AS CHEMICAL POISON MANUFACTURING UNIT DECLINES
MONSANTO BUYS SEMINIS FEED BUSINESS

JERRY HIRSCH, LOS ANGELES TIMES: Seeds are in; pesticides are out.
That's the mantra at agribusiness giant Monsanto Co., which said Monday
that it planned to purchase Oxnard, California-based seed company Seminis
Inc. for $1 billion.

Monsanto, the maker of Roundup weedkiller, has seen its pesticide and
herbicide business decline with the rise of insect- and disease-resistant
strains of crops. So it has been expanding into seeds, especially
genetically modified varieties.

For its part, Seminis has focused on conventional plant breeding to develop
new crop strains.

"The value in the agriculture industry has shifted dramatically away from
chemicals and into seeds," Monsanto Chief Executive Hugh Grant told
analysts and investors in a conference call.

The world's largest vegetable seed company, Seminis is best known for its
top-selling lines of tomatoes, cucumbers and beans. It also has developed
innovative specialty crops, such as red carrots, orange cauliflower and the
Bambino watermelon --- a seedless melon about the size of a cantaloupe.

All told, Seminis sells more than 3,500 fruit and vegetable seed varieties
to farmers under the Seminis, Asgrow, Petoseed and Royal Sluis brand names.
It has 16,000 customers in 150 countries.

"If you have eaten a salad, you have eaten a Seminis product," said company
spokesman Gary Koppenjan.

Seminis also owns the world's largest fruit and vegetable seed bank, which
it uses to crossbreed plants to create strains that require less
agrochemicals, increase crop yield, reduce spoilage, offer longer shelf
life and create better-tasting foods.
Monsanto also does a large seed business but concentrates on canola, corn,
cotton and soy.

Vegetable seeds are a high-margin business, and Monsanto wants Seminis to
complement its growing expertise in genetically engineered crops, CEO Grant
said, though genetically modified vegetables aren't in Monsanto's plans for
Seminis for now.

"This is going to be about breeding," he said. "In the long term, there may
be an opportunity in biotechnology."

In addition to paying $1 billion in cash, Monsanto said it would assume
$400 million in Seminis debt and make a performance-based payment of up to
$125 million payable by the end of the 2007 fiscal year.

If there is no opposition from antitrust regulators, the sale is expected
to close this year. Seminis would operate as an independent subsidiary
headed by Bruno Ferrari, Seminis' president and chief operating officer. He
would report to Brett Begemann, Monsanto's executive vice president.

Monsanto would be wise to let Seminis operate on its own, said Doug Ranno,
managing partner of Colorful Harvest, a Monterey, Calif.-based farm company
that is developing vegetable products, including red and white carrots and
a striped tomato, with Seminis.

"We have invested years of work with their researchers, and you have to
look at those people as a key part of the assets Monsanto is acquiring,"
Ranno said.
Mexican entrepreneur Alfonso Romo put Seminis together about a decade ago
from half a dozen seed concerns. It has 2,900 employees, including 400 at
its Oxnard headquarters and 200 at its research headquarters in Woodland,
California.

After a public stock offering of $15 a share in 1999, Seminis had trouble
integrating acquisitions and foundered, its stock dropping to as low as $1.

In 2003, a group led by private equity firm Fox Paine & Co. of Foster City,
California, purchased the business for $3.40 a share, or about $350 million
in cash and $300 million in debt. The sale to Monsanto would result in a
handsome payday for Fox Paine, which spent about $165 million for its 58%
stake in Seminis --- and will walk away with as much as $577 million if the
deal closes.

A new management team, as well as steady gains in cash flow and market
position, is responsible for the increase in value, said Dexter Paine,
president of the equity firm.

"The idea of selling Seminis to Monsanto came up as part of an ongoing
dialogue between the two companies," Paine said, noting that Seminis has a
technology-sharing agreement with Monsanto, and Fox Paine has been involved
in transactions with Monsanto.

Some on Wall Street think Monsanto would be better off focusing on its
genetically modified crop business rather than making a move into
conventional seed breeding.

"We find it hard to conceive that earnings growth from vegetable seeds can
exceed that of Monsanto's current lineup of genetically modified crops,"
Credit Suisse First Boston analyst William R. Young said in a research
note. He rated the shares "underperform."

Seminis lost $16.3 million on revenue of $525.8 million in its 2004 fiscal
year, which ended September 30.

Monsanto, based in St. Louis, posted sales of $5.5 billion in its fiscal
year ended August 31. Just under $2 billion of that was from sales of
Roundup. Monsanto shares fell $3.62, or 6%, to $54.10 on the New York
Stock Exchange after the purchase announcement was made.

[ January 25, 2005 ]

This outfit in SF has always looked pretty good to me.

R

GENETIC CROSSROADS

NEWSLETTER OF THE CENTER FOR GENETICS AND SOCIETY

JANUARY 24, 2004

NOTABLE QUOTE

"The top two officials of California's new stem cell research agency are multimillionaire entrepreneurs with vast real estate and biotechnology company holdings, according to financial disclosure forms filed Tuesday with the state's political campaign watchdog."

- Associated Press (January 19)

I FEATURE: MOUNTING CONTROVERSY OVER STEM CELL INSTITUTE IN CALIFORNIA
Public interest groups challenge the stem cell committee
Press and media coverage of the controversies
Will other states repeat California's mistakes?

II REPORTS
December 9: "The Next Four Years, the Biotech Agenda, the Human Future: What Direction for Liberals and Progressives?"
December 16: "Babies by Design"

III EVENTS
January 26-31: World Social Forum
February 25-27: Women Coming Together: Claiming the Law for Social Change
March 11-12: Incite! Color of Violence 3: Stopping the War on Women of Color Conference
April 8-13: Biomedicine Within the Limits of Human Existence
October 20-22: Money, Money, Money: Bioethic$ Confront$ Dollar$ and $en$e

IV RESOURCES
Investigative Report: "Technology Allows Choice; Embryo Screening Stirs Ethics Debate"
Organization: Women's Bioethics Project
Study Guide: Human Genetics and Progress: Faithfully Engaging Science, the Possible and the Limits of Human Progress
Report: "Altered Nuclear Transfer Crosses Ethical Boundaries"
Investigative Report: "Law, Heal Thyself: Sex Detection a Pretext to Harass Honest Doctors"

V NEWS
South Korea approves cloning research
China criminalizes sex selection
Italian court approves referendum on parts of ART law

I FEATURE: MOUNTING CONTROVERSY OVER STEM CELL INSTITUTE IN CALIFORNIA

The aftermath of the passage of the $3 billion stem cell initiative in California last November has been one of mounting controversy. Over just the past six weeks:

The California State Attorney General ruled that the agenda for the first meeting of the new stem cell governing board, the Independent Citizens Oversight Committee (ICOC), was in violation of California's Open Meeting Act.

Klein
Real estate mogul and Proposition 71 author and chief contributor Robert Klein was elected Chair and interim president of the ICOC without a serious search for other candidates. It was widely presumed that Klein's key role in drafting Prop 71 was a factor in the close fit between the qualifications for Chair written into the initiative and Klein's own resume.

California public interest organizations began raising questions about the ICOC. Public interest lawyer Charles Halpern drew attention to multiple violations of open government laws [first, second letters to ICOC, to Attorney General], as did Californians Aware [letter, news release]. The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights called the ICOC "rife with conflicts of interest." Two founders of the Pro-Choice Alliance Against Proposition 71 authored a blistering op-ed in the Los Angeles Times titled "The Stem Cell Chair to the Highest Bidder?" The California Nurses Association reiterated concerns raised during the campaign about using public funds for private biotech and the lack of research safeguards, especially regarding the extraction of women's eggs.

California State Senator Deborah Ortiz, a leading supporter of Proposition 71, introduced Senate Bill 18 to address what she now characterized as the initiative's "flaws," including key areas in which it falls "glaringly short."

Penhoet
The release of financial disclosure statements [PDF] showed that ICOC vice-chair Edward Penhoet is "the ultimate corporate biotech insider," heavily invested in numerous biotech firms, a partner in a major biotech venture capital outfit, and a former director of BIO, the country's leading biotech lobbying organization.
Before the November election press coverage of Proposition 71 tended to reflect its sponsors' portrayal of the measure as an unmitigated blessing. But the post-election coverage has been strikingly different:

"California's New Stem-Cell Initiative Is Already Raising Concerns," New York Times (Nov. 27)
"Editorial: Proposition 71 needs reform," San Francisco Examiner (Dec. 7)
"Prop 71's fine print contains surprises: Tightly written law leaves little room for oversight or changes," San Francisco Chronicle (Dec.
"Controversy embroils stem cell panel," Sacramento Bee (Dec. 17)
"Editorial: Stem cell board must find way to hold open meetings," Oakland Tribune (Dec. 21)
"Editorial: Stem-Cell Reality Check," Wall Street Journal (Dec. 27, 2004)
"Calif. $3 billion stem cell plan draws criticism," Reuters (Jan. 4)
"New Calif. Stem Cell Agency Under Fire," Associated Press, (Jan. 6)
"Stem cell committee urged to slow down," San Diego Union Tribune (Jan. 7)
"Editorial: Stem cell panel must show accountability to the public," San Jose Mercury News, (Jan. 12)
"Stem cell panelists show holdings - Economic reports leave some observers uneasy," San Jose Mercury News (Jan. 19)
"Stem Cell Holdings Criticized," Sacramento Bee (Jan. 21)
The New York Times put it succinctly: "As California moves to begin a lushly financed program of embryonic stem cell research, medical ethicists and other skeptics are concerned that the $3 billion that state voters approved for the endeavor could become a bonanza for private profiteers."

Unfortunately, legislators in other states appear unaware of the growing controversy around California's foray into stem-cell research:

"Stem cell bill tops agenda as [Massachusetts] Legislature convenes," Boston Globe (Jan. 6)
"[Conn. Gov.] Rell announces $20 million for stem cell research," Associated Press (Jan. 21)
"Governor Declares State of the State," (Includes "a $750 million public and private investment in biotechnology and stem cell research") WBAY (Jan. 7)
"New Jersey Plans $380 Million for Stem Cell Research," Reuters (Jan. 12)
"New York Dem. Leaders Want $1 Billion Toward Stem Cell Study" Associated Press (Jan. 16)
The Center for Genetics and Society played an active role in organizing pro-choice and progressive opposition to Proposition 71 and post-election challenges to the ICOC. Reforms needed to ensure that the ICOC operates in accord with the public interest include:

full compliance with California's Open Meetings Act,
meaningful conflict of interest rules for ICOC and working group members,
strong protections for subjects asked to participate in clinical trials and egg extraction procedures,
an open and accountable decision-making process for controversial research proposals,
effective oversight and regulation of any approved research involving human embryos,
ensure that any successfully developed treatments are accessible and affordable,
ensure that the California public receives a fair share of any financial returns, in accordance with campaign promises; limits on profit shares to biotech and facilities development companies.

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

The new California state agency that will fund stem cell research, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), is having a troubled launch. The Center for Genetics and Society, along with other progressives who support embryonic stem cell research, opposed Proposition 71, which authorized CIRM's creation. As CIRM's work has gotten underway since the election, the concerns raised during the campaign—lack of accountability to the public and to elected officials, the conflicts of interest inherent in the structure of CIRM, inadequate protection of egg providers and research subjects, the absence of clear standards for returns to the public and the state—have increasingly been voiced by public interest groups, by several state Democratic legislators, and in news stories and editorials in major California newspapers.

The first two meetings of CIRM's governing committee have been held amid controversy about its violations of the state's Open Meetings Act, its existing and potential conflicts of interest, and the consolidation of ever greater powers over its trajectory by Robert Klein. Klein was the chief author of Proposition 71 and its largest contributor, providing upwards of $5 million of his personal funds to the campaign. Since the November election, he has become first the chairperson and then the interim president of the the so-called Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee (ICOC), which in fact is dominated by representatives of groups who hope to receive grants from the $3 billion of public funding authorized by Proposition 71.

A number of public interest groups are now carefully tracking the activities of the ICOC. Californians Aware has criticized its violations of open government laws. California Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights issued a press release calling the ICOC "rife with conflicts of interest." The California Nurses Association reiterated the concerns it had raised during the campaign about "the allocation of public funds for private biotech and pharmaceutical industry profits, the closed door process of key decision making, and lack of safeguards" and noted that "many Californians are now experiencing buyer's remorse" about the initiative.

These concerns have been echoed in recent editorials in major media outlets, including both some that had endorsed Proposition 71 (such as the San Francisco Chronicle and the Oakland Tribune) and some that had urged a "no" vote (the Sacramento Bee, San Jose Mercury News, and Wall Street Journal). And two California legislators—Senator Deborah Ortiz (D-Sacramento), a prominent supporter of Proposition 17, and Assembly member Gloria Negrete McLeod (D-Chino)—have introduced bills aimed at fixing some of the initiative's flaws.

"The Stem Cell Chair to the Highest Bidder?"

In the weeks after the November election, members of the ICOC were appointed by the top California elected officials specified in Proposition 71. Four officials were given the authority to nominate a chairperson; all of them—Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, Treasurer Phil Angelides, and Controller Steve Westley—selected Robert Klein.

Klein's longstanding wish to head up the ICOC was clear, since the "mandatory criteria for chairperson" given in the text of Proposition 71 bore a striking resemblance to his own resume. But revelations that he had donated more than $175,000 to three of the four politicians who nominated him raised many eyebrows, and led to editorial characterizations of the first ICOC meeting as a "coronation" (San Diego Union Tribune, Dec 15) and a "consolidat[ion of] too much power (Sacramento Bee, Dec 16).

The ICOC was scheduled to vote on Klein's nomination when it convened for the first time on December 17 in San Francisco, and then to proceed to consider an ambitious agenda. But two days before the meeting, public interest lawyer Charles Halpern sent a letter to the California Attorney General and ICOC members, pointing out that the public had not been given the advance notice of the agenda required by California's Open Meetings Act.

The Attorney General's office concurred, and the meeting was held as an "emergency session," with the ICOC's election of chair and vice-chair as its only agenda items. The committee proceeded to unanimously and ceremoniously approve Klein for chair, and to select the vice-chair nominee who had received Klein's endorsement.

Amid questions about conflicts of interest, Klein pledged not to hold any biomedical stocks or investments in real estate companies that could benefit from Prop 71 monies. To date, neither vice-chair Edward Penhoet, founder of the biotech giant Chiron Corporation, nor other members of the ICOC have followed this lead.

More Power, More Secrecy, More Conflicts of Interest

The ICOC fared poorly as well at its January 6 meeting in Los Angeles. By then, criticism was mounting of the new pro-CIRM non-profit organization, the California Research and Cures Coalition, which Klein chaired. It is essentially the "Yes on 71" campaign under a new name, with largely the same staff, web address, and offices as the original operation, and has announced that its mission is to influence "opinion leaders, elected officials and policy makers, medical professionals, media and the general public." Yet it was granted the responsibility of coordinating the second ICOC meeting, and is holding a series of public forums on CIRM and "best practices" around the state.

At the January meeting, Klein announced his resignation as chair of the Coalition. But he acknowledged that, in his expanded role as the interim President of CIRM, he is likely to hire Coalition staff to help run the stem cell institute. As the Sacramento Bee points out, this "will further ensure Klein isn't challenged by anyone who has a different mind-set." The CIRM, the Bee editorialized, "is developing clone-like characteristics of Klein's nonprofit group."

As for the other members of the ICOC, they have not yet shown any inclination to question Klein's preferences. After unanimously accepting his sole candidacy for chair as legitimate, and then overwhelmingly backing his pick for vice-chair, the ICOC unanimously ceded him the additional powers of interim president. And several ICOC members were quick to defend Klein's stated intention of retaining the ill-advised provisions of Proposition 71 that allow the crucially important "working groups" to meet entirely in secret, and its members to be exempted from disclosing their conflicts of interest. Though some closed sessions to protect confidentiality are appropriate, a blanket exemption from open government rules is unacceptable.

The (Financial) Ties that Bind

As Genetic Crossroads was "going to press," the financial disclosure statements of some ICOC members became available. ICOC vice-chair Edward Penhoet is a salaried partner at a venture capital firm with extensive investments in biotechnology, has millions of dollars in investments in biotech, and has served on the board of the Biotechnology Industry Organization. Michael Goldberg is also a partner at a biotech venture capital outfit; he donated $58,000 to the Yes on 71 campaign. David Baltimore, the president of CalTech, sits on the boards of Amgen, the world's largest biotechnology corporation, and a Swiss biotech investment firm. Others, however, were clear of investments and income in areas which may pose conflicts. Philip Pizzo, for example, receives income only from his position as dean of the Stanford University School of Medicine.

Links

New web page on the Institute from the Center for Genetics and Society

Press Advisory: "CGS Calls for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine to delay grants until guidelines in place" (January 3, 2005)
Jesse Reynolds, "Stem Cell Cronyism," San Francisco Bay Guardian (December 29, 2004 to January 4, 2005 issue)
"Skepticism and Questions Follow Passage of California's $3 Billion Stem-Cell Initiative," Genetic Crossroads (December 2, 2004)
Editorials: San Jose Mercury News (Jan. 11), Sacramento Bee (Jan. 9), San Francisco Chronicle (Jan. 5), Wall Street Journal (Dec. 27), Oakland Tribune (Dec. 21), Sacramento Bee (Dec. 16), San Francisco Chronicle (Dec. 9), San Francisco Examiner (Dec. 7)
Francine Coeytaux and Susan Berke Fogel, "The Stem Cell Chair to the Highest Bidder?," Los Angeles Times (December 17, 2004)
Chris Thompson, "Refereeing the Next Big Boom," East Bay Express (January 19, 2005)
Steve Usdin, "Prop. 71: Promises to Keep," BioCentury (November 8, 2004)
Tali Woodward and Laura M. Allen, "Second-guessing Prop. 71," San Francisco Bay Guardian (December 22, 2004)

II REPORTS

December 9: "The Next Four Years, the Biotech Agenda, the Human Future: What Direction for Liberals and Progressives?"
Over four hundred people gathered at the City University of New York Graduate Center for this post-election symposium. Participants heard Sheldon Krimsky of Tufts University, Dorothy Roberts of Northwestern University, William Saletan of Slate, Stuart Newman of New York Medical College, and Marcy Darnovsky of CGS make the case for socially responsible policies governing the new human genetic technologies. Richard Hayes of CGS moderated. The symposium was cosponsored by the Center for Genetics and Society, City University of New York Graduate Center, the Nation Institute, the New York Open Center, and Demos. For more information and an online video of the entire event, see our full report on the symposium. Audio of the symposium will be broadcast on WBAI 99.5 FM, New York City, on Tuesday, January 25, at 6 to 9 PM EST.

Dec. 16: "Babies by Design"
The Genetics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC, convened this invitation-only meeting to discuss the prospects for germline genetic modification of human beings (also known as inheritable genetic modification). Representatives of CGS and a number of like-minded groups were present. Although the 80 or so participants reflected a generally fair distribution of concerned constituencies, as did the closing panel, the major presentations were by scientists and bioethicists who voiced little opposition to this eugenic technology. Will Saletan's story on Slate.com, "Homo Respect-us: The Creature that Genetic Engineers Fear Most," captures the tone well.

III EVENTS

Sujatha Jesudason, director of the CGS Program on Gender, Justice and Human Genetics, is speaking at three public events in the next three months:

January 26-31, Porto Alegre, Brazil: World Social Forum
Sujatha will be speaking on "(Re)creating Life: Ethical, Social and Gender Aspects of New Human Genetic Technologies" as part of the Heinrich Böll Foundation workshop on the "The Biopolitics of Life: The Privatization of Life and Knowledge."

February 25-27, Cincinnati: Women Coming Together: Claiming the Law for Social Change
Sujatha is on a panel on "Emerging Issues in Reproductive Health: Impact of Ideology and Technology on Women's Access and Rights" at this University of Cincinnati conference sponsored by the Ford Foundation.

March 11-12, New Orleans: Incite! Color of Violence 3: Stopping the War on Women of Color Conference
Sujatha is giving a workshop on "Gender-Based Violence of Biotechnology and Sex Selection," with collaborative partners Rajani Bhatia from the Committee on Women, Population, and the Environment, Rupsa Mallik of Center for Health and Gender Equity, and Shamita Das Dasgupta of Manavi, a South Asian domestic violence prevention organization.

Please contact Sujatha if you are interested in learning more about any of these events.

April 8-13, Doorn, The Netherlands: Biomedicine Within the Limits of Human Existence
This conference, the second in a series focusing on "Biomedical Technology and Practice Reconsidered," will address morality and the limits of human existence, power, and knowledge. Ethicists as well as researchers from the life sciences and medicine, sociologists, anthropologists and researchers of philosophy of law are invited.

October 20-22, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Money, Money, Money: Bioethic$ Confront$ Dollar$ And $en$e
The annual meeting of the Canadian Bioethics Society, to be held at Dalhousie University, will focus on the role of money and economics in bioethics. In addition, there will be a pre-conference on "Ethical Challenges in Human Development and Genetics." See the flyer [MS Word doc].

IV RESOURCES

Investigative Report: Rob Stein, "Technology Allows Choice; Embryo Screening Stirs Ethics Debate," Washington Post (December 14)
A front-page report describes the rising use of pre-pregnancy social sex selection methods in the United States.

Organization: Women's Bioethics Project
WBP is an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan, public-policy think tank devoted to research, analysis, education, and publication, headquartered in Seattle. It seeks to promote "the thoughtful application of biotechnology to improve the status of women's lives and seeks to protect vulnerable populations by anticipating unintended consequences, safeguarding women's bodies from harm, and ensuring that women's life priorities are recognized." Key issues include stem cell research, cloning, and genetic testing, as well as broader women's health concerns.

Study Guide: Human Genetics and Progress: Faithfully Engaging Science, the Possible and the Limits of Human Progress
In 2002 the National Council of Churches of Christ began studying the implications of the new human genetic technologies from the perspective of mainstream Protestant and Orthodox faith traditions. As part of this effort the NCCC prepared a study guide for congregations, based on the noted book by Bill McKibben, Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age.

Report: "Altered Nuclear Transfer Crosses Ethical Boundaries," International Center for Technology Assessment [PDF]
In December the President's Council on Bioethics heard a proposal from one of its religious conservative members that was meant to circumvent opposition to the use of embryos for stem cell research. The basic plan was to use somatic cell nuclear transfer to create embryos that had no chance of being viable, and use those "altered" embryos to extract stem cells for research. Few commentators seemed to notice two serious problems with this proposal: first, that it still requires women's eggs, and thus that women undergo risky egg extraction procedures; and second, that the procedure would set dangerous precedents that could further the development of eugenic technologies.

Investigative Report: Ravinder Kaur, "Law, Heal Thyself: Sex Detection a Pretext to Harass Honest Doctors," Times of India (January 13)
The Indian government promulgated the PNDT (Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques) Act in order to prevent sex-selective abortion and "end the unfair treatment of girl children in the womb." Yet, this seemingly positive step has become a source of harassment for radiologists who do not practice sex detection.

V NEWS

South Korea approves cloning research: New South Korean legislation regulating the biotechnology sector became effective at the start of the new year. Among other things, it bans reproductive cloning but allows research cloning, though only under a license. The first license was issued to the laboratory which last year produced the first confirmed human clonal embryos.

China criminalizes sex selection: The Chinese government announced that it will ban sex selective abortions and the use of ultrasound scans to determine the sex of a fetus. The combination of that country's controversial one-child policy, free ultrasounds and abortions, and a strong preference for male children, has resulted in a sex ratio of 119 newborn boys for every 100 newborn girls - and as high as 133 boys in some areas.

Italian Court Approves Referendum on parts of ART law: The Italian constitutional court on Thursday rejected a petition by the country's Radical Party for a referendum to overturn in its entirety a 2004 law that restricts access to assisted reproductive treatments but accepted calls for a referendum on the law's "most controversial parts."

Suzanne Fields
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/suzannefields/sf20050124.shtml
January 24, 2005

Pity the president of Harvard. He's stuck at an institution of learning
in the 21st century where to question innate "gender" differences risks
the abuse that Galileo took in the 17th century when he questioned the
notion, politically correct for his day, that the earth was the center
of the universe.

The cry, predictable enough, went up from the women of academe who
regard themselves as the guardians of revealed truth: "Retract. Repent.
Resign. The sun revolves around us."

Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard, was invited to speak at an
off-the-record economic conference to consider why minorities and women
are not more successful in careers in math and science at the nation's
top research universities. He tried to be provocative by examining the
various reasons suggested by the data compiled by those who study such
topics. Silly man.

He first said what has long been obvious to many women, including
feminists who observe the obvious - that fewer women than men want to
put in the long hours it takes to struggle to the top. Women sometimes
prefer allotting more time to family life, even including having babies.
He stepped into something resembling a badly soiled diaper when he noted
that some studies suggest there may be innate differences between the
male and female of the human species.

He cited scores on standardized math and science tests that show more
high school boys than girls at the highest and at the lowest levels of
achievement in various disciplines. Some studies suggest that this may
stem from biological differences.

"I felt like I was going to be sick," said Nancy Hopkins, a biology
professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

{ This is not as good as her previously reported
saying later that if she hadn't left, ''I would've either blacked out or
thrown up". }

She walked out in a state of shock, we hope to seek professional help. "My
heart was
pounding and my breath was shallow. I was extremely upset."

Could her reaction have been caused by an innate biological difference
from the men in assembly, none of whom walked out? Had she left home
without putting a vial of smelling salts in her purse? Other women and
men present were more measured in their reactions. Quite a few expressed
shock that anyone was shocked. Others felt the bluntness to be
undiplomatic. Those most offended decried Larry Summers' use of personal
anecdote. He told how his own daughter once received two toy trucks and
spontaneously gave them personalities, calling one a "daddy truck" and
the other a "baby truck." (He didn't say: "Isn't that just like a girl?")

Mr. Summers quickly adopted the defensive crouch so drearily familiar in
our public life. He said his attempt at humor misfired and his desire to
stimulate a debate over the interplay of innate and natural ability got
lost in ideological assumptions. He was not stating an absolute
position, but tossing out ideas that required more investigation: "I'm
sorry for any misunderstanding but believe that raising questions,
discussing multiple factors that may explain a difficult problem, and
seeking to understand how they interrelate is vitally important." (He
didn't say: "Get a life, ladies.")

It's obvious now to everyone that prejudice in the past held talented
women back, that the powerful old-boy network jealously protected its
own sex on the ladder to the top. But as women move toward the head of
the class and break through glass ceiling after ceiling in a
multiplicity of roles, it's clear to everyone but the sheltered denizens
of the ivy towers, where no snub, harassment or obstacle goes
unimagined, that discrimination against women has diminished radically.

Women themselves are making choices, to mix and match career and home
life. Some women are leaving the workplace to savor the joys of hearth
and home when their children are young. Women who choose a profession in
math and science sometimes factor family life into their goals, too.

If Mother Nature is absolutely neutral in assigning preferences and
abilities to men and women, what's the harm in asking how and why? The
facts, after all, will out. Shooting the messenger may be more fun, but
teaches us nothing except that some men - and women - shoot from the
lip.

There's an abundance of anecdotal evidence of parents who were
determined to create "gender equal" outcomes with their sons and
daughters were later forced to admit that a little boy with the gift of
a tiny teapot often turns it into a gun; a little girl who gets a truck
often tries to use it as a cradle. If there are innate differences in
certain intellectual abilities and talents, so what? So nothing, as long
as society doesn't throw up arbitrary obstacles.

Lawrence Summers says Harvard is taking aggressive steps to increase
"diversity" on campus. He might start in the faculty lounge.

You may recall this outfit "seminis" were involved a couple y ago
in selling seed in NZ.

R

Monsanto to Acquire Seminis
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
January 24, 2005
edited

Monsanto agreed to acquire seed company Seminis Inc. for $1.4 billion in
cash and assumed debt, as well as up to an additional $125 million, based
on performance.

Seminis supplies more than 3,500 seed varieties to commercial fruit and
vegetable growers, dealers, distributors and wholesalers in more than 150
countries.

Monsanto expects it will benefit from Seminis's advanced plant breeding
techniques in the near term and said it may
apply its own biotechnology processes to Seminis products down the road.

Monsanto to Buy Seminis for $1B in Cash

By JIM SUHR, AP Business Writer

ST. LOUIS - Agricultural biotechnology giant Monsanto Co. said Monday it
will buy vegetable and fruit seed company Seminis Inc. for roughly $1
billion in cash, broadening its portfolio of seeds and tapping into the
trend of healthier diets.

Monsanto said it will assume an additional $400 million in debt by Seminis,
the Oxnard, Calif.-based supplier of more than 3,500 seed varieties to
commercial fruit and vegetable growers, dealers, distributors and
wholesalers in more than 150 countries.

St. Louis-based Monsanto - already staking more of its future on seeds that
include genetically modified ones able to withstand weeds, insects and
disease - said it also would make a performance-based
payment of up to $125 million by the end of fiscal 2007.

"The addition of Seminis will be an excellent fit for our company as global
production of vegetables and fruits, and the trend toward healthier diets,
has been growing steadily over the past several years," said Hugh Grant,
Monsanto's chairman, president and chief executive.

Grant called 10-year-old Seminis, with sales of $526 million in sales in
its 2004 fiscal year, "uniquely positioned to capitalize on this
fast-growing segment of agriculture, and the acquisition likewise expands
Monsanto's ability to grow."

Citing the pending acquisition, Monsanto pared its estimate for fiscal 2005
earnings to 86 cents to $1.06 per share, down from a previous range of
$1.56 to $1.71.

Analysts surveyed by Thomson First Call were expecting Monsanto's earnings
of $2.05 per share. In trading Monday morning on the New York Stock
Exchange (news - web sites), shares of Monsanto fell $1.62, or 2.8 percent,
to $56.10, near the higher end of their 52-week range of $29.01 to $59.29.
Pending regulatory approvals, Monsanto expects the deal to be closed
sometime between March and May. The company said the deal should be
accretive to earnings per share, cash flow and revenue growth in fiscal
year 2006, its first full year of operation.

The move comes two months after Monsanto's newly formed holding company -
American Seeds Inc. - acquired Indiana-based seed company Channel Bio Corp.
for $120 million cash. Monsanto formed American Seeds to support regional
seed businesses with capital, genetics and technology investments.
Seminis will be as a wholly owned Monsanto subsidiary, headed by its
existing president and chief operating officer. Monsanto said it expects to
continue Seminis' focus on developing products using advanced breeding
techniques, with biotech applications an option well down the road.

That push comes as biotech crops are flourishing in the United States and
taking root overseas, accounting for several tens of billions of dollars in
crops in five leading countries despite European resistance to the
technology.

Alfonso Romo, chairman and chief executive of roughly 10-year-old Seminis,
said "we are bringing a complementary technology base and specialized
expertise that can not only support economic growth for farmers, but
contribute to the health and nutrition of consumers on a global scale."

This article is obviously biased, in a rather nasty way;
nevertheless, it contains useful info.
R



Survival of the Slickest
How anti-evolutionists are mutating their message

By Chris Mooney
Issue Date: 12.2.02

It must take
guts to be a "young-Earth" creationist. After all, imagine rejecting
virtually all of modern science based on a literal interpretation of
Genesis. Imagine opening yourself up to ridicule by insisting that Adam
and Eve lived alongside the dinosaurs, Dinotopia-style, and that Noah
crammed brontosauruses onto the Ark -- necessary inferences if you think
the Bible is true and that God created the earth less than 10,000 years ago.

Sure, these
views are way outside the scientiÞc mainstream (though polls suggest nearly
half of Americans may hold them). But young-Earth creationism is so rigid
in its adherence to religious doctrine that there's almost a kind of
perverse integrity to it.

Unfortunately,
it's hard to say the same for the much more polished -- and less openly
religious -- group of anti- evolutionists who have recently upstaged
young-Earthers in the public eye. These "Intelligent Design" (ID)
theorists, as they call themselves, are epitomized by Stephen C. Meyer, an
anti-Darwinian philosopher who made the following appeal to The American
Prospect: "People with liberal credentials ought to understand what we're
up against. This is an entrenched establishment."

ID theorists
posit that living things, due to their organizational complexity and
magniÞcent design, simply must be the creations of some form of
intelligence. Where evolutionary biologists see species evolving through a
blind process of natural selection acting over millions of years, ID
theorists assert that life as we know it simply could not have arisen in
such a manner. Furthermore, they claim that this is a scientiÞc
observation. ID advocates don't always articulate precisely what sort of
intelligence they think should stand in lieu of evolution on textbook
pages, but God -- defined in a very nebulous way -- generally outpolls
extraterrestrials as the leading candidate.

ID's home base
is the Center for Science and Culture at Seattle's conservative Discovery
Institute. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser Bruce Chapman
heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and
former American Spectator owner George Gilder (also a Discovery senior
fellow). From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a "teach the
controversy" approach to evolution that closely inþuenced the Ohio State
Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would
require students to learn how scientists "continue to investigate and
critically analyze" aspects of Darwin's theory.

This language
may seem innocuous enough, but it clearly allows teachers room to bring up
ID if they choose. Moreover, the proposal is insidious because the
standards don't ask for the critical analysis of any other bedrock
scientiÞc theories, such as plate tectonics or quantum mechanics. Unless
there's a shift in the political winds, however, Ohio will Þnalize the
troubling new standards in December.

If that happens,
it won't be a surprise to Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller, a
leading Darwin defender. The Discovery Institute, Miller says, has been
"the most effective group in the last Þve years in advancing the
anti-evolution agenda." It awards fellowships, publishes books, holds
conferences and gets into speciÞc local school-board Þghts, as in Ohio.
Yet, to borrow language from the Book of Proverbs (via Inherit the Wind),
the Center for Science and Culture may be troubling its own house. By
rejecting a crucial tenet of modern science, ID would seem inimical to
other Discovery Institute initiatives with a large scientiÞc and
technological component, such as a regional transportation project for the
PaciÞc Northwest called "Cascadia."

"Gilder and the
Discovery Institute more generally embody the intellectual crisis of a
certain strain of contemporary conservatism," explains Nick Gillespie,
editor-in-chief of the libertarian magazine Reason. Though they have "one
foot in the Enlightenment," Gillespie says, they're unwilling to cop to the
conclusion that "God is dead, or, same thing, no longer the center of the
universe."

Granted, Meyer
would say that it's unfair to discredit ID theorists by citing their
religious motives rather than by refuting their arguments. "Darwinian
theory has grave evidential problems, and in response to that we're getting
a lot of this line of questioning," he complains. But the motives of one of
Discovery's other key fellow -- Jonathan Wells, a UniÞcation Church member
who says that he decided to "devote my life to destroying Darwinism" at
the behest of the Rev. Sun-Myung Moon -- suggest a clear link between at
least one religious sect and ID.

The history of
ID at the Discovery Institute also shows the strong inþuence of some more
mainstream religions. Darwin on Trial author Philip Johnson, a retired
University of California, Berkeley law professor and born-again Christian,
helped prompt the founding of the Center for Science and Culture with a
1995 conference titled "The Death of Materialism and the Renewal of
Culture." Until this August, the center was called the Center for the
Renewal of Science and Culture, with obvious culture-war connotations. The
bulk of its roughly $1-million-a-year funding comes from evangelical
Christian foundations including Fieldstead & Co., whose owner, Howard F.
Ahmanson Jr., has long-standing ties to the theocratic Christian
Reconstructionist movement.

The starkest
evidence yet of the center's religious bent, however, is its audience.
Consider Johnson's speaking schedule for the fall of 2002: Every event was
set to take place at a church or was otherwise religiously related. Even
an apparent exception -- Johnson's appearance at Texas' Foundation for
Thought and Ethics in late November -- proves the rule. The foundation
produces pro-ID school textbooks such as Of Pandas and People. Its
academic editor is William Dembski, a Discovery fellow and author of The
Design Inference, who has written, "Christ transforms the world and
pervades the scientist's domain of inquiry."

In fact, the
textbook project, like Ohio, represents a turnaround for Discovery. In the
early- and mid-1990s, Dembski and Johnson disdained the creationist
strategy of trying to slip their ideas into the public schools. As
Dembski wrote in 1996, intelligent-design theorists should "aim to convince
the intellectual elite and let the school curricula take care of
themselves." But now that Discovery has gone after young minds, the
American Association for the Advancement of Science has fought back with a
resolution stating, "The ID movement has failed to offer credible
scientiÞc evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the currently
scientiÞcally accepted theory of evolution."

Indeed,
according to Lawrence Krauss, a Case Western Reserve University physicist
who has contested Meyer and others during the Ohio debates, a recent survey
of more than 10 million science articles published in the past 12 years
shows just 88 references to "intelligent design," the vast bulk of which
appear in engineering journals. None reported favorably on ID theory,
according to Krauss.

Meyer's response
to this is predictable: crying persecution. "We are producing scientiÞc
articles. The question is whether or not peer-reviewed journals that are
Darwinian in perspective would accept them under any circumstances," he
says, adding that Discovery will soon® start publishing its own journals.

This wasn't how
the institute originally planned to work, notes Barbara Forrest, a
philosopher at Southeastern Louisiana University who has co-authored a
forthcoming book on the ID movement. Creationism's Trojan Horse: The
Wedge of Intelligent Design, to be published next year, cites a widely
circulated 1998 internal memo laying out Discovery's ambitious plan to
"drive a wedge" into the heart of "scientiÞc materialism," thereby
divorcing science from its purely observational and naturalistic
methodology and reversing the deleterious effects of evolution on Western
culture. (Meyer complains that the document "was stolen from our ofÞces
and placed on the Web without permission.") Forrest notes that a central
item on this agenda -- proving intelligent design by conducting actual
scientiÞc research -- has clearly not been achieved.

If ID theorists
are now behaving more like old-school creationists -- giving up on the
mainstream, targeting schools and students -- creationists may beneÞt by
the comparison. After all, if you gave young-Earthers a classroom, they
would teach something: dinosaurs on the Ark, how the biblical þood laid
down the entire fossil record and so on. ID theorists, on the other hand,
critique evolution but have few ideas with which to replace it. They have
no ofÞcial stance on the age of the earth, much less on whom the "designer"
is. "A historical narrative will start to þow out of this as we start to
apply design detection to the history of life," asserts Meyer. No doubt
studious Ohio high schoolers will help speed the process along.

Chris Mooney

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=603752
Global warming approaching point of no return, warns leading climate expert

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor

23 January 2005

Global warning has already hit the danger point that international
attempts to curb it are designed to avoid, according to the world's top
climate watchdog.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the official Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC), told an international conference attended by 114
governments in Mauritius this month that he personally believes that the
world has "already reached the level of dangerous concentrations of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere" and called for immediate and "very deep" cuts in
the pollution if humanity is to "survive".

His comments rocked the Bush administration - which immediately tried to
slap him down - not least because it put him in his post after Exxon, the
major oil company most opposed to international action on global warming,
complained that his predecessor was too "aggressive" on the issue.

A memorandum from Exxon to the White House in early 2001 specifically
asked it to get the previous chairman, Dr Robert Watson, the chief
scientist of the World Bank, "replaced at the request of the US". The Bush
administration then lobbied other countries in favour of Dr Pachauri - whom
the former vice-president Al Gore called the "let's drag our feet"
candidate, and got him elected to replace Dr Watson, a British-born
naturalised American, who had repeatedly called for urgent action.

But this month, at a conference of Small Island Developing States on the
Indian Ocean island, the new chairman, a former head of India's Tata Energy
Research Institute, himself issued what top United Nations officials
described as a "very courageous" challenge.

He told delegates: "Climate change is for real. We have just a small
window of opportunity and it is closing rather rapidly. There is not a
moment to lose."

Afterwards he told The Independent on Sunday that widespread dying of
coral reefs, and rapid melting of ice in the Arctic, had driven him to the
conclusion that the danger point the IPCC had been set up to avoid had
already been reached.

Reefs throughout the world are perishing as the seas warm up: as water
temperatures rise, they lose their colours and turn a ghostly white.
Partly as a result, up to a quarter of the world's corals have been
destroyed.

And in November, a multi-year study by 300 scientists concluded that the
Arctic was warming twice as fast as the rest of the world and that its
ice-cap had shrunk by up to 20 per cent in the past three decades.

The ice is also 40 per cent thinner than it was in the 1970s and is
expected to disappear altogether by 2070. And while Dr Pachauri was
speaking parts of the Arctic were having a January "heatwave", with
temperatures eight to nine degrees centigrade higher than normal.

He also cited alarming measurements, first reported in The Independent on
Sunday, showing that levels of carbon dioxide (the main cause of global
warming) have leapt abruptly over the past two years, suggesting that
climate change may be accelerating out of control.

