On Saturday, President Bush acknowledged that he had personally authorized a secret warrantless domestic surveillance program more than three dozen times since October 2001. Bush's actions run contrary to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which forbids "unreasonable searches" and sets out specific requirements for warrants, including "probable cause." They demonstrate a dangerous disregard for the basic liberties that serve as our nation's guiding values. They are also in violation of federal law. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) makes it a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, to conduct electronic surveillance, except as "authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order." Moreover, since 1978, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(f) has directed that Title III and FISA "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance...and the interception of domestic wire and oral communications may be conducted." The President's actions were not necessary; if he had legitimate concerns about FISA, "the appropriate response would have been to go to Congress and expand it, not to blatantly violate the law." Below, we debunk the administration's attempts to justify Bush's actions.

FACT: BUSH PROGRAM WOULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS: Vice President Cheney said of the surveillance program, "It's the kind of capability, if we'd had before 9/11, might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11." This claim is false and sensational. The secret surveillance program authorized by President Bush did not provide the government with any new "capability." The government "already had the capacity to read your mail and your e-mail and listen to your telephone conversations. All it had to do was obtain a warrant from a special court created for this purpose. The burden of proof for obtaining a warrant was relaxed a bit after 9/11, but even before the attacks the court hardly ever rejected requests." Indeed, from 1979 to 2002, the FISA court issued 15,264 surveillance warrants. Not a single warrant application was rejected.

FACT: BUSH PROGRAM DID NOT IMPROVE SPEED OF OBTAINING WARRANTS: Another claim made by members of the administration is that President Bush needed "to skirt the normal process of obtaining court-approved search warrants for the surveillance because it was too cumbersome for fast-paced counterterrorism investigations." This argument has several flaws. For one, the New York Times notes, "government officials are able to get an emergency warrant from the secret court within hours, sometimes minutes, if they can show an imminent threat." More importantly, Section 1805 of the FISA Act states that the government can begin a wiretap as soon as it determines a need and can wait up to
72 hours before obtaining a warrant. The Bush administration "did not seek to do that under the special program."

FACT: DISCLOSURE OF PROGRAM DID NOT UNDERMINE NATIONAL SECURITY: After the New York Times published its story, President Bush and other top administration officials refused to confirm the existence of the surveillance program, arguing that doing so would endanger the American people. Bush said on Friday he wouldn't "comment about the veracity of the story...because it would compromise our ability to protect the people." Press Secretary Scott McClellan and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice both repeated this line. Within hours, however, President Bush not only confirmed the existence of the program in a Saturday morning address, but provided details about how it worked. In other words, the administration's initial refusal to comment was motivated by public relations, not security, concerns. The scope of surveillance under FISA -- which has long been public -- is the same under President Bush's secretive program.

FACT: RICE UNABLE TO EXPLAIN WHAT GAVE BUSH AUTHORITY TO EAVESDROP WITHOUT WARRANT: Yesterday, Condoleezza Rice was asked a simple question: what is the specific statute or law that gives President Bush the authority to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant? She had no answer. Instead, Rice referenced unspecified "authorities that derive from his role as Commander in Chief and his need to protect the country," then explained she was "not a lawyer and I am quite certain that the Attorney General will address a lot of these questions." Indeed, Rice said several times that she is "not a lawyer." That fact is irrelevant. Rice was the National Security Adviser when President Bush authorized the NSA program, and said today that she was aware of Bushs decision at the time. Shouldn’t she know why it was legal?

FACT: SOME CONGRESSIONAL INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS NOT TOLD OF PROGRAM: Yesterday, Condoleezza Rice defended the eavesdropping program by arguing that congressional leaders -- specifically "leaders of the relevant oversight intelligence committees" -- had been briefed on the NSA activities. This is apparently not true. At the time the program was initiated, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL). On Friday's "Nightline," Graham made clear he had never been briefed by the administration about the program: "There was no reference made to the fact that we were going to...begin unwarranted, illegal, and I think unconstitutional, eavesdropping on American citizens." Additionally, in a letter issued last night, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she had been "advised by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), Ranking Democrat on House Intelligence Committee, that the Bush Administration reversed its decision to brief the full House Intelligence Committee on the details of the activities."

FACT: IN CONFIRMATION HEARING, GONZALES DENIED BUSH WOULD ACT BEYOND CRIMINAL STATUTES: In a classified legal opinion, the administration argued the President had the power to order the warrantless search pursuant to his authority as commander-in-chief to wage war against al-Qaeda. During his Attorney General confirmation hearings in January 2005, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) asked Gonzales specifically whether the president "at least in theory [has] the authority to authorize violations of the criminal law under duly enacted statutes simply because he's commander in chief?" After trying to dodge the question for a time, Gonzales issued this denial: "Senator, this president is not ?I ?it is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes." Later, Feingold asked Gonzales to "commit to notify Congress if the president makes this type of decision and not wait two years until a memo is leaked about it." Gonzales replied, "I will advise the Congress as soon as I reasonably can, yes, sir."


Informant: Scott Munson

As Tom DeLay became a king of campaign fundraising, he lived like one too. He visited cliff-top Caribbean resorts, golf courses designed by PGA champions and four-star restaurants all courtesy of donors who bankrolled his political money empire.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1425390


Informant: Bigraccoon

Die Presse, 19.12.2005

VON BENEDIKT KOMMENDA

Verwaltung und Justiz scheuen davor zurück, dem zunehmenden Einsatz der Funktechnologie entgegenzutreten, meint Umweltrechtler Ferdinand Kerschner. "Verwaltungsbehörden und Gerichte schieben das Problem wie eine heiße Kartoffel hin und her", sagte der Linzer Umweltrechtler Univ.-Prof. Ferdinand Kerschner. (c) APA

SALZBURG. Der letzte Schrei unter den Handy-Accessoires, die zur Zeit als Weihnachtsgeschenke beworben werden, hat Symbolcharakter: ein überdimensional wirkender knallroter Telefonhörer, der mit einem Spiralkabel nach Art der Festnetzapparate aus dem zweiten nachchristlichen Jahrtausend an ein Mobiltelefon angeschlossen wird. Geht es nach dem Willen und den Warnungen mancher Mediziner, sollte man sich verstärkt des guten alten Festnetzes besinnen: Denn die immer weiter verbreitete Funktechnologie berge Risken, deren sich die Benutzer von Schnurlostelefonen, Handys und Funknetzwerken (WLAN) zu wenig bewusst seien.

Unter dieser Prämisse stand die Podiumsdiskussion "Mobilfunk, Mensch und Recht", die das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM) am Freitagabend in Salzburg veranstaltete. Das Ergebnis vorweg: Die rechtlichen Mittel, gegen die angenommenen Gesundheitsgefährdungen vorzugehen, sind äußerst beschränkt.

"Verwaltungsbehörden und Gerichte schieben das Problem wie eine heiße Kartoffel hin und her", sagte der Linzer Umweltrechtler Univ.-Prof. Ferdinand Kerschner. Niemand wolle die Verantwortung übernehmen - aus einem einfachen Grund, so Kerschner: "Es geht um sehr viel Geld."

Dabei sind nach Aussagen Gerd Oberfelds, Umweltmediziner des Landes Salzburg, die nachteiligen Wirkungen - von Störungen des Wohlbefindens bis zum erhöhten Krebsrisiko - von Handys, Sendemasten und Heim-Funknetzen vielfach belegt. Oberfeld war auch im Sommer an der Warnung der Ärztekammer vor den Langzeitfolgen von Handy- und Schnurlostelefonie beteiligt - einer Warnung, die von der Mobilfunkindustrie als haltlos zurückgewiesen wurde.

Für Umweltrechtler Kerschner wäre es allerdings an der Zeit, gleichsam die Beweislast umzudrehen und Mobilfunkanlagen nur unter der Bedingung zu genehmigen, dass ihre Ungefährlichkeit nachgewiesen ist. In diesem Sinn habe sich auch der EuGH (C-127/02) für das "Vorsorgeprinzip" ausgesprochen, als er den Nachweis der Naturverträglichkeit der Herzmuschelfischerei im Wattenmeer verlangte. Was für die Herzmuschel gelte, müsse umso mehr für die menschliche Gesundheit gelten, meinte Kerschner.

Während es den Verwaltungsbehörden bei der Genehmigung von Sendeanlagen verwehrt sei, über Gesundheitsaspekte zu urteilen, bleibe noch die Möglichkeit, den "Belästigungsschutz" wahrzunehmen. Darüber hätte der Verwaltungsgerichtshof aber noch nicht entschieden, wobei Kerschners Hoffnungen nicht allzu groß sind.

Die ordentlichen Gerichte wiederum würden sich mit der Einhaltung von Grenzwerten begnügen, die nur den "Durchschnittsmenschen" und nicht auch Kinder, Alte und Kranke berücksichtigten. Deshalb plädiert Kerschner für einen neuen Ansatz: Wenn der Sendekegel eines Handymasts direkt auf ein benachbartes Grundstück gerichtet sei, dann könne man das als "unmittelbare Zuleitung" sehen, wie sie das ABGB - ursprünglich Abflussrohre und Ähnliches meinend - ohne Einwilligung des Nachbarn "unter allen Umständen" verbietet. "Man kann mit dem Nachbarn alles vereinbaren", sagt Kerschner, "aber man muss ihn fragen." Vom persönlichen Wohlbefinden abgesehen ist auch der Wert von Liegenschaften in der Nachbarschaft von Antennenmasten beeinträchtigt.

Univ.-Prof. Wolfram Karl, Leiter des ÖIM, und sein Mitarbeiter Eduard Christian Schöpfer bauen indes auf den Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte. Ansätze sieht Karl in der Straßburger Judikatur zu dem Schutzpflichten des Staates im Zusammenhang mit dem Recht auf Leben und zum Recht auf Privat- und Familienleben. Schöpfer wirft angesichts der Schwierigkeiten bei der Geltendmachung von Abwehrrechten die Frage nach der menschenrechtlich garantierten "wirksamen Beschwerde" auf.

Nur ein einziges wurde - eher ungewöhnlich in einem Haus, wo die Menschenrechte und also auch die Fairness sehr viel zählen - vergessen: einen Vertreter der Mobilfunker auf das Podium einzuladen, der für die andere Seite das Wort hätte ergreifen können.

Omega siehe hierzu "Mobilfunk, Mensch und Recht" unter:
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1356123/

http://diepresse.com/Artikel.aspx?channel=e&ressort=r&id=527000&archiv=false

mit freundlichen Grüßen

Michael Meyer

michael_meyer@aon.at
Risiko Mobilfunk Österreich Plattform Sozialstaat Österreich - Netzwerk Zivilcourage
A - 5165 Berndorf, Stadl 4
Tel/Fax 0043 - 6217 - 8576

--------

Mobilfunk und Menschenrechte
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1238278/

Mobilfunk, Mensch und Recht
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1189695/

Verbraucherzentrale: Kein rechtlicher Schutz bei Mobilfunkgeschädigten
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1290252/

Opfer könnten vor dem Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte klagen http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1240497/

Please SAVE our Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Here is information to contact Senator Bill Nelson, he will do what is right!!!

His Washington D.C. office telephone is JAMMED!!!, but you can call his Coral Gables office it is open. I did!!

Alan Dicey


U.S. Senator Bill Nelson (D) Local Address
2925 Salzedo Street Miami, Florida 33134
(305) 536-5999 Fax: 305-536-5991

Washington Address
716 Hart Senate Office Building United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Telephone: 202-224-5274 Fax: 202-228-2183
E-mail: billnelson.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
E-Mail: senator@billnelson.senate.gov

München: Bayerischer Verfassungsschutz soll angeblich in CIA-Affaire verwickelt sein (20.12.05)

In den Fall des von der CIA entführten Deutsch-Libanesen Khaled el Masri soll einem "Focus"-Bericht zufolge auch das bayerische Landesamt für Verfassungsschutz (LfV) verwickelt gewesen sein. Demnach soll ein LfV-Mitarbeiter ein Dossier über El Masri einem Verbindungsbeamten des US-Geheimdienstes CIA übergeben haben. Das Landesamt wies die Behauptung als falsch zurück. Die FDP verlangte Aufklärung vom bayerischen Innenminister Günther Beckstein.

Die ganze Nachricht im Internet:
http://www.ngo-online.de/ganze_nachricht.php?Nr=12561

Ban Terminator News, December 2005

New Calls from Peasants and Small Scale Farmers to Ban Terminator

Take action in your community to endorse the campaign and add your statements against Terminator to these new resolutions from farmers and seed savers in Europe, Canada and South Africa:

1) European Seeds Seminar Calls for a Ban on Terminator, November 26

2) Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario (Canada) Resolution to Endorse Global Campaign to Ban Terminator Technology, November 26

3) German Family Farmers Association, Living seeds instead of dead harvest - Stop Terminator Seeds, November 27

4) KwaNgwanase Farmers Organisation and Phadima Farmers Association, South Africa, Objections and Comments on Terminator Technology Gene, December 2

1) European Seeds Seminar Calls for a Ban on Terminator "Let's Liberate Diversity" Poitiers, France, 25th and 26th November 2005

Resolution to Call for a Ban on Terminator Technology because of its European and Global Impacts on Farmers, Food Sovereignty and the Environment

Participants at the European Seeds Seminar, who came from 15 European countries and 21 countries in other continents (1), meeting in Poitiers, France on 26th November 2005 supported the international campaign to Ban Terminator technology – its development, testing and commercialisation (2).

Terminator, a technology requiring multiple genetic modifications, will stop farmers from being able to save and reuse seed. It is designed to prevent farm-saved seed from germinating so that farmers have to buy new seeds each season. It has been developed to increase corporate control over seeds by the biotech companies. Terminator directly infringes Farmers’ Rights, undermines food sovereignty and presents a threat to farmers’ livelihoods and agricultural biodiversity.

The participants at the seminar:

- Opposed the use of Terminator or any other GURTs (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies) that would prevent farmers from saving and re-using seeds;

- Called on the European Patent Office to revoke the patent on Terminator technology granted to Delta & Pine Land and United States Department of Agriculture on 5th October 2005 (3);

- Rejected the false claim that Terminator technology could permit co- existence of conventional and GM crops – it cannot be a biosafety tool;

- Criticised the investment in research on Terminator technology which diverts funds and effort from agriculturally useful investigation;

- Called on peasants and rural peoples to actively expose and oppose Terminator technology and GM crops and intensify the struggle against imperialist globalisation and the agrochemical transnational corporations; and

- Called on their governments to: Ban Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) and Terminator, and Defend the existing de facto moratorium on the development, testing and commercialisation of Terminator technology, in upcoming meetings of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in March 2006.

(1) At the seminar there were about 140 participants from national and international farmers’ organisations, NGOs, agricultural research organisations and national, regional and international civil society networks concerned with seeds, agricultural biodiversity, food and farming.

(2) See http://www.banterminator.org

(3) The Terminator patent, EP 0 775 212 B1, was granted by the European Patent Office on 5th October 2005 to US-based Delta & Pine Land (D&PL Technology Holding Company LLC ) and the United States of America, represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. According to further data bank research the patent was already granted in similar versions in the USA, further applications were filed in Australia, Brazil, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Turkey and South Africa. A patent was also granted in Canada on October 11 2005.

Adopted at 16:15 on 26th November 2005, by unanimous vote in the final Plenary.

2) Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario (EFA0)

Resolution to Endorse Global Campaign to Ban Terminator Technology. Passed November 26, 2005, Dixon’s Corners.

