Dot Calm's Dream Team for 2008:

John Edwards for President and Dennis Kucinich for Vice President

I'd like you to know why I believe that the Edwards-Kucinich ticket would best serve our beleaguered country right now.

I am frightened for the future of this country as I watch our elected officials in both parties sell us out into fascism. The current administration seems to take joy in destroying our nation, its social safety nets, and even the Constitution under which America was founded. Even worse, they are being aided and abetted by the so-called opposition party, which seems unable to oppose any of George W. Bush's wishes.

The Republican candidates currently being presented to us are not even worth mentioning. Would any of us really want one of those sanctimonious, self-serving hypocrites to be leader of the free world? For as much as I'd welcome a truly moderate Republican (Bob Dole, where are you?), the only offerings seem bent on oppressing women, minorities, and the poor. Sorry, I can't vote for that. There is always something that makes me vote in my own best interests, go figure.

What about the Democratic candidates? While I like Barack O'Bama (sorry--I can't resist spelling his name that way), he seems to be all style and no substance. Perhaps he will one day be ready for the Presidency, but he's not there yet. Personally, I am really hoping that Hillary does not win the nomination. How can she honestly expect us to vote for her when she won't take a position on anything? One of my daughters says that the only person Hillary represents is herself, and I can't disagree.

The only two remaining candidates worth mentioning are John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich. Whether you agree with them or not, these two men clearly have the best interests of this nation at heart. You may not agree with how they suggest we fix this problem or that, but, from what I see in the media and the polls, I believe that most Americans agree with their priorities--I know I do. We as a nation absolutely have to stop the fascism. We have to stop the corporate hand-outs. We have to boot out the lobbyists and institute public campaign financing so that all candidates have a level playing field because, right now, the corporations own the government and the media, lock, stock, and barrel. We have to wrest the media out of the hands of the corporations and put them back squarely in the hands of the people. And, like it or not, we need someone with the balls to blow the cover off all the misdeeds of every President from Reagan to George H. W. Bush to Bill Clinton to the current administration. Every last one of them has committed egregious wrongs that, in going uncorrected, simply emboldened their successors to commit even worse atrocities. Until all the facts have been made public to the American people and the perpetrators of wrongdoing brought to justice, our elected officials will never be held accountable for their actions and inactions. And we absolutely have to restore accountability to our public offices, especially the Presidency and administration. Dennis is absolutely brilliant, and he's a very dynamic public speaker, but I don't see him as being polished enough for the role of President. As VP, Dennis would have hopefully eight years to polish himself up for his own two terms as President. John Edwards, however, has been around the campaign circuit block once already, and he seems very poised for the job.

Our country is in desperate need of men like John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich who are not in the pockets of the corporations and who will put us back on the moral high ground. I only hope that we the people have the good sense to save ourselves and our nation by voting them into office.

************************************************************

It is important to remind ourselves of his past in order to remain vigilant in our understanding of who George W. Bush is today.

************************************************************

I have been composing this blog since September 2005--well over a year now. I started it in desperation. I am old enough to appreciate that this country has never seen a more incompetent bunch of outlaws running it. Perhaps I was naive in the past. Perhaps in my youth, I didn’t understand that there is an element that has nothing more in mind than lining their own pockets with the riches of this land.

If you have followed my blog, you have been introduced to the Federalist papers. You will recognize some of the terminology as the very same on which our forefathers based the documents of this country. Our forefathers strike me a selfless, intelligent group of men. As a child, I didn’t appreciate the tremendous contribution they made in guiding this country to become a good and honorable America.

When did it change?

Why do the scoundrels who have corrupted this country want to bankrupt it as well? Why do these scoundrels insist on “nation-building” at the expense of others here, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq? Do they need to feel macho? Does the satisfaction of smashing and breaking and ruining give them bigger penises, even if only in their addled minds? Does the death and destruction make them feel more powerful?

I can’t erase the image of this stupid president pretending he landed the aircraft on the carrier, walking all bow-legged because nobody showed him the correct use of a cod piece so he wore it proudly outside his landing gear...helmet under arm. But he was in San Diego for God’s sake! How stupid do they think we are??

They wanted to be able to say: well, the troops volunteered. Indeed, they did. But all these kids wanted was a college education. They hadn’t bargained on being soldiers in a war orchestrated by an incompetent commander. As if that is not bad enough, this country is welshing on its promise to educate the survivors...at least the ones who come back with their brains intact and enough left of their limbs to get themselves around a campus!