He added that, because of inertia built into the Earth's natural systems,
the world was now only experiencing the result of pollution emitted in the
1960s, and much greater effects would occur as the increased pollution of
later decades worked its way through. He concluded: "We are risking the
ability of the human race to survive."

I copy below one of my bulls on IDT®. My colleague Prof Nield has
remorselessly nailed multiple dishonesties - see attached - and I a few
too (also attached) in Creationism® and less often in IDT.

My inference is that IDT gets heavy funding from the "creationist"
fanatics, mainly via Jonathan Wells. Quasi-coordinator Philip Johnson is
in my direct experience evasive & nasty.

=====

Some allies of creationism® have complained to me that I've been
devoting too much time to cricising that sect. I take this compliment
kindly, and am suggesting we redouble our efforts to extirpate
creationism®.

IDT is more subtle, but I present some evidence that this tendency
too is not straight.

CREATIONISM & IDT
L R B Mann
Oct 2003; rev Jan 2005

Can you imagine what offence is achieved on scientists who are
Christians by the persistent lying of "creationism"? The fanatics make
aggressive insolent public attacks on evolution, insisting on the moronic,
indeed demonic axiom " EITHER the book of scripture OR the book of
nature". Indeed these demonic agents promulgate fanatically the idea that
to read the book of nature honestly is to contradict, even to insult, the
book of scripture. Devout scholars such as John Morton are in effect
called liars or fools for their reading the book of nature; and the
fanatics who do so misrepresent science with a persistent wickedness that
is particularly offensive to one brought up in science.

This sectarian tendency, intellectually headquartered near
Disneyland and bankrolled out of (so far as I've traced it) Lubbock, Tex.,
is more active in NZ than ever; DayStar® carried an advertorial 'interview'
of which the leading fanatic then has the cheek to complain in the next
issue; a large colour advertisement is placed near the advertorial
interview. This is a form of corruption I've seen before with other
editors.

IDT is an ally of Creationism®, franchised into NZ by Focus on the
Family.

IDT is only a small part of natl theol, and is being blown far out
of proportion by huge funding linked quietly to "creationist" fanatics thru
Johnson & Wells. It relies basically on lack of knowledge - e.g lack of
any current explanation how the bacterial flagellum could have evolved in a
Darwinian, Steve Jones fashion. This is 'God of the gaps' reasoning,
dangerous because the gap may be filled tomorrow by new facts &/or
reasoning. Why not reason more directly from the macroscopic observables
of ecology? A child can see, without education or instruments, that
ecology is wonderfully planned. I believe microstructures needing
instruments & theory to imagine - e.g the bacterial flagellum, or a DNA
secondary structure - are inferior as main examples of Paley timepieces.
They're not wrong, but they are to a degree obscurantist.

At an early age Morton's "claret cameo" should be intelligible; all
4 causes are needed in biology, not just the 2 with which Dawkins tries to
make out biology can be explained.

It is murky - annoyingly, and I suppose deliberately - but we
have to read the picture as best we can. As H Turner said, creationism is
a waste of time; and I would add that IDT is at best a drag, pedantically
OK but not worth much time. I infer from the glimpses that have come my
way that they're connected, organisationally and to a degree intellectually
thru e.g Wells, to creationism®.

Meanwhile, Sheldrake & Morton, spearhead of the mainstream thrust
thru Temple, are ignored by IDT entrepreneurs.

The IDT site www.iscid.org controllers Sparacio & Dembski have
repeatedly refused to allow me to contribute criticisms. Here is an
example.

==========

"Creationism" is a significant cross-current within Christianity,
distracting efforts from real issues. And it presents to ignorant, lazy
or dishonest outsiders a very misleading image of the logic & honesty of
Christians. A target is thus created, which is nothing better than a
caricature, for atheists to mock.

IDT is essentially Paley 1802 - fine as far as it goes. Broom's
book is the best IDT I know of - and fully acknowledging not only a
billions-of-years biosphere but also evolution. The IDT 'wedge' however
has become to some extent a front for "creationism". Don Nield has argued,
and I agree, that IDT is trying to drive in its wedge at the wrong place.

Full 28 y ago a leading local statistician (later prof.), George
Seber, tried to get me to debate publicly against Duane Gish. The notion
was in some ways attractive, not least because we're both Berkeley Ph.D
biochemists; but I declined, saying I would not dignify his cause by
sharing a stage with him. This reticence, uncharacteristic for me, I have
never regretted.

Much more recently, I gave a talk on Creationism to our local
Christian Academics Group. In moving the vote of thanks, George insisted
on ignoring my main point by expressing hope that there will be tolerance
of Creationism alongside the mainstream position which I had advocated.

My own position is similar to that of our leading emeritus zoology
prof John Morton (see his 'Man, Science and God', Collins 1972). Although
generally critical of the Vatican, I think its doctrine on evolution is
hard to fault, and I credit it for the fact that Rome has had little
trouble regarding evolution. On this issue if no others, general Christian
doctrine should learn from the Vatican.

Around 2 decade ago Creationists tried to tamper with school book
holdings in Hamilton N.Z. I have not learned whether this attempt
persisted.

In 1983 I photographed in the Science Museum, Kensington, an
exhibit which asserted the axiom that *either* organisms have evolved
*or* God has created them. This furphy, not normally so clearly
enunciated, seems to me to be not only the fundamental error of the
Creationist® fanaticism but also typical in its illogic of most if not all
fundamentalisms. I suggest the racket common to them is the requirement of
assent to a proposition which is not subtly but flagrantly false. This is
not ancillary or accidental: I believe it is essential, in that once a
person has overtly signalled switching-off of God-given reason in favour of
a pointedly false slogan from the sect leader(s), obedience can be
thereafter required much more generally. This is in the nature of
totalitarian systems' social psychology. "The Slavs are sub-human" is a
prototypical modern example of a blatantly false slogan which you had to
assent to overtly if you were to attain the temporary social security of
the National Socialist Party. "The first 3 chapters of the Bible, plus the
Noah story, must be taken literally" is similar mischief. I don't see why
this racket is not more widely & vigorously condemned. Those who propound
it do not in fact advocate that other parts of the Bible be read literally;
Broom & I point to John the Baptist's hailing "the Lamb of God" - why do
fundamentalists not try to insist that Christ assumed ovine form for that
occasion on the banks of the Jordan?

As a scientist active in natural theology, I support the general
gist of IDT as such but fear that it functions on the edge of a
"creationist" whirlpool.

===========

In defence of the persistent lying of creationism®, I've received
impassioned slogans 'Jesus died for them too', to which I replied "yes -
and for Himmler & Stalin also". A senior Presbyterian minister, Rev Bruce
Nicholls, defends the deceivers by claiming they're not proven liars. Prof
Don Nield has shown in detail that hevi-doodi creationist J Wells has
falsified standard biology texbooks in order to create straw men to knock
down. The version of creation presented by main aggressive creationists H
Morris, D Gish, J Sarfati, Wells, etc relies on falsifying evidence and on
misinterpreting facts grossly, as well as wholesale ignoring of most facts
(because they imply a 10^9 y evolution).

The real issue of the day is how to convert the billions who have
never heard the Good News, as well as the approx 1 billion overdeveloped
who have gone for "Enlightenment"®, Noo Eege, or just nihilism.
Christianity has much to offer the children of atheism & agnosticism,
starting for many educated in science by a careful exposition of all 4
Causes, a review of facts on evolution, and an honest presentation of
natural theology as in Temple, Hardy, Morton & Sheldrake. The USA sects
I've been criticising do little or nothing to meet these needs. Their
conduct is variously devious, dishonest and mind-buggering. They are
distracting lay folk away from what science has to tell them. I'd be
grateful if the USA would cease to export these prdkts - whether deemed

This article was published in the NewZealand Science Teacher, no. 97, 2001, pp. 42-44
A response to "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth"by
Jonathan Wells

Donald A. Nield
Department of Engineering Science,University of Auckland, P.B 92019, Auckland

All teachers of biology at the secondary level should read the book "Iconsof Evolution: Science or Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach About Evolutionis Wrong", by Jonathan Wells, Regnery Publishing Inc., Washington DC, 2000,if only to be able to give an informed answer to the "Ten questions to ask your biology teacher aboutevolution" posted at www.iconsofevolution.com.

The reader should be aware that Jonathan Wells has publicly stated (seethe document at www.tparents.org) that he has dedicated his life todestroying Darwinism. This is not mentioned in his book, the promotionaldescription of which reads:
'In this shocking book,Berkeley-educated doctor of biology Jonathan Wells lets you in onscientific discoveries you won't learn about from college and high schooltextbooks – and reveals a dirty little secret known only to some of his fellowbiologists.
The best known "icons of evolution" – from pictures of apes evolvinginto humans, to comparisons of fish and human embryos to moths on treetrunks – are false or misleading. For decades, biology students have been taught things about evolution thatare simply untrue.
These icons of evolutionappear in the most recent textbooks, although the scientific literature isfull of evidence that they are false. Apparently, dogmatic promoters of Darwinian evolution fear that withoutthese icons public faith in their claims will disappear, so they knowinglymisinform our children and suppress scientific evidence.'

With one exception, the ten questions mentioned at the beginning of thisarticle correspond to ten chapters of the book, and I discuss these indetail below. In his final chapter, Wells claims that dogmatic promotersof Darwinian evolution are not merely distorting the truth but they use their position of dominancein the biological sciences in the English-speaking world to censordissenting viewpoints. He suggests that scientists who deliberately distort the evidence should bedisqualified from receiving public funds.

The book has two appendices. The first reports on an evaluation of tenrecent biology textbooks published in the U.S.A. They are all given afailing grade by Wells. The second appendix lists ten warning labels which Wells suggests thatowners of textbooks can insert in their books.

There is little doubt that a number of textbook writers have been sloppy,and this is a matter of concern, but I do not accept that any of theauthors have been deliberately fraudulent. Further, though the individual scientific facts may have been accuratelypresented by Wells, he has been selective in what he has reported and hehas put his own particular spin on those facts.

I now list the ten questions, interleaved with my tentative brief answers(the reader is invited to improve them), which are composed in the light ofboth what Wells has written and what is actually written in theintroductory biology text (one of those evaluated by Wells) in current use at the University of Auckland, namely NeilA. Campbell, Jane B. Reece and Lawrence G. Mitchell, Biology:Concepts and Connections Menlo Park: Cummings, 5th edn1999). I shall abbreviate this reference by CRM.

The questions and my answers are:

Q1. Why do textbooks claim that the Miller-Urey experiment shows howlife's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth –- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those inthe experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
A1. CRM (p.494) says: "The atmosphere in the Miller-Urey model wasmade up of … the gases that researchers in the 1950s believed prevailed in the ancientworld. This atmosphere was probably more strongly reducing than the actualatmosphere of the early Earth … Traces of O2 may even have been present. Many laboratories have repeated the Miller-Ureyexperiment using a variety of recipes for the atmosphere, including amixture having a very low concentration of O2. Abiotic synthesis of organic compounds occurred in these modified models,though yields were generally less than in the original experiment. Laboratory analogs of primeval Earth have produced all 20 amino acidscommonly found in organisms … The Miller-Urey experiments still stimulate debate and research." The authors do not claim that the problem of the origin of life on Earth,or even of its building blocks, has been solved. Nevertheless, it is clearthat substantial progress has been made.

Q2. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion", in whichall major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formedinstead of branching from a common ancestor –- thus contradictingthe evolutionary tree of life?
A2. CRM (pp. 595-596) does discuss the Cambrian "explosion",which may have been spread over as much as 40 million years. Theso-called explosion can be interpreted quite well using the idea ofpunctuated equilibrium, something that Wells avoids mentioning. On the appropriate time scale, the tree of lifeconcept (with gradual changes as a result of natural selection) is notrefuted.

Q3. Why do textbooks define homology as similar to common ancestry,then claim that it is evidence for their common ancestry –- acircular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?
A3. CRM (p.424) says "Similarity in characteristics resulting fromcommon ancestry is known as homology … Comparative anatomy is consistent with other evidence in testifying thatevolution is a remodeling process in which ancestral structures thatfunctioned in one capacity become modified as they take on new functions." Wells does not mention that in individual cases it is usually clear whethersimilarities in structure are examples of homology or of analogy, and thismeans that the apparent circularity in the argument can be broken.

Q4. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos asevidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known forover a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their earlystages, and the drawings are faked?
A4. CRM has a single figure illustrating comparative embryology. This is a photograph of a 4-week-old human embryo which clearly shows gillpouches and a postanal tail, two of the trademarks of all vertebrateembryos. The caption says that comparative embryology helps biologists identifyanatomical homology that is less apparent in adults because the structuresare extensively modified in different ways during later development of theorganisms. The text (p. 424) reads: "Inspired by the Darwinian principle of descentwith modification, many embryologists in the late nineteenth century proposed the extreme view that'ontogeny' recapitulates 'phylogeny'. This notion holds that thedevelopment of an individual organism, ontogeny, is a replay of theevolutionary history of the evolutionary history of the species, phylogeny. The theory of recapitulation is an overstatement." Here the authors clearly point out that in the past some scientists havebeen led astray by their theoretical assumptions.

Q5. Why do textbooks portray this fossil [Archaeopteryx] as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds –- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?
A5. CRM (p.649) says: "Archaeopteryx is not considered theancestor of modern birds, and paleontologists place it on a side branch ofthe avian lineage. Nonetheless, Archaeopteryx probably was derived from ancestral forms that also gave rise to modernbirds." Wells fails to make the distinction between 'transitional' and 'ancestral', and he wrongly assumes that more primitive organismscannot survive after the evolution of more evolved descendants.

Q6. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged ontree trunks as evidence for natural selection –- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normallyrest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?
A6. The topic of peppered moths is not mentioned by CRM. Wellsrefers to Jerry Coyne, but in a letter to a newspaper editor Coyne says that Wells has misrepresented him. Michael Majerus, the authorityon the subject, notes that Coyne dealt with only a small part of thescientific evidence when he reviewed Majerus's book in Nature . Evolution by natural selection remains the best explanation of melanismin moths.

Q7. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finchesduring a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection –- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended,and no net evolution occurred?
A7. CRM uses the experimental results of Peter & Rosemary Grant justas an illustration of how inheritable characteristics of finches trackchanges in climate. Clearly, cyclical changes in climate produce cyclical changes incharacteristics, as Wells points out. However, what Wells does not mention is that long-term changes in climate can lead to long-termchanges in characteristics, and this, coupled with isolation of breedingstocks, could lead to species differentiation. In connection with similar illustrations, CRM (p. 422) mentions that researchers havepublished more than 100 other accounts of natural selection in thewild.

Q8. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution –- even though the extra wings have no muscles and those disabled mutantscannot survive outside the laboratory?
A8. The topic of four-winged fruit flies is not mentioned by CRM. This item illustrates a process that contributes to evolution, and is notevidence for evolution per se.

Q9. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justifymaterialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mereaccident –- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors wereor what they looked like?
A9. At the beginning of its discussion of human evolution, CRM says:"Another misconception envisions human evolution as a ladder with a seriesof steps leading directly from the ancestral anthropoid to Homosapiens. This is often illustrated as a parade of fossil hominids (members of thehuman family) becoming progressively more modern as they march across thepage. If human evolution is a parade, then it is a disorderly one, with manysplinter groups having traveled down dead ends… " Wells has notpresented an accurate account of what is now known about humanevolution.

Q10. Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is ascientific fact –- even though many of its claims are based onmisrepresentations of the facts?
A10. The question itself is based on a misrepresentation. Theclaims of Darwin's theory of evolution are not based on amisrepresentation of the facts. The reader is invited to read the whole of the relevant chapters in CRM soas to see something of the solid pillars behind the icons.

Various reviews and discussions of the book are posted at www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/icons_evolution.html.

The writer is grateful to DrRobert Mann for his comments on a draft of this article.

Comments on 'The Search for the Origin of Life' (5 videotapes by John Mackay for 'Creation Research, 36 Enterprise St, Birken Heads, Auckland N.Z.')

Robert Mann
sometime Senior Lecturer in Biochemistry
University of Auckland

The best feature of these lectures is the persistent theme that 'Outside Information' is required for the assembling of the various biological systems considered. This is a very important, generally neglected point, a potent but little-used aspect of the Argument from Design.

However, I find the following types of serious fault in Mackay's lecturing:
* unreliable on many scientific facts
• mis-attributes or mis-states fact or argument, and then knocks it down
• failure to define concepts, notably 'complication', upon which he relies
• illogical at several crucial stages.

I give a few examples of each category of fault. Others could be listed, but these suffice to rule out the tapes from their apparently intended use.

1. Errors of Scientific Fact

"Alanine is the simplest amino acid"

Ala is in fact the simplest chiral a'a, but of course Gly is the simplest a'a.

"Conversion of L-a'as to 50-50 L-D mixtures [racemisation] of amino acids occurs "as soon as you are as dead as you can get"; or anyway racemisation is about 10% complete by the time a tin of sardines reaches you.

This is far from true. Racemisation is, under ordinary conditions, many orders of magnitude slower; it has even been considered as a basis for dating sub-fossils.

Since sugars have carbon chains, they can come as RH or LH.

This is rubbish. Many compounds with carbon chains are incapable of LH or RH forms as they lack the required dissymmetry.

There are no abiotic chiral syntheses.

This has been false for some decades. Handedness (chirality) is created - strictly speaking, amplified - daily in organic chemical labs around the world.

Microsoft makes computers.

This may seem a minor error, and in some ways it is; but it suggests a lack of care for detail, as does the phrase "an interesting phenomena". It does not sound like a good scholar speaking, does it?

Ribosenucleic acid.

Same comment; and one must add that this name, though not strictly incorrect, has not been conventionally used for 4 decades. Mackay appears to have little familiarity with the molecular biology upon which he relies so heavily (and, as I will argue, mistakenly).

2. Mis-attribution
Miller is accused, by paraphrase, of having claimed creation of life.
This is a seriously misleading falsehood. If Miller has ever uttered anything like this, I'm unaware of it (and I've been alongside this field of chemistry for 4 decades, tho' never working in it myself).

The offence is compounded by Mackay's repeatedly saying "Mr Miller" in a way which is purportedly respectful but is actually the opposite because a correct title would of course be Dr or Prof.

Evolutionists say Matter + Energy + Time = Life
This may be a fair paraphrase, but only that. Like so much of Mackay's talk, it is slang.

At this rate I have to wonder, does Crick propound panspermia, and if so are spaceships involved in his version of it? No Crick lover, I nevertheless doubt Mackay's attributions here, and would be imprudent to trust Mackay on them.

3 Failure to Define Concepts
RNA is more complicated than protein . . . DNA is too complicated to have been the primal macromolecule . . . the information in RNA is very much less than the information in DNA.

I do not know on what definitions of information and complication these statements could be true. Insofar as I can ascribe any meaning to them, I consider them false. To talk like this at teenagers is, at best, vague & confusing. That onto which they may appear to cotton is not sufficiently clear concepts to constitute learning. It is, rather, disguised indoctrination.

4 Illogic

The lectures contain several inconclusive arguments presented with dogmatic confidence as if to preclude discussion.

Suppose Miller had claimed to create life, and suppose further that he had in fact not done so; none of that bears on whether real life did in fact evolve. To knock down the "Miller created life" straw man is almost irrelevant if done to imply that life could not have arisen thru a series of natural chemical elaborations. A sneaky dishonesty is in evidence - as all too often with "creation science".

The existence of present-day 'editing' (error correction) in NA syntheses entails impossibility of mutation.

This is just a non sequitur - so silly as to be hard to follow. How desperate do you have to be to offer argument this junky ?

DNA is what makes you you.

This Dawkinsism is stated by Mackay as if true!!

Conclusion

In general I believe that the attempt to refute evolution by discussing molecular biology is doomed. The discussion must proceed on a different level. It's back to Paley, friends!

And I cannot miss this opportunity to point out that evolution is not per se anti-God or anti-religion. Such scientist Christians as J E Morton have pointed out that to describe how organisms evolved, using our God-given senses, brings no conflict with any sensible reading of Scripture. The Vatican is, on this matter, correct.

'Creationism' is a tiresome diversion, and Mackay illustrates how "creation science" is junk.

I conclude that the tapes are unfit for educational use (except as an interesting exhibit of "creation science" for mature scholars studying this wonky phenomenon). I oppose promulgation of these tapes.

****

THE FUTURE OF THE RESERVES AND THE NATIONAL GUARD
A CONFERENCE REPORT
by Michael P. Noonan, Rapporteur

January 19, 2005

Michael P. Noonan is research fellow (defense policy) and
deputy director of the Program on National Security at the
Foreign Policy Research Institute.

THE FUTURE OF THE RESERVES AND THE NATIONAL GUARD
A CONFERENCE REPORT

by Michael P. Noonan, Rapporteur

The Foreign Policy Research Institute convened a conference
on the future of the reserves and National Guard on 6
December 2004 at the Union League of Philadelphia. A very
distinguished group drawn from the current and retired ranks
of the military (active and reserve component), academia,
and policy analysis convened to explore the context,
culture, and uses of the reserve components (RC) in
contemporary American defense policy. Michael P. Noonan,
James Kurth (the Claude Smith Professor of Political Science
at Swarthmore College, editor of Orbis, and senior fellow at
the FPRI), and Harvey Sicherman, the president and director
of the FPRI, served as panel moderators. The Hon. Stephen
Duncan, the Director of the Institute for Homeland Security
Studies at the National Defense University and former
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs under
Presidents Reagan and Bush (41), delivered the luncheon
keynote address entitled "A War of a Different Kind and the
Reconstruction of U.S. Reserve Forces." (The luncheon
keynote address may be viewed in its entirety at
http://www.fpri.org/multimedia/20041206.duncan.wardifferentkind.html.)

The conference was structured around three panels that
addressed the so-called Abrams Doctrine and the Total Force
policy, the citizen-soldier ideal and reserve culture, and
RC roles, missions, and assumptions. For each panel, a
single presentation served as the starting point of a
discussion amongst the presenter and the other three
panelists. In attendance were over eighty individuals drawn
from academia, non-governmental organizations, the media,
the military, and the interested public. The following is a
brief summary of the conference proceedings. The complete
collection of conference papers will be published in 2005.

The views expressed or reported upon within this report are
those of the respective speakers and should not be construed
to represent any agency of the U.S. government or other
institution.

The Program on National Security of the FPRI gratefully
acknowledges the financial support provided for this
conference by Dr. John M. Templeton, Jr., W.W. Keen Butcher,
the Hamilton Family Foundation, and Dr. John Hillen. Without
their support this conference and a follow-on project
dealing with U.S. military strategy and force structure
would not be possible.

THE ABRAMS DOCTRINE AND THE TOTAL FORCE
James Jay Carafano, a senior research fellow on defense and
homeland security at the Heritage Foundation, set the
historical context of the so-called Abrams Doctrine -- named
after former Army Chief of Staff General Creighton Abrams --
and the Total Force policy. He prefaced his comments by
noting that they mainly dealt with the Army reserve
components.

Carafano declared that little evidence supports the belief
that the increased reliance on the RC after the ending of
the draft in 1973 was meant as an extra-constitutional trip-
wire on presidential war powers. In other words, the
increased reliance on the RC in and of itself was not
intended to force presidents to assemble public support
prior to undertaking military action. Instead, he argued
that increased reliance on the RC was really meant to expand
the active component (AC) of the Army from 13 to 16
divisions by placing "round-out" reserve brigades into AC
divisions.* As evidence that the Abrams Doctrine was not
meant as a trip-wire, he offered three points:
(1) in the post-Vietnam period, military thinking shifted totally to
Europe and that the decisive phase there would be in the
first 30 days, meaning that an RC mobilization requiring 80
to 180 days would make the AC less reliant on the RC;
(2) the shift towards using the 82nd and 101st Airborne
Divisions as rapid deployment forces for the conduct of
quick wars meant the AC wanted less reliance on the RC; and
finally
(3) General Abrams was from a generation of officers
that prided itself on providing purist rather than
politicized military advice to civilian decision-makers.

Shifting his attention to the Total Force, Carafano stated,
"what the Total Force policy did in practice was it
accomplished [former Secretary of Defense Melvin] Laird's
goal of ensuring the numbers to meet all the national
security requirements, but it never came close to ensuring
that those forces actually had the readiness to actually do
the missions they were allocated for." Even as resources
expanded in the 1980s, the AC received the vast majority of
this funding while the RC virtually stood still. He said
that three core operating procedures of the Total Force
ensure that the readiness of the RC is insufficient to do
the assigned missions:
(1) the RC developed "mirror-image"
force structure to the AC such as divisions which were
inefficiently structured and organized and expensive to
maintain;
(2) the high "first to fight" readiness for AC
units ensured that the RC would get the leftover funding;
and,
(3) cascading readiness ensured that the RC would not
modernize optimally to meet its needs and capabilities.
"So what the Total Force concept does, really, is strengthen the
active force and ensure that [with respect to] the reserve
force the numbers are kept but the capability is not. And
we see that in the stresses in Desert Storm, and what we're
living now, the stresses we're seeing on the reserve now, is
really the legacy of the Total Force concept."

Carafano then discussed the future of the Total Force.
First, he stated that as more AC forces are pulled back to
the United States as envisioned in the Global Posture Review
of 2004, the distinction between the AC and RC will
diminish. More AC units stationed in the U.S. will create
ties with local communities that will de-emphasize and
reduce the notion that the RC is a better link to the
American people. Secondly, the growing capacity of
contractors on the battlefield will reduce reliance on the
reserves. Last, and most important, "_the military as a
percentage of the American population is going to continue
to decline, and therefore_the notion that you could rely on
[the RC] to kind of affect every local community and kind of
whip up support or something is going to be less and less,
because less and less of us are going to be in uniform."

On a concluding note, he stated "_going forward with the
total force concept as an organizing principle for the 21st
century national security needs would actually be a really
bad idea."

Allan R. Millett, the Raymond E. Mason Jr. Professor of
Military History at The Ohio State University and a retired
Colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve (USMCR), cautioned
that the differences in functions across the services'
reserve components means that there are no one-size-fits-all
solutions for the Total Force policy. He stated that the
Army and its RC are currently experiencing growing pains
getting accustomed to the demands of unit rotation as
opposed to their past practice of using individual
replacements. The AC is getting used to to this, but the RC
is having difficulties as its units rotate back to the U.S.
Next, he stated that the tremendous employment problems
being faced by Guardsmen and reservists mean that RC
membership incentives need to be reexamined. Lastly, he said
that policymakers needed to "_decide whether we want a
reserve policy dictated by the experiences that we're now
having in the Central Command commitment, or do we want to
examine [whether it is] possible to look at a reserve policy
which will support the war on terrorism but then also be
applicable to other types of situations." He noted that
allies such as the South Koreans were concerned about the
current stretch of operational commitments of the U.S.
military -- active and reserve.

Colonel (ret.) Mike Doubler, the author of the official
history of the National Guard (republished as Civilian in
Peace, Soldier in War), focused particularly upon the Army
RC, especially the National Guard. On the issue of readiness
he argued that, "you can have all the policies you want that
say it's going to generate readiness, but if you do not give
the commensurate resources to go with that, you will have
nothing." He noted that while resources are generally
adequate today, there are still problems with getting people
into army and air installations to receive adequate training
and that there is insufficient access to health care for
citizen-soldiers mobilized for more than two years. Turning
his attention to the Total Force, he argued that the lack of
conscription now and in the future means, "we are
permanently wedded to some form of a Total Force policy and
a reliance on our citizen-soldiers." The AC has grown
reliant on the RC due to the drawdown during the 1990s.
However, adjustments will be necessary. Finally, he stated
that while he agreed with Carafano that the Abrams Doctrine
was not a trip-wire, he disagreed about the RC's role in
generating public support for the military. "I do believe in
our local communities out in the American heartland the
National Guard is thought of as one of our first responders,
and I think it's integral to the link between the average
American person and our military institutions."

Rounding out the panel was Frank Hoffman, a national
security affairs analyst, consultant, and retired Lieutenant
Colonel in the USMCR. Hoffman agreed that while manpower and
efficiency were the primary drivers for General Abrams,
"_there is a sub-context that we need to understand that
comes from the lessons of Vietnam and the missed lessons of
Vietnam and the mythologies that come from the military from
Vietnam." He noted that the Department of Defense's website
officially endorses the Abrams Doctrine to ensure national
will through the mobilization of the RC during conflicts.
(See:http://www.defenselink.mil/ra/documents/rc101/rc101.pdf
)
According to Hoffman, however, presidents do not seem to see
it as a limitation. President Clinton, for example, deployed
reserve forces often to the Balkans during the 1990s without
apparently worrying about public support. The social
dimension was only one element of strategy and the
protracted nature of the global war on terrorism will
require policymakers to take a holistic view of national
security policy.

THE CITIZEN-SOLDIER: THE IDEAL AND RESERVE CULTURE
America's leading military sociologist Charles Moskos,
professor emeritus of sociology at Northwestern University
and former U.S. Army draftee and reservist, began his paper
presentation by stating that it was a given that in terms of
people our AC and RC are under-strength. The reserves now
supply 40+ percent of forces currently serving in Iraq and
this trend will continue. He reported that a survey that he
conducted in Iraq in 2003, by invitation of Central Command
combatant commander General John Abizaid, showed that AC
morale was higher than he expected but that RC morale was
much lower. The RC felt like second-class citizens due to
training and equipment issues, etc. Moskos stated, however,
that this was fixable and was not mission-oriented.
"Reservists frequently have non-monetary motives, very
importantly, not only patriotism but having an added
dimension to their life, but there is a double-bind that
reservists confront that the active duties confront at a
much lower level: family, employment, things of this sort."

In order to address future manpower issues, Moskos argued,
we needed to re-define the citizen-soldier concept in line
with the realities of the 21st century. He pointed out that
the personnel officials within the Department of Defense
drastically under-appreciate the demographic effects of
higher education on younger people. Today, two-thirds of
high school graduates go on to some form of higher learning
and half of those are earning bachelor's degrees. "So we
have one-third of all youth today are college graduates or
will shortly be college graduates, and yet the number of
enlisted recruits with college diplomas is minuscule in the
active duty force," said Moskos. In surveys that he has
conducted at Northwestern, the University of California at
Los Angeles, the University of Arizona, and at the
University of Illinois-Chicago, he says that 23 percent
answered that they would seriously consider joining the
military if they could serve a short-term enlistment (15
months total; as opposed to current options of 18-24
months). In a follow-on survey in October 2004 at
Northwestern, he was surprised to learn that 11 percent of
students would be very likely to enlist, and another 18
percent said they would seriously consider enlisting, to
serve as prison guards at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay if
their student loans were forgiven and they were given
generous GI Bill benefits for graduate school.


Short-term enlistments, he argued, would be the only way for
the military to make itself attractive to college graduates
who likely would not enlist under any other circumstances.
If you could attract 10 percent of the annual number of
college graduates that would translate into 120,000
potential recruits. In absence of such a new stream of
recruits he stated that in order to make mission the
military would: (1) lower entrance standards, (2) raise
enlistment bonuses and pay which can lead to higher
attrition, (3) increasingly rely on contractors whose costs
are hard to determine because their funding comes from the
operations budget, or (4) rely more heavily on non-American
recruits. At this point, he noted, U.S. forces serving in
Operation Iraqi Freedom include three percent in the ranks
who are non-U.S. citizens.

He closed by saying, "we need new thinking on the citizen-
soldier in the 21st century. Such a short-term recruit
would be a supplement, not a replacement, for reserve
components. Let us keep in mind, too, there are other long-
term benefits not just to the military but to the larger
society if we had privileged youth serving as well as those
who come from the working class, because these will be
tomorrow's leaders."

John Allen Williams, Professor of Political Science at
Loyola University Chicago and a retired Captain in the Naval
Reserve, began by acknowledging that there is no political
support for a draft, now or in the future, and that Moskos'
idea of short-term enlistments should be explored. He said
that short-term enlistments could help personnel
requirements for the AC and RC, but also provide societal
and individual benefits by expanding the base of those who
serve. Turning his attention to the reserves, Williams
stated that the RC has very important manifest and latent
functions. In manifest terms they support the AC by:
increasing the size of active forces, providing capabilities
not found in the AC, and providing a military capability to
the states. More important, the RC's latent function
provides a partial linkage between the AC and civil society
and also serves as "a check on military actions." He
finished his remarks by stating that the RC is a vital force
multiplier. It is increasingly difficult to do anything in
support of U.S. global strategy without mobilizing the
reserves, but to be effective they must have the respect of
the AC. "To get that respect, they have to deserve it, and I
think it's a reminder to all of us that war is too important
to be left to full-time professionals alone," said Williams.

Lieutenant Colonel (ret.) Ralph Peters, a writer,
strategist, and commentator, opened his remarks by
disagreeing with Moskos' call for short-term enlistments. He
argued that bringing in college graduates on special terms
would hurt AC morale. "If you're going to bring in more
college kids, then put them down with the NASCAR kids, where
they will learn a little bit about America," he said. He
said that he did not necessarily disagree with providing
increased educational benefits to service-members, but they
should not be targeted solely on college enlistees. Shifting
his remarks to the RC, he remarked that the most crucial
factor affecting the reserves and National Guard today is
not money, nor motivation, but instead it is an issue of
time. The complexity of modern military operations makes it
difficult for the reserves to maintain skills and readiness.
That being said, he affirmed that the RC does link the
military and society, and that even if you doubled or
tripled the size of the AC he would want the RC there
because they link the structures of everyday life to the
military and do not allow war-making to become too easy. The
RC, however, had to embrace effectiveness and the leadership
needed to get over parochial interests. Finally, he argued
that in order to fix recruiting problems, serious
consideration should be given to creative solutions such as
giving tax incentives to employers.

Richard H. Kohn, Professor of History at the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill and former Chief Historian of
the United States Air Force, opened by commending Moskos'
call for expanding national service but later stated that it
would be too expensive and might cause negative socio-
economic divisions in the force based upon assignments. The
major problem today, according to Kohn, is that the
realities of America's global commitments were no longer
"_conducive to or appropriate for a citizen army or citizen-
soldiers." Furthermore, the notion of the citizen-soldier is
dead. Kohn argued that the RC are now part-time
professionals. Citing survey data from a Triangle Institute
for Strategic Studies study of 1998-99, Kohn noted that RC
officer attitudes were "_almost exactly congruent with their
regular counterparts in values, attitudes, opinions, and
perspectives." What is needed is a radical, holistic review
and reconsideration of the entire military establishment.
Kohn endorsed the creation of a national blue ribbon
commission on the future of the national defense of the
United States in order to get over political hurdles.

ROLES, MISSIONS, & ASSUMPTIONS
For the final panel, Frank Hoffman delivered a paper
addressing the roles, missions, and assumptions of the RC. A
critical problem, according to Hoffman, is that "Despite the
consequences of 9/11, we have not examined obsolete
assumptions about the way we are organized nor admitted that
the enemy and this entire way of war challenges our mind-set
and approach to security, all of our little institutional
boundaries, blinders, and stovepipes." He began by laying
out four schools of thought for organizing the AC and RC in
order to cope with current operational realities: the
military revolutionaries, the strict constructionists, the
neo-traditionalists, and the global realists. The military
revolutionaries would rely heavily on technology to solve
military problems; the AC would be smaller than today's
forces and would focus only on warfighting while the RC
would also be smaller and would focus entirely on stability
and support operations (SASO). The strict constructionists
go by the Constitution itself and prefer a smaller AC force
structure and budget and a larger RC force structure and
budget. The neo-traditionalists hark back to the Second
World War and prefer basically the current system in terms
of AC force structure and budget and the RC focused
primarily on warfighting, but with an increase in
modernization funding. Last, the global realists believe in
American primacy and prefer massive increases in AC force
structure and budgets while the RC would get slightly
smaller and be used solely as a strategic reserve for the
AC.

Hoffman found all of the above schools to be wanting.
Seeking a synthesis, Hoffman laid out two propositions about
the RC. First, the RC are critical in terms of providing a
link between the military and the American public. And
second, the RC are necessary to cope with uncertainty by
providing ready elements in times of crisis --
internationally and domestically. In order for the U.S. to
be capable of dealing with the new forms of warfare it must
retain "conventional" dominance. Ready, capable RC forces
help ensure such a capability. Hoffman cautioned, however,
that the RC must be fully trained prior to being alerted and
mobilized rather than the old system of being alerts
followed by training and then finally mobilizing. This will
require "higher levels of readiness requiring more focused
preparation and organizational alignments to provide first-
class training during peacetime."

Hoffman, dealing mainly with the Army, proposed an RC force
structure to deal with warfighting, stability and support
operations, and homeland security missions. He called for 5
division equivalents (5 light maneuver brigades, 5 medium,
and 5 heavy) of the National Guard to be used as strategic
reserve to be trained and prepared primarily, but not
exclusively, for warfighting. Next, he recommended that one
or two divisions comprised of "stability enhancement"
brigades be established in the Army Reserve. These units
would work in post-conflict environments to help bridge the
gap between winning the battlefield and winning the war.
Last, he recommended the establishment of three division
equivalents (12 brigades) in the National Guard to deal with
homeland defense issues. The National Guard is uniquely
suited for this because of its Title 32 status -- which
makes it a state force not subject to the Posse Comitatus
Act of 1878 unless mobilized by the President -- and the
fact that it is "already forward deployed in 4,000 sites
near future battlefields in Pennsylvania, Washington, New
York, or Oklahoma." Of these 12 brigades, possibly one would
be assigned to each of the Department of Homeland Security's
10 national regions, one would be earmarked as a reinforcing
brigade for special events domestically or internationally,
and the last would be designated for national missile
defense requirements. Across the board, Hoffman asserted,
"high levels of readiness in terms of structure, training,
equipment for specific missions will be the hallmark of the
reserve component in the future, and while the Guard may be,
as a whole, dual-mission capable, it must field capable
units for specific missions."

Hoffman concluded: "Today's Guard and Reserve must evolve in
response to the strategic, political, and technological
revolutions that swirl about us. Standing still may be an
option, but it is not an option that serves the nation, the
taxpayer, and even the Guard well in the long run."

Richard I. Stark, Jr., a senior fellow with the
International Security Program at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies and a retired Army officer, opened
by stating that the increased reliance on the RC began well
before 9/11. The use of the RC in Bosnia was a real
watershed. "There [was] little debate about what this did to
the compact or the agreement between the Guard and Reserve
members, and I think that perhaps there was a rather
shortsighted view that this made the Reserve component more
relevant and that attached to that relevance would be
increasing resources_." He warned that while the RC was
doing exemplary work there was a limit about how often these
individuals could be called upon. He advised that RC
resources needed to be commensurate with their assigned
tasks and that there needed to be a fundamental shift in how
service members are utilized -- both in terms of assignment
flexibility and in terms of understanding what they are
willing to sign up for. More pointedly, he suggested that
those who voluntarily perform some sort of national service,
whether military (AC or RC) or civilian (such as the Peace
Corps), ought to have a tax deferment or tax avoidance
benefit for the rest of their lives.

Antulio J. Echevarria II, the Director of National Security
Affairs and Director of Research of the Strategic Studies
Institute at the U.S. Army War College and a retired Army
Lieutenant Colonel, questioned whether Hoffman's force
structure was adequate in the context of contemporary U.S.
commitments. According to him, time requirements are
problematic for the RC to create new capabilities in an era
where requirements are constantly changing. What is really
needed is a top-down and bottom-up review of the force
structure that looks at what increasing civilian
capabilities mean for the current force structure and also
what sort of forces will be necessary 5 or 10 years from
now. Echevarria noted that technological change and the
realities of modern war mean that "_we may be at an era
where we need something entirely different, we need to re-
look at the whole idea of what the RC should be and how it
should look."

Jack Thomas Tomarchio, a senior fellow of the FPRI, a
partner of Hill Solutions, LLC, and a Colonel in the U.S.
Army Reserve, noted that the high tempo of operations for
the RC since 9/11 has caused great stress on individual
soldiers, their families, and employers. Despite this, the
RC are performing magnificently, but the old RC paradigm no
longer works. The RC must:
(1) be given realistic, definable, and achievable goals and missions;
(2) have training that reflect those goals and missions;
(3) receive more robust and realistic training with AC units and more AC
personnel should be assigned to their units;
(4) receive family support services on par with those provided the AC;
(5) consider whether roles such as military police, civil
affairs, transportation, and logistics might better be
handled by contractors;
(6) consider shifting units such as military intelligence to the AC; and,
(7) decide whether more homeland security and SASO-related units rather
than
combat arms units be placed in the National Guard.

CONCLUSIONS
While not all participants share these views, during the
concluding plenary session Harvey Sicherman summarized a few
points of broad agreement:

(1) The stresses on the RC began well before 9/11. As the
active component shrank during the 1990s, the reserves
became more important, but frequent deployments began to
compromise the part-time nature of the force. Iraq
accelerated these trends.

