Where Heart Shift Happens. Teaching the Science of Sustainable Health. What works for 7 future generations? "Do not go where the freeway may lead - Go instead where there is no path and build - A Green Road"
One of the most precious assets of a news organization is its credibility.
So it's appalling that ABC News' election night coverage on Tuesday will include notorious propagandist and serial race-baiter Andrew Breitbart, who only months ago was publicly disgraced for falsely smearing Shirley Sherrod.
We cannot let this go unchallenged. That is why CREDO is joining with our friends at Color of Change to put a stop to this and tell ABC to rescind its invitation to Breitbart.
There are plenty of other conservatives who ABC News could turn to for analysis or commentary. By inviting someone like Breitbart to participate, ABC News is not only calling its own credibility into question, it is also serving to rehabilitate the credibility of Andrew Breitbart and legitimate more of his race-baiting lies.
The saga that led to Breitbart's very public identification as a liar who intentionally stokes racial animosity began when Breitbart released a heavily edited video of Sherrod, then an official with the USDA, which Breitbart claimed was "video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient."
In the hit piece Breitbart released, Sherrod (who is black) appears to be saying that she withheld aide to a white farmer because of his race. Breitbart's stated purpose for releasing the video was to defend the Tea Party from charges of racism leveled by the NAACP, and to further claim that the video showed that the NAACP, Democrats and the Obama administration were comfortable with black people discriminating against whites.
The only problem was that Breitbart lied about what Sherrod actually said.
The full video of her remarks clearly demonstrated that Sherrod not only aided the farmer, but was using the story to illustrate how viewing the situation through the narrow lens of race was the wrong thing to do.
As Mark Twain said, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." That's what happened here.
After Breitbart's post, the story gained steam as news organizations breathlessly hyped Breitbart's video before verifying the basic story.
In the time it took for the truth to get out about the anti-racist message Sherrod very clearly both said and intended to communicate, Sherrod was publicly vilified and was fired from her job.
Multiple news organizations apologized on air and in print for the egregiously bad way they handled the over-hyped Sherrod incident-all of which was based on Breitbart's horribly irresponsible video and the absolutely misleading ways he characterized it.
It is infuriating and absurd that a news organization, just a few months later, would give Breitbart another chance to spread his deceit.
One of the most disturbing implications of Breitbart's participation is that it was his site that was the launching pad of the mendacious videos that ultimately led to the collapse of ACORN, an organization that helped register and turnout voters in poor communities and communities of color.
In the last couple of weeks, we have already seen Republicans and their conservative allies preemptively level wild-eyed accusations of voter fraud (much of which is laden with racial overtones). This not only serves to incite the intimidation and harassment of legitimate voters in communities of color by those who believe the voter fraud conspiracy theories, it also sets the stage for claims that Democrats "stole the election" if and when Republican candidates don't win.
ABC News has a positive duty to spread true information and fight the spreading of lies. And that's doubly true when the lies underscore the deeply harmful notion that people of color are somehow scheming on a massive scale to subvert our democracy.
Yet by including the likes of Andrew Breitbart, ABC News is failing this public duty in huge way.
By including Breitbart, ABC News is providing him the means to reach people he would otherwise not reach with a deceitful message that will seem much more trustworthy than Breitbart deserves.
P.S ABC has started to backpedal in the face of growing criticism. On Friday, David Ford of ABC News confirmed to Media Matters that Breitbart "will be one of many voices on our air" on election night. But yesterday, the network started to distance itself from Breitbart. Andrew Morse, executive producer for ABC News Digital, issued a clearly defensive statement explaining that "Mr. Breitbart will not be a part of the ABC News broadcast coverage" and that his contribution will only be aired online at ABCNews.com and Facebook.
ABC is clearly wavering. We need to put the pressure on so that they drop Breitbart entirely.
