that this is more of the same old same old. "Government has the tendency," she explains, "to want to proliferate during times of crisis, and that's why we have to constantly fight against it. It's a natural impulse and, in many ways, I don't fault it. In some ways they're just doing their job by aggressively seeking as much law-enforcement power as possible, but that's why we have checks and balances in our system of government, and that's why I'm upset that Congress just rolled and played dead on this one."

Paul agrees: "This legislation wouldn't have made any difference in stopping the Sept. 11 attacks," he says. "Therefore, giving up our freedoms to get more security when they can't prove it will do so makes no sense. I seriously believe this is a violation of our liberties. After all, a lot of this stuff in the bill has to do with finances, search warrants and arrests."

For the most part, continues Paul, "our rights have been eroded as much by our courts as they have been by Congress. Whether it's Congress being willing to give up its prerogatives on just about everything to deliver them to an administration that develops new and bigger agencies, or whether it's the courts, there's not enough wariness of the slippery slope and insufficient respect and love of liberty."

What does Paul believe the nation's Founding Fathers would think of this law? "Our forefathers would think it's time for a revolution. This is why they revolted in the first place." Says Paul with a laugh, "They revolted against much more mild oppression."

Kelly Patricia O'Meara is an investigative reporter for Insight.

A Turn In The War

by Jonathan Mark

The taking of Mazar-i-Sharif in Afghanistan by forces opposed to the Taliban is significant. It provides land access to Uzbekistan, where American soldiers are stationed, to expand military and humanitarian operations. But this reason, alone, is not what inspired the title of this analysis report. Recently, bin Laden gave an interview, which was published in a reputable Pakistani newspaper, in which he claimed to have access to nuclear and chemical weapons. Bin Laden (during that same interview) also encouraged dissent in America, as during the Vietnam War. You got to be kidding! Is bin Laden working in cahoots with US forces? His comments would make one wonder. The results of his statements will only serve to fuel those justifying the war in Afghanistan, and against the threat of state-sponsored terrorism. This whole war seems to be like one giant scheme to manipulate democracy and freedom by a pseudo democratic government working in cahoots with terrorist forces. They are playing their games, and the result is making the few richer, and the rest of the world more impoverished and controlled.

Just the fact that President Bush used this war to justify missile defense is reason enough to know that the US is committed to a dominating military policy, not a world coalition for peace and the end of terror. By expanding the (offensive/defensive) arms race the US jeopardizes its own nation and the world by continuing policies that add to the proliferation and development of all weapons of mass destruction. This direction of dominance (and fiscal irresponsibility), during an age where civilization has too many vulnerabilities, will never be successful. The war against terrorism has to include an internal struggle for each nation and individual to release fear from guiding us down a road to ruin.

The turn in the House, with the Republican-led Appropriation's Committee denying funding for a key component of missile defense is another significant marker that occurred this week.(1) This is one of the issues leading to a call from the US Pentagon to meet with leaders of industry involved with missile defense. Now is the time to contact these parties to urge them to transform their policies to honor disarmament treaties, and real coalitions and actions for the peaceful use of space.

Please write and call government, military and industrial leaders to support the passing of the Preservation of Space Act of 2001(2) and World Treaty to Ban Space-Based Weapons.(3) By uniting with these efforts, we have the opportunity to transform acts of terrorism into becoming an isolated part of our history. The Act would cap the arms race and lead to a restructuring of the profit incentive for war and ineffective domination, into becoming a vehicle for commercial and environmental growth for a sustainable direction for humankind and many other species of life.

ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE

Governments Agree On Final Climate Protocol Rulebook

MARRAKECH, Morocco, November 10, 2001 (ENS) - They negotiated the terms of a new climate change agreement through the night, and at dawn the exhausted delegates achieved success. In a plenary session held at six this morning, government officials signed off on a deal that finalizes the terms for implementing the Kyoto Protocol.

With the United States watching from the sidelines, environment ministers and senior officials from 171 countries agreed to specific legally binding rules for enforcing the protocol, signed in December 1997 in an effort to limit six greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

The Marrakech conference, which is the seventh session of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention (COP-7), was attended some 4,500 participants. The agreement opens the way to widespread ratification by governments and the protocol's early entry into force.

"After several years of tough negotiation, the institutions and detailed procedures of the Kyoto Protocol are now in place. The next step is to test their effectiveness in overseeing the five-percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by developed countries over the next decade," said Michael Zammit Cutajar, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), of which the protocol is a part.

"The Marrakech results send a clear signal to business, local governments and the general public that climate friendly products, services, and activities will be rewarded by consumers and national policies alike," said Zammit Cutajar, who after 10 years in his post will be stepping down at the end of the year.

Under the protocol, 38 industrialized nations have agreed to cut their emissions of six greenhouse gases the most abundant of which is carbon dioxide. Thirty-nine nations were to have been governed by the original agreement signed in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, but the Bush administration in March said that the United States would not ratify the protocol.

The finalized Kyoto Protocol rulebook specifies how to measure emissions and reductions. It delineates the extent to which carbon dioxide absorbed by carbon sinks such as forests can be counted towards the legally binding emissions targets.

The deal sets forth the rules governing how the joint implementation and emissions trading systems will work, and the rules for ensuring compliance with commitments. The 38 countries governed by the protocol must reduce emissions of carbon dioxide to an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels during the five year period 2008 to 2012. The accord contains rules on a compliance regime with enforceable and binding consequences for countries that do not meet their commitments to limit emissions.

Marking the transition out of the negotiating stage to an operational regime, the conference elected 15 members to the Executive Board of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). This will ensure a prompt start to the CDM, whose mandate is to promote sustainable development by encouraging investments in projects in developing countries that reduce or avoid emissions. Developed countries then receive credit against their Kyoto targets for emissions avoided by these projects.

Rules were finalized for Joint Implementation projects under which industrialized countries will earn carbon credits by investing in cleaner technologies in each other's countries.

Ministers completed the final details of the package for reporting and reviewing countries' inventories of greenhouse gases, setting in place a system based on methods set forth by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of climate scientists from around the world.

Today's agreement formalizes the pledge made at the last round of climate talks in Bonn channeling an additional euro 450 million annually to developing countries from 2005.

"The phoenix of the Kyoto Protocol has risen in Marrakech," said Jennifer Morgan, director of WWF's Climate Change Campaign. "There can be no further excuse for governments to delay taking the next step of ratifying the treaty before next September's Johannesburg Summit."

WWF's focus will now shift to widening business and public involvement in measures that achieve Kyoto's emission reduction goals, placing the emphasis on an enormous range of a string of cost effective domestic actions, said Morgan.

Concerned about the weaknesses of the protocol, environmental groups in Marrakech pledged to prevent damaging projects from going ahead that exploit loopholes already written into the document.

Despite its weaknesses, agreement on the operational details for the protocol was widely seen as an essential prerequisite for its ratification and entry into force.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol will enter into force and become legally binding after it has been ratified by at least 55 Parties to the Convention, including industrialized countries representing at least 55 percent of the total 1990 carbon dioxide emissions from this group.

European Union Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom tired from constant negotiating. The EU stood firm on the urgent need to finalize a strong, binding protocol.

So far, 40 countries have ratified, including two industrialized countries -Romania and the Czech Republic. New Zealand, previously a critic of key aspects of the treaty, was among countries announcing in Marrakech that it would ratify the treaty.

Many governments have called for the protocol's entry into force to take place in 2002 before the World Summit on Sustainable Development set for September in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Delegates adopted the Marrakech Ministerial Declaration as an input into the World Summit on Sustainable Development. The Declaration emphasizes the contribution that action on climate change can make to sustainable development and calls for capacity building, technology innovation, and cooperation with the biodiversity and desertification conventions.

The Eighth Conference of Parties, COP-8, will be held from October 23 to 1 November 1, 2002. India has offered to be the host.

Environment A Non-Issue At World Trade Talks

DOHA, Qatar, November 10, 2001 (ENS) - The World Trade Organization's 4th Ministerial Conference approved today by consensus the text of the agreement for China's entry into the organization. China will become legally a member 30 days after the World Trade Organization (WTO) receives notification of the ratification of the agreement by China's Parliament.

The 142 member governments of the WTO are meeting at the Qatar International Exhibition Centre. It is the first WTO ministerial conference since anti-globalization protesters, concerned that environmental and labor protections may be lost as international trade expands, shut down the WTO meeting in Seattle in 1999.

Opening this WTO session Friday, Director General Mike Moore made mention of Seattle but made no mention of the environment as an issue of concern during this meeting. The WTO objectives, Moore said, "are the further liberalization of trade, the creation of more jobs, the strengthening of the multilateral system and the extension of the full benefits of that system to countries now marginalized by poverty."

"The issues facing Ministers this week are essentially the same as those we faced and failed to resolve at our conference in Seattle two years ago, but we are now vastly better prepared to deal with them. This is largely thanks to the extraordinary process of consultation and debate which has dominated the work of the WTO throughout the past two years," Moore said referring to clarification of issues that took place at the WTO headquarters in Geneva.

"We learned lessons in Seattle which we applied in the Geneva process," Moore said, "and which we must not forget over the next few days."

"The world economy needs the signal of confidence in open markets and commitment to international cooperation which agreements here will deliver," Moore said.

Welcoming the delegates to his country, His Highness Shaikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al-Thani, Prime Minister of Qatar, said the multilateral trade system has contributed to the growth of world economy and over the past 20 years has helped some developing countries to boost their economic and social development.

"However, the benefits were not uniformly spread," the sheik said, and have bypassed many developing countries. This can be seen if we look at income distribution across the world, which is still skewed in favour of the few in an unacceptable manner. Eighty percent of the world population consumes only 15 percent of the resources of the world, while the other 20 percent consume about 85 percent of those resources," he said.

The international environmental group Greenpeace has the same imbalance in mind as it lobbies WTO participants to hold the United States accountable for the greenhouse gases it emits burning fossil fuels to power its economy.

The Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior, sailed into Doha with the purpose of challenging the WTO to use this ministerial conference "to force the United States to commit to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change."

The operations rulebook for the Kyoto Protocol was finalized early this morning in Morocco by governments of 171 countries, without the agreement of the United States.

"The WTO in its own charter claims to promote the use of the world's resources for sustainable development," said Greenpeace International Executive Director, Gerd Leipold, on board the Rainbow Warrior.

"That claim is nonsense if they do not actively promote efforts to combat climate change through the Kyoto Protocol. By allowing the U.S. to remain outside the protocol, the WTO is effectively handing them a multi-billion dollar trade subsidy. This makes a mockery of the organization's own rules."

Trade unions and their members are organizing and participating in around 70 anti-globalization actions in 45 countries.

"Many of the worst effects of globalization are felt in the developing world, and the broad participation of workers in the non-industrialized countries, shows just how widespread the discontent is," said Bill Jordan, general secretary of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU). Jordan, who is leading a 50 member trade union delegation in Qatar, pointed out that roughly half of the actions are taking place in developing and transition countries.

Moore told delegates inside the hall that this conference will initiate the next stage in the development of the trading system, "whose focus must be the fuller integration of the developing world."

"We know that trade and trade liberalization are not ends in themselves," he said. "Nor will trade - or economic growth itself -eradicate poverty. But we also know that protectionism will create poverty, as it always has, and will increase international tension and conflict, as it always has."

Coalition Demands Shutdown Of Indian Point Reactors

by Cat Lazaroff

WASHINGTON, DC, November 9, 2001 (ENS) - The nuclear reactors of the Indian Point power plant should be closed indefinitely, a coalition of environmental and civic groups and elected officials said Thursday. The coalition told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the plant, located just 40 miles north of New York City, poses far too great a risk to the nation's largest city in the event of a terrorist attack.

With a petition filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the coalition called on the agency to order an immediate shutdown of the Indian Point facility and to keep it closed until a full review of the plant's vulnerabilities and safety systems is conducted. Indian Point's two functioning nuclear reactors are located on the Hudson River about 40 miles north of mid-town Manhattan.

Citing catastrophic risks to public health and safety and to the world's financial center, the coalition stated that the events of September 11 "clearly demonstrate that the plant's status needs to be reexamined."

While not calling for a permanent shutdown at this stage, the coalition argued that the enormous safety risks Indian Point poses to the region cannot be justified by the plant's limited economic benefit - namely providing a cheap source of power in the summer months when electricity demand is high. The coalition pointed out that with summer over, now might be the best time to close down both Units 2 and 3 and take the opportunity to study the plant's ability to operate safely.

"In light of the September 11th suicide bombing and Indian Point's proximity to the country's most densely populated metropolis, prudence dictates that the plant be shut down until Entergy demonstrates that it can protect the public from a terrorist attack," said Alex Matthiessen, executive director of Riverkeeper, one of the groups leading the campaign.

Entergy Corporation purchased the Indian Point 1 and 2 reactors from Consolidated Edison in September. Indian Point 1 has been shut down and in storage since the early 1970s. Entergy purchased Indian Point 3 from Con Edison in November 2000.

The petitioners are asking the NRC to assess the vulnerability of Indian Point to terrorist attacks, review the adequacy of existing security systems and evacuation plans, and to make recommendations on how to minimize the facility's risks to public safety.

The coalition also asked the NRC to order an immediate transfer of the plant's highly radioactive spent fuel rods from a wet cooling pool system, where they are now, to a dry cask system - a technology that could significantly increase the security of the spent fuel.

"The plant's vulnerability to a major terrorist attack has never been studied," noted Matthiessen. "Yet we do know the risks are real and grave. Some 20 million Americans live within Indian Point's 50 mile fall out zone that could be irradiated following a meltdown or spent fuel fire. At the time Indian Point 2 was licensed in 1974, one of the Atomic Energy Commission's own officials said that siting a plant so close to New York was 'insane.'"

On September 11, when two hijacked airplanes were flown into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, some experts immediately wondered what the effect would have been if the terrorists had targeted a nuclear power plant. While the NRC at first said the heavily shielded containment towers around all reactors would protect against the release of nuclear radioactivity, the agency later changed its tune.

The NRC admitted last month that it "did not specifically contemplate attacks by aircraft such as Boeing 757s or 767s" - the types of planes used to destroy the World Trade Center towers and heavily damage the recently fortified Pentagon.

While the containment buildings that shelter nuclear reactors are able to withstand severe events including hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes, "nuclear power plants were not designed to withstand such crashes," the agency said in a statement. "Detailed engineering analyses of a large airliner crash have not yet been performed."

Entergy spokesperson Jim Steets said closing the Indian Point plant would not make it safer, and noted that the plant is a far smaller target than the massive, 110 story tall World Trade Center towers. Even a direct hit by a plane would not necessarily lead to a meltdown of the reactors' nuclear fuel, or a widespread release of radiation, Streets said.

If a meltdown did result, the plant has an evacuation plan, as required by the NRC, and that plan accounts for even the worst case scenarios, Streets argued. The federal government reviews such plans every two years, and requires that they include the complete evacuation of all people within a 10 mile radius of the plant within eight to 10 hours after an accident - a proposal not everyone believes is feasible.

"If the United Airlines jet that traveled down the Hudson Valley en route to the twin towers had instead banked a left turn into one of Indian Point's twin reactors, the resulting disaster would have been even more horrific than the World Trade Center catastrophe," said Robert Kennedy, Jr., chief prosecuting attorney for Riverkeeper. "Given the southerly direction of prevailing winds in the Hudson Valley, a meltdown or major radioactive release at Indian Point could result in death and chronic radiation sickness for thousands if not tens of thousands of the region's citizens and render much of the New York metropolitan area permanently uninhabitable."

Paul Leventhal, president of the Nuclear Control Institute (NCI), noted that simply shutting down the reactors would not substantially reduce the consequences of a radioactive release, were terrorists to successfully penetrate the plants and destroy their essential safety systems. But during a shutdown of just 20 days, Leventhal argued, officials could take steps that would reduce the number of people who might die immediately after a core meltdown and containment breach by 80 percent.

The number of potential long term cancer deaths could be slashed by 50 percent during a brief shutdown, according to a preliminary analysis by NCI.

Leventhal pointed out that removing the fuel from the reactors -something than can be done between six and eight days after shutdown - would allow security forces to focus their protection on the spent fuel pools where this highly radioactive fuel, as well as all fuel previously removed from the reactors, is now stored.

Most of the radiation at Indian Point is stored in spent fuel pools designed as only a temporary repository for the nuclear waste. Spent fuel pools are particularly vulnerable because they lie outside the containment domes and tend to be poorly protected in cement or metal buildings.

In 1982, Congress directed the federal government to identify a centralized site to safely store the nation's spent fuel. A controversial site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, is currently the only site under consideration as a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel, but the facility is years away from being ready to accept nuclear wastes.

"Taking the straightforward step of a temporary reactor shut down to reduce the risks and consequences of a successful terrorist assault will help the 20 million people who live and work in the New York metropolitan area sleep a little easier," said NCI's Leventhal. "It will also allow the plant operator and public officials at all levels to develop and to test defensive measures for the reactor and the spent fuel pool that are sufficient to repel the new terrorist threat."

"That threat, made manifest on September 11, is at least 19 suicidal and sophisticated terrorists attacking from four different directions," noted Leventhal. "Until Indian Point can be protected against that threat, it should not be allowed to operate. Unless Indian Point is shut down, there will not be the financial and political imperative to get the job done right."

Indian Point's two reactors supply 1800 megawatts of power to New York City and Westchester County, enough to power 1.8 million homes. The Pace University Energy Project contends that because there are numerous sources of power around the region, removing Indian Point from the grid would not affect energy reliability, even in the peak summer months.

As to the price of electricity, "During the non-summer months of September through May, an absence of Indian Point power would have a negligible effect on the region's electricity prices," said Dick Ottinger, dean emeritus and professor of law at the Pace Energy Project.

"With the new circumstances we face, there's absolutely no justification for not shutting the reactors down, at least until next summer, and using the time to get a better handle on the risks," Ottinger said.

The coalition believes that a successful attack on the spent fuel pools could lead to a catastrophic fire and a widespread release of radiation. Depending on the size of the fire and wind direction, New York City could be cloaked in radioactive material.

Coalition members pointed to a 1982 NRC study that attempted to estimate the "peak" number of deaths and casualties that would result from a meltdown at Indian Point. Under a meltdown scenario at Indian Point 3 alone, the agency predicted up to 50,000 non-cancer radiation sickness deaths within a year of an accident, up to 14,000 additional deaths over time due to cancer, and up to 167,000 cases of ongoing radiation related health problems.

The group also pointed to another 1982 NRC study on the economic impacts on Westchester County. According to the study, a meltdown at Indian Point 3 would result in a loss of $314 billion, in 1982 dollars, to Westchester's property and commercial interests. Adjusted for inflation and a quadrupling of real estate prices since 1982, the figure could be closer to $2.3 trillion, in 2000 dollars, the coalition said.

Including the effect on New York City and other surrounding counties would result in a figure in the tens of trillions of dollars in economic losses.

The petition to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is available at:

http://www.nci.org/01NCI/11/NRCPetition.htm

RiverKeeper: http://www.RiverKeeper.org

WORLD'S SMALLEST SELF-PROPELLED SATELLITE NEARLY READY FOR AIR FORCE, NASA

     After three years of work, University of Washington students have nearly completed the world's smallest self-propelled satellite and are preparing to deliver it to the Air Force and NASA for launch

RX FOR A BETTER LIFE? GET A PET, AND DO IT NOW 

     Numerous studies have shown that pets - or at least the presence of animals - can have medical benefits that are beyond dispute. These range from lowering blood pressure to lessening anxiety and depression and even to faster healing times after surgery.

CHEMICAL POLLUTION AND HUMAN SEWAGE COULD BE KILLING CORALS 

     You can forget global warming as the sole culprit. A combination of human sewage and shipyard discharge may be responsible for the development and spread of deadly black band disease in corals, researchers at the University of Illinois say.

RESEARCHERS DESCRIBE ATOMIC-SIZE "SORTER" THAT PERFORMS VITAL CELLULAR FUNCTION 

     Scientists are now able to "see" a structure that acts as an atomic-size sorter for cells. Without it, many important life functionsnerve signal firing, heartbeat, hormone secretioncould not occur. The "selectivity filter," never before visualized in such exquisite detail, provides precise biochemical conditions needed for ions during their intercellular travel.

A FISH NAMED WAYNE-WANDA? 

     Hermaphrodite fish are on the rise, thanks to the birth control pill and other natural and unnatural forms of estrogen that have made their way into the water. Feminized fish were first found downstream from sewage plants in the United Kingdom.

COMPUTERS WITH HUMAN-LIKE VISION COULD STRENGTHEN SECURITY AND SURVEILLANCE, UCLA RESEARCHERS SAY 

     Unmanned military vehicles could distinguish cave entrances from shadows and locate other hazards if they had a sense of vision similar to humans, say researchers at UCLAs Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science.

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI GEOLOGIST FINDS SURVIVAL BENEFIT TO EVOLVING AFTER MASS EXTINCTIONS 

     An evolutionary group has a significantly better chance of surviving for a long time in the geologic record if it first appears right after a mass extinction. University of Cincinnati geologist Arnold Miller will present his findings Tuesday morning Nov. 6 during the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America in Boston.

SKY SURVEY LOWERS ESTIMATE OF ASTEROID IMPACT RISK 

     The odds of earth suffering a catastrophic collision with an asteroid over the next century are about one in 5,000, which is less likely than previously believed, according to research published this month.

RESEARCHERS ZERO IN ON DATE OF EARLY HOMINIDS 

     Researchers using techniques of magnetostratigraphy have determined that a rock formation in Israel called Erk-el-Ahmar is between 1.7 million and 2.0 million years old, making the hominid tools and artifacts discovered there perhaps the oldest in the world outside of Africa.

WHY THE BIG ANIMALS WENT DOWN IN THE PLEISTOCENE: WAS IT JUST THE CLIMATE? 

     There wasn't anything special about the climate changes that ended the Pleistocene. They were similar to previous climate changes as recorded in deep sea cores. So what tipped the scale and caused the extinction?

MINI MOTOR COULD CHANGE THE SHAPE OF MICROMEDICAL APPLICATIONS 

     While the age of nanobots is not with us yet, a tiny, inexpensive motor with simple circuitry and easy manufacture, may become the motive force in micromedical applications in the near future, according to a Penn State engineer. The smallest of these ultrasonic, piezoelectric motors developed by researchers at Penn States Materials Research Institute is about the size of a grain of rice.

THE LEXINGTON HERALD-LEADER

The Nation

UTNE WEB WATCH

The Best of the Alternative Web

VOICES THAT MUST BE HEARD

by Abby Scher, Independent Press Association

-- Hard times for New York City's small, ethnic publications may mean fewer
diverse voices, but the Independent Press Association is doing all it can to
prevent their demise.

KEEPING AFGHAN CULTURE ALIVE

Web site review by Sara Buckwitz, Afghan Magazine

-- For the past 25 years, war and internal conflict ravaged the land and
people of Afghanistan and decimated the arts and humanities. To pay homage
to his heritage, a man dedicates his life--and his Web site--to preserving
Afghan culture.

DIPPIN' DOTS

by Andy Ross, Flak magazine

Environmental news from GRIST MAGAZINE

STATES OF DISGRACE

Electric Cars May Lose Push In Northeast

by Richard Perez-Pena

ALBANY, Nov. 11 - Two years after New York, Massachusetts and Vermont announced that they would require the sale of electric cars, they are considering postponing that requirement by four years and promoting the use of other emission-reduction technologies instead.