(2) The reserves remain an important mechanism for
maintaining a link between the military and American civil
society. But the concept of the citizen-soldier itself is
under stress. "Patriotism" should be redefined to include a
presidential call for national service. To broaden
participation, AC and RC volunteers might receive incentives
such as favorable tax arrangements; RC employers might also
receive tax benefits.

(3) The War on Terrorism is a new and different struggle
where the front is everywhere. Guard and Reserve roles need
additional definition with respect to overseas missions
(warfighting and stability operations) and homeland
security. Concerted effort needs to be put in to work with
the Congress, the state governors, and the leaderships of
the National Guard Association and Reserve Officers
Association to convince them that force structure
adjustments are necessary.

----------------------------------------------------------
NOTES

* From the Second World War until the present, Army
divisions had been made up of three "maneuver" brigades. The
round-out brigade concept, which lasted until the early
1990s, simply substituted an RC maneuver brigade for an AC
brigade in selected divisions.

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

I have asked Wm Dembski to tell me (beyond what he says in the
section copied below) why IDT is not natl theol. I think it clearly is,
and that's OK with me (as a practitioner with Broom of natl theol, and a
fan of Wm Temple who accorded it some status notably in his Gifford
Lectures 'Nature Man & God'). D doesn't reply.

On re-examining his line of talk supposed to prove IDT is not natl
theol, I have been unable to deem it satisfactory: D denies that IDT
conforms to the defn (correctly quoted) of natl theol, but then the
"different" image he tries on for IDT is a mere paraphrase of the defn of
natl theol. Is this any better than double-talk? Is it on the level?

My main ideas on IDT:

IDT is one aspect of Phillip Johnson's 'wedge', arising in
a jurisdiction where Christianity is being forced out of educational
institutions.

The USA constitution forbids *establishment* of any
religion: no religion is permitted legal privileges. This clause has been
misinterpreted more & more outlandishly by anti-religion judges to exclude
prayers, the 10 Commandments, and other glimpses of religion. The
judiciary doing this is dominated by irreligious jews and allied
materialists. {Why doesn't lawyer Johnson organise a court counterattack
on the ludicrous 'no religion' Supreme court misinterpretation? This would
be a far more sensible harnessing of his abilities than his refusing to say
how old the biosphere is.)

{ BTW state-privileged versions of religion manifest a wide
range of sucess & failure e.g a draft spectrum:

Byzantium - Church of England - Church of Scotland - Free Presby - ...
- Hitler's stooge church. }

IDT is largely Creationism-lite. But it is fronted by some
far more reasonable-looking people, e.g Dembski, Behe. (Main man Ph
Johnson is not reasonable but given to heated insolent polemics.)

IDT is peculiarly frozen, harping on the one tiny point as
if nothing more can be discussed until Dawkins etc admit the simple basic
'god of the gaps' IDT point. They'll wait till hell freezes over, judging
by the dogged radical illogic of Dawkins & his ilk. I cannot see the
sense of this frozen strategy.

ID theorists, esp Dembski, persistently ignore the relevent
mainstream philosophers Temple, Hardy, Broom, Morton, Sheldrake. Dembski
refuses to put anything from me on his www.iscid.org. He wishes to erect
an image of scholarship but is not quite straight.

I think the reason D refuses to admit that IDT is natl
theol is that he fears rabid atheists would then ban it from schools. Is
this wise? Is it prudent defensiveness, or unwarrantedly excessive
defeatism? My own preference would be to press on much faster, insisting
on all categories of cause and trying harder to link up with revealed
theology. Science education should be given a philosophical context incl
all categories of cause. I believe this would be far easier to achieve
than what IDT, as a political movement, is attempting.

NZ agents for IDT®, Focus on the Family, are pretty
ruthless in promotion of their multi-million$ video, and get abusive of any
who express misgivings about e.g its failure to mention that evolution has
occurred. They are soft on creationism®. Full-on creationists
AnswersInGenesis® get sympathetic coverage in the 'evangelical' monthly
DayStar®. None of the Ak Sc/Faith group will join me in offering to talk
to church groups about evolution. The extent of cowardice is dismaying,
and puzzling.

I am forced to conclude that NZ is being successfully
invaded by Creationism® and its ally or stalking-horse IDT®. They
represent major diversions from progressive discussion & education on
evolution.

One of the main local agents has a warm relationship with Johnson.
He told me Johnson had shouted him a week's holiday/confab on a S. Pac.
resort island. When I mentioned this to others he realised it might not be
a good look and denied the fact! This exemplifies the 'means to an end'
attitude to truth amongst the fundamentalists but also amongst their less
extreme allies.

R

IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN A FORM OF NATURAL THEOLOGY?

By William A. Dembski

[from his wesbite www.designinference.com]

... the charge that intelligent design is a form of natural theology.
These days within the science-religion community, natural theology tends to
be viewed as a disreputable enterprise that hearkens back to pre-Darwinian
days and is now thoroughly passé. While I regard this judgment as unduly
harsh, I also regard it as irrelevant to intelligent design. Intelligent
design is not a form of natural theology.

...

Is intelligent design a form of natural theology? If intelligent
design were a form of natural theology, then intelligent design should be
looking at certain features of the natural world and therewith drawing
conclusions about some reality that extends beyond the natural world. Is
intelligent design doing that? I submit it is not. The fundamental idea that
animates intelligent design is that events, objects, and structures in the
world can exhibit features that reliably signal the effects of intelligence.
Disciplines as diverse as animal learning and behavior, forensics,
archeology, cryptography, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence
thus all fall within intelligent design.

Intelligent design becomes controversial when methods developed in special
sciences (like forensics and archeology) for sifting the effects of
intelligence from natural causes get applied to natural systems where no
reified, evolved, or embodied intelligence is likely to have been involved.
What if the methods for identifying intelligence tell us that Michael Behe's
irreducibly complex biochemical machines are in fact designed? What if
careful analysis of such systems shows that natural causes (like the
Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and random variation) are in
principle incapable of generating such systems? In that case to charge
intelligent design with trading in arguments from ignorance or invoking a
god-of-the-gaps is no longer tenable. In that case gaps in naturalistic
explanations for such systems are not gaps of ignorance about underlying
natural causes but rather gaps in the very structure of physical reality.

Subject: European Appeasement

Matthias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German publisher Axel
Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in DIE WELT, Germany's
largest daily newspaper, against the timid reaction of Europe in the face
of the Islamic threat.

EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe -
your family name is appeasement". It's a phrase you can't get out of your
head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and
France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they
noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not "bound" to toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union,
then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades,
inhuman, suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the
ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even
though we had proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and
debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans
had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do
our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East,
European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance,"
now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore
nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and,
motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to
issue bad grades to George Bush ... Even as it is uncovered that the
loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no,
TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement
... How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic
fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that
we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany.

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our
(German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the
German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim
Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists.

One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the
laughable treaty signed by Adolf Hitler, and declaring European "Peace
in our time".

What else has to happen before the European public and its political
leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an
especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic
Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western
societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the
great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an
enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is
actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will
always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.

Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed
for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.

His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans
know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War,
freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and
virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair,
acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War
against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a
number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the
multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values
and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the
true great powers, America and China.

On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those
"arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which
even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why?

Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic,
so devoid of a moral compass.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts
of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on
the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes
what is at stake - literally everything.

While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America
because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our
Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd
rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or
our four weeks of paid vacation ... Or listen to TV pastors preach about
the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive".

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking
hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a
robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

POMP AND IMPROPER CIRCUMSTANCE

ROBERT SCHEER
Los Angeles Times
January 18, 2005

On Thursday, an estimated $40 million worth of inaugural pomp and
circumstance will only temporarily triumph over an incalculable record of
deceit and error.

Of course, some might say it's tacky to rain on the president's parade, but
two crucial news stories compel it.

First came the report, confirmed by the White House, that the fruitless
search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq had officially but secretly
ended shortly before Christmas without, of course, any sign of the much
discussed weapons that were such a critical justification for the war in
the first place.

This was followed by the astounding claim by the president that his narrow
election victory in November absolved him of accountability for both the
false rationales and outright lies used to justify the invasion, and the
disastrous occupation that followed.

"Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004
elections," Bush told the Washington Post in an interview published Friday.
"And the American people listened to different assessments made about what
was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose
me."

Actually, the election provided no such moment of accountability because
both major-party candidates had supported the war. John Kerry had voted to
authorize the use of force against Iraq --- and then inexplicably said on
the campaign trail that he would have voted the same way even after
learning that Congress and the American public had been deceived on the
war's justification.

The Democratic Party nominee even endorsed larger troop commitments to
occupy a country where every Western soldier on the ground fuels
nationalist and religious rage.

And although it is true that Bush secured a (very slim) majority of the
popular vote, it is a portent of how history will judge him that the days
ahead of his inauguration have been soured by a string of critical
statements about his Iraq policy from some of the biggest Iraq hands in the
Republican ranks.

Brent Scowcroft, the retired lieutenant general who was national security
advisor to the president's father during the first Iraq war, warned
ominously that the upcoming Iraqi national elections "won't be a promising
transformation, and it has great potential for deepening the conflict. We
may be seeing incipient civil war at this time."

Even the Bush family's consigliore is concerned enough to speak out
publicly. James A. Baker III, the former secretary of State who has been
working at Bush's behest to win international debt relief for conquered
Iraq, is talking publicly about the need for a phased withdrawal: "

Any appearance of a permanent occupation will both undermine domestic
support here in the United States and play directly into the hands of those
in the Middle East who --- however wrongly --- suspect us of imperial
design."

Undaunted by such pragmatism, President "Mission Accomplished" Bush twice
demurred in his interview with the Post from Colin Powell's prediction that
U.S. troops would begin leaving Iraq in the next year.

Despite what Bush may think, elections grant leaders temporary power, but
it is history that determines the rightness and wrongness of their actions.
As Abraham Lincoln noted, you can even fool all of the people some of the
time. That is why the nation's founders designed the Constitution to check
the unbridled rule of the majority lest, driven by the passions of the
moment, it embrace devastating error or even tyranny.

Consider that even without the debacle of Watergate, the reputation of the
man who soundly defeated war hero and antiwar candidate George McGovern was
ultimately doomed by his immoral and irrational decision to carpet-bomb
most of Southeast Asia for years in a vain attempt to secure victory
against a seemingly outmatched Third World country.

As we honor Medal of Freedom winner Martin Luther King Jr., a prophet of
peace, it is depressing to consider that our president has just bestowed
that same medal --- the highest civilian honor in the land --- on ex-CIA
Director George Tenet and ex-Iraqi administrator L. Paul Bremer III.

After all, it was Tenet who kept Congress in the dark about the agency's
considerable intelligence that contradicted the White House lies about
Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons program and ties to Al Qaeda. And it was the
bumbling Bremer who assured us throughout his stay in Iraq that everything
over there was just going swimmingly --- instead of admitting that it was
actually going to hell in a handbasket.

No matter his electoral victory, Bush will never be absolved of sending
young people to kill and be killed in a war without moral justification.

One does not have to be a Catholic to agree with the pope that the invasion
of Iraq fails to meet the Christian standard of a "just war."

=============



BUSH INAUGURATION:
LIFESTYLES OF THE
RICH AND HEARTLESS

CHRISTY HARVEY, JUDD LEGUM AND JONATHAN BASKIN
WITH NICO PITNEY AND MIPE OKUNSEINDE
The Progress Report
January 20, 2005

Due to $17 million worth of inaugural security --- paid for by the city of
Washington, D.C. --- the Progress Report is unable to access its office.
Never fear --- it takes a lot more than that to keep us down. We put this
list together for you ahead of time.

A look at this week's festivities by the numbers:

$40 million: Cost of Bush inaugural ball festivities, not counting security
costs.

$2,000: Amount FDR spent on the inaugural in 1945…about $20,000 in today's
dollars.

$20,000: Cost of yellow roses purchased for inaugural festivities by D.C.'s
Ritz Carlton.

200: Number of Humvees outfitted with top-of-the-line armor for troops in
Iraq that could have been purchased with the amount of money blown on the
inauguration.

$10,000: Price of an inaugural package at the Fairmont Hotel, which
includes a Beluga caviar and Dom Perignon reception, a chauffeured Rolls
Royce and two actors posing as "faux" Secret Service agents, complete with
black sunglasses and cufflink walkie-talkies.

400: Pounds of lobster provided for "inaugural feeding frenzy" at the
exclusive Mandarin Oriental hotel.

3,000: Number of "Laura Bush Cowboy cookies" provided for "inaugural feeding
frenzy" at the Mandarin hotel.

$1: Amount per guest President Carter spent on snacks for guests at his
inaugural parties. To stick to a tight budget, he served pretzels, peanuts,
crackers and cheese and had cash bars.

22 million: Number of children in regions devastated by the tsunami who
could have received vaccinations and preventive health care with the amount
of money spent on the inauguration.

1,160,000: Number of girls who could be sent to school for a year in
Afghanistan with the amount of money lavished on the inauguration.

$15,000: The down payment to rent a fur coat paid by one gala attendee who
didn't want the hassle of schlepping her own through the airport.

$200,500: Price of a room package at D.C.'s Mandarin Oriental, including
presidential suite, chauffeured Mercedes limo and outfits from Neiman
Marcus.

2,500: Number of U.S. troops used to stand guard as President Bush takes
his oath of office

26,000: Number of Kevlar vests for U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan
that could be purchased for $40 million.

$17 million: Amount of money the White House is forcing the cash-strapped
city of Washington, D.C., to pony up for inauguration security.

9: Percentage of D.C. residents who voted for Bush in 2004.

66: Percentage of Americans who think this over-the-top inauguration should
have been scaled back.

Dear Robert:

That is a very interesting take. I am not sure if the cited clauses in the
US Code apply to the press. You mention "anyone" before quoting the
pertinent law, but my feeling is that there is balancing legal grounds for
press disclosure of some military operations in wartime. I also think that
given the specificity of Hersch's article, this could be a deliberate
disinformation campaign that serves as a diversion away from the real
operations and/or raises the psychological and material costs to the
Iranians. Hersch was just the "useful fool" employed to carry the message.

My thoughts on the recent use of Special Operations in Iran/Iraq is
attached.

Cheers,
PGB

Of Commandos, Death Squads and Hit Men.

Paul G. Buchanan
1-21-05

Recent news reports claim that the US Special Operations community has not been entirely idle since the invasion of Iraq gave way to its occupation. Special Forces units were at the pointy edge of the military spear that gutted Saddam's army, but then gave way to conventional troops as the mission shifted from conquest to pacification. This may have been a mistake, given the success of the Iraqi resistance in engaging guerrilla warfare against US forces after the invasion, because it is axiomatic that the way to counter insurgency is to employ guerrilla tactics against the guerrillas. Since guerrilla wars of resistance are frontless asymmetrical wars of attrition in which matters of will matter more than matters of might, the only way to achieve symmetry in combat is to engage in small team hit-and-run tactics while cultivating support from the local population (if for no other reason than to get reliable real-time intelligence).

Because of faulty assumptions on the part of the US political and military leadership about how to conduct the invasion and its aftermath, US Special Forces units were largely withdrawn from Iraq once Baghdad fell. Instead a large-scale conventional military occupation was installed, with results that are all too apparent.

After eighteen months of low intensity conflict between the Iraqi resistance and coalition forces (where military stalemate equals guerrilla victory), with the January 30 elections for an Iraq National Assembly and provincial councils in danger of being subverted by an incessant wave of attacks against all those involved in holding them, the Pentagon has asked the Special Forces community to resume operations in Iraq. It has been asked to assemble both American and Iraqi hit teams that would target high value targets in the resistance leadership. The objective is to selectively decapitate the resistance, forcing it to increasingly rely on less seasoned fighters for command and control decision-making. Since inexperienced warriors are known to be more tempestuous and bold than pragmatic and clinical, they are easier to trap and eliminate. In the end, by using this more selective approach towards combat, the USmilitary is hoping to neutralize the armed resistance in Iraq while diminishing the amount of damage to the civilian population that larger conventional assaults inevitably entail. In doing so it hopes to help stabilize the country by promoting increased security while decreasing the US military boot print on the ground.

Some Washington insiders claim that this tactic is copied from the US experience of supporting right-wing death squads in Central America in the 1980s. The fact that senior officials in the Bush security team worked in the Reagan administration that adopted those policies lends credence to the view. However, there is a difference between death squads and military hit teams. The latter are more selective in their targeting and more disciplined in their use of force, with no interest in causing wide spread fear among the general population. Central American death squads, even if funded and advised by foreign governments, were instruments of state terror used by conservative authoritarian regimes against all political dissent, or for symbolic effect (such as the murder of Archbishop Oscar Romero in El Salvador while saying Mass in 1979).

Sowing generalized fear by terrorizing the civilian population in Iraq is not on the US military agenda because it would undermine larger geopolitical objectives, so even if Washington hawks take pride in their previous involvement in the dirty wars of Central America, they will not get to repeat the experiment. US Army Special Forces already have close ties to local irregular armies such as the Kurdish Peshmurga in Northern Iraq and moderate Sunni and Shiia factions, which means that they can trade on their relationships with various armed groups when confronting the common enemy posed by the jihadi-Baathist coalition. The issue is whether combat discipline can be exercised upon local operatives with more personal agendas in mind. If the use of hit teams is to be successful, all but clear military objectives must be eschewed, and precise and timely local intelligence is of the essence. This is because Special Forces operations are human rather than weapons-intensive, with street knowledge and trust being more important assets than technological superiority, numbers or firepower.

Reports also have it that US special operations forces operating out of Afghanistan, Pakistan and several Central Asian Republics are engaged in covert intelligence gathering missions in Iran, with an eye towards identifying and destroying clandestine nuclear weapons production facilities. This represents a return to the traditional role of commandos: long range scouting and sabotage behind enemy lines. Although here the front is not strictly military, the closed nature of the mullah's regime in Tehran means that foreign military operations on Iranian territory will be handled as a direct attack. The Iranians have already promised dire consequences if the reports are true.

Hence, once the political decision to consider the use of force against Iranian nuclear weapons production facilities was made, there was a need to prepare the ground for such. Given the context, that argued for small group tactics of stealth, surprise, autonomy and maneuver. It may be distasteful to some that the US engage in such missions, but even if no more than a disinformation campaign (since the press reports are unusually specific in their coverage of these operations and would seemingly jeopardize the mission), the prospect raises the psychological and physical costs should the Iranians persist in their nuclear ambitions. Real or threatened, that is the type of leverage that creates space for diplomatic solutions (which have not fundamentally altered the Iranian position as of yet).

The US may not be alone in returning to a special operations approach to the conflict in Iraq and the specter of nuclear weapons proliferation in Iran. Several of its allies - the United Kingdom and Australia in particular -are known to maintain their own special operations presence in the region,and there are other US allies who have special forces units with records of involvement in the political history of modern Mesopotamia. Thus, if multinational unit coordination in joint special operations leads to force multiplication in areas of common geo-strategic interest, it could well be that the regional security balance is subtly being tipped in spite of the apparent military deadlock in Iraq.

The argument can be made that these tactical shifts represent a deepening and expansion of US aggression in the Middle East. Others will say that the shift was long overdue, and that it may be a case of too little and too late in pursuit of a losing cause. Still others will see the turn to special operations as a waste of time and argue for a scorched earth policy in areas in which the Iraqi resistance has the most support, and for a massive pre-emptive attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. For most the thought of military hit teams is morally repugnant.

The issue of morality is beside the point. Military operations are an agnostic and practical business rather than a moral imperative (although professional ethics, capability and training is whatseparates it from organized crime). Moral reasoning is the responsibility of political leaders, and once the order is given, the professional obligation of the armed forces under democracy is to most efficiently address the strategic and tactical realities of the context involved (if not make the most of a bad situation resulting from bad moral choices on the part of the political leadership). Thus,whatever the political spin given the matter, the return to special operations tactics appears to represent agrowing realization by US security officials that big is not always better,and that the strategy of shock and awe is of limited value once the symbolic value of overwhelming air and armor assaults has waned (particularly when military disengagement is impossible).

Above all, the tactical adjustment represents a re-appreciation of the age-old need to closely integrate real-time local human intelligence gathering with focused use of military force in order to more precisely deal with the security problems ofthe region. Regardless of the justification for the war and the intense political divisions it has generated worldwide, were it that such had been the case before the invasion. Unilateral military pre-emption did not have to take on the guise that it did, and in the end, a more nuanced approach to prosecuting the sequel to shock and awe could have spared many lives. As things stand, the success of the latest tactical shift will be determined in the short months ahead, for political rather than military reasons.

Paul G. Buchanan is the Director of the Working Group on Alternative Security Perspectives at the University of Auckland.

Media's coverage has distorted world's view of Iraqi reality

By LTC Tim Ryan

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Editors' Note: LTC Tim Ryan is Commander, Task Force 2-12 Cavalry, First
Cavalry Division in Iraq. He led troops into battle in Fallujah late last
year and is now involved in security operations for the upcoming elections.
He wrote the following during "down time" after the Fallujah operation.
His views are his own.

Photos by CPT Joseph James, 2-12 CAV

All right, I've had enough. I am tired of reading distorted and grossly
exaggerated stories from major news organizations about the "failures" in
the war in Iraq. "The most trusted name in news" and a long list of others
continue to misrepresent the scale of events in Iraq. Print and video
journalists are covering only a fraction of the events in Iraq and, more
often than not, the events they cover are only negative.

The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily
realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international
support for the United States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the
insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own.
Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members
of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.

The fact is the Coalition is making steady progress in Iraq, but not
without ups and downs. So why is it that no matter what events unfold,
good or bad, the media highlights mostly the negative aspects of the event?
The journalistic adage, "If it bleeds, it leads," still applies in Iraq,
but why only when it's American blood?

As a recent example, the operation in Fallujah delivered an absolutely
devastating blow to the insurgency. Though much smaller in scope, clearing
Fallujah of insurgents arguably could equate to the Allies' breakout from
the hedgerows in France during World War II. In both cases, our troops
overcame a well-prepared and solidly entrenched enemy and began what could
be the latter's last stand. In Fallujah, the enemy death toll has exceeded
1,500 and still is climbing. Put one in the win column for the good guys,
right? Wrong. As soon as there was nothing negative to report about
Fallujah, the media shifted its focus to other parts of the country.

More recently, a major news agency's website lead read: "Suicide Bomber
Kills Six in Baghdad" and "Seven Marines Die in Iraq Clashes." True, yes.
Comprehensive, no. Did the author of this article bother to mention that
Coalition troops killed 50 or so terrorists while incurring those seven
losses? Of course not. Nor was there any mention about the substantial
progress these offensive operations continue to achieve in defeating the
insurgents. Unfortunately, this sort of incomplete reporting has become
the norm for the media, whose poor job of presenting a complete picture of
what is going on in Iraq borders on being criminal.

Much of the problem is about perspective, putting things in scale and
balance. What if domestic news outlets continually fed American readers
headlines like: "Bloody Week on U.S. Highways: Some 700 Killed," or "More
Than 900 Americans Die Weekly from Obesity-Related Diseases"? Both of
these headlines might be true statistically, but do they really represent
accurate pictures of the situations? What if you combined all of the
negatives to be found in the state of Texas and used them as an indicator
of the quality of life for all Texans? Imagine the headlines: "Anti-law
Enforcement Elements Spread Robbery, Rape and Murder through Texas Cities."
For all intents and purposes, this statement is true for any day of any
year in any state. True - yes, accurate - yes, but in context with the
greater good taking place - no! After a year or two of headlines like
these, more than a few folks back in Texas and the rest of the U.S.
probably would be ready to jump off of a building and end it all. So,
imagine being an American in Iraq right now.

From where I sit in Iraq, things are not all bad right now. In fact, they
are going quite well. We are not under attack by the enemy; on the
contrary, we are taking the fight to him daily and have him on the ropes.
In the distance, I can hear the repeated impacts of heavy artillery and
five-hundred-pound bombs hitting their targets. The occasional tank main
gun report and the staccato rhythm of a Marine Corps LAV or Army Bradley
Fighting Vehicle's 25-millimeter cannon provide the bass line for a
symphony of destruction. As elements from all four services complete the
absolute annihilation of the insurgent forces remaining in Fallujah, the
area around the former insurgent stronghold is more peaceful than it has
been for more than a year.

The number of attacks in the greater Al Anbar Province is down by at least
70-80 percent from late October - before Operation Al Fajar began. The
enemy in this area is completely defeated, but not completely gone. Final
eradication of the pockets of insurgents will take some time, as it always
does, but the fact remains that the central geographic stronghold of the
insurgents is now under friendly control. That sounds a lot like success to
me. Given all of this, why don't the papers lead with "Coalition Crushes
Remaining Pockets of Insurgents" or "Enemy Forces Resort to Suicide
Bombings of Civilians"? This would paint a far more accurate picture of
the enemy's predicament over here. Instead, headlines focus almost
exclusively on our hardships.

What about the media's portrayal of the enemy? Why do these ruthless
murderers, kidnappers and thieves get a pass when it comes to their
actions? What did the media show or tell us about Margaret Hassoon, the
director of C.A.R.E. in Iraq and an Iraqi citizen, who was kidnapped,
brutally tortured and left disemboweled on a street in Fallujah? Did
anyone in the press show these images over and over to emphasize the moral
failings of the enemy as they did with the soldiers at Abu Ghuraib? Did
anyone show the world how this enemy had huge stockpiles of weapons in
schools and mosques, or how he used these protected places as sanctuaries
for planning and fighting in Fallujah and the rest of Iraq? Are people of
the world getting the complete story? The answer again is no! What the
world got instead were repeated images of a battle-weary Marine who made a
quick decision to use lethal force and who immediately was tried in the
world press. Was this one act really illustrative of the overall action in
Fallujah? No, but the Marine video clip was shown an average of four times
each hour on just about every major TV news channel for a week. This is
how the world views our efforts over here and stories like this without a
counter continually serve as propaganda victories for the enemy. Al Jazeera
isn't showing the film of the C.A.R.E. worker, but is showing the clip of
the Marine. Earlier this year, the Iraqi government banned Al Jazeera from
the country for its inaccurate reporting. Wonder where they get their
information now? Well, if you go to the Internet, you'll find a web link
from the Al Jazeera home page to CNN's home page. Very interesting.

The operation in Fallujah is only one of the recent examples of incomplete
coverage of the events in Iraq. The battle in Najaf last August provides
another. Television and newspapers spilled a continuous stream of images
and stories about the destruction done to the sacred city, and of all the
human suffering allegedly brought about by the hands of the big, bad
Americans. These stories and the lack of anything to counter them gave
more fuel to the fire of anti-Americanism that burns in this part of the
world. Those on the outside saw the Coalition portrayed as invaders or
oppressors, killing hapless Iraqis who, one was given to believe, simply
were trying to defend their homes and their Muslim way of life.

Such perceptions couldn't be farther from the truth. What noticeably was
missing were accounts of the atrocities committed by the Mehdi Militia -
Muqtada Al Sadr's band of henchmen. While the media was busy bashing the
Coalition, Muqtada's boys were kidnapping policemen, city council members
and anyone else accused of supporting the Coalition or the new government,
trying them in a kangaroo court based on Islamic Shari'a law, then brutally
torturing and executing them for their "crimes." What the media didn't
show or write about were the two hundred-plus headless bodies found in the
main mosque there, or the body that was put into a bread oven and baked.
Nor did they show the world the hundreds of thousands of mortar, artillery
and small arms rounds found within the "sacred" walls of the mosque. Also
missing from the coverage was the huge cache of weapons found in Muqtada's
"political" headquarters nearby. No, none of this made it to the screen or
to print. All anyone showed were the few chipped tiles on the dome of the
mosque and discussion centered on how we, the Coalition, had somehow done
wrong. Score another one for the enemy's propaganda machine.

Now, compare the Najaf example to the coverage and debate ad nauseam of the
Abu Ghuraib Prison affair. There certainly is no justification for what a
dozen or so soldiers did there, but unbalanced reporting led the world to
believe that the actions of the dozen were representative of the entire
military. This has had an incredibly negative effect on Middle Easterners'
already sagging opinion of the U.S. and its military. Did anyone show the
world images of the 200 who were beheaded and mutilated in Muqtada's
Shari'a Law court, or spend the next six months talking about how horrible
all of that was? No, of course not. Most people don't know that these
atrocities even happened. It's little wonder that many people here want us
out and would vote someone like Muqtada Al Sadr into office given the
chance - they never see the whole truth. Strange, when the enemy is the
instigator the media does not flash images across the screens of
televisions in the Middle East as they did with Abu Ghuraib. Is it because
the beheaded bodies might offend someone? If so, then why do we continue
see photos of the naked human pyramid over and over?

So, why doesn't the military get more involved in showing the media the
other side of the story? The answer is they do. Although some outfits are
better than others, the Army and other military organizations today
understand the importance of getting out the story - the whole story - and
trains leaders to talk to the press. There is a saying about media and the
military that goes: "The only way the media is going to tell a good story
is if you give them one to tell." This doesn't always work as planned.
Recently, when a Coalition spokesman tried to let TV networks in on opening
moves in the Fallujah operation, they misconstrued the events for something
they were not and then blamed the military for their gullibility. CNN
recently aired a "special report" in which the cable network accused the
military of lying to it and others about the beginning of the Fallujah
operation. The incident referred to took place in October when a Marine
public affairs officer called media representatives and told them that an
operation was about to begin. Reporters rushed to the outskirts of Fallujah
to see what they assumed was going to be the beginning of the main attack
on the city. As it turned out, what they saw were tactical "feints"
designed to confuse the enemy about the timing of the main attack, then
planned to take place weeks later.

Once the network realized that major combat operations wouldn't start for
several more weeks, CNN alleged that the Marines had used them as a tool
for their deception operation. Now, they say they want answers from the
military and the administration on the matter. The reality appears to be
that in their zeal to scoop their competition, CNN and others took the
information they were given and turned it into what they wanted it to be.
Did the military lie to the media: no. It is specifically against
regulations to provide misinformation to the press. However, did the
military planners anticipate that reporters would take the ball and run
with it, adding to the overall deception plan? Possibly. Is that
unprecedented or illegal? Of course not.

CNN and others say they were duped by the military in this and other cases.
Yet, they never seem to be upset by the undeniable fact that the enemy
manipulates them with a cunning that is almost worthy of envy. You can bet
that terrorist leader Abu Musab Al Zarqawi has his own version of a public
affairs officer and it is evident that he uses him to great effect. Each
time Zarqawi's group executes a terrorist act such as a beheading or a car
bomb, they have a prepared statement ready to post on their website and
feed to the press. Over-eager reporters take the bait, hook, line and
sinker, and report it just as they got it.

Did it ever occur to the media that this type of notoriety is just what the
terrorists want and need? Every headline they grab is a victory for them.
Those who have read the ancient Chinese military theorist and army general
Sun Tzu will recall the philosophy of "Kill one, scare ten thousand" as the
basic theory behind the strategy of terrorism. Through fear, the terrorist
can then manipulate the behavior of the masses. The media allows the
terrorist to use relatively small but spectacular events that directly
affect very few, and spread them around the world to scare millions. What
about the thousands of things that go right every day and are never
reported? Complete a multi-million-dollar sewer project and no one wants
to cover it, but let one car bomb go off and it makes headlines. With each
headline, the enemy scores another point and the good-guys lose one. This
method of scoring slowly is eroding domestic and international support
while fueling the enemy's cause.

I believe one of the reasons for this shallow and subjective reporting is
that many reporters never actually cover the events they report on. This is
a point of growing concern within the Coalition. It appears many members of
the media are hesitant to venture beyond the relative safety of the
so-called "International Zone" in downtown Baghdad, or similar "safe
havens" in other large cities. Because terrorists and other thugs wisely
target western media members and others for kidnappings or attacks, the
westerners stay close to their quarters. This has the effect of holding
the media captive in cities and keeps them away from the broader truth that
lies outside their view. With the press thus cornered, the terrorists
easily feed their unwitting captives a thin gruel of anarchy, one spoonful
each day. A car bomb at the entry point to the International Zone one day,
a few mortars the next, maybe a kidnapping or two thrown in. All delivered
to the doorsteps of those who will gladly accept it without having to leave
their hotel rooms - how convenient.

The scene is repeated all too often: an attack takes place in Baghdad and
the morning sounds are punctuated by a large explosion and a rising cloud
of smoke. Sirens wail in the distance and photographers dash to the scene a
few miles away. Within the hour, stern-faced reporters confidently stare
into the camera while standing on the balcony of their tenth-floor Baghdad
hotel room, their back to the city and a distant smoke plume rising behind
them. More mayhem in Gotham City they intone, and just in time for the
morning news. There is a transparent reason why the majority of car
bombings and other major events take place before noon Baghdad-time; any
later and the event would miss the start of the morning news cycle on the
U.S. east coast. These terrorists aren't stupid; they know just what to do
to scare the masses and when to do it. An important key to their plan is
manipulation of the news media. But, at least the reporters in Iraq are
gathering information and filing their stories, regardless of whether or
the stories are in perspective. Much worse are the "talking heads" who sit
in studios or offices back home and pontificate about how badly things are
going when they never have been to Iraq and only occasionally leave
Manhattan.

Almost on a daily basis, newspapers, periodicals and airwaves give us
negative views about the premises for this war and its progress. It seems
that everyone from politicians to pop stars are voicing their unqualified
opinions on how things are going. Recently, I saw a Rolling Stone magazine
and in bold print on the cover was, "Iraq on Fire; Dispatches from the Lost
War." Now, will someone please tell me who at Rolling Stone or just about
any other "news" outlet is qualified to make a determination as to when all
is lost and it's time to throw in the towel? In reality, such flawed
reporting serves only to misshape world opinion and bolster the enemy's
position. Each enemy success splashed across the front pages and TV screens
of the world not only emboldens them, but increases their ability to
recruit more money and followers.

So what are the credentials of these self proclaimed "experts"? The fact
is that most of those on whom we rely for complete and factual accounts
have little or no experience or education in counter-insurgency operations
or in nation-building to support their assessments. How would they really
know if things are going well or not? War is an ugly thing with many
unexpected twists and turns. Who among them is qualified to say if this
one is worse than any other at this point? What would they have said in
early 1942 about our chances of winning World War II? Was it a lost cause
too? How much have these "experts" studied warfare and
counter-insurgencies in particular? Have they ever read Roger Trinquier's
treatise Modern Warfare: A French View on Counter-insurgency (1956)? He is
one of the few French military guys who got it right. The Algerian
insurgency of the 1950s and the Iraq insurgency have many similarities.
What about Napoleon's campaigns in Sardinia in 1805-07? Again, there are a
lot of similarities to this campaign. Have they studied that and
contrasted the strategies? Or, have they even read Mao Zedung's theories
on insurgencies, or Nygen Giap's, or maybe Che' Gueverra's? Have they seen
any of Sun Tzu's work lately? Who are these guys? It's time to start
studying, folks. If a journalist doesn't recognize the names on this list,
he or she probably isn't qualified to assess the state of this or any other
campaign's progress.

Worse yet, why in the world would they seek opinion from someone who
probably knows even less than they do about the state of affairs in Iraq?
It sells commercials, I suppose. But, I find it amazing that some people
are more apt to listen to a movie star's or rock singer's view on how we
should prosecute world affairs than to someone whose profession it is to
know how these things should go. I play the guitar, but Bruce Springsteen
doesn't listen to me play. Why should I be subjected to his views on the
validity of the war? By profession, he's a guitar player. Someone remind
me what it is that makes Sean Penn an expert on anything. It seems that
anyone who has a dissenting view is first to get in front of the camera.
I'm all for freedom of speech, but let's talk about things we know.
Otherwise, television news soon could have about as much credibility as
"The Bachelor" has for showing us truly loving couples.

Also bothersome are references by "experts" on how "long" this war is
taking. I've read that in the world of manufacturing, you can have only
two of the following three qualities when developing a product ó cheap,
fast or good. You can produce something cheap and fast, but it won't be
good; good and fast, but it won't be cheap; good and cheap, but it won't be
fast. In this case, we want the result to be good and we want it at the
lowest cost in human lives. Given this set of conditions, one can expect
this war is to take a while, and rightfully so. Creating a democracy in
Iraq not only will require a change in the political system, but the
economic system as well. Study of examples of similar socio-economic
changes that took place in countries like Chile, Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia
and other countries with oppressive Socialist dictatorships shows that it
took seven to ten years to move those countries to where they are now.
There are many lessons to be learned from these transfomations, the most
important of which is that change doesn't come easily, even without an
insurgency going on. Maybe the experts should take a look at all of the
work that has gone into stabilizing Bosnia-Herzegovina over the last 10
years. We are just at the 20-month mark in Iraq, a place far more
oppressive than Bosnia ever was. If previous examples are any comparison,
there will be no quick solutions here, but that should be no surprise to an
analyst who has done his or her homework.

This war is not without its tragedies; none ever are. The key to the
enemy's success is use of his limited assets to gain the greatest influence
over the masses. The media serves as the glass through which a relatively
small event can be magnified to international proportions, and the enemy is
exploiting this with incredible ease. There is no good news to counteract
the bad, so the enemy scores a victory almost every day. In its zeal to
get to the hot spots and report the latest bombing, the media is missing
the reality of a greater good going on in Iraq. We seldom are seen doing
anything right or positive in the news. People believe what they see, and
what people of the world see almost on a daily basis is negative. How
could they see it any other way? These images and stories, out of scale
and context to the greater good going on over here, are just the sort of
thing the terrorists are looking for. This focus on the enemy's successes
strengthens his resolve and aids and abets his cause. It's the American
image abroad that suffers in the end.

Ironically, the press freedom that we have brought to this part of the
world is providing support for the enemy we fight. I obviously think it's a
disgrace when many on whom the world relies for news paint such an
incomplete picture of what actually has happened. Much too much is ignored
or omitted. I am confident that history will prove our cause right in this
war, but by the time that happens, the world might be so steeped in the
gloom of ignorance we won't recognize victory when we achieve it.

Postscript: I have had my staff aggressively pursue media coverage for all
sorts of events that tell the other side of the story only to have them
turned down or ignored by the press in Baghdad. Strangely, I found it much
easier to lure the Arab media to a "non-lethal" event than the western
outlets. Open a renovated school or a youth center and I could always
count on Al-Iraqia or even Al-Jazeera to show up, but no western media ever
showed up - ever. Now I did have a pretty dangerous sector, the Abu
Ghuraib district that extends from western Baghdad to the outskirts of
Fallujah (not including the prison), but it certainly wasn't as bad as
Fallujah in November and there were reporters in there.

Copyright © 2005 East West Services, Inc.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453389.0680555557.html

Espionage by any other name

Tony Blankley
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/tonyblankley/tb20050119.shtml
January 19, 2005

This week in the New Yorker magazine,
[ http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact ]
Seymour Hersh wrote the following words:

"The Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran
... Much of the focus is on accumulation of intelligence and targeting information
on Iranian nuclear, chemical and missile sites. ... (The) American commando task
force has been set up in South Asia and is now working closely with a group of
Pakistani scientists and technicians who had dealt with Iranian counterparts ...
The American task force ... .has been penetrating eastern Iran from Afghanistan in
a hunt for underground installations ... The task force members, or their locally
recruited agents, secreted remote detection devices ... "

Title 18 United States Code section 794, subsection (b) prohibits anyone "in time
of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy [from
publishing] any information with respect to the movement, numbers, or disposition
of any of the Armed Forces ... of the United States ... or supposed plans or
conduct of any ... military operations ... or any other information relating to
the public defense, which might be useful to the enemy ... [this crime is
punishable] by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life."

Subsection (a) of that statute prohibits anyone "with ... reason to believe that
it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a
foreign nation, communicates ... to any representative, officer, agent, employee,
subject or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any information
relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment
for any term of years or for life."

I am not an expert on these federal code sections, but a common sense reading of
their language would suggest, at the least, that federal prosecutors should review
the information disclosed by Mr. Hersh to determine whether or not his conduct
falls within the proscribed conduct of the statute.

In the fairly recent past, at least one journalist writing for Jane's
Publications has been successfully prosecuted under the statute, freedom of speech
and the press not being a defense to espionage. Remember, in the famous Pentagon
Papers case, the issue was prior restraint. Could the government stop a newspaper
from publishing government secrets relating not to current operations but to prior
planning? The answer then was no. But in the current matter of Seymour Hersh and
the New Yorker, they have been free to publish the article. The question is
whether or not any legal consequences attach to that decision.

I was shocked when I read Mr. Hersh's article. Note the tenses he uses to
describe American military action: "The American commando task force ... is now
working," "has been conducting secret reconnaissance." In other words, Mr. Hersh
is revealing to all the world, including the Iranian government, that our
commandos are currently behind enemy lines in Iran on a dangerous and vital
military assignment.