Depleted uranium weapons, and the untold misery they wreak on mankind, are taboo subjects in the mainstream media. This exclusive report should break the media embargo imposed on the American people. Despite being a grossly under-reported subject in the mainstream, there is intense public interest in depleted uranium (DU) and the damage it inflicts on humankind and the environment. While American Free Press is actively investigating DU weapons and how they contribute to Gulf War Syndrome, the corporate-controlled press ignores the illegal use of DU and its long-lasting effects on the health of veterans and the public.In August 2004 American Free Press published a ground-breaking four-part series on DU weapons and the long-term health risks they pose to soldiers and civilians alike. Information provided to AFP by experts and scientists, some of it published for the first time in this paper, has increased public awareness of how exposure to small particles of DU can severely affect human health. Leuren Moret, a Berkeley-based geo-scientist with expertise in atmospheric dust, corresponds with AFP on DU issues. Recently Moret provided a copy of her letters to a British radiation biologist, Dr. Chris Busby, about how nanometer size particles—less than one-tenth of a micron and smaller—of DU once inhaled or absorbed into the body, can cause long-term damage to one’s health. Busby is one of the founders of Green Audit, a British organization that monitors companies “whose activities might threaten the environment and health of citizens.”Moret’s writings were meant to assist Busby in a legal case being heard in the High Court in London where a former defense worker, Richard David, 49, is suing Normal Air Garrett, Ltd., an aircraft parts company now owned by Honeywell Aerospace, claiming exposure to DU on the job has made his life a “living hell.” David worked as a component fitter on fighter planes and bombers but had to quit due to health problems. He says he developed a cough within weeks of starting work.Today, David suffers from a variety of symptoms like those known as Gulf War Syndrome, including respiratory and kidney problems, bowel conditions and painful joints. Medical tests reveal mutations to his DNA and damage to his chromosomes, which, he says, could only have been caused by ionizing radiation. He has also been diagnosed with a terminal lung condition.Honeywell denies DU was ever used at the plant in Yeovil, Somerset, where David worked for 10 years until 1995. David claims that DU’s existence at the plant was denied because it is an official secret. David has asked the High Court for more time to gather evidence. The hearing is due to resume in April. “I don’t have any legal representation,” David said, “so I am representing myself. It is a real David versus Goliath case.“I am confident I will win. I hope to set a precedent for other cases of people who have suffered from the effects of depleted uranium,” he said.Moret’s letters on the particle effect of DU is based on research done by Marion Fulk, a nuclear physical chemist and former scientist with the Manhattan Project and the National Laboratory at Livermore, Calif. Fulk, who has developed a &ldquoarticle theory” about how DU nano-particles affect human DNA, donates his time and expertise to help bring information about DU to the public.Asked about Fulk’s particle theory, Busby said it is “quite sound.” “DU is much more dangerous than they say,” Busby added. “I’ve always said that it contributes significantly to Gulf War Syndrome.”When Moret’s correspondence to Dr. Busby was posted on the Internet over the New Year’s holiday under the title “How Depleted Uranium Weapons Are Killing Our Troops,” some 6,000 people read the letter in the first two days. The following Monday, a producer from BBC’s Panorama program contacted Moret to arrange an interview. If the BBC follows up with an investigation on the health effects of DU, it may be hard for the U.S. media to maintain their cover-up. More than 500,000 “Gulf War Era” vets currently receive disability compensation, many of them for a variety of symptoms generally referred to as Gulf War Syndrome. Experts blame DU for many of these symptoms.