State officials say the change could actually produce a deeper cut in tailpipe pollution in the first few years, while giving car companies needed flexibility. Environmental groups question that claim and say the plan may not be legal. Most important, they say, a retreat by the Northeast states would damage efforts to make electric cars commonplace and economically viable.

The move would leave California as the only state requiring sales of electric cars over the next several years, cutting the market for them roughly in half. California's plan begins with the 2003 model year, which goes on sale in just 9 to 10 months. It requires that at least 10 percent of the cars sold by each manufacturer be much cleaner than current cars, and that 2 percent be zero-emission vehicles, or ZEV's - in other words, electric-powered.

Two years ago, Gov. George E. Pataki's administration, followed by Massachusetts and Vermont, adopted the California regulation with considerable fanfare, boasting that the Northeast would help create a national market for electric vehicles. The proposed rule now under consideration would take effect in the 2007 model year.

"It's hard to believe that Governor Pataki, arguably one of the most vocal electric vehicle advocates, would consider a four- year delay in the program," said Peter M. Iwanowicz, director of environmental health for the American Lung Association of New York State. "The ZEV program is the key to a long-term strategy to rein in emissions, and any delay is a setback, and long-term air quality will suffer."

Top environmental officials of the three Northeast states insist that the change is, at this point, just an idea that they are weighing. But they spent several months negotiating it with the auto industry, producing a detailed proposed regulation. Officials in all three states say they expect it to take effect. New York's environmental conservation commissioner, Erin Crotty, said her department would decide next month whether to adopt the rule. She said postponing the electric car mandate would simply be a recognition that automakers are not yet ready to produce them. "While New York is very committed to zero-emission vehicles, they do have technology constraints," she said.

Automakers have protested for years that they would be unable to make commercially viable electric cars in time to meet the California mandate. The electric cars produced now run on batteries, have limited ranges and must be recharged frequently, making them less attractive to consumers. Car companies are betting instead on fuel cells to power electric cars, but that technology still needs improvement. Fuel cells use oil, natural gas or other fuels to produce electricity through chemical reactions, not combustion.

For the last decade, New York has consistently been the leader among the handful of Northeast states that have gone along with each step of the California Air Resources Board's emissions reduction program. Environmentalists credit that program, which is stricter than federal rules, with helping to drive advances in pollution control.

The Northeast states' participation has roughly doubled the share of the national car market operating under the California rules, to about 20 percent. In some cases, that has helped set a de facto national standard, as automakers have decided to build cars for the entire country that meet California standards.

California requires that by next year, 10 percent of vehicles sold must produce far less pollution than cars sold now. While 2 percent must have no emissions at all, the other 8 percent can have some, using technologies like more advanced versions of gas-electric hybrids now on the market, and seals that prevent fuel vapors from escaping.

The proposed Northeast rule would push the plan back by four years. In the interim, it would allow automakers to earn credit against the future requirement by producing alternatives like hybrids. California also awards credits, but the Northeast plan would give far more. For example, the sale of one advanced hybrid next year would relieve the maker from having to produce 12 electric cars in 2007.

The Northeast plan would also allow car companies to earn ZEV credits by using existing technology to cut pollution from light trucks, vans and sport-utility vehicles, which are not covered by California's plan. Officials involved in drafting the rule said the Pataki administration had insisted on that provision, which was ardently sought by the manufacturers.

For the first several years under the plan, "We'll actually end up with far more of the vehicles being very clean" and lower overall emissions, said Sonia Hamel, the Massachusetts director of air policy and planning.

Ms. Crotty, the New York environmental chief, said, "The alternate compliance plan is intended to get more, cleaner cars out there sooner." She said she did not know if the proposed rule would cut emissions more in the short run than California's, saying that was a central question her department was studying.

Environmentalists are extremely skeptical of such claims, and argue that they miss the point.

"What this program is primarily about is jump-starting the production of vehicles with no tailpipe emissions, zero, none," said Roland J. Hwang, senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Until this technology takes off and starts to take over a big chunk of the marketplace, the reductions you get are fairly small, but when you get to that point, the benefits become huge."

Congress long ago authorized California to adopt pollution rules that are more stringent than the national standards. It gave other states a choice between accepting California's rules as their own, or living with those set by the federal government. Environmental groups say that federal law might prohibit states from charting a third course, and that they are deciding whether to sue if the Northeast plan is adopted. When asked if the plan was legal, Ms. Crotty said she was not certain.

Mr. Pataki's environmental record is a central part of his crossover appeal, as a Republican governor in a state that leans heavily Democratic. Democrats have made clear that as he prepares to run for re-election next year, they will make an issue of what they call a pattern of environmental programs that do not live up to their original intent.

In 1999, the governor announced that he would impose the toughest pollution controls in the nation on old power plants. So far, he has put no rule into effect, and the proposed rule does not go quite as far, or as quickly, as the plan he outlined two years ago. In the meantime, a few other states have imposed stricter standards.

Public Citizen

Public Citizen

Lawmakers Should Make Public Safety a Priority When Writing Final Aviation Security Measure

Public Citizen, ACAP Send Letter to Congress

          WASHINGTON, D.C. - In crafting a final aviation security measure, lawmakers should take the best provisions from bills passed by the House and Senate, correct obvious defects and reject provisions that weaken security, Public Citizen and the Aviation Consumer Action Project (ACAP) told lawmakers in a letter.

          "It has been nearly two months since the worst terrorist attack in history," said the letter, signed by Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook and ACAP Executive Director Paul Hudson. "You must compromise up, not down."

          Security screeners should be federal employees unless the president and the head of the country's aviation security determines that employing private security screeners at certain airports would provide an equivalent or superior level of security. At large international airports, federal employees should be used except on a temporary basis, and only if federal security agents are not available and private workers would provide a high level of security. The letter was sent Thursday to the House and Senate conference members who are hashing out a final bill. All other members of Congress received a copy.

          Claybrook and Hudson made other recommendations:

  * Aviation security workers should be paid much more than the scant $5.50 - $9.50 per hour they receive now. Congress should establish a minimum pay requirement for private contract workers equivalent to the amount paid federal workers, which would be about $25,000 annually.

  * Lawmakers should incorporate the Senate's proposed requirements outlining standards for screeners. These call for screeners to pass a drug test, undergo a criminal background check and have completed certain training requirements, among other requirements. Lawmakers also should add a preference for ex-military and law enforcement or peace officer personnel.

  * An Aviation Security Administration should be created to oversee aviation security, and it should be part of the U.S. Department of Justice. It should not be part of the Department of Transportation because that agency is neither a national security nor primarily a law enforcement agency.

  * Congress should create an Aviation Security Advisory Committee, as proposed by the Senate, which would have representatives from all parties concerned with aviation, including passengers and representatives from the public. It is imperative that the House version not be adopted, because that calls for a committee that would exclude passenger and public representatives, making aviation security the sole province of regulated industry and the government.

  * Lawmakers should require the Bush administration to submit a plan within 30 days to provide airliner cockpit security within 90 days. This is essential to both deter repeat terrorist attacks and restore the confidence of a thoroughly shaken public and anxious flight crews.

  * Both House and Senate bills provide for a new security tax on airline tickets. This money must be dedicated to aviation security and should be supplemented as necessary from the national security budget. Airlines should not be able to access this money for other purposes, because they have already received a $15 billion bailout from the federal government.

         In writing the measure, lawmakers should not make exemptions for instrastate flights. This could undermine national aviation security by allowing terrorists to infiltrate the air transportation system and bypass stronger security at major airports.

          Finally, lawmakers should not allow airport authorities, private screening companies, the owner and private lease holder of the World Trade Center or Boeing to be held harmless for damages in excess of their liability coverage or to be exempt from punitive damages. Nor should lawmakers criminalize plaintiffs' attorneys fees in excess of 20 percent of a recovery. This would deny a level playing field for victim plaintiffs who choose to go to court and essentially would deprive victims of the legal resources to receive just compensation or deter wrongdoing by negligent parties and non-terrorist wrongdoers through the courts.

          "We must establish a strong aviation security program to ensure that more people don't needlessly lose their lives to terrorism," Claybrook said. "Congress is dangerously close to passing a weak and ineffective measure. That would be tragic and criminal."

Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C.

The Nation

Oil Drilling In Arctic Called Departure From Past Policy

by Matthew L. Wald

WASHINGTON, Nov. 11: If Congress approves drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, it will be breaking with government practice of the last 35 years, which has limited when drilling may occur in refuges, the General Accounting Office has concluded.

Oil wells are not uncommon in wildlife refuges around the country, and proponents of drilling have argued that if energy is extracted from refuges elsewhere, it can be done in Alaska, too.

In a report requested by an opponent of such drilling, Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, the accounting office found that about 13 percent of the refuges, in 21 states, had some kind of oil and gas activity last year.

But the office, the investigative and auditing arm of Congress, also found that since the passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, in 1966, the only leases that the government has signed for oil and gas exploration were where drillers on adjacent private land were extracting fuel from under the refuges.

In most of the others, the petroleum development preceded the creation of the refuge, or private companies already owned the mineral rights in the refuge.

Opponents of drilling have generally argued that the Alaska refuge is a unique, fragile treasure that should not be threatened by an oil spill, or even by the infringement of industrial development. Mr. Markey raised an additional point, that drilling in the refuge would set a bad precedent.

Proponents of drilling, he said, "very disingenuously argue that many refuges allow for drilling."

"What they don't mention is that none of that permission has been granted since 1966," he said, "and that if the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge was made an exception, it would become a Trojan horse that could be used to permit drilling in the 297 other refuges that have been identified by the United States Geological Survey as having oil and gas potential."

In January, in The Wall Street Journal, Senator John B. Breaux of Louisiana argued that there had been oil and gas production from refuges there for nearly 60 years, with 1,605 wells. "If Louisiana can do it, why can't Alaska?" Mr. Breaux, a Democrat, wrote. The wells and pipelines, he said, are on "fragile wetlands" that are home to a variety of wildlife. He said there had been "few adverse consequences."

Petition to world leaders to halt the bombing for the Ramadan

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says he cannot rule out military
action against Iraq in the US-led war on terrorism. He was speaking after
the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, said he believed the US
planned to attack 300 Iraqi targets with 1,000 missiles. However, British
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw dismissed the idea, telling America's ABC News
he had seen no evidence to link Iraq with the 11 September attacks on New
York and Washington.

VIRTUAL SIT-IN AGAINST THE WTO... NOV 9TH-13TH:

The WTO thinks that by meeting in Doha they will be able to ignore the
voices of millions around the world who are organizing to say NO to a model
of globalization that places corporate profit above the environment, labor
rights, and human rights. But protests are taking place in cities around
the globe... and we will add our virtual bodies to the presence of the
physical bodies of people who are taking to the streets. Why? To drive home
to the WTO that we will not stop until people take priority over profit.

A Warning From An Official About An Increased Possibility Of Nuclear Terror

by John Tagliabue

HAMBURG, Germany, Nov. 1 - The Sept. 11 attacks on the United States have increased the chances that terrorists might try to use nuclear weapons or materials, or attack nuclear power plants, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency warned today.

He spoke after Pakistan said it had detained three of the country's leading nuclear scientists for questioning in connection with concerns in the United States that nuclear weapons technology could have found its way into the hands of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.

On Wednesday, the Federal Aviation Administration issued an order restricting airspace around nuclear power plants, saying that terrorists could attack them to cause public panic. The United States appeared to be following the example of France, which earlier had ordered the deployment of antiaircraft missiles around a major reprocessing plant for spent nuclear fuel at La Hague.

Today's warning, by Muhammad el-Baradei, the director general of the agency, was issued on the eve of a conference in Vienna called to discuss nuclear safeguards and ways to combat nuclear terrorism. Since Sept. 11, experts in numerous countries have begun looking afresh at earlier studies largely ruling out the use or acquisition of nuclear weapons by terrorists.

Mr. Baradei, an Egyptian citizen and a lawyer by training, said in a statement: "We are not just dealing with the possibility of governments diverting nuclear materials into clandestine weapons programs. Now we have been alerted to the potential of terrorists targeting nuclear facilities or using radioactive sources to incite panic, contaminate property, and even cause injury or death among civilian populations."

"The willingness of terrorists to commit suicide to achieve their evil aims makes the nuclear terrorism threat far more likely than it was before Sept. 11," Mr. Baradei said.

His message was addressed not only to the five formally declared nuclear powers - China, France, Russia, Britain and the United States - but also to India, Pakistan and Israel, all of which are either known to possess nuclear weapons technology, or are believed to have them.

Reports that some terrorist groups, particularly Mr. bin Laden's Al Qaeda network, had tried to acquire nuclear material was a "cause of great concern," he said.

He said the agency's experts believed that the "primary risks" of a terrorist nuclear attack could involve the theft of fissionable material from reactors or an attack or act of sabotage intended to release large quantities of radioactivity into the environment. But he said the danger also existed that terrorists would either obtain the materials to build a nuclear weapon or would succeed in buying or stealing nuclear weapons.

Given the difficulties involved in building or acquiring a nuclear bomb, he said, terrorists could also use radioactive materials from nuclear reactors, medical devices or other sources to construct a radiological bomb, sometimes called a dirty bomb, by putting the radioactive material around an ordinary explosive and detonating it.

In a paper to be presented at the Friday conference, George Bunn, an expert on nuclear safety from Stanford University, said the September attacks, in which commercial aircraft were rammed into buildings, posed a "much larger threat than civilian nuclear security systems are generally designed to deal with."

The mandate of the agency, which is the United Nations body for monitoring nuclear programs and is based in Vienna, does not extend to nuclear weaponry, and Mr. Baradei voiced concern about safeguards in India, Pakistan and Israel.

"Although I understand there is a high level of security for nuclear weapons," he said, "I hope that all of these countries are urgently reviewing the safety and security of their nuclear weapons."

Pakistan has been caught up in a nuclear arms race with its neighbor and archenemy, India. The Pakistani government, which leads the world's second most populous Islamic nation with 140 million people, has been struggling to contain public anger over government support for the American military strikes in Afghanistan.

Mr. Baradei noted that Pakistani nuclear safeguards appeared to be sufficient, though he said: "If there were a breakdown in the civil order, of course, you have worries. But so far I think they are under proper control."

He played down the likelihood of terrorists being able to produce a nuclear bomb. To do so, he said, would require obtaining 25 kilograms, or 55 pounds, of highly enriched uranium or eight kilograms of plutonium.

"While we cannot exclude the possibility that terrorists could get hold of some nuclear material," he said, "it is highly unlikely they could use it to manufacture and successfully detonate a nuclear bomb." But he quickly added, "No scenario is impossible."

A significant danger, he said, was that terrorists could obtain nuclear materials or weapons from rogue scientists in places like Russia. With the end of the cold war, he noted, thousands of scientists and engineers involved in the nuclear programs of the former Soviet Union found themselves without work and with incomes drastically reduced. Moreover, he said, there were numerous reports, all unconfirmed so far, of the sale or theft of fissionable materials or nuclear weapons from the old Soviet arsenal.

According to agency figures, since 1993 there have been 175 cases of trafficking in nuclear material and 201 cases of trafficking in medical and industrial radioactive materials, he said. But only 18 of those cases involved small amounts of highly enriched uranium or plutonium, the fissionable material needed to produce a nuclear bomb.

Some of the proposals to be heard Friday include plans to strengthen international conventions on the safeguarding of nuclear materials. But experts said nuclear countries would generally be reluctant to admit new means of control.

Mr. Baradei said the agency would require an additional $30 million to $50 million annually to expand its surveillance programs to meet the terrorist threat.

Operation Enduring Avarice

by Arianna Huffington

According to our leaders, we are not supposed to let the war on terror disrupt our normal lives. And, to their credit, they're leading by example.

For instance, far from the war disrupting the House's normal run of shameless corporate toadying, it's enhancing it. Indeed, it's giving our leaders cover to put forward their answer to each and every problem America faces: a massive corporate giveaway. And they even have the gall to call it patriotism. Others, using the English language more rigorously, call it war profiteering.

The so-called economic stimulus package that passed the House last week would have been scurrilous in times of prosperity. But in this time of national crisis it is, quite simply, grotesque.

The grisly details include a retroactive elimination of the corporate alternative minimum tax and a 10 percent cut in the capital gains tax. And on the other side of the Capitol, the Senate Republicans are proposing an acceleration of all the top-bracket tax cuts and a return of that old favorite, the fully tax-deductible three-martini lunch.

The House package is little more than a rehashed corporate wish list, doling out $115 billion in tax breaks to big business and the wealthiest taxpayers, and a comparatively measly $14 billion to poor and moderate-income families in the form of tax rebates and unemployment benefits. And while the tax cuts for the haves are permanent, those for the have-nots are good for only one year.

What's more, the money given to corporate America is given without conditions -- not tax credits tied to investments, but handouts more likely to end up in CEOs' Christmas bonuses than back in the economy.

All you really need to know about the true nature of this bill can be found in a largely unnoticed provision that makes permanent a gaping tax loophole that was about to expire. It allows multinational corporations such as GE and Ford to avoid paying taxes by shifting profits to their offshore subsidiaries -- but only if those profits remain overseas. Tell me, how exactly is providing incentives to keep money out of our economy supposed to stimulate our economy?

The House bill is so outrageous that even some top GOP officials are balking. In a rare slip from the party line, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill colorfully criticized it as "show business." Rep. Greg Ganske, R-Iowa, one of seven Republicans who voted against the bill, labeled it "an early Christmas card" for "already profitable corporations." And the president's budget director, Mitch Daniels, informed the nation in a poetic outburst that "the corral gates" have been blown open and "the animals are running loose."

The galloping beasts in this case are corporate lobbyists and their chums on the Hill, Dick Armey and Tom DeLay chief among them.

The juiciest goodie in this box of corporate bon-bons, the retroactive repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax, will lead to $25 billion in instant corporate rebate checks to needy companies such as IBM (slated to get $1.4 billion), GM ($833 million) and GE ($671 million).

Of the $25 billion refund, over $6.3 billion will be given to just 14 corporations. Not surprisingly, these 14 lucky winners have been regular and generous political donors. Over the last 10 years, they've poured almost $15 million in soft money into the national committees of both parties. It turns out that may be the smartest investment they've ever made.

Such a blatant quid pro quo is so indefensible that the main champions of the grandly named Economic Security and Recovery Act aren't even trying very hard to justify it. Take Armey's wan effort on "Meet the Press." There he was, half-heartedly trying to convince Tim Russert that we need these massive tax cuts because the last round of massive tax cuts were not geared to stimulating the economy. Really? Wasn't that him at a House subcommittee hearing back in March, selling the last tax cut bill as "just the shot in the arm that this economy needs"?

Armey then offered us all a lecture on how big corporate giveaways are the best way to create new jobs. Unfortunately, the facts don't bear him out. The $15 billion Congress just handed the airline industry hasn't kept it from laying off 140,000 workers.

Armey also called enhanced unemployment benefits "a feeble response" and not "commensurate with the American spirit." He went on to promise that the new stimulus package "will create 170,000 new jobs next year alone." Not exactly the most heartening news to the 7.8 million people currently unemployed in the country. What are the 7.63 million left on the sidelines supposed to do, sit around and cross their fingers, hoping one or two of the lucky 170,000 will eventually rub their new bosses the wrong way? Is that more in keeping with the American spirit?

It's time to declare war on war profiteering. But we'll need political leaders able to dramatize the betrayal of the public trust this bill represents.

Maybe there are too many numbers with too many zeros to draw the public's attention away from the latest "general alert" issued by the attorney general. So let's forget the numbers and focus on the moving story of good overcoming evil. Let history record that, after Sept. 11, our leaders brought the nation together and decided to fight the war on terrorism by making business lunches fully tax-deductible and levying no taxes on corporate profits patriotically funneled off shore. Call it Operation Enduring Avarice.

It's enough to put a lump in your throat.

SojoNet News Daily Headlines

Dispatch From Doha

Tremendous pressure is being exerted on developing countries
to endorse a new round of trade negotiations. The weapons
include manipulation of the WTO's undemocratic system of
decision-making and blunter forms of trade blackmail.

International Agencies Give Aid, While Trying To Avoid The War

By Bill Berkeley

HEN the huge American transport planes dropped their first cargo of 37,000 ready-to-eat meals over Afghanistan last month, crew members were said to have cheered wildly as the yellow packages labeled "Food gift from the people of the United States of America" fell earthward. No doubt famished Afghans devoured the beans and rice, lentil stew, biscuits, peanut butter, jam and pastries.

Yet among some veteran humanitarian relief workers, the televised images of American benevolence, broadcast on the eve of the bombing campaign against the Taliban, were cause for disquiet bordering on alarm. Relief workers have complicated memories of humanitarian efforts in places like Somalia and Sudan, Kosovo and northern Iraq, not to mention Afghanistan itself.

"When I heard that the dropping of food by U.S. military aircraft was announced as a humanitarian gesture, I had in mind the lessons of Somalia," said Dr. Rony Brauman, a former head of Doctors Without Borders, the Nobel Prize-winning international relief agency, which has been critical of the food drop.

In 1993, he recalled, an American military operation in Somalia to combat a famine became mired in warlord politics, and 18 American marines and at least 12 humanitarian aid workers were killed by Somali militias. Although the United States tried to present the military campaign as a humanitarian intervention, the warlords were able to persuade their militias of just the opposite - that the humanitarian intervention was actually part of a military invasion.

Dr. Brauman worries that something similar may happen to relief workers in Afghanistan. "We are viewed as people coming from abroad, maybe having direct relations with Western powers," Dr. Brauman said. "If a Western power confirms this impression, then we become really part of the military drive, and we as aid workers can become transformed into war targets. And this is a problem not just for us, but for the people we are trying to help."

Not all humanitarian relief professionals share this view, and some support the American airdrops. But given that as many as 7.5 million Afghans are at risk of starving by year's end, many Western relief groups have criticized the Pentagon's food program as little more than public relations.

Relief workers have long struggled with the reality that there is rarely such a thing as pure humanitarian aid - especially in war. Food and other forms of relief almost always become manipulated for strategic advantage. For instance, if combatants get their hands on food, they can use it to feed themselves - as has happened for a decade in Sudan. Or they can sell it and enrich themselves - as happened in Somalia. If refugee camps are established, they can become havens for war criminals - as happened in eastern Zaire in the mid-90's.

Yet humanitarian aid is never more needed than in a violent conflict. Thus, the never- ending conundrum: how to give aid without prolonging the war, how to comfort the afflicted without refueling the combatants. It is a business replete with murky moral hazards, relief workers say, in which all types of compromises may be necessary.

"War is intense business," said Austen Davis, the director of Doctors Without Borders in the Netherlands. "It is maximum politics, if you like. Your compromises are taken very seriously. At the same time, in the intensity of war, a lot of compromises are accepted."

In Afghanistan, relief aid has been politicized for decades, said Lionel Rosenblatt, former president of Refugees International, an independent aid and advocacy group in Washington. "During the Soviet occupation," he recalled, "the United States subsumed all other interests to the imperative of getting the Russians out. It didn't look to the long-term effect on either Afghanistan or Pakistan."

Instead, the United States channeled food aid through the Islamic militants and armed groups. "Most were not savory characters," Mr. Rosenblatt said.

Even before the current crisis began, the United States Agency for International Development had warned that Afghanistan, after two decades of war and three years of drought, was on the verge of widespread famine. A large percentage of the urban population depended on United Nations agencies for food. In Kabul, half the 1.2 million residents relied on them.

Ahmed Rashid, the author of "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia," described Afghanistan in 1999 as an economic black hole that was destabilizing a larger region already in severe crisis. He said that basic amenities in even the poorest countries were unavailable in Afghanistan. There was no running water, and other essentials - electricity, telephones, proper housing - were almost impossible to obtain.