Do you remember being told to go shopping while we invaded a sovereign country? It was as though they were saying Move on...nothing happening here. Nothing happening here? Our youth was being killed and maimed. The youth of Iraq and Afghanistan was being killed and maimed. For God’s sake, SOMEBODY STOP THE MADNESS!

*****

During his six years as governor of Texas, George W. Bush presided over 152 executions--more than any other governor in the recent history of the United States (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17670).

Bush ordered the execution of Karla Faye Tucker, the first woman executed in Texas since the 1860's. Do you remember? He ignored calls from religious leaders such as Pat Robertson and went ahead with the execution on schedule.

In the summer of '99, after announcing his bid for the presidency, Bush openly mocked Karla's pleas for clemency in an interview he later did with Talk magazine

I will never forget it: Please, Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, don't kill me. Yes, he made fun of Karla Faye Tucker in the interview with CNN's conservative pundit Tucker Carlson for Talk magazine.

From Karla, the only woman in his record-setting pace for executions in Texas, to 9/11 to Iraq to Katrina to the worst mass shooting in American history at Virginia Tech, yes, Bush is indeed a man who embraces the culture of death.

************************************************************

SAVE NET NEUTRALITY!

************************************************************

Please refer to this website for more information:

http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq

This is about Internet freedom. Network Neutrality--the First Amendment of the Internet--ensures that the public can view the smallest blog just as easily as the largest corporate Web site by preventing Internet companies like AT&T from rigging the playing field for only the highest-paying sites.

AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, and other huge Internet providers are spending millions of dollars lobbying Congress to gut Net Neutrality. If Congress doesn't take action now to implement meaningful Net Neutrality provisions, the future of the Internet is at risk.

What is Network Neutrality?

Network Neutrality--or Net Neutrality for short--is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.

Net Neutrality ensures that all users can access the content or run the applications and devices of their choice. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data--not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service. Net Neutrality prevents the companies that control the wires from discriminating against content based on its source or ownership.

Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It's why the Internet has become an unrivaled environment for open communications, civic involvement, and free speech.

Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?

The nation's largest telephone and cable companies--including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner--want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.

They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video--while slowing down or blocking their competitors.

These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of an even playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services--or those from big corporations that can afford the steep tolls--and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.

What's at stake?

Decisions being made now will shape the future of the Internet for a generation. Before long, all media--TV, phone and the Web--will come to your home via the same broadband connection. The dispute over Net Neutrality is about who'll control access to new and emerging technologies.

On the Internet, consumers are in ultimate control--deciding between content, applications, and services available anywhere, no matter who owns the network. There's no middleman. But without Net Neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV. Network owners will decide which channels, content and applications are available; consumers will have to choose from their menu.

The Internet has always been driven by innovation. Web sites and services succeeded or failed on their own merit. Without Net Neutrality, decisions now made collectively by millions of users will be made in corporate boardrooms. The choice we face now is whether we can choose the content and services we want, or whether the broadband barons will choose for us.

What's happening in Congress?

Congress is now considering a major overhaul of the Telecommunications Act. The telephone and cable companies are filling up congressional campaign coffers and hiring high-priced lobbyists. They've set up Astroturf (meaning fake grassroots) groups like "Hands Off the Internet" to confuse the issue and give the appearance of grassroots support.

On June 8, the House of Representatives passed the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006," or COPE Act (HR5252)--a bill that offers no meaningful protections for Net Neutrality. An amendment offered by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), which would have instituted real Net Neutrality requirements, was defeated by intense industry lobbying.

It now falls to the Senate to save the free and open Internet. Fortunately, Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) have introduced a bipartisan measure, the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2006" (S2917), that would provide meaningful protection for Net Neutrality.

On June 28, the Snowe-Dorgan bill was introduced as an amendment to Sen. Ted Stevens's (R-AL) major rewrite of the Telecom Act (S2686) [now HR5252]. The committee split down the middle on the measure, casting a tie vote of 11-11.

Though meaningful Net Neutrality protections were not added to Stevens's bill, the fight for Internet freedom is gaining serious momentum as the bill moves toward the full Senate later this year. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) has threatened to place a "hold" on the entire legislation unless it reinstates Net Neutrality and prevents discrimination on the Internet.

