------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 06:46 PM 3/25/2003 , "helen caldicott" <hcaldic@bigpond.com>
wrote:
This is a good letter Russell, Helen Caldicott
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 25th, 2003
Dear Mr. Krugman,
Interesting piece you've written (shown below), and I'm amazed the New York
Times would publish it, but you've missed the biggest attack on humanity of
all, which is the pro-nuclear stance of the Bush-Cheney team. The legacy
of their ability to nuclearize space, war, and earth will be the most deadly
consequence of our letting them steal the election, the government, the military,
and the media.
Sure, everyone with a shred of decency hopes -- figures -- that in 2004 things
will be different -- we can throw the bums out of office. But I don't
think we can wait that long. Not only must Bush be impeached and this
ugly war stopped, but the Nuclear Mafia's secrets must be revealed, and we must
become a "non-nuclear nation". Yes, even America can and must
do this.
Do we have nukes in Kuwait right now, ready to send into Iraq, as a Kuwaiti
Army officer has reportedly stated? If not, might we nuke Iraq anyway
-- just one more missile cruising in, this time leveling the whole playing field
in a literal sense? How much Anthrax or other chemicals will we accept
before nuking someone?
And WHY doesn't nuking Iraq with hundreds of tons of Depleted Uranium, right
in the hearts of their cites and along their rivers, constitute a crime against
humanity? Or rather, why isn't this crime recognized as such by the Pentagon?
They talk on and on about the rules of war -- but then they go and MAKE UP rules
which don't fit the facts, so THEY can use nuclear weapons and other horrors,
but no one else can!
But you see, if the Bush Administration admitted D.U. was hazardous because
of its radioactive properties, it would mean A LOT OF CHANGES in how we conduct
the business of war, let alone, what it might lead to for the nuclear industry
at large (it would be shut down in a heartbeat). "Low Level Radiation
is harmless" they say. It isn't -- and worse that that, it's probably
at least 100 times more dangerous for a newborn as for an adult, and even MORE
dangerous to a fetus. It's awful stuff. And the alpha radiation D.U. releases
is particularly dangerous when the D.U. particle is inside the body after D.U.
dust is inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through the skin.
One additional sadness to all this is that we all keep lying to ourselves.
Our soldiers are not compensated for the deformities their children will suffer,
perhaps years later, because they took in some D.U. when the tank next to their's
-- and it's D.U. armor -- was pulverized by a "Friendly Fire" D.U.
shell. Because, officially, this stuff is harmless.
Sincerely,
Russell D. Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA
Author/webmaster/editor:
THE EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
NO NUKES IN SPACE
SHUT SAN ONOFRE NOW!
DAVIS-BESSE NEWSLETTER
(see www.animatedsoftware.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: "LOVEARTH" <mark@lovearth.net>
Subject: Channels Of Influence by Paul Krugman
LOVEARTH NETWORK
Connecting Through 1000+ EcoHumanePolitical Websites
http://Lovearth.net
/ http://Network.Lovearth.net
Channels Of Influence
Will be published on: http://FreedomOfThePress.net
Channels Of Influence
by Paul Krugman, The New York Times, March 25, 2003, krugman@nytimes.com
By and large, recent pro-war rallies haven't drawn nearly as many people as
antiwar rallies, but they have certainly been vehement. One of the most striking
took place after Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie Chicks, criticized
President Bush: a crowd gathered in Louisiana to watch a 33,000-pound tractor
smash a collection of Dixie Chicks CD's, tapes and other paraphernalia. To those
familiar with 20th-century European history it seemed eerily reminiscent of.
. . . But as Sinclair Lewis said, it can't happen here.
Who has been organizing those pro-war rallies? The answer, it turns out, is
that they are being promoted by key players in the radio industry — with close
links to the Bush administration.
The CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of Cumulus Media, a radio
chain that has banned the Dixie Chicks from its playlists. Most of the pro-war
demonstrations around the country have, however, been organized by stations
owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth based in San Antonio that
controls more than 1,200 stations and increasingly dominates the airwaves.