Moreover, he helps the enemy by writing that our commandos have been "penetrating
eastern Iran from Afghanistan." That considerably reduces the areas the Iranian
military and counter-intelligence forces have to search and monitor to try to
catch our brave commandos.

Furthermore, Mr. Hersh informs the world that our commandos are working with
certain Pakistani scientists who had previously worked with Iranian scientists.
Such information might further assist the Iranian security forces in their
investigations. After all, there can't be that many Iranian nuclear scientists who
worked with the few Pakistani nuclear scientists in the past. Mr. Hersh has
virtually given Iranian intelligence the names (if not the addresses) of the
Pakistani scientists who are working with our forces from their jumping off
places in Pakistan.

Finally, Mr. Hersh helpfully writes that our commandos have been working with
local Iranian agents to plant detection devices around known or suspected nuclear
plants. This gives the enemy insights into our commandos' specific method of
operation and alerts Iranian Intelligence to be looking for local Iranians as well
as Americans.

Not a bad day's work for yet another patriotic American journalist.

Almost as appalling as the potentially lethal effect (if not, necessarily, the
intent) of the Hersh article, is the quietude that greeted the damaging
implications of the article's publication.

Whether or not the article meets the technical legal requirements for violation
of the Espionage Act, I have seen no articles or public comments expressing
concern at the revelation of such vital military secrets of an ongoing secret
military operation. Keep in mind, the Pentagon has not denied the story, it has
merely said that some of the facts are inaccurate. That is a classic Washington
non-denial denial.

And this is not just any military operation. The purpose of this operation is to
protect the world from a possible nuclear attack once the fanatical Iranian
Islamist regime gets its hands on a nuclear bomb. They already have missiles
capable of reaching London, Paris, Berlin and Tel Aviv. They are already the
world's leading terrorist-supporting state. And our military's effort to prepare
to deal with this extraordinary danger is exposed to the world -- while the
operation is ongoing.

But not a peep of concern can be heard. Apparently, this is considered just
journalistic business as usual. The Washington political class is suffering from a
bad case of creeping normalcy. We are getting ever more used to ever more
egregious government leaks of military secrets. What's the big deal? Maybe I am an
alarmist. Or maybe we are sleep walking toward the abyss.

____________


first 1/3 of Hersh:-

THE COMING WARS
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
What the Pentagon can now do in secret.
Issue of 2005-01-24 and 31
Posted 2005-01-17

George W. Bush's reëlection was not his only victory last fall. The
President and his national-security advisers have consolidated control over
the military and intelligence communities' strategic analyses and covert
operations to a degree unmatched since the rise of the post-Second World War
national-security state. Bush has an aggressive and ambitious agenda for
using that control - against the mullahs in Iran and against targets in the
ongoing war on terrorism - during his second term. The C.I.A. will continue to
be downgraded, and the agency will increasingly serve, as one government
consultant with close ties to the Pentagon put it, as "facilitators" of
policy emanating from President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. This
process is well under way.

Despite the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, the Bush
Administration has not reconsidered its basic long-range policy goal in the
Middle East: the establishment of democracy throughout the region. Bush's
reëlection is regarded within the Administration as evidence of America's
support for his decision to go to war. It has reaffirmed the position of the
neoconservatives in the Pentagon's civilian leadership who advocated the
invasion, including Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and
Douglas Feith, the Under-secretary for Policy. According to a former
high-level intelligence official, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met
with the Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly after the election and told them, in
essence, that the naysayers had been heard and the American people did not
accept their message. Rumsfeld added that America was committed to staying
in Iraq and that there would be no second-guessing.

"This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush
Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone," the former high-level
intelligence official told me. "Next, we're going to have the Iranian
campaign. We've declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the
enemy. This is the last hurrah-we've got four years, and want to come out of
this saying we won the war on terrorism."

Bush and Cheney may have set the policy, but it is Rumsfeld who has directed
its implementation and has absorbed much of the public criticism when things
went wrong-whether it was prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib or lack of sufficient
armor plating for G.I.s' vehicles in Iraq. Both Democratic and Republican
lawmakers have called for Rumsfeld's dismissal, and he is not widely admired
inside the military. Nonetheless, his reappointment as Defense Secretary was
never in doubt.

Rumsfeld will become even more important during the second term. In
interviews with past and present intelligence and military officials, I was
told that the agenda had been determined before the Presidential election,
and much of it would be Rumsfeld's responsibility. The war on terrorism
would be expanded, and effectively placed under the Pentagon's control. The
President has signed a series of findings and executive orders authorizing
secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert
operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as ten nations in
the Middle East and South Asia.

The President's decision enables Rumsfeld to run the operations off the
books-free from legal restrictions imposed on the C.I.A. Under current law,
all C.I.A. covert activities overseas must be authorized by a Presidential
finding and reported to the Senate and House intelligence committees. (The
laws were enacted after a series of scandals in the nineteen-seventies
involving C.I.A. domestic spying and attempted assassinations of foreign
leaders.) "The Pentagon doesn't feel obligated to report any of this to
Congress," the former high-level intelligence official said. "They don't
even call it 'covert ops'-it's too close to the C.I.A. phrase. In their
view, it's 'black reconnaissance.' They're not even going to tell the
cincs"-the regional American military commanders-in-chief. (The Defense
Department and the White House did not respond to requests for comment on
this story.)

In my interviews, I was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was
Iran. "Everyone is saying, 'You can't be serious about targeting Iran. Look
at Iraq,'" the former intelligence official told me. "But they say, 'We've
got some lessons learned-not militarily, but how we did it politically.
We're not going to rely on agency pissants.' No loose ends, and that's why
the C.I.A. is out of there."

For more than a year, France, Germany, Britain, and other countries in the
European Union have seen preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon as a
race against time-and against the Bush Administration. They have been
negotiating with the Iranian leadership to give up its nuclear-weapons
ambitions in exchange for economic aid and trade benefits. Iran has agreed
to temporarily halt its enrichment programs, which generate fuel for nuclear
power plants but also could produce weapons-grade fissile material. (Iran
claims that such facilities are legal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, or N.P.T., to which it is a signator, and that it has no intention
of building a bomb.) But the goal of the current round of talks, which began
in December in Brussels, is to persuade Tehran to go further, and dismantle
its machinery. Iran insists, in return, that it needs to see some concrete
benefits from the Europeans-oil-production technology, heavy-industrial
equipment, and perhaps even permission to purchase a fleet of Airbuses.
(Iran has been denied access to technology and many goods owing to sanctions.)

The Europeans have been urging the Bush Administration to join in these
negotiations. The Administration has refused to do so. The civilian
leadership in the Pentagon has argued that no diplomatic progress on the
Iranian nuclear threat will take place unless there is a credible threat of
military action. "The neocons say negotiations are a bad deal," a senior
official of the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.) told me. "And
the only thing the Iranians understand is pressure. And that they also need
to be whacked."

The core problem is that Iran has successfully hiddenthe extent of its
nuclear program, and its progress. Many Western intelligence agencies,
including those of the United States, believe that Iran is at least three to
five years away from a capability to independently produce nuclear
warheads-although its work on a missile-delivery system is far more
advanced. Iran is also widely believed by Western intelligence agencies and
the I.A.E.A. to have serious technical problems with its weapons system,
most notably in the production of the hexafluoride gas needed to fabricate
nuclear warheads.

A retired senior C.I.A. official, one of many who left the agency recently,
told me that he was familiar with the assessments, and confirmed that Iran
is known to be having major difficulties in its weapons work. He also
acknowledged that the agency's timetable for a nuclear Iran matches the
European estimates-assuming that Iran gets no outside help. "The big wild
card for us is that you don't know who is capable of filling in the missing
parts for them," the recently retired official said. "North Korea? Pakistan?
We don't know what parts are missing."

One Western diplomat told me that the Europeans believed they were in what
he called a "lose-lose position" as long as the United States refuses to get
involved. "France, Germany, and the U.K. cannot succeed alone, and everybody
knows it," the diplomat said. "If the U.S. stays outside, we don't have
enough leverage, and our effort will collapse." The alternative would be to
go to the Security Council, but any resolution imposing sanctions would
likely be vetoed by China or Russia, and then "the United Nations will be
blamed and the Americans will say, 'The only solution is to bomb.'"

A European Ambassador noted that President Bush is scheduled to visit Europe
in February, and that there has been public talk from the White House about
improving the President's relationship with America's E.U. allies. In that
context, the Ambassador told me, "I'm puzzled by the fact that the United
States is not helping us in our program. How can Washington maintain its
stance without seriously taking into account the weapons issue?"

The Israeli government is, not surprisingly, skeptical of the European
approach. Silvan Shalom, the Foreign Minister, said in an interview last
week in Jerusalem,with another New Yorker journalist, "I don't like what's
happening. We were encouraged at first when the Europeans got involved. For
a long time, they thought it was just Israel's problem. But then they saw
that the [Iranian] missiles themselves were longer range and could reach all
of Europe, and they became very concerned. Their attitude has been to use
the carrot and the stick-but all we see so far is the carrot." He added, "If
they can't comply, Israel cannot live with Iran having a nuclear bomb."

In a recent essay, Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy
director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (and a supporter
of the Administration), articulated the view that force, or the threat of
it, was a vital bargaining tool with Iran. Clawson wrote that if Europe
wanted coöperation with the Bush Administration it "would do well to remind
Iran that the military option remains on the table." He added that the
argument that the European negotiations hinged on Washington looked like "a
preëmptive excuse for the likely breakdown of the E.U.-Iranian talks." In a
subsequent conversation with me, Clawson suggested that, if some kind of
military action was inevitable, "it would be much more in Israel's
interest-and Washington's-to take covert action. The style of this
Administration is to use overwhelming force-'shock and awe.' But we get only
one bite of the apple."

There are many military and diplomatic experts who dispute the notion that
military action, on whatever scale, is the right approach. Shahram Chubin,
an Iranian scholar who is the director of research at the Geneva Centre for
Security Policy, told me, "It's a fantasy to think that there's a good
American or Israeli military option in Iran." He went on, "The Israeli view
is that this is an international problem. 'You do it,' they say to the West.
'Otherwise, our Air Force will take care of it.'" In 1981, the Israeli Air
Force destroyed Iraq's Osirak reactor, setting its nuclear program back
several years. But the situation now is both more complex and more
dangerous, Chubin said. The Osirak bombing "drove the Iranian
nuclear-weapons program underground, to hardened, dispersed sites," he said.
"You can't be sure after an attack that you'll get away with it. The U.S.
and Israel would not be certain whether all the sites had been hit, or how
quickly they'd be rebuilt. Meanwhile, they'd be waiting for an Iranian
counter-attack that could be military or terrorist or diplomatic. Iran has
long-range missiles and ties to Hezbollah, which has drones-you can't begin
to think of what they'd do in response."

Chubin added that Iran could also renounce the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty. "It's better to have them cheating within the system," he said.
"Otherwise, as victims, Iran will walk away from the treaty and inspections
while the rest of the world watches the N.P.T. unravel before their eyes."

China Promotes Another Boom: Nuclear Power

NYT Jan 15 2005

By HOWARD W. FRENCH

AYA BAY, China -- The view from this remote point by the sea, with lines
of misty mountains stretching into the distance, is worthy of a classical
Chinese painting. In the foreground, though, sits a less obvious
attraction: one of China's first nuclear power reactors, and just behind
it, another being rushed toward completion.

There are countless ways to show how China is climbing the world's economic
ladder, hurdling developed countries in its path, but few are more
pronounced than the country's rush into nuclear energy - a technology that
for environmental, safety and economic reasons most of the world has put on
hold.

In its anxiety to satisfy its seemingly bottomless demand for electricity,
China plans to build reactors on a scale and pace comparable to the most
ambitious nuclear energy programs the world has ever seen.

Current plans - conservative ones, in the estimation of some people
involved in China's nuclear energy program - call for new reactors to be
commissioned at a rate of nearly two a year between now and 2020, a pace
that experts say is comparable to the peak of the United States' nuclear
energy push in the 1970's.

"We will certainly build more than one reactor per year," said Zhou Dadi,
director of the central government's Energy Research Institute, which has
strongly supported the country's nuclear program. "The challenge is not the
technology. The barriers for China are mostly institutional arrangements,
because reactors are big projects. What we need most is better operation,
financing and management."

By 2010, planners predict a quadrupling of nuclear output to 16 billion
kilowatt-hours and a doubling of that figure by 2015. And with commercial
nuclear energy programs dead or stagnant in the United States and most of
Europe, Western and other developers of nuclear plant technology are lining
up to sell reactors and other equipment to the Chinese, whose purchasing
decisions alone will determine in many instances who survives in the
business.

France, which derives about a third of its energy from nuclear power, is
the only Western country committed to a large-scale nuclear energy program.
It is in a building lull now, but will need to begin replacing aging
reactors within a decade or so.

Japan derives about 10 percent of its energy from nuclear sources and was
once among the most favorably disposed toward nuclear energy. But a string
of scandals involving comically shoddy practices, like mixing radioactive
materials in a bucket, and near accidents have turned public opinion in
many areas strongly antinuclear.

That leaves China as the only potential growth area for nuclear energy.
And for China, which still derives as much as 80 percent of its electricity
from burning coal, the lure of nuclear energy is as obvious as the thick,
acrid, choking haze that hangs over virtually all the country's cities.

The problem with nuclear power, some experts say, is that China's energy
needs are so immense - each year, by some estimates, the country plans to
add generating capacity from all sources equivalent to the entire current
energy consumption of Britain - that even the enormous expansion program
will do little to offset the skyrocketing power demand.

China's eight nuclear reactors in operation today supply less than 2
percent of current demand. By 2020, assuming the national plan is
fulfilled, nuclear energy would still constitute under 4 percent of demand.

There has been almost no public discussion of the merits and risks of
nuclear energy here, as the government strictly censors news coverage of
such issues. But critics question whether such a small payoff warrants
exposure to the risk of catastrophic failures, nuclear proliferation,
terrorism and the still unresolved problems of radioactive waste disposal.

"We don't have a very good plan for dealing with spent fuel, and we don't
have very good emergency plans for dealing with catastrophe," said Wang Yi,
a nuclear energy expert at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing.
"The nuclear interest group wants to push this technology, but they don't
understand the risks for the future. They want to make money. But we
scientists, we want to take a very comprehensive approach, including
safety, environment, dealing with waste and other factors, and not rush
into anything."

Chinese nuclear operators, like the people who run the Daya Bay plants
here, scoff at such concerns.

"In China we have state-owned power companies, whereas abroad they have
private companies," said Yu Jiechun, a senior engineer at the China
Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding Company. "It's not a matter of someone's
profit here, whether we do something one way or another. The government
decides, and they have spent huge amounts of money on safety."

The government is also looking into a new generation of "pebble bed"
reactors that some scientists say are far safer than traditional designs,
though these are not a part of its immediate plans.

One sure sign of the Chinese industry's self-assuredness is the promotion
of the Daya Bay plants as a tourist attraction. For now - in a country
where surging power demand has led major cities like Shanghai to force
companies to stagger working hours, shut down during the week and operate
on weekends - the public is likely to support anything that promises more
electricity.

American experts, mindful of the destructive consequences of the near
catastrophic accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in 1979, warn
against overconfidence.

"In 1970 we had a net capability of 7 million kilowatt hours, and by 1981
we had reached 56 million kilowatt hours," said John Moens, a nuclear
analyst at the United States Department of Energy. "So the rate of growth
they propose is not only conceivable, it has been done before. The problem
is, can you regulate it? Can you deal with the environmental problems? Can
you deal with the hundred different things that creep up, as the Japanese
found when they expanded their industry, just as we found when we expanded
ours?"

Reinforcing this point, David Lochbaum, a nuclear energy expert at the
Union of Concerned Scientists, a private, nonprofit group based in
Cambridge, Mass., said that of the 103 reactors in operation in the United
States, 27 have been shut down for at least a year since September 1984.

Daya Bay's location less than 50 miles from Hong Kong, where the proximity
has become a political issue, only reinforces the environmental and safety
concerns. That may sound like ample space, but it is not much different
from the distance from New York City to the Indian Point nuclear plant in
Buchanan, N.Y., which has become an issue since the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Of the technologies that exist today, you have to look at what can happen
on the worst day," Mr. Lochbaum said. "With wind power, you can go
bankrupt. With a dam burst, lives can and have been lost, but it's fairly
localized. The cost of cleaning up after Chernobyl, though, is greater
than all of the benefits of the entire Soviet nuclear power industry
combined, and it could have been worse."

'BEYOND VIETNAM'

DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
Address delivered to the Clergy and Laymen
Concerned about Vietnam, at Riverside Church
April 4, 1967, New York City

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I need not pause to say how very
delighted I am to be here tonight, and how very delighted I am to see you
expressing your concern about the issues that will be discussed tonight by
turning out in such large numbers. I also want to say that I consider it a
great honor to share this program with Dr. Bennett, Dr. Commager, and Rabbi
Heschel, some of the distinguished leaders and personalities of our nation.
And of course it's always good to come back to Riverside Church. Over the
last eight years, I have had the privilege of preaching here almost every
year in that period, and it is always a rich and rewarding experience to
come to this great church and this great pulpit.

I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience
leaves me no other choice. I join you in this meeting because I am in
deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has
brought us together, Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam. The recent
statements of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart,
and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: "A time
comes when silence is betrayal." That time has come for us in relation to
Vietnam.

The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they
call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner
truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's
policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without
great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's
own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand
seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict,
we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must
move on.

Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have
found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must
speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our
limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely
this is the first time in our nation's history that a significant number of
its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth
patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of
conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising
among us. If it is, let us trace its movement, and pray that our own inner
being may be sensitive to its guidance. For we are deeply in need of a new
way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.

Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own
silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called
for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have
questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns,
this query has often loomed large and loud: "Why are you speaking about the
war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent?" "Peace and
civil rights don't mix," they say. "Aren't you hurting the cause of your
people?" they ask.

And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their
concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that
the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment, or my calling.
Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which
they live. In the light of such tragic misunderstanding, I deem it of
signal importance to try to state clearly, and I trust concisely, why I
believe that the path from Dexter Avenue Baptist Church --- the church in
Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate --- leads clearly to this
sanctuary tonight.

I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved
nation. This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National
Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia. Nor is it an
attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a
collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to
make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor
to overlook the role they must play in the successful resolution of the
problem.

While they both may have justifiable reasons to be suspicious of the good
faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the
fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on
both sides. Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the
National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellow Americans.

Since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I
have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral
vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection
between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I and others have been waging
in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle.
It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black
and white, through the poverty program.

There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in
Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated as if it were
some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war. And I knew that
America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in
rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to
draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube.
So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and
to attack it as such.

Perhaps a more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became
clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of
the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their
husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative
to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had
been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to
guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest
Georgia and East Harlem.

So we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and
white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that
has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. So we watch them
in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize
that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be
silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.

My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows
out of my experience in the ghettos of the North over the last three years,
especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate,
rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and
rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my
deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes
most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they asked, and rightly
so, "What about Vietnam?"

They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to
solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions
hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the
violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken
clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own
government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government,
for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I
cannot be silent.

For those who ask the question, "Aren't you a civil rights leader?" and
thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further
answer. In 1957, when a group of us formed the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: "To save the soul of
America." We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain
rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America
would never be free or saved from itself until the descendants of its
slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear. In a way
we were agreeing with Langston Hughes, that black bard of Harlem, who had
written earlier:

O, yes, I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath --
America will be!

Now it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for
the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If
America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read
"Vietnam." It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes
of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined
that "America will be" are led down the path of protest and dissent,
working for the health of our land.

As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America
were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in
1954.* And I cannot forget that the Nobel Peace Prize was also a
commission, a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for
the brotherhood of man. This is a calling that takes me beyond national
allegiances.

But even if it were not present, I would yet have to live with the meaning
of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me, the relationship
of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes
marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the war. Could it be
that they do not know that the Good News was meant for all men --- for
communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for
white, for revolutionary and conservative?

Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the one who loved
his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the
Vietcong or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this one? Can I
threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?

Finally, as I try to explain for you and for myself the road that leads
from Montgomery to this place, I would have offered all that was most valid
if I simply said that I must be true to my conviction that I share with all
men the calling to be a son of the living God. Beyond the calling of race
or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood. Because I
believe that the Father is deeply concerned, especially for His suffering
and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them.

This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem
ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper
than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and
positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the
victims of our nation, for those it calls "enemy," for no document from
human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.

And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to
understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people
of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of
the ideologies of the Liberation Front, not of the junta in Saigon, but
simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost
three continuous decades now. I think of them, too, because it is clear to
me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is
made to know them and hear their broken cries.

They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people
proclaimed their own independence in 1954 --- in 1945 rather --- after a
combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution
in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the
American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we
refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its
reconquest of her former colony.

Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for
independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that
has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic
decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination
and a government that had been established not by China -- for whom the
Vietnamese have no great love -- but by clearly indigenous forces that
included some communists. For the peasants this new government meant real
land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.

For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of
independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their
abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam. Before the end of the war we were
meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French
were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless
action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and
military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will.
Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at
recolonization.

After the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land
reform would come again through the Geneva Agreement. But instead there
came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily
divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the
most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants
watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition, supported
their extortionist landlords, and refused even to discuss reunification
with the North.

The peasants watched as all of this was presided over by United States
influence and then by increasing numbers of United States troops who came
to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was
overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military
dictators seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need
for land and peace.

The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in
support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without
popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received
the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they
languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the
real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land
of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are
rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs.

So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we
poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must
weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the
precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty
casualties from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So
far we may have killed a million of them, mostly children. They wander into
the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes,
running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children
degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children
selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.

What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as
we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform?
What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the
Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps
of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be
building? Is it among these voiceless ones?

We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the
village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated
in the crushing of the nation's only noncommunist revolutionary political
force, the unified Buddhist Church. We have supported the enemies of the
peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed
their men.

Now there is little left to build on, save bitterness. Soon the only solid
physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in
the concrete of the concentration camps we call "fortified hamlets." The
peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such
grounds as these. Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak
for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These, too, are our
brothers.

Perhaps a more difficult but no less necessary task is to speak for those
who have been designated as our enemies. What of the National Liberation
Front, that strangely anonymous group we call "VC" or "communists"? What
must they think of the United States of America when they realize that we
permitted the repression and cruelty of Diem, which helped to bring them
into being as a resistance group in the South? What do they think of our
condoning the violence which led to their own taking up of arms? How can
they believe in our integrity when now we speak of "aggression from the
North" as if there were nothing more essential to the war?

How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence after the
murderous reign of Diem and charge them with violence while we pour every
new weapon of death into their land? Surely we must understand their
feelings, even if we do not condone their actions. Surely we must see that
the men we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must see
that our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest
acts.

How do they judge us when our officials know that their membership is less
than twenty-five percent communist, and yet insist on giving them the
blanket name? What must they be thinking when they know that we are aware
of their control of major sections of Vietnam, and yet we appear ready to
allow national elections in which this highly organized political parallel
government will not have a part? They ask how we can speak of free
elections when the Saigon press is censored and controlled by the military
junta.

And they are surely right to wonder what kind of new government we plan to
help form without them, the only party in real touch with the peasants.
They question our political goals and they deny the reality of a peace
settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions are
frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning to build on political myth
again, and then shore it up upon the power of a new violence?

Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it
helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know
his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic
weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and
grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the
opposition.

So, too, with Hanoi. In the North, where our bombs now pummel the land,
and our mines endanger the waterways, we are met by a deep but
understandable mistrust. To speak for them is to explain this lack of
confidence in Western words, and especially their distrust of American
intentions now. In Hanoi are the men who led the nation to independence
against the Japanese and the French, the men who sought membership in the
French Commonwealth and were betrayed by the weakness of Paris and the
willfulness of the colonial armies.

It was they who led a second struggle against French domination at
tremendous costs, and then were persuaded to give up the land they
controlled between the thirteenth and seventeenth parallel as a temporary
measure at Geneva. After 1954 they watched us conspire with Diem to
prevent elections which could have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over
a united Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again. When we
ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered.

Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of
American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial
military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning foreign troops. They
remind us that they did not begin to send troops in large numbers and even
supplies into the South until American forces had moved into the tens of
thousands.

Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the
earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the president claimed
that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched
as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has
surely heard the increasing international rumors of American plans for an
invasion of the North. He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are
doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his
sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful
nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs
on a poor, weak nation more than eight hundred, or rather, eight thousand
miles away from its shores.

At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last
few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless in Vietnam and to understand
the arguments of those who are called "enemy," I am as deeply concerned
about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what
we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process
that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy.

We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a
short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are
really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent
them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely
realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we
create a hell for the poor.

Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of
God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose
land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is
being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double
price of smashed hopes at home, and dealt death and corruption in Vietnam.
I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the
path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of
our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to
stop it must be ours.

This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one
of them wrote these words, and I quote:

"Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the hearts of the
Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The
Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is
curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities
of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring
deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never
again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of
violence and militarism."

If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the
world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. If we do not stop
our war against the people of Vietnam immediately, the world will be left
with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy, and
deadly game we have decided to play. The world now demands a maturity of
America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that
we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we
have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation
is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways. In
order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the
initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war.

I would like to suggest five concrete things that our government should do
immediately to begin the long and difficult process of extricating
ourselves from this nightmarish conflict:

* Number one: End all bombing in North and South Vietnam.

* Number two: Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such action
will create the atmosphere for negotiation.

* Three: Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in Southeast
Asia by curtailing our military buildup in Thailand and our interference in
Laos.

* Four: Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation Front
has substantial support in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role in
any meaningful negotiations and any future Vietnam government.

* Five: Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in
accordance with the 1954 Geneva Agreement. [sustained applause]

Part of our ongoing [applause continues], part of our ongoing commitment
might well express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who
fears for his life under a new regime which included the Liberation Front.
Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we have done. We
must provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in
this country if necessary. Meanwhile [applause], meanwhile, we in the
churches and synagogues have a continuing task while we urge our government
to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must continue to
raise our voices and our lives if our nation persists in its perverse ways
in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out
every creative method of protest possible.

As we counsel young men concerning military service, we must clarify for
them our nation's role in Vietnam and challenge them with the alternative
of conscientious objection. [sustained applause] I am pleased to say that
this is a path now chosen by more than seventy students at my own alma
mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the American
course in Vietnam a dishonorable and unjust one. [applause]

Moreover, I would encourage all ministers of draft age to give up their
ministerial exemptions and seek status as conscientious objectors.
[applause] These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We
are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation
is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on
the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.

Now there is something seductively tempting about stopping there and
sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade
against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that struggle, but I wish
to go on now to say something even more disturbing.

The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the
American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality [applause], and if
we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing "clergy
and laymen concerned" committees for the next generation. They will be
concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand
and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa.
We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies
without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American
life and policy. [sustained applause] So such thoughts take us beyond
Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.

In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him
that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the
past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which has now
justified the presence of U.S. military advisors in Venezuela. This need
to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the
counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why
American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Cambodia and why
American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against
rebels in Peru.

It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy
come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful
revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." [applause]
Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has
taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by
refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the
immense profits of overseas investments.

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world
revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We
must rapidly begin [applause], we must rapidly begin the shift from a
thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and
computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more
important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism,
and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and
justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are
called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only
an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road
must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and
robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is
more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice
which produces beggars needs restructuring. [applause]

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast
of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the
seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of
money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with
no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is
not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South
America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that
it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not
just.

A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of
war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of
burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with
orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of
peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody
battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be
reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year
after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of
social uplift is approaching spiritual death. [sustained applause]

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead
the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic
death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit
of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to
keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we
have fashioned it into a brotherhood.

This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against
communism. [applause] War is not the answer. Communism will never be
defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join
those who shout war and, through their misguided passions, urge the United
States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations.

These are days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. We
must not engage in a negative anticommunism, but rather in a positive
thrust for democracy [applause], realizing that our greatest defense
against communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We
must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty,
insecurity, and injustice, which are the fertile soil in which the seed of
communism grows and develops.

These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against
old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wounds of a
frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born. The
shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before.
The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. We in the West must
support these revolutions.

It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of
communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations
that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have
now become the arch antirevolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that
only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a
judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on
the revolutions that we initiated.

Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary
spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal
hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful
commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores, and
thereby speed the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every
mountain and hill shall be made low [Audience:] (Yes); the crooked shall be
made straight, and the rough places plain."

A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our
loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must
now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to
preserve the best in their individual societies.

This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond
one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an
all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft
misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the
Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an
absolute necessity for the survival of man.

When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak
response. I'm not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I
am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the
supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks
the door which leads to ultimate reality. This
Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is
beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: "Let us love one
another (Yes), for love is God. (Yes) And every one that loveth is born
of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is
love. . . . If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is
perfected in us." Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of
the day.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar
of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the
ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of
nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate.

As Arnold Toynbee says: "Love is the ultimate force that makes for the
saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and
evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love
is going to have the last word."

We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are
confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of
life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination
is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and
dejected with a lost opportunity. The tide in the affairs of men does not
remain at flood --- it ebbs.

We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is
adamant to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled
residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words, "Too
late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our
vigilance or our neglect. Omar Khayyam is right: "The moving finger
writes, and having writ moves on."

We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent
coannihilation. We must move past indecision to action. We must find new
ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing
world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall
surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time
reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without
morality, and strength without sight.

Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter,
but beautiful, struggle for a new world. This is the calling of the sons
of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the
odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our
message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival
as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another
message --- of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of
commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and
though we might prefer it otherwise, we must choose in this crucial moment
of human history.

As that noble bard of yesterday, James Russell Lowell, eloquently stated:

Once to every man and nation comes a moment to decide,
In the strife of Truth and Falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God's new Messiah offering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever `twixt that darkness and that light.
Though the cause of evil prosper, yet `tis truth alone is strong
Though her portions be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.

And if we will only make the right choice, we will be able to transform
this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of peace. If we will make
the right choice, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our
world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. If we will but make the
right choice, we will be able to speed up the day, all over America and all
over the world, when justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness
like a mighty stream. [sustained applause]

EDITORS NOTE: From "A Call to Conscience: The Landmark Speeches of Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr."
© The Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EVOLUTION_STICKERS?SITE=CALOS&SECTION=HOM
E&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Jan 14, 2005
Ga. Evolution Stickers Ordered Removed

By DOUG GROSS
Associated Press Writer

ATLANTA (AP) -- Since 2002, Dr. Kenneth Miller has been upset that biology
textbooks he has written are slapped with a warning sticker by the time
they appear in suburban Atlanta schools. Evolution, the stickers say, is
"a theory, not a fact."

"What it tells students is that we're certain of everything else in this
book except evolution," said Miller, a professor of biology at Brown
University, who with Joseph S. Levine has authored three texts for high
schoolers.

On Thursday, Miller - along with fellow teachers and scientists - cheered
a federal judge's ruling that ordered the Cobb County school board to
immediately remove the stickers and never again hand them out in any form.

"Obviously, this is quite a victory for good science education," said
Benjamin Z. Freed, an anthropology professor at Atlanta's Emory University
and chairman of Georgia Citizens for Integrity in Science Education.

But some parents and religious conservatives decried the ruling as another
in a string of what opponents call activist judges overruling the wishes of
elected officials - often on matters of religion.

"It's another example of how the bench is dictating to people what symbols
they can display, if they can pray or not pray or if they can teach a
particular subject," said Sadie Fields, head of the Georgia chapter of the
Christian Coalition.

The Georgia case is one of several battles waged in recent years
throughout the nation over what role evolution should play in science books.

The school district just north of Atlanta approved the stickers after
more than 2,000 parents complained the textbooks presented evolution as
fact, without mentioning rival ideas about the beginnings of life.

During four days of testimony in federal court last November, the school
system defended the warning stickers as a show of tolerance, not religious
activism as some parents claimed. Its attorneys argued the school board
had made a good-faith effort to address questions that inevitably arise
during the teaching of evolution.

The stickers read, "This textbook contains material on evolution.
Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.
This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and
critically considered."

Scientists, several of whom testified in the case, say the sticker
confuses the scientific term "theory" with the word's common usage and
inappropriately combines science with personal religious belief.

"Many of us hold deeply personal religious ideals as well," Freed said.
"But for a science teacher in a public school to introduce religion into a
science class would fall way outside the ideals of any organization of
scientists or science educators."

A group of parents and the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the
stickers in court, arguing they violate the Constitution's separation of
church and state.

Jeffrey Selman, whose son was a second-grader in Cobb County schools at
the time, called Thursday's ruling a "shot across the bow" of religious
fundamentalists he says are attempting to introduce their beliefs in the
classroom.

"I got what I wanted; I got the stickers removed," said Selman.
The school board issued a statement saying members are disappointed by
the ruling and are meeting with lawyers to decide whether to appeal. The
Cobb school system has 30 days to appeal.

34 Norana Ave.
Remuera, Auckland 5
17-5-93

Bishop Bruce Gilberd
Diocese of Auckland

Dear Bishop Gilberd,

I give below the full text of a letter which I
wrote on 23-3-93 to A.D. News. The published version omitted the final
paragraph of comments.

I dare say the editor (with whom I am, barely, acquainted)
will say that shortage of space necessitated the deletion. I cannot fully
assess any such claim, but I do think that if it were the case then I
should have been asked to provide a briefer version. I confess to the
suspicion that not space but ideology was the reason.

Editor
A.D. News
P O Box 37 242
Auckland

Dear Jill Brewis,

The Feb. 1993 A.D. News reproduced a cartoon, to illustrate
the YWCA-distributed video "designed to give women increased confidence".
The cartoon appears to depict an old woman brushing off a young male
attacker who has approached her from behind. The attacker is flattened by
a blow, with a stick, to the attacker's groin; the woman walks on.

The impression conveyed by the cartoon is that deft, almost casual,
violent retaliation is likely to flatten the attacker and thus protect the
woman from further attack. That depiction is, I believe, a gravely
misleading fantasy. I am left wondering what sort of person would try to
build confidence on such a misleading basis. The chances of crippling the
attacker are poor (especially if the defender has such "increased
confidence" as to refrain from even looking over her shoulder, as in the
cartoon!). As a man who has been in a few fights, I believe that to
attempt such a blow, so far from being likely to incapacitate temporarily,
is more likely to provoke far worse violence.

The video which the cartoon apparently exemplifies is stated in
your story to have been produced "with instructions from" a leader of the
women's self-defence trade which has been reported on TV as teaching women
to prepare for possible attacks by practising throws, holds etc. to the
chant 'hate men'. Related slogans include 'women need men like [sic] fish
need bicycles' and of course the matchlessly hateful 'all men are rapists'.
That such a vicious deluded political trend could have hijacked the Young
Women's Christian Association illustrates how many have strayed, especially
during this last quarter-century, from well-founded traditional
understandings of gender. Much more needs to be written about this
important topic; meanwhile, I object to the printing of this mischievous
cartoon in a church paper.

Even more can be said along these lines, as Stove implies; but this
will do to move the motion that Darwinism is among the greatest
intellectual con-tricks of all time.

Unfortunately, a fanatical sect tries to make out that "the"
alternative to (neo)Darwinism is Creationism®: the totalitarian slogans
"the first 3 chapters of the Bible, plus the Noah story, can be understood
literally", "all spp were created in 6 d", "evolution is incompatible with
creation", etc. This well-funded, grossly irrational sectarian tendency
has been invading NZ, helped by a surprising degree of cowardice from
'evangelicals' who on many other topics show some courage.

One of the suspicious features of IDT is its refusal to refer to mainstream
scholarship (Temple, Sir A Hardy, Morton, etc). It does not really welcome
discussion, and is suspiciously frozen on the one tiny point.

I tentatively plot a spectrum of positions in this 'long argument':-

theistic evoln (Morton, Broom, Sheldrake, me)
- IDT (Dembski)
- Old Earth Creationism (Hugh Ross)
- Young Earth Creationism

R

http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/stove_darwinian.htm

So You Think You Are a Darwinian?
David Stove

Most educated people nowadays, I believe, think of themselves as
Darwinians. If they do, however, it can only be from ignorance: from not
knowing enough about what Darwinism says. For Darwinism says many things,
especially about our species, which are too obviously false to be believed
by any educated person; or at least by an educated person who retains any
capacity at all for critical thought on the subject of Darwinism.

Of course most educated people now are Darwinians, in the sense
that they believe our species to have originated, not in a creative act of
the Divine Will, but by evolution from other animals. But believing that
proposition is not enough to make someone a Darwinian. It had been
believed, as may be learnt from any history of biology, by very many people
long before Darwinism, or Darwin, was born.

What is needed to make someone an adherent of a certain school of
thought is belief in all or most of the propositions which are peculiar to
that school, and are believed either by all of its adherents, or at least
by the more thoroughgoing ones. In any large school of thought, there is
always a minority who adhere more exclusively than most to the
characteristic beliefs of the school: they are the 'purists' or 'ultras' of
that school. What is needed and sufficient, then, to make a person a
Darwinian, is belief in all or most of the propositions which are peculiar
to Darwinians, and believed either by all of them, or at least by
ultra-Darwinians.

I give below ten propositions which are all Darwinian beliefs in
the sense just specified. Each of them is obviously false: either a direct
falsity about our species or, where the proposition is a general one,
obviously false in the case of our species, at least. Some of the ten
propositions are quotations; all the others are paraphrases. The
quotations are all from authors who are so well-known, at least in
Darwinian circles, as spokesmen for Darwinism or ultra-Darwinism, that
their names alone will be sufficient evidence that the proposition is a
Darwinian one. Where the proposition is a paraphrase, I give quotations or
other information which will, I think, suffice to establish its Darwinian
credentials.

My ten propositions are nearly in reverse historical order. Thus,
I start from the present day, and from the inferno-scene - like something
by Hieronymus Bosch - which the 'selfish gene' theory makes of all life.
Then I go back a bit to some of the falsities which, beginning in the
1960s, were contributed to Darwinism by the theory of 'inclusive fitness'.
And finally I get back to some of the falsities, more pedestrian though no
less obvious, of the Darwinism of the 19th or early-20th century.

1. The truth is, 'the total prostitution of all animal life,
including Man and all his airs and graces, to the blind purposiveness of
these minute virus-like substances', genes.

This is a thumbnail-sketch, and an accurate one, of the contents of
The Selfish Gene (1976) by Richard Dawkins. It was not written by
Dawkins, but he quoted it with manifest enthusiasm in a defence of The
Selfish Gene which he wrote in this journal in 1981. Dawkins' status, as a
widely admired spokesman for ultra-Darwinism, is too well-known to need
evidence of it adduced here. His admirers even include some philosophers
who have carried their airs and graces to the length of writing good books
on such rarefied subjects as universals, or induction, or the mind.
Dawkins can scarcely have gratified these admirers by telling them that,
even when engaged in writing those books, they were 'totally prostituted
to the blind purposiveness of their genes. Still, you 'have to hand it' to
genes which can write, even if only through their slaves, a good book on
subjects like universals or induction. Those genes must have brains all
right, as well as purposes. At least, they must, if genes can have brains
and purposes. But in fact, of course, DNA molecules no more have such
things than H20 molecules do.

2 'Šit is, after all, to [a mother's] advantage that her child
should be adopted' by another woman.

This quotation is from Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, p. 110.

Obviously false though this proposition is, from the point of view
of Darwinism it is well-founded, for the reason which Dawkins gives on the
same page: that another woman's adopting her baby 'releases a rival female
from the burden of child-rearing, and frees her to have another child more
quickly.' This, you will say, is a grotesque way of looking at human life;
and so, of course, it is. But it is impossible to deny that it is the
Darwinian way.

3. All communication is 'manipulation of signal-receiver by
signal-sender.'

This profound communication, though it might easily have come from
any used-car salesman reflecting on life, was actually sent by Dawkins, (in
The Extended Phenotype, (1982), p. 57), to the readers whom he was at that
point engaged in manipulating. Much as the devil, in many medieval plays,
advises the audience not to take his advice.

4. Homosexuality in social animals is a form of sibling-altruism:
that is, your homosexuality is a way of helping your brothers and sisters
to raise more children.

This very-believable proposition is maintained by Robert Trivers in
his book Social Evolution, (1985), pp. 198-9. Professor Trivers is a
leading light among ultra-Darwinians, (who are nowadays usually called
'sociobiologists'). Whether he also believes that suicide, for example,
and self-castration, are forms of sibling-altruism, I do not know; but I do
not see what there is to stop him. What is there to stop anyone believing
such propositions? Only common sense: a thing entirely out of the question
among sociobiologists.

5. In all social mammals, the altruism (or apparent altruism) of
siblings towards one another is about as strong and common as the altruism
(or apparent altruism) of parents towards their offspring.