Heading into August recess, the Senate Commerce Committee reclassified the Stevens bill as the "Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunities Reform Act" (HR5252) to speed it to conference committee should it pass.

Call Congress today: no senator can in good conscience vote against Internet freedom in support of the telecom cartel.

Isn't this just a battle between giant corporations?

No. Small business owners benefit from an Internet that allows them to compete directly--not one where they can't afford the price of entry. Net Neutrality ensures that innovators can start small and dream big about being the next eBay or Google without facing insurmountable hurdles. Without Net Neutrality, startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay for a top spot on the Web.

But Net Neutrality doesn't just matter to business owners. If Congress turns the Internet over to the telephone and cable giants, everyone who uses the Internet will be affected. Connecting to your office could take longer if you don't purchase your carrier's preferred applications. Sending family photos and videos could slow to a crawl. Web pages you always use for online banking, access to health care information, planning a trip, or communicating with friends and family could fall victim to pay-for-speed schemes.

Independent voices and political groups are especially vulnerable. Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips, silencing bloggers and amplifying the big media companies. Political organizing could be slowed by the handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups or candidates to pay a fee to join the fast lane.

Isn't the threat to Net Neutrality just hypothetical?

No. By far, the most significant evidence regarding the network owners' plans to discriminate is their stated intent to do so.

The CEOs of all the largest telecom companies have made clear their intent to build a tiered Internet with faster service for the select few companies willing or able to pay the exorbitant tolls. Network Neutrality advocates are not imagining a doomsday scenario--they are simply taking the telecom execs at their word.

So far, we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. But numerous examples show that, without network neutrality requirements, Internet service providers will discriminate against content and competing services they don't like.

* In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival web-based phone service.

* In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a labor dispute.

* Shaw, a big Canadian cable TV company, is charging an extra $10 a month to subscribers in order to "enhance" competing Internet telephone services.

* In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com--an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.

This type of censorship will become the norm unless we act now. Given the chance, these gatekeepers will consistently put their own interests before the public good.

Won't more regulations harm the free Internet? Shouldn't we just let the market decide?

Writing Net Neutrality into law would preserve the freedoms we currently enjoy on the Internet. For all their talk about deregulation, the cable and telephone giants don't want real competition. They want special rules written in their favor.

Either we make rules that ensure an even playing field for everyone, or we will be given rules that hold the Internet captive to the whims of a few big companies. The Internet has thrived because revolutionary ideas like blogs, Wikipedia, or Google could start on a shoestring and attract huge audiences. Without Net Neutrality, the pipeline owners will choose the winners and losers on the web.

The cable and telephone companies already dominate 98 percent of the broadband access market. And when the network owners start abusing their control of the pipes, there will be nowhere else for consumers to turn.

Who's part of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition?

The SavetheInternet.com coalition is made up of hundreds of groups from across the political spectrum that are concerned about maintaining a free and open Internet. No corporation or political party is funding our efforts. We simply agree to a statement of principles in support of Internet freedom.

The coalition is being coordinated by Free Press, a national, nonpartisan organization focused on media reform and Internet policy issues. Please join this broad, bipartisan effort to save the Internet.

Who else supports Net Neutrality?

The supporters of Net Neutrality include leading high-tech companies such as Amazon.com, Earthlink, eBay, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Skype, Vonage, and Yahoo. Prominent national figures such as Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig, and FCC Commissioner Michael Copps have called for stronger Net Neutrality protections.

Editorial boards at the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, Seattle Times, St. Petersburg Times, and Christian Science Monitor all have urged congress to save the Internet.

What you can do to help...

* Sign the SavetheInternet.com petition.

* Call your members of Congress: demand Net Neutrality be protected.

* Encourage others to sign the "Internet Freedom Declaration of 2007".

* Show your support for Internet freedom on your Web site or blog.

* Tell your friends about this crucial issue before it's too late.

************************************************************

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

************************************************************

Under the Cold Eye of History

by Robert P. Watson

Ever since 1948, when historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr. first polled leading scholars and asked them to rank our presidents, updated polls have been released every few years. As a participant in the current poll, I spent several weeks thinking long and hard about the best and worst of our country's presidents--and about President Bush's eventual place in history.