Whereas ecological farmers attempt to work with nature by using practices like encouraging biodiversity and,

Whereas ecological farmers often rely on on-farm resources like farm saved seed and,

Whereas past technologies offered to farmers like technology use agreements for GMOs, pesticides and chemical fertilizers perpetuate an agricultural model far removed from nature and damaging to the environment and,

Whereas Terminator technology or GURTs (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies) refers to plants that have been genetically modified to render sterile seeds at harvest and,

Whereas Terminator technology goes against the practice of farming with nature and gives seed multinationals increased control over farmers and,

Whereas the EFAO GMO policy includes a request to "Ban agreements and technology (e.g. Terminator type genes), which restrict farmers’ right to save, trade and reuse seeds."

Therefore be it resolved that the Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario endorse the global campaign to ask all national governments, including Canada, and international bodies to ban terminator in order to ensure that the technology is never field tested or commercialized,

Be it further resolved that EFAO make its position known to the Canadian government and the general public.

Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario (EFA0) 5420 Hwy 6 N. R.R. 5 Guelph ON N1H 6J2 (519) 822-8606

Accompanying Press Release December 8, 2005 Ecological Farmers Ask Canadian Government to Ban ‘Suicide Seeds’

At its recent Annual General Meeting the membership of the Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario (EFAO), passed a motion endorsing the global campaign asking all governments, including Canada, to ban terminator technology to ensure the technology is never field tested or commercialized. Terminator technology refers to plants that have been genetically modified to render sterile seeds at harvest.

Oxford county farmer and EFAO President, Ann Slater says, "By genetically modifying plants that cannot reproduce themselves, the biotechnology and seed corporations, with co-operation from governments, have completely disconnected the growing of food from the rhythm and cycles of nature. In addition, it threatens our seed, and ultimately, our food security by forcing farmers to purchase seed each year."

The official term for Terminator is Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURTs) but the seeds produced through terminator technology are frequently referred to as ‘suicide seeds’ because of their inability to reproduce themselves. This technology was initially developed by seed company, Delta and Pine Land and the US government. The net result of this technology will be that farmers will be unable to replant harvested seed.

"The Canadian Government should be looking at whether this technology benefits farmers and society at large. I fear the motive of the companies is not to feed the world but to fatten their bottom lines." states Director Fran McQuail, from Huron County. " To me, Terminator technology is another genetic modification which might pollute the world's seed stocks the way some of the herbicide resistant genes have, and could potentially cause famine in regions where local food supplies are completely dependant on farm saved seed."

At this point, terminator technology has not been commercialized or field-tested - although trials are currently being conducted in greenhouses in the United States. Since 2000, there has been a de facto moratorium on the release of Terminator seeds under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. However, over the past year there has been a push to lift the moratorium.

Terminator technology will be discussed at meetings of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in early 2006. Environmental, peasant and citizen groups from across the world, including the EFAO are asking governments to use these meetings as an opportunity to ban Terminator and protect the livelihood of small- scale and family farmers around the world.

For more information contact: EFAO President, Ann Slater (519) 349-2448 EFAO Director, Fran McQuail (519) 528-2493

3) German Family Farmers Association Living seeds instead of dead harvest - Stop Terminator Seeds , Altenkirchen/ Hamm, 27.11.2005

The General Meeting of the German Family Farmers Association decides unanimously:

The Family Farmers Association in Germany supports the actions against Terminator and will contact all Farmers Associations in Germany to form a broad alliance against Terminator. The Family Farmers Association (AbL) condemns the technical assault on the fertileness of seeds and stands up for the right to save seeds. Reasons:

The Terminator-Technology manipulates crops like wheat, soy or canola in a way that the harvest becomes sterile and the fertileness of seed is destroyed. This Technology is complex and error-prone, but is advertised as a biological containment system to avoid cross- pollination and contamination. The introduction of Terminator- Technology, accompanied by sterile harvest, rules out the right and the possibility to save seed. Terminator aggravates the degree of dependence for farmers in the south and in the north and changes the agricultural system in a very important way. Food sovereignty and biodiversity are threatened by Terminator.

Developed ten years ago, Terminator-Technology is driven by Delta & Pine Land and the US-Government. They aimed to stop the possibility to save seeds. Through the concept of biological containment system they are trying to get Terminator-Technology accepted.

In February, the Canadian government tried to overturn the existing moratorium of the UN against Terminator. They are expected to try to open the door to Terminator during the upcoming meetings of the UN Convention of Biological Diversity in Spain and Brazil.

The international Campaign “Ban Terminator” started in Canada and gets now the first supports from German Organisations.

AbL-Bundesgeschäftsstelle, Bahnhofstraße 31, D-59065 Hamm/Westfalen Tel.: +49-2381 9053171, Fax: +49-2381 492221, E-mail: info@abl-ev.de

4) Objections and Comments on Terminator Technology Gene: Comments on above Technology Generated on 02 December 2005 by KwaNgwanase Farmers Organisation and Phadima Farmers Association

1. We disagree with the government proposal to guarantee this permit.

2. This will destroy our ecological system.

3. Our soil will become poor acidic, and will only produce only Gmo crops and our food systems is reduced. Our culture and seeds will be destroyed.

4. This technology is an enemy of nature and ecological system.

5. Farmers rights and cultural rights are not taken care of.

6. Food security systems operations are destroyed consumers will also dependent.

7. South African emerging farmers, commercial not be empowered only outside seed breeders are encouraged to monopolise our farming systems.

8. This technology uses chemical packages which destroys our environments and increase toxic elements in our Health systems.

9. We pledge to S.A Government to stop this technology in our country.

10. This is the way Government want to destroys and complete finishes our local seed varieties and our indigenous knowledge systems.

11. This is not natural and ethical.

12. This will create a nation without culture and poverty is promoted.

13. The KwaNgwanase "Inkosi" Tembe must call the ''imbizo'' for the community to verify and promote Tembe cultural values and activities, (Tembe Reinasance).

14. We must go to public to tell them about this technology and let them have a choice.

Die WTO-Ministerkonferenz hat den Industriestaaten mehr gebracht, als sie zugeben wollen.

http://www.telepolis.de/tp/r4/artikel/21/21616/1.html

Eigentlich hatte die US-Regierung den Irak wegen der Massenvernichtungswaffen angegriffen, jetzt lässt man die die angeblich für die Entwicklung von biologischen Waffen Verantwortlichen frei.

http://www.telepolis.de/tp/r4/artikel/21/21620/1.html

https://community.hsus.org/campaign/2005_ANWR

The last bill of the year for the Congress is the massive Department of Defense (DoD) spending bill, which funds the military and, in this case, other crucial national security issues such as disaster assistance and avian flu preparedness. Unfortunately, the Congress passed up a tremendous opportunity to pass a provision to limit the global trade in cockfighting birds--a well-established threat to transmit bird flu and a pathway to spread the deadly disease across the globe--and instead used the Defense spending bill to attach a controversial provision to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The Senate will vote on this bill as soon as Wednesday, please tell your Senators to reject it.

https://community.hsus.org/campaign/2005_ANWR

Animal protection advocates were more than hopeful that the House would attach the relatively uncontroversial "Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act" (S. 382 and H.R. 817) to the DoD spending bill given that there were a raft of provisions attached to combat avian influenza and to prepare for the possibility of a pandemic. But not only was the anti-cockfighting bill not included, the committee reviewing the DoD appropriations bill went out of its way to explicitly state in a press release that it never intended to include any language related to anti-animal fighting efforts. Tell Congress to reject the DoD bill.

https://community.hsus.org/campaign/2005_ANWR

To add insult to injury, the committee then tacked on a controversial rider that opens the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration and drilling. The Arctic Refuge is home to hundreds of species of wildlife including polar bears, musk oxen, wolves, grizzly bears, and other wildlife species. The HSUS has long opposed drilling in the Arctic, and a measure that stirs such controversy and that has divided the country and the Congress should not be handled in this manner. Congress should be doing all it can to combat bird flu, not slipping in a controversial energy production plan in a wildlife refuge.

Do we have to wait for an outbreak of avian flu to occur in this country before we put an end to the barbaric cockfighting industry? Please act now! Call your U.S. Senators today. You can reach your Senators through the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Not sure what to say? Click here to look up your Senators, see a sample phone call, and to send an email to your Senators.

https://community.hsus.org/campaign/2005_ANWR

The DoD appropriations bill will be up for a vote as soon as Wednesday. Tell your Senators to reject the final DoD appropriations bill because it includes Arctic drilling but does not include common-sense measures to help stop the spread of bird flu by cracking down on cruel cockfights. Urge your friends to take action, too.

Thank you for your action in these last critical hours. I know many of you are busy with holiday preparations, and I appreciate you taking time out for this important matter.

Sincerely,

Wayne Pacelle
President & CEO
The Humane Society of the United States

Copyright © 2005 The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). All Rights Reserved.

The Humane Society of the United States | 2100 L Street, NW | Washington, DC 20037, humanelines@hsus.org | 202-452-1100 | http://www.hsus.org

http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/3814/


Informant: jensenmk

From ufpj-news

In brief, we have found there is substantial evidence that the president, vice president, and other high-ranking members of the Bush administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war with Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for said war; countenanced torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, and other legal violations in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of their administration.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122005Y.shtml

http://www.stopcorporateabusenow.org/campaign/exposebottledwater

Water is precious to all life on earth. But today, for more and more communities, safe water is increasingly scarce. Globally, more than a billion people don’t have access to enough safe water to drink.

From privatizing municipal water systems to bottling, marketing and selling water—giant corporations are turning water into a profit-driven commodity. Here in the U.S., the consumption of bottled water has more than doubled in the past ten years. The bottled water industry is manipulating consumers by positioning bottled water as healthy—when in reality bottled water threatens our health and our ecosystems, costs thousands of times what tap water costs, and undermines local democratic control over a common resource.

Coca-Cola, Nestlé and Pepsi are the three largest corporations behind the bottled water industry in North America. These corporations are manipulating consumers while degrading the environment and exercising greater corporate control over communities’ water systems and water sources. These corporations have a track record tainted with irresponsible and dangerous actions and are not shy about using political and economic influence to turn public water into private profit.

Take action today and tell Coke, Nestlé and Pepsi to stop misleading promotion of bottled water and to stop interfering in public policies that protect our water.

Send a letter to the following decision maker(s): The CEOs of Coke, Nestle and Pepsi

Below is the sample letter:

Subject: Water is a right, not a commodity

Dear [decision maker name automatically inserted here],

The basic human right to water is at risk and people's lives are at stake. Over one billion people don't have access to safe water to drink and corporations are contributing to this problem by turning water into a profit-driven commodity.

I am joining thousands of other consumers worldwide calling on you to:

1. Stop misleading promotion of your bottled water brands
2. Stop interfering in public policies that protect water

When will you stop prioritizing short term gains over people and the environment? I await your prompt reply.

Sincerely,


http://www.stopcorporateabusenow.org/stopcorporateabuse/home.html

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,391506,00.html

(SPON) Amerikanische Polizei und Geheimdienste haben den Auftrag, Umweltschützer, sozial engagierte NGOs, FriedensaktivistInnen und Tierschutzgruppen im Rahmen der Antiterrorfahndung zu überwachen. Das berichtet aktuell die New York Times.

Der Überwachung unterliegen in den USA unter anderem Greenpeace, die Tierschutzorganisation Peta und die katholische Arbeitnehmerbewegung. Die katholischen Arbeitnehmer werden überwacht mit der Begründung, sie verfolgten eine "halbkommunistische Ideologie ". Die Freigabe der Dokumente, die dies enthüllen und von ihr an die New York Times übergeben wurden, war von der amerikanischen Bürgerrechtsbewegung durchgesetzt worden. Auch in Deutschland werden - dem US-amerikanischen Vorbild folgend - NGOs und andere Organisationen z.b. der Friedensbewegung als potenzielle Terrororganisationen überwacht. Vom Hamburger Verfassungsschutz wurde in diesem Zusammenhang insbesondere die Linkspartei als besorgniserregend eingestuft.


G.Wendebourg / metainfo hamburg

Link zum Beitrag / Hintergrundinfo oder Pressehinweis:
http://www.hh-online.com?lid=23285 und
http://links.net-hh.de?lid=23285

Infopool / metainfo hamburg www.hh-online.com

Tom Engelhardt writes that the attacks of 9/11 gave the Bush administration an opening to attempt to sweep away the last obstacles in the path of a presidency dedicated to the idea that no prohibition of any sort should stand in its way (or domestically, in the way of the Republican Party).

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122005O.shtml

According to reports, early returns show a strong performance by the followers of the outspoken Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr. Some reports estimate Muqtada's nominees winning almost one third of the UIA slate.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122005L.shtml

With tensions rising in the Capitol, Senate Democrats threatened on Monday to derail a $453 billion military spending bill over an Arctic oil drilling dispute, just hours after the House approved the measure in an all-night session that also included passage of a $40 billion budget-cutting bill.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122005K.shtml

Counterterrorism agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted numerous surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations that involved, at least indirectly, groups active in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief, newly disclosed agency records show.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122005J.shtml

Robert Byrd states that the president claims a boundless authority through the resolution that authorized the war on those who perpetrated the September 11th attacks. But that resolution does not give the president unchecked power to spy on our own people, to create covert prisons for secret prisoners, authorize the torture of prisoners to extract information from them, authorize running black-hole secret prisons in foreign countries to get around US law, or give the president the powers reserved only for kings and potentates.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122005I.shtml

http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/crapo_s_2110

Anti-Endangered Species Bill in Senate

Ask Your Senators to Oppose S. 2110 Senate bill would gut Endangered Species Act

Late last week, Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) introduced a bill to radically undermine the Endangered Species Act. Senate bill S. 2110, cynically titled the “Collaboration and Recovery of Endangered Species Act,” would completely derail the endangered species listing program, remove protections for endangered species habitat, and cut federal oversight of projects that threaten endangered species. (A full explanation and full text of the Crapo bill is available at http://www.biologicaldiversity.org .)

We need you to call your senators and ask them to oppose S. 2110, Senator Crapo’s anti-endangered species bill! Contact your senator through the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121.

Crapo hopes to pass a Senate bill that would allow Congress to adopt the terrible Pombo anti-endangered species bill that passed the House this September. Crapo introduced his bill in the midst of Congress’s end-of-year rush to finish up work so they can leave town for the holidays. He is hoping to sneak this bill through the Senate Finance Committee in order to avoid the Environment and Public Works Committee that usually oversees endangered species issues.

Therefore, we need to raise the alarm: let your senators know they need to oppose this attack on the Endangered Species Act! Otherwise this terrible bill will get moving in the Senate under the radar. We need early and strong opposition to stop this bill before it ever gets off the ground.

Send a letter to the following decision maker(s): Your Senators

Below is the sample letter:

Subject: Please Oppose S. 2110 Anti-Endangered Species Bill

Dear [decision maker name automatically inserted here],

I want you to know that I strongly support the Endangered Species Act, and I oppose any measure that would undermine protections for America's endangered plants and wildlife. S. 2110, recently introduced by Senator Crapo, would completely derail the endangered species listing program, remove protections for endangered species habitat, and cut federal oversight of projects that threaten endangered species. I strongly urge you to support protections for endangered wildlife and plants and to oppose S. 2110. Thank you.

Sincerely,

By Bill Van Auken

20 December 2005

In his nationally televised address from the White House Oval Office Sunday night, George W. Bush reprised the barefaced lies, distortions and appeals to fear and political backwardness that characterized the last such speech delivered by the US president, announcing the onset of the unprovoked US "shock and awe" onslaught against Iraq 33 months ago.