This proposition is an immediate consequence, and an admitted one,
of the theory of inclusive fitness, which says that the degree of altruism
depends on the proportion of genes shared. This theory was first put
forward by W. D. Hamilton in The Journal of Theoretical Biology in 1964.
Since then it has been accepted by Darwinians almost as one man and has
revolutionized evolutionary theory. This acceptance has made Professor
Hamilton the most influential Darwinian author of the last thirty years.

6. 'Š no one is prepared to sacrifice his life for any single
person, but everyone will sacrifice it for more than two brothers [or
offspring], or four half-brothers, or eight first-cousins.'

This is a quotation from the epoch-making article by Professor
Hamilton to which I referred a moment ago. The italics are not in the
text. Nor are the two words which I have put in square brackets; but their
insertion is certainly authorized by the theory of inclusive fitness.

7. Every organism has as many descendants as it can.

Compare Darwin, in The Origin of Species, p. 66: 'every single
organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to
increase in numbers'; and again, pp. 78-9, 'each organic being is striving
to increase at a geometrical ratio'. These page references are to the
first edition of the Origin, (1859), but both of the passages just quoted
are repeated in all of the five later editions of the book which were
published in Darwin's lifetime. He also says the same thing in other
places.

But it would not have mattered if he had not happened to say in
print such things as I have just quoted. For it was always obvious, to
everyone who understood his theory, that a universal
striving-to-the-utmost-to-increase is an essential part of that theory: in
fact it is the very 'motor' of evolution, according to the theory. It is
the thing which, by creating pressure of population on the supply of food,
is supposed to bring about the struggle for life among con-specifics, hence
natural selection, and hence evolution. As is well known, and as Darwin
himself stated, he had got the idea of population permanently pressing on
food, because of the constant tendency to increase, from T. R. Malthus's
Essay on Population (179.

Still, that every organism has as many descendants as it can, while
it is or may be true of most species of organisms, is obviously not true of
ours. Do you know of even one human being who ever had as many descendants
as he or she could have had? And yet Darwinism says that every single one
of us does. For there can clearly be no question of Darwinism making an
exception of man, without openly contradicting itself. 'Every single
organic being', or 'each organic being': this means you.

8. In every species, child-mortality - that is, the proportion of
live births which die before reproductive age - is extremely high.

Compare Darwin in the Origin, p. 61: 'of the many individuals of
any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive';
or p. 5, 'many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly
survive'. Again, these passages, from the first edition, are both repeated
unchanged in all the later editions of the Origin.

Proposition 8 is not a peripheral or negotiable part of Darwinism.
On the contrary it is, like proposition 7, a central part, and one which
Darwinians are logically locked-into. For in order to explain evolution,
Darwin had adopted (as I have said) Malthus's principle of population: that
population always presses on the supply of food, and tends to increase
beyond it. And this principle does require child-mortality to be extremely
high in all species.

Because of the strength and universality of the sexual impulse,
animals in general have an exuberant tendency to increase in numbers. This
much is obvious, but what Malthus's principle says is something far more
definite. It says that the tendency to increase is so strong that every
population, of any species, is at all times already as large as its
food-supply permits, or else is rapidly approaching that impassable limit.

Which means of course that, (as Malthus once put it), the young are
always born into 'a world already possessed'. In any average year,
(assuming that the food-supply does not increase), there is simply not
enough food to support any greater number of the newborn than is needed to
replace the adults which die. But such is the strength of the tendency to
increase that, in any average year, the number of births will greatly
exceed the number of adult deaths. Which is to say, the great majority of
those born must soon die.

Consider a schematic example. Suppose there is a population, with
a constant food-supply, of 1000 human beings. Suppose - a very realistic
supposition, in fact a conservative one - that 700 of them are of
reproductive age. Suppose that this population is already 'at
equilibrium', (as Darwinians say): that is, is already as large as its food
can support. According to Malthus's principle, people (or flies or fish or
whatever) will reproduce if they can. So, since there are 350 females of
reproductive age, there will be 350 births this year. But there is no food
to support more of these than are needed to replace the adults who die this
year; while the highest adult death-rate which we can suppose with any
approximation to realism is about 10%. So 100 adults will die this year,
but to fill their places, there are 350 applicants. That is, there will
this year be a child-mortality of 250 out of 350, or more than 70%.

It was undoubtedly reasoning of this kind from Malthus's principle
which led Darwin to believe that in every species 'but a small number' of
those born can survive, or that 'many more' are born than can survive.
What did Darwin mean by these phrases, in percentage, or at least
minimum-percentage, terms? Well, we have just seen that Malthus's
principle, in a typical case, delivers a child-mortality of at least 70%.

And no one, either in 1859 or now, would dream of calling 30 or
more, surviving out of 100, 'but a small number' surviving. It would be
already stretching language violently, to call even 23 (say), surviving out
of 100, 'but a small number' surviving. To use this phrase of 30-or-more
surviving, would be absolutely out of the question. So Darwin must have
meant, by the statements I quoted above, that child-mortality in all
species is more than 70%.

Which is obviously false in the case of our species. No doubt
human child-mortality has often enough been as high as 70%, and often
enough higher still. But I do not think that, at any rate within
historical times, this can ever have been usual. For under a
child-mortality of 70%, a woman would have to give birth 10 times, on the
average, to get 3 of her children to puberty, and 30 times to get 9 of them
there. Yet a woman's getting 9 of her children to puberty has never at any
time been anything to write home about; whereas a woman who gives birth 30
times has always been a demographic prodigy. The absolute record is about
32 births. (I neglect multiple births, which make up only 1% of all
births.) As for the last 100 years, in any advanced country, to suppose
child-mortality 70% or anywhere near it, would be nothing but an outlandish
joke.

It is important to remember that no one - not even Darwinians -
knows anything at all about human demography, except what has been learnt
in the last 350 years, principally concerning certain European countries or
their colonies. A Darwinian may be tempted, indeed is sure to be tempted,
to set all of this knowledge aside, as being of no 'biological' validity,
because it concerns only an 'exceptional' time and place. But if we agreed
to set all this knowledge aside, the only result would be that no one knew
anything whatever about human demography. And Darwinians would then be no
more entitled than anyone else to tell us what the 'real', or the
'natural', rate of human child-mortality is.

In any case, as I said earlier, Darwinians cannot without
contradicting themselves make an exception of man, or of any particular
part of human history. Their theory, like Malthus's principle, is one
which generalizes about all species, and all places and times,
indifferently; while man is a species, the last 350 years are times, and
European countries are places. And Darwin's assertion, that child-mortality
is extremely high, is quite explicitly universal. For he said (as we saw)
that 'of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born,
but a small number can survive', and that 'many more individuals of each
species are born than can possibly survive'. Again, this means us.

9. The more privileged people are the more prolific: if one class
in a society is less exposed than another to the misery due to
food-shortage, disease, and war, then the members of the more fortunate
class will have (on the average) more children than the members of the
other class.

That this proposition is false, or rather, is the exact reverse of
the truth, is not just obvious. It is notorious, and even proverbial.
Everyone knows that, as a popular song of the I 930s had it,

The rich get rich, and
The poor get children.

Not that the song is exactly right, because privilege does not
quite always require superior wealth, and superior wealth does not quite
always confer privilege. The rule should be stated, not in terms of
wealth, but in terms of privilege, thus: that the more privileged class is
the less prolific. To this rule, as far as I know, there is not a single
exception.

And yet the exact inverse of it, proposition 9, is an inevitable
consequence of Darwinism all right. Malthus had said that the main
'checks' to human population are misery - principally due to 'famine, war,
and pestilence' - and vice: by which he meant contraception, foeticide,
homosexuality, etc. But he also said that famine - that is, deficiency of
food - usually outweighs all the other checks put together, and that
population-size depends, near enough, only on the supply of food. Darwin
agreed. He wrote (in The Descent of Man, second edition, 1874), that 'the
primary or fundamental check to the continued increase of man is the
difficulty of gaining subsistence', and that if food were doubled in
Britain, for example, population would quickly be doubled. But now, a
more-privileged class always suffers less from deficiency of food than a
less-privileged class does. Therefore, if food-supply is indeed the
fundamental determinant of population-size, a more-privileged class would
always be a more prolific one; just as proposition 9 says.

William Godwin, as early as 1820, pointed out that Malthus had
managed to get the relationship between privilege and fertility exactly
upside-down. In the 1860s and '70s W. R. Greg, Alfred Russel Wallace, and
others, pointed out that Darwin, by depending on Malthus for his
explanation of evolution, had saddled himself with Malthus's mistake about
population and privilege. It is perfectly obvious that all these critics
were right. But Darwin never took any notice of the criticism. Well,
trying to get Darwin to respond to criticism was always exactly like
punching a feather-mattress: 'suddenly absolutely nothing happened'.

The eugenics movement, which was founded a little later by Darwin's
disciple and cousin Francis Galton, was an indirect admission that those
critics were right. For what galvanized the eugenists into action was, of
course, their realisation that the middle and upper classes in Britain were
being out-reproduced by the lowest classes. Such a thing simply could not
happen, obviously, if Darwin and Malthus, and proposition 9, had been
right. But the eugenists never drew the obvious conclusion, that Darwin
and Malthus were wrong, and consequently they never turned their indirect
criticism into a direct one. Well, they were fervent Darwinians to the
last man and woman, and could not bring themselves to say, or even think,
that Darwinism is false.

A later Darwinian and eugenist, R. A. Fisher, discussed the
relation between privilege and fertility at length, in his important book,
The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, (1930). But he can hardly be
said to have made the falsity of proposition 9 any less of an embarrassment
for Darwinism. Fisher acknowledges the fact that there has always been, in
all civilized countries an inversion (as he calls it)
of fertility-rates: that is, that the more privileged have always and
everywhere been the less fertile. His explanation of this fact is that
civilized countries have always practised what he calls 'the social
promotion of infertility'. That is, people are enabled to succeed better
in civilized life, the fewer children they have.

But this is evidently just a re-phrasing of the problem, rather
than a solution of it. The question, for a Darwinian such as Fisher, is
how there can be, consistently with Darwinism, such a thing as the social
promotion of infertility? In every other species of organisms, after all,
comparative infertility is a sure sign, or even the very criterion, of
comparative failure. So how can there be if Darwinism is true, a species
of organisms in which comparative infertility is a regular and
nearly-necessary aid to success?

Fisher's constant description of the fertility-rates in civilized
countries as 'inverted', deserves a word to itself. It is a perfect
example of an amazingly-arrogant habit of Darwinians, (of which I have
collected many examples in my forthcoming book Darwinian Fairytales). This
is the habit, when some biological fact inconsistent with Darwinism comes
to light, of blaming the fact, instead of blaming their theory. Any such
fact Darwinians call a 'biological error' an 'error of heredity', a
'misfire', or some thing of that kind: as though the organism in question
had gone wrong, when all that has actually happened, of course, is that
Darwinism has gone wrong. When Fisher called the birth-rates in civilized
countries 'inverted', all he meant was that, exactly contrary to Darwinian
theory, the more privileged people are the less fertile. From this fact,
of course, the only rational conclusion to be drawn is, that Darwinism has
got things upside-down. But instead of that Fisher, with typical
Darwinian effrontery, concludes that civilised people have got things
upside-down!

Fisher, who died in 1962, is nowadays the idol of ultra-Darwinians,
and he deserves to be so: he was in fact a sociobiologist 'born out of due
time'. And the old problem for Darwinism, to which he had at least given
some publicity, even if he did nothing to solve it, remains to this day the
central problem for sociobiologists. The problem (to put it vulgarly) of
why 'the rich and famous' are such pitiful reproducers as they are.

Of course this 'problem' is no problem at all, for anyone except
ultra-Darwinians. It is an entirely self-inflicted injury, and as such
deserves no sympathy. Who, except an ultra-Darwinian, would expect the
highly-privileged to be great breeders? No one; just as no one but an
ultra-Darwinian would expect women to adopt-out their babies with maximum
expedition. For ultra-Darwinians, on the other hand, the
infertility of the privileged is a good deal more than a problem. It is a
refutation.

But they react to it in accordance with a well-tried rule of
present-day scientific research. The rule is: 'When your theory meets with
a refutation, call it instead "a problem", and demand additional money in
order to enable you to solve it.' Experience has shown that this rule is
just the thing for keeping a 'research program' afloat, even if it leaks
like a sieve. Indeed, the more of these challenging 'problems' you can
mention, the more money you are plainly entitled to demand.

10. If variations which are useful to their possessors in the
struggle for life 'do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more
individuals are born than can possibly survive), that individuals having
any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of
surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel
sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly
destroyed.'

This is from The Origin of Species, pp. 80-81. Exactly the same
words occur in all the editions.

Since this passage expresses the essential idea of natural
selection, no further evidence is needed to show that proposition 10 is a
Darwinian one. But is it true? In particular, may we really feel sure
that every attribute in the least degree injurious to its possessors would
be rigidly destroyed by natural selection?

On the contrary, the proposition is (saving Darwin's reverence)
ridiculous. Any educated person can easily think of a hundred
characteristics, commonly occurring in our species, which are not only 'in
the least degree' injurious to their possessors, but seriously or even
extremely injurious to them, which have not been 'rigidly destroyed', and
concerning which there is not the smallest evidence that they are in the
process of being destroyed. Here are ten such characteristics, without
even going past the first letter of the alphabet. Abortion; adoption;
fondness for alcohol; altruism; anal intercourse; respect for ancestors;
susceptibility to aneurism; the love of animals; the importance attached to
art; asceticism, whether sexual, dietary, or whatever.

Each of these characteristics tends, more or less strongly, to
shorten our lives, or to lessen the number of children we have, or both.
All of them are of extreme antiquity. Some of them are probably older than
our species itself. Adoption, for example is practised by some species of
chimpanzees: another adult female taking over the care of a baby whose
mother has died. Why has not this ancient and gross 'biological error'
been rigidly destroyed?

'There has not been enough time', replies the Darwinian. Well,
that could be so: perhaps there has not been enough time. And then again,
perhaps there has been enough time: perhaps even twenty times over. How
long does it take for natural selection to destroy an injurious attribute,
such as adoption or fondness for alcohol? I have not the faintest idea, of
course. I therefore have no positive ground whatever for believing either
that there has been enough time for adoption to be destroyed, or that there
has not. But then, on this matter, everyone else is in the same state of
total ignorance as I am. So how come the Darwinian is so confident that
there has not been enough time? What evidence can he point to, for
thinking that there has not? Why, nothing but this, that adoption has not
been destroyed, despite its being an injurious attribute!

But this is palpably arguing in a circle, and taking for granted
the very point which is in dispute. The Darwinian has no positive evidence
whatever, that there has not been enough time.

Mercifully, Darwinians nowadays are much more reluctant than they
formerly were, to rely heavily on the 'not-enough-time' defence of their
theory against critics. They have benefited from the strictures of
philosophers, who have pointed out that it is not good scientific method,
to defend Darwinism by a tactic which would always be equally available
whatever the state of the evidence, and which will still be equally
available to Darwinians a million years hence, if adoption (for example) is
still practised then.

The cream of the jest, concerning proposition 10, is that
Darwinians themselves do not really believe it. Ask a Darwinian whether he
actually believes that the fondness for alcoholic drinks is being destroyed
now, or that abortion is, or adoption - and watch his face. Well, of
course he does not believe it! Why would he? There is not a particle of
evidence in its favour, and there is a great mountain of evidence against
it.

Absolutely the only thing it has in its favour is that Darwinism
says it must be so. But (as Descartes said in another connection) 'this
reasoning cannot be presented to infidels, who might consider that it
proceeded in a circle'.

What becomes, then, of the terrifying giant named Natural
Selection, which can never sleep, can never fail to detect an attribute
which is, even in the least degree, injurious to its possessors in the
struggle for life, and can never fail to punish such an attribute with
rigid destruction?

Why, just that, like so much else in Darwinism, it is an obvious
fairytale, at least as far as our species is concerned.

It would not be difficult to compile another list of ten obvious
Darwinian falsities; or another one after that, either. But on that scale,
the thing would be tiresome both to read and to write. Anyway it ought not
to be necessary: ten obvious Darwinian falsities should be enough to make
the point. The point, namely, that if most educated people now think they
are Darwinians, it is only because they have no idea of the multiplied
absurdities which belief in Darwinism requires.

Dear Roger Doyle,

I was interested by your 'Melting at the Top'. As
one of the scientists pointing for the past couple decade to climate
degradation I naturally welcome such warnings.

However, I hope you'll look further into

>Natural gas hydrates, icelike
>crystal solids trapped below the permafrost,
>theoretically contain more energy than all
>conventi onal r e s er ve s of oi l , n at ural g as a nd
>coal combined. But the full exploitation of

Thawing of permafrost containing bulk methane hydrate is a possible
accelerant of the accelerated greenhouse effect.

This is sketched in the special issue of The Ecologist 2 - 3 y ago
devoted entirely to climate degradation. Peter Bunyard, a 3rd-rate
scientist but often on the right track, wrote it up along with other
aspects of climate degradation.

Yet we still read Lindzen of MIT, and Bob Carter of James Cook U,
Qld, intoning 'climate change? What climate change?'.

Regards
Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
(9) 524 2949

POPE JOHN PAUL II URGES
DIALOGUE TO COUNTER
"ARROGANCE OF POWER"

DANIEL WILLIAMS
Washington Post Foreign Service
January 11, 2005

Pope John Paul II, who opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq and the Bush
administration's policy of preventive war, criticized on Monday the
"arrogance of power," which he said should be countered with reason and
dialogue.

The pope made his remarks in a televised speech to an annual gathering of
diplomats accredited to Vatican City and other dignitaries.

Meanwhile, a retired cardinal and former envoy said President Bush had
assured him on the eve of the Iraq invasion that the war would be short.

Cardinal Pio Laghi, speaking during the broadcast on the Vatican's official
Telepace service, described a conversation with Bush on March 5, 2003:
"When I went to Washington as the pope's envoy just before the outbreak of
the war, he told me, 'Don't worry, your eminence. We'll be quick and do
well in Iraq.'

"Unfortunately, the facts have demonstrated afterward that things took a
different course --- not rapid and not favorable. Bush was wrong," Laghi
said.

Laghi's comments reflected the pope's often-stated view, which he
reiterated Monday. "Recourse to arms and violence has not only led to
incalculable material damage, but also fomented hatred and increased the
causes of tension," the pope said. "The arrogance of power must be
countered with reason, force with dialogue, pointed weapons with
outstretched hands, evil with good."

The quest for peace was one of four challenges the 84-year-old leader of
the world's 1 billion Roman Catholics said faced the world this year.

He listed first his opposition to abortion, artificially assisted
procreation, human embryonic stem cell research and cloning, calling
anything that "violates the integrity and dignity of the embryo . . .
ethically inadmissible." He also spoke out indirectly against gay marriage,
saying that the family was threatened by laws that "challenge its natural
structure" as a union of a man and a woman.

The pope also called for a "vast moral mobilization of public opinion" to
fight hunger and urged political leaders in wealthy countries to be
particularly responsive. In addition to his plea for peace, he spoke out
for individual freedom and put religious liberty "at the very heart" of it.

"It is necessary that religious freedom be everywhere provided with an
effective constitutional guarantee," he said.

The speech began with a lament for the "enormous catastrophe" of the Asian
tsunami during the Christmas season.

The pope read only the first and last paragraphs of the French-language
text, handing the rest to an aide to deliver. But he individually greeted
the 170 ambassadors to the Holy See, as well as special representatives
from Russia, the European Union, the Palestine Liberation Organization and
the Knights of Malta, taking time to chat with some of them.


====================

DEFINING VICTORY DOWN

MAUREEN DOWD
New York Times
January 9, 2005


The president prides himself on being a pig-headed guy. He is determined to
win in Iraq even if he is not winning in Iraq.

So get ready for a Mohammedan mountain of spin defining victory down. Come
what may --- civil war over oil, Iranian-style fatwas du jour or men on
prayer rugs reciting the Koran all day on the Iraqi TV network our own
geniuses created --- this administration will call it a triumph.

Even for a White House steeped in hooey, it's a challenge. President Bush
will have to emulate the parsing and prevaricating he disdained in his
predecessor: It depends on what the meaning of the word "win" is.

The president's still got a paper bag over his head, claiming that the
daily horrors out of Iraq reflect just a few soreheads standing in the way
of a glorious democracy, even though his commander of ground forces there
concedes that the areas where more than half of Iraqis live are not secure
enough for them to vote --- an acknowledgment that the insurgency is
resilient and growing. It's like saying Montana and North Dakota are safe
to vote, but New York, Philadelphia and L.A. are not. What's a little
disenfranchisement among friends?

"I know it's hard, but it's hard for a reason," Mr. Bush said on Friday, a
day after seven G.I.'s and two marines died. "And the reason it's hard is
because there are a handful of folks who fear freedom." If it's just a
handful, how come it's so hard?

Then the president added: "And I look at the elections as a - as a - you
know, as a - as - as a historical marker for our Iraq policy."

Well, that's clear. Mr. Bush is huddled in his bubble, but he's in a
pickle. The administration that had no plan for what to do with Iraq when
it got it, now has no plan for getting out.

The mood in Washington about our misadventure seemed to grow darker last
week, maybe because lawmakers were back after visiting with their
increasingly worried constituents and --- even more alarming --- visiting
Iraq, where you still can't drive from the Baghdad airport to the Green
Zone without fearing for your life.

"It's going to be ugly," Joe Biden told Charlie Rose about the election.

The arrogant Bush war council never admits a mistake. Paul Wolfowitz, a
walking mistake, said on Friday he's been asked to remain in the
administration. But the "idealists," as the myopic dunderheads think of
themselves, are obviously worried enough, now that Mr. Bush is safely
re-elected, to let a little reality seep in. Rummy tapped a respected
retired four-star general to go to Iraq this week for an open-ended review
of the entire military meshugas.

Mr. Wolfowitz, who devised the debacle in Iraq, is kept on, while Brent
Scowcroft, Poppy Bush's lieutenant who warned Junior not to go into Iraq,
is pushed out as chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.
That's the backward nature of this beast: Deceive, you're golden; tell the
truth, you're gone.

Mr. Scowcroft was not deterred. Like Banquo's ghost, he clanked around last
week, disputing the president's absurdly sunny forecasts for Iraq, and
noting dryly that this administration had turned the word "realist" into a
"pejorative." He predicted that the elections "have the great potential for
deepening the conflict" by exacerbating the divisions between Shiite and
Sunni Muslims. He worried that there would be "an incipient civil war," and
said the best chance for the U.S. to avoid anarchy was to turn over the
operation to the less inflammatory U.N. or NATO.

Mr. Scowcroft appeared at the New America Foundation with Zbigniew
Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, who declared the Iraq
war a moral, political and military failure. If we can't send 500,000
troops, spend $500 billion and agree to resume the draft, then the conflict
should be "terminated," he said, adding that far from the Jeffersonian
democracy Mr. Bush extols, the most we can hope for is a Shiite-controlled
theocracy.

The Iraqi election that was meant to be the solution to the problem ---
like the installation of a new Iraqi government and the transfer of
sovereignty and all the other steps that were supposed to make things
better --- may actually be making things worse. The election is going to
expand the control of the Shiite theocrats, even beyond what their numbers
would entitle them to have, because of the way the Bush team has set it up
and the danger that if you're a Sunni, the vote you cast may be your last.

It is a lesson never learned: Matters of state and the heart that start
with a lie rarely end well.

Mitsubishi Electric US Enters Photovoltaic Module Market

Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA Inc. has announced its entry into
the growing U.S. solar/photovoltaic (PV) or module market, with two
high-efficiency modules that contain no lead solder. The company will
initially focus on the southwestern United States through its network of
dealers and distributors, and expand to other regions in the months ahead.

- By Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA Inc.

A good student should be able to comment on this muck. The 'get
it while the going's good' marketing line is cute. Could we ever find out
how many copies actually sell of this dud?

I continue to compare the nookuluh enthusiasts favourably with
these twisters. The moral standards of the PR trade have become much more
widely tolerated lately, and I blame the GM-trade propagandists like Conko
& Miller to a large extent.

R

From: orders@artistotlesbooks.co.nz

I just heard from Greg Conko, who is co-author of the book The
Frankenfood Myth that he can arrange to ship Aristotle's Books copies of
this work. The book had been published by one of the US academic
publsihers. That meant that our wholesale price would have been atrocious.
I checked with our distributer and our retail price, if we purchased the
book from them, would have been $99.95 (actually it would have been $101.50
but we round down when we can).

Of course at that price no one would take it. And I'm told because of the
publisher's pricing none of the major book outlets are stocking the book.
We will be able to offer this book at $69.95. It's still a bit costly by
New Zealand standards (even by US standards) but it's a big improvement
over the publishers prices if we ordered from them. I will add some
information on the book below.

By the way the over-rated Amazon.com would sell the same book to someone
in New Zealand for aroud $79.95 with shipping. They would cost $10 more
and they don't have to share any GST with Nanny. Because the only way to
get this at a reasonable price is through the author it won't be easy to
reorder. It will take longer to arrive than normal as well. So it's
likely we will have a one time only offer on the book. I will get a couple
of spare copies for inventory but unless we have a strong demand it's
unlikely we will be restocking the title. If this is a book that you would
want it's best to tell me before I order so I can make sure we have enough
copies in stock. In fact if you preorder and prepay I'll give you a
discount making the total price $61.95. However if you purchase after the
books arrive the price will be $69.95.

Below you will find some basic information on the book followed by a book
review published in the Wall Street Journal. If you want a copy email
orders@artistotlesbooks.co.nz right away. Once I place the actual order
the special offer price will not be available and you will pay the full
price.

The Frankenfood Myth: How Protest and Politics Threaten the Biotech Revolution

By Henry I. Miller and Gregory Conko

September 20, 2004

Description®: Few topics have inspired as much international furor and
misinformation as the development and distribution of genetically altered
foods. For thousands of years, farmers have bred crops for their
resistance to disease, productivity, and nutritional value; and over the
past century, scientists have used increasingly more sophisticated methods
for modifying them at the genetic level. But only since the 1970s have
advances in biotechnology (or gene-splicing to be more precise) upped the
ante, with the promise of dramatically improved agricultural products--and
public resistance far out of synch with the potential risks.

In this provocative and meticulously researched book, Henry Miller and
Gregory Conko trace the origins of gene-splicing, its applications, and the
backlash from consumer groups and government agencies against so-called
"Frankenfoods"--from America to Zimbabwe. They explain how a "happy
conspiracy" of anti-technology activism, bureaucratic over-reach, and
business lobbying has resulted in a regulatory framework in which there is
an inverse relationship between the degree of product risk and degree of
regulatory scrutiny. The net result, they argue, is a combination of
public confusion, political manipulation, ill-conceived regulation (from
such agencies as the USDA, EPA, and FDA), and ultimately, the obstruction
of one of the safest and most promising technologies ever developed--with
profoundly negative consequences for the environment and starving people
around the world. The authors go on to suggest a way to emerge from this
morass, proposing a variety of business and policy reforms that can unlock
the potential of this cutting-edge science, while ensuring appropriate
safeguards and moving environmentally friendly products into the hands of
farmers and consumers. This book is guaranteed to fuel the ongoing debate
over the future of biotech and its cultural, economic, and political
implications.

Table of Contents:

Foreword by Norman E. Borlaug
Prologue by John H. Moore
Acknowledgments
A Brave New World of Biotechnology? More Like a Brave Old World!
Myths, Mistakes, Misconceptions, and Mendacity
Science, Common Sense, and Nonsense
Caution, Precaution, and the Precautionary Principle
The Vagaries of U.S. Regulation
Legal Liability Issues
The Vagaries of Foreign and International Regulation
European Resistance to Biotechnology
Climbing Out of the Quagmire
Notes
Index

LC Card Number: 2004048059
LCC Class: TP248
Dewey Class: 303

Endorsement From Nick Smith, (R-MI),
Chairman
House Science Subcommittee on Research:

Miller and Conko brilliantly expose the peril of allowing the precautionary
principle to drive risk analysis and policymaking. Their thorough and
articulate deconstruction of the precautionary principle should serve as a
guide to developing regulatory policy, not only for biotechnology, but for
any new idea or technology.

Endorsement From Paul D. Boyer,
Emeritus Professor
University of California, Los Angeles,
Co-Winner of the 1997 Nobel Prize in Chemistry:

Misguided public policies have seriously restricted research on, and
applications of, genetic engineering in agriculture. Miller and Conko
analyze why and how this has occurred. They point out the danger that the
present unwarranted regulatory oppression will become the norm, and they
make a strong case for drastic change in present policies. Their call for
policies based on realistic risk-benefit considerations needs to be heard
loudly by those responsible for the present fiasco.

Endorsement From Michael H. Mellon,
Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics
University of California, San Diego School of Medicine:

This volume simply eclipses anything else on the subject. Miller and Conko
offer a masterful exposé of the flaws in current public policy towards
biotechnology, a lucid discussion of the reasons for them, and innovative
proposals for essential reforms.

Endorsement From Penn Jillette:

Miller and Conko describe biotech's potential to both alleviate human
suffering and improve environmental stewardship, and they offer
science-based models for regulation. This book can help us fight the
short-sighted bureaucrats and emotion-driven activists. It's time for the
rest of us to do our part--read the book, fight the power, and feed the
people. The hard work is done; all we have left to do is get policy-makers
to do the right thing.

Book Review: The Frankenfood Myth

Wall Street Journal
by Eileen Norcross
December 24, 2004

Bookmarks (Book Review)
THE FRANKENFOOD MYTH
By Henry I. Miller and Gregory Conko
(Praeger, 290 pages, $39.95)

Imagine A Green Utopia: Overtilled land is returned to the forest.
Waterways are unmenaced by the runoff of pesticides, now rarely used.
Farmers are spared crop-killing frosts and insect plagues.

The Green Utopia is not a fiction. It arrived® in 1973 when Stanley Cohen
and Herbert Boyer spliced the DNA of one species of bacteria into another
and cultivated a new organism. With refinements, recombinant DNA
technology, or gene-splicing, has given us Genetically Modified Organisms
(GMOs) such as the slow-ripening tomato, vitamin A-enriched rice and
pest-resistant corn. And that is just a glimmer of its potential.

Yet gene-splicing is struggling to survive. The battle over its future is
the subject of "The Frankenfood Myth," by Henry I. Miller and Gregory
Conko. The authors show how foolish policies -- premised on junk science,
media sensationalism and the mixed motives of bureaucrats and corporations
-- are choking off a wonder-technology.

The word "frankenfood" owes a debt to Green activists, who warned early on
that gene-splicing would create a world where superweeds would choke
vegetation and monster tomatoes would sit in fields like ticking
time-bombs. All baselessly, for the verdict of science is clear:
Gene-splicing offers no new risks to man or his environment. Gene-swapping
between unrelated organisms happens often in nature, and conventional plant
breeding can move genes from one organism to another. Gene-splicing does
essentially what hybridization does, but with more precision,
predictability and possibility.

Still, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Agriculture Department
require that biotech companies perform thousands of field experiments and
thousands of hours of data-analysis before marketing their products. The
companies have acceded meekly to such regulatory overkill, hoping that it
will lessen public fear and thwart startup competition. Instead, it has
increased research-and-development costs, diminished the interest of
venture capital and stalled a revolution.

The U.S. biotech industry, once poised to transform agriculture, today
merely putters along in staple crops such as soybeans, canola and corn. It
has not spread to "small market" fruits and vegetables because costly
regulatory requirements outweigh commercial gain.

The state of biotech in Europe is even worse, as Messrs. Miller and Conko
remind us. The European Union lifted its ban on gene-splicing only earlier
this year, replacing it with a "traceability" rule that requires companies
to track all product-ingredients that have gene-spliced origins, however
intricately combined they may be. The label on a bottle of ketchup alone
could run to Gibbon-like lengths.

The trials of the new biotech are a travesty against reason, but not a
human tragedy, at least in the West, where no one will starve if he is
denied cheaper, vitamin-enriched foods. Elsewhere, though, the costs are
high. In 2002, for instance, during the height of a famine, the Zambian and
Zimbabwean governments rejected food aid in the form of gene-spliced corn,
contending that, as the authors put it, "they would rather starve to death
than get something toxic." But of course there was nothing toxic in what
they were being offered.

Such irrational fear need not carry the day. Messrs. Miller and Conko
urge those who know the truth about gene-splicing to tell it -- forcefully.
As for business, it might take note, for once, that appeasement does not
stop fanatics. It only encourages them.

>> I am trying to find out if genetically engineered
>> foods have been shipped
>> to (dumped in) South Asia for victims of the
>> Tsunami. Anyone know the
>> answer, or whom I can contact to find out?

The USA stockpile of boycotted GM-corn, rejected by Europe, was to
a considerable extent dumped on hungry African nations. One in particular
refused to take the muck.

A most suspicious aspect of this sordid caper was the adamant
refusal of the USA "aid" system to arrange that the GM grain be milled
before distributed. Dominated functionally by its own PR, the GM trade is
hell-bent on spreading GMOs or their unpredictable but living derivatives
over the planet so that they can finally jeer "resistance is useless".
In that African case they were evidently hoping some people would not be so
hungry that they would eat all the GM-grain but would plant some.

You can safely assume GM "food" is being slipped into the aid
system for the tsunami victims. You can also, with lesser confidence,
assume that money given by unsuspecting folk will be misdirected to pay for
it. After the UNO-Iraq 'food for oil' corruption, nothing would surprise
me in this direction.

R

http://www.monthlyreview.org/1204himmelstein.htm

Mayhem in the Medical Marketplace

by David U. Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler

David U. Himmelstein and
Steffie Woolhandler
practice [sic] and teach medicine in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

They cofounded Physicians for
a National Health Program.

Even in the United States, some aspects of life are too precious,
intimate or corruptible to entrust to the market. We prohibit selling
kidneys and buying wives, judges, and children.

How far should such prohibitions extend? In recent years entrepreneurs
and their friends in government have privatized many publicly-funded
services previously provided by government or nonprofit agencies -
including interrogating Iraqi prisoners.

Even in liberal Cambridge, our school superintendent proposes enlisting a
for-profit firm to set up a new "public" high school.

Health care epitomizes this trend. Tax dollars account for 60 percent of
U.S. health spending (counting as government spending not just Medicare,
Medicaid, and Veterans Administration hospitals, but also the costs of
health benefits for public workers and the tax subsidies for private
coverage). (Indeed, on a per capita basis, public funding for health care
in the United States exceeds total health spending in nations with
national health insurance.) Yet investor-owned firms have come to dominate
kidney dialysis, nursing homes, psychiatric hospitals, rehabilitation
facilities, and HMOs.

They have made significant inroads among acute care hospitals (they own
about 13 percent of such facilities), as well as outpatient surgical
centers, home care agencies, and even hospices.

Market theorists argue that the profit motive optimizes care and minimizes
costs. But a growing body of evidence indicates that this dogma has no
clothes.

The latest studies-published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal
and the Journal of the American Medical Association-come from a highly
respected group of Canadian researchers. They painstakingly culled every
study ever published that compares the costs and outcomes of care at
for-profit and nonprofit hospitals and dialysis clinics. To avoid bias in
selecting studies, a librarian blacked out all indication of whether the
study showed an advantage for nonprofit or for-profit. The researchers
then used sophisticated statistical methods to combine all of the data
(which all came from studies of U.S. facilities).

Their meticulous analyses demonstrate markedly higher costs and death rates
in investor-owned hospitals than in nonprofit ones, and poor outcomes in
investor-owned kidney dialysis clinics. The excess cost of for-profit care
is substantial - 19 percent - implying that the $37.348 billion Americans
paid for care at investor-owned acute care hospitals in 2001 would have
cost only $31.385 billion at nonprofits; the waste amounted to $5.963
billion.

The waste in lives is more shocking; 2047 unnecessary deaths annually
caused by for-profit ownership of hospitals, and 2500 killed each year by
for-profit ownership of kidney dialysis centers.

It is easy to see why the profit motive might lead to skimpier care and
lower quality. But why does investor ownership increase costs?

Investor-owned hospitals are profit maximizers, not cost minimizers.
Strategies that bolster profitability often worsen efficiency and drive up
costs. Columbia/HCA-the largest hospital firm-used several tricks to
inflate its Medicare billings: exaggerating the severity of diagnoses;
falsifying expense ledgers that form the basis of Medicare payment; and
bouncing patients from its acute care hospitals to its convalescent
hospitals and home care agencies, allowing it to bill multiple times for a
single episode of illness. After paying fines and settlements totaling
$1.7 billion, the firm continued merrily-and profitably-on its way. Tenet,
the second largest hospital firm paid nearly $700 million to settle charges
that it gave kickbacks for referrals and inappropriately detained
psychiatric patients in order to fill beds during the 1980s, when the firm
was known as NME. Tenet is back in the news for another round of alleged
misdeeds, including performing hundreds of unnecessary, but lucrative
cardiac procedures.

For-profit executives reap princely rewards, draining money from care.
When Columbia/HCA's CEO resigned in the face of fraud investigations he
left with a $10 million severance package and $324 million in company
stock. Tenet's CEO exercised stock options worth $111 million shortly
before being forced out in 2003. The head of HealthSouth (the dominant
provider of rehabilitation care) made $112 million in 2002, the year before
his indictment for fraud.

Enormous CEO incomes explain part, but not all of the high administrative
costs at investor-owned health care firms. Investor-owned hospitals spend
much less on nursing care than nonprofit hospitals, but their
administrative costs are six percentage points higher-reflecting their more
meticulous attention to financial details.

High administrative costs and lower quality have also characterized
for-profit HMOs. Now the dominant private insurers in the United States,
such HMOs take 19 percent for overhead, versus 13 percent in nonprofit
plans, 3 percent in the U.S. Medicare program, and 1 percent in the
Canadian national health insurance program. Not surprisingly, contracting
with private HMOs has inflated Medicare costs. According to the
Congressional Budget Office, Medicare HMOs have selectively recruited
healthy seniors who, had they stayed in traditional Medicare, would have
cost Medicare little-about $2 billion less annually than Medicare paid the
HMOs in premiums. Private plans that were unable to recruit the healthy
dropped out of their Medicare contracts, disrupting care for millions of
seniors. The Republicans' response was to sweeten the pot for HMOs by
including $46 billion to raise HMO payments as part of the
recently-enacted Medicare prescription drug bill.

Why do for-profit firms that offer inferior products at inflated prices
survive in the market? Several prerequisites for the competitive free
market described in textbooks are absent in health care.

First, it is absurd to think that vulnerable users of public services
such as frail elders and the seriously ill who consume most care can act as
informed consumers. They are usually unable to. They cannot
comparison-shop, reduce demand when suppliers raise prices, or accurately
appraise quality. Even lucid, educated patients may have difficulty
gauging whether a hospital's luxurious appurtenances bespeak good care.

Second, the "products" of complex services like health care are
notoriously difficult to evaluate, even for sophisticated buyers. Doctors
and hospitals create the data used to monitor them; when used as the basis
for financial reward such data has the accuracy of a tax return. By
labeling minor chest discomfort "angina" rather than "chest pain" a U.S.
hospital can raise its Medicare payment rate by 9.2 percent and
factitiously improve its angina outcomes. Exploiting such loopholes has
proven more profitable than improving efficiency or quality.

Even for honest firms, careful selection of lucrative patients and
services is the key to success, while meeting community needs often
threatens profitability. For example, for-profit specialty hospitals
offering only cardiac or orthopedic care (money makers under current
payment schemes) have blossomed across the United States. Most of these
new hospitals duplicate services available at nearby nonprofit general
hospitals, but the newcomers avoid money losing programs such as geriatric
care and emergency departments (a common entry point for uninsured
patients). The profits accrue to the investors, the losses to the
nonprofit hospitals, and the total costs to society rise through the
unnecessary duplication of expensive facilities.

Finally, a real market would require multiple independent buyers and
sellers, with free entry into the marketplace. Yet, many hospitals exercise
virtual monopolies. A town's only hospital cannot compete with itself, but
can use its market power to inflate its earnings. Not surprisingly,
for-profit hospital firms in the United States have concentrated their
purchases in areas where they can gain a large share of the local market.
Moreover, many health care providers and suppliers enjoy state-conferred
monopolies in the form of licensure laws for physicians and hospitals, and
patent protection for drugs (the pharmaceutical industry provides a virtual
encyclopedia of market failure in U.S. health care, but we'll leave that
for another day). Moreover, it's an odd market that relies largely on
public funds.

Privatization results in a large net loss to society in terms of higher
costs and lower quality, but some stand to gain. Privatization creates vast
profit opportunities for powerful firms and investors. The Frist family,
whose scion Bill leads Republicans in the U.S. Senate, amassed its vast
fortune from Columbia/HCA's hospitals. H Ross Perot made his money selling
computing services to Medicare. And each bump in Medicare payments to HMOs
has driven HMO stock prices skyward.

