Free Speech: License To Lie

News is the lifeblood of any democracy. The consolidation of news media may be the most overlooked story in the history of the United States, arguably more important than war, poverty, healthcare, or even global warming, because it impacts all of these. Fewer news outlets means less opportunity for the electorate to sort out truth from lies.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech but ironically it also gives license to lie. In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States. This case pitted television reporters Jane Akre and her husband Steve Wilson against the media giant. The reporters had been fired by FOX for refusing to bury the truth about bovine growth hormone, a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto. The reporters sued FOX and lost.

Rupert Murdoch, owner of FOX, recently added The Wall Street Journal to his media conglomerate and now plans to compete with The New York Times as this nation's newspaper of record. Another journalistic right turn?

News bias, of course, is often far more subtle than Murdoch's. In the run-up to the Iraq War in February 2003, corporate media was dazzled by Colin Powell's pro-invasion UN speech. Looking at the four major nightly newscasts, NBC, ABC, CBS, and the PBS NewsHour, of 393 interviews with policymakers, only three were with antiwar leaders. Where was balance? Commentator Amy Goodwin says the electorate has become, not a silent majority, but a "silenced majority, silenced by the corporate media."

What about radio? The Center for American Progress and Free Press recently released the first-of-its-kind statistical analysis of the political make-up of talk radio in the United States. It confirms that talk radio, one of the most widely used media formats in America, is dominated almost exclusively by conservatives.

In the spring of 2007, of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners, 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming was conservative, and only 9 percent was progressive.

Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk — 10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk. Wouldn't 50-50 be somewhat more representative of the listener audience?

Two common myths are frequently offered to explain the imbalance of talk radio: 1) the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine which required broadcasters to devote airtime to contrasting views, and 2) simple consumer demand. (Conservatives, for instance, assert that no liberal can survive against their own Rush Limbaugh.) These myths don't address the root cause of the problem. The report explains:

Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management.

As one blogger succinctly noted, "If you sell the FCC to your friends, you get what you pay for."

Help reclaim democracy! Support alternative voices and independent journalism wherever you find it—magazines, books, blogs, local press, and public broadcasting. And where's your outrage? Fight for change! As iconoclast broadcaster Scoop Niskar used to say, "If you don't like the news, go out and make some of your own."

SOURCES: www.thinkprogress.org
www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/30/201231/262
Extra! The Magazine of FAIR—The Media Watch Group, February 2007.

Global Warming Deniers

Why doesn't Congress finally pass legislation to fight global warming? Because oil companies and conservative lobbies have spent millions to create the appearance of controversy and convince a handful of legislators to ignore the problem. If this editorial had come from the Natural Resources Defense Counsel or FAIR or Nation or The Ecologist it might be easier for reactionaries to dismiss. But mainstream Newsweek (Aug 13, 2007) has issued a stunning report cataloging 20 years of machinations by special interests who continue to deny the reality of global warming.

The international consensus among scientists who study climate change is that the earth is getting hotter and that human activity, specifically the burning of fossil fuels, is responsible for most of the change. The handful of scientists who reject or dilute the global warming premise almost never do their own research but instead are paid by the deniers to nitpick reputable studies. ExxonMobil was chastised for giving $19 million to the Competitive Enterprise Institute and others who are "producing very questionable data" on climate change, as Sen. Jay Rockefeller so noted.

The White House is also complicit in the censorship of climate scientists. As reported in E/The Environmental Magazine, "The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Government Accountability Project (GAP) found that nearly half of 279 federal climate scientists who responded to a survey reported being pressured to delete references to 'global warming' or 'climate change' from scientific papers or reports, while many said they were prevented from talking to the media or had their work on the topic edited."

Newsweek's article failed to mention yet another source of intransigence, a vocal minority of Christian fundamentalists who subjugate science to faith. Just as creationists challenge the theory of evolution, some faith-based meteorologists and geologists deny the science of global warming. Their argument in a nutshell: Climate change isn't man-made, and not especially serious, but if a catastrophe does occur it's all a part of God's plan. The Rapture, perhaps?