This time around, however, Bush found himself compelled to argue against those who "conclude that the war is lost and not worth another dime or another day"-a description that applies to many millions of Americans. He was forced to acknowledge that the attempt to quell resistance to the US occupation has been "more difficult than we expected," and, while touting the turnout in Sunday's Iraqi parliamentary elections, he admitted that the vote "will not mean the end of violence."

Despite fleeting acknowledgements of massive popular opposition to the war, the essential message was that the administration has no intention of bowing to public opinion and withdrawing US troops. Rather, it plans to continue the slaughter in Iraq indefinitely in pursuit of the geo-strategic aims that motivated the war in the first place.

The speech was sandwiched between Bush's live radio address Saturday and a White House press conference Monday, both of which he used to defiantly defend his secret and illegal use of the National Security Agency to spy on US citizens, arguing for what amounts to dictatorial powers.

The media made much of Bush's admissions about "difficulties" and "setbacks," his claim to having heard those who "did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq" and what the Washington Post referred to as his "forthright statement" and "more humble tone."

These trappings of the speech, like Bush's elaborate hand gestures, were all crafted by his political handlers with the aim of deceiving a portion of the public. The essential content of the address was the defense of an illegal war based upon lies and an attempt to intimidate those who oppose it.

The essential framework of this defense was the same as that utilized to drag the American people into this war in the first place-the lie that the invasion of Iraq was a response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City and Washington and constituted an essential battle in the "global war on terror."

The tragic events of September 11-and the Bush administration's manifest failure to take any action to prevent them-have never been seriously investigated, much less explained. One thing is certain, however: They were seized upon by the administration as a pretext for carrying out a war planned years before, which was aimed at imposing US domination over the Persian Gulf in order to seize control of its oil resources and secure a decisive strategic advantage over US capitalism's principal economic rivals.

Now Bush attempts to portray the war in Iraq as a confrontation between the US military and Al Qaeda terrorists who, if not defeated in Iraq, would soon be attacking the US. This is patent nonsense. The Pentagon and the CIA have repeatedly acknowledged that the resistance to the US occupation is a matter of Iraqis fighting to throw foreign invaders out of their own country. Tens of thousands have been killed or imprisoned by the US military in Iraq, yet only a handful of so-called "foreign fighters" have been counted among them.

"We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists," Bush declared in one of the more ignorant passages in his speech. "We invite terrorism by ignoring them. And we will defeat the terrorists by capturing and killing them abroad, removing their safe havens, and strengthening new allies like Iraq and Afghanistan in the fight we share."

But Iraq was no "safe haven" for terrorists before the US invasion. The relation between the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda was one of mutual hostility. And, as far as Iraq today is concerned, the occupation, as US military officers readily acknowledge, is most certainly producing tens and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who are prepared to wage an armed struggle against American troops. Relatives of the innocent civilians killed at roadblocks and by bombing attacks, massacred in sieges like Fallujah or imprisoned and tortured in Abu Ghraib and other US concentration camps provide an inexhaustible source of recruits for the resistance.

Connected to the lie about the war in Iraq's supposed connection to September 11 and terrorism is the assertion that the administration acted upon flawed intelligence. Bush acknowledged that the claims about "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq were false, only to dismiss this fact as irrelevant.

"Much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. And as your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq," he said. "Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power."

The intelligence, however, was not merely "wrong," it was deliberately fabricated in order to provide a phony justification for the war-Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction-and to terrorize the American people into accepting it.

In his speech, Bush tried to explain away the manufacturing of false intelligence by claiming that Saddam Hussein had "systematically concealed those programs and blocked the work of UN weapons inspectors," and that "that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction."

The reality is that the weapons inspectors did the job that they were assigned, destroying all of Iraq's biological and chemical weapons stockpiles. As for other nations, the great majority viewed Iraq as posing no imminent threat, and therefore blocked the Bush administration's attempts to get the UN to authorize an invasion. The UN weapons inspectors themselves refuted the claims made by Washington.

Bush insists that the fact the war was waged on the basis of lies is of no consequence because the happy result is that the US intervention is establishing a "constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East" that "will serve as a model of freedom" for the region. This is also a lie.

First, the regime that is taking shape in Iraq-dominated by religious fundamentalists, torn by bitter sectarian divisions and ruling through the use of death squads and torture chambers-is hardly a model of democracy or freedom for anyone. Secondly, the US secures its interests throughout the region through the closest alliances with despots and dictators, from Saudi Arabia to Egypt to Pakistan.

The rest of the speech consisted largely of jingoistic bluster and attempts at political intimidation. The president employed his usual cheap trick of portraying any attempt to end a dirty war that has claimed the lives of nearly 2,200 American soldiers as a betrayal of the troops.

"Our troops in the field, who bear the burden and make the sacrifice, do not believe that America has lost," he said, adding, "We would undermine the morale of our troops by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed."

The morale of "our troops" found a more accurate expression during Vice President Dick Cheney's lighting visit to Iraq on the same day Bush gave his speech. Addressing US troops, Cheney-whose trip was conducted in secrecy and under extraordinary military protection-assured them the resistance was in its "last throes."

Press reports portrayed a sullen uniformed audience, however. Among those selected to address questions to the vice president was a Marine corporal who said to Cheney, "From our perspective, we don't see much as far as gains" in the war. "I was wondering what it looks like from the big side of the mountain."

Another Marine, asked the vice president, "Sir, what are the benefits of doing all this work to get Iraq on its feet?"

In its report on the meeting, the Associated Press provided a graphic illustration of the skepticism and outright hostility of many soldiers to the administration's war: "When he [Cheney] delivered the applause line, 'We 're in this fight to win. These colors don't run,' the only sound was a lone whistle."

Bush likewise used his prime time speech to brand anyone who opposed his declared policy of war until victory as a "defeatist," guilty of endangering "the security of our people."

The speech had the desired effect upon the Democratic Party, whose leadership has made it clear that it has no intention of mounting a challenge to Bush over the war. Leading Democrats praised Bush for his supposed new-found conciliation and "candor." A typical reaction was that of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who said, "The president has reached out and spoken more directly than ever before about how we went to war and why it is important to achieve victory, a goal we all share."

In an interview with the Washington Post published last Friday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California) made it clear that her declaration of support for a resolution put forward by Democratic Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania calling for a US military withdrawal in six months did not signal a party position. Rather, she said, Democrats' attitude toward the war would be a "matter of individual conscience." In other words, the party will do all in its power to downplay the war, which is overwhelmingly opposed by Democratic voters, in the 2006 midterm elections. The last thing the party leadership wants is for the elections to become a referendum on the war.

Despite the Democrats' support for the continuation of the war, the Bush administration is well aware that this bipartisan position is deeply unpopular among a vast section of the American population.

To counter this mass opposition, the administration has chosen to launch a campaign of fear-mongering coupled with calls for ever greater police state powers. This is the significance of its decision to go on the offensive over the revelations of the illegal domestic spying operation mounted by the National Security Agency under Bush's orders.

In a one-hour press conference Monday that was dominated by the NSA revelations, Bush mentioned the September 11 attacks at least 15 times, claiming that after the terrorist attacks, the US was at war, and that he required extraordinary powers to protect the American people. He insisted, essentially, that his constitutional role as "commander in chief" coupled with the Congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force against Al Qaeda gave him limitless power.

Earlier in the day, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in defending the NSA spying operation, dismissed concerns over the legality of domestic espionage by pointing out that the US Supreme Court had already upheld the president's power to declare US citizens "enemy combatants" and secretly detain them indefinitely without charges.

At the press conference, one reporter asked Bush, "If the global war on terror is going to last for decades, as has been forecast, does that mean that we're going to see, therefore, a more or less permanent expansion of the unchecked power of the executive in American society?"

Bush responded angrily to what he termed "ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the president." As for checks on presidential power, he declared, there is the "check of people being sworn to uphold the law, for starters"-in other words, a government over whose activities there is no enforceable oversight and whose word is supposed to be accepted on faith by the people.

Bush reserved his greatest anger, however, for those in the Senate who, citing threats to civil liberties, blocked the reauthorization of provisions of the USA Patriot Act. "I want senators from New York or Los Angeles or Las Vegas to explain why these cities are safer" without the renewal of these measures, he said.

Speaking on Monday, Cheney made a similar criticism. Appearing on the ABC news program "Nightline," he declared, "What I'm concerned about . . . is that as we get farther and farther from 9/11 . . . we seem to have people less and less committed to doing everything that's necessary to defend the country."

Taken together, these statements have an ominous significance. Desperate regimes take desperate measures. Facing mass opposition and besieged on all sides by revelations of criminal activities ranging from torture to secret prisons to illegal spying, the Bush administration is responding with a drumbeat of warnings that September 11 could happen again. The question is whether this administration is preparing to either engineer or allow such an attack as a means of suppressing domestic dissent and furthering its policies of militarism abroad and reaction at home.

See also: Bush defends illegal spying on Americans: the specter of presidential dictatorship [19 December 2005] Pentagon's domestic spying operations target opponents of Iraq war [15 December 2005] Deal to renew USA Patriot Act extends police-state measures [13 December 2005]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/bush-d20.shtml


Informant: Friends

"This shocking revelation ought to send a chill down the spine of every American." Senator Russell Feingold, December 17, 2005

The Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=43492

(14 paragraphs) Executive Run Amok Spying and Lying

Katrina vanden Heuvel

BLOG | Posted 12/18/2005 @ 5:42pm

Under pressure from the White House, the New York Times withheld publication for a year of a report of illegal domestic surveillance of US citizens. Katrina vanden Heuvel writes that if information is the oxygen of democracy, the Bush Administration is trying to cut off the supply. Journalists and media organizations must find a way to restore their role as effective watchdogs, as checks on an executive run amok.

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

"This shocking revelation ought to send a chill down the spine of every American."

Senator Russell Feingold, December 17, 2005

As reported by the New York Times on Friday, "Months after the September 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying."

A senior intelligence officer says Bush personally and repeatedly gave the NSA permission for these taps--more than three dozen times since October 2001. Each time, the White House counsel and the Attorney General--whose job it is to guard and defend our civil liberties and freedoms--certified the lawfulness of the program. (It is useful here to note "The Yoo Factor": The domestic spying program was justified by a "classified legal opinion" written by former Justice Department official John Yoo, the same official who wrote a memo arguing that interrogation techniques only constitute torture if they are "equivalent in intensity to...organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death.")

Illegally spying on Americans is chilling--even for this Administration. Moreover, as Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, told the Times, "the secret order may amount to the president authorizing criminal activity." Some officials at the NSA agree. According to the Times, "Some agency officials wanted nothing to do with the program, apparently fearful of participating in an illegal operation." Others were "worried that the program might come under scrutiny by Congressional or criminal investigators if Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, was elected President."

It's always a fight to find out what the government doesn't want us to know, and this Administration and its footsoldiers have used every means available to undermine journalists' ability to exercise their First Amendment function of holding power accountable. But compounding the Administration's double-dealing, the media has been largely complicit in the face of White House mendacity. David Sirota puts it more bluntly in a recent entry from his blog: "We are watching the media being used as a tool of state power in overriding the very laws that are supposed to confine state power and protect American citizens."

Consider this: the New York Times says it "delayed publication" of the NSA spying story for a year. The paper says it acceded to White House arguments that publishing the article "could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be-terrorists that they might be under scrutiny."

Despite Administration demands though, it was reported in yesterday's Washington Post that the decision by Times editor Bill Keller to withhold the article caused friction within the Times' Washington bureau, according to people close to the paper. Some reporters and editors in New York and in the paper's DC bureau had apparently pushed for earlier publication. In an explanatory statement, Keller issued the excuse that, "Officials also assured senior editors of the Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions." This from a paper, which as First Amendment lawyer Martin Garbus pointed out in a letter to editor "rejected similar arguments when it courageously pub;ished the Pentagon Papers over the government's false objections that it would endanger our foreign policy as well as the lives of individuals." The Times, Garbus went on to argue, "owes its readers more. The Bush Administration's record for truthfulness is not such that one should rely on its often meaningless and vague assertions."

Readers and citizens deserve to know why the New York Times capitulated to the White House's request? It is true that Friday's revelations of this previously unknown, illegal domestic spying program helped stop the Patriot Act reauthorization. But what if the Times had published its story before the election? And what other stories have been held up due to Adminsitration cajoling, pressure, threats and intimidation?

The question of how this Administration threatens the workings of a free press, a cornerstone of democracy, remains a central one. Every week brings new evidence of White House attempts to delegitimize the press's role as a watchdog of government abuse, an effective counter to virtually unchecked executive power.

Last month, for example, the Washington Post published Dana Priest's extraordinary report about the CIA's network of prisons in Eastern Europe for suspected terrorists. Priest's reporting helped push passage of a ban on the metastasizing use of torture. But, as with the New York Times, the Post acknowledged that it had acceded to government requests to withhold the names of the countries in which the black site prisons exist.

How many other cases are there of news outlets choosing to honor government requests for secrecy over the journalistic duty of informing the public about government abuse and wrongdoing?

Never has the need for an independent press been greater. Never has the need to know what is being done in our name been greater. As Bill Moyers said in an important speech delivered on the 20th anniversary of the National Security Archive, a dedicated band of truth-tellers, "...There has been nothing in our time like the Bush Administration's obsession with secrecy." Moyers added. "It's an old story: the greater the secrecy, the deeper the corruption."

Federation of American Scientists secrecy specialist Steven Aftergood bluntly says, "an even more aggressive form of government information control has gone unenumerated and often unrecognized in the Bush era, as government agencies have restricted access to unclassified information in libraries, archives, websites and official databases." This practice, Aftergood adds, "also accords neatly with the Bush Administration's preference for unchecked executive authority."

"Information is the oxygen of democracy," Aftergood rightly insists. This Administration is trying to cut off the supply. Journalists and media organizations must find a way to restore their role as effective watchdogs, as checks on an executive run amok.


Informant: Bob Reuschlein

From ufpj-news

The vice president is breathlessly rushing home to cast a tie-breaking vote to cut health care for the poor and disabled.

http://tompaine.com/uncommonsense/index.php#7077

by Frank O'Donnell, TomPaine.com

Today, the EPA unveils regulations that will shield the power industry from air pollution cleanup.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20051220/the_unfriendly_skies.php

HLV INFO 190/AT

20-12-2005

Volker Hartenstein 12-12-05

Während 30 Jahren hat die WHO geleugnet, dass Passivrauchen schädlich sein könnte und der dafür bei ihr verantwortliche Professor kassierte für seinen Einsatz von der Tabakindustrie 4.5 Millionen Franken. Siehe http://www.gigaherz.ch/484

Wesentlich günstiger, so um die 150'000 Dollar, aber ebenso hinterlistig arbeitet heute der für elektromagnetische Umweltverschmutzung zuständige Lobbyist der Industrie bei der WHO, Dr. M. Repacholi. Die Konkurrenz unter den Elektrosmogleugnern ist halt enorm gross geworden. Verdienen tun sie allemal noch recht anständig. Siehe http://www.gigaherz.ch/973

Lesen Sie selber, wie Repacholi im Auftrag der Industrie die Eisbären in der Sahara gesucht hat, statt am Nordpol.