Now that the war has begun, at least a million people have abandoned their homes, according to Refugees International. Hundreds of thousands have fled cities for the Afghan countryside, a migration that makes emergency food distribution enormously difficult, because relief agencies do not know how to find people.

At the same time, the war has wreaked havoc on existing relief efforts. American bombs have destroyed some aid stockpiles - a Red Cross warehouse was destroyed by bombs in October. Foreign relief workers have left Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan, while Taliban forces have seized United Nations warehouses and relief supplies. Looting and banditry have been reported by nearly every humanitarian aid group.

BEFORE the Sept. 11 attacks, the United States was the largest foreign-aid donor to Afghanistan. Now, the United States Agency for International Development is trying to ensure that 250,000 tons of food are transported into the country by the end of the year, said Andrew S. Natsios, the administrator for the agency..

The effort, Mr. Natsios said, is a crucial part of Washington's campaign to convince the Afghan people that the United States is their friend. But most of this food will probably be trucked into the country by Afghans themselves, who must somehow obtain the cooperation of the powers that be, whether they are Taliban commanders or independent warlords and bandits.

"Very likely, aid providers and their partners will have to deal with local authorities in a highly decentralized and highly militarized environment," said Arthur C. Helton, a senior fellow specializing in refugee affairs at the Council on Foreign Relations. "Inevitably, food is the price of entry and the currency of acquiescence. The deals struck recognize that a percentage reaches combatants and oppressors, but that nevertheless, an understood level reaches needy people."

In Afghanistan, the potential for a huge refugee exodus remains. So far, Afghans do not seem to be fleeing to the Pakistani border in such numbers. But the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has estimated that as many as 1.5 million new refugees may flee to neighboring countries in the next six months.

Should there be a flood of refugees, humanitarian agencies will undoubtedly have to deal with the political fallout, and that can be dicey. In 1994, for example, more than a million Rwandan Hutus descended on eastern Zaire. Aid agencies quickly faced not only a cholera epidemic, but also the discovery that they were not only feeding innocent refugee women and children, but many Hutu men and boys who had participated in the genocide of more than 500,000 Rwandan Tutsis.

Those loyal to the old Hutu regime used the camps to regroup and start guerrilla attacks on Rwanda. Some agencies, notably Doctors Without Borders and the International Rescue Committee, withdrew from the camps in early 1995.

In the current crisis, the borders around Afghanistan have been officially closed. Pakistan is wary of yet another flood of mostly Pashtun refugees, who could destabilize its fragile government. The United States, in turn, has refrained from pressuring Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president, on this issue, because he has already put his government at risk by helping the military campaign.

There has been some talk of creating safe havens within Afghanistan where displaced people can receive food and shelter. But the history of safe havens is not encouraging. Such zones would need to be protected by thousands of ground troops, which poses its own problems. In 1995, for example, the United Nations created a safe haven in Srebrenica in eastern Bosnia. Yet in July 1995, it was overrun by Bosnian Serb forces, who massacred 7,000 Bosnian men and boys in front of 300 Dutch peacekeepers.

"There is no good solution anywhere," said Dr. Brauman of Doctors Without Borders. "There is a war. There is violence. It is an illusion to believe that there can be a clean war with civilians enjoying protection. There is no pure solution. There is no real satisfaction. The only real solution will come with peace."

Rights Groups Cites Israel Torture

by Steve Weizman, Associated Press Writer

One 16-year-old claimed he was soaked in freezing water, made to carry a heavy wooden beam while manacled and then beaten, the groups said in a report issued Sunday. An Arab woman said interrogators violently shook her during an interrogation.

Israel said the ban against torture remains in place, and that the alleged violations were being investigated.

A government report on the issue and a response from human rights groups will be submitted to a meeting of the U.N. Committee Against Torture in Geneva, due to begin Monday. Copies of both were obtained by The Associated Press.

The joint rights groups' document contends that interrogators have repeatedly flouted the 1999 Supreme Court ban on torture, particularly since the outbreak of fighting between Israeli and the Palestinians 14 months ago.

``Torture and other forms of ill-treatment are still widely used against Palestinian detainees, both in GSS (General Security Service) interrogation facilities and by members of the Israeli army and police,'' the report says. The security service is also known by its Hebrew acronym, Shin Bet.

The report was prepared by the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, or PCATI; the Palestinian rights group LAW and the Swiss-based World Organization Against Torture.

The report cites nine affidavits by Arab detainees saying they were interrogated with methods expressly forbidden under the 1999 ruling or by existing Israeli or international law. Overall, the groups say they have received about 20 reports of violations since the ruling was passed.

Among them are sleep deprivation, shackling a prisoner to a chair in painful positions for prolonged periods, the use of bad-smelling hoods, playing deafening sounds and beating, slapping and kicking.

``They ordered me to go outside, despite the freezing cold,'' Rami Zaul, a 16-year-old interrogated a year ago, said in an affidavit. ``One of them grabbed my shirt and poured cold water on me. Afterward, he forced me to undress and I remained in my short-sleeved shirt and they continued to pour freezing water on my head.''

Zaul said he was then forced, while handcuffed, to drag a wooden beam with one of his interrogators standing on it. ``When I got tired and dropped it, I was beaten hard,'' he said.

The teen-ager said he was accused of preparing fire bombs and of throwing stones at Israelis. Rights workers documenting his case said they don't not know whether he has been released.

Interrogators also shake suspects to force a confession, said PCATI Executive Director Hannah Friedman. A Palestinian detainee died several years ago after being shaken, and the Supreme Court banned the practice.

Mona Obeid, a 30-year-old Israeli Arab woman, said in an affidavit that she was violently shaken during an interrogation by a Shin Bet agent last summer.

``He grabbed my shirt on both sides and started pulling and pushing me backward and forward forcefully,'' she said. ``The force of the shaking would send me flying toward the wall which was behind me and my head would bang against the wall.''

Obeid was not accused of any crime but was being questioned about her brother, Friedman said.

A draft of the Israeli government report prepared for the U.N. panel said ``torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment'' of detainees are strictly forbidden.

Claims by Zaul and Obeid are among those being checked, an Israeli official said on condition of anonymity. She said she could not comment on the claims until the inquiries are complete.

Israel's security service has issued a directive to all its personnel ordering strict compliance with the 1999 court ruling, the government report said.

``If any investigator will be found to have used physical pressure against a suspect during an investigation he will be disciplined and where necessary will be dismissed,'' it said.

However, PCATI said the inquiries are carried out by Shin Bet agents, and no interrogator has been tried in criminal court.

Dispatch From Doha

by Walden Bello

Update: As the Fourth Ministerial entered its final day of intense negotiations on November 13, developed and developing countries still seemed to be locked in a stalemate on a number of key issues, including agricultural subsidies, trade-related intellectual property rights and public health, a review of anti-dumping rules, and extending WTO coverage to investment, competition policy and government procurement. The future of the WTO hangs in the balance. Members of the WTO secretariat say that the organization cannot afford another Seattle in Doha. Failure to create consensus around a Ministerial Declaration may well lead to an unraveling of the trade body.

About 100 NGO delegates staged an anti-World Trade Organization demonstration on Friday, immediately before the opening of the trade body's fourth ministerial session in Doha, Qatar. Standing on both sides of the entrance to the huge Al Dafna Hall at the Sheraton Hotel, the protesters, with tape on their mouths, held up signs saying "No Voice at the WTO," calling attention to the lack of democracy, transparency and civil society input into the organization's decision-making processes.

After over 5,000 delegates had filed in, the demonstrators started chanting "What do we want? Democracy!" An effort by Jose Bove, the French anti-McDonalds activist, to lead the demonstrators into the hall was at first repelled by Qatari security forces. A few moments later, however, the demonstrators were allowed in. Fulfilling a pledge made at an open session earlier in the day by Crown Prince Sheik Jassim bin Hamad, security forces did not arrest or detain any of the activists.

Desperate is the only word to describe the actions of the trade superpowers represented at the meeting. Tremendous pressure is being exerted on developing countries to endorse a new round of trade negotiations. The weapons include manipulation of the WTO's undemocratic system of decision-making and blunter forms of trade blackmail.

Intense Security

Massive security preparations have turned Doha, a city of over 600,000, into a high security zone, to the consternation of ordinary Qataris, many of whom claim that the United States is exaggerating the dangers of holding the conference in the Gulf city. The security arrangements have isolated the conference site and are making transportation to and from hotels an exercise in resourcefulness for many delegates.

An armed attack by an allegedly deranged Qatari gunman on a munitions base on the outskirts of Doha, used by the United States, earlier in the week has heightened the tension. Even before that incident, the office of the US Trade Representative had moved to gather representatives of US NGOs from their separate lodgings to join the US official delegation at the Ritz Carlton, which has been converted into an armed camp, with logistical connections to US warships waiting in the Gulf for possible evacuation of American delegates. There is more than enough space in the hotel, since the number of people in the official US delegation has shrunk from about 300 to fifty.

So paranoid is the US security force at the Ritz Carlton that they prevented Anuradha Mittal, executive director of the Oakland-based think tank Food First, from riding on the same bus from the hotel to the conference site after they discovered that she is an Indian citizen. She said that they also refused to give her access to US official briefings or provide her with a security phone and gas mask, which they were distributing to other members of the American entourage.

The dramatic shrinkage in the number of official delegates is not confined to the US delegation. The Canadian delegation, usually one of the biggest, is down to fifty. Says Maude Barlow, a noted critic of her government's trade policies: "People were suddenly all getting sick or disabled at the last minute, and to try to cover the cost of the government plane, they even invited me for the ride to Qatar."

Differing Priorities

The smaller number of key actors from the United States and other members of so-called "Quad" (European Union, Canada and Japan) is not, however, likely to change the dynamics of the conference.

The majority of developing countries want the Ministerial to focus on matters related to the implementation of the commitments made under the Uruguay Round. This position was laid out in a recent declaration of the Group of 77, which identified "104 implementation issues" that needed to be "meaningfully resolved, with urgency before the Fourth Ministerial Meeting and without any extraneous linkages."

Developing countries have been groaning under the weight of implementing the twenty-eight different agreements that comprised the Uruguay Round agreement, while the big trading powers have refused or been slow to implement their commitments to provide greater market access in agriculture and textiles to developing countries or cut back the massive subsidization of their agricultural interests.

The European Union and the United States, on the other hand, have put some of their differences aside--temporarily--to present a common front for a new round of trade negotiations that would focus on expanding the mandate of the WTO to cover the so-called "new issues" of investment, competition policy, government procurement and trade facilitation. Essentially, these are the same issues that formed their common agenda of global economic liberalization prior to the disastrous WTO Ministerial in December 1999. Learning from Seattle, the EU and United States have de-emphasized their disagreement on agricultural trade issues, and the United States apparently does not intend to make the linkage between trade and labor standards--a key point of conflict with developing countries in Seattle (and, for different reasons, also an issue of great concern to US labor unions)--an issue in Doha.

Controversial Draft Declaration

The proposed draft declaration for the Ministerial meeting is an example of the sort of underhanded tactics that the big trading powers are resorting to. According to Aileen Kwa, a Geneva-based analyst who monitors the WTO for Focus on the Global South, the draft does not emphasize the developing countries' stated priorities of implementation issues, the "Special and Differential Treatment" of developing countries, greater access to developed country markets, and reviews of the agreements on Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs), Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), and services (GATS).

Instead, the draft projects an alleged consensus on negotiations on the issues of competition, investment policy, government procurement, and trade facilitation that are the priorities of the minority of rich and powerful trading countries. "Despite clearly stated positions that the developing countries are unwilling to go into a new round until past implementation and decision-making are addressed," says Kwa, "the draft declaration favorably positions the launching of a comprehensive new round with an open agenda."

The draft has been openly denounced by Nigeria as "one-sided" and "showing not much regard for our countries." Bitter complaints from the poor countries prompted Stuart Harbinson of Hong Kong, chair of the WTO General Council, to walk out of a briefing in Geneva last week. Many governments are incensed that the draft fails to acknowledge the strong stand they have made on the principle that nothing in the Trade Related Property Rights Agreement (TRIPs) shall prevent them from taking measures to protect public health by overriding patents.

The draft was a product of consultations conducted among an inner circle of about 20-25 participants--the so-called Green Room process--that effectively excludes most of the members of the WTO. In the lead-up to Qatar, this exclusive process has already held two "mini-Ministerials," one in Mexico at the end of August and another in Singapore on October 13-14. How one gets invited to these meetings is very murky. Kwa cites the case of one ambassador from a transition economy who was promised an invitation to a Green Room meeting by the WTO Secretariat but never got one.

Then there was the case of an African ambassador who wanted to attend the Singapore mini-ministerial: When he approached the WTO secretariat for an invitation, he was told that it was not hosting the meeting. When he tried the Singapore mission in Geneva, the response was that the mission was simply coordinating the meeting and was not in a position to send out invitations. Developing country disaffection with the Green Room process was one of the reasons the Third Ministerial collapsed in 1999. At that time, Charlene Barshefsky, then US Trade Representative, admitted that the WTO decision-making process was non-transparent and inequitable and had to be changed. Stephen Byers, the UK Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, was even more emphatic, saying that the "WTO will not be able to continue in its present form. There has to be fundamental and radical change in order for it to meet the needs and aspirations of all 134 of its members."

That moment of candor was, however, forgotten quickly as the developed countries realized that in an organization like the WTO, where the developing countries are in the majority, the big powers can only dominate through such non-democratic mechanisms as the Green Room and the so-called "Consensus System." Barely two months after Seattle, Michael Moore, WTO director general, told developing countries at the UNCTAD X gathering in Bangkok in February 2000 that the green room/consensus system was "non-negotiable." And there the matter has lain since.

Capitalizing on Tragedy

The trade superpowers have not wasted any opportunity to push for a new trade round. The smoke had not yet cleared from the ruins of the World Trade Center in New York before US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick seized on the tragedy to press for even greater trade liberalization via the WTO and other mechanisms, asserting that free trade was one of the best ways of countering terrorism. Others have been more brazen: At a recent conference in Budapest, David Hartridge, an influential senior official at the WTO Secretariat, openly declared that the September 11 terrorists and activists against corporate-driven globalization shared a propensity for "violent behavior" and warned people from going to Geneva for demonstrations against the WTO in mid-November because "there will be violence."

While the developing countries held the line in the months after the disastrous collapse of the Seattle Ministerial in December 1999, many observers fear that their resolve might now be weakening in the face of concerted pressure from the developed countries. Aside from being subjected to the WTO's exclusionary decision-making process, some countries are being bludgeoned more directly. According to Shefali Sharma of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, the United States has sent letters to Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and several other countries revoking their preferential trade status on some trade agreements owing to their opposition to liberalization of government procurement, which is at the top of the US agenda for the Ministerial.

Last Hurrah?

The powerful trading countries may well get their way and ram through a declaration that agrees to a comprehensive round of trade negotiations in Doha. But the greatest obstacle to trade liberalization may no longer be the developing countries but the global economy itself, which is contracting very quickly owing to the very interlocking of economies brought about by globalization and liberalization. In both developed and developing countries, pressures to save domestic industries, focus on domestic-demand-led growth, and counteract the vulnerabilities of export-led economies at a time of a deep global recession will probably stymie any significant movement toward more liberalization. The Fourth Ministerial may well turn out to be the last hurrah of the WTO and the project of radical economic globalization of which it was the crown jewel.

t r u t h o u t | 11.13

Try This Recount Standard

Tamara Straus, AlterNet

If this week's WTO meeting in Qatar fails, it won't be because
of street protests or media scrutiny, but because neoliberal
capitalists aren't adapting to the post-9/11 age.

John Nichols, The Nation

The long-awaited recount of the Florida election revealed little
new information. That didn't stop news outlets from declaring
Bush a winner, even though more people intended to vote for Gore.

Laura Flanders, WorkingForChange.com

Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh are pressuring the corporate
news media to ignore civilian casualties and dissenting views
about the war on terrorism.

Michael A. Niman, AlterNet

Buy Nothing Day, the annual revolt against consumer culture, is in
direct conflict this year with Bush's plea to shop for patriotism.
A third alternative, buying smart, is more constructive than either.

Tim Wise, AlterNet

Recent comparisons between our war on terrorism and WWII
break down quickly, but speak volumes about our national
need to justify our unjust, unwise military actions.

Chisun Lee, Village Voice

With a threat of Afghanistan heroin flooding the world market,
Americans are seeing how global heroin shifts could hit home.

Srinand Jha, TomPaine.com

A New Delhi-based journalist explores the mixed blessing of
globalization in India, where American values, products and
media have fueled a cultural revolution.

ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE

Is The U.S. Using Nuclear Weapons In Afghanistan?

by Lorenzo Komboa Ervin

In recent days there has been a government-manufactured hysteria in the American media that "Arab terrorists with nukes" are going to kill millions in the USA.

But in truth, there has been only one country in the world which has used nuclear weapons on another country in a time of war, and that would be the United States, when it dropped two nuclear plutonium bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945.

This was at the end of World War II and killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. Since that time, government reports have surfaced that the American government and military strongly considered using tactical nuclear weapons in both the Korean-U.S. war in the 1950's and in Vietnam during the 1960's, when the U.S. was losing both wars.

All of this begs the question of whether the U.S. is actually using nuclear weapons in Afghanistan, where it has been dropping a variety of aerial bombs, cruise missiles, and artillery.

One such weapon is the so-called "bunker buster" bomb, announced on Oct. 11 by the Pentagon. This bomb was first employed in Iraq during the U.S. attack in the Gulf Region in 1991. A newer version of the bomb was used in Kosovo by NATO bombers there in 1999, but again very sparingly in comparison with Afghanistan, and then only the non-nuclear version, Guided Bomb Unit 28 (GBU 28).

According to the Military Analysis Network of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), "This...GBU 28 is a special weapon developed for penetrating hardened Iraqi command centers located deep underground. The bomb is a 5,000-pound laser-guided conventional munition that uses a 4,400-pound penetrating warhead." This is a laser-guided or so-called "smart bomb" fired from a B-2 bomber.

But the latest version of this weapon is in fact a low yield nuclear weapon, a so-called "battlefield nuke" designed to destroy hardened bunkers. Not only myself but other researchers, such as the FAS and the Afrikan News Network, a website for Africans in America, have reported on this matter and are convinced that the Pentagon is using the nuclear version (designated B-61-11) against the Taliban. This nuclear bomb, Pentagon planners believe, will succeed in reaching underground bunkers of Taliban leaders where the GBU-28 non-nuclear device has apparently failed. So they are very quietly "going nuclear."

The B-61-11 is in fact a "repackaged hydrogen bomb" from the 1960's, and can burrow 20-50 feet into the soil before detonating its 5-kiloton warhead. Although the Pentagon has always claimed that the weapon would "limit collateral damage," the truth is that the weapon would produce a large area of lethal fallout.

If the Pentagon is deploying such a weapon, they really do intend to destroy Afghanistan and make parts of it uninhabitable. No crops could be planted and reaped in such soil, and no one could live in such areas without developing radiation sickness. Thousands would perish, the majority civilians. This is clearly in line with President Bush's desire to partition the country, if they cannot overthrow the Taliban regime, and also in line with the Bush/Cheney/Powell military doctrine of using tactical nuclear weapons in a conventional war in the third world.

Of course, if the U.S. is using such weapons, it is in clear violation of both American and international law. For instance, a 1994 federal law prohibits the manufacture and use of such weapons. Furthermore, the various international treaties and United Nations resolutions prohibit it, including those of the International Atomic Energy Act, and various SALT and nuclear non-proliferation treaties. Thus, if nuclear weapons are being used or their use is even planned, it would be the U.S. who would be the rogue state and nuclear terrorist which it hypocritically denounces.

I must honestly say here that I do not know for sure if these nuclear devices have actually been deployed in Afghanistan. I do know they have been created for such a purpose in a war in the 3rd world, and that even the manufacture and possession of "mini-nukes" by the US government is illegal under all existing international laws. But I don't want anyone to blindly accept my word, any more than we should gullibly believe President Bush or the Pentagon for whether this bombing of Afghanistan is justified as a "war against terrorism." Do the research.

But, it is an honest question as to whether the U.S. military is using nuclear devices, and an equally honest question of whether it is the use of such devices of mass destruction by the American military which might then really provoke the use of nuclear devices by guerrillas associated with Osama bin Laden or a so-called "Middle Eastern rogue state" in retaliation against the U.S. population centers. In fact, that is the only way I think it would happen. Once again, the American people would be hit with retaliatory guerrilla warfare from a faraway conflict, just like on September 11th.

In the real sense, only the U.S. has proven it will use nuclear weapons, and it's the one who currently threatens world peace. We cannot be blind to that. But the American media, in lockstep with the Pentagon and the Bush administration, blames the Middle East or Afghanistan. This is all designed to criminalize Arabs or Muslims throughout the world, terrorize the domestic population, and justify the harsh U.S. military response. It is wartime propaganda.

In the USA especially, we cannot allow ourselves to be frightened by all the scare mongering gutter news reports of "Arab terrorists with nuclear devices." It is the worst type of racism and alarmism, when only the U.S. and its allies really have such weapons.

I suggest the world's media and progressive movements read the report of the Federation of American Scientists on low yield nuclear weapons in the American arsenal, http://www.fas.org/wmd, used as the source for this article as well as the related report on http://afrikan.net, the Air Force News Service Report at http://www.brook.edu/tp/projects/nucwcost/alaska.htm, and an August 2001 article in the Progressive magazine. Then you make your mind up just who is guilty of "state terrorism."

Is the United States looking for a few good Russian men to help fight its war in Afghanistan?

The unusual prospect has caused a mini sensation in Moscow ever since a journalist for Russia's NTV television network phoned the U.S. Embassy last month. The reporter, Anton Volzshky, called to inquire about an announcement he'd seen that suggested the embassy had jobs for veterans of the Soviet war in Afghanistan -- as mercenaries.

The supposed offer was sent via e-mail to an address used by the bulletin board section of a Web site (afganwar.spb.ru) based in St. Petersburg, Russia, run by and for veterans of that 1979-89 conflict.

Reportedly, the e-mail said: "The Embassy of the USA needs young people with experience in combat operations in the mountains. Requirements: Satisfactory health, physical training, English language -- minimum conversational level. High pay."

It went on to give a phone number, a fax number and an e-mail address. A check by UPI found the phone and fax numbers, and at least one of the e-mail addresses, are real and do in fact belong to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. Just one thing, said spokesmen for the embassy and its overseer, the State Department in Washington: The offer is bogus.

"This is a false report; there's nothing to this story, and you would be advised not to take this story seriously," said Larry Schwartz, a spokesman for the State Department's European Affairs office. "It's completely false." Retired Col. Dennis Lewis, a military affairs consultant for UPI, thinks it was a matter of a plan being discussed, and someone acted too quickly. "They hit the Send button too soon," he said.

West Nile, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever Linked To Earth's Warming

Experts discuss connections between global warming, infectious disease

Washington - Over the past five years, levels of West Nile, hantavirus, Lyme disease and other infectious diseases have skyrocketed in the United States. And new "surprise" diseases are anticipated for the future. Recent scientific studies reveal that increases in rainfall, extreme drought and other changes in the world's climate may be at least partially to blame.

