Because of these:

• Occupation forces put Iraq self-rule on hold
  
• Opec? Not for Iraq
  
• Despite costly, destructive, divisive "War On Terror", al Qaida alive, well, coming soon to a location near you

• California city outlaws voluntary cooperation with Patriot Act
  
• McAuliffe accuses Bush of "New McCarthyism"
  
• Debating Democrats unite in pointed attack of Bush policies

Not much to post today, but what I got, it's red hot.

For nearly a century, forest management policy in the US has been to suppress forest fires completely. This policy broke the natural cycle of burn and regrowth that kept forests healthy for millenia. Now, due to the vast amounts of undergrowth and other "kindling" that complete fire suppression policy has created, many of our forests are in grave danger from the looming threat of huge, destructive fires. These fires, unlike anything ordinarily seen in nature, have become almost commonplace recently. According to Douglas Gantenbein's article "We're Toast", in this month's Outside magazine, last year alone saw 7.2 million acres torched; 8.4 million acres burned in 2000. The cost of fighting these fires was an astounding $1.6 billion in 2002. 23 firefighters lost their lives. 228 have died fighting fires in the past 10 years.

Obviously, something needs to be done. However, the Bush administration has seized this crisis as an excuse to propose a terrible plan. The plan would allow timber companies to cover the costs of removing the little trees and undergrowth by selling off the forests' big trees. This strategy is flawed for a number of reasons.

Click here for an in-depth analyis of the problem; click here for a brief summary.

In brief, according to Gantenbein, the Bush plan is flawed because

1. His plan would target national forests far away from the communities threatened by fire, and wouldn't do a thing for the non-federal woods near these communities;
2. The current glut of timber undermines the plan's economic model; lumber prices are at 10-year lows, and the old-growth trees would sell far too cheaply to justify their removal — or even to cover the costs of the needed forest thinning;
3. Timber companies have a rotten record at performing the complicated and difficult work of thinning; experts agree that poorly-done thinning would only make the situation worse;
4. One element of the proposal, eliminating environmental appeals, has already gone a long way towards destroying a budding consensus regarding Western forest management; implementation of the plan would widen the gulf between environmentalists and the timber industry.

Kofi Annan urges the world to help fight a different kind of fire in the Congo. I don't know what to think yet. Do you?

Posted by Me at 23:46 link

Does it bother you that the famous Saddam statue toppling scene was staged?

Does it bother you that the "Saving Private Jessica" episode was also staged?

Does it bother you that personal bankruptcy filings are surging?

Does it bother you that the economy shows no sign of a postwar boom?

Does it bother you that Bush's tax cut will "trample down" the poor , rather than "trickle down" to them?

How about this? More women die from abortions in poor countries, mainly because abortions are illegal there. Evidence clearly shows that the best way to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies is education. Knowing that, does it bother you that Bush would support a Constitutional amendment outlawing abortion in the United States? And that he opposes funding for UN efforts to educate poor women around the world?

All this should bother you. If not, you may not have a conscience.

If this stuff does bother you, check out Democratic Presidential candidate Howard Dean. He offers real alternatives to the misguided policies that have led our country from unparalleled prosperity to the edge of desperation.

Posted by Me at 14:10 link

Looking over the news of the past few days, I've been struck by an alarming pattern: our society displays a casual disregard for life, health and human decency. This is, I realize, hardly news, but the trend does seem to have spiked recently. I offer the following evidence:

• Large fish are on the verge of extinction, due mainly to overfishing.

• Your money or your life? This story makes it quite clear which of these the sugar industry values more.

• This story, which is less about Oreo cookies than about the health risks of trans fat, is consigned to the "Oddly Enough" section. Do we really care more about shelf-life than about human life? I urge you to avoid any foods containing hydrogenated oil or partially-hydrogenated oil. This stuff kills. Oddly enough, at least 2500 people died last year from trans fats. Oddly enough, that's about the same number killed in the September 11^th attacks.

• Speaking of September 11^th, the "coalition" has now killed more innocent civilians in Iraq than died in the 9/11 attacks. 3761 and counting.

• Speaking of Iraq, one of Bush's many rationalizations for the invasion was that Saddam Hussein had committed many atrocities against the Iraqi people. Why, then, are we doing nothing to protect mass graves, which contain the strongest evidence of these atrocities? Protecting the graves until they can be properly investigated by forensic scientists would also enable true identification of the victims.