Privatization also redistributes income among health workers. Pay scales
are relatively flat in government and nonprofit health institutions; pay
differences between the CEO and a housekeeper are perhaps 20:1. In U.S.
corporations, a ratio of 180:1 is average. In effect, privatization takes
money from the pockets of low wage, mostly female and often minority
health workers and gives it to investors and highly paid managers.

Behind false claims of efficiency lies a much uglier truth.
Investor-owned health care embodies a new value system that eradicates any
vestige of the community roots and samaritan traditions of hospitals, makes
doctors and nurses into instruments of investors, and views patients as
commodities.

The inroads of the market have stimulated a new surge of support for
national health insurance (NHI). Recently, 13,000 doctors have signed an
NHI proposal (which appeared in the Journal of the American Medical
Association) that would ban for-profit insurers and hospitals, echoing the
sentiment of the 62 percent of Americans who favor NHI (according to an
October, 2003 Washington Post/ABC News poll).

But market fundamentalists continue to peddle privatization as a panacea
for health care and America's other problems. They assure us that Aetna
and Columbia/HCA will solve our health care woes, just as Edison will save
our failing public schools, Enron will cut electricity rates in California,
and Halliburton and Blackwater will rescue us in Iraq.

From: Carmelo Ruiz
Subject: Biotechnology and the eco-politics of corn in Mexico

Biotechnology and the eco-politics of corn in Mexico

Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero

Genetically engineered corn has invaded Mexico. There
is no denying it. It came from the United States
(where else?) and is now proliferating agressively,
contaminating local varieties. This is no mere
academic matter or scientific curiosity. The
consequences of the genetic contamination of corn in
its place of origin for the ecology, agricultural
biodiversity and food security not only of Mexico but
the whole world, remain unknown although potentially
catastrophic.

Equally worrisome are the effects it might have on the
livelihoods of the native peoples of Mesoamerica and
their ability to resist forceful integration into the
corporate-controlled global economy. It is but the
latest chapter in a 500 year-old saga of invasion and
resistance. As we'll see, the GE corn debacle in
Mexico is inseparable from the broader drama of the
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the
proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), the
ambitious designs of life sciences corporations that
aim to colonize th food chain, and the whole
globalization project.

The latest archaeological evidence shows that corn was
first discovered and domesticated in the Mexican state
of Oaxaca around 10,000 years ago. Corn, or maize as
it is also known, is regarded as the greatest
agronomic achievement of the human race. Little did
the Spanish conquerors know that the corn samples they
brought to Europe were a bigger treasure than all the
silver and gold bullion from the Americas. Those veins
and mountains of gold and silver were sacked and
looted and are no more. But corn today feeds people
all over the world and is grown in places as far away
as Africa and China.

The most impressive part of the plant, the cob, is
actually a monstruous deformity which sets it apart
from its wild relatives and prevents it from
reproducing on its own. The cobs of corn's wild
ancestors were no more than two centimeters long and
thus provided a meager diet at best. But after
millenia of careful and patient breeding and
experimentation by pre-Columbian peoples in
Mesoamerica, the cobs became as large and generous as
they are today.

As a result of this transformation, corn can no longer
reproduce without human help. The leafy husk has to be
removed from the cob, then the cob must be sun-dried,
its grains scraped off and planted. No bee, bird or
butterfly will do this. Only the toil and patience of
human beings makes the existence and viability of corn
possible. If there are no people, there is no corn.
And the native peoples of Mexico believe that the
inverse is also true.

Corn is at the heart of native cultures in the
Americas. It provides wholesome nutrition, represents
economic self-reliance, and is the backbone of
indigenous resistance against oppression. Most
importantly, it occupies a central place in native
spirituality and interaction with the non-physicial
world.

Southern Mexico is one of the Earth's eight Vavilov
centers. Named in honor of a courageous globe-trotting
seed collector, these centers are geographical
locations that are gifted in agricultural
biodiversity. In the course of his expeditions Soviet
geographer Nikolai Vavilov observed that this
diversity is not evenly distributed but rather
concentrated in eight discernible centers of
megadiversity one of which is southern Mexico, cradle
of corn.

Vavilov centers are crucial for world food security
since they contain the reserves of biodiversity needed
to maintain a viable agriculture. In order to develop
new varieties of corn or to revitalize existing ones
or to deal with new pests, it is absolutely necessary
to have access to the thousands of Mexican varieties.
This is why CIMMYT, the world's leading research
center for corn, is based in Mexico. Mexican corn
exists and thrives in a delicate web of extremely
complex human and natural relationships in the rural
highlands- a web that no scientific laboratory,
government bureaucracy or agribusiness corporation
could ever come close to emulating. Any social or
ecological disruption in southern Mexico can thus have
momentous consequences for the viability of corn and
the future of agriculture worldwide. And social and
ecological disruption is precisely what is happening
there today.

The NAFTA connection

In the NAFTA negotiations in the early 1990's the US
forced two concessions from Mexico which were to have
nefarious consequences for native and rural peoples
there. First, Mexico changed its constitution to end
the inalienable character of the ejidos, communally
owned lands that could not be bought, sold or parceled
out. The 28,000 ejidos, which covered 95 million
hectares, have not disappeared altogether, but one by
one they are being subdivided or sold out thanks to
the "liberties" of the free market. They are being
increasingly replaced by cattle ranches, massive
logging operations, agribusiness monocultures, tree
plantations that will provide paper pulp of serve as
carbon sinks, tourist resorts, hydroelectric dams,
highways and industrial corridors for the Plan Puebla
Panama, and elite nature reserves for ecotourism and
bioprospection.

Second, Mexico was forced to practically eliminate
tariffs, import quotas and direct payments to its
farmers. As a result, Mexico became a net importer of
corn, absorbing the US's massive surplus. Mexico's
corn imports from the USA ballooned between 1994 and
2002 from 2.2 million tons annually to 6 million.
Mexico is now the US's second corn market, buying 11%
of its exports in 2000. Now this country lives the
ignominy of seeing its children eating tortillas made
from imported corn.

American corn sells cheaper because of dumping, term
that describes the act of selling a product below its
cost of production. The United States, contradicting
its discourse of free trade and free competition,
subsidizes its agricultural exports to the tune of
hundreds of millions of dollars A DAY.

The effect on Mexico's agriculture and countryside has
been devastating. Millers, processors, retailers and
restaurants prefer to buy American corn, which
although of lesser quality is cheaper than local
maize. Mexican peasants, with their traditional and
criollo maize, although of superior quality, simply
cannot compete. As maize cultivation becomes an
economically impractical proposition, the peasants
abandon the land to migrate to Mexico City or to the
United States, or to work in the maquiladoras.
Countless strains and varieties of maize head then to
extinction. Consumers don't win either. Between 1994
and 2003 the price of tortillas quadrupled.

Genetic contamination

That's the social disruption. Now comes the ecological
disruption in the form of genetically engineered corn.
GE crops have been grown commercially in the US since
1996, and are mostly corn and soy. The American GE
corn, which now constitutes over 30% of the national
crop, has been genetically engineered to kill insects
and is known as Bt.

(Here is a previous article of mine on this particular
matter in Corporate Watch:
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=208

Are Bt corn and other biotech foods even safe to eat?
The US government and the life sciences industry
assure us that they are proven to be safe. But that's
not what some scientists and environmentalists are
saying.

"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not
regulate GE foods", stated the environmental group
Friends of the Earth USA (FoE USA) in a report issued
in 2003. Instead, says the report, the FDA has a
'voluntary consultation' process that allows
biotechnology companies to decide which, if any,
safety tests to conduct and how they will be
performed. "The company determines which data, if any,
are shared with regulators. In fact, the company even
determines whether it will consult with the FDA at
all."

Other groups, like the UK-based Institute of Science
in Society and the US-based Critical Genetics Project,
claim that the scientific assumptions behind genetic
engineering are plain wrong and obsolete and therefore
the technology is inherently dangerous and
unpredictable.

Is GE corn environmentally safe? Studies from Cornell
and Iowa State universities in the late 1990's
demonstrate that pollen from insecticidal Bt corn can
be deadly to monarch butterfly larvae. Such findings
really should not have surprised anyone, since the Bt
toxin was meant precisely to kill insects, but
nonetheless the biotech industry deployed considerable
resources in trying to discredit the studies. However,
the Cornell and Iowa State U. studies' central
finding, that Bt corn is bad for monarch butterflies,
was never in dispute. Why were the studies done after
millions of hectares had been planted with GE crops,
and not before, as prudency would have required? And,
does Bt corn harm other pollinators or affect soil
biochemistry? We don't know. We are all, human and
non-human alike, guinea pigs in one big planetary
experiment.

One of the main concerns of opponents of GE crops is
genetic contamination, uncontrolled proliferation
through pollination, inventory errors or other means.
Such fears are well founded. In 2000, over 300 US
supermarket products were found to be tainted with
Starlink, a variety of Bt corn that the FDA had deemed
unfit for human consumption. Some 140 million bushels
were contaminated, food processors and grain traders
spent around $1 billion in a six month period trying
to locate it and get rid of it, and even today traces
of Starlink keep showing up occasionally in American
corn exports.

In the late 1990's Mexican scientists and groups like
Greenpeace Mexico expressed concern that GE corn,
including Starlink, could be arriving from the US and
that inevitably someone would use it as seed, setting
off a process of genetic contamination. The government
responded in 1998 by imposing a moratorium on the
planting of GE crops. But the measure was never
enforced and corn imports countinued with no control.
The citizenry was never informed that the grain was
not to be used as seed. In 1999 the government formed
an interagency committee called CIBIOGEM to look into
the matter of GE corn imports. To this day this body
has done nothing, according to civil society groups.

Then in 2001 University of California researchers
Ignacio Chapela and David Quist made a startling yet
entirely predictable announcement in Nature magazine:
they discovered Bt corn in rural Oaxaca. It had indeed
been used as seed by peasants who had no idea what it
was.

"The pollution was no chance act, but a well
thought-out and conscious strategy which simply took a
little while to play itself out", accused Genetic
Resources Action International (GRAIN), a
Barcelona-based organization that opposes GE crops.

"None could deny that the natural course of any seed
is inevitably to spread. That is what makes a seed a
seed. Nor could anyone deny that maize is naturally an
open pollinator. Any farmer knows that. Put a
genetically-modified maize variety into a highly
diverse, maize-intensive small-farmer area and it will
be just a matter of time for the new variety to join
the pool and for contamination to occur."

The contamination of maize in Mexico affects us all,
according to GRAIN. "It hits first of all the Mexican
and Meso-American peoples for whom maize is a staple
food, a key factor in their economies and an essential
part of their spirituality. It affects all the Latin
American peoples who have adopted, cared for and given
form to their own varieties of maize, many of whom
have also incorporated maize into their spiritual
lives. It affects all those who still grow crops with
care and affection, because if maize was polluted on
purpose, this will certainly happen to other crops as
well. And finally, it affects us all as witnesses of a
process whose consequences we can barely imagine. As
humanity, we see how a small group of people moved by
arrogance and driven by profit, with the support of
various forms of power, are shamelessly playing God."

Compounding the possible dangers from the uncontrolled
spread of Bt corn is the advent of biopharmaceutical
(or pharm) crops, GE plants designed not to provide
food but to make pharmaceutical and industrial
chemicals in their tissues.

(Check out my article on pharm crops in Corporate
Watch: http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=222

Mistakes with pharm crops have happened already. In
the Fall of 2002, 500,000 bushels of soybeans in the
Aurora Farm Co-op in Nebraska were contaminated with
biopharmaceutical corn. One of the co-op's members had
planted an experimental test crop of biopharmaceutical
corn the previous year, and in the following year
planted soybeans for human consumption in the same
field.

During a routine on-site inspection, USDA personnel
found the pharm crop from the previous year growing
among the soy plants. By the time the discovery was
made, the farmer's contaminated soy was already in the
co-op, mixed with other farmers' soy. Fortunately, the
tainted product was stopped before ending up on our
dinner tables.

Silvia Ribeiro, of the non-governmental ETC Group, has
noted with concern that the California-based Epicyte
corporation boasts a spermicidal corn for use as a
contraceptive. "The potential of spermicidal corn as a
biological weapon is very high", she warned in a
column in the Mexican daily La Jornada, and reminisced
about the use of forced sterilizations against
indigenous peoples.

Instead of being praised, Chapela and Quist were
hounded, ridiculed and slandered by the biotech
industry, with the full support and collaboration of
prominent members of the scientific community. First
came the hair-splitting methodological critiques which
distracted attention from the actual findings. Then
came the slanderous anonymous e-mails, which started
in the pro-biotech AgBioWorld list server. The
messages, signed by Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek,
smeared Chapela and Quist, questioning their
credibility, motivations and ethics and alleging that
they have an eco-extremist anti-science agenda. Murphy
and Smetacek turned out not to exist at all. Their
messages were found to originate in the computers of
biotech corporate giant Monsanto and the Bivings
Group, a public relations firm that works for the life
sciences industry.

The smear worked. Reporters and editors began to
believe that Chapela and Quist had been "discredited"
and even voiced doubt as to whether there was any GE
corn growing in Mexico at all. Nature magazine came
under withering and prolonged attack by pro-biotech
sectors and finally gave in, issuing a retraction of
the Chapela-Quist report. In its 100+ year history it
had never retracted a paper without the approval of
its authors. The biotech industry was euphoric. It
made thousands of copies of the Nature retraction and
rubbed them in the faces of all reporters and
government officials worldwide who expressed concern
about GE crops.

Sabotaging biosafety

Meanwhile, Mexico's government, led now by neoliberal
president Vicente Fox, was up to mischief. Late in
2003 VÌctor Villalobos, CIBIOGEM's executive secretary
and the Agriculture Ministry's coordinator of
international affairs, signed behind the backs of the
Senate and the citizenry an international agreement
within the framework of NAFTA that grants GE grain
legal entry to Mexico.

What purpose could such an agreement possibly serve,
given that millions of tons of GE corn were already
entering Mexico every year, unlabeled and unsegregated
from the conventional corn? In fact, these
uncontrolled imports were already making the 1998 GE
moratorium completely useless. The agreement signed by
Villalobos is oriented toward the future, not the
present. It effectively preempts and second-guesses
any future attempt to make Mexico into a GE-free zone.
Should a future Mexican government try to ban the
import of GE grain it will find itself impeded from
doing so by Villalobos' prior agreement with the USA.

In February 2004 the seventh meeting of the
Biodiversity Convention took place in Malaysia,
followed immediately by the first Cartagena Protocol
meeting, also in Malaysia. The Protocol, which came
into effect in September of 2003, is an international
agreement that aims to address the possible risks of
GE crops. In the Cartagena Protocol meeting the
delegations of signatory countries, after great
difficulties and intense negotiations, overcame the
pressures of biotech corporations and reached an
agreement which would have required the labeling of
all internationally traded GE products. But the
agreement came to nothing, thanks to the Mexican
government.

Just before the agreement's signing the chief of the
Mexican delegation, none other than Victor Villalobos,
said he found the text unacceptable. Even the members
of the Mexican delegation looked at him dumbfounded
and open-mouthed. Since the Protocol works by
consensus, Villalobos was able to tear down the
hard-won progress that had been achieved, and thus the
delegations had to return to their home countries with
a diluted and emasculated agreement, which leaves the
matter of labeling in the hands of the Protocol's
signatory governments. If each country is going to do
whatever it pleases, then what's an international
agreement for?, some observers asked themselves.

A most interesting confrontation

During a research trip to Mexico on March 2004, I
attended a forum in Oaxaca City titled "Defending our
Maize, Protecting Life", organized by indigenous and
environmental groups and progressive intellectuals
from all over Mexico. Participants discussed not only
the threat of GE seeds, but also the evils of
industrialized agriculture and the neoliberal free
trade regime.

(Read my Oaxaca travelogue in Grist Magazine:
http://www.grist.org/comments/dispatches/2004/03/10/mexico/)

The activity served also as an alternative
counter-forum to a scientific sumposium on GE corn
that was taking place the following day right in the
city, in the posh and luxurious Hotel Victoria. The
organizers felt that the symposium would be generally
favorable to the biotechnology industry and its
genetically modified organisms (GMO's). They feared
that the experts might declare that the genetic
contamination of maize is a consumate and irreversible
fact and that from now on Mexicans will just have to
get used to "livin' la vida GMO".

At the forum there was a general consensus in the
speakers' presentations, educational literature handed
out and in informal conversations among attendees that
the GM corn invasion is a continuation of the
industrialized, centralized monoculture model of
agriculture of the so-called "green revolution",
imposed by the Mexican and US governments in the cold
war. Nobody in the forum disputed the assertion that
the "green revolution" brought nothing to the Mexican
contryside but economic desolation, new forms of
dependency, poisoning of the environment and people by
toxic agrochemicals, and an erosion of diversity, both
cultural and biological.

Participants were particularly outraged at Villalobos'
actions in Malaysia the previous month. They
subscribed a declaration against him, demanding his
resignation. "We are ashamed to learn that Mexico is
currently being accused in international fora of doing
the dirty work of transnational corporations to the
detriment of other countries", read the declaration.
"Villalobos does not represent the feelings or
interests of Mexicans."

They also repudiated the "unendurable corruption" of
government officials that promote GE crops and foods
in a forceful manner. "We are not interested in
knowing if they receive money from transnational
corporations or not, if they do it out of a mercenary
interest or out of ignorance or irresponsibility. We
are not policemen. But we do not need any further
inquiry to state with no reservations that they do not
represent us and that they're not capable of
understanding our realities and aspirations, much less
defend them."

The forum issued a statement on GE corn. "The great
liars of the market or the state sometimes appear
among us disguised as researchers of new technologies
or specialists in crop improvement. We do not reject
experimentation. We have practiced it for thousands of
years. We are interested in change, but not of the
kind that leads to forms of cultivation that destroy
instead of conserving."

"We have listened patiently to to scientists who
defend (GE crops). But we have gotten tired (of
listening). The gravest risks of using GE crops are in
the long term. Not enough time has passed. Therefore
there are no long term studies. Everything they say
now is pure speculation. Besides, they manipulate
information and have used arguments that are false or
insensate."

The participants went the next day to the scientific
symposium to present their viewpoints and concerns to
the scientists and bureaucrats. It was a colorful
encounter, to say the least. Peasants, Greenpeace
militants, leaders of indigenous peoples'
organizations, progressive academicians and
intellectuals, facing a mostly white, male-dominated
group of panelists and experts. The conference room
became a Tower Babel. The scientists, bureaucrats and
journalists, who spoke English, Spanish or French,
were now joined by indigenous people speaking Mixtec,
Zapotec, Chinantec or any of the dozens of
pre-Columbian languages that are spoken in the region.

The differences between both parts went far beyond the
linguistic barrier. It was a clash between totally
distinct and incompatible modes of thinking and
worldviews. The panel members spoke in highly
technical language and each one confined to a
particular specialty. They pretended to discuss
separately the ethical, technical, environmental and
economic aspects. Far from openly advocating GE crops
and raging against those who would oppose their use,
they were at pains to appear neutral and objective. It
was as if they did not want to appear to be taking
sides or to have a personal opinion either in favor or
against GMO's.

But for the indigenous people and their allies, all
the objectivity, neutrality and highly technical talk
was nothing but a faÁade. When the microphones were
opened to comments from the audience they spoke of the
millenial indigenous view of the cosmos, spirituality,
culture, inalienable moral principles and duties,
colonialism, neoliberalism, sovereignty and struggle.
They put forth questions about the risks of GMO's and
about industrialized agriculture and the power of
agribusiness transnational corporations.

There were moments of tension and confrontation, like
when an intervention by a spokesman of the Popular
Indigenous Council of Oaxaca was cut short by the
moderator, citing time constraints. A woman from the
organization spoke up defiantly, "Excuse you, because
I am in my country. Excuse you, because we do not have
money and you people have enough of it to be here in
the most expensive hotel in Oaxaca. You cannot tell us
how much time we have."

"If the other companions need to speak then let them
take their time, because we are here to say that we do
not agree with GMO's. None of you can tell us when to
speak and when to be quiet. Such is the mandate that
my people gave me." Her intervention was followed by
thunderous applause.

Indigenous peoples and civil society organizations in
Mexico, with the support of NGO allies from all over
the world, are undertaking to track the genetic
contamination of their corn and devise some kind of
mechanism to effectively identify and isolate the
contaminated plants. However, the effort is not simply
technical and scientific. It isn't just about
eliminating GE corn. It aims to work with the broader
movement against neoliberalism to address and fight
the economic forces and vested interests that are
attacking not just corn but the livelihoods of native
peoples and the social fabric of rural life in Mexico.
It stands in opposition to NAFTA and to corporate
control over life.

"We solicit the solidarity and support of those who
carry out struggles similar to ours in other parts of
Mexico and the world, so that GE-free territories are
expanded", said the declaration.

=====
Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero
Director, Proyecto de Bioseguridad http://www.bioseguridad.blogspot.com
Research Associate, Institute for Social Ecology http://www.social-ecology.org/
Senior Fellow, Environmental Leadership Program http://www.elpnet.org/

http://carmeloruiz.blogspot.com

Displays of the Indochina war on TV are commonly said to have
helped stop the war. I've never been quite sure about that. Anyhow, here
it is up to date ...

R

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/
01/10/MNGC8ANTGD1.DTL

San Francisco Chronicle
Soldiers download war onto Web sites
Postings range from family communication to graphic battle images

Patrick Hoge, Chronicle Staff Writer

Monday, January 10, 2005

During the November assault on Fallujah, tank platoon leader 1st Lt.
Neil Prakash watched in awe as heavy U.S. artillery blew Iraqi fighters
into the air.

"Each explosion sent three, four or five terrorists up into the sky.
K-k- r-r-BOOM. K-k-r-r-BOOM. K-k-r-r-BOOM,'' Prakash wrote in his
multimedia online diary, titled "Armor Geddon.'' "You never expect to
see bodies do that. So when you see it, it feels surreal.''

Prakash's unvarnished account on the Blogger Web site, which includes
photographs of tanks and flares lighting up a night battle, highlights
the sophisticated torrent of digital data that U.S. soldiers in Iraq
are sending home via e-mail or posting on Internet hosting sites,
including at least two in the Bay Area.

The visual displays have aroused debate over whether some of the images
should be displayed publicly. The photographs range from
travelogue-style shots showing soldiers posing in front of military
equipment to graphic videos of mortal combat that have not been
broadcast on mainstream television or printed in newspapers.

About 100,000 photos taken in Iraq have been posted in the past two
years at Smugmug.com, based in Mountain View, said Chris MacAskill,
founder of the free photo file-sharing site. Many of the images have
been downloaded from the front lines while others have been brought to
the states and uploaded here, he said.

It has never been easier for soldiers to communicate with friends,
family and the public in such an unmediated fashion. They can buy
digital cameras at base stores, use free Internet service that the
military provides them or sign on at cyber cafes in Iraq.

Prakash, 24, of Syracuse, N.Y., said in an e-mail from Iraq that his
posts on Blogger, which is owned by Google of Mountain View, are a
personal journal but also depict the reality of war to those who "have
no idea what this stuff is like." His site is
avengerredsix.blogspot.com/

Smugmug user Christi Norman, who lives in Washington state, marveled at
the instantaneous communication she has carried on with her fiance, who
is stationed in Iraq.

"One of the pictures he took while we were talking via IM (instant
messaging) and I was able to see it immediately,'' she said via e-mail.
"It's just a nice way to remember and feel close to a loved one far
away.''

Some soldiers use the photographs to show the troops in a positive
light, posing with Iraqi children.

"I felt the need to show some of the good things and the day-to-day
activities we were accomplishing as soldiers in Iraq,'' said Sgt. Billy
Sutherland, who uses Smugmug. "In the press they wrote daily on death,
destruction and mayhem, but seldom about good things.''

But the profusion of unfiltered information, particularly photographs,
has also produced some uncomfortable situations for the U.S. military,
notably the Abu Ghraib scandal that erupted after photographs of
prisoner abuses were leaked to news reporters.

Last month, photos that were uploaded to Smugmug by the wife of a Navy
SEAL produced a new firestorm after they were discovered by an
Associated Press reporter, whose coverage suggested they could depict
another example of prisoner abuse.

"Here's a case of someone who clearly didn't intend for her photos to
be discovered and used as they were,'' MacAskill said.

The Navy has said it is investigating the circumstances around the
taking of the photos, which the wife had thought were protected from
public view. Six Navy SEALs have sued the AP for reproducing the images
without obscuring their faces.

A Pentagon spokesman said information about "military matters, national
security issues or subjects of significant concern to the Department of
Defense shall be reviewed for clearance by appropriate security review
and public affairs offices prior to release.'' But a Defense Department
spokeswoman said the military does not conduct prior review of
information that soldiers send out of Iraq via the Internet.

"You can't control information now. It's just out there, directly from
troops,'' said Chris Michel, chief executive officer of Military.com, a
free Web site aimed at providing information and news about the
military.

Michel's company receives many unsolicited e-mails, photographs and
videos from the front lines, such as an ambush on a convoy or a
troop's-eye view of the combat in Fallujah, with profanity-laced
dialogue between soldiers and lots of shooting.

A video posted Dec. 9 shows an Iraqi man firing an automatic weapon and
being blown up by a tank round. It was provided by a soldier who did
not give details about the incident.

"This stuff is really getting around,'' said Ho Lin, site editor of
Military.com, who has declined to publish images such as video of a
helicopter shooting a wounded Iraqi, or heads "split open like melons''
from artillery.

One high-ranking general asked Michel to remove photographs of the
capture of Saddam Hussein that a soldier secretly sent to a
Military.com columnist. The company refused, and Michel said that was
the last he heard of it.

The military has cracked down at times, as it apparently did late last
month in the case of a military doctor who had chronicled the bloody
aftermath of the suicide bombing of a mess tent. Maj. Michael Cohen, a
doctor with the 67th Combat Support Hospital unit, wrote that he'd been
ordered by "levels above me'' to shut down his Web site. Military
officials declined to comment.

"I certainly disagree with this,'' Cohen wrote. "However, I have made a
decision to turn off the site pending further investigation as to
whether or not I have violated these Army Regulations.''

E-mail Patrick Hoge at phoge@sfchronicle.com.

Page A - 1

January 11, 2005
PERSONAL HEALTH
Facing Biotech Foods Without the Fear Factor
By JANE E. BRODY

Almost everywhere food is sold these days, you are likely to find products
claiming to contain no genetically modified substances. But unless you are
buying wild mushrooms, game, berries or fish, that statement is untrue.
Nearly every food we eat has been genetically modified, through centuries
of crosses, both within and between species, and for most of the last
century through mutations induced by bombarding seeds with chemicals or
radiation. In each of these techniques, dozens, hundreds, even thousands
of genes of unknown function are transferred or modified to produce new
food varieties.

Most so-called organic foods are no exception. The claims of no genetic
modification really refer to foods that contain no ingredients that are
produced through the highly refined technique of gene splicing, in which
one or a few genes are transferred to an organism. But alarmist warnings
about the possible hazards of gene splicing have made the public extremely
wary of this selective form of genetic modification.

Such warnings have so far been groundless. "Americans have consumed more
than a trillion servings of foods that contain gene-spliced ingredients,"
said Dr. Henry I. Miller, a fellow at the Hoover Institution and author,
with Gregory Conko, of "The Frankenfood Myth," a new book that questions
the wisdom of current gene-splicing regulations.

"There hasn't been a single untoward event documented, not a single
ecosystem disrupted or person made ill from these foods," he said in an
interview. "That is not something that can be said about conventional
foods, where imprecise methods of genetic modification actually have caused
illnesses and deaths."

Ignorance vs. Progress

It is no secret that the public's understanding of science, and genetics in
particular, is low. For example, in a telephone survey of 1,200 Americans
released last October by the Food Policy Institute at Rutgers University,
43 percent thought, incorrectly, that ordinary tomatoes did not contain
genes, while genetically modified tomatoes did. One-third thought, again
incorrectly, that eating genetically modified fruit would change their own
genes.

In another telephone survey, in which 1,000 American consumers were
questioned last year in research for the Pew Initiative on Food and
Biotechnology, 54 percent said they knew little or nothing about
genetically modified foods. Still, 89 percent said that no such food
should be allowed on the market until the Food and Drug Administration
determined that it was safe.

What most respondents did not seem to know is that almost none of the foods
people eat every day, which contain many introduced genes whose functions
are unknown, have ever been subjected to premarketing approval or
postmarketing surveillance.

Why should people object to the presence of a single new gene whose
function is known when for centuries they have accepted foods containing
hundreds of new genes of unknown function?

A junior high school student in Idaho, Nathan Zohner, demonstrated in a
1997 science fair project how easy it was to hoodwink a scientifically
uninformed public. As described in "The Frankenfood Myth," 86 percent of
the 50 students he surveyed thought dihydrogen monoxide should be banned
after they were told that prolonged exposure to its solid form caused
severe tissue damage, that exposure to its gaseous form caused severe burns
and that it had been found in tumors from terminal cancer patients. Only
one student recognized the substance as water, H2O.

Without better public understanding and changes in the many arcane rules
now thwarting development of new gene-spliced products, we will miss out on
major improvements that can result in more healthful foods, a cleaner
environment and a worldwide ability to produce more food on less land -
using less water, fewer chemicals and less money.

The European Union has, in effect, banned imports of all foods produced
through gene splicing, and it has kept many African nations, including
those afflicted with widespread malnutrition, from accepting even donated
gene-spliced foods and crops by threatening to cut off products they export
because they might become contaminated with introduced genes.

Even more puzzling, Uganda has prohibited the testing of a fungus-resistant
banana created through gene splicing, even though the fungus is devastating
that nation's most important crop.

A Continuum of Techniques

In a new report, "Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods," published by the
National Academy of Sciences, an expert committee notes that any time genes
are mutated or combined, as occurs in almost all breeding methods, there is
a possibility of producing a new, potentially hazardous substance.
Citing a conventionally bred potato that turned out to contain an
unintended toxin, the report says the hazard lies with the toxin's
presence, not the breeding method.

Among the foods developed through induced mutations are lettuce, beans,
grapefruit, rice, oats and wheat. None had to undergo stringent testing and
federal approval before reaching the market.

Only those foods produced by the specific introduction of one or more genes
into the organism's DNA are subject to strict and prolonged premarketing
regulations. But as the academy's report points out, gene splicing is only
a process, not a product, a process on a continuum of genetic modification
of foods that began more than 10,000 years ago when people first crossed
two varieties of a crop to improve its characteristics.

In fact, gene splicing is the most refined, precise and predictable method
of genetic modification because the function of the transferred gene or
genes is known. It is also important to realize that genes are rarely
unique to a given organism.

Regulate by Degree of Risk

All new crop varieties, whether produced through gene splicing or
conventional techniques like cross-breeding or induced mutations, go
through a series of tests before commercial introduction. After greenhouse
testing for the look and perhaps taste of the crop, it is grown in a small,
sequestered field trial and, if it passes that test, in a larger trial to
check its commercial viability.

The potential risks associated with genetically modified foods result not
so much from the method used to produce them but from the traits being
introduced. With gene splicing, only one or two traits at a time are
introduced, making it possible to assess beforehand how much testing is
needed to assure safety.

While such safety tests are important, it is possible to become fixated on
hypothetical risks that can never be absolutely discounted.

Indeed, Dr. Miller, once director of the Office of Biotechnology for the
Food and Drug Administration, argues that overly stringent regulations can
needlessly raise public fears. "People naturally assume that something
that is more highly regulated is more dangerous," he said, adding,
"Government officials should have done less regulating and more educating."
A risk-based protocol for safety evaluation would greatly reduce the time
and costs involved in developing most new gene-spliced crops, many of which
could raise the standard of living worldwide and better protect the planet
from chemical contamination.

http://www.soulsearch.gen.nz/m_cs_lewis.htm

This site has also some handy quotes from the neglected V F Frankl
masterpiece Man's Search For Meaning (which, with a title like that, is
likely to remain out of print).

R

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/10/evolution/

The new Monkey Trial

By persuading the Dover, Pa., school board to teach creationism,
Christian zealots have provoked a showdown over the status of not just
evolutionary theory, but science itself.

- - - - - - - - - - - - By Michelle Goldberg

Jan. 10, 2005 | DOVER, Pa. -- It was an ordinary springtime school board
meeting in the bedroom community of Dover, Pa. The high school needed new
biology textbooks, and the science department had recommended Kenneth
Miller and Joseph Levine's "Biology." "It was a fantastic text," said Carol
"Casey" Brown, 57, a self-described Goldwater Republican and the board's
senior member. "It just followed our curriculum so beautifully."

But Bill Buckingham, a new board member who'd recently become chair of the
curriculum committee, had an objection. "Biology," he said, was "laced
with Darwinism." He wanted a book that balanced theories of evolution with
Christian creationism, and he was willing to turn his town into a cultural
battlefield to get it.

"This country wasn't founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution," Buckingham,
a stocky, gray-haired man who wears a red, white and blue crucifix pin on
his lapel, said at the meeting. "This country was founded on Christianity,
and our students should be taught as such."

Casey Brown and her husband, fellow board member Jeff Brown, were stunned.
"I was picturing the headlines," Jeff said months later.

"And we got them," Casey added.

Indeed, by the end of 2004, journalists from across the country and from
overseas had come to Dover to report on the latest outbreak of America's
perennial war over evolution. By then, Buckingham had succeeded in making
Dover the first school district in the country to mandate the teaching of
"intelligent design" -- an updated version of creationism couched in modern
biological terms. In doing so, he ushered in a legal challenge from
outraged parents and the ACLU that could turn into a 21st century version
of the infamous "Scopes Monkey Trial."

The Dover case is part of a renewed revolt against evolutionary science
that's been gathering force in America for the past four years, a symptom
of the same renascent fundamentalism that helped propel George Bush to
victory. Since 2001, the National Center for Science Education, a group
formed to defend the teaching of evolution, has tallied battles over
evolution in 43 states, noting they're growing more frequent.

After 1987, when the Supreme Court declared the teaching of creationism in
public school unconstitutional in Edwards vs. Aguillard, the doctrine
seemed to be shut out of public schools once and for all. In the last few
years, though, intelligent design has given evolution's opponents new hope.
Now, emboldened by their growing political power, religious conservatives
are once again storming the barricades of science education.

The same month Bush was reelected, the rural Grantsburg, Wis., school
district revised its curriculum to allow the teaching of creationism and
intelligent design. After a community outcry -- including a letter of
protest from 200 Wisconsin clergy -- the district revised the policy but
continued to mandate that students be taught "the scientific strengths and
weaknesses of evolutionary theory," a common creationist tactic that
fosters the illusion that evolution is a controversial theory among
scientists.

Other anti-evolution initiatives have affected entire states. In the
November election, creationists took over the Kansas Board of Education.
The last time the board had a majority, in 1999, it voted to erase any
mention of evolution from the state curriculum. Kansas became a
laughingstock and the anti-evolutionists were defeated in the next
Republican primary, leading to the policy's reversal. Now, newly
victorious, the anti-evolutionists plan to introduce the teaching of
intelligent design next year.

Similarly, this past December, the New York Times reported that Missouri
legislators plan to introduce a bill that would require state biology
textbooks to include at least one chapter dealing with "alternative
theories to evolution." Speaking to the Times, state Rep. Cynthia Davis
seemed to compare opponents of intelligent design to al-Qaida. "It's like
when the hijackers took over those four planes on Sept. 11 and took people
to a place where they didn't want to go," she said. "I think a lot of
people feel that liberals have taken our country somewhere we don't want to
go. I think a lot more people realize this is our country and we're going
to take it back."

Right-wingers in Congress, on talk radio and on cable TV, are stoking the
anti-evolution rebellion, insisting that academic freedom means the freedom
to teach creationism. Having shown their strength in the election,
cultural conservatives aren't in the mood to compromise. America is a
democracy and they have the numbers. They see no reason why the principles
of science shouldn't be up for popular vote.

On Dec. 14, the ACLU announced that it was representing 11 Dover parents
in a lawsuit against the town. The school board's intelligent-design
policy, their complaint said, had violated the First Amendment's
Establishment Clause, "which prohibits the teaching or presentation of
religious ideas in public school science classes."

That day, a few of the parents joined their attorneys for a press
conference in the rotunda of Pennsylvania's capitol in Harrisburg.
Reporters and cameramen crowded around the microphone as a succession of
lawyers, liberal clergymen and scientists spoke. The Rev. Barry Lynn,
executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State,
came from D.C. for the event. "We've been battling this from Hawaii to
California to New Hampshire to Cobb County," he said, referring to the
suburban Atlanta school district that had recently put warning stickers on
its biology textbooks calling evolution "a theory, not a fact."

As the cameras rolled, a few protesters tried to edge their way into the
frame. A man named Carl Jarboe, in a purple sport coat and a fur hat, stood
near the parents holding a fluorescent green sign saying, "ACLU Censors
Truth." His wife, wearing a kerchief on her head and small round glasses,
held a similar sign saying "Evolution: Unscientific and Untrue. Why Does
the ACLU Oppose Schools Giving All the Evidence?"

The parents ignored them. Most were hesitant in front of all the cameras.
They weren't culture warriors and they didn't speak in ideological terms.
Instead, they talked about what Buckingham and the other creationists were
doing to their school and their community.

"We don't believe that intelligent design is science, and we have faith in
ourselves as parents that we can do a good job teaching our children about
religion," Christy Rehm, a 31-year-old mother of four, said after the
conference. "We have faith in our pastor, we have faith in our community
that our children are going to be raised to be decent people. So we don't
feel that it's the school board's job to make that decision for our
children."

Jarboe, who introduced himself as a former assistant professor of
chemistry at Messiah College, a nearby Christian school, was convinced that
the parents were being used by the ACLU to further its sinister agenda.
Like a great many members of the Christian right, he sees the ACLU as a
subversive, possibly demonic institution. Quoting James Kennedy, an
influential Fort Lauderdale televangelist, he called the ACLU the "American
Communist United League." "I maintain it's a communist front," he said.

He then pressed a flier into my hand from a two-day creation seminar he'd
attended at the Faith Baptist Church in Lebanon, Pa. It was run by Dr. Kent
Hovind, a young-Earth creationist who argues that, as the flier said, "it
has been proven that man lived at the same time as dinosaurs." To
underline this point, Hovind runs Dinosaur Adventure Land, a theme park in
Pensacola, Fla., with rides and exhibits about the not-so-long-ago days
when humans and dinosaurs roamed the planet together.

A few feet from Jarboe stood Robert Eckhardt, a professor of developmental
genetics and evolutionary morphology at Penn State. Eckhardt had spoken at
the press conference about the central role of evolution in biology. "The
idea that intelligent design is a powerful upwelling of controversy within
the scientific community is absolute nonsense," he said. Jarboe was unfazed
by Eckhardt's expertise; he called him a "screaming leftist unbiblical
liberal."

A wry man with a lined face, tweed jacket and owlish glasses, Eckhardt,
like most other experts in his field, has been dealing with creationists
throughout his career and finds it tiresome to try to reason with them. He
divided his opponents into several categories. "There are people who just
feel that the world is changing very rapidly around them. Their children
are coming home from school with ideas that are taught to them in biology
class, the parents find this to be challenging and upsetting, and by God
they're going to do something about it," he said. "They don't understand
the world and they're trying to get the world to slow down and accommodate
their thinking."

The second group, he said, are people "who are formerly associated with
the creationist movement, who purposely misrepresent issues of science when
in fact they are issues of religion." He didn't want to name names but it
seemed he was speaking of the fellows at the Discovery Institute's Center
for Science and Culture, headquarters of the intelligent-design movement.
The third, he said, rolling his eyes a tiny bit toward Jarboe, who was
listening to our conversation, "are people who are mentally unbalanced and
who are so threatened by this that they perceive things going on around
them that never happened."

As Eckhardt spoke, Jim Grove, the pastor of Heritage Baptist Church, a
small congregation near Dover, stepped forward to challenge him to a
debate. Eckhardt refused with a derisive laugh, saying, "I value my time."
Grove interpreted this as a sign of evolution's weakness. "If he has
facts, what about a forum to present them in public?" he asked. "It would
be a perfect opportunity. If he has the facts."

Of Eckhardt's three categories of anti-evolutionists, the second -- the
proponents of intelligent design -- are currently the most influential.
They've created the terms that now dominate the debate from the halls of
Congress to local school boards like Dover. They're the reason that, after
a decade when the consensus on evolution in education seemed secure,
Darwin's enemies are on the move.

Although Buckingham first argued for teaching creationism in Dover biology
classes, he soon started using the phrase "intelligent design" instead. The
change in language was significant because intelligent design was created
in part to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling that made it illegal for
public schools to teach creationism. Masquerading as a science, it aims to
convince the public that evolution is a theory under fire within the
scientific community and doesn't deserve its preeminent place in the
biology curriculum.