Alles andere ist am Leid elektrosensibler Mitmenschen schuld. Stress am Arbeitsplatz, falsche ergonomische Gestaltung des Arbeitsplatzes, psychiatrische Bedingungen, Luftverschmutzung bis hin zu flackerndem Licht, nur nicht die elektronagnetische Umweltverseuchung. Den Ärzten gibt er sogar den Rat, ja nicht die elektromagnetische Umgebung des Patienten verbessern zu wollen, sondern dessen Psyche. Elektrosensible Mitmenschen sind übrigens laut Repacholi keine Menschen sondern Individuen. Es ist halt schon so, dass man für die Eisbärensuche am besten ein Riesenkamel in die Wüste schickt. HU.J

Elektromagnetische Felder und die öffentliche Gesundheit
Elektro-Hypersensitivität WHO-Fact Sheet No. 296 Dezember 05

In einer Übersetzung von Evi Gaigg, dem Individuum, vom 14.12.05

weiter unter: http://www.gigaherz.ch/981

--------

WHO, EMF, Electromagnetic Radiation and Mobile Phones
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/1194586/

Senator Stevens is now trying to sneak his ANWR drilling Christmas present to his oil corporation handlers into the Defense bill. He says if people want Katrina victims' aid approved they will have to roll over for this. What a sick thing to say! The response to the global warming that caused this catastrophe should be to accelerate destructive climate change even more?

Well, Maria Cantwell is not rolling over. She has sworn she will lead a FILIBUSTER to have this out of place language removed. We're not rolling over either. We will fight this last minute stunt until Santa Claus fires up his sleigh. Please call your senators at once at 888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641 and submit the action page at

ACTION PAGE: http://www.millionphonemarch.com/anwr.htm

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know.

Powered by The People's Email Network Copyright 2005, Patent pending, All rights reserved

CounterPunch
by Mike Marqusee

12/19/05

Two pieces of legislation currently wending their way through Britain's Parliament illustrate how the war on terror is being used to dismantle the very freedoms it's supposed to secure. Both criminalise the expression of ideas and neither is likely to deal effectively with the problem it purports to address. They are opportunistic gambits, characteristic of a government whose moralistic bombast is in inverse proportion to the morality of its behaviour...

http://www.counterpunch.org/marqusee12192005.html


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Common Dreams
by Bob Burnett

12/19/05

For five years citizens have suffered 'a long train of abuses and usurpations' by George W. Bush. This week brought the announcement that he authorized domestic spying on civilians without bothering to obtain court warrants. Bush admitted this, calling the eavesdropping 'crucial to our national security.' He didn't explain why he deemed it unnecessary to first get a warrant. These revelations were the latest in a series of outrages. ... President Bush's assertion of expanded Presidential authority is wrong legally and morally. There is no justification for torture of prisoners or spying on private citizens. Two hundred thirty years ago the Founders rejected similar activity, by another George. It was despotism then, it is despotism now. The conduct of the Bush Administration cannot be tolerated...

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1219-30.htm


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Scripps Howard News Service
by Dale McFeatters

12/19/05

The eavesdropping by the NSA, where targets are chosen by shift supervisors, is overseen by no judge, court or senior Justice Department official. It may be a valuable tool in the war on terrorism; it might also be illegal and unconstitutional. It is Congress' responsibility to say yea or nay and, if yea, to lay down the specific ground rules, oversight and checks and balances to protect Americans' privacy and civil liberties. Give the government a power, and it will use it and likely eventually misuse it...

http://tinyurl.com/bojmh


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

CounterPunch
by John Blair

12/19/05

Civil disobedience is truly the most effective means of protest but it needs to be used in creative ways following the three following rules from my perspective: 1. It must always be NONVIOLENT. No one should ever be physically harmed in any way; 2. It is best when it is ACTIVE versus passive. Stealing shovels was likely more effective in making my point than it would have been if I had simply trespassed and sat down, waiting to be carried off by some cop who is paid to uphold the laws of the corporations. Action was what captivated the TV cameras and made the act a success. 3. It must be SYMBOLIC and easily understood, both in the reasons why it is being done and what larger goal is being pursued by the action...

http://www.counterpunch.org/blair12192005.html


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Christian Science Monitor
by Suzanne Mettler

12/19/05

Our political leaders may aim to spread democracy abroad, but the lessening role of government in the lives of Americans -- as manifested by recent cuts to the federal budget -- does little to nurture the democratic process here at home. Although less severe than the earlier House version, the budget emerging from Congress reduces spending on social and educational programs while extending tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. These budget cuts continue a quarter century of governance guided largely by the idea that, in Ronald Reagan's words, 'Government is not the solution ... government is the problem.' But an assessment of these decades reveals that as government's role in citizens' lives diminishes, so, too, does active civic engagement. In the 1950s through the early 1970s, when government played a visible and positive role in the lives of Americans, large majorities -- according to the National Election Studies -- believed that it was something to trust, and was 'run for the good of all.' By contrast, only 30 to 40 percent of citizens today have the same trust...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1220/p09s02-coop.html


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

In These Times
by Mark Levine

12/19/05

In the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush told the world, 'We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more.' But as is always the case in politics, the devil is in the details. When will it no longer be necessary for the United States to maintain troops in Iraq? And what does 'withdrawing troops' actually mean -- all troops or just most troops? According to Bush's newly released 'National Strategy for Victory in Iraq,' the most important goal of our presence in Iraq is to 'help people defeat the terrorists and build a democratic inclusive state.' But if by terrorism we mean the systematic threatening, torturing and/or killing of civilians to force them to accept a political or military situation they wouldn't otherwise sanction, then the United States has committed far more acts of terrorism and crimes against humanity than the insurgents in Iraq (with perhaps more than 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians and hundreds of billions of dollars in destruction and counting)...

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2441/


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Human Events
by Bruce Bartlett

12/20/05

Last week, two new federal reports were published showing once again that the nation's fiscal position is dangerously out of whack. And by every measure, the situation has gotten substantially worse as a result of George W. Bush's policies. The first report is known as the 'Financial Report of the United States Government.' The latest is for fiscal year 2005, which ended on Sept. 30, and was published by the Treasury Department and the Government Accountability Office on Dec. 15. The summary shows a gross federal debt of $9.9 trillion, offset by assets of $1.5 trillion, for a net debt of $8.5 trillion. At the end of fiscal year 2001, the comparable numbers were $7.4 trillion for the gross debt, $926 billion for assets and a net debt of $6.5 trillion. Thus we see that the national debt has increased by $2 trillion on Bush's watch. However, because of accounting conventions, these figures greatly understate the rise of national indebtedness...

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=11005


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Salon
by Bruce Schneier

12/20/05

When President Bush directed the National Security Agency to secretly eavesdrop on American citizens, he transferred an authority previously under the purview of the Justice Department to the Defense Department and bypassed the very laws put in place to protect Americans against widespread government eavesdropping. The reason may have been to tap the NSA's capability for data-mining and widespread surveillance. Illegal wiretapping of Americans is nothing new. In the 1950s and '60s, the NSA intercepted every single telegram coming in or going out of the United States. It conducted eavesdropping without a warrant on behalf of the CIA and other agencies. Much of this became public during the 1975 Church Committee hearings and resulted in the now famous Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978... [subscription or ad view required]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/12/20/surveillance/


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

http://www.fmnn.com/Analysis/47/3222/2005-12-19.asp?nid=3222&wid=47


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

AntiWar.Com
by US Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

12/20/05

If we hope to pursue a more sensible foreign policy, it is imperative that Congress face up to its explicit constitutional responsibility to declare war. It's easy to condemn the management of a war one endorsed, while deferring the final decision about whether to deploy troops to the president. When Congress accepts and assumes its awesome responsibility to declare war, as directed by the Constitution, fewer wars will be fought. Sadly, the acrimonious blame game is motivated by the leadership of both parties for the purpose of gaining, or retaining, political power. It doesn't approach a true debate over the wisdom, or lack thereof, of foreign military interventionism and preemptive war...

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=8277


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Foundation for Economic Education
by Becky Akers

12/19/05

The government suffers no shortage of gall. Barely a week after air marshals from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) gunned down passenger Rigoberto Alpizar at Miami's International Airport, the agency announced that it will expand the reach of its marshal program. That's right: slaughter a man, then, while the investigation is still going on, seek new venues. The TSA is embarking 'on a three-day pilot project to test the agency's ability to assist State and local authorities by quickly deploying federal assets in response to a specific threat,' a press release said. No word on whether those threats include Americans who distress the Pentagon with their protests against the Iraq war, or homeowners who refuse to leave their property when eminent domain evicts them...

http://tinyurl.com/8e79n


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Reuters

12/19/05

The U.S. Congress' authorization of military force after the September 11, 2001, attacks also gave President George W. Bush the right to eavesdrop on people in the United States, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Monday. 'Our position is that authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11, constitutes that other authorization ... to engage in this kind of signals intelligence,' Gonzales said. But he conceded: 'One might argue, now wait a minute, there's nothing in the authorization to use force that specifically mentions electronic surveillance.' He denied it was 'a backdoor approach,' saying: 'We believe Congress has authorized this kind of surveillance'... [editor's note: The arrogance of these people is astounding - MLS] [additional editor's note: Doesn't Gonzales know that that "congressional authorization of force" is quaint and obsolete? - TLK]

http://tinyurl.com/bk6db


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Yahoo! News

12/19/05

President Bush is making selective use of an opinion poll when he tells people that Iraqis are increasingly upbeat. The same poll that indicated a majority of Iraqis believe their lives are going well also found a majority expressing opposition to the presence of U.S. forces, and less than half saying Iraq is better off now than before the war. Bush frequently talks in general terms about millions of Iraqis 'looking forward to a future with hope and optimism,' as he put it in a news conference Monday. The previous evening, he was more specific in his televised address when he declared, 'Seven in 10 Iraqis say their lives are going well -- and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve even more in the year ahead.' He was referring to an ABC News poll conducted with Time magazine and other media partners before the Iraqi general elections last week...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051219/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_fact_check


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Boston Globe

12/19/05

Lawmakers from both parties yesterday questioned the legality of the Bush administration's secret wiretapping -- done without court approval -- of US citizens and foreign nationals, even as the White House continued to defend the intercepts as critical to stopping potential terrorist attacks. Three prominent Republican senators -- Arlen Specter, John McCain and Lindsey Graham -- appeared on Sunday talk shows and called for investigations into the matter, intensifying public pressure on the Bush administration, which has stuck by its decision to allow domestic spying. The senators said the wiretapping might violate the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires special federal court approval of any surveillance of US citizens conducted for intelligence purposes on American soil...

http://tinyurl.com/bdsfq


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Las Vegas Review-Journal

12/19/05

Accused of acting above the law, President Bush forcefully defended a domestic spying program on Monday as an effective tool in disrupting terrorists and insisted it was not an abuse of Americans' civil liberties. Bush said it was 'a shameful act' for someone to have leaked details to the media. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said it was 'probably the most classified program that exists in the United States government' -- involving electronic intercepts of telephone calls and e-mails in the U.S. of people with known ties to al-Qaida and other terrorist groups...

http://tinyurl.com/2346c


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Fairbanks News-Miner

12/20/05

House of Representatives approval of oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was less than five hours old Monday morning when senators took up the debate .... When the Senate opened its floor session at 9:30 a.m., Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., asked how his colleagues could even consider approving the same bill. The conference committee that merged the House and Senate versions Sunday clearly violated a Senate rule by adding the ANWR rider, he said. ... A successful point of order would block the bill's passage. To avoid that result, Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens and other pro-drilling senators are expected to try to reject the parliamentarian's ruling, a move that would mock the Senate's own rules, Feingold said. Stevens agreed that the Senate rule prohibits the addition of the ANWR language. However, he said, other rules also allow senators the flexibility to temporarily waive the restriction by rejecting the parliamentarian's decision...

http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,1413,113~7244~3173823,00.html


Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate - he made it seem as if those who didn't agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to al Qaeda - but it will not work. We're seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/122005Z.shtml

Are we so screwed up that we can't take care of the poor, sick and elderly? We all pay a huge amount of taxes, including hidden taxes and yet the states and government are always crying poor mouth and blaming the poor. Where is all that money going? ........bd


Medicaid changes could hit the poor

Mon Dec 19, 2:48 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The spending bill approved by the House early on Monday and awaiting a Senate vote could increase the out-of-pocket costs of many of the poor people who rely on the joint federal-state program for their health care.

The legislation also tightens eligibility rules for long-term care. Medicaid pays for roughly half of nursing home bills.

The mostly Republican backers of the bill say the changes are necessary to preserve a financially beleaguered social program that has not been updated to keep up with the changes in U.S. health care.

Mostly Democratic critics say it shreds the health safety net for the most vulnerable Americans. The AARP is among the interest groups opposed to the health care legislation.

The net savings are $4.7 billion over five years, but run to around $23 billion over 10 years. The bill:

- Gives states more flexibility in deciding what health benefits to give to those on Medicaid although basic services will be required for children, pregnant women and senior citizens.

- Allows states to require poor people to pay more out of pocket for their care by increasing co-payments or premiums. Advocacy groups say this could cost $10 billion over a decade.

- Increases from three to five years the "look-back" period to see whether middle or upper income seniors had transferred or hidden assets to qualify for Medicaid coverage of nursing homes. It also disqualifies anyone with more than $750,000 in home equity from Medicaid eligibility.

- Changes the way Medicaid pays for medications, particularly generic drugs. Instead of using a formula known as "average wholesale price," which critics in both parties say bears little relationship to actual prices, the payments would be based on "average manufacturer's price" which would be publicly available. Starting in 2007, the federal government will not pay more than 250 percent of the AMP of the lowest-cost version of a generic drug.

- Requires states to use basic identification documents, like drivers licenses or passports, to better enforce current law and prevent illegal aliens from getting Medicaid coverage.

- Includes $2.14 billion to help Medicaid costs in states affected by Hurricane Katrina.

- Includes the Family Opportunity Act, which makes it easier for families to get health care for disabled or special needs children without being forced to remain in poverty or institutionalize their children.

http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/3809/


Informant: jensenmk

From ufpj-news

Working through the night, the House early today voted to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling as part of a military measure and narrowly approved a $40 billion budget-cutting plan as bleary-eyed lawmakers concluded a marathon weekend session.

http://www.civilrights.org/issues/labor/details.cfm?id=38812


From Information Clearing House

America's business leaders supplied more than $75 million to return Mr. Bush to the White House last year - and he has paid dividends.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051218/NEWS09/512180341


From Information Clearing House

Today, Members of the United States Congress enjoy a vast web of perquisites that benefit them personally as well as professionally.

http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=343


From Information Clearing House

U.S. officials have tried to demonize Evo Morales, a former leader of coca farmers and the country's first Indian leader, since he first came to prominence. He himself has called his Movement Toward Socialism a "nightmare" for Washington.

http://tinyurl.com/dkj54


From Information Clearing House

I wrote this post with a heavy heart, fully aware of the existence of millions of Americans who do not fit the gloomy picture the post portrays… but sometimes it may be more useful in the long run to face ugly conclusions.

http://iraquna.blogspot.com/2005/12/road-to-anti-americanism.html


From Information Clearing House

The history of guerrilla insurgencies is replete with groups that simulaneously fought on both the political and paramilitary fronts. Listen to how angry the Sunni politicians are, as they speak out in the wake of the elections, both at Bush and at the Shiites, and you get a sense of how detached the Bush administration remains from reality.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11339.htm

THE U.S. POLICY of "extraordinary rendition" has a human face, and it is mine.

By Khaled El-Masri

I am still recovering from an experience that was completely beyond the pale, outside the bounds of any legal framework and unacceptable in any civilized society. Because I believe in the American system of justice, I sued George Tenet, the former CIA director, last week. What happened to me should never be allowed to happen again.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11338.htm

http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs12192005.html


Informant: John Johnson

From: "Kathy Guthrie" Friends Committee on National Legislation

Legislative Action Message

Save ANWR Today–Tomorrow Will Be Too Late! - FCNL

The Senate will decide the future of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), as early as tonight or tomorrow, and your senators will cast crucial votes. Please help to save ANWR today by calling them now!