• A tiny fraction of the amount spent on the Iraq war would pay for enough education and treatment to make a real difference against AIDS. Another way of looking at it: the amount needed equals about 10% of the amount which would be saved by following the recommendations of the Green Scissors Campaign. Or a measly 1% of Bush's proposed $550 billion tax cut for the rich.

One way to help is by getting involved. You can get involved without even getting up off your butt. Politicians and other decision-makers do pay attention to the feedback they receive from voters or consumers. Many organizations provide pre-written emails for you to send to these decision-makers. All you have to do is fill out a short form and click "send". Many of these organizations, such as the World Wildlife Fund, have a global reach. You can get involved no matter where you happen to be.

Another way to make a difference is by choosing to live simply. That doesn't mean you have to live without electricity in a self-built log cabin! The key is to make small changes whenever you can. Strive to live more simply. Drive as little as possible — use public transportation, walk or bicycle instead. When you must drive, drive as fuel-efficient a car as you possibly can. Reduce your electricity consumption. Reduce your use of poisonous chemicals. Reduce your consumption of processed foods. Reduce your consumption of highly-packaged goods. Reduce, reuse, recycle. This site has a number of practical tips.

A big way to make a difference is to vote! If you're a United States citizen and you're not registered to vote, click here to register. Just fill out the form and voilà! You're a registered voter. Take the time to learn the issues and the candidates in upcoming elections and be sure to vote every time you get a chance. It's your right — and your responsibility. In the 2004 Presidential race, I highly recommend Howard Dean, but the decision is yours. Choose wisely.

And whenever you have to choose between life and something else, choose life.

Posted by Me at 16:31 link

Subscribe online at:
http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/

CONTENTS:

1. Eli Pariser: Why Worry About Who Owns the Media?

2. Jeff Chester: Showdown at the FCC

3. Neil Hickey: The Gathering Storm Over Media Ownership

4. Bill Moyers: Barry Diller Takes On Media Deregulation

5. Danny Schechter: The Media, the War, and Our Right to Know

6. Eric Boehlert: Clear Channel's Big Stinking Deregulation Mess

7. Paul Schmelzer: The Death of Local News

8. Caryl Rivers: Where Have All the Women Gone?

9. About the Bulletin

------------------------------

WHY WORRY ABOUT WHO OWNS THE MEDIA?

MoveOn Bulletin Op-Ed

by Eli Pariser

It's like something out of a nightmare, but it really happened: At
1:30 on a cold January night, a train containing hundreds of thousands
of gallons of toxic ammonia derails in Minot, North Dakota. Town
officials try to sound the emergency alert system, but it isn't
working. Desperate to warn townspeople about the poisonous white cloud
bearing down on them, the officials call their local radio stations.
But no one answers any of the phones for an hour and a half.
According to the New York Times, three hundred people are
hospitalized, some are partially blinded, and pets and livestock are
killed.

Where were Minot's DJs on January 18th, 2002? Where was the late
night station crew? As it turns out, six of the seven local radio
stations had recently been purchased by Clear Channel Communications,
a radio giant with over 1,200 stations nationwide. Economies of scale
dictated that most of the local staff be cut: Minot stations ran more
or less on auto pilot, the programming largely dictated from further
up the Clear Channel food chain. No one answered the phone because
hardly anyone worked at the stations any more; the songs played in
Minot were the same as those played on Clear Channel stations across
the Midwest.

Companies like Clear Channel argue that economies of scale allow them
to cut costs while continuing to provide quality programming. But
they do so at the expense of local coverage. It's not just about
emergency warnings: media mergers are decreasing coverage of local
political races, local small businesses, and local events. There are
only a third as many owners of newspapers and TV stations as there
were in the 1970s (about 600 now; over 1,500 then). It's harder and
harder for Americans to find out what's going on in their own back
yards.

On June 2, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering
relaxing or getting rid of rules to allow much more media
concentration. While the actual rule changes are under wraps, they
could allow enormous changes in the American media environment. For
example, one company could be allowed to own ABC, CBS, and NBC.
Almost certainly, media companies will be allowed to own newspapers
and TV stations in the same town. We could be entering a new era of
media megaliths.

Do you want one or two big companies acting as gatekeepers and
controlling your access to news and entertainment? Most of us don't.
And the airwaves explicitly belong to us -- the American people. We
allow media companies to use them in exchange for their assurance that
they're serving the public interest, and it's the FCC's job to make
sure that's so. For the future of American journalism, and for the
preservation of a diverse and local media, we have the hold the FCC to
its mission. Otherwise, Minot's nightmare may become our national
reality.