The company claims that the demonstrations, which go under the name Rally for
America, reflect the initiative of individual stations. But this is unlikely:
according to Eric Boehlert, who has written revelatory articles about Clear
Channel in Salon, the company is notorious — and widely hated — for its iron-fisted
centralized control.
See: http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/03/27/beltway/index.html
http://dir.salon.com/ent/clear_channel/2001/08/08/riverbend/index.html
http://dir.salon.com/ent/clear_channel/2001/08/08/antitrust/index.html
http://dir.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/06/28/telecom_dereg/index.html
http://dir.salon.com/ent/feature/2001/05/30/clear_channel_employees/index.html
Until now, complaints about Clear Channel have focused on its business practices.
Critics say it uses its power to squeeze recording companies and artists and
contributes to the growing blandness of broadcast music. But now the company
appears to be using its clout to help one side in a political dispute that deeply
divides the nation.
Why would a media company insert itself into politics this way? It could, of
course, simply be a matter of personal conviction on the part of management.
But there are also good reasons for Clear Channel — which became a giant only
in the last few years, after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 removed many
restrictions on media ownership — to curry favor with the ruling party. On one
side, Clear Channel is feeling some heat: it is being sued over allegations
that it threatens to curtail the airplay of artists who don't tour with its
concert division, and there are even some politicians who want to roll back
the deregulation that made the company's growth possible. On the other side,
the Federal Communications Commission is considering further deregulation that
would allow Clear Channel to expand even further, particularly into television.
Or perhaps the quid pro quo is more narrowly focused. Experienced Bushologists
let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear Channel was revealed to be
behind the pro-war rallies, because the company's top management has a history
with George W. Bush. The vice chairman of Clear Channel is Tom Hicks, whose
name may be familiar to readers of this column. When Mr. Bush was governor of
Texas, Mr. Hicks was chairman of the University of Texas Investment Management
Company, called Utimco, and Clear Channel's chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its
board. Under Mr. Hicks, Utimco placed much of the university's endowment under
the management of companies with strong Republican Party or Bush family ties.
In 1998 Mr. Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made Mr. Bush a
multimillionaire.
There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but a good
guess is that we're now seeing the next stage in the evolution of a new American
oligarchy. As Jonathan Chait has written in The New Republic, in the Bush administration
"government and business have melded into one big `us.' " On almost
every aspect of domestic policy, business interests rule: "Scores of midlevel
appointees . . . now oversee industries for which they once worked." We
should have realized that this is a two-way street: if politicians are busy
doing favors for businesses that support them, why shouldn't we expect businesses
to reciprocate by doing favors for those politicians — by, for example, organizing
"grass roots" rallies on their behalf?
What makes it all possible, of course, is the absence of effective watchdogs.
In the Clinton years the merest hint of impropriety quickly blew up into a huge
scandal; these days, the scandalmongers are more likely to go after journalists
who raise questions. Anyway, don't you know there's a war on?
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/25/opinion/25KRUG.html
xoxox
With Love
Mark R. Elsis
http://MarkElsis.com
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
LOVEARTH NETWORK
Forming A Unity Of One Percent To Stop Our Extinction
Connecting Through 1,000+ EcoHumanePolitical Websites
Website: http://Lovearth.net
1000+ Network Websites: http://Network.Lovearth.net
eMail: AUnityOfOnePercent@Lovearth.net
Phone Toll Free: 1 877 LOVEARTH = 1 877 568.3278
Outside The United States: 1 941 349.9426
Fax Toll Free: 1 877 WEB OF LIFE = 1 877 932.6354
Outside The United States: 1 941 349.0295
5683 Midnight Pass Road Suite 106
Siesta Key Florida 34242-1754
Lovearth
Be Your Best
Resonate Love
Executive Director: Mark R. Elsis
Mark@Lovearth.net
Love Yourself And All Life On Earth
For The Sake Of Our Future Generations
Go In Peace
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
=======================================================