Find the names and telephone numbers of your members of Congress by entering your zip code here:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/directory/congdir.tt Or call the Capitol Switchboard directly and ask to be connected to your members of Congress by name: 202-224-3121. Tell them to support the removal of ANWR from the military appropriations bill, H.R. 2863.

By contacting your senators today, you can persuade the Senate to stop its sneak attack on ANWR. After a failed attempt to pass drilling in ANWR through a filibuster-proof budget process, the Republican leadership shifted the ANWR measure into the military appropriations bill over the weekend. Your senators, regardless of their positions on the other measures contained within the military appropriations bill, now have the opportunity to require senate leadership to remove ANWR from the military appropriations bill. There is a strong chance that ANWR drilling can be blocked in the Senate if there is enough public outcry in the next 12 to 24 hours. You could make the difference.

Take Action

Your senators need to hear from you now to stop ANWR oil drilling!

Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121

Background

Drilling in ANWR furthers the dead-end energy policy of oil dependence. Promoting domestic oil production and consumption is no way to advance future peace and prosperity for our country. It makes our country and world less secure and is threatening to transform the global climate upon which we depend. Twenty-year government projections estimate U.S. oil consumption will rise sharply to 28 million barrels per day from the current rate of 20.5 million barrels per day. Many in Congress are wrongly focusing on domestic production’s potential to quench our growing thirst for oil, but the U.S. cannot possibly drill its way out of trouble. For long-term economic stability, national security, and to avoid future conflicts over energy the U.S. must reduce its oil dependence and consumption now.

Read an interfaith sign-on letter opposing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge-
http://www.fcnl.org/pdfs/Faith_Communities_ANWR_Letter.pdf

The Next Step for Iraq: Join FCNL's Iraq Campaign, http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/

Contact Congress and the Administration: http://capwiz.com/fconl/dbq/officials/


Friends Committee on National Legislation
245 Second St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-5795 fcnl@fcnl.org * http://www.fcnl.org phone: (202)547-6000 * toll-free: (800)630-1330

We seek a world free of war and the threat of war We seek a society with equity and justice for all We seek a community where every person's potential may be fulfilled We seek an earth restored.


Informant: Martin Greenhut

The unemployment rate among whites is holding steady at 4.3 percent, while the black unemployment rate climbed to a staggering 10.6 percent, according to the US Department of Labor. Black congressional leaders and some economists said the inability of black Hurricane Katrina evacuees to find jobs as a result of their displacement is a factor.

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/121905LA.shtml

The catch-22 of the American healthcare system is that while many people work "for the insurance," when they become too sick to work and are most in need of that insurance, they are most at risk of losing it. This is particularly true of workers at small companies, which are not covered by existing laws protecting workers' rights.

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/121905HA.shtml

Say Scientists

The world is now hotter than at any stage since prehistoric times, a top climatologist announced last week. His startling conclusion comes as NASA reported that 2005 has been the hottest year ever recorded. Research also shows that carbon dioxide levels in the air - the main cause of global warming - are higher now than at any time in the past hundreds of thousands of years.

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/121905EC.shtml

The United States has not joined the Kyoto Protocol to cut greenhouse gases, but the pact nevertheless is boosting sales for American companies that market "clean" energy technologies. The spread of renewable-energy standards, along with a surge in oil and gas prices, have triggered a boom in business for solar- and wind-energy companies.

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/121905EA.shtml

White flags on top of houses and cars; plenty of American and Iraqi military vehicles; too many check points and blocks on the road; many frightening walking patrols; curfew after sunset; heaps and heaps of destroyed houses, shops, offices, the only bridge, hospitals and medical care centers; walls covered with bullets shots and election posters; and empty faces with bleak looks wandering in the streets. This is the picture of al-Qa'im after the "Steel Curtain" military operation began on November 5, 2005, with 3,000 American and Iraqi troops participating.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121905Q.shtml

http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/3810/


Informant: jensenmk

From ufpj-news

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1219-34.htm



http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=impeach
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Downing+Street+Memo

Sozialpolitische Aktionen und Proteste

Perspektiven der Proteste 2005ff.

Vorschläge für Aktionen im Frühjahr 2006

Jetzt ist Schluss! Aufruf der Gewerkschaftslinken, erstmals vorgelegt auf der Aktions- und Strategiekonferenz in Frankfurt am 19./20. November (pdf)
http://www.die-soziale-bewegung.de/2006/fruehjahrsdemo/JetztIstSchluss.PDF


Widerstand und Solidarität. Der am 10. Dezember 05 vom Aktionsbündnis Sozialproteste intern beschlossene und der Versammlung der Sozialen Bewegungen als Vorschlag für die gemeinsame Mobilisierung vorgelegte Entwurf (pdf)

http://www.die-soziale-bewegung.de/mails/Widerstand_und_Solidaritaet.PDF


Sozialpolitische Aktionen und Proteste 2005

Endlich: Randalierende Weihnachtsmänner

Weihnachtsmänner gegen Kameraüberwachung

„Samstag, der 17. Januar, 12 Uhr in Worms. Ganz Worms ist im Kaufrausch –ganz Worms? Eine Gruppe Weihnachtsmänner und –Frauen passt nicht so ganz in den vorweihnachtlichen Trubel... Sie tragen T-Shirts mit der Aufschrift „Weihnachtsmänner- und Frauen gegen Kameraüberwachung“ und einen schwarzen Balken, der sie – zumindest Ansatzweise – vor den etlichen Kameralinsen schützen soll, derer sie sich im Laufe Ihrer Tour ausgesetzt sehen werden…“ Bericht von „WWW“ vom 19.12.2005 bei indymedia

http://de.indymedia.org/2005/12/135426.shtml


Betrunkene Weihnachtsmänner randalieren ...

„Betrunkene Weihnachtsmänner sind "randalierend" durch das neuseeländische Auckland gezogen. Laut einem Sprecher der Gruppe wollten sie gegen "die Kommerzialisierung des Festes" protestieren. Die Gruppe taucht immer wieder weltweit auf. (…) "Santarchy" ist ein Wortspiel aus "Santa" und "Anarchy" und Name der seit einigen Jahren weltweit auftretenden Gruppe. Seit 1994 gab es immer wieder jährliche santarchy Aktionen. Vor allem in den USA - aber auch weltweit in London, Tokyo, Barcelona und zuletzt in Auckland, Neuseeland. Nur in Deutschland waren die verrückten Weihnachtsmänner scheinbar noch nicht…“ Bericht von „santarchy“ vom 18.12.2005 bei indymedia

http://de.indymedia.org/2005/12/135378.shtml


Aus: LabourNet, 20. Dezember 2005

Das Europäische Parlament hat die Bolkesteinrichtlinie für Januar von der Tagesordnung genommen. Damit läuft es jetzt auf Februar für die Abstimmung im Plenum des EP und für die Aktionen heraus. Diese Verschiebung ist auch Ergebnis der vielen Änderungsanträge und des Drucks in dieser Frage. Das Europaparlament will nun am 14. Februar 2006 die EU-Dienstleistungsrichtline in 1. Lesung beraten. Der Europäische Gewerkschaftsbund ruft die europäischen Arbeitnehmerinnen und Arbeitnehmer zu einer machtvollen Demonstration am 14. Februar 2006 in Straßburg auf. ver.di plant bereits am 11. Februar Aktionen. Siehe dazu

Breites Bündnis der sozialen Bewegungen und der DGB rufen zum Protest auf

„Stoppt die EU-Dienstleistungsrichtlinie am 11.02.2006. So lautet das Motto, zu dem neben vielen sozialen Bewegungen auch das Aktionsbündnis Sozialproteste zusammen mit dem Erwerbslosen Forum Deutschland aufruft. Auch der DGB wird sich an der Großdemonstration beteiligen und dazu aufrufen. Damit bereiten sich europaweit Gewerkschaften und soziale Bewegungen vor, die Bolkestein-Richtlinie zu stoppen. Gleichzeitig rufen das Aktionsbündnis Sozialproteste und das Erwerbslosen Forum Deutschland zu einer Großdemonstration gegen die Massenentlassungen und die Fortsetzung der Agenda-Politik durch die große Koalition auf und schlagen den 1. April 2006 vor…“ Gemeinsame Presseerklärung des „Erwerbslosen Forum Deutschland“, Bonn und des Aktionsbündnis Sozialproteste vom
18.12.2005

http://www.erwerbslosenforum.de/presse/18_12_05.pdf


Keine EU-Dienstleistungsrichtlinie ohne soziale Ausgewogenheit!

Der DGB-Bundesvorstand hat am 6. Dezember 2005 in Berlin eine Resolution zur EU-Dienstleistungsrichtlinie beschlossen:

http://www.dgb.de/presse/pressemeldungen/pmdb/pressemeldung_single?pmid=2695


Aus: LabourNet, 20. Dezember 2005

„Vom Monetarismus über Reagonomics und Thatcherismus dominieren seit bald drei Jahrzehnten Schattierungen des Neoliberalismus die westliche Wirtschafts- und Finanzpolitik. Privatisierung ist ihr Schlachtruf, die Senkung der Staatsquote ihr Programm. Mit allen Mitteln wird die Umleitung von möglichst viel Geld in die Kassen der Privatwirtschaft betrieben…“ Artikel von Thomas Barth und Oliver Schöller in Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik Ausgabe 11/2005 http://www.blaetter.de/artikel.php?pr=2183


Aus: LabourNet, 20. Dezember 2005

http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/21/21615/1.html

Hongkonger Krokodilstränen. Die WTO-Ministerkonferenz hat den
Industriestaaten mehr gebracht, als sie zugeben wollen.
http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/21/21616/1.html

EU streut Brosamen um den großen Kuchen zu sichern
http://www.fian.de/fian/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=416


Aus: LabourNet, 20. Dezember 2005

Bush's Impeachable Offense:

Yes, the president committed a federal crime by wiretapping Americans, say constitutional scholars, former intelligence officers and politicians. What's missing is the political will to impeach him.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,391808,00.html


From Information Clearing House

--------

Ivan Eland
Tue Dec 20, 2005 00:51

George W. Bush's Impeachable Offenses
December 19, 2005
Ivan Eland
http://independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1639

Several recent presidents could have been impeached for selected unconstitutional or illegal actions during their presidencies. But the sitting president, George W. Bush, may win the prize for committing the most impeachable offenses of any recent president.

Yet when one thinks of bad behavior leading down the road to possible impeachment, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon come to mind first. Although Bill Clinton was impeached for having sex with an intern and then lying about it to a grand jury, a better case could have been made to impeach him for conducting an unconstitutional war over Kosovo without approval by Congress. The articles of Nixon’s impeachment centered on his use of illegal surveillance methods against political opponents and obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress in covering it up. His launching of an unconstitutional war in Cambodia without congressional approval was equally serious, but was left out of the articles. Curiously, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon’s predecessor, also used illegal surveillance activities against political rivals, but was not impeached.

Ronald Reagan, who is now a celebrated past president and icon of conservatives, justifiably feared impeachment for the Iran-Contra affair. He knowingly violated the Arms Export Control Act, a criminal statute, and sold arms to radical supporters of terrorists. His administration also unconstitutionally violated a congressional prohibition on providing money and support to the Nicaraguan Contra fighters. The Reagan administration’s violation of the Boland Amendment stuck a knife in the heart of the checks and balances system in the U.S. Constitution by circumventing Congress’s most important power—the appropriation of public monies.

George W. Bush is following in the footsteps of his predecessors, but may have left more tracks. For starters, invading another country on false pretenses is grounds for impeachment. Also, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution essentially says that the people have the right to be secure against unreasonable government searches and seizures and that no search warrants shall be issued without probable cause that a crime has been committed. And the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires that warrants for national security wiretaps be authorized by the secret FISA court. The law says that it is a crime for government officials to conduct electronic surveillance outside the exclusive purviews of that law or the criminal wiretap statute. President Bush’s authorization of the monitoring of Americans’ e-mails and phone calls by the National Security Agency (NSA) without even the minimal protection of FISA court warrants is clearly unconstitutional and illegal. Executive searches without judicial review violate the unique checks and balances that the nation’s founders created in the U.S. government and are a considerable threat to American liberty. Furthermore, surveillance of Americans by the NSA, an intelligence service rather than a law enforcement agency, is a regression to the practices of the Vietnam-era, when intelligence agencies were misused to spy on anti-war protesters—another impeachable violation of peoples’ constitutional rights by LBJ and Nixon.

President Bush defiantly admits initiating such flagrant domestic spying but contends that the Congress implicitly authorized such activities when it approved the use of force against al Qaeda and that such actions fit within his constitutional powers as commander-in-chief. But the founders never intended core principles of the Constitution to be suspended during wartime. In fact, they realized that it was in times of war and crisis that constitutional protections of the people were most at risk of usurpation by politicians, who purport to defend American freedom while actually undermining it.

The Bush administration’s FBI has also expanded its use of national security letters to examine the personal records of tens of thousands of Americans who are not suspected of being involved in terrorism or even illegal acts.

Apparently the president is also taking us back to the Vietnam era by monitoring anti-war protesters. Information on peaceful anti-war demonstrations has apparently found its way into Pentagon databases on possible threats to U.S. security.

Finally, the president’s policies on detainees in the “war on terror” probably qualify as impeachable offenses. The Bush administration decided that the “war on terror” exempted it from an unambiguous criminal law and international conventions (which are also the law of the land) preventing torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners. An American president permitting torture is both disgraceful and ineffective in getting good information from those held. Furthermore, the administration concocted the fictitious category of “enemy combatants” to deprive detainees of the legal protections of either the U.S. courts or “prisoner-of-war” status. The administration then tried to detain these enemy combatants, some of them American citizens, indefinitely without trial, access to counsel, or the right to have courts to review their cases.

All of these actions are part of President Bush’s attempt to expand the power of presidency during wartime—as if the imperial presidency hadn’t been expanded enough by his recent predecessors. President Bush usually gets the Attorney General or the White House Counsel to agree with his usurpation of congressional and judicial powers, but, of course, who in the executive is going to disagree with their boss? According to the Washington Post, the Bush administration describes the president’s war making power under the Constitution as “plenary”—meaning absolute. The founders would roll over in their graves at this interpretation of a document that was actually designed to limit the presidential war power, resulting from their revulsion at the way European monarchs easily took their countries to war and foisted the costs—in blood and treasure—on their people. Conservative Bob Barr, a former Congressman from Georgia who was quoted in the Post, said it best: “The American people are going to have to say, ‘Enough of this business of justifying everything as necessary for the war on terror.’ Either the Constitution and the laws of this country mean something or they don’t. It is truly frightening what is going on in this country.” Ivan Eland is a Senior Fellow at The Independent Institute, Director of the Institute’s Center on Peace & Liberty, and author of the books The Empire Has No Clothes, and Putting “Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy.

http://independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1639


Rep. John Lewis Congressman calls for Bush impeachment
http://www.house.gov/johnlewis/index.shtml


http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=96804;show_parent=1



http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=impeach
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Downing+Street+Memo

http://www.boxer.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=249975

Tue Dec 20, 2005 01:17

Senator says she's asked for opinions on Bush impeachment

RAW STORY
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Senator_says_shes_asked_for_opinions_1219.html

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has become the first in the Senate to raise consideration of impeachment of President George W. Bush for authorizing spying on Americans without warrants, RAW STORY has learned.