One week after the conclusion of the final talks on the Kyoto Protocol -- the international agreement to address global warming -- the U.S. continues to sit on the sidelines, failing to address potentially drastic changes to the Earth's climate. A panel of medical experts will brief reporters Thursday on the links between changes in our climate, outbreaks of new diseases affecting human health and the ability of our public health system to handle them.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts a 3-degree increase in temperature and a half-meter sea level rise by the end of the century, largely due to human-caused global warming. Mosquito-borne diseases such as encephalitis and malaria, and rodent-borne diseases such as hantavirus, are extremely weather-sensitive. Small changes in temperature and rainfall will have significant impacts on transmission of these diseases.

"Strike against war, for without you no battles can be fought!

Strike against manufacturing shrapnel and gas bombs and all other tools of murder!

Strike against preparedness that means death and misery to millions of human beings!

Be not dumb, obedient slaves in an army of destruction!

Be heroes in an army of construction."

Helen Keller

"There is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in empty space."

Albert Einstein

SojoNet News Daily Headlines

Don't hand my country to warlords

The military strategy of the coalition forces robbed Afghans of a rare opportunity to forge an enduring solution. Alliance political leaders repeatedly indicated their preference for a political arrangement over a military attack on Kabul, but
bombing overwhelmed their voices.

Bishops Draft Stance On War

Catholic document would urge U.S. to redefine foreign policy

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The nation's Roman Catholic bishops began reviewing their position on the war on terrorism Monday, acknowledging a moral right to a military defense but warning that force alone is not the answer.

The authors of a draft proclamation took pains to say that nothing justifies terrorism. Still, they argued that poverty, violence, and human-rights abuses, if not addressed, generate resentment that terrorists can exploit.

The draft proposal urges U.S. leaders to redefine foreign policy to make alleviating global suffering a priority and recommends lifting economic sanctions against Iraq and helping to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It also asks national leaders to develop criteria for when the airstrikes on Afghanistan should end.

"The actions of our nation and other nations must ensure a just war now and a just peace later," the statement reads.

The document was presented at the start of a four-day meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Later in the gathering, the group will vote on whether to approve the proclamation.The conference has issued previous statements on the war, insisting that the military response be proportionate and avoid harming innocent civilians. This document continues in that spirit, but also calls opposition to military action a "valid Christian response."

Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit is among those critical of the bombing in Afghanistan.

"It's causing death and suffering to huge numbers of innocent people," Bishop Gumbleton said. "If we're religious, moral leaders we ought to be looking for a different set of guidelines and that should be the Gospel."

This latest statement also provides specifics on the individual Catholic response, recommending that Catholics pray regularly, fast one day a week, support interfaith dialogue, and donate to charity. The bishops hope to designate Jan. 1 as a national day of prayer for peace.

t r u t h o u t | 11.14

Bush Orders : Terror Trials by Military

To: President George Bush

Date: November 13th, 2001

From: Russell Hoffman, Concerned Citizen

Subject: Who are the other 1700 - 2200 bombs for, Mr. President?

Dear Mr. President,

Our lap-dog press was stunned today, because you and Vladimir Putin have
come to an agreement on nuclear weapons, announcing that over the next 10
years the United States plans to reduce our nuclear stockpile by about
2/3rds.  As a result, the current 7,000 admitted nuclear weapons will be
reduced to between 1700 and 2200 weapons.

Assuming, just for the sake of argument, "one missile, one city" (no
multiple-warhead missiles), my question to you is, which 1700 to 2200
cities, towns, industrial complexes, infrastructures, bean fields, or
whatever, are you planning on bombing, should -- horror of horrors -- you
(or one of your successors) decide to use these nuclear weapons?

Moscow?  Kiev?  Kabul?  One of the towns where the 328 nuclear power plants
outside the United States are located?  One of the hundreds of sites where
research reactors are located?  One of the radioactive waste dumps that dot
the landscape?  The Russian Navy's rusting nuclear sub fleet?  All of these
sites at once? Or what?

How can you be sure you'll miss all these "hot spots" if you do decide to
attack some target you think is valid?  All our other weapons miss their
targets occasionally; I'm sure nuclear weapons will too, if they are ever
used (again).  And can you even be sure you know where everyone else's
spent nuclear fuel piles are?  Only a madman would intentionally blow up a
spent fuel pool with a nuclear weapon, but merely HAVING nuclear weapons
creates a calculable risk of such an incalculably horrible event!

Sometimes it's hard to tell who the terrorist really is -- the guy with the
bomb, or the guy that blows up the guy with the bomb.

Perhaps you're afraid that if we suddenly made yesterday's Cold War heros
unemployed, they would sell out to the highest bidder like so many Russian
Cold War death-merchants supposedly already have.  I agree, that's a
grizzly thought.  But continuing to pay them to do what they do isn't much
better.

Perhaps we could turn them all into nuclear waste custodians, instead of
nuclear weapons scientists, since dealing with nuclear waste requires
basically the same understanding of the complex physical properties of
radioactive elements.  It just isn't hell-bent on mass destruction.

Remember how mad we all were when the Taliban blew up that Buddhist statue,
even though very few of us cared a hoot about Buddhism itself?  Think how
much history one nuclear bomb obliterates in the best of cases!

It's bad enough, Mr. President, that you might think of bombing Moscow,
with its proud history, beautiful architecture, libraries of knowledge, and
millions of inhabitants, but what about the lingering deaths from low level
radiation which would follow any nuclear attack?  People will get sick and
die long and painful deaths from cancer and leukemia, or suffer life-long
debilitating birth defects (or die in the womb, or in infancy) hundreds,
even thousands and tens of thousands of years later, and thousands of miles
away -- all over the globe.

Why would anyone ever resort to inflicting such a horrible thing upon
anyone?  How could it possibly help civilization for the world's most
advanced nation to do such a thing, regardless of the provocation?

If the most advanced, most logical, most compassionate nation on earth
would do such a thing (assuming, for the moment, we have indeed managed to
fit that description because even if we haven't, at least we strive for
it), what would other nations be willing to do?

We've seen that there are many ways to hurt us.  Nuclear weapons are
yesterday's solution, and they belong to yesterday's wars, just as much as
flinging plague-infested bodies over the walls of a besieged city has gone
out of style (at last).

The anthrax attack was unquestionably a terrorist act against the United
States.  But what good is even one nuclear weapon against it?

There is no room in a sane world for nuclear weapons.  There is even less
room in this crazy place.

I think the proper number of nuclear weapons a modern super-power should
have is zero.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Sincerely,

Russell Hoffman

Concerned Citizen

UTNE WEB WATCH

The Best of the Alternative Web

FIGHT TERRORISM, WIN GREAT PRIZES!

by Mad Dog, Alternet

-- The Department of Defense recently announced it would accept the public's
ideas for fighting terrorism, prompting a plethora of half-baked plans.

A SPIRIT UNCRUSHED

by International Women's Media Foundation

-- Journalist Jineth Bedoya Lima, who survived kidnapping and torture by a
right-wing paramilitary group in Colombia, is one of three women who have
earned the 2001 Courage in Journalism Award.

OVER-MEDICATED CHICKENS AND THE BAYER CORPORATION

by Keep Antibiotics Working.com

Everything the New York Times Thinks About the Florida Recount Is Wrong!

It turns out the U.S. Supreme Court really did cast the deciding vote...

by Mickey Kaus

Just when you thought the Florida recount story was settling down into a familiar bitter partisan dispute, the Orlando Sentinel has changed the story line again. The Sentinel, remember, was the paper that first uncovered the hidden cache of valid, uncounted "overvotes"-seemingly double-voted ballots that, as the massive media recount of Florida has now confirmed, were the key to a potential Gore victory, if only he had known it.

Gore instead focused on "undervotes," ballots that initially registered no vote at all. It has been widely assumed that the real-life, statewide recount of Florida votes that was ordered by the Florida Supreme Court a year ago-and then abruptly stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court-was also limited to undervotes. Certainly the Florida court's opinion focuses on undervotes.

But the Sentinel had the wit to call up Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis, who was actually supervising the real-life recount on Saturday, December 9, 2000, when the U.S. Supreme Court stopped it. Lewis told the Sentinel that "he would not have ignored the overvote ballots."

Though he stopped short of saying he definitely would have expanded the recount to include overvotes, Lewis emphasized 'I'd be open to that.'

"If that had happened," the Sentinel notes, "it would have amounted to a statewide hand recount. And it could have given the election to Gore," since salvaging the valid overvotes turns out to have been "Gore's only path to victory." Lewis had apparently planned a hearing for later that Saturday, at which the overvote issue was going to be discussed.

Why is this significant? Because the comforting, widely-publicized, Bush-ratifying spin given to the recent media recount by the New York Times(and the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post) has been that-as the Times's lede confidently put it-"George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward." [Emphasis added] (The Times' front-page headline was "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote.")

We now know, thanks to the Sentinel, that this Times take (and the somewhat more hedged ledes in the Journal and Post) is thoroughly bogus-unfounded and inaccurate. If the recount had gone forward Judge Lewis might well have counted the overvotes in which case Gore might well have won. Certainly the Times doesn't know otherwise.

That Judge Lewis would probably have counted the overvotes at the perverse (in hindsight) urging of the Bush camp (which either wanted to delay the proceedings or erroneously thought the overvotes would boost Bush's total) doesn't alter this conclusion.

It looks as if the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who stopped the Florida count cast the deciding vote after all. …

P.S.: Does this mean Gore's undervote-obsessed recount strategy wasn't foolish, as previously charged in this space? Not necessarily. By the time the issue of the overvotes was raised before Judge Lewis, on December 9, it was almost too late to count them before December 12, the date accepted (foolishly!) by Gore's lawyers as the deadline for selecting Florida's electors. Any recount, even if it put Gore ahead, would have been chaotic and disputed, asthis Sentinel companion story suggests. Had Gore instead asked for a full statewide recount immediately after the November 7 election, as some of his aides urged, there would have been plenty of time to count both undervotes and overvotes before December 12.

P.P.S.: If any paper gets a Pulitzer out of this Florida mess, shouldn't it be the Sentinel?

ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE

Army Corps Redefines Wetlands Mitigation

by Cat Lazaroff

WASHINGTON, DC, November 13, 2001 (ENS) - A new U.S. Army Corps of Engineers policy regarding how developers will compensate for destroying wetlands could lead to a loss of wetlands nationwide, environmentalists warn. The policy, unveiled Friday, would allow developers to offset losses of wetlands on one site by protecting wetlands, or even dry land, elsewhere.

Five of the country's foremost conservation groups expressed outrage over a Corps Regulatory Guidance Letter on wetlands mitigation released late Friday. The groups charge that, without public notice or coordination with other federal agencies, the Corps has ignored the national goal of achieving "no net loss" of wetlands.

That goal was established during the first Bush administration, and has been a guiding principle of the national wetlands regulatory program ever since.

"This arrogant move by the Corps demonstrates the agency's complete lack of respect for the public, other federal agencies, and most of all for our country's natural resources," said Julie Sibbing, the National Wildlife Federation's (NWF) wetlands legislative representative.

The Corps says the guidance letter reinforces the national goal, stating, "the concepts embodied in the guidance … are intended to fully support the national no overall net loss policy for wetlands and to provide a basis for formulating decisions that will more effectively and fully mitigate impacts to other aquatic resources, such as flowing streams."

The Regulatory Guidance Letter, dated October 31, sets out new Corps' policy regarding wetlands mitigation, or compensation for destroyed wetlands. Mitigation generally involves the construction of new wetlands to replace those destroyed by development activities.

The Corps is supposed to place highest priority on avoiding harm to wetlands, rather than mitigating damage after it has occurred. But conservation groups charge that the Corps often overlooks avoidance and allows destruction of wetlands, based on speculative promises of mitigation.

The Corps says the guidance letter does not affect the Corps' process for evaluating permit applications, and in fact, requires more consistent evaluation of mitigation plans.

Robin Mann, chair of the Sierra Club wetlands committee, says the Corps' new policy sets up an "anything goes approach" to wetland replacement. The policy allows for wetland mitigation to consist of preservation or enhancement of existing wetlands, small buffer strips along streams, upland areas, ponds and other waters, or simply deepening an existing wetlands for swimming or fishing.

"None of these types of 'mitigation' can compensate for the loss of natural wetlands and will contribute to a continued net loss of our nation's valuable wetlands," argued Mann.

The Corps notes that because regulatory guidance letters are used for internal guidance and management, there is no requirement for the coordination process appropriate for administrative rulemaking. The Corps of Engineers is solely responsible for making the case by case mitigation decisions - weighing amount and type of mitigation -required as compensation for impacts to aquatic resources.

Regulatory guidance letters "are developed jointly or in coordination with other federal agencies when the subject matter or the policies being provided require their involvement," noted the Corps in a response to the conservation groups' criticisms. "This was not the case with the guidance on compensatory mitigation"

The guidance letters are normally issued as a result of "evolving policy, judicial decisions, and changes to federal regulations," the Corps said. Regulatory guidance letters are used "only to interpret or clarify existing regulatory program policy, but do provide mandatory guidance to Corps district offices."

The Corps has come under increased criticism over the past year for its failure to ensure that compensatory mitigation adequately replaces the functions and acreage lost when wetlands are allowed to be destroyed. The General Accounting Office (GAO) published a study last spring which criticized the Corps' use of certain third party mitigation schemes.

The National Academy of Science (NAS) also published a report last spring that found that Corps' mitigation policy was not providing for "no net loss" of wetlands within the regulatory program and that serious improvements were needed.

While the Corps claims that the new guidance letter is responsive to recommendations of the National Academy of Science study, the conservation groups say that only a few of the NAS recommendations are incorporated into the new policy, the GAO study is not mentioned and several weakening policy changes are included that were not recommended by either study.

"It is bizarre that the Corps proposes to weaken their inadequate program further, given that recent studies by the National Academy of Sciences, GAO and the Corps itself detail the widespread failure of the Corps' current mitigation policies to adequately protect wetlands and achieve the goal of "no net loss," said Daniel Rosenberg, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Apparently, when it comes to wetland protection, there is no success like failure for the Army Corps."

The Corps notes that the GAO's recommendations persuaded the Corps to require that development permits identify the party specifically responsible for the success of mitigation projects.

"All permits that require compensatory mitigation will contain a provision that specifies the party responsible for planning, accomplishing and maintaining the mitigation project," states the new regulatory guidance letter.

According to the Corps, the new regulatory guidance letter provides standards and definitions for mitigation where none existed before. It also can "benefit the environment by requiring better, more enforceable mitigation plans from permit applicants. The result: more environmentally sound mitigation projects," said the Corps.

But Howard Fox of Earthjustice argues that, "if this document were truly protective of wetlands and streams, the Corps wouldn't have felt the need to rush it onto the street without any public input. Refusing to allow the public a chance to point out the problems with the Corps' approach won't make those problems go away."

In April, the Bush Administration pledged that it would continue to take responsible steps to ensure the protection of wetlands.

"Either the Corps didn't get the memo, or the Administration's policies regarding wetlands protection have been reversed without notice to the public," said Rosenberg.

Illinois a leader in solar power systems

November 9, 2001

BY GARY WISBY STAFF REPORTER

Illinois ranks fourth in the nation for planned solar electric systems and sixth for systems already installed, according to a Greenpeace study released Thursday.

Chicago's energetic solar program is the reason for the state's high standing. Among U.S. cities, "I think we're probably the fastest-growing," said Bill Abolt, the city's environment commissioner.

For planned systems, Illinois' 2,499 kilowatt hours puts it behind Nevada (50,000 kwh), California (11,153 kwh) and New Mexico (3,000 kwh). Illinois is planning for more than twice the capacity of the next state on the list, Wisconsin (1,005 kwh).

For already installed systems, Illinois' 526 kwh ranks it after California (10,013 kwh), Arizona (1,880 kwh), New York (1,180 kwh), Texas (1,001 kwh) and Georgia (593 kwh). Next after Illinois is Hawaii (458 kwh).

The Greenpeace report estimates that if 1 percent of Illinois' 4.6 million homes added a 480-watt solar electric system, 21,648 to 27,060 megawatt hours of electricity would be generated each year.

A megawatt is enough power to serve about 1,000 homes.

For the Chicago area--Cook County plus the collar counties of DuPage, Lake, McHenry, Kane and Will--here's what the report says would happen if 1 percent of its 2.9 million homes installed a 480-watt solar electric system:

*9,307 to 11,634 megawatt hours would be generated yearly.

*Carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to global warming, would drop by 19 million to 23.8 million pounds a year.

*As much power would be produced as from burning 10.7 million to 13.4 million pounds of coal. Pollution from coal-burning power plants is blamed for premature deaths and many cases of asthma.

Chicago has some of the Midwest's biggest solar installations, Abolt said. Fifty-kilowatt arrangements are atop the Field Museum and Art Institute, and work is under way on similar-size systems for the Mexican Fine Arts Museum and Chicago Historical Society.

Three public schools carry solar arrays, and the Chicago Board of Education last week approved 20 more schools, which will be done at the rate of five a year.

The Environmental Movement

Part 3

CIVIC ENVIRONMENTALISM

The mainstream environmental movement developed during the 1970s, building on the legacy of John Muir, Gifford Pinchot and other early conservationists. From 1970 to 1980, the federal government created a complex new environmental protection regime of laws and institutions. President Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Congress created the Council on Environmental Quality and passed a dozen hefty environmental statutes.

Within the new environmental protection regime, the mainstream environmental groups, like Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Environmental Defense (ED, formerly Environmental Defense Fund), saw opportunities for lawyers and scientists to influence public policy via lawsuits, regulatory rule makings, and the setting of scientific standards. These public interest lawyers and scientists were idealistic, enthusiastic, and willing to work long hours. They focused their efforts on lobbying and standards-setting, and legitimized their operations by creating boards of directors who were well-connected. They raised money by direct mail appeals to a largely passive constituency. They didn't try to build a movement that could appeal to a majority of Americans because they genuinely believed that an elite group of professionals playing an "insider's" game could protect the environment. For a time, their formula seemed to work.

The advent of Ronald Reagan in 1980 changed many things, including the environmental protection regime in Washington. Herblock, the cartoonist, caught the essence of the change when he depicted President Reagan and his Secretary of Interior, James Watt, picnicking together, their checkered tablecloth spread over a tree stump. Behind the smiling men, as far as the eye could see, lay rolling hills covered with nothing but tree stumps. The caption read, "It doesn't get any better than this."

Then came George Bush the elder, Hillary and Bill Clinton, and Newt Gingrich. Environmentalists were tolerated at best and were labeled "ecoterrorists" at worst. As "free market" theology swept through Washington and many state capitals, the traditional environmental movement adjusted to the new climate, learning to describe themselves as "friends of business" advocating the use of market mechanisms for environmental protection.[1, pg. 105] Many of them advocated (and still advocate) the sale of "pollution rights" which tend to funnel toxicants into poor communities and communities of color.

In hopes of gaining "access" to the Clinton administration, mainstream environmentalists went to bat for corporations, helping pass the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Environmental Defense, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council and World Wildlife Fund created the Environmental Coalition for NAFTA and began promoting the free trade theology of their corporate adversaries. Sierra Club refused to join. John Adams of NRDC would later boast, "We [environmentalists] were one of the two big prongs the administration had to fight. The other was labor. We broke the back of the environmental opposition to NAFTA. After we established our position, Clinton only had labor to fight. We did him a big favor."[1, pg. 188]

Ultimately, however, such anti-democratic "insider" strategies failed. As Jay Hair of National Wildlife Federation described his relationship with the Clinton/Gore administration, "What started out like a love affair turned out to be date rape."[1, pg. 177]

For the past 20 years, the mainstream groups have found themselves unable to influence national policy in any lasting way because tweaking regulations and lobbying to amend laws -- a strategy of "whispering in the king's ear"-- doesn't put any lasting pressure on the king. The king may arbitrarily grant your wishes, but just as quickly such favors can be reversed because there's no organized constituency across the country holding the king's feet to the fire.

Thus national environmental policy in the U.S. remains stuck where it was in the 1970s. As Europe, Australia, New Zealand and parts of the Third World have adopted new principles of environmental protection, based on precautionary action, extended producer responsibility, pollution prevention, clean production, and zero waste (which we will describe later in this series), the U.S. remains hamstrung by an unworkable system based on risk assessment of one chemical at a time, and inefficient and ineffective end-of-pipe controls.

Now, as we saw in RACHEL'S #732, the mainstream environmental strategy of lawsuits and rulemakings has shipwrecked as the federal courts have fallen under the sway of Big Money and right-wing "free market" extremism.

At this point in history, can the mainstream environmental organizations reinvent themselves to regain relevance? There are signs that some can. World Wildlife Fund has become a leader in international negotiations, advocating the precautionary principle and urging the phase-out of whole classes of chemicals (those that are persistent or bioaccumulative). Sierra Club has begun to take environmental justice (EJ) activism seriously and has begun talking to organized labor. Whether other mainstream environmental groups can make the shift to modern perspectives remains to be seen. Yet the D.C.-based mainstream groups still receive roughly 70% of all the money available for environmental protection.[1, pg.41]

Meanwhile, a new kind of environmentalism has now emerged, even though it remains astonishingly underfunded.[2] It started in Love Canal, New York and in rural Warren County, North Carolina in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It has since spread across the country, combining human concerns about social, economic and environmental injustices with a focus on local places. Often it has taken the form of a fight to stop a polluter from setting up shop in a black or Latino community, but in some cases it has gone considerably further, becoming a holistic approach to community revitalization and development.

An excellent recent book from MIT Press, THE LAND THAT COULD BE by William Shutkin, labels this new approach "civic environmentalism."[3] As Shutkin sees it, "What ultimately defines civic environmentalism and distinguishes it from other forms of social action is the explicit link between environmental problem-solving and the goal of community building. Civic environmentalism is fundamentally about ensuring the quality and sustainability of our communities, economically, socially, and environmentally," Shutkin says.[3, pg. 128]

Civic environmentalism rests on six "core concepts," which are:

1. Democratic participation in decision-making. "Civic environmentalism provides for the regular, practical participation of all citizens in environmental decisions so that environmental outcomes are the shared function of the many," Shutkin says.[3, pg. 129] For this to work, all affected parties must be in the room (not just a few experts): corporate executives, developers, government officials, representatives of the not-for-profit sector, workers and residents. For such a process to work, people need to take each other seriously, regardless of age, race, income, gender, ethnicity, or geography. Face to face work is essential: Without face-to-face meetings, people tend to see their opponents as caricatures, not as real humans. Over time, face-to-face work fosters a sense of community, which in turns fosters more participation. This approach validates the experience of ordinary people, allowing experts to play their proper role as information providers and advisors, not elite decision-makers. But for participatory democracy to work, decisions must be made with the full, informed consent of those affected. This concept has been tried little in the U.S. where "democratic participation" is usually limited to paying taxes and occasionally voting.

2. Community and regional planning. Without going into detail, planning means deciding what kind of future your community wants 5 or 10 years hence, taking stock of the resources needed to get there, inventorying local assets, then taking steps to achieve the desired future and measure progress along the way. Lack of planning has given us urban sprawl, loss of open space and habitat for wildlife, air pollution, forsaken city centers, and a commuter culture.

3. Environmental education aims first to allow young people to grow up respecting their place in the natural order, so that they will want to "fit in" with nature, not dominate and thus destroy it. Environmental education also seeks to inform both producers and consumers about the consequences of their economic activities, in hopes that they will change their practices. Environmental education can inform people about the disproportionate burden of pollution borne by the poor and people of color. Citizens have often provided their own form of environmental education, alerting government and corporate officials to unsuspected relationships between the environment and human health. Residents and workers have recognized many serious environmental problems long before science has revealed cause and effect connections.

4. Industrial ecology. Shutkin uses this term instead of the more common "clean production." The basic idea here is that industrial processes of extraction, production, distribution, consumption, and discard should work roughly the way ecosystems do.

