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

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

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