Of course, the science of climate change is not perfect. Climatologists do not fully understand the CO2 cycle, and experts have noted that some climate zones are growing cooler—even while most of the planet is overheating. At www.heartland.org, free market skeptics use gaps in climate science to attempt to build a case against the entire global warming scenario. Whatever their motives, these critics are missing the big picture.

Will a Democrat-controlled congress or a new president take climate change more seriously? Mark Twain once joked that everybody talks about the weather but nobody ever does anything about it. Newsweek concludes that Americans are not willing to alter their lifestyles in any meaningful ways. "The NEWSWEEK Poll finds less than half in favor of requiring high-mileage cars or energy-efficient appliances and buildings. No amount of white papers, reports and studies is likely to change that."

Congress and the president will act only when the electorate puts their feet to the global warming fire. If European voters can support alternative energy programs, sustainable community projects, and CO2 caps, so can this nation of resourceful immigrants and entrepreneurs!

SOURCES: www.heartland.org
Newsweek, August 13, 2007
www.emagazine/earthtalk/archives.php.

Apocalypse Deferred: Western Regional Climate Pact Signed

Just when we thought nobody was paying attention to global warming, the leaders of six Western states and two Canadian provinces agreed to their own regional climate pact, aiming to cut greenhouse-gas emissions to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. The Western Climate Initiative aims to have a cap-and-trade system in place by August 2008 and wants to partner with other trading systems like the European Union's and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the U.S. Northeast. While the 15% target isn't quite ambitious enough for some, greens are hopeful that the growing movement to set even relatively weak state and regional climate standards will eventually influence the feds to adopt a national program. At least it's a start. California, Oregon, and Washington, three of the pact members, already have state climate standards that exceed these modest goals.

Melting icebergs? Maybe we can put those high water boots back in the closet. Ahoy, Congress!

SOURCES: www.grist.org, August 23, 2007
Bloomberg News, Christopher Martin, August 22, 2007
Reuters, Adam Tanner, August 22, 2007.

Go Nukes vs. No Nukes

If burning fossil fuels (oil and coal) is the cause of climate change, what do we replace them with? Prominent environmentalists are now trumpeting nuclear fission as a necessary step (necessary evil?) in the fight to contain global warming. Given the realities of a power hungry world, today's wind and solar technologies can only provide a small fraction of the energy needed.

Fred Krupp of Environmental Defense, asserts, "We should keep an open mind about nuclear power." Jared Diamond, author of Collapse, says, "To deal with our energy problems we need everything available to us, including nuclear power." Stewart Brand of Whole Earth Catalog fame has worked to form an alliance between greens and nuclear engineers. He argues, "The only technology ready to fill the gap and stop the carbon dioxide loading of the atmosphere is nuclear power." James Lovelock, originator of the Gaia Hypothesis, which posits that earth's systems are to some extent self-regulating, says Mother Earth has a high fever and the only cure is "a massive and immediate expansion of nuclear power." Even Al Gore and most leading Democrats, who have previously blocked the expansion of new fission plants, are now keeping their options open.

Arguing against nuclear power, Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), warns that issues of safety, security, waste, proliferation, and the threat of sabotage are still unresolved. But what is his alternative? Meyer notes, "The government should adopt policies that maximize energy efficiency and conservation... [Energy prices should] reflect the full cost of global warming emissions by setting emission targets and establishing a mandatory revenue-neutral carbon tax or cap-and-trade system."

A landmark study, Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy, was produced as a joint project of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (NPRI) and the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. Rejecting nuclear, Dr. Arjun Makhijani, author of the study, says, "We can solve the problems of oil imports, nuclear proliferation as it is linked to nuclear power, and carbon dioxide emissions simultaneously if we are bold enough."

"The climate crisis has put the earth in the intensive care unit," says Dr. Helen Caldicott, President of NPRI and a physician who has long advocated elimination of nuclear weapons and nuclear power. "We must respond to this acute clinical crisis and act today to save the planet, without resorting to nuclear power, which will aggravate our problems."