At Dover's June 14 school board meeting, Buckingham said he wanted the
board to consider the intelligent-design textbook, "Of Pandas and People:
The Central Question of Biological Origin." According to Nick Matzke, a
spokesman for the National Center for Science Education, the original
version of "Of Pandas and People," published in 1989, contained one of the
first uses of the phrase "intelligent design." Later, in the 1990s, the
intelligent-design cause was taken up by the Center for Science and Culture.

Yet "Of Pandas and People" was never meant to be scientific. It was a
strategic response to the Supreme Court's 1987 ruling in Edwards vs.
Aguillard, which overturned a Louisiana law mandating that "creation
science" be taught alongside evolution. Because the court ruled that
"creation science" is a religious doctrine, savvy opponents of evolution
sought to recast the central tenets of creationism in a way that hid their
religious inspiration. Thus intelligent design was born.

Percival Davis, one of the coauthors of "Of Pandas and People," also
co-wrote the old-school creationist text, "A Case for Creation." An online
ad for "Pandas" on the Web site of the creationist group Answers in Genesis
describes the text as a "superbly written" book for public schools that
"has no Biblical content, yet contains creationists' interpretations and
refutations for evidences [sic] usually found in standard textbooks
supporting evolution!"

The core idea in "Pandas" -- and in the intelligent-design movement
generally -- is that of "irreducible complexity," the theory that the
structure of proteins and amino acids in cells -- the building blocks of
life -- is so complex that only a supernatural force could have
choreographed it. "Because of the high level of improbability that cells
could be generated by the random mixing of chemicals, some scientists
believe that the first cells were created from the design of some outside,
intelligent force," the book says.

Indeed, some "scientists" do believe this -- the ones who work at the
Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Outside the precincts
of the religious right, though, the scientific consensus about evolution is
very close to unanimous. For decades, biologists at the world's major
universities, and in esteemed peer-reviewed journals, have proven that
cellular processes have indeed evolved in sync with Darwin's theories. In
November 2004, National Geographic ran a cover story asking, "Was Darwin
Wrong?" Its subhead provided the answer: "No. The Evidence for Evolution Is
Overwhelming."

"Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of the life's work of
Charles Darwin, is a theory," wrote award-winning science author David
Quammen in National Geographic. "It's a theory about the origin of
adaptation, complexity, and diversity among Earth's living creatures. If
you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science,
and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say
that it's 'just' a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by
Albert Einstein is 'just' a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around
the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory
... Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to
such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts
accept it as fact."

A statuesque woman with a strawberry blond bob and crisply proper diction,
Casey Brown isn't a scientist, but she prides herself on being well read,
and after 10 years on the school board, she knows what a good biology
textbook looks like. When she saw "Of Pandas and People," she was appalled.
"It's poor science and worse theology," she said.

Brown said that by the school board's August meeting, Buckingham had given
up on the idea of using "Pandas" as the main text, but he insisted that the
board buy it as a supplement. Otherwise, he said, he wouldn't approve the
purchase of "Biology."

One of Buckingham's supporters on the board was out sick that night, and
without her, the vote deadlocked, 4-4. Finally, worried that the school
would have to start the year without textbooks, one member switched her
vote and "Biology" was approved. The town's little drama seemed to be at an
end.

In fact, it was just beginning.

Shortly after the motion to have the school board buy "Of Pandas and
People" was defeated, the Dover School District received an anonymous
donation of 50 copies of the book, and Buckingham and his allies set about
figuring out how to integrate them into the curriculum.

On Oct. 18, the board voted on a resolution written by Buckingham and his
supporters on the board. It said, "Students will be made aware of
gaps/problems in Darwin's theory and of other theories of evolution
including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of Life is
not taught." The "Pandas" books were to be kept in the science classroom,
and teachers were instructed to read a statement referring students to them.

Casey and Jeff Brown argued against it. "We kept maintaining this is going
to get us into legal trouble," Casey said. "It was a clear violation." As
an alternative, she proposed offering a comparative world religions
elective, which would teach the creation myths of various faiths.

But Buckingham was determined. "Two thousand years ago, someone died on a
cross," he said at the meeting. "Can't someone take a stand for him?"

Jeff Brown spoke up in response, saying it was the wrong time and the
wrong place for a religious debate. Buckingham called him a coward and said
it was a good thing that he wasn't fighting the revolutionary war "because
we would still have a queen."

Finally, they voted. The mandate to teach intelligent design passed 6-3.
Casey and Jeff Brown quit the board in protest. The other dissenter, Noel
Wenrich, turned to Buckingham and said, "We lost two good people because of
you."

"And Mr. Buckingham said, with profanity, 'Good riddance to bad rubbish,'"
Casey recalled. "And he called Mr. Wenrich every name in the book."

Buckingham may have started the Dover crusade himself, but the Center for
Science and Culture laid the groundwork years before. The group provides
the "scientific" and philosophical arguments to bolster the opponents of
evolution in local political struggles.

CSC operates out of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think tank that's
funded in part by savings and loan heir Howard Ahmanson. As Max Blumenthal
reported in a 2004 Salon article, Ahmanson spent 20 years on the board of
R.J. Rushdoony's Chalcedon Foundation, a theocratic outfit that advocates
the replacement of American civil law with biblical law.

The Center for Science and Culture also aims, in a far more elliptical
way, to put God at the center of civic life. Originally called the Center
for the Renewal of Science and Culture, CSC usually purports to be
motivated by science, not religion. At times, though, it's refreshingly
candid about its true goal -- a grandiose scheme to undermine the secular
legacy of the Enlightenment and rebuild society on religious foundations.
As it said in a 1999 fundraising proposal that was later leaked online,
"Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks
nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies."

The proposal was titled "The Wedge Strategy." It began: "The proposition
that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock
principles on which Western civilization was built ... Yet a little over a
century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by
intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the
traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles
Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and
spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled
by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were
dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment.
This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually
every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and
art."

As "The Wedge Strategy" suggests, many CSC fellows are troubled more by
the philosophical consequences of evolutionary theory than by the fact that
it contradicts a literal reading of the Bible's book of Genesis. Most of
them -- though not all -- are too scientifically sophisticated to hew to a
young-Earth creationist line like Hovind's. In mainstream forums, they
eschew sectarian religious language. As seekers of mainstream credibility,
they don't want to be associated with the medieval persecutors of
Copernicus and Galileo. Instead, they try to present themselves as heirs to
those very visionaries, insisting that dogmatic secularists desperate to
deny God are thwarting their open-minded quest for truth.

Most CSC fellows even accept that evolution occurs within individual
species. What they dispute is the idea that random mutation and natural
selection led to the evolution of higher species from lower ones -- of man
from apelike ancestors. Such a process seems to them incompatible with the
belief that man was created in the image of God and that God takes a
special interest in him.

Several CSC fellows come with impressive credentials from prestigious
universities, and they know how to argue in mainstream forums. Philip
Johnson, one of the fathers of the movement, is a law professor at
UC-Berkeley. Jonathan Wells, author of the influential intelligent-design
book, "Icons of Evolution," has a Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology from
Berkeley and another in religious studies from Yale. A member of the
Unification Church whose education was bankrolled by the Rev. Sun Myung
Moon, he's written that he sought his degrees specifically to fight the
teaching of evolution. As he put it in an article on the Moonie Web site
True Parents, "Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that
I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow
Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When
Father [Sun Myung Moon] chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary
graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to
prepare myself for battle."

Armed with advanced degrees, CSC fellows have secured invitations to
testify before state boards of education. They've published opinion pieces
in mainstream newspapers and are regularly consulted for "balance" in
stories about evolution controversies.

They've also found important allies within the Republican Party,
especially Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. Santorum tried to attach an
amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act that would encourage the teaching
of intelligent design. It said, "[W]here topics are taught that may
generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should
help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist,
why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries
can profoundly affect society." The statement was eventually adopted as
part of a Conference Report on the law, which means it has advisory power
only.

The language sounds innocuous, but Santorum's intent was clear. In 2002,
Ohio debated adding intelligent design to its statewide science standards.
In a Washington Times Op-Ed supporting the change, Santorum quoted his
amendment and then wrote, "If the Education Board of Ohio does not include
intelligent design in the new teaching standards, many students will be
denied a first-rate science education. Many will be left behind."

Santorum has also come out in favor of Dover's policy. The school board,
in turn, distributed copies of one of Santorum's pro-intelligent design
Op-Eds along with the agenda at its Jan. 3 meeting.

Oddly enough, although Santorum is supporting the Dover school board's
policy, the Center for Science and Culture isn't. On Dec. 14, CSC put out a
statement calling Dover's policy "misguided" and saying it should be
"withdrawn and rewritten." The statement quoted CSC's associate director
John West as saying that discussion of intelligent design shouldn't be
prohibited but it also shouldn't be required. "What should be required is
full disclosure of the scientific evidence for and against Darwin's
theory," said West, "which is the approach supported by the overwhelming
majority of the public."

This, of course, is a departure from the position laid out in "The Wedge
Strategy," which specifically calls for the integration of intelligent
design into school curriculum.

Why the change? Matzke, from the National Center for Science Education, is
convinced that the CSC wanted to wait for a better test case and a friendly
Supreme Court, which they'll get if Bush is able to nominate a few new
justices. The Dover policy, Matzke said, probably won't survive a court
challenge right now, and if it's overturned, the precedent will be a
setback for the missionaries of intelligent design.

"Their current strategy is not to have an intelligent-design policy
passed," Matzke said. "They just want a policy that says students should
analyze the strengths and weakness of evolution." CSC did not return calls
for comment.

It's not hard for creationists to convince the public that the evidence
for evolution is weak. Scientists accept evolution as something very close
to fact, but Americans never have. In a November 2004 CBS News/New York
Times poll, about evolution, 55 percent of the respondents said that God
created humans in their present form. Twenty-seven percent believed in the
evolution of man guided by God, and 13 percent believed in evolution
without God.

So it should come as no surprise that the majority of Americans -- 65
percent, according to the poll cited above -- favor teaching creationism
alongside evolution in public schools. Creationism is the perfect
culture-war issue because it inevitably pits majorities in local
communities against interloping lawyers and scientists. In a country
gripped by right-wing populism, it's not hard to stoke resentment against
scientists who have the gall to think that they know more than everybody
else.

In fact, some historians date the start of our culture wars to 1925, the
year of the "Scopes Monkey Trial" in Dayton, Tenn.

At the time, the battle over evolution had been raging throughout the
country. It came to a head when 24-year-old teacher John Scopes challenged
Tennessee's Butler Act, which prohibited the teaching of evolution in the
state's public schools and universities. His persecution set the stage for
a legendary courtroom showdown that pit celebrated Chicago defense attorney
Clarence Darrow against Williams Jennings Bryan, the crusading populist,
fundamentalist and three-time presidential candidate.

Bryan, the nation's leading anti-evolutionist, made his case in populist
terms. In his 1993 book "The Creationists," historian Ronald Numbers wrote,
"Throughout his political career, Bryan had placed his faith in the common
people, and he resented the attempt of a few thousand elitist scientists
'to establish an oligarchy over the forty million American Christians' to
dictate what should be taught in the schools."

Bryan and his fellow Scopes prosecutors won their trial, but the national
mockery that followed it did much to alienate conservative Christians from
secular society, setting the stage for the culture wars of later decades.
In his Pulitzer Prize-winning history of the Scopes trial, "Summer for the
Gods," Edward Larson wrote about the birth of the right-wing religious
counterculture in the wake of the Pyrrhic victory in Tennessee:

"Indeed, fundamentalism became a byword in American culture as a result of
the Scopes trial, and fundamentalists responded by withdrawing. They did
not abandon their faith, however, but set about constructing a separate
subculture with independent religious, educational and social institutions."

Eventually, of course, the religious right emerged from its subculture to
renew its attack on secularism. Today, cultural conservatives are mustering
almost exactly the same arguments that Bryan made in Dayton 80 years ago.

This past December, Republican strategist Jack Burkman appeared on MSNBC's
"Scarborough Country" to back creationism in terms of populist democracy.
"Why should the state and the federal government have a monopoly on
defining what constitutes science?" he asked. "I see no problem with
presenting a creationist view in the schools, given that 70 percent of
Americans want that. The law should reflect democratic desires. It should
reflect public desires."

Of course, public desires don't determine the physical facts of the world.
"The best argument that the creationists have got is that it's only fair to
teach both sides," Matzke said. "The problem with that argument is that
science is not a democracy and a lot of times there aren't two correct
sides. There are people who believe that the sun goes around the earth.
They're called geocentrists. That doesn't mean we should teach that."

In Dover, though, people tend to interpret positions like Matzke's as
elitism. Much of the public seems to desire schools that teach creationism,
although many balk at the cost of a lawsuit. For defenders of Darwin, the
most troubling thing isn't that the Dover school board is dominated by
extremists -- it's that the board is, in a local context, fairly
mainstream. Supporters of evolution are the ones who stand out. Resentment
of the ACLU runs high even among some who opposed the school board's
intelligent-design policy. Most opposition to the policy comes from worry
over the cost of the lawsuit.

Most people in Dover say that the town is split fairly evenly over the
school board's intelligent-design policy. The division isn't one of
principle, though. People know that the ACLU's lawsuit is going to be
expensive and are worried that defending the policy in court will drain the
school budget and force a tax increase.

"I would say that people who are against what the school board is doing in
principle are a minority, a great minority," former school board member
Noel Wenrich told me. "However, when it comes to spending money on it, it's
a whole other issue. When you ask people, Do you support the board's
decision on this? they say yes." Ask them if they're willing to pay more
taxes to finance a court case, though, and they'll give you a resounding
no, he said. "It's a money issue."

The school board doesn't need to worry about most of its legal fees,
however. It's being represented pro bono by the Thomas More Law Center, a
right-wing Catholic firm that describes itself as "the sword and shield for
people of faith." Wenrich told me that Thomas More lawyers had been
advising Buckingham for months.

Despite the law firm's help, though, the lawsuit will likely be
financially devastating to the district, the second poorest in the county.
Dover would have to pay for lost wages of people called to testify, and it
would have to provide outside counsel for some witnesses, like the Browns,
who don't want Thomas More representing them. Jeff Brown guessed that
depositions alone would cost the district $30,000. Then, if Dover loses,
federal civil rights law would make it liable for the ACLU's legal fees.
"It won't be cheap," said Witold Walczak, the ACLU's Pennsylvania legal
director.

"It will kill us," said Casey Brown. In fact, Dover is already broke. The
board had just been forced to cut its library budget almost in half, from
$68,000 to $38,000, and to eliminate all field trips.

Wenrich himself, a 36-year-old Army veteran and father of two, doesn't
believe in evolution. But he felt honor-bound to put his duty to the school
above his personal politics. "If it were my money, I'd have no problem," he
said. "I'd go out and fight it. But to use the public's money that's
supposed to be educating our kids is absolutely irresponsible. They're
already looking at putting off buying textbooks, not buying library books,
not updating computer equipment. When we're looking at those budget cuts,
it's irresponsible to go out and pick a fight with the Supreme Court."

If Wenrich is angry with Buckingham, though, he's even angrier at the
outside forces that are challenging the school district. "It is going full
circle now from the religious community ruling what can be thought --
that's what they tried to do in the Middle Ages," he said. "We've come down
to the scientific community trying to tell us what we can think. Basically
what the scientific community currently is doing is saying, 'You'll have no
god before mine. Mine happens to be Darwin.' Any other thought will not be
tolerated."

Evolution's allies might win the battle for Dover's biology classes, but
they're losing America.

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

About the writer Michelle Goldberg is a contributing writer for Salon. She
is working on a book about America's culture wars.

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/05/weeks-knobloch/
Political Science

The Bush administration is gearing up to push for second-term priorities
-- including an energy bill, power-plant emissions legislation, and
amendments to the Endangered Species Act -- under a cloud of accusations
that it has manipulated federal scientific research on these and other
issues to support its agenda. These arguments have been voiced most
prominently by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonpartisan advocacy
organization that issued a statement in 2004 charging the White House with
"[m]isrepresenting and suppressing scientific knowledge for political
purposes."

To date, the UCS statement has been signed by more than 5,000
scientists, including 48 Nobel laureates. UCS issued reports in February
and July of last year that documented dozens of cases of alleged tampering
with science, including many involving environmental policy decisions.
Before the presidential election, the Bush campaign and White House
representatives dismissed these assertions -- and the fact that a number of
prominent scientists publicly endorsed the Kerry-Edwards ticket -- as
partisan politics. But debates about science show no sign of fading in the
wake of the elections. Notably, in mid-November the National Academy of
Sciences issued a report criticizing the use of litmus tests in filling
scientific advisory committees.

UCS President Kevin Knobloch is well-positioned to weigh in on the debate
about politics and scientific integrity. Knobloch began his career as a
journalist, then spent six years as a legislative staffer for former Sen.
Timothy Wirth (D-Colo.) and former Rep. Ted Weiss (D-N.Y.). He was UCS's
legislative director for arms control and national security from 1989 to
1992, at the height of the controversy over whether a Star Wars missile
defense system would work. After earning a master's degree in public
administration from Harvard, Knobloch served as director of conservation
programs for the Appalachian Mountain Club before returning to UCS in 2000
and taking the helm as president in 2003.

Grist traveled to UCS headquarters in Cambridge, Mass., to speak with
Knobloch about the next phase of the scientific-integrity debate and how
nonscientists can get involved.

UCS's July 2004 report refers to scientists feeling that they are being
asked to violate the "ethical code of science." Can you unpack that term?

It speaks to scientists' obligation to report the findings of their
research in an objective and unbiased manner, and for them to allow peers
to examine and question their methodology -- the whole culture of peer
review and publishing your results. The code of ethics is violated when
scientists can't publish their results, or are prohibited from speaking at
conferences, or are barred from making sure that decision makers have
unvarnished access to what the best and the latest science has to say, even
if the results are conflicting.

After the elections, White House Science Adviser John Marburger said that
UCS and other critics, such as scientists who endorsed Kerry, risked
undermining public support for science. His exact words were, "[I]f we're
not careful, the scientific community can become estranged from the rest of
society and what it cares about." What's your response to that?

It's regrettable that the White House science adviser would say something
like this. The reality is that the science community was backed into a
corner and had no choice but to speak up. This is not about the science
community becoming political. This has everything to do with the fact that
people who had the responsibility for protecting the integrity of science
and of scientists in the federal government turned a blind eye and failed
to do their jobs.

We've been very clear that this is not about public policy. As an
organization, UCS does disagree with the Bush administration on a range of
policies, but when we agree, we like to say so. While the Bush
administration has had a dismal record on environmental protection, they
have done a terrific job on cleaning up diesel pollutants, and that's
something that we applaud. But on the question of science, we have seen
this administration systematically block decision makers from having
unadulterated, unvarnished access to what the research has to say, and
that's just unacceptable.

UCS stood up and put a spotlight on this issue in a nonpartisan way --
there are Republicans on Capitol Hill who are as alarmed as we are at
what's happening -- but now there are veiled threats and some not-so-veiled
threats of retribution against the science community.

Is that how you interpret what Marburger said?

Many scientists are interpreting it as a threat and are extremely unhappy
that a scientist of his ability and reputation would choose to go down such
a destructive path. What was worse was a statement by former Rep. Bob
Walker, who is now a Washington lobbyist and has been deployed to speak for
John Marburger and the White House. [Author's note: Walker, former
Republican representative from Pennsylvania and chair of the House Science
Committee, is now chair of Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates.] At a
forum sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science
on Sept. 30, Walker said, "Science does itself a disservice when it mixes
with politics in a way that can engender a pushback in the future." We
view that as a threat, and UCS will be spotlighting issues as they arise,
and continuing to work with the science community, the professional
societies, the National Academy of Sciences, and sympathetic leadership on
Capitol Hill and in the agencies.

Former White House Science Adviser Neal Lane says that scientists
originally asked UCS to get involved in assessing and addressing what was
going on with science and the federal government. How did that happen?

We had been hearing throughout 2002 and 2003 from both government
scientists and scientists outside the agencies who were alarmed. Many of
these issues broke in the media -- sometimes in Science or Nature or the
trade press, sometimes they would make it into The New York Times or The
Washington Post, but always as individual cases. So we started to pay
increasing attention, and leading scientists across the country started to
contact us and ask us to look into it.

Did any of them suggest that it was a systemic effort on the part of the
White House?

A number of them felt that it might be, but we weren't sure we could draw
that conclusion. We pulled together a group of leading scientists in
September [2003], and it was clear that the alarm level was very high. So
we decided to do two things: first, attempt to organize scientists around a
statement, which does charge systemic abuse -- that is to say, widespread
and, in key agencies, a very deliberate, top-down attempt to muffle,
censor, and misrepresent science. A number of the original 64 signers,
including Nobel laureates and National Medal of Science winners, had
extensive input in shaping that statement.

We also hired an investigative reporter and science writer named Seth
Shulman, who talked to scientists involved in these episodes, uncovered
primary documents, and wrote the report that we issued back in February
[2004], which identified almost 30 cases of abuse. And then in July, we
came out with a new round of signatures and cases.

What steps would UCS like to see the Bush administration take to address
the concerns that you've raised?

Well, certainly an expression from the president that the integrity of
science is an absolute priority. We have not had that, even as we have
charged his administration with systemic abuse of science.

Has the president responded at all to these charges, or has it all been
delegated to Marburger?

The president has not directly responded. When we had our first press
conference, Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, was asked
about it in his daily briefing and he gave a rote response that the
administration cared about science. More recently, the White House has
deployed Bob Walker, which we think is regrettable.

We would like the administration to address these concerns directly,
investigate the charges, and protect scientists in the federal government.
[Reps.] Sherry Boehlert [R-N.Y.] and Rush Holt [D-N.J.] have proposed
restoring Congress's independent ability to conduct science analysis.
[Author's note: The congressional Office of Technology Assessment was
abolished in 1995, ostensibly as a cost-cutting measure.] Many scientists
in the federal government do not have whistleblower-status protection, so
we have proposed that when scientists feel their work is being suppressed,
misrepresented, or chilled, they should be able to file a complaint with a
science ombudsperson in their agency and get job protection. The
ombudsperson would then investigate the charges and make a recommendation
to the secretary.

Have you seen a lot of scientists in senior research positions leaving?
Are you surprised that there haven't been more public resignations?

This is not a partisan issue, but Sens. Kerry and Edwards spoke to this
issue on the stump and pledged to restore the integrity of science in
government, so I think a lot of scientists were waiting to see the outcome
of the elections. The other thing is that when scientists stick their heads
out of the foxhole and say that there are abuses going on, they do so at
great risk of the kind of threats that we're seeing today. It also makes it
hard for them to get their next job unless they've already won their Nobel,
even though they're being courageous and desperately trying to do the right
thing. That is why a number of the folks that we spoke to chose to speak
off the record. It's clear that they don't feel protected within the
government.

We are very worried that there will be a major exodus of scientists now.
We'd like to prevent it, and that's why we're working to develop proposals
for protecting government scientists. It can take decades to build up a
world-class science institution like the National Institutes of Health or
the Centers for Disease Control [and Prevention], and in a few years you
can decimate that capacity.

What's the role for nonscientists in this discussion?

There's a very important role for nonscientists who support the use of
sound science in policy making. Virtually every case we've talked about in
our investigation has real human impacts. Take the story about EPA's
research into the toxicity of mercury. At the same time that the White
House was proposing a weak rule to clean up mercury from power-plant
emissions and had crippled the new-source review program that required
power plants to have state-of-the-art pollution cleanup equipment, EPA was
preparing to release a study showing that 8 percent of women of
childbearing age had sufficient mercury in their bloodstream to harm their
as-yet-unborn children should they become pregnant. And before EPA could
release that study, the Office of Management and Budget said, "Excuse me,
but we need to review that," and then the study disappeared. They sat on
it for months on end, and it was only when someone at EPA leaked that
research to The Wall Street Journal that it saw the light of day.
Citizens don't have to be scientists or medical professionals or engineers
to pay attention when these stories surface and understand the link to
their lives -- and then make sure that their members of Congress and the
president and their communities know about it.

What issues should environmentalists watch most closely in the coming
months for scientific accuracy?

Certainly, global climate change is one. You have the strongest consensus
we have seen in the science community about global climate change since the
conclusion that tobacco caused lung cancer. The vast majority of scientists
who study the issue agree that global climate change is already under way,
that burning fossil fuels is the primary driver, and that if we do nothing
about it, we're facing some very dire consequences. This administration has
actively sought to insert uncertainty where there is none or very little,
aided and abetted by some of the biggest climate polluters.

There are many endangered species cases in our reports. Implementation of
the Endangered Species Act is controversial enough without deliberate
elimination or suppression of what scientists are finding in their field
studies. Toxics, like mercury and lead, are another issue that bears
directly on people's lives and where the science should be beyond reproach.

With stronger Republican majorities in Congress and the administration
claiming a mandate, do you see prospects for positive action on this issue
over the next four years?

Congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle and many within the
administration want to protect the government's scientific capability for
the benefit of the public, and are deeply unhappy with the damage done
during the last four years. We need to collectively take a deep breath and
work to restore the confidence of scientists and elected officials alike.
UCS would much rather be working to prevent nuclear terrorism, or to
convince our government to be more proactive on reducing greenhouse gases,
but everything else we're working for is at risk if the individuals who are
trying to undercut science succeed. My hope is that people in government
will do the right thing and won't attempt to smear this as partisan
politics. It's about as nonpartisan as you can get, and we can work
together on solutions.

- - - - - - - - - - Jennifer Weeks is a Massachusetts writer specializing
in environment and energy issues. Her recent articles have appeared in the
Boston Globe Magazine, E Magazine, and BioCycle.

This article implies that GM crops & trees have become an eknmk
issue as lower yields are recognised. Next thing we know, Amory Lovins
will be opposing them on eknmk grounds.

R

GM WEEKLY WATCH 106
edited

New Scientist, "Monsanto's showcase project in Africa fails"
(New Scientist, Vol 181 No. 2433, 7 February 2004)
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=2561

Three years of field trials have shown that GM sweet potatoes modified to
resist a virus were no less vulnerable than ordinary varieties, and
sometimes their yield was lower, according to the Kenya Agricultural
Research Institute. Embarrassingly, in Uganda conventional breeding has
produced a high-yielding variety more quickly and more cheaply.

Hawaii has the highest concentration of experimental testing of GMOs
anywhere on the planet. Grassroots opposition to genetic engineering has
been building steadily over the last 2 year. The first major victory in
2004 was a resolution against GM coffee passed by the Hawaii coffee
association. The groups in GMO-free Hawaii released a study of
contamination from the world's first commercially planted GM tree, the
papaya. There has been widespread contamination of organic farms, wild
lands and household gardens by the GM papaya in Hawaii, and the tests
conducted by these groups showed the extent of this, and that even the
supposedly non-GMO seed sold by the University of Hawaii had low levels of
contamination. Also being investigated are contamination and human health
problems coming from field experiments such as the pharmaceutical crops
which have been planted all over the islands. There has been no public
right to know about the location of these experiments, but in August a
lawsuit was won against the USDA ordering the USDA to reveal the location
of these test sites.

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4772

In 2004 Japanese consumers visited Canada and the USA to present a petition
opposing the commercialisation of GM wheat to the Canadian federal
government. The petition was signed by 414 organizations representing over
1.2 million Japanese people. The headline says it all: "Monsanto suspends
development of herbicide resistant GM wheat".

+ FRONT GROUP TO HONOUR BORLAUG AT UN WORLD CONFERENCE

A year ago GM WATCH highlighted a conference that its organisers said would
make "eco-imperialism" a household word. The conference claimed to expose
"The global green movement's war on the developing world's poor".

Opposition to GM crops, it claimed, was part of that "war". The conference
featured Patrick Moore, CS Prakash of AgBioWorld, and Paul Driessen of the
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise. It was primarily organised by
the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE).

CORE, which likes to style itself "one of America's premier civil rights
organizations", is now to put on what it calls a "UN World Conference-2005"
on "Biotechnology: Implications & Realities" (New York, January 17-18,
2005). This UN conference will be opened by the Hon. Roy Innis, the
National Chairman of CORE. It will also feature Cyril Boynes, jr of CORE,
plus a video of "CORE's fact-finding trip to Africa". The conference will
"honour Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and father of the 'Green Revolution', Dr
Norman Borlaug".

So who are CORE? Back in the heyday of the civil rights movement, CORE was
indeed one of the "premier civil rights organizations". However, during the
1970s CORE all but collapsed and the remnant was taken over by Roy Innis,
who moved the organisation to the Republican right.

Black American journalists, Glen Ford and Peter Gamble, describe CORE under
Roy Innis as "a tin cup outstretched to every Hard Right political campaign
or cause that finds it convenient - or a sick joke - to hire Black
cheerleaders". They report how James Farmer, a civil rights hero and the
former head of the original Congress of Racial Equality confronted Roy
Innis on TV for turning the organization into what Farmer called a
"shakedown" gang.

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=174

This is the organisation that is now successfully associating itself with
the UN and lauding Norman Borlaug and GM. An added irony is that at CORE's
event last year, the UN was in the firing line along with
"environmentalists" and "anti-biotech activists" as contributing to hunger
and poverty in the Third World through its misplaced "eco-imperialism".

Find out more including the fake farmer being deployed at the conference.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4765

I'm reminded of Tandoori's main speech in Parlt for the Civil
Unions bill - he defined c.u as a
human right, and counterposed morality against reason.

R

http://www.spiritualhumanism.org/

You can become an ordained member of the Spiritual Humanist clergy for
FREE right now! As a legally ordained clergy member you can legally
perform religious ceremonies and rituals like weddings, funerals,
benedictions, etc.

As Spiritual Humanists we believe that every person has innate right to
make a spiritual connection to the rest of the cosmos. Our premise is
simple:

We can solve the problems of society using a religion based on reason.

We cannot abandon ancient traditions and practices but we can adapt them
to our new understanding of the universe. Religion must be able to adapt
to new knowledge about the universe without rejecting the deep spiritual
connections to human history and the natural world that we are a part
of.

All humans have an inalienable right and duty to practice their own
religious traditions. Spiritual Humanism allows everyone to fuse their
individual religious practices onto the foundation of scientific
humanist inquiry. We accept people from any religious background and
recognize the validity of all peaceful religious practices and behaviors
as being helpful and necessary in developing the spiritual nature of
humanity.

If you agree that Religion must be based on Reason, you can be ordained
right now for free, and be still able to practice your own religious
traditions by simply clicking the button below:

ORDAIN ME (click)

"A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as
revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of
reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or
later, such a religion will emerge."

- Carl Sagan

Mrs Yates MP is "just looking at" creation of similar 'hate crimes'
here, staging hearings of her cttee of Parlt ...

R

=========

PENNSYLVANIA CHRISTIANS FACE 47 YEARS IN PRISON FOR READING THE BIBLE IN PUBLIC

Philadelphia charges Christians with hate crimes, inciting a riot, and
using a deadly weapon.

Bill O'Reilly reported on the situation on Fox News Channel.

What we have been saying has now happened. You cannot quote what the Bible
has to say about homosexuality in public or you will be charged with a
"hate crime." Philadelphia is only the beginning. If we fail to take a
stand here, this "crime" will soon be applied across America.

In the 27 years of this ministry, I have never witnessed a more outrageous
miscarriage of justice than what is happening in Philadelphia. Four
Christians are facing up to 47 years in prison and $90,000 in fines for
preaching the Gospel on a public sidewalk, a right fully protected by the
First Amendment.

On October 10, 2004, the four Christians were arrested in Philadelphia.
They are part of Repent America. Along with founder Michael Marcavage,
members of Repent America -- with police approval--were preaching near
Outfest, a homosexual event, handing out Gospel literature and carrying
banners with Biblical messages.

When they tried to speak, they were surrounded by a group of radical
homosexual activists dubbed the Pink Angels. A videotape of the incident
shows the Pink Angels interfering with the Christiansí movement on the
street, holding up large pink symbols of angels to cover up the Christians'
messages and blowing high pitched whistles to drown out their preaching.

Rather than arrest the homosexual activists and allow the Christians to
exercise their First Amendment rights, the Philadelphia police arrested and
jailed the Christians!

They were charged with eight crimes, including three felonies: possession
of instruments of crime (a bullhorn), ethnic intimidation (saying that
homosexuality is a sin), and inciting a riot (reading from the Bible some
passages relating to homosexuality) despite the fact that no riot occurred.

You may think I am exaggerating. I'm not. Our AFA Center for Law and
Policy is representing these four individuals at no cost. We will take
this case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary to get justice.

There is so much more about this case I don't have room for it in this
letter. We have prepared a 25-minute VHS/DVD in which two AFA-CLP attorneys
discuss the case in detail.

Please help us with our expenses in representing these committed
Christians. With your tax-deductible gift of $15, less than the cost of a
cup of coffee once a month for the next year, we will send your choice of
either the VHS or DVD. Watch the VHS/DVD, then share it with your Sunday
school class and church. This VHS/DVD should be required viewing in every
church in America.

Click here
to get your copy of the Philadelphia 4 StoryÝÝ [ This item is Listed below ]

Thanks for caring enough to get involved. We must not allow this travesty
of justice to continue.

Sincerely,

Don
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

P.S. Please forward this email to family and friends.

It's Not Gay: This 28-minute video presents a story that few have heard,
allowing former homosexuals the opportunity to tell their own story in
their own words. Along with medical and mental health experts, these
individuals express a clear warning that the sanitized version of
homosexuality being presented to students is not the whole truth.

Spiritual Heritage Tours - Tours of Washington, D.C. and Mount Vernon with
an emphasis on America's Christian heritage, led by AFA president Tim
Wildmon and AFR general manager Marvin Sanders.

www.afa.net
Copyright 2002-2004
American Family Association
107 Parkgate Dr.
Tupelo, MS 38801
1-662-844-5036
All Rights Reserved

The Philadelphia 4 Story SKU: PHILLY4

The Philadelphia 4 Story captures the gravity of a case that involves
eleven Christians who were arrested at a "gay pride" event called "Outfest"
while preaching and sharing Scripture. In efforts to silence the
Christians' message, four of the Christians now face up to 47 years in
prison and the city of Philadelphia has labeled the Bible as hate speech.

The video was recorded during the AFA Report, a radio program hosted by
Don Wildmon. The Philadelphia case is discussed in full detail by two AFA
Center for Law & Policy attorneys.

The Philadelphia 4 Story is the clearest example of anti-Christian bigotry
by city officials in the last century. This video communicates the
magnitude of the underlying issues involved in the Philadelphia case and
why we must fight to protect our First Amendment freedom.

https://store.afa.net/ProductCart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=27

Monday, January 3rd, 2005
The Mire of Death, Lies and Atrocities: Robert Fisk Looks Back at 2004

From Democracy Now: http://www.democracynow.org/

AMY GOODMAN: We now turn to Robert Fisk to look back on 2004, from Iraq to
Israel, to Palestine and beyond. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Robert Fisk.

ROBERT FISK: Thank you, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, you have been doing some reflection, as you also write
a book. You can talk about your observations of where we stand today?

ROBERT FISK: Well, I think that the whole project in Iraq is finished. We
are not being told by Mr. Blair in my case and Bush in yours that this is
the case, and perhaps through their own misjudgment or their own
fantasies, they don't even accept this themselves. But the American
project for democracy or whatever its real purposes were, for oil,
economic expansion, Middle East fit for Israel, whatever it may have been,
that project is finished. It is hopeless. It cannot succeed. The
insurgency in Iraq is so great now that American troops, however enormous
their technology, cannot control it. The Iraqi so-called ministers, and I
include Iyad Allawi, the so-called interim prime minister, who was of
course appointed by the Americans as a former C.I.A. asset, they behave
like statesmen when they tour the world or turn up in Washington, but in
Baghdad they're not even safe inside their little Green Zone. They're not
even the Mayor of Baghdad, they have less power than the town clerk.
So, we have reached a stage now where insurgents control much of the
country. The only safe part of Iraq is Kurdistan in the north, which is
effectively an autonomous region, outside of the control anyway of the
Iraqi government. And the elections, which are coming up, appear doomed
because already we're hearing that if the Sunnis won't take part, the
Americans are trying to persuade the unelected government to appoint Sunni
Muslims to make up for the voters who didn't vote. This is not an
election, this is a charade. And what has happened is that the alienation
of the Iraqis as a people from the West has been brought about by lunatic
policies by the State Department and by the Pentagon, I'm afraid by the
behavior of American troops and a lesser expect, but nonetheless culpable
British troops and by the fantasies, which drove this war in the first
place, the idea that we were going to suddenly create democracy in the
Middle East. One of the things I have been studying for my new book on
the Middle East, which comes out this year, is what happened when the
rebellion first occurred in 1920, the time of which Lawrence of Arabia was
talking, against the British military in Iraq. And exactly the same
pattern took place. The Sunni Muslims became disenfranchised. The British
laid seize to Fallujah, they laid seize to Najaf. The prime minister, in
this case Lloyd George rather than Tony Blair, said if we believe there
will be civil war and British military intelligence in Baghdad claimed that
the terrorists were arriving - in 1920 this is - from Syria. Same old
sorry.

So I am afraid that even if you look at the pattern of history, there is
no hope. If you look at the pattern today there is no hope. We come back
to the equation, which I think I have set out on your program before, that
the Americans must leave, and the Americans will leave, and the Americans
can't leave.

AMY GOODMAN: As we move, Robert Fisk, from Iraq to the situation in the
occupied territories, to Mahmoud Abbas, to the death of Yasser Arafat, your
thoughts at the end of this year, at the beginning of 2005.

ROBERT FISK: You know, I thought it was somehow perverse that the death of
the one Palestinian leader, corrupt, venal, and ruthless though he was,
I'm talking about why Arafat is immoral, the death of the one Palestinian
leader, who could more or less unify the Palestinians, was seen as a
hopeful sign, shows just how far from reality we are. Mahmoud Abbas, for
the second time in three years is being held out as the angel who can save
Palestine, who can bring about peace, who will be our new beloved savior
of the Middle East peace, courtesy Tony Blair. And I'm sure he will be
generous enough to include George Bush in the Middle East. Mahmoud Abbas
is a colorless man who has been never associated with real democratic
principles. He was one of the authors of the utterly doomed and hopeless
Oslo accord, in whose 1,000 pages the single word occupation, which is
what this colonial war is all about, does not occur once. Indeed, even
withdrawal - withdrawing of the Israeli troops - doesn't occur in this
document. It always refers to redeployment.

This is the man, whom [sic] now, we are supposed to believe, is going to
bring the violent men to heal, is going to make a real peace, is going to
be a beloved of the west, which of course is an essential element for any
Middle East peace, and it going to be a problem. It is a further
extension of our self-delusion, our British self-delusion, American
self-delusion, Israeli self-delusion, to think this can be the case. This
is another of our men, like Hamid Karzai and Iyad Allawi, another of the
people, who we effectively are stepping up to a subject people or an
occupied people, and one who inevitably and ultimately, will not be able to
deliver the goods and we'll cast around for more people to appoint or
choose to someone else's political leadership. To see Mahmoud Abbas, who
only a few months ago, when he resigned, was being cursed privately by
Bush as the man he wished he had never met, now blessed the future
Palestinian leader, when he was -- as I say, one of the author of the
whole vain Oslo agreement, which collapsed. It's a tragedy on our part
that we actually believe that this sort of person, as pleasant and
plausible though is he, can actually save the day for peace in the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Robert Fisk, who has been voted the best
foreign correspondent by newspaper editors and reporters in Britain for
many years. He is a long-time correspondent for the Independent, based in
Beirut for over three decades. Where are you speaking from to us now?

ROBERT FISK: From Beirut during a wonderful winder thunderstorm, that
actually looks like Christmas. But I'm going to Iraq in a weeks time
possibly less, to enjoy obviously a much less peaceable environment.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you see happening with this election? On U.S.
television, we repeatedly hear the story that the suicide bombings will
increase, U.S. officials saying this as well that the violence will
increase, because militants want to stop democracy in the elections.