As aides and supporters worry whether Bush's presidency can be "salvaged," I respectfully suggest that the future of the country, rather than the president's legacy, is the topic more worth pondering. The forthcoming poll will be the first to include a preliminary ranking of this President Bush. So, here is my prediction.

There is much agreement by scholars as to the greatest presidents: they are Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, George Washington, and Theodore Roosevelt, with Harry Truman, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson not far behind. These great leaders provide a standard by which all presidents are measured--and clues as to how Bush measures up. From the great presidents we know that the country is well-served by leaders who exhibit the following traits:

* Humanity, compassion, and respect for others

* A governing style that unifies, not divides

* Rhetorical skills and the ability to communicate a clear, realistic vision

* Willingness to listen to experts and the public

* Ability to admit error, accept criticism, and be adaptable

* Engaged and inquisitive, with a sense of perspective and history

* Integrity, inspiring trust among the people

* Moral courage in not shrinking from challenges

Unfortunately, Bush's presidency has been the polar opposite of this list. This brings up the matter of who are our worst presidents. Again, scholars are in agreement, listing Warren Harding, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan.

Like them, Bush has been tone deaf, disinterested in advice and evidence that contradict his beliefs, intellectually disengaged from the crises that have enveloped his administration, and arrogant in exercising power. Bush's failure is most apparent in the major crises of his presidency, namely mishandling the war in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina, recklessly amassing the world's largest deficits and debt, and failing to lead on pressing challenges such as the skyrocketing costs of health care, fuel, and a college education.

In each case, he steadfastly refused to adjust, adapt, or alter his flawed strategy. These missteps bode poorly for Bush because a president's ultimate legacy is how he responds to crisis, particularly war.

Undoubtedly, the source of the problem rests with Bush's personal style. Ironically, this is the very trait about which he and his supporters boasted as a candidate.

Bush's shortcomings are numerous and can best be seen in the mountain of wildly foolish and juvenile official remarks he has made in office, from his premature boast of mission accomplished aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln to his goading terrorists and suicide bombers to "bring 'em on!" And they have.

The president continues to proclaim success in the face of overwhelming and incontrovertible failure, while spinning or even outright suppressing facts and evidence to the point where one wonders if he is in touch with reality. Examples abound, including his insistence that an "abstinence only" policy will prevent HIV-AIDS or his decision to legalize the sale of assault weapons. Bush has repeatedly suppressed intelligence about the war, ignored medical evidence in decisions by the FDA, and mocked scientific studies on environmental degradation, while both his attorneys general have stood behind legal and constitutional interpretations that fly in the face of reason, precedent, and the vision of the Founding Fathers.

A particularly disturbing trait of this president has been the culture of secrecy and deceit that has permeated the White House, a problem compounded by his refusal to explain himself and treatment of questions (and questioners) as if they were treasonous. To be sure, unlike Lincoln (who appealed to "our better angels" in times of crisis) and FDR (who affirmed that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"), Bush opted for the low road, governing on fear and distraction. Far from uniting the nation and reaching out, he has sealed himself off from the public, press, and critics and divided this nation more sharply than any time since the Civil War.

Indeed, the president has long passed the point of simply being untrustworthy; he has made a mockery of the office. That Bush will be remembered by history as a failure is now conventional wisdom among scholars of the presidency.

So, the question becomes how far down the ranking list will he be?

Bush will likely be remembered much as is Warren Harding, who was disinterested in policy details, brought a group of corrupt cronies to the White House, and stumbled through one mishap after the other. He is remembered as something of a jovial but incompetent puppet for corporate interests and for setting the nation on a course to the Great Depression.

But it is James Buchanan, president from 1857-1861, who often earns the dubious title of "worst president" because he lost the Union to civil war on his watch and failed to change course until it was too late.

When history renders its cold assessment of George W. Bush, I believe he will find himself alongside Harding and Buchanan as one of the worst presidents in American history. Bush's legacy will likely be that of death, deficits, and deceit, and it could well take this nation a decade or more to recover from his presidency.

Robert Watson, Ph.D., won the Distinguished Teacher of the Year Award this year at Florida Atlantic University and is the author or editor of 25 books on politics. He can be reached at www.thinkactlead.com.

© 2006 Sun-Sentinel Co. & South Florida Interactive Inc.

Dot Calm's Remarks on the Massacre at Virginia Tech

How will these families deal with the latest shootings? How? Guns don’t kill people, people kill people, right? Should we all have guns? Maybe this sonofabitch could have been taken down before he wreaked such havoc. Maybe more guns is the answer.