“The numbers are overwhelming, but the potential horrors only get worse,” Robert C. Koehler of the Chicago-based Tribune Media Services wrote in an article about DU weapons entitled “Silent Genocide.” “DU dust does more than wreak havoc on the immune systems of those who breathe it or touch it; the substance also alters one’s genetic code,” Koehler wrote. “The Pentagon’s response to such charges is denial, denial, denial. And the American media is its moral co-conspirator.”U.S. GOVERNMENT KNOWSThe U.S. government has known for at least 20 years that DU weapons produce clouds of poison gas on impact. These clouds of aerosolized DU are laden with billions of toxic sub-micron sized particles. A 1984 Department of Energy conference on nuclear airborne waste reported that tests of DU anti-tank missiles showed that at least 31 percent of the mass of a DU penetrator is converted to nano-particles on impact. In larger bombs the percentage of aerosolized DU increases to nearly 100 percent, Fulk told AFP.DU is harmful in three ways, according to Fulk: “Chemical toxicity, radiological toxicity and particle toxicity.”Particles in the nano-meter (one billionth of a meter) range are a “new breed of cat,” Moret wrote. Because the size of the nano-particles allows them to pass freely throughout the organism and into the nucleus of its cells, exposure to nano-particles causes different symptoms than exposure to larger particles of the same substance.Internalized DU particles, Fulk said, act as “a non-specific catalyst” in both “nuclear and non-nuclear” ways. This means that the uranium particle can affect human DNA and RNA because of both its chemical and radiological properties. This is why internalized DU particles cause “many, many diseases,” Fulk said.Asked if this is how DU causes severe birth defects, Fulk said, “Yes.”MILITARY AWAREThe military is aware of DU’s harmful effects on the human genetic code. A 2001 study of DU’s effect on DNA done by Dr. Alexandra C. Miller for the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Bethesda, Md., indicates that DU’s chemical instability causes 1 million times more genetic damage than would be expected from its radiation effect alone, Moret wrote.Dr. Miller requested that questions be sent in writing and copied to a military spokesman. She did tell AFP that it should be noted that her studies showing that DU is “neoplastically transforming and genotoxic” are based on in vitro cellular research.Studies have shown that inhaled nano-particles are far more toxic than micro-sized particles of the same basic chemical composition. British toxicopathologist Vyvyan Howard has reported that the increased toxicity of the nano-particle is due to its size.For example, when mice were exposed to virus-size particles of Teflon (0.13 microns) in a University of Rochester study, there were no ill effects. But when mice were exposed to nano-particles of Teflon for 15 minutes, nearly all the mice died within 4 hours.“Exposure pathways for depleted uranium can be through the skin, by inhalation, and ingestion,” Moret wrote. “Nano-particles have high mobility and can easily enter the body. Inhalation of nano-particles of depleted uranium is the most hazardous exposure, because the particles pass through the lung-blood barrier directly into the blood.“When inhaled through the nose, nano-particles can cross the olfactory bulb directly into the brain through the blood brain barrier, where they migrate all through the brain,” she wrote. “Many Gulf era soldiers exposed to depleted uranium have been diagnosed with brain tumors, brain damage and impaired thought processes. Uranium can interfere with the mitochondria, which provide energy for the nerve processes, and transmittal of the nerve signal across synapses in the brain.
“Damage to the mitochondria, which provide all energy to the cells and nerves, can cause chronic fatigue syndrome, Lou Gehrig’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and Hodgkin’s disease.”
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: email@example.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
The new Zogby poll gauging the opinions of American troops in Iraq has drawn attention mostly because it finds that 72 percent believe the United States should withdraw in a year or less and only 23 percent favor George W. Bush’s plan to “stay the course.”
Cross post, copy and email to your all of your friends, politicians, and co workers. Ask them to forward it also.
The government (especially this one) likes to talk about assets, but if you look at what they call assets, they are actually liabilities. This applies to all governments worldwide, but focuses on the US.
WASHINGTON - May 2 - On April 10, Washington Post columnist and deputy editorial page editor Jackson Diehl penned a column arguing that Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez is not very popular and has little democratic legitimacy. FAIR sent the following letter to Diehl on April 18, questioning the accuracy of his comments and his overall thesis.
FAIR's letter has so far received no response. If you would like to see Diehl respond to questions of accuracy raised by FAIR, you can contact him and his editor, editorial page editor Fred Hiatt, at:
In your column, "In Venezuela, Locking Up the Vote" (4/10/06), you write that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez "has never enjoyed overwhelming support in Venezuela," adding, "his ratings have mostly fluctuated a few points above and below 50 percent."