In a release issued this evening, Boxer said she's asked "four presidential scholars" for their opinion on impeachment after former White Housel counsel John Dean -- made famous by his role in revealing the Watergate tapes -- asserted that President Bush had 'admitted' to an 'impeachable offense.'

Boxer isn't the first congressmember today to float the word. Earlier today, Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) said Bush should be impeached if he broke the law in the spying program. The liberal California senator has tangled with Bush before -- earlier this year, she challenged the president's Ohio electoral votes.

Boxer's statement, acquired by RAW STORY, follows.

BOXER ASKS PRESIDENTIAL SCHOLARS ABOUT FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL’S STATEMENT THAT BUSH ADMITTED TO AN ‘IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE’

Washington, D.C.– U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today asked four presidential scholars for their opinion on former White House Counsel John Dean’s statement that President Bush admitted to an “impeachable offense” when he said he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge.

Boxer said, “I take very seriously Mr. Dean’s comments, as I view him to be an expert on Presidential abuse of power. I am expecting a full airing of this matter by the Senate in the very near future.”

Boxer’s letter is as follows: #

On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today.

On Sunday, December 18, former White House Counsel John Dean and I participated in a public discussion that covered many issues, including this surveillance. Mr. Dean, who was President Nixon’s counsel at the time of Watergate, said that President Bush is “the first President to admit to an impeachable offense.” Today, Mr. Dean confirmed his statement.

This startling assertion by Mr. Dean is especially poignant because he experienced first hand the executive abuse of power and a presidential scandal arising from the surveillance of American citizens.

Given your constitutional expertise, particularly in the area of presidential impeachment, I am writing to ask for your comments and thoughts on Mr. Dean’s statement.

Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

US SENATOR BARBARA BOXER
http://www.boxer.senate.gov/

http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=96807;show_parent=1



http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=impeach
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Downing+Street+Memo

http://tinyurl.com/96r5e



http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=impeach
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Downing+Street+Memo

December 19, 2005 MEDIA ALERT: BRILLIANT FOOLS Harold Pinter, John Le Carré And The Media

Introduction - Factory Labels

The most effective way to control people is to control their assumptions about the world. The task of propaganda is to apply power-friendly labels and make them stick - it is the key to everything. The labelling factory par excellence - the machine that applies the right labels in the right way over and over again - is the mass media system.

Activists have lambasted governments, corporations, whole industries for decades, but they are swimming against a relentless tide. As has been demonstrated so clearly in Iraq, governments and businesses can do pretty much what they like just so long as the media factory is on hand to label it better: to label away the crimes, the lies, the outrage, the desperate need for change.

The media are, and always have been, the supreme obstacle to change. But you would not know it because all media corporations apply the same potent label to such a thought: 'Unthinkable.' Who Does John Le Carré Think He Is?

Naturally enough, high-profile reputations within the mainstream tend to attract negative media labels to the extent that an individual is honest in exposing the crimes of power. This becomes particularly striking when widely celebrated talents choose to focus their energies on political dissent. Then, suddenly, the brilliant become brilliant fools - egomaniacs whose craving for yet more attention lures them into realms of inquiry beyond their competence. Expert wordsmiths become childish scribblers. Sophisticated storytellers become gauche and witless. Even world-renowned scientists are suddenly unable to grasp the most elementary principles of scientific inquiry. The power of labelling appears to be without limit.

This labelling does not involve mere disagreement. As teachers of meditation have instructed for thousands of years, the mind is most effectively trained by constant repetition reinforced by emotion. If labelling is to be effective, it is important that embarrassment, revulsion and even disgust be generated in the public mind. This ensures that the required label is fixed both intellectually and emotionally, and recalled every time the target individual is remembered, seen or heard.

An example is the novelist David Cornwell, who writes under the pseudonym John Le Carré. For decades, Le Carré received exuberant praise for his spy novels - until he started to direct fierce criticism at US-UK foreign policy.

In reviewing Le Carré's novel Absolute Friends, the Sunday Telegraph wrote:

"The poor fellow harangues us about globalisation, about George Bush, about Washington neo-conservatives... With small sense of the ridiculous, he gives us a popular novel which nods gravely at the names of such as Noam Chomsky... including, yes, John Pilger.

"What turned this much-loved entertainer into a cosmic prophet? What's eating him? Who does 'John Le Carré' think he is?" ('Unsmiley person - a new book shows the skilled thriller-writer slipping still further into the slough of gravitas,' Sunday Telegraph, December 7, 2003)

The reviewer concluded: "It is sad, but scarcely tragic... The Spy Who Came in from the Cold will be read when most of today's polemics, including those of angry old David Cornwell, are quite forgotten."

The Sunday Times commented:

"Le Carré's anger comes across as a bit too raw to work as fiction, its rhetoric more in line with a Harold Pinter column than a Graham Greene novel.

"I finished Absolute Friends hoping that this greatest of all spy novelists writes for decades more, not only so he can keep creating characters like Mundy and Sasha, but also so that he can gain a more incisive perspective on our troubling times." (Stephen Amidon, 'Dispatches from an angry old man,' Sunday Times, December 14, 2003) Swallowing Pinter's Bile

Another example is the British playwright Harold Pinter, who was this month awarded the 2005 Nobel Prize for literature. Pinter is the first British winner since VS Naipaul in 2001.

Pinter has long been equally admired for his dramatic work and reviled for his political activism. Introducing his Nobel acceptance speech, playwright David Hare said:

"The theatre is what the British have always been good at. And nobody has so come to represent the theatre's strengths, its rigours, and its glories, as Harold Pinter." (Harold Pinter: Nobel prize speech, More4, December 10, 2005)

Reviewers speak in near-mystical terms of Pinter's brilliance. Leading theatre critic Michael Billington observed in the Guardian:

"Although he is best known as a dramatist and screenwriter, Harold Pinter is an equally remarkable director... As an actor, Pinter also possesses weight, authority and presence... Pinter's production of Joyce's Exiles was a masterpiece of psychological insight and dramatic timing." ('High-octane Harold,' The Guardian, February 5, 2005)

Pinter's use of sparse, menacing language in his drama is deemed the stuff of genius. But the labels applied to Pinter's anti-war poetry are different. These poems are "ludicrous, crass, offensive, second-rate, obscure-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness", Daniel Finkelstein declared in the Times: "The great dramatist has the right to intervene in politics, just as anyone else has. But he doesn't have the right to be taken seriously. Pinter simply has nothing interesting to say." (Finkelstein, 'Warning: what you are about to read is f****** poetic,' The Times, March 9, 2005)

Poet Don Paterson dismissed Pinter in the Guardian:

"To take a risk in a poem is not to write a big sweary outburst about how crap the war in Iraq is, even if you are the world's greatest living playwright. Because anyone can do that." (Chalotte Higgins, 'Pinter's poetry? Anyone can do it,' The Guardian, October 30, 2004)

We at Media Lens cannot say if it is true that Pinter's use of words is brilliant in his plays but absurd in his poems. But we are reminded of the treatment meted out to Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Journalists everywhere deferred to Roberts as one of the world's leading epidemiologists when he estimated millions of deaths in the Congo in 2000 and 2001. But he was judged a fool guilty of schoolboy errors when estimating 100,000 civilian deaths since the March 2003 US-UK invasion of Iraq.

Simon Heffer wrote in the Daily Mail of Pinter:

"I don't begrudge Harold Pinter his Nobel prize. I have never seen why someone's political views - which in Pinter's case are verging on the barking - should disqualify them from acclaim in any field of the arts." (Heffer, 'David, don't be scared of the truth,' Daily Mail, October 15, 2005)

In The New York Times, James Traub declared that "Pinter's politics are so extreme ... they are almost impossible to parody." (Traub, 'Their Highbrow Hatred of Us,' New York Times, October 30, 2005)

Traub added, "it is hard to think of anyone save Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal who would not choke on Pinter's bile".

The Times wrote that Pinter's recent output has consisted "almost entirely of rabid antiwar, anti-American and expletive-filled rants against the Iraq conflict. In his anger, Pinter is as spare with logic as he once was with language". ('... The Nobel Prize...for Literature...to Harold Pinter...Hmmm...,' Pause For Thought, The Times, October 14, 2005)

Tony Allen-Mills lamented in the Sunday Times:

"Among this year's Nobel laureates are several American scientists who are being rewarded for brilliant work. Yet their achievements appear destined to be overshadowed by a rant from a bolshie Brit." (Tony Allen-Mills, 'This Pinter guy could turn into a pain,' Sunday Times, November 6, 2005)

The Mirror reported Pinter's Nobel prize speech with the headline: "Pinter rant at 'brutal' US policy." (Mirror, December 8, 2005)

In the Independent, Johann Hari wrote an article titled: 'Pinter does not deserve the Nobel Prize - The only response to his Nobel rant (and does anyone doubt it will be a rant?) will be a long, long pause.' (Hari, The Independent, December 6, 2005)

It is significant that Hari described Pinter's speech as a "rant" before it had even been delivered - the label exists independently of the work, indeed of the author, in question. To subject power to serious, rational challenge is by definition to "rant". Hari commented:

"Ever since Pinter was a teenager, he has been relentlessly contrarian, kicking out violently against anything that might trigger his rage that day."

This is the standard, Soviet-style assertion that critics of power are afflicted by psychological disorder, with the concocted 'sins' of power randomly selected as a focus for neurotic ire.

Compare and contrast the above with a comparable dismissal in the Observer by Jay Rayner. The title of the article was 'Pinter of Discontent'. The subtitle read: 'Hated Pinochet; loathed Thatcher; doesn't like America; deplores Nato; is disgusted when his play doesn't get a West End run. Good old Harold - he's always bitching about something.' (Rayner, 'Pinter of discontent,' The Observer, May 16, 1999)

Rayner referred to Pinter's obsessive "bitching" nearly thirty times, using language like: "raging", "sound and fury", "growling", "outraged", "attacking", "hostility", "rowing", "ever ready to pick a fight", "yelling", "barracking", "fury" (again), "raging" (again).

Charles Spencer also pointed to the 'sickly' psychological roots of Pinter's politics:

"Right through his career, he has been fascinated by the relationship between victim and oppressor, the weak and the powerful, and his spare, clenched dialogue is full of insults, piss-takes and threats. From what one hears about Pinter the man, as opposed to Pinter the playwright, he's pretty good at menace in real life as well as on the stage." (Spencer, 'Happy birthday party for Harold Pinter,' Daily Telegraph, October 14, 2005)

Spencer lamented the influence of Pinter's "adolescent politics" on his plays.

A day later, Sam Leith also focused on Pinter's "menace" and rage:

"There has always been the permanent scowl; the finger-jabbing rage; the off-the-peg bohemianism of the uniform black polo-neck; the sense of vanity begging to be punctured." (Sam Leith, 'The childish urge to tease our greatest living playwright is much too delicious to resist,' Daily Telegraph, October 15, 2005)

One of us, David Edwards, has met Pinter several times. Below, we have provided a link to the full transcript of an interview Edwards conducted with Pinter in his London office in 1999. We invite readers to judge for themselves the truth of Pinter's "rabid", "barking", "adolescent" politics. Is he someone who "simply has nothing interesting to say"? Is he "as spare with logic as he once was with language"? Consider the claims of irrational rage, of extremist bile. Notice the rationality and precision of Pinter's political analysis. Notice the responses of one of the world's most famous writers - regularly denounced for his aggression and intolerance - to ideas and suggestions proposed by a younger and almost completely unknown writer.

To compare the above flood of insults and smears with what follows, we believe, is a revelation. To consider the robotically consistent nature of the smears - and how we find ourselves assuming that there must be something to them - reveals much about how freedom of expression is crushed in our society.

http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4799#4799

Conclusion

It is a brutal fact of modern media and politics that honesty and sincerity are not rewarded, but instead heavily punished, by powerful interests with plenty at stake. It does not matter how often the likes of Pinter, Le Carré, Noam Chomsky and John Pilger are shown to be right. It does not matter how often the likes of Bush and Blair are shown to have lied in the cause of power and profits. The job of mainstream journalism is to learn nothing from the past, to treat rare individuals motivated by compassion as rare fools deserving contempt.

The benefits are clear enough: if even high-profile dissidents can be painted as wretched, sickly fools, then which reader or viewer would want to be associated with dissent? Then 'normal' - conforming, consuming, looking after 'number one' - can be made to seem healthy, balanced, sensible and sane. Historian Howard Zinn made the point well:

"Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be sceptical of someone else's description of reality." (The Zinn Reader, Seven Stories Press, 1997, p.338)

The great task of propaganda is to make dissent seem unrealistic, embarrassing, and absurd.

It is worth considering the level of honesty of even those who buck this trend to some extent. Thus Mary Riddell commented in the Observer:

"On Wednesday morning, the finest living British playwright recorded, from his wheelchair, an acceptance speech for the greatest literary prize on earth. Anyone who wished to see an allusion to the talk, played in Sweden that day, would have searched BBC schedules in vain.

"He got no mention on either of the main television news programmes. Newsnight, voracious for culture, carried nothing. Pinter's speech would have been restricted to the satellite channel, More4, had Channel 4 not decided, at the last minute, to put out a midnight digest." (Ridell, 'Prophet without honour,' The Observer, December 11, 2005)

But Riddell was careful not to give the wrong impression to media colleagues and employers standing ready with their labels. She added on Pinter:

"He was disgraceful in his misreading of Slobodan Milosevic. The Stockholm speech included the puerile satire of Pinter at his worst."

Write to us at: editor@medialens.org

This is a free service but please consider donating to Media Lens:
http://www.medialens.org/donate.html

A printer-friendly version of this alert can be found here for approximately one week after the date at the top:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php and then, thereafter, in our archive at: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/archive.php

Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php


Informant: Friends

Prof. Mohammed Yunus: "Grameen - eine Bank für Arme"

Lübbe Verlag, gebunden, 350 Seiten, 9,95 Euro

(ht) Einen bemerkenswerten Weg zur Beseitigung der vielerorts unsagbaren hygienischen, sozialen Lebensumstände beschreitet die vom Wirtschaftswissenschaftler Prof. Muhammad Yunus in Bangladesh gegründete GRAMEEN-BANK (Grameen bedeutet übersetzt so viel wie "Dorf"). Mit Hilfe von Kleinstkrediten (ausschließlich) an Frauen, die Zusammenfassung von Kreditnehmern in solidarische Gruppen und unterstützende Schulungen hat diese Bank allein in Bangladesh bereits Millionen von Menschen einen Weg aus der allertiefsten Armut und Ausweglosigkeit gewiesen.

Die Grameen-Bank zeigt, dass Bankgeschäfte und soziale Verantwortung sich nicht unbedingt gegenseitig ausschließen müssen. Yunus beschreibt die Geschichte der Bank in seiner Biographie, die auch in deutsch unter dem Titel GRAMEEN - EINE BANK FÜR ARME erschienen ist.

Dieses Buch hat mich sehr bewegt, denn es zeigt einen Weg auf,
Menschen unter Wahrung ihrer Würde (!) effektiv zu helfen. Der
Autor lässt seine Leser an seinem Weg teilhaben: Die jahrelange
Suche nach einer gangbaren Lösung für die Menschen in den Slums
außerhalb des Universitätsgeländes und die Überwindung zahlreicher
Hindernisse. Vielleicht die wichtigste Botschaft des Buches: Der
Autor glaubt an das Gute im Menschen, an das Gute in den Kreditnehmern und die Rückzahlungsraten für nicht abgesicherte Kleinstkredite sind mit mehr als 98 % tatsächlich einfach phänomenal!