As Shutkin says, industrial ecology (clean production) "provides environmentalists with a compelling model of economic development, enabling them to engage and promote economic development and the built environment as a legitimate environmental issue."[3, pg. 138]

Shutkin outlines a set of modern "design principles" developed by architect William A. McDonough and published as "The Hannover Principles."[4]

5. Environmental justice. Civic environmentalism demands that communities provide EVERYONE a healthy place to live, work and play. It demands that EVERYONE have a real opportunity to participate in decisions that affect their health and their environment, especially those who have traditionally been left out. Justice implies environmental health and safety for all, including workers, the poor, the dispossessed.

6. Place. Shutkin conveys the importance of place by quoting Alan Gussow: "A place is a piece of the whole environment that has been claimed by feelings." As poet Gary Snyder says, "Of all the memberships we identify ourselves by (racial, ethnic, sexual, national, class, age, religious, occupational), the one that is most forgotten, and that has the greatest potential for healing, is place.... People who can agree that they share a commitment to the landscape -- even if they are otherwise locked in struggle with each other -- have at least one deep thing to share."[3, pg. 140]

Shutkin argues that we already possess most of the ideas and technologies needed to achieve desirable communities. We even appear to have the will, he says, citing poll after poll showing that most Americans favor environmental protection and want greater civic involvement and sense of community. What we are lacking is examples to follow: "There are too few working models of sustainable communities to inspire and guide us," he says.[3, pg. 141]

Shutkin ends his book with four case studies of "civic environmentalism" at work in the real world in the Dudley Street neighborhood of Boston, in the Fruitvale section of Oakland, California, in rural Douglas county, Colorado, and in Morris and Somerset counties in New Jersey. Here the seeds of a new environmental politics are being sewn, but much work lies ahead. [To be continued.]

========

[1] Mark Dowie, LOSING GROUND (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995). ISBN 0-262-04147-2.

[2] Daniel R. Faber and Deborah McCarthy, GREEN OF ANOTHER COLOR: BUILDING EFFECTIVE PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN FOUNDATIONS AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT (Boston, Mass.: Philanthropy and Environmental Justice Research Project, Northeastern University, 2001).

[3] William A. Shutkin, THE LAND THAT COULD BE (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2000). ISBN 0-262-19435-X.

[4] Available at http://repo-nt.tcc.virginia.edu/classes/tcc315/-Resources/ALM/-Environment/hannover.html

MediaChannel.org - news, reports, resources and opinion.
Featuring content from more than 800 media-issues groups worldwide.

DAILY MEDIA NEWS

Breaking news stories about the international media,
from mainstream and alternative sources.

Media conglomerates may not be as powerful as they seem, argues
Benjamin Compaine in this challenge to conventional wisdom.
(From openDemocracy)

Growing up in a media-saturated world, young activists have
learned that spectacle, direct action and creativity can
generate news coverage. (From MediaRights, Listen up!)

The battle for hearts and minds escalates as war rages in
Afghanistan and terrorism threatens worldwide. Our
special coverage continues.

While the Bush administration is managing mainstream U.S.
media coverage of the conflict, notes Danny Schechter,
the message is not playing overseas.

Media companies, already suffering from dot-com collapses and
the brewing  recession, were hit hard in the wake of September 11.
A special collection of articles from the Village Voice, 
MediaGuardian, Boston Phoenix and many others.

The results of the media recount of the Florida
presidential election? Depends which paper you read.

The best media about the media.
MediaChannel's international, biweekly, multimedia magazine
* Broadcasting Canada's Multicultures
* The Mogul Mayor And Business News
* Grassroots PR In The Forest
And much, much more... Plus: Streaming audio and video

Unless new, fair regulations are implemented soon, journalists
warn, Serbia's entire broadcasting system is at risk of collapse.
(From Radio B92)

Try This Recount Standard

By Marc Ash

t r u t h o u t | 11.14

Still trying to figure out which recount standard to apply? Try this one: Al Gore won Florida by approximately 30,000

votes and there were 30,000 excuses for not counting then. From butterflies that flew away, to the local Sheriff blocking

the road to the poll. The standard ultimately applied in Florida was the Joseph Stalin Standard 'It is not he who casts the

votes that matters -- but he who counts the votes.' It is the cruelest irony of all that we should, here in the land of the free

and the home of the brave, be subjected to this whitewash. Maybe 47% of Americans believe George W. Bush won

Florida but the rest of the world sure doesn't.

WHY WE CAN'T LEAVE FLORIDA

What we come away with from Florida is a Man running the country who we know wasn't elected. Every time he pays

off one of his backers, every time he alienates one of our allies, every time he tries to exterminate the legacy of his

predecessor we are reminded and it cannot go away. With each increment of descent into chaos we find all exits from

Florida blocked.

THE DEATH OF AMERICAN JOURNALISM

What a spectacular abdication of journalistic integrity, to admit clearly on the one hand that the people of the state of

Florida chose Al Gore, and at the very same moment to unilaterally mask that with misleading headlines. This is for me

the darkest moment in the history of the American press. The Constitution guarantees Freedom Of The Press, but it does

not guarantee a free press. What the press chooses to do with it's freedom is it's own business -- today they have

squandered it.

Consortium: If Standard Had Been "Count Every Vote," Gore Would Have Won Florida

The long-awaited media recount of disputed ballots from the 2000 presidential vote in Florida has provided only a little new information regarding the election result. Despite investing almost $1 million and 10 months of effort in a review of uncounted Florida ballots, the conclusions of a consortium of major newspaper and broadcast partners were generally inconclusive.

But that did not prevent some of the consortium partners from issuing headlines that declared a victor in the unsettled contest between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore.

As during the actual recount process last fall, the media's rush to judgement ended up identifying a "winner" who under the most democratic scenarios was actually the loser.

Consider the "news" presented Monday morning in the form of headlines on front pages, websites and broadcasts of several consortium members:

"Florida recount study: Bush still wins," declared CNN.

"Study: Recounts Would Have Favored Bush," mused The Washington Post.

"Recount: Bush," announced The St. Petersburg Times.

The trouble with these certain statements is that they are not backed up by the articles above which they appear. As with an media recount conducted earlier this year by The Miami Herald and Knight Ridder, the determination of most consortium members to make definitive statements created false impressions of what the data revealed.

The consortium-sponsored analysis of roughly 62,000 of undervotes (ballots that appeared to reveal no choice) and roughly 113,000 overvotes (ballots where voters appeared to indicate preferences for more than one candidate) was never in a position to identify a clear winner. Only a review of all 6.1 million ballots cast in the November 7, 2000, election could have claimed to do that.

However, the consortium's count has confirmed what savvy observers have known since last fall:

* The review of ballots conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago for CNN, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Palm Beach Post, The St. Petersburg Times and The Associated Press revealed that the contest in Florida was exceptionally close. In an election that saw more than 6.1 million Florida voters cast ballots, no recount scenario favored Bush or Gore by more than 1,700 votes. Under the likeliest of scenarios, neither Bush nor Gore won even by as much as the 537-vote margin certified by Florida Secretary of State --and Bush campaign co-chair -- Katherine Harris. As University of Texas government professor Walter Dean Burnham, one of the nation's foremost experts on electoral politics explained it: "You had the perfect tie. When you've got an election this close, the most sensible way to determine the outcome is to flip a coin."

* Election information can be read in many ways. Media outlets varied broadly in their analysis of the data provided by the NORC researchers. While most opted for some variation on CNN's certain affirmation of presidential legitimacy -- "Bush still wins" -- sober voices refrained from pegging a winner with such certainty. The Associated Press account hit the wires under the headline, "Florida Vote Review Shows Barest Margins." The Chicago Tribune probably won the accuracy competition with the declaration that: "Ballots, rules, voter error led to 2000 election muddle, review shows."

* Using various scenarios established for determining whether chads were adequately detached from punchcard ballots, the precision with which votes had to be marked on optically scanned ballots, the identification of the intent of "overvote" ballots, and the number of judges required to make a determination regarding a ballots' condition, both Gore and Bush came up winners. Under some of the strictest standards -- including those proposed by the Bush camp during last year's recount fight -- Gore won. For instance, under a scenario where punchcard ballots were only counted if chads were fully detached and optical scan ballots were only counted if choices were precisely marked, the consortium count showed Gore prevailing by 154 votes statewide.

* Bush might have won a Florida Supreme Court ordered recount of more than 43,000 disputed ballots, had it been allowed to proceed without the intervention of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Republican might also have won a narrower recount requested initially by Gore in selected counties. The key word here is "might," as the consortium members acknowledge -- far below the headlines -- that the recount they sponsored did not review exactly the same set of ballots that Florida election officials worked with during the official recount process. "Most counties were unable to identify precisely the same ballots declared as undervotes and overvotes on Election Day," admitted The Washington Post. "Officials sorted ballots anew by hand or ran ballots through counting machines again and delivered those ballots to the consortium field workers. Variations in the ballots, counting conditions and machines caused changes in the totals. In some counties, a few ballots simply could not be located."

* Despite imprecise data and differing interpretations of dozens of possible results, there was broad agreement on one of the least noted realities of the Florida recount: Had election officials and the courts sought to identify the choice of the electorate, rather than to satisfy the demands of partisans, Gore would have emerged as the winner. As The Associated Press noted, "Under any standard that tabulated all disputed ballots statewide, however, Gore erased Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes." The Washington Post was even more blunt, stating that, "If there had been some way last fall to recount every vote -- undervotes and overvotes alike, in all 67 Florida counties -- former vice president Al Gore would be the White House."

* Even more certain is the conclusion that flawed ballot designs in several Florida counties played a decisive role in costing Gore the presidency. The Palm Beach Post, which did its own review of ballots last March and also participated in the consortium, explained the general wisdom in an article that concluded, "(The) former vice president probably lost thousands of votes cast by Floridians who marked their ballots for more than one candidate because they were confounded by confusing ballots such as Palm Beach County's 'butterfly ballot' and Duval County's 'caterpillar.'

"Consider that 70,616 overvotes statewide included a mark, dimple, hanging chad, partial or cleanly-punched chad for Gore and any combination of third-party candidates. That's nearly three times the 24,600 overvotes that included some discernible mark for George W. Bush and any combination of third-party candidates, according to a comprehensive examination of these ballots performed by the Palm Beach Post and seven other media organizations. The review suggests what many pundits said a year ago: Uncounted ballots and voter confusion cost Gore the election."

Echoing that conclusion is University of California at Berkeley political scientist Henry Brady, one of the nation's foremost experts on electoral behavior. "People don't intentionally go to the polls to overvote," says Brady. "You tend to think that if Florida had a better system of collecting and counting votes, Al Gore would have won."

Warning: Media Management Now In Effect

by Danny Schechter

I am not sure when the Bush administration realized it had a media problem. The White House was humming along with a well-oiled media management machine. The president was riding high in the polls. He clearly had the country behind him. And yet, something wasn't working on the world stage, even after savvy handlers turned a politician denigrated as a bumbler into a more self-assured and even inspiring leader. Their media makeover was as meticulous as the makeup applied to movie stars playing monsters.

The turning point had come early on, with W.'s well-crafted speech to the U.S. Congress, which plainly had been designed with applause lines in mind and stirring but measured phrases. He had mastered the TelePrompTer and was well-practiced in his delivery. It worked: One day he was laughed at as a global village idiot, the next he was hailed by the same pundits, on the strength of one performance piece, as a statesman par excellence.

Hungry for a leader, the American people rallied behind his call for unity, alertness and patriotic patience. There were some murmurs about the mixed message that on the one hand counseled vigilance and, on the other, shopping as usual. Overseas, some eyebrows went down when phrases like "crusade" and "smoking out the evil ones" were dropped from his rhetorical lexicon.

But a serious communications problem remained, because of a more objective problem: Many realists, especially in other countries, weren't clear that bombing and bombast could bring terrorists to heel. Those issues began to be raised by skeptics and even comics.

Three Steps In response, the White House seems to have taken three steps.

First, keep critics off the air. (And not just videos of bin Laden or Al-Jazeera, which "coincidentally" had its Kabul office bombed). It soon became clear that the media were allocating little space for domestic critics, much less harder-line opponents, of the policy. While administration officials condemned the ideological fundamentalism of the Taliban, a certain ideological intolerance began to be practiced in the homeland media. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), noted on November 2 that 44 columns in the Washington Post and New York Times stressed a military response, with only two that suggested diplomatic and international law approaches.

Second, bring the press on board. The American media empires soon seemed to be marching in lockstep with the government. Despite a tightening of information policies and the total exclusion of reporters from most battlefields, nary a critical word heard from many of those who have been loudest in defense of freedom of the press. Even a champion of freedom of the press like Walter Cronkite said he was willing to countenance a censorship board of some kind, if camera crews were allowed in. (They weren't and his proposal went nowhere.)

The media is going along to get along. Will government media managers soon boast about what a great job they did as they did 10 years ago in the aftermath of Desert Storm? Then, Michael Deaver, President Reagan's PR honcho, was ecstatic, contending, "If you were to hire a public relations firm to do the media relations for an international event, it couldn't be done any better than this is being done." Hodding Carter, President Jimmy Carter's former chief flack, seconded the emotion: "If I were the government, I'd be paying the press for the coverage it's getting."

Yet the press - and this was a television story above all else - did not have to be paid. Pete Williams, the man who "handled" media for the Pentagon during the Gulf War and was rewarded with a job on NBC News, put his finger on it: "The reporting," he boasted to his superiors, "has been largely a recitation of what administration people have said, or an extension of it." Is this true today? Not totally. Happily, there are still some exceptions, like Seymour Hersh, who catch the Pentagon in blatant lies, as happened recently in conflicting stories about casualties U.S. troops suffered on the ground.

Third, get the West Coast studios to jump in. On the day this column was written, media moguls and movie studio heads strategized with White House aide Karl Rove on how they can do even more than they already have to boost the war effort. Tom Cruise, star of Mission: Impossible, and a sequel in the works, is just one star who has met with the CIA and according to MSNBC.com, "He was emphatic about presenting the CIA in as positive a light as possible."

The military is quietly infiltrating Hollywood as well. The little-known Institute for Creative Studies at the University of Southern California brings top Hollywood talent into secret contact with top military officials. The think tank received funding of $45 million from the U.S. Army in 1999. According to The Sunday Herald, "One of the few members named publicly, by the Hollywood newspaper Daily Variety, is Steven de Souza, co-writer of the hit 1988 action movie Die Hard." Michael Macedonia - of the Army's Simulation, Training and Instrumentation Command - said: "You're talking about screenwriters and producers. These are very brilliant, creative people. They can come up with fascinating insights very quickly."

While movieland is key because of its global reach, the cooperation of the TV networks is vital for the engineering of consent on the domestic front. The networks have their own reasons to cooperate. Remember that while war unleashes devastation and death on people, it delivers ratings and brings life to television. War is often the "big story" (when sex isn't) and a defining moment for many journalists. It's the story that permits news departments to mobilize their "troops" - that's what ABC called employees when I worked there - and show off their high-tech deployments. Many reporters who make it to the top do so because of war reporting. Ask Peter Arnett, Cristianne Amanpour or even Peter Jennings - no disrespect intended - if being under fire helped or hurt their careers. The answer is obvious. Less obvious is the relationship between our bloated defense budget and war coverage. The Pentagon uses and manipulates TV's military boosterism to hype adventures, secure appropriations and sell weaponry.

World Views The problem in an age of globalization is that harnessing domestic media is no longer enough. The fact is that coverage outside the United States seeps back in, and despite the government's media strategists, is growing more critical and less cheerleading by the day. Growing skepticism in influential media outlets overseas is worrying to policy-makers here. On November 11, the front page of The New York Times carried a long piece on "the battle to shape opinion," reporting on the Bush administration's new strategies. The article acknowledges that the administration has enforced "policies ensuring that journalists have little or no access to independent information about military strategies, successes and failures."

But it also notes that public opinion worldwide, led in part by the press, increasingly opposes U.S. policies. The Arab press is hostile. The Asian media, unconvinced. Over 60 percent of the people in Tony Blair's Britain, the only real partner the U.S. has in its leaky coalition, say they want a bombing pause. Half of Italy agrees. The German press is critical. I know because I have been interviewed by many media outlets in that country. Reports the Times, with understated candor way at the bottom of a story that consumed an acre of print, "European journalists have also become suspicious that the American news media have been co-opted by the government or at least swept up by patriotism." One German calls this a "Post Vietnam Patriotic Syndrome." To massage this problem, the Bush administration has hired PR firms and created a task force for coordinating U.S. and UK communications directors with daily conference calls between the White House, London and Islamabad.

So far, there is no evidence that this PR offensive is working internationally. In fact, a growing number of Americans are looking for news and information elsewhere, from the very sources that alarm Bush media strategists. NPR reports that American are flocking to foreign web sites while England's BBC and Canada's CBC report a big spike in viewing by Americans. Our own Globalvision News Network is generating considerable traffic by offering articles and analysis from other countries. Clearly, other viewpoints are there for those willing to look for them. I was delighted to find Vanity Fair this month quoting me on this very issue (p.182). (Sadly, Brad Pitt, not your News Dissector, made the cover, probably because of his more impressive abs.)

In the Soviet Union, most of its citizens didn't trust the state-managed press, fully aware of its propaganda function. In the U.S., most people tend to trust the press, unaware of its role in what Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman call "manufacturing consent." I heard Max Robins of TV Guide report that news viewing is way up. True enough, but skepticism is rising on both the right and the left and is likely to erupt in the mainstream sooner rather than later.

I hope that it is not too late for the U.S. media establishment to get the message, distance themselves from "official sources" and "coded" propaganda and seek out more diverse sources of information.

- Danny Schechter is the executive editor of MediaChannel.org. His latest book is "News Dissector: Passions, Pieces and Polemics, 1960-2000," from Akashic Books.

Einstein's Brain 'Markedly Different' From The Norm

by Joene Hendry

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The brain of Albert Einstein has clear differences from an average person's gray matter, according to a California researcher. But any possible link between these differences and his great intelligence is still unknown, she added.

To investigate whether the brain of a genius might show special features, Dr. Dahlia W. Zaidel of the University of California, Los Angeles, examined two slides made from the physicist's brain shortly after his death in 1955 at age 76. The slides contained samples of Einstein's hippocampus, a part of the brain responsible for memory and word associations.

Zaidel compared Einstein's brain with tissue from 10 individuals of ordinary intelligence who ranged in age from 22 to 84 at the time of death.

The neurons on the left side of the Nobel Prize winner's hippocampus were consistently larger than those on the right. Zaidel said these findings were ``markedly different'' from those seen in the brains of individuals with normal intelligence.

She presented her findings Monday at the Society for Neuroscience's annual meeting in San Diego, California.

While the neurons on the left side were smaller than those on the right in four of five regions of Einstein's hippocampus, the brains of ordinary people showed only minimal and inconsistent asymmetry, Zaidel found.

The larger neurons in the left hippocampus, she noted, imply that Einstein's left brain may have had stronger nerve cell connections between the hippocampus and another part of the brain called the neocortex than his right. The neocortex is ''where detailed, logical, analytical and innovative thinking takes place,'' Zaidel noted in a prepared statement.

But the origins of this asymmetry, or whether it occurred at birth, during development or as an abnormality, are unknown, she said.

``Also,'' Zaidel told Reuters Health, ``I don't yet know how this asymmetry is related to his genius.''

While normal brain tissue is available for study, Zaidel said, ``there is no brain bank for geniuses.'' She said she hopes to obtain brain tissue ``from very bright scientists and particularly physicists,'' which could make it possible to place Einstein's brain on a continuum of genius.

What will the Northern Alliance do in our name now? I dread to think...

By Robert Fisk

'Why do we always have this ambiguous, dangerous relationship with our allies?' It wasn't meant to be like this. The nice, friendly Northern Alliance, our very own foot-soldiers in Afghanistan, is in Kabul. It promised - didn't it? - not to enter the Afghan capital. It was supposed to capture, at most, Mazar-i-Sharif and perhaps Herat, to demonstrate the weakness of the Taliban, to show the West that its war aims - the destruction of the Taliban and thus of Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'ida movement - were inevitable.

The corpse of the old man in the centre of Kabul, executed by our heroes in the Alliance, was not supposed to be on television. Only two days ago, Alastair Campbell's 24-hour Washington-London-Islamabad "communication centre'' was supposed to counter Taliban propaganda. Now Mr Campbell must set up his team of propagandists in Kabul to fight the lies of our very own foot-soldiers of the Northern Alliance.

Was it not the US Secretary of State Colin Powell who assured General Musharraf of Pakistan the Alliance would be kept under control, that the United Nations' envoy, Lakhdar Ibrahimi, would be allowed to construct a truly representative government in Kabul to replace the Taliban?

General Musharraf had promised his support to the United States - at the risk of his nation and his life - in return for American promises that Afghanistan would be governed by a truly representative coalition. Pakistan's air bases, its very support for the "war on terrorism'', was contingent on Washington's word that the Northern Alliance would not take over Kabul and impose its own diktat on Afghanistan.

Yesterday, the pictures from Kabul were almost identical to the videotapes of April 1992 when the pro-Russians and Communists were defeated. We saw the same jubilation by the non-Pushtu population. And within two days, Hekmatyar Gulbeddin began to bomb the city. The division of ethnic groups plunged the Afghan capital into civil war. Yesterday, the Alliance was supposed to wait on the outskirts of the city while the Americans attempted to construct a workable coalition. But for the present, Afghanistan - without the Taliban - is a country without a government.

What on earth is going on? And what, for that matter, has happened to Mr bin Laden? Are we driving him into the mountains - always supposing he is not already there - or are we pushing him into the tribal areas of the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan? For without a city, the Taliban themselves will melt back into their birthplace, the madrassa schools along the Pakistan border which created the puritan, obscurantist spirit which has inspired the rulers of Afghanistan these past five years.

The Northern Alliance is advancing, meanwhile, with all its baggage of massacres and looting and rape intact. We have so idolised these gunmen, been so infatuated with them, supported them so unquestioningly, pictured them on television so deferentially that we are now immune to their history. So, perhaps, are they.

General Rashid Dostum, our hero now that he has recaptured Mazar-i-Sharif, is in the habit of punishing his soldiers by tying them to tank tracks and then driving the tanks around his barracks' square to turn them into mincemeat. You wouldn't have thought this, would you, when you heard the jubilant reports of General Dostum's victory on Monday night?

Nor would you have thought, listening to the reports from Afghanistan yesterday, that the Northern Alliance was responsible for more than 80 per cent of the drug exports from the country in the aftermath of the Taliban's prohibition of drug cultivation. I have a ghostly memory of writing this story before, not about the Taliban but about the KLA in Kosovo, a guerrilla army which was partly funded by drugs and which, once its political aspirations had been met by Nato's occupation of the Serbian province went on to become "terrorists'' (our former Foreign Secretary's memorable description) inside Macedonia. True, Nato's wheel of fortune moves in mysterious ways but it's not difficult to understand how our allies - praised rather than controlled - follow their own agenda.

Why, I wonder, do we always have this ambiguous, dangerous relationship with our allies? For decades, we accepted the received wisdom that the "B" specials were a vital security arm of the Northern Ireland authorities on the grounds that they "knew the territory" - just as, I fear, we rely upon the Northern Alliance because it "knows the land".

The Israelis relied upon their Phalangist militia thugs in Lebanon because the Christian Maronites hated the Palestinians. The Nazis approved of their Croatian Ustashi murderers in 1941 because the Ustashi hated the Serbs.