While the term "overwhelming support" may be somewhat subjective, Chavez has won three elections with 59 percent or more of the popular vote. In the U.S. context, such winning percentages would be considered landslides, comparable to Ronald Reagan’s win with 59 percent of the vote over Walter Mondale in 1984.
What is less subjective is the record on Hugo Chavez’s approval ratings. A recent report in your own paper (12/5/05) pegged Chavez's support at 68 percent, as measured by the opposition Venezuelan polling firm Datanalisis. In May 2005, Datanalisis reported his support at 71 percent.
According to a Venezuelan Institute for Data Analysis poll published last week, 60 percent of respondents characterized Chavez's presidential performance as either excellent (18 percent) or good (42 percent). Only 16 percent rated Chavez as "average to bad" or worse.
A February 2006 poll by North American Opinion Research Inc. found 66 percent of Venezuelan respondents saying they would vote for Chavez in the election later this year--more than four times the number who say they would vote for all other candidates combined. And on a related issue, the Chilean polling firm Latinobarómetro found more people in Venezuela considered their country "totally democratic" than in any other nation in Latin America.
In light of this polling data, we are curious as to how you would justify your assertion that Chavez's "ratings have mostly fluctuated a few points above and below 50 percent." It's a claim that cries out for either explanation or correction.
Common Dreams NewsCenter is a non-profit news service providing breaking news and views for the Progressive Community.
The press release posted here has been provided to Common Dreams NewsWire by one of the many progressive organizations who make up America's Progressive Community. If you wish to comment on this press release or would like more information, please contact the organization directly. *all times Eastern US (GMT-5:00)
Action Alert Intelligence Manipulation at the Washington Post Paper's editorial page ignores facts to back Bush
Newspaper editorial pages are entitled to their own opinions—but not to their own facts. The Washington Post's editorial page, however, seems to want to have it both ways.
The paper's April 9 editorial, "A Good Leak," defended the White House's actions amid new revelations in the investigation of the leaking of an undercover CIA employee's name to reporters. CIA analyst Valerie Plame Wilson was outed by administration sources in July 2003 after her husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson, publicly challenged a key White House argument for war—that Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from Africa.
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald recently filed new documents indicating that Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, testified that he was authorized by George W. Bush to release portions of a classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) to reporters to rebut Wilson's criticisms of the case for war.
The Post editorial supported Bush's action, which is the paper's prerogative. But it backed up its positions with an inaccurate claim:
"The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium."
But the actual National Intelligence Estimate did not support the White House's claims about uranium, nor did Wilson's report. That much was clear in the news section of the same day's Washington Post. The paper's reporting showed that Wilson's findings-that there was "no support for charges that Iraq tried to buy uranium" in Niger-were consistent with what many intelligence analysts thought about the allegations. In the body of the NIE, according to the Post, the uranium allegations were treated skeptically:
"Unknown to the reporters, the uranium claim lay deeper inside the estimate, where it said a fresh supply of uranium ore would 'shorten the time Baghdad needs to produce nuclear weapons.' But it also said U.S. intelligence did not know the status of Iraq's procurement efforts, 'cannot confirm' any success and had 'inconclusive' evidence about Iraq's domestic uranium operations."
The Post added that in closed Senate testimony in September 2002, top CIA officials expressed reservations about the uranium claim—and they weren't the only ones: "The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, likewise, called the claim 'highly dubious.' For those reasons, the uranium story was relegated to a brief inside passage in the October estimate." The disconnect between what Libby was alleging was in the NIE and the actual document has been noted by other reporters (Newsweek.com, 10/19/05).