First, ponder this: I am an average American woman. I never put myself in harm’s way. I certainly didn’t volunteer to go to war. Yet, as I look back over my life, I see that I’ve been living through a war right here in the United States. I've described this war in detail in my October 19, 2005, post titled “Cover Me, Honey--This is America...” outlining my brushes with gun violence, but it seems timely for me to summarize a few of those recollections here in response to the tragedy at Virginia Tech.

As a young mother, I took a part-time job in the office building across the road from the Catholic school my daughters attended. My neighbor Charlie hired me to work in his secretarial service. It was my first job after having the girls. One summer day, June 21 to be exact, I attempted to get back into the neighborhood after shopping for one of my girl's birthdays the next day. I was met by mayhem...sirens, fire trucks, police cars with lights flashing, policemen directing traffic. The road into our neighborhood was closed except to residents of my neighborhood. The girls sat in their seatbelts unaware of the commotion. A policeman looked into my car and let us back into our neighborhood. I later found out that a disgruntled man with a gun took out 5 businessmen that summer day, including my neighbor Charlie. Our neighbors and we were devastated: Charlie was a strapping, powerful Irishman who seemed indestructible. None of us could force our minds to accept that Charlie was dead--taken from us in the wink of an eye. While Charlie was being murdered, his 18-month old daughter, the youngest of five, sat playing in her playpen on the family's lush, green lawn. After his shooting spree, the shooter killed himself, too.

A Catholic priest was killed and a lay teacher seriously wounded in the parish on the other side of town shortly afterwards. The lay teacher became one of my daughter's 7^th grade teachers a few years later: the woman had to write on the chalk boards with her left hand because the bullet had permanently damaged her right forearm, but she was lucky to be alive.

After a few years back in the work force, I was confident enough to start my own business and I did. I hired Sue, who would set type for me after working her full-time job. I would prepare a light snack for her each evening. I was impressed by how much type Sue could set and how accurately she set it. She married her childhood sweetheart, Tony. I went to her wedding in a Philadelphia neighborhood. Sue was a beautiful bride. A few months later, she and Tony went to a wedding and celebrated their honeymoon in Phoenix. While sunbathing at the pool, Sue was shot and killed instantly by a man with a gun trying to scare potential robbers. His shots missed the robbers, but one ricocheted and struck Sue in the jaw. Tony was devastated. The viewing was hard. I will never forget seeing poor Tony with that same ashen skin I saw on the faces of the women had who escaped the wrath of the shooter who had murdered my neighbor Charlie.

That was enough gun violence for one person, I thought. We moved to a sleepy neighborhood far away. There, we met Carolyn, the cheerful bank teller who always served my husband. She would tell him about the theater plays she would be in. He loved hearing all about her. But, one day, a jealous ex-husband blew Carolyn away...bang! Goodbye, Carolyn. It was nice knowing you...and Sue...and Charlie.

Based on my own personal experiences losing so many people who were close to me to gun violence, I can't really say that more guns and more vigilantism seem like a good solution to stopping massacres like the one at Virginia Tech. I hear that Virginia Governor Tim Kaine closed one of the loopholes that let the shooter buy guns: gun shops will no longer be able to sell guns to individuals with records of involuntary mental health care or determinations that they are dangerous to themselves or others. Unfortunately, however, there is no such requirement for those who buy guns at gun shows--as I understand it, they do not even have to undergo a background check first. And Virginia reputedly has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation. Somehow, to me, this just doesn't seem like enough. I wonder how many more innocent people will have to die before we figure out a better solution.

Death, Texas Style

by Sister Helen Prejean

This article is in memory of Carla Faye Tucker. In the twenty-first century, a state governor represents the last vestige of the divine right of kings because he has absolute power over life and death--especially when such power is entrusted to politicians motivated more by expediency than by conscience. Faced with a pending execution, no governor wants to appear callous about human life. So governors appoint pardons boards and meet with legal counselors, who take the political heat for controversial cases. All governors claim to agonize over death penalty decisions. All claim to scrutinize every possible angle of the cases of condemned persons facing execution under their watch.