Leider war das Buch mehrere Jahre lang nicht lieferbar, da die
Restauflage vom Verlag nicht mehr angeboten wurde. Zusammen mit einigen Freunden hatte ich einen Teil dieser Restauflage aufgekauft, um das Buch wieder in Umlauf zu bringen. Es ist gebunden, hat einen schönen Schutzumschlag und ist eingeschweißt. Ursprünglich kostete es 42 DM, jetzt ist es zum Preis von 9,95 Euro erhältlich.

--> Weitere Infos:
http://www.tolzin.de/grameen.htm
http://www.grameen-info.org/ (englisch)

Bestellungen an: Neue Zeit Buchversand Joachim Rößger,
Bergstraße 5, 75245 Nussbaum, Tel. (0 72 37) 48 49 74
Fax (0 72 37) 48 49 73, neuezeitversand@yahoo.de


Aus: impf-report Newsletter Nr. 26/2005

http://www.aerztezeitung.de/docs/2005/12/16/228a0204.asp?cat=/medizin/impfen


Aus: impf-report Newsletter Nr. 26/2005

http://www.upi.com/ConsumerHealthDaily/view.php?StoryID=20051204-060313-6829r


Aus: impf-report Newsletter Nr. 26/2005

http://www.kron-rolf.de/wolfrolf/Grippe_impfung.html


Aus: impf-report Newsletter Nr. 26/2005

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/331/7529/1412
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/331/7529/1412#123609
http://www.healthday.com/view.cfm?id=529590


Aus: impf-report Newsletter Nr. 26/2005

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-71613sy0dec04,0,6004666.story?coll=dp-widget-news


Aus: impf-report Newsletter Nr. 26/2005

http://tinyurl.com/9aj9e

Mit Vogelgrippe infizierte Personen wurden wieder gesund
http://www.dieneueepoche.com/articles/2005/12/04/6870.html


Aus: impf-report Newsletter Nr. 26/2005

Österreichische Radiosendung
http://vorarlberg.orf.at/magazin/klickpunkt/focus/stories/47750


Aus: impf-report Newsletter Nr. 26/2005

http://www.thelancet.de/artikel/789289


Aus: impf-report Newsletter Nr. 26/2005

http://www.impfkritik.de/forum/showthread.php?t=546


Aus: impf-report Newsletter Nr. 26/2005

http://www.schweizerbauer.ch/htmls/artikel_7344.html


Aus: impf-report Newsletter Nr. 26/2005

http://www.impfkritik.de/forum/showthread.php?t=544


Aus: impf-report Newsletter Nr. 26/2005

Quelle: AEGIS Österreich, Email-Rundbrief vom 1.12.2005. http://www.aegis.at

Erstes Urteil gegen impfkritischen Arzt Berufsverbot gefordert. Urteil noch nicht rechtskräftig. Arzt geht in Berufung.

Dr. J. Loibner wurde am 29.11. 2005 auf Antrag des Disziplinaranwaltes von der Disziplinarkommission der Ärztekammer für Steiermark zu einer erschreckend hohen Strafe verurteilt. "Wegen seines Bemühens, Impfungen zu verhindern, bringe er die Gesundheit der Bevölkerung in Gefahr" argumentierte der Disziplinaranwalt. Um dieser Gefahr entgegen zu wirken, müsse eine exemplarische Strafe verhängt werden. Die Kommission schenkte dieser nicht zu beweisenden Behauptung Glauben und verhängte über J. Loibner ein Jahr Berufsverbot, bedingt auf 3 Jahre. In diesen 3 Jahren darf der disziplinarverurteilte Arzt keine kritische Äußerung bezüglich Schutzwirkung und Schäden durch Impfungen in der Öffentlichkeit äußern, sonst droht ihm ein weiterer Disziplinarprozess und endgültiges Berufsverbot. J. Loibner kündigte sofortige Berufung an, notfalls gehe er wie schon einmal mit Erfolg zum Verfassungsgerichtshof. Zweimal wurde er schon von derselben Behörde zu Unrecht verurteilt, jedes Mal wurde das Fehlurteil einmal in zweiter Instanz, ein anderes Mal vom Höchstgericht aufgehoben. Er vertritt die Meinung, dass ein höchst- gerichtliches Erkenntnis die Frage klären wird, ob Ärzte in Wissenschaft und Therapie autonom bleiben oder ob in Zukunft außermedizinische Gruppen bestimmen, was Ärzte zu meinen und zu tun haben. Er sieht dem Ausgang des Verfahrens mit Zuversicht entgegen. Es gibt kaum einen Juristen, der meint, dass dieses Urteil halten wird. Dr. J. Loibner sieht daher auch keinen Anlass sich einschüchtern zu lassen. Im Gegenteil, dieses Verfahren zeige auf, dass es an der Zeit ist, dass Ärzte ihre Position besser wahrnehmen und ihre Stellung in der Gesellschaft nicht billig preisgeben.

Ligist, 30.11. 2005

Dr. Johann Loibner

--> Pressemeldungen zum Thema Die Presse, Wien, 2.12.2005:
(mit sehr interessanten Diskussionsbeiträgen!)
http://www.diepresse.com/Artikel.aspx?channel=c&ressort=c&id=523753 ORF am 2.12.2005: http://steiermark.orf.at/stories/74105/


Aus: impf-report Newsletter Nr. 26/2005

The New Open Air Asylums

The Injustice of Corporate Profits by Pharma Companies and Mental Health 'Experts'

The Dangerous Practice of Prescription Drugs vrs Reality

Much ado is made about the increasing Mental Health problems and issues within the Western World. The following is a selection of sites that portray the Truth about the growing industry that is quite literally drugging the world for profit - and very little other good. It displays the immoral, unethical, uncaring, unthinking world of Corporate Profits and the complete lack of regard Profit Makers really have for man overall... what you don't know can kill you!

What is Mental Health - really?

Definitions of Mental health on the Web:

* the successful performance of mental function, resulting in productive activities, fulfilling relationships with other people and the ability to adapt to change and cope with adversity; from early childhood until late life, mental health is the springboard of thinking and communications skills, learning, emotional growth, resilience and self-esteem.

http://www.fountainhouse.org/moxie/resources/resources_glossary/index.shtml

* How a person thinks, feels, and acts when faced with life's situations. Mental health is how people look at themselves, their lives, and the other people in their lives; evaluate their challenges and problems; and explore choices. This includes handling stress, relating to other people, and making decisions.
http://www.dphilpotlaw.com/html/glossary.html

* A relatively enduring state of being in which an individual is reasonably satisfying to self, as reflected in his/her zest for living and feeling of self-realization. It also implies a large degree of adjustment to the social environment, as indicated by the satisfaction derived from interpersonal relationships, as well as achievements.
http://www.cmpmhmr.cog.pa.us/glossary.htm

* The capacity of an individual to form harmonious relations with his/her social and physical environment, and to achieve a balanced satisfaction of his/her own drives.
http://www.dph.state.ct.us/OPPE/sha99/glossary.htm

* The psychological condition of the mind.
http://www.century-health.com/glossary.asp

* Though many elements of mental health may be identifiable, the term is not easy to define. The meaning of being mentally healthy is subject to many interpretations rooted in value judgments, which may vary across cultures. Mental health should not be seen as the absence of illness, but more to do with a form of subjective well being, when individuals feel that they are coping, fairly in control of their lives, able to face challenges, and take on responsibility. ...
http://www.wfmh.org/wmhday/sec3_pt3_4_glossary.html

* Describes an appropriate balance between the individual, their social group, and the larger environment. These three components combine to promote psychological and social harmony, a sense of well being, self-actualization, and environmental mastery.
http://schizophrenia.atspace.org/glossary/

* the psychological state of someone who is functioning at a satisfactory level of emotional and behavioral adjustment.
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* A mental illness is a disorder of the brain that results in a disruption in a person's thinking, feeling, moods, and ability to relate to others. Mental illness is distinct from the legal concept of insanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_Health

* Mental health, mental hygiene and mental wellness are all terms used to describe the absence of mental illness. By this definition, mental status has two possibilities: either health or illness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_health

How many Mental Health Patients are we REALLY looking at?

Mental Disorders in America Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. An estimated 22.1 percent of Americans ages 18 and older--about 1 in 5 adults--suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. When applied to the 1998 U.S. Census residential population estimate, this figure translates to 44.3 million people. In addition, 4 of the 10 leading causes of disability in the U.S. and other developed countries are mental disorders--major depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Many people suffer from more than one mental disorder at a given time.
http://www.mhsource.com/resource/mh.html

* In 2003, an estimated 28 million adults received treatment for mental health problems in the 12 months prior to the interview. This estimate represents 13.2 percent of the population 18 years old or older and is unchanged from 2002.

* The most prevalent type of treatment in the adult population in 2003 was prescription medication (10.9 percent), followed by outpatient treatment (7.2 percent). An estimated 1.8 million adults ( 0.8 percent) were hospitalized for mental health problems at some time within the past 12 months.

* Among racial/ethnic groups, the rates of treatment for adults in 2003 were highest for those reporting two or more races (17.5 percent) and next highest for whites (15.3 percent). Other groups reported much lower rates of treatment ( 8.5 percent for blacks, 8.0 percent for Hispanics, and 4.9 percent for Asians). Among Asians, the overall treatment rate and the rate of outpatient treatment dropped from 2002 to 2003 (overall: 8.5 to 4.9 percent; outpatient: 6.7 to 3.1 percent).

* Adults in families receiving government assistance were more likely to receive treatment for mental health problems in 2003 (19.3 percent) than adults in unassisted families ( 12.3 percent). Adults in assisted families also were more likely than those in unassisted families to receive inpatient treatment, outpatient treatment, or prescription medication.

* Among the 5.5 million adults who did not receive treatment but perceived an unmet need for treatment in the past year, the following were the five most commonly reported reasons for not receiving treatment: cost or insurance issues ( 45.1 percent), not feeling a need for treatment (at the time) or thinking the problem could be handled without treatment (40.6 percent), not knowing where to go for services (22.9 percent), perceived stigma associated with receiving treatment ( 22.8 percent), and did not have time (18.1 percent). Less commonly reported reasons were "treatment would not help" (10.3 percent), "fear of being committed or having to take medicine" (7.2 percent), and reasons relating to access barriers other than cost ( 3.7 percent)

* In 2003, an estimated 5.1 million youths aged 12 to 17 received treatment or counseling for emotional or behavior problems in the year prior to the interview. This represents 20.6 percent of this population and is higher than the 2002 estimate of 4.8 million (19.3 percent)

* Among the 5.1 million youths receiving treatment in 2003, the most commonly reported sources were school counselors, school psychologists, or teachers (48.0 percent), as well as private therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, or counselors ( 46.1 percent). An estimated 467,000 youths, or 9.1 percent of those receiving treatment, were hospitalized for treatment of mental health problems.
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/2k3nsduh/2k3Results.htm#fig8.2

Top Ten Myths about Mental Illness

Myth #1: Psychiatric disorders are not true medical illnesses like heart disease and diabetes. People who have a mental illness are just "crazy." Fact: Brain disorders, like heart disease and diabetes, are legitimate medical illnesses. Research shows there are genetic and biological causes for psychiatric disorders, and they can be treated effectively.

Myth #2: People with a severe mental illness, such as schizophrenia, are usually dangerous and violent. Fact: Statistics show that the incidence of violence in people who have a brain disorder is not much higher than it is in the general population. Those suffering from a psychosis such as schizophrenia are more often frightened, confused and despairing than violent.

Myth #3: Mental illness is the result of bad parenting. Fact:Most experts agree that a genetic susceptibility, combined with other risk factors, leads to a psychiatric disorder. In other words, mental illnesses have a physical cause.

Myth #4: Depression results from a personality weakness or character flaw, and people who are depressed could just snap out of it if they tried hard enough. Fact: Depression has nothing to do with being lazy or weak. It results from changes in brain chemistry or brain function, and medication and/or psychotherapy often help people to recover.

Myth #5: Schizophrenia means split personality, and there is no way to control it. Fact:Schizophrenia is often confused with multiple personality disorder. Actually, schizophrenia is a brain disorder that robs people of their ability to think clearly and logically. The estimated 2.5 million Americans with schizophrenia have symptoms ranging from social withdrawal to hallucinations and delusions. Medication has helped many of these individuals to lead fulfilling, productive lives.

Myth #6: Depression is a normal part of the aging process. Fact:It is not normal for older adults to be depressed. Signs of depression in older people include loss of interest in activities, sleep disturbances and lethargy. Depression in the elderly is often undiagnosed, and it is important for seniors and their family members to recognize the problem and seek professional help.

Myth #7: Depression and other illnesses, such as anxiety disorders, do not affect children or adolescents. Any problems they have are just a part of growing up. Fact: Children and adolescents can develop severe mental illnesses. In the United States, one in ten children and adolescents has a mental disorder severe enough to cause impairment. However, only about 20 percent of these children receive needed treatment. Left untreated, these problems can get worse. Anyone talking about suicide should be taken very seriously.

Myth #8: If you have a mental illness, you can will it away. Being treated for a psychiatric disorder means an individual has in some way "failed" or is weak. Fact:A serious mental illness cannot be willed away. Ignoring the problem does not make it go away, either. It takes courage to seek professional help.

Myth #9: Addiction is a lifestyle choice and shows a lack of willpower. People with a substance abuse problem are morally weak or "bad". Fact: Addiction is a disease that generally results from changes in brain chemistry. It has nothing to do with being a "bad" person.

Myth #10: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), formerly known as "shock treatment," is painful and barbaric. Fact:ECT has given a new lease on life to many people who suffer from severe and debilitating depression. It is used when other treatments such as psychotherapy or medication fail or cannot be used. Patients who receive ECT are asleep and under anesthesia, so they do not feel anything. "These misconceptions can do irreparable harm to people with legitimate illnesses who should and can be treated," said Herbert Pardes, M.D., President of NARSAD's Scientific Council. "Research in brain disorders is flourishing, and we expect to see new and better treatments that will have the power to change lives and bring hope to many," said Lieber. In Harms Way: Suicide in America Suicide is a tragic and potentially preventable public health problem. In 2000, suicide was the 11th leading cause of death in the U.S. 1 Specifically, 10.6 out of every 100,000 persons died by suicide. The total number of suicides was 29,350, or 1.2 percent of all deaths. Suicide deaths outnumber homicide deaths by five to three. It has been estimated that there may be from 8 to 25 attempted suicides per every suicide death. 2 The alarming numbers of suicide deaths and attempts emphasize the need for carefully designed prevention efforts.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/harmaway.cfm

UNSTABLE MINDS

Although he was diagnosed a paranoid schizophrenic over a decade ago, the family of Russell Weston Jr., the man accused of killing two police officers at the U.S. Capitol, never thought he was capable of violence. Elizabeth Farnsworth leads a discussion on what people should know about this mental illness.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec98/weston_7-27.html

Insanity on Trial? Mental Health Courts? Old News - what happened to that idea? In November 2000, U.S. President Bill Clinton signed into law America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project , a bipartisan bill introduced into Congress by two Ohio legislators -- Rep. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, and Sen. Mike DeWine, a Republican. The bill, which amended the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to authorize the creation of 100 pilot mental health courts, was introduced just months after the Justice Department released a report indicating that fully 16 percent of those incarcerated in the nation's prisons and jails have been identified as mentally ill.