The Post seems to have based its argument on a Senate Intelligence Committee report, which some suggest debunked Wilson's claims (Washington Post, 7/10/04). That report found that some CIA analysts believed Wilson's findings backed up their conclusions, though skeptics (most notably at the State Department) were unmoved. As Knight-Ridder reported (7/10/04), the Senate report found "that State Department analysts concluded that Wilson's information supported their view that there wasn't much substance to the Iraq-Niger link."
But to reach the conclusion that Wilson was "the one guilty of twisting the truth" also ignores a long-established part of the story—namely, that the CIA was trying to remove the Niger story from Bush's speeches long before the decision to leak parts of the NIE to the media. And the White House itself admitted in July 2003—shortly after Wilson went public—that the Niger allegation should have been kept out of Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address. The Washington Post covered this story extensively at the time (beginning on July 8, 2003), reporting at length on efforts by the CIA (7/23/03) to keep the uranium claim out of Bush's public remarks about Iraq. On July 20, the Post's Dana Priest reported that "recent revelations by officials at the CIA, the State Department, the United Nations, in Congress and elsewhere make clear that the weakness of the claim in the State of the Union speech was known and accepted by a wide circle of intelligence and diplomatic personnel scrutinizing information on Iraqi weapons programs months before the speech."
So why is the paper's editorial page still arguing that the White House had a strong case against Wilson—especially on a claim that the White House has long admitted was incorrect?
ACTION: Contact the Washington Post and ask whether its editorial page must adhere to the same rules as its reporters-namely, that it get its facts right.
Missing From ABC's WMD 'Scoop' Star defector Hussein Kamel said weapons were destroyed
On February 15, ABC investigative reporter Brian Ross delivered an exclusive report on World News Tonight and Nightline that purported to be a bombshell. ABC had obtained tape-recorded conversations from mid-1995 that seemed to show that Iraq had been concealing its weapons of mass destruction program. The tapes, according to Ross, "will only serve to fuel the continuing debate about Saddam's true intentions and whether he, in fact, did hide weapons of mass destruction." But ABC viewers were left in the dark about information that would undermine the tape's most important revelations.
ABC emphasized the excerpts of a conversation between Saddam Hussein and his weapons chief (and son-in-law) Hussein Kamel that seem to bolster the idea that Iraq was hiding weapons from inspectors. As Ross reported on Nightline, "Saddam's son-in-law briefs Saddam on the Iraqi campaign of deceit aimed at fooling UN inspectors." Kamel is then heard telling Saddam Hussein, in ABC's translation: "We did not reveal all that we have. Not the type of weapons. Not the volume of the materials we imported. Not the volume of the production we told them about. Not the volume of news. None of this was correct."
ABC provides little context for the exchange, but suggests that these admissions might provide new insight into the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq a decade later. In fact, what Kamel revealed about the extent of Iraq's weapons programs has been known for some time, and portions of his account were an integral part of the White House's case for war.
Kamel defected from Iraq in 1995, and talked at great length with U.N. weapons inspectors and the CIA about Iraq's unconventional weapons programs. He revealed at that time that Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs had been more advanced than the Saddam Hussein regime had admitted to the inspectors. Kamel publicly revealed the concealment of WMD-related activities in an interview with CNN (9/21/95): "The order was to hide much of it from the start, and we hid a lot of that information. These were not individual acts of concealment, but were as a result of direct orders from the top." So the fact that Saddam Hussein was attempting to deceive the weapons inspectors, as in ABC's tape, is hardly news more than 10 years later.
But ABC's story does not include what was arguably Kamel's more important revelation, which was that Iraq had destroyed its stocks of usable unconventional weapons. "Iraq does not possess any weapons of mass destruction," he told CNN in 1995. He told the same story to U.N. and U.S. officials, saying that by destroying the weapons in the summer of 1991, Saddam Hussein hoped to conceal how far Iraq had gotten in developing weapons, with the intent of restarting these programs after the inspection regime was ended.