George W. Bush during his six years as governor of Texas presided over 152 executions, more than any other governor in the recent history of the United States. Bush has said: I take every death penalty case seriously and review each case carefully.... Each case is major because each case is life or death. In his autobiography, A Charge to Keep (1999), he wrote: For every death penalty case, legal counsel briefs me thoroughly, reviews the arguments made by the prosecution and the defense, raises any doubts or problems or questions. Bush called this a fail safe method for ensuring due process and certainty of guilt.

He might have succeeded in bequeathing to history this image of himself as a scrupulously fair-minded governor if the journalist Alan Berlow had not used the Public Information Act to gain access to fifty-seven confidential death penalty memos that Bush's legal counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, whom President Bush has recently nominated to be attorney general of the United States, presented to him, usually on the very day of execution. The reports Gonzales presented could not be more cursory. Take, for example, the case of Terry Washington, a mentally retarded man of thirty-three with the communication skills of a seven-year-old. Washington's plea for clemency came before Governor Bush on the morning of May 6, 1997. After a thirty-minute briefing by Gonzales, Bush checked Deny--just as he had denied twenty-nine other pleas for clemency in his first twenty-eight months as governor.

Fast Forward to Iraq

According to an Iraq study, many Iraqi children on their way to school have to pass dead bodies, some missing arms, some legs, some worse. Seventy percent of children are showing signs of the stress they suffer. The children are experiencing bed wetting, nightmares, and/or stuttering.

The Bridge

Fire on a Crowded Bridge: Iraq's Deadliest Day

posted by Suzanne Nossel

As many as 1000 people died today in a stampede in Baghdad that occurred when a rumor of an impending suicide attack spread among a crowd of close to a million Shiite pilgrims amassed on a bridge. It sounds like the classic fire in a crowded theater situation, and we'll probably never know whether the crier genuinely believed a bomb was about to explode or was just out to manufacture chaos. Rockets fired into the crowd shortly beforehand killing 7, undoubtedly raising the level of tension.

A few observations:

1. The bizarreness and tragedy of this incident underscores just how bad things have become in Baghdad. While the incident is being blamed on terrorism, there's actually no evidence that terrorists were responsible for spreading the rumors. This may have been triggered by nothing more than someone mistaking a bulky backpack or jacket as packed with explosives. It is an example of what can happen in a society that's been taken over by terrorism. No threat is idle. People live in a state of near-panic. A rumor can cost 1000 lives. Two plus years after the US invasion, that's the state of affairs in Iraq.

2. Even though there's no clear evidence that the uproar was created intentionally, the incident is being blamed on followers of Zarqawi who have served to inflame Shiite-Sunni tensions. This means that these deaths will beget more violent deaths.

3. The Iraqi government apparently had ample warning the crowd would be gathering--the impetus was a major religious holiday that was bound to draw a massive turnout. Yet there were few police and military on hand to try to maintain control. Afterward, a Shia militia, the notorious Mahdi army, took over checkpoints with the government soldiers busy sealing off the affected areas. So much for Iraq's blossoming capabilities as far as law and order.

4. The incident is also sparking theories that the government intentionally put the crowd at risk by allowing it to assemble where it did. Iraqi officials fed the rumor mill, with the Minister of Health saying, "I hold my colleagues in the ministries of interior and defense responsible for what happened today."

So, if you haven't yet been wrecked by the news out of New Orleans, this incident is depressing on a variety of levels: the sheer loss of life, the likely aftershocks, and mostly for what it signals about conditions in Iraq.

Peanut & Salmonella Sandwich Anyone?

by Andy Childers

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/foodborneinfections_g.htm#consumersprotect

The sudden rise in food-borne illnesses can be attributed to the lack of food industry regulation under Bush. But there are steps we can take to prevent or at least cut down on food-borne illnesses.

COOK meat, poultry, and eggs thoroughly. To be sure meat is cooked thoroughly, use a thermometer to measure internal temperature. Ground beef should be cooked to an internal temperature of 160F. Eggs should be cooked until the yolk is firm.

SEPARATE: avoid cross-contaminating foods by washing hands, utensils, and cutting boards after they have been in contact with raw meat or poultry and before they touch another food. Use a clean platter for serving.

CHILL: refrigerate leftovers promptly to avoid bacteria from growing. Separate large volumes of food to cool more quickly.

CLEAN: wash produce. Rinse fresh fruits and vegetables in running tap water to remove visible dirt and grime. Remove and discard the outermost leaves of a head of lettuce or cabbage to prevent bacteria from growing. Use a clean cutting board.