Is this, I ask myself, why the Northern Alliance is our friend? Not because it is a loyal ally but because it hates the Taliban? Not because it opposes poverty and destitution and the destruction of Afghanistan under an Islamic regime but because it says it loathes Osama bin Laden?

There are brave men in the Alliance, true. Its murdered leader, Ahmed Shah Massoud, was an honourable man. It's not difficult to turn our allies into heroes.

But it remains a fact that from 1992 to 1996, the Northern Alliance was a symbol of massacre, systematic rape and pillage. Which is why we - and I include the US State Department - welcomed the Taliban when they arrived in Kabul. The Northern Alliance left the city in 1996 with 50,000 dead behind it. Now its members are our foot soldiers. Better than Mr bin Laden, to be sure. But what - in God's name- are they going to do in our name?

Real Evildoer? The World's Nuclear Arsenal

by Robert Scheer

Once again, we're being sold on the devil theory of history. Not that Osama bin Laden doesn't fit the bill as the Satan of the moment, just as Saddam Hussein did in the previous Bush administration. But it's dangerous nonsense to suggest, as President Bush does, that we're up against an evildoer the likes of whom we've never seen.

While it's certainly necessary to eliminate Bin Laden's terrorist cohort, that will hardly end the prospect of mayhem in this world. We lull ourselves into a false sense of security when we insist that madness is the exclusive province of one group of extremists, or that it inevitably finds its locus in one religion or region of the world.

When it comes to genocide, Bin Laden is a minor contender. We've witnessed far worse from the good Germans, mostly well-educated, law-abiding Protestants and Catholics who killed 6 million Jews in the worst example of religious hatred ever. The U.S. caused the death of millions in Vietnam in a more recent war that never bore any reasonable connection to our security, as Lyndon Johnson's recently released tapes reveal. And what about Cheshire cat Vladimir V. Putin, a top KGB apparatchik when Soviet forces killed more that a million Afghan innocents, whose Russian troops now slaughter Chechen civilians?

By personalizing evil, Bush ignores the role of our allies and ourselves in making this such a dangerous world. That's clear when one assesses the true risks of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, which Bush in his U.N. speech warned Bin Laden would use, saying, "No hint of conscience would prevent it." What hint of conscience prevented the U.S. from being the only nation in history to use nuclear weapons, killing at least 115,000 civilians in an assault that makes the World Trade Center attack pale in comparison?

Clearly, it's the leading nations that have created the world's huge arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, and if there's a danger in their use now by terrorists, it's only because those nations' stocks have been pilfered or sold and their scientists bribed.

If Bin Laden possesses such weapons, it's through purchases on the black market or because he had the backing of nation-states, with Pakistan at the head of the list. He couldn't have done it alone. We've had him and his operation under constant observation, following President Clinton's orders to disable him. It's inconceivable that such an operation could have been directed undetected from the caves of Afghanistan.

However, Pakistan has been hellbent on producing nuclear weapons, its program directed by scientists holding fanatical Islamist views who were forced to resign only after Sept. 11. Also forced to resign, as an additional obvious embarrassment, was the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency, which has been intimate with the Taliban and Bin Laden.

The Pakistan-India nuclear arms race is the most dangerous confrontation in the world, yet we suddenly ended sanctions against those countries and will reward Pakistan's military dictator with $1 billion in high-tech military assistance for turning against his old buddies, the Taliban.

China is another nuclear-armed state that only recently was accused by the U.S. government of stealing our most valuable nuclear secrets. Indeed, the FBI all but ignored Bin Laden as it kept 100 agents assigned to Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee, producing a case so weak that Lee was never even charged with spying. Now that Bush has embraced China as yet another ally in the war against terrorism, the alleged theft of our rocket and nuclear technology is conveniently forgotten.

We are fickle in our anger and grief; new enemies replace the old while the flag is waved and unity achieved. This is understandably therapeutic, as is the desire for revenge through bombing, even if it means killing children and starving the population. But it does not address the larger threat to the world's security.

Rest assured that Bin Laden soon will be reduced to a violent footnote. But the danger to our civilization presented by the Cold War residue of weapons of mass destruction, which we and other civilized nations continue to produce, will haunt us long after Bin Laden is a dim if bizarre memory.

Looking For A Real Legacy To Sept. 11

by Naomi Klein

On the weekend, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf asked the United States to show a little love in return for his co-operation. Specifically, he is fixated on some F-16 fighter jets, sold to Pakistan and then withheld because his country was developing nuclear weapons.

It's the kind of back-scratching diplomacy we've come to expect since Sept. 11: an aid package here, a loan there. And then there are all the smarmy understandings that Washington will look the other way when the Chinese or Indonesian militaries beat back liberation movements within their borders, since all state repression seems to be part of the war on terrorism now.

Are these backroom payoffs and gentlemen's agreements going to be the only legacies of Sept. 11, or is there more that the world community could be demanding during this most multilateral of moments?

Facing an enemy that respects no border, the Bush administration has made many demands of the world community since Sept. 11: military support, intelligence information, police co-operation, and the collaboration of financial institutions. It has asked for the harmonization of border controls and airport security. It has requested land bases and airspace and that its allies put their citizens' lives on the line.

Surely there is more that our governments could be asking in return. Some may think it crass to talk quid pro quo when a nation is still recovering from the horrors of terrorist attacks, and is now struggling with fresh trauma after the crash of American Airlines Flight 587.

But what about the kind of quid pro quo that might actually help to fight terrorism -- before and after it happens? Such mechanisms exist, but they require political will, particularly from the U.S. And it won't come without a fight.

Many who support the bombing of Afghanistan do so grudgingly: For some, the bombs seem to be the only weapons available, however brutal and imprecise. But this paucity of options is partly a result of U.S. resistance to a range of more precise and potentially effective international instruments.

Like a standing international criminal court, which the U.S. opposes, fearing that its own war heroes might face prosecution. Like the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on nuclear weapons, also a no-go. And all the other treaties the U.S. has refused to ratify, on land mines, small arms and so much else that would have helped us cope with a heavily militarized state such as Afghanistan, especially as the Northern Alliance takes Kabul.

So why, post-Sept. 11, are so few world leaders willing to use the limitless demands being made by the U.S. as an opportunity to insist that international co-operation is a two-way street? Not one of the European leaders -- previously so outraged by George W. Bush's abandonment of the Kyoto pact on global warming -- has made co-operation contingent on concrete changes in U.S. attitudes toward internationalism. Neither, most negligently, has United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Behind the scenes, some European leaders say they believe the terrorist threat has taught the U.S. a lesson: No country, no matter how strong, is an island. Some quietly predict that Sept. 11 will usher in a new age of international co-operation on everything from AIDS to aid, from nuclear disarmament to fairer trade.

But with so little being done to turn this optimistic vision into reality, an opposite scenario is rapidly unfolding. Instead of a new era of global co-operation, the U.S. is engaging in the same buffet-style internationalism that was its hallmark before Sept. 11.

For example, in Marrakesh last week, countries came to an unprecedented consensus on implementing the Kyoto Protocol. With dependence on oil leading to both environmental and political instability, the need for action is urgent. Yet the U.S., the largest emitter of greenhouse gasses, wasn't even at the table.

In Doha this week, the U.S. was at the table, but seemingly not to negotiate. Its delegation to the World Trade Organization made it so clear that Washington had no intention of heeding developing countries' demands on drug patents and agricultural dumping that Indian Trade Minister Murasoli Maran called the meeting "a mere formality," adding: "We are being coerced against our will."

The tragedy is the missed opportunities. Sept. 11 could be a turning point for international human rights and common security. Many Americans already view themselves as part of a world community in a way unseen since the Second World War. But if that feeling is to translate into equitable and lasting international agreements on arms, trade and environmental sustainability, it can't be politely hoped for; it has to be negotiated.

The U.S. made it clear from the start that it wouldn't negotiate with the Taliban. What about the rest of us?

This Isn't The Speech I Expected To Give Today...

by Bill Moyers

This isn't the speech I expected to give today. I intended something else. For the last several years I've been taking every possible opportunity to talk about the soul of democracy. 'Something is deeply wrong with politics today,' I told anyone who would listen. And I wasn't referring to the partisan mudslinging, or the negative TV ads, the excessive polling or the empty campaigns. I was talking about something deeper, something troubling at the core of politics. The soul of democracy-the essence of the word itself-is government of, by, and for the people. And the soul of democracy has been dying, drowning in a rising tide of big money contributed by a narrow, unrepresentative elite that has betrayed the faith of citizens in self-government.

This wasn't something I came to casually, by the way. It's the big political story of the last quarter century, and I started reporting it as a journalist in the late 70s with the first television documentary about political action committees. More recently, at the Florence and John Schumann Foundation, working with my colleague and son, John Moyers, we saw how environmental causes were being overwhelmed by the private funding of elections that gives big donors unequal and undeserved political influence. That's why over the past five years the Schumann brothers-Robert and Ford and our board have poured both income and principle into political reform through the Clean Money Initiative-the public funding of elections. I intended to talk about this-about the soul of democracy-and then connect it to my television efforts and your environmental work. That was my intention. That's the speech I was working on six weeks ago.

But I'm not the same man I was six weeks ago. And you're not the same audience for whom I was preparing those remarks. We've all been changed by what happened on September 11. My friend, Thomas Hearne, the president of Wake Forest University, reminded me recently that while the clock and the calendar make it seem as if our lives unfold hour by hour, day by day, our passage is marked by events-of celebration and crisis. We share those in common. They create the memories which make of us a history, and make of us a people, a nation. Pearl Harbor was that event for my parents' generation. It changed their world, and it changed them. They never forgot the moment when the news reached them. For my generation it was the assassinations of the Kennedys and Martin Luther King, the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church, the dogs and fire hose in Alabama. Those events broke our hearts. We healed, but scars remain.

For this generation, that moment will be September 11th, 2001-the worst act of terrorism in our nation's history. It has changed the country. It has changed us. That's what terrorists intend. Terrorists don't want to own our land, wealth, monuments, buildings, fields, or streams. They're not after tangible property. Sure, they aim to annihilate the targets they strike. But their real goal is to get inside our heads, our psyche, and to deprive us-the survivors-of peace of mind, of trust, of faith; they aim to prevent us from believing again in a world of mercy, justice, and love, or working to bring that better world to pass.

This is their real target, to turn our imaginations into Afghanistans, where they can rule by fear. Once they possess us, they are hard to exorcise.

This summer our daughter and son-in-law adopted a baby boy. On September 11th our son-in-law passed through the shadow of the World Trade Center to his office up the block. He got there in time to see the eruption of fire and smoke. He saw the falling bodies. He saw the people jumping to their deaths. His building was evacuated and for long awful moments he couldn't reach his wife, our daughter, to say he was okay. She was in agony until he finally got through-and even then he couldn't get home to his family until the next morning. It took him several days fully to get his legs back. Now, in a matter-of-fact voice, our daughter tells us how she often lies awake at night, wondering where and when it might happen again, going to the computer at three in the morning-her baby asleep in the next room-to check out what she can about bioterrorism, germ warfare, anthrax, and the vulnerability of children. Beyond the carnage left by the sneak attack terrorists create another kind of havoc, invading and despoiling a new mother's deepest space, holding her imagination hostage to the most dreadful possibilities.

None of us is spared. The building where my wife and I produce our television programs is in midtown Manhattan, just over a mile from ground zero. It was evacuated immediately after the disaster although the two of us remained with other colleagues to help keep the station on the air. Our building was evacuated again late in the evening a day later because of a bomb scare at the Empire State building nearby. We had just ended a live broadcast for PBS when the security officers swept through and ordered everyone out of the building. As we were making our way down the stairs I took Judith's arm and was suddenly struck by the thought: is this the last time I'll touch her? Could our marriage of almost fifty years end here, on this dim and bare staircase? I ejected the thought forcibly from my mind, like a bouncer removing a rude intruder; I shoved it out of my consciousness by sheer force of will. But in the first hours of morning, it crept back.

Returning from Washington on the train last week, I looked up and for the first time in days saw a plane in the sky. And then another, and another-not nearly as many as I used to on that same journey. But so help me, every plane I saw, and every plane I see today, invokes unwelcome images and terrifying thoughts. Unwelcome images, terrifying thoughts: time bombs planted in our heads by terrorists, our own private Afghanistans.

I wish I could find the wisdom in this. Then our time together this morning might have been more profitable for you. But wisdom is a very elusive thing. Someone told me once that we often have the experience but miss the wisdom. Wisdom comes, if at all, slowly, painfully, and only after deep reflection. Perhaps when we gather next year the wisdom will have arranged itself like the beautiful colors of a stilled kaleidoscope, and we will look back on September 11 and see it differently.

But I haven't been ready for reflection. I have wanted to stay busy, on the go, or on the run, perhaps, from the need to cope with the reality that just a few subway stops south of where I get off at Penn Station in midtown Manhattan, five thousand people died in a matter of minutes. One minute they're pulling off their jackets, shaking Sweet 'n Low into their coffee, adjusting the picture of a child or sweetheart or spouse in a frame on their desk, booting up their computer-and in the next, it's all over for them. I've been collecting obituaries of the victims. Practically every day the New York Times runs compelling little profiles of the dead and missing, and I've been keeping them. Not out of some macabre desire to stare at death, but to see if I might recognize a face, a name, some old acquaintance, a former colleague, even a stranger I might have seen occasionally on the subway or street. That was my original purpose.

But as the file has grown I realize what an amazing montage it is of life, an unforgettable portrait of the America those terrorists wanted to shatter. I study each little story for its contribution to the mosaic of my country, its particular revelation about the nature of democracy, the people with whom we share it.

Luis Bautista was one. It was his birthday, and he had the day off from Windows on the World, the restaurant high atop the World Trade Center. But back home in Peru his family depended on Luis for the money he had been sending them since he arrived in New York two years ago speaking only Spanish, and there was the tuition he would soon be paying to study at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. So on the eleventh of September Luis Bautista was putting in overtime. He was 24.

William Steckman was 56. For thirty five of those years he took care of NBC's transmitter at One World Trade Center, working the night shift because it let him spend time during the day with his five children and to fix things up around the house. His shift ended at six a.m. but this morning his boss asked him to stay on to help install some new equipment, and William Steckman said sure.

Elizabeth Holmes lived in Harlem with her son and jogged every morning around Central Park where I often go walking, and I have been wondering if Elizabeth Holmes and I perhaps crossed paths some morning. I figure we were kindred souls. She too, was a Baptist, and sang in the choir at the Canaan Baptist church. She was expecting a ring from her fiancé at Christmas.

Linda Luzzicone and Ralph Gerhardt were planning their wedding, too. They had both sets of parents come to New York in August to meet for the first time and talk about the plans. They had discovered each other in nearby cubicles on the 104th floor of One World Trade Center and fell in love. They were working there when the terrorists struck.

Mon Jahn-bul-lie came here from Albania. Because his name was hard to pronounce his friends called him by the Cajun "Jambalay" and he grew to like it. He lived with his three sons in the Bronx and was supposed to have retired when he turned 65 last year, but he was so attached to the building and so enjoyed the company of the other janitors that he often showed up an hour before work just to shoot the bull. In my mind's eye I can see him that morning, horsing around with his buddies.

Fred Scheffold liked his job, too-Chief of the 12th battalion in Harlem. He loved going into fires and he loved his men. But he never told his daughters in the suburbs about the bad stuff in all the fires he had fought over the years. He didn't want to worry them. This morning, his shift had just ended and he was starting home when the alarm rang. He jumped into the truck with the others and at One World Trade Center he pushed through the crowds to the staircase heading for the top. The last time anyone saw him alive he was heading for the top. While hundreds poured past him going down through the flames and smoke, Fred Scheffold just kept going up.

Now you know why I can't give the speech I was working on.

Talking about my work in television would be too parochial. And what's happened since the attacks would seem to put the lie to my fears about the soul of democracy. Americans have rallied together in a way that I cannot remember since World War Two. In real and instinctive ways we have felt touched? singed -- by the fires that brought down those buildings, even those of us who did not directly lose a loved one. Great and low alike, we have been humbled by a renewed sense of our common mortality. Those planes the terrorists turned into suicide bombers cut through a complete cross-section of America-stockbrokers and dishwashers, bankers and secretaries, lawyers and janitors, Hollywood producers and new immigrants, urbanites and suburbanites alike. One community near where I live in New Jersey lost twenty-three residents. A single church near our home lost eleven members of the congregation. Eighty nations are represented among the dead. This catastrophe has reminded us of a basic truth at the heart of our democracy: no matter our wealth or status or faith, we are all equal before the law, in the voting booth, and when death rains down from the sky.

We have also been reminded that despite years of scandals and political corruption, despite the stream of stories of personal greed and pirates in Gucci's scamming the treasury, despite the retreat from the public sphere and the turn toward private privilege, despite squalor for the poor and gated communities for the rich, we have been reminded that the great mass of Americans have not yet given up on the idea of 'We, the People.' And they have refused to accept the notion, promoted so diligently by our friends at the Heritage Foundation and by Grover Norquist and his right-wing ilk, that government-the public service-should be shrunk to a size where they can drown it in the bathtub (that's what Norquist said is their goal.) These right-wingers at Heritage and elsewhere, by the way, earlier this year teamed up with the deep-pocket bankers who finance them, to stop the United States from cracking down on terrorist money havens. As TIME Magazine reports, thirty industrial nations were ready to tighten the screws on offshore financial centers whose banks have the potential to hide and often help launder billions of dollars for drug cartels, global crime syndicates-and groups like Osama bin Laden's Al-Quaeda organization. Not all off-shore money is linked to crime or terrorism; much of it comes from wealthy people who are hiding money to avoid taxation. And right-wingers believe in nothing if not in avoiding taxation. So they and the bankers' lobbyists went to work to stop the American government from participating in the crackdown on dirty money, arguing that closing down tax havens in effect leads to higher taxes on the poor people trying to hide their money. I am not kidding; it's all on the record. The president of the Heritage Foundation spent an hour, according to the New York Times, with Treasury Secretary O'Neill, and Texas bankers pulled their strings at the White House, and presto, the Bush administration folded and pulled out of the international campaign against tax havens.

How about that for patriotism? Better terrorists get their dirty money than tax cheaters be prevented from hiding their money. And that from people who wrap themselves in the flag and sing the Star Spangled Banner with gusto. These true believers in the god of the market would leave us to the ruthless cruelty of unfettered monopolistic capital where even the law of the jungle breaks down.

But listen: today's heroes are public servants. The twenty-year-old dot.com instant millionaires and the pugnacious pundits of tabloid television and the crafty celebrity stock pickers on the cable channels have all been exposed for what they are-barnacles on the hulk of the great ship of state. In their stead we have those brave firefighters and policemen and Port Authority workers and emergency rescue personnel, public employees all, most of them drawing a modest middle-class income for extremely dangerous work. They have caught our imaginations not only for their heroic deeds but because we know so many people like them, people we took for granted. For once, our TV screens have been filled with the modest declarations of average Americans coming to each other's aid.

I find this good, and thrilling, and sobering. It could offer a new beginning, a renewal of civil values that could leave our society stronger and more together than ever, working on common goals for the public good.

The playwright Tony Kushner wrote more than a decade ago: 'There are moments in history when the fabric of everyday life unravels, and there is this unstable dynamism that allows for incredible social change in short periods of time. People and the world they're living in can be utterly transformed, either for the good or the bad, or some mixture of the two.'

He's right. This could go either way. Here's one sighting: in the wake of September 11th; there's been a heartening change in how Americans view their government. For the first time in more than thirty years a majority of people say we trust the Federal Government to do the right thing 'just about always' or at least 'most of the time.' It's as if the clock has been rolled back to the early sixties, before Vietnam and Watergate took such a toll on the gross national psychology. This newfound hope for public collaboration is based in part on how people view what the government has done in response to the attacks. I have to say that overall, President Bush has acted with commendable resolve and restraint. But this is a case where yet again the people are ahead of the politicians. They're expressing greater faith in government right now because the long-standing gap between our ruling elites and ordinary citizens has seemingly disappeared. To most Americans, government right now doesn't mean a faceless bureaucrat or a politician auctioning access to the highest bidder. It means a courageous rescuer or brave soldier. Instead of representatives spending their evenings clinking glasses with fat cats, they are out walking among the wounded. In Washington it seemed momentarily possible that the political class had been jolted out of old habits. Some old partisan rivalries and arguments fell by the wayside as our representatives acted decisively on a forty billion dollar fund to rebuild New York. Adversaries like Dennis Hastert and Dick Gephardt were linking arms. There was even a ten-day moratorium on political fundraisers. I was beginning to be optimistic that the mercenary culture of Washington might finally be on its knees.

But I once asked a friend on Wall Street what he thought about the market. "I'm optimistic," he said. "Then why do you look so worried?" And he answered: "Because I'm not sure my optimism is justified."

I'm not, either. There are, alas, other sightings to report. It didn't take long for the wartime opportunists-the mercenaries of Washington, the lobbyists, lawyers, and political fundraisers-to crawl out of their offices on K Street determined to grab what they can for their clients. While in New York we are still attending memorial services for firemen and police, while everywhere Americans' cheeks are still stained with tears, while the President calls for patriotism, prayers and piety, the predators of Washington are up to their old tricks in the pursuit of private plunder at public expense. In the wake of this awful tragedy wrought by terrorism, they are cashing in.

Would you like to know the memorial they would offer the almost six thousand people who died in the attacks? Or the legacy they would provide the ten thousand children who lost a parent in the horror? How do they propose to fight the long and costly war on terrorism America must now undertake?

Why, restore the three-martini lunch-that will surely strike fear in the heart of Osama bin Laden. You think I'm kidding, but bringing back the deductible lunch is one of the proposals on the table in Washington right now. There are members of Congress who believe you should sacrifice in this time of crisis by paying for lobbyists' long lunches. And cut capital gains for the wealthy, naturally-that's America's patriotic duty, too. And while we're at it, don't forget to eliminate the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax, enacted fifteen years ago to prevent corporations from taking so many credits and deductions that they owed little if any taxes. But don't just repeal their minimum tax; give those corporations a refund for all the minimum tax they have ever been assessed.

You look incredulous. But that's taking place in Washington even as we meet here in Brainerd this morning. What else can America do to strike at the terrorists? Why, slip in a special tax break for poor General Electric, and slip inside the Environmental Protection Agency while everyone's distracted and torpedo the recent order to clean the Hudson River of PCBs. Don't worry about NBC, CNBC, or MSNBC reporting it; they're all in the GE family.

It's time for Churchillian courage, we're told. So how would this crowd assure that future generations will look back and say 'This was their finest hour'? That's easy. Give those coal producers freedom to pollute. And shovel generous tax breaks to those giant energy companies; and open the Alaskan wilderness to drilling-that's something to remember the 11th of September for. And while the red, white and blue wave at half-mast over the land of the free and the home of the brave-why, give the President the power to discard democratic debate and the rule-of-law concerning controversial trade agreements, and set up secret tribunals to run roughshod over local communities trying to protect their environment and their health. It's happening as we meet. It's happening right now.

If I sound a little bitter about this, I am; the President rightly appeals every day for sacrifice. But to these mercenaries sacrifice is for suckers. So I am bitter, yes, and sad. Our business and political class owes us better than this. After all, it was they who declared class war twenty years ago and it was they who won. They're on top. If ever they were going to put patriotism over profits, if ever they were going to practice the magnanimity of winners, this was the moment. To hide now behind the flag while ripping off a country in crisis fatally -fatally! -separates them from the common course of American life.