------------------------------

Interested in taking on the FCC and other media-related concerns? Join the
MoveOn Media Corps, a group of over 29,000 committed Americans working for
a fair and balanced media. You can sign up now at:

http://www.moveon.org/mediacorps/

------------------------------

SHOWDOWN AT THE FCC

Jeffrey Chester and Don Hazen, AlterNet

Despite wide protests and the Clear Channel debacle, the FCC is about
to award the nation's biggest media conglomerates a new give-away that
will further concentrate media ownership in fewer hands. The impact on
the American media landscape could be disastrous. Recent TV coverage
of the Iraq war already illustrates that US media companies aren't
interested in providing a serious range of analysis and debate. This
overview describes what's at stake and offers an introduction to the
following articles.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15796

------------------------------

THE GATHERING STORM OVER MEDIA OWNERSHIP

Neil Hickey, Columbia Journalism Review

CJR's editor-at-large explains just what is at stake in this fight
over media ownership. He provides an in-depth look at the issues, and
major players in a battle that is pitting journalists against their
bosses, breaking up old alliances, and gathering momentum as the day
of reckoning draws near. He traces the snowballing trend of media
consolidation and its implications for the future, revealing just how
the drive for profit is eroding diversity, local control, and more
importantly giving a few mega-corporations a monopoly over the
dissemination of news.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15654

------------------------------

BARRY DILLER TAKES ON MEDIA DEREGULATION

Bill Moyers, Now with Bill Moyers

The founder of Fox Broadcasting and present CEO of USA Networks is an
unlikely but passionate opponent of plans to loosen media ownership
rules. In an interview with Bill Moyers, the media mogul explains how
deregulation creates corporations with "such overwhelming power in the
marketplace that everyone has to do essentially what they say."
Diller argues that government regulation is essential to prevent media
companies from controlling everything we see, read, and hear. As he
puts it, "Who else is gonna do it for us?"

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15768

------------------------------

THE MEDIA, THE WAR, AND OUR RIGHT TO KNOW

Danny Schechter, MediaChannel.org

Why did the media do such a poor job of reporting on the Iraq war? The
boosterism of news anchors, the suppression of antiwar views, and the
sanitized images of war that defined television coverage are not a
simple matter of bias or ineptitude, says media analyst Danny
Schechter. He draws attention to the connection between the decisions
made by journalists and the lobbying efforts of owners who will
profit immensely from the upcoming FCC decision in June.

http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/moveon.shtml

------------------------------

CLEAR CHANNEL'S BIG STINKING DEREGULATION MESS

Eric Boehlert, Salon

Clear Channel, the radio and concert conglomerate, has been the
greatest beneficiary of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which
stripped all ownership limits in the radio industry. The rapacious
company, led by Bush supporter Lowry Mays, has grown from 40 stations
to 1,225 since then, and now uses its power to routinely bully
advertisers and record companies, and more recently censor antiwar
artists. However, as Eric Boehlert points out, its "success" may be
the most powerful weapon in the arsenal of media activists. Clear
Channel's stranglehold on the radio industry is the best and clearest
example of the effects of rampant deregulation.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15281

------------------------------

THE DEATH OF LOCAL NEWS

Paul Schmelzer, AlterNet

Meet the Sinclair Broadcast Group, the "Clear Channel of local news."
Since 1991, the company has managed to acquire 62 television stations
or 24 percent of the national TV audience. The company's modus
operandi is the centralized production of homogenized, repackaged faux
"local" news. Its success offers an alarming glimpse of the
post-deregulation world in which all news may be produced in one giant
newsroom and from a single viewpoint -- which in Sinclair's case is
wholeheartedly conservative.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15718.

------------------------------

WHERE HAVE ALL THE WOMEN GONE?

Caryl Rivers, Women's Enews

Once the war on Iraq took center-stage in the headlines of newspapers
and magazines across the country, women writers became increasingly
rare in the media. In their place are mostly white men who write on a
narrow band of foreign policy issues, mostly recycling their views
over and over again. From the all-male line-ups in the op-ed pages of
the Washington Post and the New York Times to the dwindling female
bylines in the New Yorker and Atlantic Monthly, women's voices have
been caught in a "spiral of silence" that is unprecedented since the
pre-women's movement days.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15677

------------------------------

ABOUT THE MOVEON BULLETIN AND MOVEON.ORG

The MoveOn Bulletin is a free email bulletin providing information,
resources, news, and action ideas on important political issues. The
full text of the MoveOn Bulletin is online at
http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/; you can subscribe to it at that
address. The MoveOn Bulletin is a project of MoveOn.org.