Consumer Insurance or Lack Thereof

by Ray Bourhis

Avoid getting ripped off by your insurance. A woman suffering from MS was denied her claim because her policy was written in England. Parties are being held for the agents with most money saved.

Hurricane Katrina

by Jim Hood

After Hurricane Katrina, State Farm threatened to pull out of Mississippi because they felt they were being too closely watched as they determined which losses were caused by flood and which were caused by water.

Please check out www.insuranceconsumers.com for more information.

It Can Happen Here

by Joe Conason

It Can Happen Here is a take-off on the 1935 anti-fascist novel It Can’t Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis. This Nobel Prize-winning author depicted authoritarianism American-style in his sardonically titled dystopian novel. Now, best-selling political journalist Joe Conason argues that it can happen here--and a select group of extremely powerful right-wing ideologues are driving us ever closer to the precipice.

In this compelling, impassioned, yet rational and fact-based look at the state of the nation, Conason shows how and why America has been wrenched away from its founding principles and is being dragged toward authoritarianism.

See No Karl...Hear No Karl

by Joe Conason

Why are high officials (and former high officials) of the Bush administration suddenly suffering from severe memory loss when they testify before Congress? On Wednesday, Lurita Doan, the chief of the General Services Administration, insisted that she "really didn't remember" much about a highly political and dubiously legal videoconference briefing at her agency last January, where a top White House operative outlined in painstaking detail exactly which House and Senate seats will be most hotly contested in the next election cycle. Then on Thursday, Kyle Sampson, the former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, said again and again that he was unable to remember various events leading up to the firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year.

Drug Dumping

by Mike Lynch

Lynch is an attorney monitoring how government is issuing tax breaks to drug companies who dump defective drugs into third-world countries. These pharmaceuticals receive huge tax benefits with CEOs making upwards of $200,000 in bonuses for dumping these defective and out-of-date drugs on poor countries. These companies receive full tax breaks in return.

According to the Brighton Peace and Environmental Center, drug dumping occurs when useless or dangerous pharmaceutical products are donated to developing countries, especially after a humanitarian disaster. Aid workers argue that medical staff can spend up to 70% of their valuable time sorting out the donations.

One third of the world's population has no access to essential medicines. In the poorest parts of Africa and Asia, this figure rises to 50%. This year alone, there will be over 40 million deaths in developing countries, and a quarter of these will be due to acute respiratory infections, diarrhoeal diseases, tuberculosis, and malaria--all conditions which can be cured if only the medicines and health care are available.

US tax legislation is designed to encourage pharmaceutical companies to make gifts to the developing world. However, this often acts as an incentive for inappropriate donations and even for the pharmaceutical companies to pursue their own interests, often at the expense of the health care of the developing world. Compliance with the World Health Organization guidelines for essential drugs is not included in the criteria for deciding tax break eligibility.

What is going wrong?

* Medicines which are mainly used by the poor are withdrawn from production as there is no profitable market for them--it is much more profitable to develop new treatments for baldness and impotence than it is for African sleeping sickness.

* Large-scale donations to charities from pharmaceutical companies may be made for a number of reasons. A product may not be selling well; the company may want to get rid of unwanted stock; products may be ending their shelf-life. Donating these drugs allows the company to avoid the expensive process of disposal.

* Donated drugs are often not relevant for the emergency situation, disease pattern, or level of care. They may be unfamiliar to local health professionals and may not comply with locally-agreed drug policies.

* Many donated drugs arrive unsorted and labeled in unknown languages, wasting charity workers' valuable time in sorting and translating.

* The quality of drugs is not guaranteed: they may have expired or be free samples.

* Donor agencies sometimes ignore local administrative procedures for receiving and distributing medical supplies.

* Drugs may be donated in the wrong quantities ,and stocks may have to be destroyed, which is wasteful, time-consuming, and expensive.

In conclusion, many donations of drugs are made based on the needs of the pharmaceutical companies, not on the needs of the recipients, and may have a negative rather than a positive effect.

Merck's Iverectin donation program

Since 1998, Merck & Co has donated Mectizan to over 25 million people in 31 countries to treat onchocerciasis (river blindness) through a program with the World Bank, WHO, many NGOs, and the UN. It has been hailed a success because of its sustainability, and the company has said that it will continue the program until the disease is eradicated.