Hussein Kamel was lured back to Iraq in 1996, where he was almost immediately killed by Saddam Hussein's forces. But when the Bush administration began gearing up for war with Iraq in 2002, it found that selective citation of Kamel's testimony could be very helpful in making its case. Vice President Dick Cheney asserted in an August 2002 speech (8/26/02) that the Iraqi regime had been "very busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents," and continued "to pursue the nuclear program they began many years ago." To back this up these claims, Cheney added, "We've gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors, including Saddam's own son-in-law"—a reference to Kamel.
In a Chicago Tribune op-ed (9/10/02), former head of the U.N. weapons inspection team Scott Ritter pointed out that Cheney had left out a critical part of Kamel’s story:
"Throughout his interview with UNSCOM, a U.N. special commission, Hussein Kamel reiterated his main point—that nothing was left. 'All chemical weapons were destroyed,' he said. 'I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons—biological, chemical, missile, nuclear—were destroyed.'"
Nevertheless, the administration continued to selectively use Kamel's disclosures to bolster its case that Iraq had hidden stockpiles of banned weapons. "It took years for Iraq to finally admit that it had produced four tons of the deadly nerve agent, VX," then-Secretary of State Colin Powell said in his February 5, 2003 speech to the U.N. "The admission only came out after inspectors collected documentation as a result of the defection of Hussein Kamel, Saddam Hussein's late son-in-law." Powell did not note that Kamel had also reported that this nerve gas, along with all other such weapons, had been destroyed years earlier (Extra!, 5-6/03).
Shortly before the invasion of Iraq began, Newsweek (3/3/03) obtained the transcript of Kamel's 1995 debriefing by officials from UNSCOM, the U.N. inspections team, as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It published Kamel's key statement from that transcript: "All weapons—biological, chemical, missile, nuclear—were destroyed." Newsweek reported that Kamel told the same story to the CIA, but his account had been "hushed up." Shortly thereafter, the complete transcript of Kamel's discussions with inspectors was made public by Cambridge University's Glen Rangwala.
As FAIR noted shortly after the Newsweek report (FAIR Media Advisory, 2/27/03), this crucial information went largely unreported in the mainstream media. Three years later, that is still the case. Instead of this critical context—which frankly undermines the importance of the network's "exclusive"—ABC opted for political speculation. The network's report quotes Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.): "From reading some of the transcripts, you would think that it's pretty likely that there were WMD that were hidden or that were moved out of the country." By omitting countervailing information, ABC is in effect bolstering such ill-informed claims.
Nightline anchor Terry Moran asserted that the tapes ABC aired made an important contribution to our understanding of the Iraq controversy: "Without question, these tapes will shed new light on the debate over the war and on Saddam's future." If ABC's report is any indication, that debate will continue to ignore inconvenient facts about what was really known before the war about Iraq's weapons.
ACTION: Contact ABC and ask why its reports citing an Iraqi official to bolster the idea that Iraq had WMDs failed to mention that the same official told weapons inspectors that Iraq's weapons stockpiles were destroyed in 1991.
More Americans than ever
believe gay and lesbian
identity is something
you’re born with,
according to new polling
data from Gallup. In its
and Beliefs poll,
conducted May 2-7,
a random sample o...
We all know that we're
expected to be on our
best behavior at church,
but do we really know why
that is? Shouldn't
we be on our best
behavior all of the
time? Is behaving
as if we're something
we're not when we're not
being a hypocrite wh...
perennial herb with
creeping roots and square
stems that grow up to 3
leaves. Flowers are
white or pink and appear
in late summer.
Uses: Leaves and tips
picked just before or
The Winter King is the
spirit of Winter and
Death. He is said to
embody our most primal
fears. He is the Guardian
of the crossroads between
the physical world and
the spiritual world. He
has a goats head and
lower body, and large
black bat wings. Be...
That you may retain your
self-respect, it is
betterto displease the
people by doing what you
know is right,than to
temporarily please them
by doing what you know is
wrong.- William J. H.
surest test of an