Some things just don't change. Once again the Republican Party has lived down to Harry Truman's description of the GOP as guardians of privilege. And as for Truman's Democratic Party-the party of the New Deal and the Fair Deal-well, it breaks my heart to report that the Democratic National Committee has used the terrorist attacks to call for widening the soft money loophole in our election laws. How about that for a patriotic response to terrorism?

Mencken got it right-the journalist H. L. Mencken, who said that when you hear some men talk about their love of country, it's a sign they expect to be paid for it.

Understandably, in the hours after the attacks many environmental organizations stepped down from aggressively pressing their issues. Greenpeace canceled its 30th anniversary celebration. The Sierra Club stopped all advertising, phone banks and mailing. The Environmental Working Group and the PIRGs postponed a national report on chlorination in drinking water. That was the proper way to observe a period of mourning.

Furthermore, in work like this you have to read and respect the mood of a country in crisis, or a misspoken word, even a modest misstep, could lose you the public's ear for years to come. But the polluters and their political cronies accepted no such constraints. Just one day after the attack, one day into the maelstrom of horror, loss, and grief, Republican senators called for prompt consideration of the President's proposal to subsidize the country's largest and richest energy companies. While America was mourning they were marauding. One congressman even suggested that eco-terrorists might be behind the attacks. And with that smear he and his kind went on the offensive in Congress, attempting to attach to a defense bill massive subsidies for the oil, coal, gas and nuclear companies. To a defense bill! What a shameless insult to patriotism! What a slander on the sacrifice of our armed forces! To pile corporate welfare totaling billions of dollars onto a defense bill in an emergency like this is repugnant to the nostrils and a scandal against democracy!

But this is their game. They're counting on your patriotism to distract you from their plunder. They're counting on you to be standing at attention with your hand over your heart, pledging allegiance to the flag, while they pick your pocket!

Let's face it: they present citizens with no options but to climb back in the ring. We are in what educators call "a teachable moment." And we'll lose it if we roll over and shut up. What's at stake is democracy. Democracy wasn't cancelled on the 11th of September, but democracy won't survive if citizens turn into lemmings. Yes, the President is our Commander-in-chief, and in hunting down and destroying the terrorists who are trying to destroy us, we are "all the President's men"-as Henry Kissinger put it after the bombing of Cambodia. But we are not the President's minions. If in the name of the war on terrorism President Bush hands the state over to the energy industry, it's every patriot's duty to join the local opposition. Even in war, politics is about who gets what and who doesn't. If the mercenaries in Washington try to exploit the emergency and America's good faith to grab what they wouldn't get through open debate in peace time, the disloyalty will not be in our dissent but in our subservience. The greatest sedition would be our silence.

Yes, there's a fight going on-against terrorists around the globe, but just as certainly there's a fight going on here at home, to decide the kind of country this will be during and after the war on terrorism. To the Irishman's question-'Is this a private fight or can anyone get in it?" the answer has to be: "Come on in. It's our economy, our environment, our country, and our future. If we don't fight, who will?"

What should our strategy be? Here are a couple of suggestions. During two trips to Washington in the last ten days I heard people talking mostly about two big issues of policy: economic stimulus and the national security. How do we renew our economy and safeguard our nation? Guess what? Those are your issues, and you are uniquely equipped to address them with powerful language and persuasive argument.

For example: if you want to fight for the environment, don't hug a tree; hug an economist. Hug the economist who tells you that fossil fuels are not only the third most heavily subsidized economic sector after road transportation and agriculture-they also promote vast inefficiencies. Hug the economist who tells you that the most efficient investment of a dollar is not in fossil fuels but in renewable energy sources that not only provide new jobs but cost less over time. Hug the economist who tells you that the price system matters; it's potentially the most potent tool of all for creating social change. Look what California did this summer in responding to its recent energy crisis with a price structure that rewards those who conserve and punishes those who don't. Californians cut their electric consumption by up to 15%.

Do we want to send the terrorists a message? Go for conservation. Go for clean, home-grown energy. And go for public health. If we reduce emissions from fossil fuel, we will cut the rate of asthma among children. Healthier children and a healthier economy-how about that as a response to terrorism?

As for national security, well, it's time to expose the energy plan before Congress for the dinosaur it is. Everyone knows America needs to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel. But this energy plan is more of the same: more subsidies for the rich, more pollution, more waste, more inefficiency. Let's get the message out.

Start with John Adams' wakeup call. The head of NRDC says the terrorist attacks spell out in frightful terms that America's unchecked consumption of oil has become our Achilles heel. It constrains our military options in the face of terror. It leaves our economy dangerously vulnerable to price shocks. It invites environmental degradation, ecological disasters, and potentially catastrophic climate change. Go to Tompaine.com and you will find the two simple facts we need to get to the American people: first, the money we pay at the gasoline pump helps prop up oil-rich sponsors of terrorism like Saddam Hussein and Muammar al-Quaddifi. Second, a big reason we spend so much money policing the Middle East-$30 billion every year, by one reckoning-has to do with our dependence on the oil there. So John Adams got it right-the single most important thing environmentalists can do to ensure America's national security is to fight to reduce our nation's dependence on oil, whether imported or domestic.

But don't stop there.

Before the 11th of September the nuclear power industry was salivating at the prospect of the government giving it limited liability for the risks of the meltdown or other nuclear accident. We were told by Vice President Cheney that nuclear power was a "safe technology" that could help alleviate energy shortages and not contribute to greenhouse gases.

But when Dick Cheney invited the energy companies and their lobbyists to write his energy plan, he didn't reckon on terrorism or the advice of Harvey Wassermann. Harvey Wassermann has spent years studying these issues and writing about America's experience with atomic radiation. He tells us that one or both planes that crashed into the World Trade Center could easily have obliterated the two atomic reactors now operating at Indian Point, about 40 miles up the Hudson River. Regulations put out by the nuclear regulatory commission regarding plant safety don't address that sort of event, and neither plant was designed to withstand such crashes. Until now Harvey Wassermann's scenario was unthinkable. Had one or both of those jets hit one or both of the operating reactors at Indian Point, the ensuing cloud of radiation would have dwarfed the ones at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. At the very least the massive impact and hellish jet fuel fire would destroy the human ability to control the plants' functions. Vital cooling systems, back-up power generators and communications networks would crumble. The assault would not require a large jet. The safety systems are extremely complex and virtually indefensible. One or more could be wiped out with a wide range of easily deployed small aircraft, ground-based weapons, truck bombs or even chemical/biological assaults aimed at the operating work force. Dozens of US reactors have repeatedly failed even modest security tests over the years. And even heightened wartime standards cannot guarantee protection of the vast, supremely sensitive controls required for reactor safety. Without continuous monitoring and guaranteed water flow, the thousands of tons of radioactive rods in the cores and the thousands more stored in those fragile pools would rapidly melt into super-hot radioactive balls of lava that would burn into the ground and the water table and, ultimately, the Hudson. Striking water, they would blast gigantic billows of horribly radioactive steam into the atmosphere. The radioactive clouds would then enshroud New York, New Jersey, New England, and carry deep into the Atlantic and up into Canada and across to Europe and around the globe again and again. The immediate damage would render thousands of the world's most populous and expensive square miles permanently uninhabitable. All five boroughs of New York City would be an apocalyptic wasteland. All real estate and economic value would be poisonously radioactive throughout the entire region. Who knows how many people would die? As at Three Mile Island, where thousands of farm and wild animals died in heaps, and as at Chernobyl, where soil, water and plant life have been hopelessly irradiated, natural ecosystems on which human and all other life depends would be permanently and irrevocably destroyed; spiritually, psychologically, financially, ecologically, our nation would never recover.

This is what we missed by a mere forty miles near New York City on September 11th. And remember-there are 103 of these potential bombs of the apocalypse now operating in the United States. 103.

I know you see the magnitude of the challenge. I know you see what we're up against. I know you get it-the work that we must do. It's why you mustn't lose heart. Your adversaries will call you unpatriotic for speaking the truth when conformity reigns. Ideologues will smear you for challenging the official view of reality. Mainstream media will ignore you, and those gasbags on cable TV and the radio talk shows will ridicule and vilify you. But I urge you to hold to these words: "In the course of fighting the present fire, we must not abandon our efforts to create fire-resistant structures of the future." Those words were written by my friend Randy Kehler more than ten years ago, as America geared up to fight the Gulf War. They ring as true today. Those fire-resistant structures must include an electoral system that is no longer dominated by big money, where the voices and problems of average people are attended on a fair and equal basis. They must include an energy system that is more sustainable, and less dangerous. And they must include a media that takes its responsibility to inform us as seriously as its interest in entertaining us.

My own personal response to Osama bin Laden is not grand, or rousing, or dramatic. All I know to do is to keep doing as best I can the craft that has been my calling now for most of my adult life. My colleagues and I have rededicated ourselves to the production of several environmental reports that were in progress before September 11. As a result of our two specials this year-Trade Secrets and Earth on Edge-PBS is asking all of public television's production teams to focus on the environment for two weeks around Earth Day next April. Our documentaries will anchor that endeavor. One will report on how an obscure provision in the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) can turn the rule of law upside down and undermine a community's health and environment. Our four-part series on America's First River looks at how the Hudson River shaped America's conservation movement a century ago and, more recently, the modern environmental movement. We're producing another documentary on the search for alternative energy sources, another on children and the environment the questions scientists, researchers and pediatricians are asking about children's vulnerability to hazards in the environment-and we are also making a stab at updating the health of the global environment that we launched last June with Earth on Edge.

What does Osama bin Laden have to do with these? He has given me not one but five thousand and more reasons for journalism to signify on issues that matter. I began this talk with the names of some of them- the victims who died on the 11th of September. I did so because I never want to forget the humanity lost in the horror. I never want to forget the e-mail Forrester Church told me about-sent by a doomed employee in the World Trade Center who, just before his life was over, wrote: "Thank you for being such a great friend." I never want to forget the man and woman holding hands as they leap together to their death. I never want to forget those firemen who just kept going up; they just kept going up. And I never want to forget what Forrester said of this disaster-that the very worst of which human beings are capable can bring out the very best.

I've learned a few things in my 67 years. One thing I've learned that the kingdom of the human heart is large. In addition to hate, it contains courage, in response to the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, my parents' generation waged and won a great war, then came home to establish a more prosperous and just America. I inherited the benefits of their courage. So did you. The ordeal was great but prevail they did.

We will, too, if we rise to the spiritual and moral challenge of survival. Michael Berenbaum has defined that challenge for me. As President of the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation, he worked with people who escaped the Holocaust. Here's what he says: "The question is what to do with the very fact of survival. Over time survivors will be able to answer that question not by a statement about the past but by what they do with the future. Because they have faced death, many will have learned what is more important: Life itself, love, family, community. The simple things we have all taken for granted will bear witness to that reality. The survivors will not be defined by the lives they have led until now but by the lives that they will lead from now on. For the experience of near death to have ultimate meaning, it must take shape in how one rebuilds from the ashes. Such for the individual; so, too, for the nation."

We're survivors, you and I. We will be defined not by the lives we led until the 11th of September, but by the lives we will lead from now on. So go home-make the best grants you've ever made. And the biggest-we have too little time to pinch pennies. Back the committed and courageous people in the field-and back them with media to spread their message. Stick your own neck out. Let your work be charged with passion, and your life with a sense of mission. For when all is said and done, the most important grant you'll ever make is the gift of yourself, to the work at hand.

Keynote Address By Bill Moyers Environmental Grantmakers Association, Brainerd, MN October 16, 2001

SojoNet News Daily Headlines

U. S. Bombs Hit Al-Jazeera's TV Station In Kabul

by Vernon Loeb

U.S. bombs struck al-Jazeera's empty offices in Kabul before dawn yesterday, heavily damaging the Qatar-based satellite television network's offices before Northern Alliance forces entered the Afghan capital, network and Pentagon officials said.

Al-Jazeera said none of its 10 staff members was injured. But Mohammed Jassim al-Ali, al-Jazeera's managing editor, said in an interview with the Associated Press that the strike could have been deliberate.

"They know where we are located and they know what we have in our office and we also did not get any warning," al-Ali said.

Col. Brian Hoey, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command in Tampa, said last night that U.S. aircraft dropped two 500-pound bombs at 3:40 p.m. EST Monday on the building in question, based on "compelling" evidence that the facility was being used by the al Qaeda terrorist organization. At the time of the attack, Hoey said, "the indications we had was that this was not an al-Jazeera office."

An attack on al-Jazeera's offices in Kabul could prove to be a public relations fiasco for the U.S. government, which has accused al-Jazeera of broadcasting Taliban propaganda since the war in Afghanistan began on Oct. 7.

The network, operating under an exclusive agreement with the Taliban, has regularly broadcast video of alleged bomb damage and civilian casualties in Afghanistan as well as statements by Osama bin Laden, the reputed terrorist leader identified by U.S. officials as the mastermind of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

A videotape of bin Laden's most recent statement, in which he said that any Muslim supporting the U.S. war had betrayed the faith, was delivered to al-Jazeera's Kabul office earlier this month.

While denouncing the content of some of al-Jazeera's broadcasts, key administration officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, have given al-Jazeera interviews in an effort to get the United States' message out to the Arabic-speaking world.

The U.S. military has acknowledged a series of mistaken bombings in Afghanistan, the most recent of which involved airstrikes on Oct. 25 that destroyed a warehouse compound in Kabul used by the International Committee of the Red Cross to store and distribute food and supplies.

Before that, the Pentagon acknowledged that mistaken attacks by U.S. warplanes killed four civilians at a U.N.-funded mine removal office in Kabul on Oct. 9 and at least four civilians in houses close to the Kabul airport Oct. 13.

Shift From Food Stamps To Private Aid Widens

By Elizabeth Becker

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 - Five years after the government scaled back its responsibility for the poor, more people get food from private charities over the course of the year than participate in the federal government's food stamp program, according to a yearlong survey to be released on Wednesday.

Emergency feeding sites around the country serve more than 7 million people in a given week, the survey found, and more than 23 million people at some point in the course of a year obtain food from food pantries, soup kitchens and shelters, most of them run by religious charities. Four years ago, a similar survey found 21.4 million Americans using private food charity.

During the same time, 17.7 million people used federal food stamps, a drop from the 21.9 million who received food stamps in 1997, according to the Agriculture Department.

The survey was conducted on behalf of America's Second Harvest, a national network of nonprofit food banks that provides 80 percent of the food distributed by private charities.

While the Agriculture Department does not keep records on a weekly basis, there is no dispute that fewer people are using food stamps and more people are turning to private food aid. But the food stamp program still provides far more food in a given year than the private food emergency network.

"People are now turning to us as an alternative, a replacement when we had considered ourselves a back- up or emergency system," said Douglas O'Brien, director of public policy and research at Second Harvest.

In New York City, the number of people who in the course of a year obtained at least some emergency food relief tripled in the last four years, to 1.5 million this year from 425,000 in 1997, surveys showed. Those figures mean one out of five New Yorkers was visiting food pantries or soup kitchens this year.

"These figures really underscore the enormity of the hunger crisis that existed well before Sept. 11," said Lucy Cabrera, president of Food for Survival Inc., a New York food bank.

Since then, Dr. Cabrera said her group had seen a decrease in individual contributions, while demand had grown to 6.4 million pounds of food in October from 4 million pounds a month.

The report presents this portrait of hunger in the nation: Instead of homeless people dying of starvation on the streets, hungry Americans are working families, skimping on food to meet their monthly bills. They are children whose parents eat the family leftovers. They are the elderly poor, rural and suburban Americans, and the permanently unemployed who scrape together government payments like Social Security and food stamps.

And it includes people who have been dropped from federal social services since the 1996 welfare overhaul and are finding their sole support in the lines at food pantries and hot meals served in churches.

By coincidence, the survey is being released as Congress debates the $171 billion farm bill, which includes reauthorization of the food stamp program.

The food stamp program was cut by $26 billion over six years in the last farm bill as part of the welfare overhaul. Congress also instituted more stringent rules to reduce fraud in the program. That led many states to increase the paperwork required to receive food stamps, which helped discourage as many as 12 million eligible people from applying for food stamps.

Even before this survey, lawmakers said the food stamp program needed to be strengthened to help the poor deal with the recent economic downturn.

The question is whether to increase financing by $3.6 billion over 10 years, as recommended by the House, or by $6.2 billion or $10 billion, proposals that are under consideration in the Senate this week. Congress is also trying to simplify the rules for receiving food stamps so more people will take advantage of the program.

The survey by Mathematica Policy Research of more than 32,700 people receiving private food aid and 24,000 local agencies providing it nationwide painted this picture of the people receiving private food aid:

¶Women account for nearly two- thirds of the adults receiving emergency food aid.

¶Nearly half of the households receiving aid included children.

¶People receiving food stamps made up nearly one-third of those seeking emergency food aid. They said their food stamps covered only half their monthly need, on average.

¶Half the people receiving food aid said they were regularly forced to choose between buying food or paying for utilities or heat.

¶Working families made up 40 percent of people receiving food aid.

Further propelling the shift toward private relief aid was the Bush administration's initiative to encourage religious charities to provide more social services.

Not surprisingly, religious groups, which run most of the food pantries and kitchens, strongly support increasing money for food stamps.

"We think there is no substitute for a strong food stamp program," said the Rev. David Beckman, president of Bread for the World, a group made up of Protestant and Roman Catholic churches. "It is much better for kids to have their Mom and Dad serve them food around the table rather than drag them into a food kitchen. And I'm not sure we churches, synagogues and mosques can keep up with the demand."

Doug Besharov, an expert on welfare at the American Enterprise Institute, said private food programs were unfairly burdened because they were often the only help available for the poor. He argued that in some instances, particularly the elderly, they might need money to pay utility bills, rather than more food stamps.

"I'm uncomfortable about anyone being hungry, but the question now is how do we fix it without making it worse," he said. "Sometimes the food program is the wrong program to look for the fix."

NEWS AND ARTICLES OF SPECIAL INTEREST:

Taliban Forces Retreat; Bin Laden Hunt Intensifies

As nearly half of Afghanistan tumbled out of the hands of the Taliban, the
overarching political question of who will govern the nation remained
unanswered.

Powell says U.S. will deal with Iraq eventually

Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday the United States would deal
with Iraq's weapons program as part of its war against terrorism once it
had finished the campaign in Afghanistan.

Extending the War to Iraq?

Canada sends "Gun Boats" to the Persian Gulf. Canadian "Gun Boats" are not
equipped to Wage a War against a landlocked Country. (...) Hidden Agenda
... Canadian officials knew exactly what they were doing when they sent the
Canadian Navy to the Gulf. The Canadian government's decision was, in this
regard, fully consistent with the Bush Administration's stated intent to
"broaden the war by targeting other countries that host terrorists, or
terror groups.

Robert Fisk: Hypocrisy, hatred and the war on terror (08 November 2001)

If the US attacks were an assault on "civilisation", why shouldn't Muslims
regard the Afganistan attack as a war on Islam?'

Carbon Dioxide Emissions Up 3.1 Percent in 2000

Carbon dioxide emissions spewed by the United States and its territories
jumped 3.1 percent last year, one of the biggest annual increases in a
decade, a government report said on Friday. Carbon dioxide emissions, which
accounts for more than 80 percent to total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions,
reached 1,583 million metric tons of carbon equivalent, according to the
Energy Department's analytical arm.

Negotiators Agree on Climate Package (Saturday November 10)

(...) The accord assigns each country a target and sets an average 5.2
percent emission reduction from 1990 levels to be achieved by 2012.
Approval of the text would likely clear the way for ratification by the
required 55 countries, including those that emitted 55 percent of the
polluting gases in 1990, the baseline year. Delegates said they hoped the
treaty would come into force next year. In the final hours of the
conference, Australia, Japan, Russia and Canada objected to five points on
how market-based mechanisms would function. The mechanisms are designed to help countries meet their targets by buying or selling carbon credits on an
international financial market, or by reducing their quota by expanding
forests and farmland that soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

President Bush has said his administration is drawing up its own plan to
control greenhouse gas emissions, and has announced funding for more
studies and technology research. But Washington has repeatedly delayed
unveiling the plan, and the chief U.S. delegate, Undersecretary of State
Paula Dobriansky, says there is no timetable for its preparation.
Scientists say glaciers are already melting and rain patterns are shifting
because of global warming. Over the next century, temperatures could rise
as much as 10 degrees, leading to more intense storms, droughts and a
potentially disastrous rise in sea levels.

Whose War Is It Anyway?

In the worldwide media, the question isn't "When will the war on terrorism
be won?" but "Whose war is it?" The world is rapidly re-militarizing,
following U.S. leadership (Note from Jean: Total worldwide military
Spending in 2000: $800 billions, "officially"!). What does the rise of
militaries around the world mean for the planet's future? How much longer
do we have before the Sept. 11 fire spreads by the fuel that the U.S.
military is now providing? In Germany and Japan debate focuses on the
momentous decision in both countries to remilitarize. Along with opinion
makers in Britain, commentators in those allied countries are reassuring
the United States that they remain committed to the war.

Bush and Putin Agree to Reduce Stockpile of Nuclear Warheads (Nov 14)

They pledged to cut their nuclear stockpiles by roughly two-thirds (to
around 2000 nukes each). This at least is a good news, albeit they will
take 10 years to do so!

The Geopolitics of War

Michael T. Klare explores the symbiotic relationship between the United
States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and how that relates to past and
present US military presence and actions in the Middle East region.

Oil War II, the Sequel: The Empire Strikes Back in the Caspian

The World Trade Center attack. Caspian Oil and Gas and the Afghanistan
Pipeline Connection

Chomsky slams US, India's Rights Record

by Jawed Naqvi

NEW DELHI, Nov 5: American dissident and renowned scholar Prof Noam Chomsky took apart the United States and India for their human rights record on Monday , accusing one of being the world's biggest rogue state and the other of suppressing democratic freedoms in Kashmir.

Speaking at a surprisingly large non-religious anti-war congregation in New Delhi of some 3,000 students, teachers, trade union workers, social activists and intellectuals, Chomsky declared that the real terrorism was being perpetrated on innocent people of Afghanistan where he quoted UN figures to suggest a million or two could perish due to starvation induced by the US-led war against Osama bin Laden.

Chomsky's remarks came on the day visiting US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tersely told New Delhi and Islamabad during a brief hyphenated visit to the rival capitals that there was a need to continue the war during the month of Ramazan starting later this month. While Rumsfeld refused to be publicly drawn into a discussion on Kashmir, Chomsky vented his feelings at least twice.

"How about criticizing the government for outright terrorism," Chomsky said in a comment on the role of the media in manufacturing consent on behalf of their governments. "Say for example the major international human rights groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have reams of material on Indian state terrorism in Kashmir and in fact elsewhere."

He linked Washington's present bombing campaigns in Afghanistan to its other foreign policy quests including the anti-missile defence programme, saying militarization of space and the assault on Afghanistan were part of a hegemonistic design.

"If you go back to the 19th century, Britain was one of the major rogue states. In the latter part of the 20th century, the US is supreme in these respects and not surprisingly it behaves like the others. I mean it could get away with it, but it can't," Chomsky told Star TV as part of a two-week lecture tour.

"The record is extremely clear on that. We can take a case that is totally uncontroversial because we can appeal to the decisions of the highest international authorities - the International Court of Justice and the Security Council of the United Nations. So this is an uncontroversial case. The world court has condemned one state for international terrorism, namely the United States. The victim -Nicaragua. This was not a minor act of terrorism. This left tens of thousands of people killed and the country virtually destroyed. It may not recover."