ROBERT FISK: Sure. I mean, you have got to realize that this is now a
constant sort of logo of American and British news-speak in Iraq. They
announce that something wonderful is going to happen, an interim
governments a new constitution, elections. And then they say that
violence is going to increase, that things are going to get worse the
nearer we get to it. In other words the better things to come, the worse
things are. The worse things are, the better things are going to become.
This is part of the self-delusional policy with which we tried to hide our
total failure in Iraq, our total failure even to control the country and
allow the citizens of that country to live in safety and security. We
don't even give the casualty figures. We don't know, we don't care about
them. Even if the elections take place as I say, which I doubt, still
doubt, they will be so hopelessly flawed by the absence of the Sunni
population, so accompanied by terror on the part of the U.S.
administration, that the Shiites might wipe the floor and set up an
Islamic republic, even worse than democracy would be an Islamic republic
in Iraq. I don't think they will solve anything. Ultimately, I think what
we are going to see, as we have seen in all Middle East wars of
occupation, is the opening of some kind of contact between the Americans
and the insurgents. This is what the French did after years of saying they
would never talk to terrorists, they talked to the FLN. After years of
saying they would never talk to terrorists, the British talked to the IRA.
After years of saying they would never talk to terrorists, the British
talked to the militants fighting them in Aden and to EOKA in Cyprus, and
indeed, to both militant sides in Palestine that they tried to escape from
what Churchill called a hell disaster in 1948. The Americans will soon, if
they have not already, establish contact with the insurgents, and that
will mean the beginning of end. It means that the project is over. That
they have accepted, as I think, you know, they have already in terms of
soldiers on the ground. If you are going to talk to the colonels, and they
may -- the majors and the generals in Iraq, they know that the game is up.
But the generals back at the Pentagon and the Centcom and down there in
old Florida and the gentleman in the State Department and at the White
House, they don't accept this because this is a screen of self-delusion
between them and the reality on the ground. But it's over in Iraq. It's
finished. What we're going to see this year is the beginning of the
endgame, which is how do we get Americans out without losing face and
ultimately - I should say faith as well - and ultimately, how do you start
negotiation with the insurgents. I mean, that doesn't mean that some
American colonel is going to sit down with Zarqawi, though I wouldn't put
it past the realm of possibility. It means that we're going to have in
effect an understanding between the insurgents and the United States
forces that the project has failed, that at some point the powers behind
the insurgency or the resistance or the terrorists or whatever you would
like to call them, will move into place to control the country and they
probably will. In the meantime, I fear the Western powers will go on
trying to promote the idea of civil war as an alternative to their
occupation and oppression and I hope very much that that won't work. As I
said to you before, Iraq has never had a civil war. Iraqis don't want a
civil war. The only people who fear or talk about civil war are the
Americans and British.

AMY GOODMAN: Robert Fisk, you write in your latest piece, " Mire of Death,
Lies and Atrocities, the Ghost of Vietnam", of an American soldier, of
Jimmy Massey, a soldier who game back home and said he didn't want to
continue to participate in the killing, in the slaughter. Can you talk
about him, and as you see him from the other side of the ocean?

ROBERT FISK: Well, the odd thing is, I think we're talking about the
soldier who turned up to give evidence in Canada aren't we?

AMY GOODMAN: That’Äôs right Jimmy Massey. R: Yes, you can tell me whether
his evidence gained any publicity in the mainstream American press or not.
It happened by chance that I was in Toronto when that case came up, and of
course, I immediately ’Äì you know I had just had come from Iraq and was
due to come back to the Middle East, and of course my eyes went straight
on and I read through his accounts and I thought, my goodness me, here we
go again. In evidence in a court in a not very powerful country, Canada,
up comes again the reality of Iraq. Had it not been for my reading it, it
wouldn't have appeared in the British press. Did it occur, did you read
anything about Mr. Massey's evidence in the American press, perhaps you
did.

AMY GOODMAN: Well of course we did a long interview with Jimmy Massey when
he came back ’Ķ

ROBERT FISK: I didn't mean on your radio station, I mean the mainstream
media.

AMY GOODMAN: Right, right, right. But I wanted to encourage people to go
to our website, democracynow.org, and also in our year-end review of last
Thursday, we included his descriptions, but in terms of the larger
audience, both in terms of what we have heard about what's happening with
Jeremy Hinsman and other U.S. soldiers who have fled to Canada asking for
political asylum there, and Jimmy Massey going up and testifying on their
behalf there is very little written about it in this country.

ROBERT FISK: Yeah, of course, yeah. This is part of the self-delusion,
not only do our leaders suffer from this mania of deluding themselves, but
the press by their silence or by their complicity, assist in this process
of self-delusion. Indeed, they self-delude themselves. In Britain, we
have, you know, some newspapers, my own, The Independent, The Guardian and
increasingly, I suspect The Daily Telegraph, which is no longer prepared
to do this. They say, hold on a second, we have got to live on Planet
Earth. But when I read The New York Times and the Washington Post, I
frankly wonder, who is on Planet Earth. The real problem is - and this was
the case of course in Vietnam in the beginning - I am not making these
comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq. It's interesting that the Left wants
to make the comparison between Vietnam and Iraq and the Right wants to
make the comparison between World War II and Iraq, where of course we are
playing the role of Churchill, Roosevelt, Tito, you name it, not I noticed
Stalin. But the real problem is that, when you go to - I have said this to
you before, when I'm in Baghdad, and I read the American press or I turn
on the television and watch CNN, what I'm reading and what I am seeing
bears absolutely no physical, moral, political, or military relationship
to the place that I'm living in. When I come out, I'm sane enough to
realize for quite a long time that that remains the case. We are not -
look, let me give you the most basic example of the problem. In Baghdad
now, we have got one or two exceptions and I hope The Independent is one
of them, though even we are very circumscribed, journalists do not move
from their hotel rooms and from their hotels. They're in hotel prisons.
Now, I don't object to my colleagues doing this, if they want to, because
after all, we all want to preserve our lives. Nobody wants to turn up on a
video and have themselves seen around the world having their throats cut
or having their throats cut without being on video tape, but they don't
tell their readers and their viewers that this is the case. They still
appear on television as the courageous war correspondent in war-torn
Baghdad or war-torn Iraq with information, which in fact only comes from
the occupational authorities or from the government, which was apoirnted
by the occupational authorities, but which by not saying that they cannot
witness and see what is actually going on, they give the impression it is
the product of independent reporting. We are as usual in these
circumstances, we journalists, complicit in the self-delusion, which
allows my country's people, Britons, and Americans, to believe that things
are much better, that things are okay, when in fact they're not okay at
all. You know, it's difficult to see how you turn this corner, and I can
see why journalists do not want to admit that they're too frightened to
travel, though they should. I sometimes say in my report, I didn't go to
this place, I thought it was too dangerous to go to. Other times I manage
to travel, 70, 80 miles outside Baghdad. And it's getting worse all the
time. But at least let us tell our readers and our viewers that we cannot
move. But the journalists don't do this, and of course neither does Mr.
Allawi, who cannot even move around Baghdad. Neither does Mr. Rumsfeld, who
for a long time wouldn't venture into Iraq. So, an illusion is created of
calm and progress and well, things may get more violent, but that's
because things are getting better, which is the most ludicrous topsy turvy
I ever heard. So, the weeks tick by and we continuing to be surprised by
the bombings and killings and the executions. We have days now. When 20
Iraqis are lined up because they're accused of collaboration for joining
the Iraqi police or the Iraqi army and executed. Incredible and we just
accept it.

AMY GOODMAN: Robert Fisk, I want to thank you for being with us. Robert
Fisk, in Lebanon now, headed back to Iraq. We will continue to talk to
him there. Robert Fisk, a Middle East correspondent for The Independent
of London.

A salute to the USS Abraham Lincoln

Michelle Malkin
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/printmm20050105.shtml

January 5, 2005

Greetings, America-haters. Do you think you could stop raving against
our "war criminals" and "killing machines" -- and you, Teddy Kennedy,
could you stop panting over those Abu Ghraib photos -- for a moment and
join me in praise for our military's compassion and innovation?

At the drop of a hat, the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group sped
from Hong Kong to help survivors of the tsunami disaster in southern
Asia. How are the unmatched speed, range and overall mobility of the
American super carrier possible? Twin nuclear reactors.

Believe it or not, the USS Abraham Lincoln has been banned from docking
at certain politically correct ports because of its reactors. For the
moment, global environuts have stopped attacking the aircraft carrier
over the nuke issue. But you can count on the eco-Luddites returning to
their hysterical protests as soon as all the aid has been delivered.

Too much of the world, and too many here at home, take the amazing
capabilities of ships like the Abraham Lincoln for granted. The
carrier's 1,092-foot flight deck outperforms some of the best commercial
airports, launching and recovering up to 90 aircraft on hundreds of
flights every day, according to the Navy. Eight steam turbine generators
produce enough electrical power to serve a small city. The ship carries
approximately 3 million gallons of fuel, and can stock food and supplies
for 90 days.

Oh, and those much-maligned nuclear reactors help turn seawater into
more than 400,000 gallons of fresh water daily -- clean, safe water
desperately needed by survivors. Sailors aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln
have reportedly even stopped taking showers to make every last drop of
fresh water available to tsunami survivors for drinking.

One of the most touching series of photos available at the Navy's Web
site features Culinary Specialist 3rd Class Joshua Savoy and Culinary
Specialist 3rd Class Davy Nugent preparing loaves of bread in the
aircraft carrier's bakery for tsunami victims. The bakery produces
between 600-800 loaves a day. Here are two fine, young American sailors
-- representative of thousands of Americans in uniform like them --
lending their skills to help the suffering.

Where are the politicians who will wave Spc. Joshua Savoy and Spc. Davy
Nugent's pictures before the TV cameras? Who will make them household
names?

Aboard the carrier, every last crewmember -- from medical personnel to
engineers to bakers -- is pitching in to help with the relief effort.
The crew of about 6,000 has deployed at least 10 of its 17 helicopters
to deliver supplies and aid to tsunami victims on the coast. Surgical
teams from the carrier have set up triage sites on Sultan Iskandar Muda
Air Force Base in Banda Aceh, and are working with teams from Carrier
Air Wing Two and the International Organization for Migration.

I would be remiss in not mentioning the rest of the strike group and
their leaders: the San Diego-based cruiser USS Shiloh (CG 67), commanded
by Capt. Joe Harriss and the destroyer USS Benfold (DDG 65), commanded
by Cmdr. Don Hornbeck; the Everett, Wash.-based destroyer USS Shoup (DDG
86), led by Cmdr. Alexander T. Casimes; the Pearl Harbor-based attack
submarine USS Louisville (SSN 724), under the command of Cmdr. David
Kirk; the Bremerton, Wash.-based fast combat support ship USS Rainier
(AOE 7); Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 2; Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA)
151; Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 137; and Strike Fighter Squadron
(VFA) 82.

You should also know that the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln
Carrier Strike Group are no strangers to humanitarian missions. In
October 1993, Abraham Lincoln took off from the Arabian Gulf (where it
was supporting the U.N.-sanctioned enforcement of the no-fly zone over
southern Iraq) for Somalia. The carrier flew patrols over Mogadishu and
surrounding areas for four months, backing U.N. ground troops during
Operation Continue Hope.

How's that for "stingy"?

I wish I had room to print the name of every sailor, pilot, rescue
swimmer, technician and engineer who serves in this strike group -- and
on every other American ship, plane and helicopter on its way to help
the tsunami victims. You deserve to be seen and known and thanked and
remembered. You make America proud.

At the United Nations, saluting our troops is called jingoism. Where
I'm from, it's called gratitude.

Michelle Malkin is a syndicated columnist and maintains her weblog at
michellemalkin.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/03/international/03nations.html?oref=login&th

The New York Times
January 3, 2005

Secret Meeting, Clear Mission: 'Rescue' U.N.
By WARREN HOGE

UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 2 - The meeting of veteran foreign policy experts in a
Manhattan apartment one recent Sunday was held in strict secrecy. The guest
of honor arrived without his usual retinue of aides.

The mission, in the words of one participant, was clear: "to save Kofi and
rescue the U.N."

At the gathering, Secretary General Kofi Annan listened quietly to three and
a half hours of bluntly worded counsel from a group united in its personal
regard for him and support for the United Nations. The group's concern was
that lapses in his leadership during the past two years had eclipsed the
accomplishments of his first four-year term in office and were threatening
to undermine the two years remaining in his final term.

They began by arguing that Mr. Annan had to refresh his top management team,
and on Monday he will announce that Mark Malloch Brown, 51, the widely
respected administrator of the United Nations Development Program, will
become Mr. Annan's chief of staff, replacing Iqbal Riza, who announced his
retirement on Dec. 22.

Their larger argument, according to participants, addressed two broad needs.
First, they said, Mr. Annan had to repair relations with Washington, where
the Bush administration and many in Congress thought he and the United
Nations had worked against President Bush's re-election. Second, he had to
restore his relationship with his own bureaucracy, where many workers said
privately that his office protected high-level officials accused of
misconduct.

In the week after the session, Mr. Annan sought and obtained a meeting with
Condoleezza Rice, the nominee for secretary of state. United Nations
officials said afterward that it was an encouraging meeting.

The apartment gathering on Dec. 5 came at the end of a year that Mr. Annan
has described as the organization's "annus horribilis." The United Nations
faced charges of corruption in the oil-for-food program in Iraq, evidence
that blue-helmeted peacekeepers in Congo had run prostitution rings and
raped women and teenage girls, and formal motions of no confidence in the
organization's senior management from staff unions.

Just days before the gathering, Senator Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican
who is chairman of a subcommittee investigating the oil-for-food program,
had brought criticism of the United Nations to a boil by calling for Mr.
Annan's resignation.

The meeting also occurred at a moment when the United Nations faces major
institutional challenges: the Jan. 30 balloting in Iraq that United Nations
electoral experts helped set up; the preliminary report late this month of
the oil-for-food inquiry led by Paul A. Volcker, the former Federal Reserve
chairman.

Now, the Asian tsunami is testing the organization's capacity for
coordinating aid on a global scale.

The meeting was held in the apartment of Richard C. Holbrooke, a United
States ambassador to the United Nations under President Clinton.

Others in attendance were John G. Ruggie, assistant secretary general for
strategic planning from 1997 to 2001 and now a professor of international
relations at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard; Leslie H.
Gelb, a former president of the Council on Foreign Relations; Timothy E.
Wirth, the president of the United Nations Foundation, based in Washington;
Kathy Bushkin, the foundation's executive vice president; Nader
Mousavizadeh, a former special assistant to Mr. Annan who left in 2003 to
work at Goldman Sachs; and Robert C. Orr, the assistant secretary general
for strategic planning. Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's ambassador to the
United Nations from 1998 to 2003, was invited but could not attend.

"The intention was to keep it confidential," Mr. Holbrooke said. "No one
wanted to give the impression of a group of outsiders, all of them
Americans, dictating what to do to a secretary general."

He described the group as people "who care deeply about the U.N. and believe
that the U.N. cannot succeed if it is in open dispute and constant friction
with its founding nation, its host nation and its largest contributor
nation."

"The U.N., without the U.S. behind it, is a failed institution," he said.

None of the participants would discuss the remarks that were made in any
detail. "Secret advice, such as it is, is effective to the extent that it is
kept that way," Mr. Ruggie said.

But one participant, who requested anonymity, said Mr. Annan remained quiet
throughout the session and made no promises - nor was he asked to - at its
end.

"He sat in silence and made no effort to defend himself," the participant
said. "He was taking it all in. It wasn't a conversation, it was much more
of a, 'Here is the situation, here are the choices on what you can do.' "

Mr. Holbrooke said that the talk, while unalloyed, was not confrontational.
"There was nothing adversarial about it," he said. "Kofi knew he was in a
meeting with people who cared deeply about him and about the institution."

In a telephone interview on Sunday, Mr. Annan said he felt the session had
been "supportive and helpful," but said it was just one of many such
meetings he had been holding. "I've been talking to lots of people here and
abroad and within my own organization planning ahead for the next two
years," he said. "It was part of that process. We did discuss how to improve
relations with Washington."

One of the members of the group had prepared for the session by finding out
if the Bush administration was siding with those in Congress who were
calling for Mr. Annan's resignation or whether it would support his resolve
to stay in office until the end of his term in December 2006.

The official, a onetime senior government figure in Washington with close
ties to the Bush administration, said he concluded that "they were not going
to draw the sword against Kofi."

"Everyone I talked to, including the White House, said that if Kofi was
going to go, it was going to be by the hand of the Volcker report, not by
the hand of the Bush administration," the official said.

As for the staff's unhappiness with Mr. Annan's inner circle, Mr. Ruggie
said: "I think there is a genuine concern in the building that senior
management is not held accountable for their decisions, for bad judgments,
for poor performance, and that must change. The Secretary General missed an
opportunity at the end of the first term to re-energize his top team as an
American president would do, for example."

Ms. Bushkin said of Mr. Annan: "My perception of what's happening is that he
is preparing himself for the last two years, he's looking at his own
leadership style and what it's going to take to get the job done. The last
two years may require different skills in the people around him."

One top adviser who may be leaving is Kieran Prendergast, the under
secretary for political affairs since 1997, who diplomats say is under
consideration for the post of special envoy to the Middle East, which was
vacated by Terje Roed-Larsen.

Mr. Annan also has the opportunity to place new people in two other jobs
that have become open coincidentally with the departures of Catherine
Bertini, the under secretary general for management, and Jean-Pierre
Halbwachs, the organization's controller.

The speakers also faulted the United Nations for the state of its public
communications. "Throughout the building there is fairly low morale, which
stems from the lackluster way in which the institution and the secretary
general's office have responded to the oil-for-food charges," Mr. Ruggie
said.

He continued, "The attackers of the U.N. for too long have had a free ride
in exaggerating the magnitude of the problem, sometimes deliberately
distorting the facts, escalating their accusations and demands for his
resignation, and frankly the response on the part of the U.N. has been
inept."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1312232/posts

Archbishop of Canterbury admits: This makes me doubt the existence of God
Telegraph ^ | 01/02/05 | Chris Hastings,

Posted on 01/01/2005 4:22:44 PM PST by Pikamax

Archbishop of Canterbury admits: This makes me doubt the existence of God
By Chris Hastings, Patrick Hennessy and Sean Rayment (Filed:
02/01/2005)

The Asian tsunami disaster should make all Christians question the
existence of God, Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, writes
in The Telegraph today.

In a deeply personal and candid article, he says "it would be wrong" if
faith were not "upset" by the catastrophe which has already claimed more
than 150,000 lives.

Dr Rowan Williams: Prayer provides no 'magical solutions'
Prayer, he admits, provides no "magical solutions" and most of the stock
Christian answers to human suffering do not "go very far in helping us, one
week on, with the intolerable grief and devastation in front of us".

Dr Williams, who, as head of the Church of England, represents 70 million
Anglicans around the world, writes: "Every single random, accidental death
is something that should upset a faith bound up in comfort and ready
answers. Faced with the paralysing magnitude of a disaster like this, we
naturally feel
more deeply outraged - and also more deeply helpless."

He adds: "The question, 'How can you believe in a God who permits suffering
on this scale?' is therefore very much around at the moment, and it would
be surprising if it weren't - indeed it would be wrong if it weren't."

Dr Williams concludes that, faced with such a terrible challenge to their
faith, Christians must focus on "passionate engagement with the lives that
are left".

His comments came as Tony Blair finally broke his silence on the tragedy,
branding it a "global catastrophe" that would take the world "years" to
deal with. The Prime Minister, who has faced criticism for not cutting
short a family holiday in the Egyptian resort of Sharm El Sheikh, also
insisted that the United Nations should lead the international aid effort.
He praised the "extraordinary generosity" of the British people, whose
donations topped £60 million last night. The Government has thus far
pledged £50 million.

Interviewed by Channel 4 News, Mr Blair said: "At first it seemed a
terrible disaster. But I think as the days have gone on people have
recognised it as a global catastrophe.

"It is not simply the absolute horror of what has happened and how many
people's lives have been touched in different ways, it is also the fact
that the consequences are not just short-term and immediate but long-term
and will require a great deal of work by the international community for
months, if not years, to come.

"We've got millions of people displaced, we've got the potential of disease
coming from this and we've got whole areas of that region that will have to
be rebuilt."

He shrugged off claims that he should have come home to take charge of
Britain's aid effort, adding that he had been in touch "practically hourly"
with Downing Street.

Mr Blair said that one of his key tasks during Britain's year-long
presidency of the G8 group of leading industrial nations, which started
yesterday, was to liaise with other leaders. His faith in the UN seemed
undimmed despite the international rows in the months prior to the war in
Iraq and he dismissed
as a "misunderstanding" claims that President George W. Bush had tried to
snub the organisation by setting up a four-country task force with
Australia, India and Japan.

"When I spoke to President Bush a short time ago he made it very clear that
he wanted the UN to be in the lead and that he sees the work that the US is
doing as very much supportive of that," he said.

Mr Blair's intervention was made as it was disclosed that Gordon Brown, the
Chancellor, would lead Britain's international anti-poverty drive by going
on a three-nation trip to east and southern Africa later this month.

Meanwhile, a 10-man British military reconnaissance team arrived in Sri
Lanka to assess how British Armed Forces could best assist the stricken
country which, with Thailand, Indonesia and southern India, has borne the
brunt of the disaster.

The team will report back to the Permanent Joint Headquarters in Northwood,
Middlesex, in the next 72 hours. The main focus of Britain's effort is
likely to be directed towards Sri Lanka and the Maldives.

Two Royal Navy ships, the frigate Chatham, currently on patrol in the Gulf,
and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel Diligence, already in the Indian
Ocean, are heading for Sri Lanka. A C-17 Globe Master transport aircraft,
which can carry 100,000lbs of cargo, has also been allocated to supply aid.

The Pope in his New Year message yesterday led prayers for victims at St
Peter's Basilica in Rome, and a prayer vigil for victims, survivors and
families was being held at Central Hall, Westminster, last night.

On Wednesday, a nationwide three-minute silence will be observed across
Britain.

Politically Correct Holiday Greetings

"Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for
an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress,
non-addictive, gender neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday,
practiced [sic] within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious
persuasion
of your choice, or the secular practices of your choice, with respect for
the religious or secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their
choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.

"May you have a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically
uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar
year 2005, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of
other cultures whose contributions to society have helped to make the
World great and without regard to the race, creed, colour, age, physical
ability, religious faith, political belief, choice of computer platform,
or sexual preference of the wishee.

"By accepting this greeting you are accepting these terms. This greeting
is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with
no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the
wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or
others, is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole
discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected
within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or
until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes
first, and the warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or
issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher."

Just because you're bearded & fat doesn't mean you have to be
stupid and group-think like MM.

Not a bad idea - starting a clippings file for 2005 on hate speech. No
question which way the cookie will crumble.

Mrs D Yates MP as been able to organise a Parlty ctee on the possibility of
Hate Speech law.

What are the churches doing about it? It isn't yet a Labour® Govt proposal
for legislation, but that's the way they're trying to take the nation.

R

Hate speech from the left

Jeff Jacoby December 31, 2004
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby/jj20041231.shtml

As it does every year, the empty folder I labeled "Liberal Hate Speech" in January had grown to a thick sheaf of clippings by December. 2004 wasn't even a week old when two videos explicitly comparing George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler appeared on the website of the liberal group MoveOn. They were entries in a contest soliciting "really creative ads" that would help voters "understand the truth about George Bush."

And so began another year in which liberals engaged in, and mostly got away with, grotesque slanders and slurs about conservatives -- the kind of poisonous rhetoric that should be unheard-of in a decent society. Once again, too many on the left -- not crackpots from the fringe, but mainstream players and pundits -- chose to demonize conservatives as monsters rather than debate their ideas on the merits.

As in years past, Republicans were almost routinely associated with Nazi Germany. Former Vice President Al Gore referred to GOP activists as "brown shirts." Newsday columnist Hugh Pearson likened the Republican National Convention to the "Nazi rallies held in Germany during the reign of Adolf Hitler." Linda Ronstadt said that the Republican victory on Election Day meant "we've got a new bunch of Hitlers." Chuck Turner, a Boston city councilor, smeared National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice as "a tool of white leaders," akin to "a Jewish person working for Hitler."

Even a federal judge, Guido Calabresi of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, couldn't resist a Third Reich comparison. Bush became president because of an "illegitimate" Supreme Court ruling, he told the American Constitution Society. "That is what happened when Hindenburg put Hitler in." (Calabresi later apologized.)

Such Nazi labeling is no less disgusting when it comes from Republicans. According to Bob Woodward, Secretary of State Colin Powell described Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith as running a separate government out of his "Gestapo office." Commentator Ralph Peters, writing in the New York Post, accused Democrat Howard Dean of using the tactics of Hitler and Goebbels to silence his competitors. Too many conservatives and libertarians refer to antismoking extremists as "tobacco Nazis," or to the humorless critics of fast food as "food Nazis." Whether it comes from the right or the left, language like that is vile.

Overwhelmingly, though, political hate speech today comes from the left. It has increasingly become a habit of leftist argumentation to simply dismiss conservative ideas as evil or noxious rather than rebut them with facts and evidence.

That is why there was no uproar when Cameron Diaz declared that rape might be legalized if women didn't turn out to vote for John Kerry. Or when Walter Cronkite told Larry King that the videotape of Osama bin Laden that surfaced just before the election was "probably set up" by Karl Rove. Or when Alfred A. Knopf published Nicholson Baker's "Checkpoint," a novel in which two Bush-haters talk about assassinating the president. "I'm going to kill that bastard," one character rages.

Bill Moyers warned a television audience on election day that if Kerry won narrowly, "I think there'd be an effort to mount a coup, quite frankly. . . . The right wing is not going to accept it." Chevy Chase, hosting a People for the American Way awards ceremony at the Kennedy Center in Washington, slammed Bush as a "dumb [f-word]" and "an uneducated, real, lying schmuck." A cartoon by the widely syndicated Ted Rall described Pat Tillman, the NFL athlete who gave up his career to enlist in the Army and was killed in Afghanistan, as a "sap" and an "idiot."

So many examples, so little space. A political flier in Tennessee, depicting Bush as a mentally disabled sprinter, bore the message: "Voting for Bush is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded."

The St. Petersburg, Fla., Democratic Club took out an ad calling for the death of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Then there's Rumsfeld who said of Iraq, 'We have our good days and our bad days,' " the ad read. "We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say, 'This is one of our bad days,' and pull the trigger."

Fantasies of murder likewise animated British pundit Charlie Brooker, who ended his Oct. 24 column in the Guardian with a plea for Bush's death: "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. -- where are you now that we need you?" Brooker later assured readers that he "deplores violence of any kind" and had meant his call for an assassin only as "an ironic joke."

But the "joke" of left-wing hate speech stopped being funny a long time ago. There is room in the marketplace of ideas for passionate, even angry, rhetoric, but there are also lines that, as a matter of decency and civic hygiene, should not be crossed. The violent invective so often hurled at conservatives pollutes the democratic stream from which all of us drink. Democrats no less than Republicans should want to shut those polluters down.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1358
Feature Article

Grassroots on the Cutting Edge
Wireless Politics May Determine Future of Digital Democracy

Part One of a Two-Part Series
by Michelle Chen

Control over an emerging communications technology is pitting
corporations against communities, private profit against public access to
information. Michelle Chen looks at trends on the wireless horizon.

Dec 29 - A teenage public housing resident searches the web for
scholarship opportunities while her mother looks up tips on starting a
small business. A public art space lets visitors download a multimedia
exhibition onto their laptops, which are simultaneously linked to a dozen
other galleries around the city. A local Independent Media Center breaks
news before the major network affiliates by sending a report instantly to
thousands of home computers sharing a wireless network.

You may not be able to see into the future of digital democracy, but you
may already be breathing it; the new frontier, say activists and
technophiles, is on the air. Broadband access and its wireless digital
"ether" are giving rise to a new technological geography that defies
spatial boundaries and historical precedent.

Wireless is not a traditional technology, but in fact a concept defined by
the absence of traditional technology. The laptop's answer to the cellular
phone, wireless internet connects computers equipped with "WiFi" devices
through the electromagnetic spectrum, commonly known as the public
airwaves, untethering users from the cables and plugs that characterize
older computer networks.

What makes wireless networks so attractive is their openness, which blasts
conventional concepts of internet access, mobility and cost. Combined with
high-speed internet or broadband, WiFi spans uncharted territory in
networking, enabling people to send and receive information, often free of
charge, from anywhere within range of a WiFi base connection -- a
coffeeshop, park, a house or street corner.

On the ground, countless nonprofit organizations, government agencies and
corporations large and small are racing to establish networks using
wireless technology. In the realm of policy, meanwhile, advocates are
pushing to expand the unlicensed electromagnetic spectrum for community
use. In both arenas, groups advocating for free public networks face
resistance from corporate players that have long dominated the nation's
telecommunications landscape.

WiFi's visionaries believe the technology is more than an extension of the
internet; it is a whole new level of information exchange. Sascha Meinrath,
president of the Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network (CUWiN), an
Illinois-based urban networking project, surmised: "The internet wired
geographical locations. Wireless connects individuals, and it's a very
different phenomenon." Meinrath said he sees a "battle brewing" between
the major telephone and cable companies on one hand and a rising generation
of digital progressives who champion community-based networks.

Service providers who dominated the market in the days of telephone
internet connections have reason to worry about the virtually limitless
networking capabilities of WiFi, because a single access point or "node"
can support a houseful of simultaneous users. Jonah Brucker-Cohen, a
programming researcher with the Disruptive Design Team of Trinity College
in Dublin, Ireland, notes that under the wireless regime, corporations
"don't make as much profit anymore. Not every person using it has to have
an account with them."

The difference in revenue is like the difference between a hundred people
sharing a public swimming pool and a hundred individuals each buying their
own backyard pools.

Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the advocacy group the Center for
Digital Democracy (CDD), predicts that the impending showdown between
corporations and communities over new access technologies will determine
whether the internet will become merely an "interactive commercial and
advertising and movie and music machine" or the "central nervous system of
our democracy."

Open Spectrum, No Limits

In the 1980s and '90s, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) spurred
the growth of wireless broadband in a few spasms of apparent generosity,
when it liberated huge swaths of underused spectrum on the broadcast
airwaves. By designating several bandwidths for open public use, the FCC
gave start-up capital to thousands of wireless service providers and
community-based networks, dramatically expanding the matrix of gadgetry,
software, and content known as the "digital communications platform."

These bandwidths were previously considered "junk bands," occupied by the
signals of household gadgets like garage door remote controls and cordless
phones. But they were rediscovered in the 1990s through a radio technology
protocol known in the industry as IEEE 802.11, or Wireless Fidelity, which
turned junk spectrum into a precious medium for high-speed data transfers
via wireless base connections.

Ben Serebin, director of NYC Wireless, a group that brings together
technophiles and the nonprofit world to develop wireless solutions for New
York City, said the government made an unprecedented "economic and social
difference" by deregulating part of the spectrum: "This is the opposite of
capitalism -- literally, just giving away spectrum that they could sell."

Policy analysts and think tanks like the New American Foundation say that
opening the spectrum to the public generates fresh markets and innovations,
which in the long run will actually be much more lucrative for society than
the conservative alternative: auctioning bandwidths to corporate bidders at
astronomical prices.

With increasingly intelligent technology, more and more users are
employing unlicensed airwaves to make new connections to the internet and
to one another. Wireless networks have mushroomed in cities and the
suburbs, in pubs and the projects, rapidly expanding access to the
internet. The FCC reported that from 2001 to 2003, the number of high-speed
internet subscriptions tripled from 5.9 million to 20.3 million lines.
Worldwide wireless equipment sales reached $2.5 billion in 2003 and are
expected to increase nearly 50 percent by 2007. According to the WiFi
information service JiWire.com, more than 21,000 wireless networks or
"hotspots" now dot the United States.

As the connections become faster and the networks more elaborate, both the
public and private sectors have scrambled to stake out space on the digital
horizon -- and it's too early to tell who will come out ahead.

The Battle for the Digital Frontier

The concept of a so-called "spectrum commons" is not as simple as getting
something for nothing. Within a few years, WiFi has engendered a new
industry, incurred the wrath of telecommunications moguls, and opened a
Pandora's Box of political fights. Proponents of open access are rapidly
learning that even a nominally "public" resource can be garrisoned by big
business, inflexible regulations, and ingrained social inequalities.

For all its promise, consumer and community advocates warn, unlicensed
spectrum is not a level playing field. Major corporations have the capital
and political connections to quash grassroots, non-commercial wireless
initiatives that offer more affordable access. In response, WiFi activists
strive to expand local nonprofit networks and simultaneously protect them
from corporate interference through political advocacy and community
solidarity.

Telecommunications giants have wielded a combination of political and
market influences to shape local access policies. In November, Verizon
effectively extinguished the potential for independent municipal networks
in Pennsylvania when it challenged the city's plan to set up a low-cost
local broadband service, claiming that the government had an "unfair"
advantage over commercial service providers. Backed by the corporate lobby,
Governor Ed Rendell signed a bill giving incumbent telecom companies
automatic priority as citywide network service providers. Pennsylvania thus
joined over a dozen states in passing laws that limit the ability of local
government to deploy municipal telecommunications networks in service of
their constituents.

Activists argue that recent efforts by cable companies to gain so-called
"bottleneck control" -- the ability to monopolize and act as a gatekeeper
to the broader internet -- pose an additional threat to the emerging
communications renaissance.

The CDD and other media democracy organizations are currently battling the
cable industry lobby over a federal court ruling in the Brand X v. FCC
case, which established that cable companies could not restrict customers
from choosing independent internet service providers (ISPs). On December 3,
the Supreme Court agreed to reopen the case in response to a petition by
the FCC supported by cable corporations, and a new ruling is expected by
the middle of 2005.

According to CDD's Chester: "You now have an emerging duopoly in terms of
broadband access in the United States with cable and the big phone
companies. They do not believe in any kind of regulatory safeguards. They
don't believe that communities should have any kind of authority over these
systems as well."

Chester fears that total control over connectivity would allow cable
companies to dominate the whole broadband communications structure, thereby
undercutting community-based open networking initiatives. If the government
gives in to corporate interests, he said, "I think you'll see the internet
becoming a much more commercialized medium."

Speaking at the New American Foundation last year, FCC Commissioner
Michael Copps, who has denounced his own agency's corporate-friendly
policies, cautioned, "those with bottleneck control will be able to
discriminate against both users and content providers that they don't have
commercial relationships with, don't share the same politics with, or just
don't want to offer access to for any reason at all."

Still, the corporate stronghold has not dimmed hopes for non-commercial
networks, which can thrive on minimal equipment and a little creativity. A
local networking project might take the form of a WiFi cooperative in rural
town of 3,000 -- or a downtown wireless system bringing free internet to
the aisle of a vintage bookstore and the bar of a jazz club.

Meinrath's project, CUWiN, is preparing to launch a network throughout
Champaign-Urbana offering everything from independent website hosting to
instant local news. From his perspective, this merger of guerilla
technology and community advocacy -- a geek radicalism of sorts -- has
grown exponentially in recent years because "thousands of people have
realized Š we can actually do better, with off-the-shelf >equipment and our
own know-how, than our internet service provider [can]."

For activists, the success so far of grassroots community networks,
despite industry monopolies and meager funds, may prove that in the
frenetic process of revamping the telecommunications infrastructure, the
scrappy underdog will inevitably outstrip the old guard.

Coming up in Part Two: Unwiring the Grassroots: Can community networking
initiatives democratize access and bridge the 'digital divide'?

© 2004 The NewStandard. See our reprint policy.

Two clergy have responded to my observations on PC in the Anglican
church:-

1.

>I agree with your comments that we must not put any ideology ahead of the
>gospel - that would be a transgression of the first commandment.

2.

>Your diatribe on many issues is not Christian in my opinion - where in the
>scriptures do we read that you may sit in judgement on others?
>My memory is that Jesus specific command was to not judge lest ye also be
>judged (and found wanting by the Lord himself)!
>You are making a fool of yourself and anyone genininely searching for the
>Christ of this Season of Christmas would not be persuaded by your diatribe.
>May God have mercy on your soul.

Response (1) needs no comment. I naturally welcome it.
Response (2) is a very useful instructive exhibit of PC. I
consider its parts deserve comment.

>Your diatribe on many issues is not Christian in my opinion - where in the
>scriptures do we read that you may sit in judgement on others?

Interesting that she implies primacy of the Scriptures!
Considering that PC is generally from secular origins and difficult to
reconcile with scripture, this is a peculiar claim.

I had mentioned that Ms Plane te Paa had admitted there was no
basis - scriptural or other - in the submissions to the Eames
commission for her attitudes on sexual deviance, but this admission
apparently excites no reaction from this Ms Rev. Instead, she implies that
if she can find no scriptural support for what she calls my "sitting in
judgement on others" then my MannGram® is not Christian (about as heavy a
condemnation as could be levelled in this context).


>My memory is that

An interesting extreme humility here - as if the scripture about
to be cited may not be correctly interpreted. Can this pose be genuine?
Does she really think she could be wrong about it?

>Jesus specific command was to not judge lest ye also be
>judged (and found wanting by the Lord himself)!

That's what he said alright - a stern, perennially daunting
warning for those like me who tend to appraise ideologies rather than
pretend they don't exist. Ms Rev is not the first to call me judgemental.

My first answer is that most of what I wrote is about the
ideologies, not about particular persons. I listed a few leading
proponents of those ideologies, partly to assist readers in identifying the
PC Axis by not only abstract ideas but also actual
practitioners/proponents. In this way, anyone not used to seeing the
ideologies as such will be helped to know what I'm referring to. (see
'word cartoon' below)

Secondly: I gave some reasons against those PC ideologies, and
referred readers to some more detailed writings. No counterpart of that
reasoning as been forthcoming from this Ms Rev.

Thirdly, I didn't imply condemnation of anyone. Specific ideas,
and political methods, I did & do condemn; that is not to suggest judgement
(in the sense she means) of any person. I think (after studying the issue
since it arose 3 decade ago) that Bp Randerson is badly wrong regarding
gene-tampering and that he put his name to some grievous falsehoods &
omissions in the report of the Royal Commission on that issue; but I
continue on cordial terms with him. My old schoolmate Ray Nairn is in
little doubt - I hope - about my opinion of his neoRacism; but in
mentioning him & Mitzi as exemplars of PC I do not think, let alone ever
having said to anyone, that he personally stands condemned for it. I am
well aware that only God is to judge each person. And I had not implied
otherwise. Ms Rev has set up a straw man; knocking it down is hardly
useful.

>You are making a fool of yourself

What could lie behind this drastic statement? The only detailed
comments I've so far received (from a respected Anglican lay theologian)
have proceeded on the opposite basis, i.e treating me as not foolish.

> and anyone genininely searching for the
> Christ of this Season of Christmas would not be persuaded by your diatribe.

how could she know this (if it were so)?

>May God have mercy on your soul.

One can only be gratified at such a prayer from a cleric -
normally. But this particular expression of concern looks, in the current
context, more like a condemnation than anything I directed against anyone
in the note to which Ms Rev is so heatedly, irrationally reacting.

For completeness I should perhaps mention that exhibit #1 is also
from a female Anglican priest. (And let me point out I had expressed
nothing about ordination of women.)

I am encouraged - in different ways, of course - by both of
these reactions #1 & #2. I take #2 as evidence that PC ideologues are
unable to defend their attitudes by argument but resort immediately to _ad
hominem_ insults. This conforms with all my previous experience of them.
The only wonder in this case is that we are spared the usual "you are
against women" - the routine insult from supporters of WimminsLib against
any who criticise that ideology.

Commentator #2 has insisted that I not send her any more msgs -
tending to confirm my accusation that PC evades discussion.

R

Appendix:

With luck your imagination will allow you to imagine the following cartoon
(and I continue to solicit graphic realisation by some cartoonist, which I
am not).

FRAMES 1 & 2

A German street, 1934.

Visiting Kiwi student Geoffrey Cox [as recounted in his
memoir; later Sir Geoffrey] recedes into a shop doorway as a well-drilled,
grim, intimidatory Nazi goon-squad parades past. Then Nazi fanatics smash
him to the pavement for failure to make the Fascist salute at this squad.

A German professor looking on remarks furtively to his friend:
"These Nazis are getting out of hand. What are we going to
do about it?"

His cobber draws himself up, aloof, and replies:
"Nazis - what Nazis? I don't know what you're referring
to. Indeed, your use of such an offensive term strongly implies you're
anti-German."

FRAMES 3 & 4

A New Zealand street, 2004.
An incohesive gaggle of grinning feminazis passes. It is
quite a large (if ill-drilled) squad: M Waring, H Clark, H Simpson, Mrs
Yates, J Fitzsimons, Fiddler Bunkum, Tom Pearce's daughter, J Shipley, S
Cartwright, M Wilson, K Poutasi, etc etc. Protective wimp outriders smash
the odd innocent onlooker e.g G H Green, R B Elliott.

Speech balloons above enthusiastic crowd: "Equality! Diversity!
Tolerance! Sensitive Noo Eege!"

A Kiwi professor looking on remarks furtively to his friend:
"These feminazis are getting out of hand. What are we
going to do about it?"

His cobber draws himself up, aloof, and replies:
"Feminazis - what feminazis? I don't know what you're
referring to. Indeed, your use of such an ofensive, opressive term
strongly implies you're anti-female."