The tax system should be amended to reward companies for these kinds of long term, WHO-led, sustainable donations.

Some failures

* We estimate that 50% of the drugs coming into Albania donated by non-medical organizations are inappropriate or useless and will have to be destroyed. We are concerned that some pharmaceutical companies are using this humanitarian crisis to get rid of unwanted stockpiles.

* In Eritrea in 1989, during the war of independence, seven truck loads of expired aspirin tablets arrived, which took six months to burn.

* 70% of medical aid sent after the Venezuelan floods of 2000 had to be incinerated as they were dangerous and inappropriate.

* During the Sudanese famine, inappropriate medicines sent in the aid effort included contact lens solution, appetite stimulants, and expired antibiotics. Furthermore, the labels were written in French, a language not spoken in Sudan.

* East Timore’s underfunded health care system relies heavily on foreign aid; however, donor recipients receive machinery that is highly inappropriate, too expensive to operate, and/or requires unavailable additional technology and specially trained staff. Dili National Hospital has received products to treat cancer and cardiovascular diseases which rarely affect the Timorese, simply because they are out of date by Western standards. Conversely, the equipment is too modern and the people are not trained to use it, so there is lots of expensive equipment that cannot be used.

* It is not just medical aid that is sent inappropriately; a doctor working in a hospital in Malawi was shocked when three boxes of breast implants were donated to the hospital he works in!

Factor 8: The Arkansas Prison Blood Scandal

VARIETY – A documentary film review (updated 11/16/05)

by John Anderson

This is a Concrete Films presentation produced, directed, written, and edited by Kelly Duda featuring Rolf Kaestel, John Byus, Francis Henderson, Jim Lovel, Hezile Earl, and Bobby Glover.

A sturdy, concise, no-nonsense documentary that should hit screens as soon as possible, "Factor 8: The Arkansas Prison Blood Scandal" has limited theatrical options but would probably win Peabodys if shown on "Frontline," HBO, or any of the several other outlets with social agendas and nerve enough to air the appalling story related in this unconventional movie.

During Bill Clinton's gubernatorial tenure in Arkansas, the state prison system--which was self-supporting, largely through inmate farm labor--collected and sold inmate blood, often taken from the riskiest element of the prison population.

Focusing on the state's notorious Cummins work farm, documentary maker Kelly Duda establishes through interviews with current and former inmates, prison phlebotomists, and others, that inmates commonly known to engage in IV drug abuse and homosexual activity were allowed to bleed for $2 a pop and--although officials deny it--their blood was then processed and sold. Illegal to sell in the United States, the blood was distributed in Canada and used, among other things, to process Factor 8, a clotting mediation sold to hemophiliacs. They, in turn, came down with HIV infections and hepatitis C. (Recent reports from the U.K. have stated that Clinton may be asked to testify in a case brought by Scottish victims of tainted blood.)

Duda gives both sides ample opportunity to tell their version of events but is generally greeted by defiant or defensive prison officials and stonewalling politicos and, much to his (and our) amazement, discovers that Clinton's gubernatorial papers are simply unavailable for examination, in or out of Arkansas. As he proceeds with his investigation--one of the successes of the film is that we and he seem to discover things together--he finds all the same names popping up that were connected to either the Whitewater investigation or the Monica Lewinski case: Leonard Dunn, who led Health Management Associates, which ran the blood program for the Arkansas Dept. of Corrections; Jim McDougal, from whom Dunn later bought the Whitewater-troubled Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan; and even Lewinski confidante Linda Tripp and the late White House counsel Vince Foster. What Duda strongly implies is that Clinton was impeached for the wrong crime.

In fact, one of the things that hits the viewer in "Factor 8" is that Ken Starr spent more than $40 million trying to pin something on then-President Clinton and completely missed what Kelly Duda found via sheer leg work.

"Factor 8" is hard-headed journalism practiced by a filmmaker who sometimes seems like a pit bull with a bureaucratic bone. He follows subjects fearlessly and ventures into hostile environs but comes away, most of the time, with the information he wants to get.

Some of his most valuable data come from Cummins prisoner Rolf Kaestel, a prison-trained paralegal and publisher of an inmate newsletter, who is mysteriously whisked off to a Utah maximum security prison midway through the movie. One suspects, however, that we haven't heard the last of Kaestel. Or Duda. Or the Factor 8 case.