Chomsky told his audience at the public meeting, which included dissident author Arundhati Roy and celebrated social activist Aruna Roy, that India's decision to endorse the American missile defence project had been applauded in Washington by "a lot of hawks and jingoists for its enthusiasm to join" the only other two countries that favour militarization of space, namely Israel and the United States.

Earlier, Chomsky told a gathering including Defence Minister George Fernandes and Pakistan High Commissioner Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, that the United States was a leading terrorist country which borrowed its anti-terrorism manual from the Nazis.

The propagandist version of terrorism was as clearly defined in the United States as anywhere else as it is that which is directed against the United States, its friends and allies. Only its underlying philosophy was not entirely untainted by completely anti-democratic influences.

"The Nazis for example bitterly condemned terrorism and conducted what they 'counter-terrorism' against terrorist partisans," Chomsky said.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions Up 3.1 Percent in 2000

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Carbon dioxide emissions spewed by the United States and its territories jumped 3.1 percent last year, one of the biggest annual increases in a decade, a government report said on Friday.

Carbon dioxide emissions, which accounts for more than 80 percent to total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, reached 1,583 million metric tons of carbon equivalent, according to the Energy Department's analytical arm.

The report comes as officials from more than 160 countries met in Morocco to try to finalize a global warming agreement to cut greenhouse gases that are blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere.

The Bush administration has said the United States, the world's biggest producer of greenhouse gases, will not take part in the accord, because it would hurt U.S. companies and the American economy.

The 3.1 percent growth last year in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions was the second highest annual increase during the 1990-2000 period, and was well above the average annual 1.6 percent growth rate for the period, said the department's Energy Information Administration. Only the 3.4 percent increase in emissions during 1996 was higher.

``The high growth in carbon dioxide emissions can be attributed to a return to more normal weather, decreased hydroelectric power generation that was replaced by fossil-fuel power generation, and strong economic growth,'' EIA said.

Carbon dioxide emissions from electric power plants were up 4.7 percent last year to 642 million metric tons, almost double the 1990-2000 average annual increase of 2.4 percent.

``Contributing to the relatively large increase in 2000 was a 4.2 percent increase in (fuel oil) use for electricity generation, as well as an 11 percent reduction in electricity generation from renewable fuels, including a 14 percent drop in hydroelectric generation,'' EIA said.

Total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increased by 2.5 percent last year to 1,906 million metric tons, well above the 1.3 annual growth rate of the last decade, the agency said

Bush and Putin Agree to Reduce Stockpile of Nuclear Warheads

By David E. Sanger

ASHINGTON, Nov. 13 - President Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia pledged today to cut their nuclear stockpiles by roughly two-thirds over the next decade, leaving each side with fewer than 2,200 warheads.

But the two nations still seemed far apart on missile defenses, with Mr. Putin resisting American efforts for a quick agreement that would allow Mr. Bush to conduct tests that would violate the 1972 Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty.

At the start of three days of meetings in Washington and Crawford, Tex., Mr. Bush told Mr. Putin today that the United States would unilaterally reduce its nuclear arsenal to 1,700 to 2,200 warheads.

While he did not immediately respond to Mr. Bush's announcement, Mr. Putin stressed in a speech tonight at the Russian Embassy that he, too, planned deep cuts.

"Russia declares and reiterates its readiness to make considerable reductions in strategic arms," he said. "We propose a radical program of further reductions of strategic offensive arms by at least three times, to a minimal level necessary for maintaining strategic balance in the world. We no longer have to intimidate each other to reach agreements."

The cuts suggested by each side, while not in any formal agreement, appeared to mark a milestone in strategic relations between the two countries, swiftly achieving deep weapons cuts that used to take years to negotiate.

Russia's current arsenal contains about 5,800 warheads; the reduction Mr. Putin indicated would cut that to about 1,500. The Russians, who cannot afford to maintain their current nuclear arsenal, have stated that number before.

The Russian president, clearly concerned about verifying cuts and making sure no successor to Mr. Bush reverses course, appeared to insist, however, on written agreements. Russia, he said at the news conference, was "prepared to present all our agreements in a treaty form" - exactly what Mr. Bush wants to avoid.

At the embassy, Mr. Putin reiterated his belief in treaties, while appearing to leave room to agree to let the administration pursue missile tests so long as it does not abandon the ABM treaty outright.

It remained unclear whether the differences reflected a gulf that cannot be bridged, or were part of a choreographed scenario to damp expectations about their meeting in Texas.

In a brief conversation after Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin spoke, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell seemed to acknowledge that the talks on amending the ABM Treaty would take longer than he hoped, and perhaps had hit serious obstacles. He warned against expecting the kind of quick accord that Mr. Putin seemed to hint at in recent days.

"You got the public statement that you are going to get and live with for some time," Secretary Powell said. Mr. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, echoed the sentiment, joining the conversation to say, "Don't expect any particular agreement at a particular time."

Mr. Bush has made no secret of his view that the ABM Treaty - and by implication other arms control treaties - are outdated relics of the cold war. Today, he repeated his distaste for "endless hours of arms control discussions," and suggested that his oral commitment to reduce American arms levels should be sufficient in a new relationship based on trust. With an arch voice, he added, "If we need to write it down on a piece of paper, I'd be glad to do that."

Mr. Putin, at the Russian Embassy, took a markedly different tack. "Indeed, today the world is far from having international relations based solely on trust," he said. "That is why it's so important today to rely on the existing foundation of treaties and agreements in the arms control and disarmament areas."

Their first four-hour meeting at the White House seemed somewhat more tense and formal than their last three sessions this year.

Nonetheless, Mr. Bush characterized today's session, the first of a three-day summit meeting, as "a new day in the history of Russian- American relations, a day of progress and a day of hope."

By the time they met with reporters in the East Room this afternoon, the two leaders sought to emphasize that their four meetings this year had turned them from competitors into allies, and they announced steps to tighten economic links and smooth Russia's entry into the World Trade Organization, which China joined last weekend.

Mr. Bush promised to speed through Congress legislation taking Russia and other former Soviet republics off the list of countries that are subject to economic sanctions under the cold-war-era Jackson-Vanik amendment, which was aimed at nations that restricted emigration of Jews and others. "We intend to dismantle conclusively the vestiges of the cold war," Mr. Putin said.

But the show of warmth could not mask the many indications that despite the agreements and a common belief in the need to fight terrorism, the long-awaited meeting here and at the Bush ranch in Crawford on Wednesday and Thursday may fall short of optimistic expectations.

Mr. Putin had talked extensively before his arrival about his willingness to make compromises that might amend the ABM Treaty, or at least find a way around the restrictions that prevent the United States from proceeding with tests of its antimissile systems.

"We have different points of view about the ABM Treaty," Mr. Bush declared after the meeting, though he said the two men planned to discuss it further at the ranch. Other officials said they were unable to resolve impediments that had stymied American and Russian negotiators in long sessions in the last three days.

The United States now has between 6,000 and 7,000 weapons deployed, depending on how the weapons are counted. That is down sharply from more than 15,000 strategic warheads at the height the cold war. The Start II treaty, which has never been fully carried out, mandates cuts to around 3,000 weapons.

But Mr. Bush said his own review of America's nuclear posture, completed last week, had led him to conclude that the United States could eliminate more than two-thirds of its weapons. By giving a range of numbers, rather than one specific figure, he essentially opted not to resolve a dispute with the Pentagon about exactly how many weapons would be required a decade from now.

Bush Orders : Terror Trials By Military

by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush signed an order Tuesday that would allow the government to try people accused of terrorism in front of a special military commission instead of in civilian court.

The order, signed by Bush before he left for Crawford, Texas, gives the administration another avenue to bring the Sept. 11 terrorists to justice, White House counsel Albert Gonzales told The Associated Press.

``This is a new tool to use against terrorism,'' Gonzales said in a telephone interview. He said there were precedents in World War II and the Civil War.

The White House was to release the order late Tuesday.

Gonzales, a former Texas Supreme Court judge who is the president's top lawyer, said a military commission could have several advantages over a civilian court. It is easier to protect the sources and methods of investigators in military proceedings, for example, and a military trial can be held overseas.

Gonzales said there may be times when prosecutors feel a trial in America would be unsafe.

``There may not be a need for this and the president may make a determination that he does not want to use this tool, but he felt it appropriate that he have this tool available to him,'' the lawyer said.

The order is the latest effort by the administration to toughen the nation's laws against terrorists.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, the administration pushed through Congress an anti-terrorism bill that Bush said was vital but civil liberties groups said went to far, violating Americans' constitutional rights. It expands the FBI's wiretapping and electronic surveillance authority and imposes stronger penalties for harboring or financing terrorists. The measure also increases the number of crimes considered terrorist acts and toughens the punishments for committing them.

Under the new order, Bush could establish a military commission in the future by asking the secretary of defense to establish the rules for one.

``This does not identify by name who should be exposed to military justice,'' Gonzales said. ``It just provides the framework that, should the president have findings in the future, he could'' order Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld to establish such a commission.

Gonzales said there is precedent for such panels.

President Franklin Roosevelt had World War II saboteurs tried by military commission, as did President Lincoln during the Civil War, the lawyer said. Indeed, Lincoln assassination plotters were tried and convicted by military court, he said.

``This is a global war. To have successful prosecutions, we might have to give up sources and methods'' in a civilian court. ``We don't want to have to do that.''

Gonzalez said: ``Any individual subject to the order would be given a full and fair trial, pursuant to the secretary of defense.''

The administration has been considering both military and civilian trial options. In either scenario, any suspect would retain rights to a lawyer and to a trial by jury.

The military proceedings would give the government greater latitude, according to one military law expert. New York attorney Victor St. John said last month, ``A military court would probably have more control over things like media coverage and location. There is certainly a greater sense of security and formality that might keep things from dissolving into a circus.''

Weapons Of Mass Destruction

U.S. Is Dropping World's Biggest Non-Nuclear Bomb In Afghanistan

by Laura Flanders

They have the destructive power of an atomic bomb, but they can barely make a dent in U.S. news coverage. I'm talking about the 15,000-pound bombs the United States is using against Afghanistan this week. The so-called Daisy Cutters, named BLU-82, are the world's biggest non-nuclear device. In many places, the development received a 10-second mention on the evening news, five or six items down in the program lineup. Newscasters broadcast video footage of an enormous black dust cloud rising above an Afghan mountain range, accompanied by the assurances of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that the "stepped up" assaults would hasten the collapse of the Taliban regime.

AP describes (http://commondreams.org/headlines01/1106-02.htm) the Blu-82, nicknamed "Big Blue," as being "as large as a Volkswagen beetle, but heavier." Digging for the less charming details, one finds that the bomb got its other name, "Daisy Cutter," because of the shape of the crater it leaves -- and that it has the ability to clear a 3-mile-long path. Dropped from huge transport aircraft, "Big Blue" releases a cloud of inflammable ammonium nitrate, aluminum dust, and polystyrene slurry which is then ignited by a detonator. The result is a firestorm that incinerates an area the size of five football fields, consumes oxygen, and creates a shock-wave and vacuum pressure that destroys the internal organs of anyone within range.

"As you would expect, they make a heck of a bang when they go off," General Peter Pace, vice-chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff told a press conference

(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-000088971nov07.story).

"The intent is to kill people."

The United States has used at least two of these "Big Blues" so far. David Williams described one attack (http://www.femail.co.uk/pages/news/article.html?in_article_id=82812&in_page _id=1262) from northern Afghanistan, where he is reporting for the Daily Mail of London.

"The sound and impact was unmistakably different ... Each of the previous explosions -- and there had been more than 100 -- had been similar in sight and sound," wrote Williams.

"The sound split the air. It was like a thunder clap directly overhead at the height of a ferocious storm. I could see the massive oily black cloud of the explosion as it rolled across the hillside, a mixture of thick smoke, chunks of earth and debris."

"Big Blue" was used in Vietnam, to create instant helicopter landing pads in jungle areas. It was employed in the Gulf War, to detonate minefields, and more controversially, to terrorize Iraqi troops. From the ground, the columns of dust and smoke that the bombs produce are indistinguishable from mushroom clouds. In Iraq, some British patrols reported thinking they were in a nuclear war. This reporter saw U.S. Gulf veterans cry as they recalled watching, from miles away, the deadly impact.

While George W. Bush lectures the world about Osama bin Laden's lust for nuclear weapons, U.S. forces are employing weapons that, while not banned by international treaty, come as close to nukes as one can get without smashing atoms.

The Daisy Cutter attacks come less than a week after the United States crippled Afghanistan's biggest hydroelectric complex. Afghan Education Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi said seven U.S. raids last Wednesday and Thursday severely damaged the Kajaki hydroelectric complex in southern Helmand province, knocking out the power supplies of Kandahar and Lashkarga. The report was corroborated by refugees interviewed by Agence France Press (AFP, 11/01/01)

"So far water has not started gushing out of the dam but any further bombing will destroy (it)," Minister Muttaqi told DAWN, Pakistan's English language paper, last week. "It may cause widespread flooding, putting at risk the lives of thousands of people."

According to DAWN (http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/02/top4.htm), Kajaki, 90 kilometers northwest of Kandahar, contains 2.7 billion cubic meters of water and irrigates land farmed by 75,000 families in a desert area.

In their search -- ostensibly -- for Osama Bin Laden and those who facilitated the criminal attack on the United States on September 11, wave after wave of U.S. bombers, including giant B-52s, are carpet bombing frontlines in northern Afghanistan. In another new development this week, U.S. forces are also using 5,000 pound GBU-28 "Deep Throat" bunker-busters, which burrow through as much as 20 feet of rock before exploding underground.

The Geneva Protocol is not unclear. You don't have to be in Afghanistan. You can read it on the Web at http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm

The press talked for weeks about whether it was acceptable for U.S. forces to violate the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Is it unreasonable to expect at least equal attention to the question of whether U.S. assaults are violating international law?

Gallup Poll Shows World Opposes Military Action

From the Sunflower

Genocide As Collateral Damage, But With Sincere Regrets

by Edward Herman

The Bush Afghan war calls up memories of the Vietnam war in both actions and rhetoric: the massive use of superior arms heavily impacting civilians, deliberate food deprivation, wholesale terror allegedly combatting "terrorism," but always "sincere regrets" for any "collateral damage."

In the earlier war, although the propaganda claim was that we were saving South Vietnam from aggression, the U.S. leadership and military knew very well that the U.S. puppet regime in the south had negligible internal support, and in consequence the most ferocious forms of U.S. violence were directed at the people in the south.

Virtually all the napalm and chemicals used during the war struck the south, which was also regularly attacked by B-52 bombers, and much of its territory was made into "free fire zones." As good propaganda servants of the state, however, the mainstream media never noticed the contradiction--virtually unlimited violence against the people allegedly being saved from aggression. In the classic military explanation of the treatment of Ben Tre: "We had to destroy the town in order to save it."

In South Vietnam, the United States carried out a large-scale program of attempted food deprivation to starve out the indigenous National Liberation Front (NLF) soldiers.

Under this program, charmingly labelled Operation Ranch Hand, millions of gallons of Agent Orange and other dangerous chemicals were sprayed repeatedly on peasant rice crops, in a policy that U.S. Admiral William Leahy had opposed during World War II on the ground that it would "violate every Christian ethic I have ever heard of and all known laws of war." (We were already on the road to "humanitarian bombing" and the new "ethical foreign policy" when this policy was installed in the Kennedy years).

This chemical warfare killed many thousands of peasants and their family members, and left a memorial in an estimated 500,000 Vietnamese children with serious birth deformities (Peter Waldman, "Body Count," Wall Street Journal, Dec. 12, 1997).

At the time, critics of this illegal and vicious policy stressed the fact that soldiers would have priority access to the diminished food supply. The distinguished Harvard nutritionist Jean Mayer was only one among many who pointed out that this policy "first and overwhelmingly affected small children" ("Crop Destruction in Vietnam," Science, April 15, 1966).

But this had no effect on policy: food deprivation pushed ahead with little opposition from the liberal media or the international community. So did intensive high level bombing and the use of napalm and fragmentation bombs.

While it was regularly claimed by the U.S. military that they regretted and were trying to avoid civilian casualties, there were also occasinal admissions that the people supported the NLF and that making this support "costly" and driving them into the cities was deliberate policy. The several million dead and severely wounded and traumatized Vietnamese civilians were still "collateral damage," as the policy did not aim to kill them but merely to induce this stubborn populace to accept a minority government acceptable to U.S. officials.

In Iraq, under the UN sanctions regime, also, the 500,000 plus Iraqi children and overall million plus dead civilians, whose death was "worth it" for Madeleine Albright, and hence for the mainstream media, are, once again "collateral damage."

The stated aim has been to get rid of Saddam Hussein, not to kill children, so the deaths of large numbers of children are regretfully but understandably and acceptably costs of a policy with a clearly benevolent end. As in the old saw attributed to the Reds, the means are justified by the ends, even if these entail mass deaths of innocent victims.

In the imperial system there is another rationale employed to justify mass deaths resulting from policy, even when these approach genocidal levels. That is, as the leaders of the victims always have the option of surrender, THEY are responsible for any deaths that follow their refusal, not the party actually doing the killing directly.

The Vietnamese were regularly offered the option of abandoning the struggle to overthrow the minority government imposed on the south by the United States; so that if they refused, what option had the United States but to kill, to protect South Vietnam against "internal aggression" (the phrase was then U.S. Ambassador to the UN Adlai Stevenson's Orwellian masterpiece)?

How else resolve the choice between U.S."credibility" and the killing of millions of innocent civilians?

Similarly, Saddam Hussein could give up power voluntarily, and although the UN has never mandated his removal as the objective of the "sanctions of mass destruction" imposed on Iraq by that organization, if the United States adds in this objective at its own discretion who can object, except the impotent victims and weaklings of the left?

In Kosovo we saw the familiar process employed once again: Yugoslavia at Rambouillet was invited to surrender, not only by agreeing to a NATO takeover of Kosovo, but under Appendix B to allow the NATO occupation of all of Yugoslavia.

This was explicitly designed to "raise the bar" to assure Yugoslav rejection, because "the Serbs needed a little bombing," in the words of a State Department official. (Saddam also needed a little bombing after he invaded Kuwait in August 1990, so he was not allowed to extricate himself there by negotiations.)

The Kosovo solution by NATO bombing and occupation has been applauded by Western liberals on the ground that the Kosovo Albanians were repatriated--ignoring that they only needed repatriation as a consequence of the NATO war itself--and that the demon responsible for all the Balkan difficulties, Slobodan Milosevic, has been brought to trial--which rests on a comprehensive misreading of recent Balkan history, with an especially noteworthy neglect of the crucial role of the NATO powers in destabilizing Yugoslavia in a manner that assured ethnic cleansing, and protecting the ethnic cleansing, and continuing to protect it today in occupied Kosovo, when done by the right people.

Which brings us to the U.S. war against Afghanistan, where we have a rerun of the now standard rationales for mass killings as collateral damage.

Once again the enemy has been invited to surrender, in a manner that assured rejection--demanding that the Taliban deliver up Bin Laden, but refusing to provide evidence of his involvement in the September 11 terrorist attacks. In the imperial tradition, the refusal to do as instructed means that any future deaths from bombs is the fault of the Taliban leadership.

A unique feature of the war against Afghanistan is that as it began this devastated and poor country was facing the prospect of mass starvation, following incessant wars and three years of drought. World humanitarian institutions such as Oxfam, the WHO, UNICEF, Conscience International and others were already focused on Afghanistan as a desperate case, with 7-8 million people facing starvation.

The U.S. decision to bomb Afghanistan was therefore, in itself, a major act of terrorism, as it caused the immediate flight of thousands from Afghan cities, disrupted food supply by humanitarian groups, and immediately worsened the crisis.

The Bush administration also forced Pakistan to close its borders, directly impeding food supply operations. The bombing itself caused further flight and cutbacks in food distribution, along with the familiar "errant bombs" and "tragic errors" striking civilians directly.

Most notable was the repeated bombing of well-marked Red Cross food supply facilities in Kabul, and the admission that this was intentional as the Taliban allegedly controlled the site. Red Cross officials denied Taliban occupation or interference, but whoever is correct on this point, we see the continuity with the spirit of Operation Ranch Hand in the intent to deprive the Taliban of food, despite the fact that a food deprivation policy will always impact first and foremost children and other noncombatants.

The multiple attacks on the Red Cross sites also suggests that Bush administration officials may not view the effects of the escalating mass starvation as bad--it will put pressure on the Taliban food supply, even as it kills large numbers of noncombatants. The similarity to the Vietnam War policy of depriving the NLF of food, whatever the human cost, is clear.

The U.S. mainstream media are not bothered by this at all, any more than they have been bothered by the 5,000 Iraqi children terminated each month as collateral damage. Remember how intensely interested the mainstream media were in the plight of the Kosovo Albanians expelled and fleeing during the bombing war, and how indignant they were?

Now, with the already starving Afghan civilians put to flight by U.S. bombing and threats, the media focus on the bombing tactics, their effectiveness and prospects, and the condition of the fleeing and starving Afghans is barely noticed; indignation is entirely absent. What a difference the locus of responsibility for the plight of refugees makes for the direction of media attention and moral fervor!

Just as the media essentially suppress the evidence that the U.S. war's impact on the Afghan starvation crisis is to exacerbate it, making it a policy of mass killing, so they are oblivious to the hypocrisy of the food drop program and its PR character. I still have photos of GIs in Vietnam handing lollipops to Vietnamese children orphaned in the U.S. destruction of Vietnam in order to save it. The media back then showed such photos as evidence of our kindness, without blanching.

Now, we have air drops of food packages that are a minuscule offset to the war-induced fall in humanitarian aid, and with sublime irony, of the same yellow color as the cluster bombs, also dropped in great number, and deadly to anyone touching them.

In short, the media are, once again, serving as key instruments in making national policy palatable and apologizing for and normalizing their government's mass killings of innocent civilians. We offered the enemy the surrender option, our patience is once again exhausted, and once again "the United States sincerely regrets this inadvertent strike on..." (fill in the blanks), which was clearly unintentional, and collateral damage.

War Profiteering Creates a Backlash

"It's amazing how the Republicans go out of their way to prove that they
are the party of rich folks and corporations," a senior Democratic Party
official, quoted in the New York Times, said of the GOP 'economic
stimulus' package.

The Dems see a chance to use populist rhetoric against the plan to gain
political points -- a reasonable tactic, but an ironic one. The
Democrats' populist credibility is a little thin these days. Years ago
they began trading it for the chance to attract big-money campaign
donors, many of whom also feed the GOP.

The people are without a party, and so their anger at the wartime
profiteering going on in D.C. must find other outlets -

Sharon Basco interviews Micah Sifry on the founding of HowDareThey.org.

AUDIO and TEXT

   "We're standing here. We have our hands on our hearts, saluting the
flag, mourning the people who are dead, and at the same time these
special interests are trying to pick our pockets."

by John Nichols

   In the face of a popular president and wartime urgency, public
interest activists and groups need to stand up and fight, not sit down
and shut up.

by Kevin Reikes

   Why aren't Congressional Democrats defending our values? Why are they
caving into corporate welfare? Is the need to raise money from many of
the same donors who feed the GOP muzzling Democrats?

   AUDIO and TEXT produced by Steven Rosenfeld.

Insurance Industry Makes the Case for Corporate Welfare

by Steven Rosenfeld

Let's Not Fool Ourselves About What We're Doing In Afghanistan

by Howard Zinn

   "Supporters of the war have confused a 'just cause' with a 'just
war'. A cause may be just, but it does not follow that going to war on
behalf of that cause, with the inevitable mayhem that follows, is just."

MASSACHUSETTS CANDIDATE: ALL CLEAN BUT NO MONEY