MoveOn.org is an issue-oriented, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization
that gives people a voice in shaping the laws that affect their lives.
MoveOn.org engages people in the civic process, using the Internet to
democratically determine a non-partisan agenda, raising public
awareness of pressing issues, and coordinating grassroots advocacy
campaigns to encourage sound public policies. You can help decide the
direction of MoveOn.org by participating in the discussion forum at:

http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?forum_id=223


Posted by Me at 12:48 link

If you live in the United States, and you oppose Bush's tax cuts for the rich, please call your Senators today — (888) 280-6279 toll free (paid for by the AFL-CIO). Click here to learn more about this campaign.

John Cassidy has an excellent piece on Bushonomics in this weeks New Yorker. From the article:

There is a pressing need for more jobs—another forty-eight thousand vaporized last month—but the link between tax policy and payrolls is a lot murkier than the President made it out to be. If tax cuts automatically created jobs, businesses would be scouring the streets for workers right now, and nobody’s twenty-five-year-old children would still have to live at home. Two years ago, after all, President Bush persuaded Congress to pass the biggest tax cuts in a generation. But since then a million and a half jobs have disappeared. By contrast, between 1993 and 2000, President Clinton raised taxes to reduce the budget deficit, and the economy created more than twenty million jobs. Of course, this doesn’t mean that higher taxes create jobs, either. The number of people working is determined by the over-all state of the economy, to which fiscal policy is just one contributor. Other things being equal, tax cuts can help the economy by putting more cash in consumers’ pockets, but they are an expensive and unreliable way to raise employment, especially when they are aimed at people who tend to save their windfalls rather than spend them.

More than half the President’s tax cuts would come in the form of abolishing the taxation of corporate dividends. The primary recipients would be rich people and senior citizens, since they own most of the dividend-yielding stocks. For example, Sanford Weill, the chairman of Citigroup, would get a tax cut of about six million dollars. Based on 2001 figures, Vice-President Dick Cheney would save about a hundred thousand dollars. The dividend plan might persuade yacht builders and assisted-living communities to hire some extra help, but it won’t do much for the rest of the nearly nine million unemployed.

The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne picks up this ball and runs with it in this excellent article which raises the question why do we let Bush lie?

A very welcome sight: Democrats are standing up to point out the flaws in Bush's plan.

Once again, if you live in the US, please take a few minutes today to let your Senators know how you feel about Bush's tax cuts for the rich — toll-free (888) 280-6279.

Posted by Me at 15:43 link

Me neither, actually, but I do remember when Republicans acted like Republicans and Democrats acted like Democrats. Not that long ago, really. Remember? Republicans looked out for big business, were usually hawkish, opposed budget deficits and the national debt. Democrats looked out for the little guy, were usually less hawkish, weren't that concerned about deficits or the debt.

What happened? Bill Clinton seemed to fit the pattern at first, but then came a bunch of wars (okay, technically OOTW) and missile strikes, followed by a budget SURPLUS. What kind of Democrat does that?

Today, Republicans still look out for big business, but now it's hard to find anyone in politics who's against war. Democrats are standing up for fiscal responsibility while the Republicans amass the largest deficit in US history, as the debt climbs to its all-time high.

That's just one way the world seems to have gone completely insane. Consider this: people are losing their jobs, the rest of the world hates America more with each passing day — and yet Bush is more popular than the Beatles. How could this be? Are Americans really that dumb?

Or are we being led around by increasingly consolidated, increasingly right-leaning news media? If so, brace yourselves. Looks like it's about to get a lot worse.

But don't worry, nothing has changed. Black is still white, war is still peace, freedom is still slavery and we're still at war with Europa Oceania. Just like always.

Posted by Me at 23:29 link

Read this article from AP, then read this one from Reuters. Then tell me who's holding up peace in the Middle East. Hint: very large, last name rhymes with Da Bone.

Now read this article and then read this article. Do you think Treasury Secretary Snow is talking like an insane person (A) in the first article, (B) in the second article, (C) in both articles or (D) in neither article? If you answered (C) "in both articles", you're right! His comments contradict conventional wisdom and economic research in both cases!

Finally, read these two stories and see if you can guess who's next on the list: Syria or North Korea? The answer? That'd be telling, wouldn't it?

Joke of the Day
What's the difference between the Bush administration and a bunch of animals? Click here to see the punchline. Okay, it's not that funny.

Posted by Me at 22:49 link