(3) estimates say 25 to 40 percent of America's mentally ill will come into contact with the criminal justice system, according to National Alliance for the Mentally Ill;
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:S.1865.ENR:

And today:

Mental Health Courts Mental Health Courts Program ( FY 2006 Call for Concept Papers) How To Apply in Grants.gov

Overview: The Bureau of Justice Assistance, in coordination with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration , is administering the Mental Health Courts Program. This program will fund projects that seek to mobilize communities to implement innovative, collaborative efforts that bring systemwide improvements to the way the needs of adult and juvenile offenders with mental disabilities or illnesses are addressed.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/mentalhealth.html

The Medications make you feel better - right? Mental Health Parity: Opening The Door To Patient Abuse, Deaths, Fraud

LOS ANGELES: The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), a 33-year psychiatric watchdog, says that if unlimited mandated mental health parity is passed, there will be more widespread patient abuse and fraud. Already, the mental health industry defrauds the government up to $ 40 billion per year; between 1950 and 1990, the total number of inpatient deaths exceeded the number of Americans killed in 10 wars, including World Wars I and II, and the Vietnam and Korean Wars; today, there are up to 150 restraint deaths per year in psychiatric institutions and, as The New York Times exposed this week, 960 people died between 1995 and 2001 in New York group homes for the mentally ill—all without accountability. http://www.cchr.org/index.cfm/8165 Older mental health drugs risky for elderly: Anti-psychotic medications nearly double the risk of death, FDA warns: BOSTON - Older drugs designed to treat mental problems such as delirium, agitation and psychosis may be even more hazardous to the elderly than newer medicines that carry U.S. government warnings, a study showed on Wednesday.The Food and Drug Administration warned in April that newer "atypical" anti-psychotic medicines such as Johnson & Johnson's Risperdal and Eli Lilly & Co.'s Zyprexa nearly doubled the risk of death in elderly people with dementia. The study said those warnings should have been extended to older drugs such Haldol and Thorazine, available in generic form, because they posed a risk of death that was 37 percent higher than the atypical drugs.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10270033/

Canadian Regulators Withdraw ADD Drug Linked to 20 Sudden Deaths: Canadian regulators - but not the FDA - have withdrawn a Adderall, a pssychostimulant drug prescribed for children with so-called ADHD that has been linked to 20 sudden deaths linked to the drug - of which 14 were in children. "The adverse reactions were not associated with overdose, misuse or abuse of the drug, the department said."
http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/05/02/10a.php

Bush To Impose Psychiatric Drug Regime: Plans to screen whole US population for mental illness. According to a recent article in the British Medical Journal, US president George Bush is to announce a major "mental health" initiative in this coming month of July. The proposal will extend screening and psychiatric medication to kids and grown-ups all over the US, following a pilot scheme of recommended medication practice developed in Texas and already exported to several other states.
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/06/23/bush_to_impose_psychiatric_drug_regime.htm Executive Summary : The work of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health is a key component of President George W. Bush's New Freedom Initiative. In its final report to the President, the Commission called for nothing short of fundamental transformation of the mental health care delivery system in the United States-from one dictated by outmoded bureaucratic and financial incentives to one driven by consumer and family needs that focuses on building resilience and facilitating recovery. The following Federal Mental Health Action Agenda articulates specifi c, actionable objectives for the initiation of a long-term strategy designed to move the Nation's public and private mental health service delivery systems toward the day when all adults with serious mental illnesses and all children with serious emotional disturbances will live, work, learn, and participate fully in their communities.
http://www.samhsa.gov/Federalac tionagenda/NFC_execsum.aspx

Revised mental health bill fails to persuade patients or professionals: Lynn Eaton LondonThe latest government attempts to win over detractors of the controversial mental health bill, first proposed in 2002 but later withdrawn for redrafting after an outcry over its contents, seem to have failed at the first hurdle. When health minister Rosie Winterton launched the revised bill last week professionals and patients' groups protested that the changes still didn't go far enough.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7467/640-a

The Medications are safe though - they have to be to get through the FDA, don't they?

Any medication can have side effects, which might be mild in one person or more pronounced in another. As an example, according to its manufacturer Eli Lilly and Company, "the side effects that people taking Prozac experience most include nausea, difficulty sleeping, drowsiness, anxiety, nervousness, weakness, loss of appetite, tremors, dry mouth, sweating, decreased sex drive, impotence, and/or yawning."
http://www.helpguide.org/mental/medications_depression.htm

FDA Public Health Advisory: Suicidality in Adults Being Treated with Antidepressant Medications Several recent scientific publications suggest the possibility of an increased risk for suicidal behavior in adults who are being treated with antidepressant medications. Even before these reports became available, the FDA began a complete review of all available data to determine whether there is an increased risk of suicidality (suicidal thinking or behavior) in adults being treated with antidepressant medications. It is expected that this review will take a year or longer to complete. In the meantime, FDA is highlighting that:

* Adults being treated with antidepressant medications, particularly those being treated for depression, should be watched closely for worsening of depression and for increased suicidal thinking or behavior. Close watching may be especially important early in treatment, or when the dose is changed, either increased or decreased.

* Adults whose symptoms worsen while being treated with antidepressant drugs, including an increase in suicidal thinking or behavior, should be evaluated by their health care professional.
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/advisory/SSRI200507.htm

FDA Public Health Advisory: Suicidality in Children and Adolescents Being Treated With Antidepressant Medications The risk of suicidality for these drugs was identified in a combined analysis of short-term (up to 4 months) placebo-controlled trials of nine antidepressant drugs, including the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and others, in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD), obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), or other psychiatric disorders. A total of 24 trials involving over 4400 patients were included. The analysis showed a greater risk of suicidality during the first few months of treatment in those receiving antidepressants. The average risk of such events on drug was 4%, twice the placebo risk of 2%. No suicides occurred in these trials. Based on these data, FDA has determined that the following points are appropriate for inclusion in the boxed warning: None of the drugs is approved for other psychiatric indications in children.
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/antidepressants/SSRIPHA200410.htm

A Note of Caution About Psychiatric Medications for Symptoms of Depression By Jeanne Segal Ph.D. I am a psychologist whose profession makes liberal use of antidepressant and other psychiatric medications for treating symptoms of depression and depressive disorders. I am also a mother who lost a cherished daughter to suicide after she became dependent on the use of antidepressant medications. When our eldest daughter, Morgan Leslie Segal, graduated from college in 1991, she was a healthy, active young woman who traveled independently all over the world. However, issues with shyness coupled with a desire to gain greater self-assurance led her into therapy with a licensed psychologist. Six months later, following a devastating break from a man she adored, she was given antipsychotic medication to help her cope with her grief. She later became depressed and was given a popular antidepressant concurrently.
http://www.jeannesegal.com/alternatives_depression/meds_depression_caution.htm

VA'S LACK OF ATTENTION TO MENTAL HEALTH CARE FOR VETERANS SPURS ACTION FROM SENATE VETERANS' COMMITTEE

2002 Issues of the Day: -Rockefeller Says That VA Must Make Mental Health Care a Priority-

WASHINGTON, D.C.– Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, expressed his concern today regarding the lack of attention the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is giving to mental health care for veterans. At a committee hearing this morning, Rockefeller emphasized the importance of making mental health care a priority, as well as his concerns that veterans with mental illness may not be getting the treatment they need.

"So often we forget that long after visible battle wounds are healed, many veterans continue to suffer, not physically, but mentally," Rockefeller said. "We need to make sure that VA is doing everything possible to guarantee that each and every veteran who needs mental health care is receiving that care, whether it is in West Virginia, Nebraska or Arkansas."

Over the past year, VA has treated over 700,000 veterans in speciality mental health services, with more than 455,000 of them suffering from service-connected mental illness. In West Virginia, approximately 1 in 5 patients seen in VA medical centers last year were treated for mental health disorders. Even though the statistics back up the high demand for mental health care, VA has reduced mental health care spending by 23 percent since 1996.
http://rockefeller.senate.gov/news/2002/pr072402c.htm

And....... 2005's Issues of the Day for the Veterans: December 11, 2005

Bush's VA Healthcare Budget a Recipe for Disaster

Republicans call it an increase – Vets' groups call it a "shell game" – Cuts in services and more vets add up to a VA healthcare crisis

by Larry Scott -- VA Watchdog dot Org

http://www.vawatchdog.org/milcom/bushsvahealthcarebudgetarecipefordis...

On November 30, President Bush signed the "Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2006." Much was said about the military and little was said about veterans. The President's only mention of veterans in his 474-word statement was, "The Act also provides funds to support the medical care and other needs of our Nation's veterans."

Why the deliberate lack of attention to the healthcare budget for the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA)? Because it is a cause of great embarrassment to the Bush administration. This VA healthcare budget is such political bad news that the Bush appointees who run the veterans' agency won't even comment on it. Numerous requests for interviews have been met with, "No one is available."

Mental Health Issues are growing across the Western World, a new industry has been spawned and a whole new generation of 'professionally prescribed victims' birthed. The ones who really need the help to adjust - the Veterans, the homeless, the ones stuck in poverty have access to limited, socialised facilities and are frequently not warned of the potential side effects of the drugs prescribed. Often the Doctor is unaware of the side effects...

Given the rising rate of Mental Health and other adjustment issues within the returning Veterans, the figures above can only rise and continue to rise as the lack of support and real treatment continues to ripple through a whole community - from down time at work through personal issues through to extreme domestic violence, the community will pay the price of allowing these issues to be swept away while the chase for Bush Inc continues without let up...

The sheer number of 'new cases' per year suggests that Society itself is under duress, and at breaking point... it is estimated that approximately 25% of the Western populations are medicated for some Mental Health issue or another - and the rate of medicated children is rising... either our parenting skills are failing or our genes are mutating and turning out 'children with issues...' in ever increasing numbers annually... this alone should be concerning every level of society - they won't get any younger, they will become adults and given free will ... if a higher and higher per capita number of children per year suffer some form of 'behavioral or mental health issue...' - why isn't the question being asked: What are we doing to our kids to make them like this?

The issues are returning home every day in our Veterans - the injured ones obviously in need of support and help but those looking perfectly normal on the outside finding none available to help them adjust to the whole 'coming home' experience... while the population flay the Bush Inc Administration for its lies and deceptions and 'mistakes' - they seem to forget that the Servicemen saw their brethren die for those same lies, deceptions and mistakes and that is a great travesty against the valor of those men and women who went in uniform in the name of their Homelands Freedoms...

We expected them to follow orders and do their 'job' and 'defend the ideals' of the Homelands abroad - but they come home and they find that the Leaders are under fire, their support groups significantly and severely underfunded, the people in turmoil and the World standing mute and moot as the saga unfolds in the USA and when they speak out against this disaster and call for Truth and Justice and a restoration of Honor, they are met with little true support from the very Peoples they proposed to protect the ongoing security of...

How many of the returning Veterans from either war must commit suicide, or even more devastating - lose their mental control and kill their families - before they are given what they were promised as Soldiers for their Nations?

How many of them must stand and watch the People bleating platitudes at them and their alleged 'Job Description' - while they watch the President who sent them to War admit he ignored the very document they are sworn to protect - before the People themselves see them as humans, not just 'Soldiers'?

What would you want for your son or daughter, sent to a War that is proving to be contrived and deliberate and brutally unJustified - who stood in the Military Uniform of their Homelands, who took up arms in the name of their Homelands ongoing freedoms and liberties? Would you want them to be underfunded and not get the support that they were promised from the Nation as they put on that uniform?

It's not the Militarys Job Description to fight personal wars on behalf of greedy cartels who wrestle themselves into power over the People, the Homeland and the Resources of the Armed Services. Unless the Western World now openly has Armies for Hire - there is no Justified reason that the Veterans are unable to find the support they need - increasingly so as they take in the Truth of this War they fought in... and the People who they were allegedly fighting to protect!

http://www.lophatham.com

From Lo Phat Ham Forums

It would favor peace over war, trade over sanctions, courtesy over arrogance, and liberty over coercion. Article by Ron Paul.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul294.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/douglas5.html

--------

Victims of Creeping Fascism

By Charles Sullivan

Easily misled by false idols intoxicated with power and driven by insatiable greed, we are witnessing nothing less astonishing than the demise of the American experiment. Dreams of democracy, justice, peace and hope are receding into the dim recesses of ever more distant memory. We see them morphing into an Orwellian nightmare of monstrous proportions that promises to pursue us to our graves.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11341.htm

http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/3811/


Informant: jensenmk

From ufpj-news

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/permafrost.shtml


Informant: NHNE

Last Thursday I was arrested, with 18 others, in the Bangor office of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME). Pat Wheeler (Deer Isle) and I were the only two of our group to actually get into the office. The others had to sit in the hallway outside the door. (See photos at this link of us inside the office.) (More photos here - high resolution images available upon request)

http://www.paxchristimaine.org/SnoweEvent/index.html

We first had a rally outside the office where over 75 people listened to speakers. Near the end of the rally one of our folks read a letter to Snowe that called on her to publicly admit she had been lied to about the war; to stop the funding for the war; to bring the troops home now; and to declare that the war in Iraq is over. We also asked for a public town hall meeting to discuss the war. Over 450 people around the state had signed the letter.

A representative from the senators office was invited to respond and she began reading what turned out to be a November 22 letter from the senator that once again justified the Iraq war. (Our letter had been sent to the senator in advance so she could specifically comment on it. She did not address any of our concerns.)

As the senator's letter was being read I went up to the third floor office to check things out. I quickly discovered that the door had been locked and they did not intend on letting any of us into their office following the outside rally. Soon enough one of the senators staffers flew up the stairs, knocked on the door, and when his fellow staffers opened the door to let him in I stuck my foot in the door to keep it open. This move obviously was not greeted with great joy by the staffer and he told me that they'd let us into the office in a few minutes. I told him I was not born yesterday. I kept pressing my foot harder, pushing the door open bit by bit, and I was soon joined at the door by Pat Wheeler. We eased our way into the office and the staff quickly slammed the door shut and locked it. Soon about 50 of the folks from outside made their way up the stairs, followed by media people, and they began knocking on the door wanting in. The head of Snowe's office, Gail Kelly, kept yelling at us, "You are not going to take over my office" and then went to the door, opened it just a bit, and began yelling at the folks in the hallway that they had to leave. They did not leave and sat down and began singing.

Inside the office Pat and I took turns trying to communicate with the staff. It was not long before the police arrived to guard the door on the inside to make sure more of our group did not come into the office. Pat read a letter from a GI killed in Iraq, his last letter to his family. I read a speech by my hero Eugene Debs from June 16, 1918 when he spoke out against WW I. Debs was arrested and prosecuted under the Sedition Act for interfering with the draft and got a 10-year prison sentence and loss of his U.S. citizenship. (He ended up serving 2 years and 8 months in jail.)

Pat and I also joined in singing with the group outside the door and watched through the glass as more police arrived and began arresting the folks in the hallway. By 4:00 pm Pat and I decided to go out into the hallway and join the last of the group being arrested and we too handcuffed and taken to the Penobscott county jail. We had to pay a $40 bail bond and were all out by 7:00 pm. We have a January 20 arraignment in Bangor.

I went home with fellow jail-bird Dud Hendrick who lives on Deer Isle. I stayed with him and his wife Jean and then was joined by my partner Mary Beth on Saturday. Several others came as well and we had a wonderful gathering at the home of Pat Wheeler where she had us do an art project together and then we spent Sunday morning strategizing our next moves. We ended the meeting with a three-mile walk along the beautiful rocky coastline and then headed back home.

All in all it was an action-packed and moving few days. It was an honor to be in the midst of such great folks and I can say with confidence that we will not give up the important effort to end this illegal and immoral war in Iraq.

Bruce K. Gagnon
Coordinator Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space PO Box 652 Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 729-0517 globalnet@mindspring.com
http://www.space4peace.org



http://space4peace.blogspot.com (Our blog)