An important point, often missed in this public debate, is that the plutonium which powers nuclear reactors is a limited resource, making nuclear fission temporary, a stop gap measure at best. Nuclear fission can only be a stepping-stone on the way to a sustainable future. Ultimately, we'll have to learn to live on our solar income.

SOURCES: E/The Environmental Magazine, July-August 2007
http://www.helencaldicott.com/contact.htm.

Organic Fruits & Veggies Have More Nutrients

As reported in BBC News, U.S. researchers found that organic fruit and vegetables may be better for you than conventionally grown crops. These findings agreed with recent European research, which showed that organic tomatoes, peaches and processed apples all have higher nutritional quality than non-organic.

A ten-year study comparing organic tomatoes with standard produce found almost double the level of flavonoids, a type of antioxidant that has been shown to reduce high blood pressure, lowering the risk of heart disease and stroke. Flavonoids have also been linked with reduced rates of some types of cancer and dementia.

Along with her colleagues at the University of California at Davis, food chemist Dr. Alyson Mitchell measured the amount of two flavonoids, quercetin and kaempferol, in dried tomato samples that had been collected as part of a long-term study on agricultural methods. They found that on average they were 79% and 97% higher respectively in the organic tomatoes than in the conventionally grown fruit.

New Scientist magazine speculated that the different levels of flavonoids in tomatoes are probably due to the absence of fertilizers in organic farming. The lower levels of flavonoids are probably caused by over-fertilization.

Despite growing evidence, other studies have not always shown a significant difference between organic and commercially grown foods. In any case, skeptics are not easily convinced that organic food is healthier. As one British spokesman said, "Our long-standing advice on organic food is there can be some nutrient differences but it doesn't mean it's necessarily better for you." Say what?

Significantly, the BBC report did not consider the broader health issues of fertilizer runoff or releasing pesticides into the general environment. Our question for the skeptics: Shouldn't we define "health" in this wider context?

SOURCE: BBC News, July 5, 2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6272634.stm

'Vegansexuals' Find Meat Eaters Sexually Repulsive

Looking for love in the produce department? A new study confirms, vegans are grossed out by sex with omnivores, and many so-called "vegansexuals" only want to roll in the alfalfa with others who also eschew meat, eggs, and dairy.

Researcher Annie Potts of the New Zealand Centre of Human and Animal Studies at Canterbury University, coined the term "vegansexuals" in her study "Cruelty-Free Consumption in New Zealand: A National Report on the Perspectives and Experiences of Vegetarians and other Ethical Consumers."

Potts noted that vegans, particularly women, found sex with meat eaters disgusting.

Many female respondents described being attracted to people who ate meat, but said they did not want to have sex with meat eaters because their bodies were made up of animal carcasses. One vegan is quoted, "I would not want to be intimate with someone whose body is literally made up from the bodies of others who have died for their sustenance." Another simply noted, [Vegans] "definitely taste a lot better."

While the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has long advocated people give up meat and go vegetarian, they encourage vegans to reach out to meat eaters, too. "Sex is a very effective form of outreach and activism," said Dan Shannon, a PETA spokesman, and 10-year veteran vegan, who thought omnivores could be converted by their partners. Potts said PETA's attitude differed from what was a very personal sentiment on the part of the vegans who participated in the survey. "PETA is taking a political position by using the bedroom to recruit vegans; this is about intimate relationships."

SOURCES: www.treehugger.com/files/2007/08/not_vegan_no_se.php
ABC News Internet Ventures, Russell Goldman, 8/2/2007

Does Meat Make You Gassy, Too?

Grass isn't the easiest food to digest, and even cows appear to have difficulty doing it efficiently. According to scientific estimates, the methane gas produced by cows is responsible for 4% of greenhouse gas emissions.

The next time you chomp a hamburger, think of this: the entire process of getting beef to your bun may have spewed more greenhouse-gas emissions than leaving all your house lights blazing while taking a three-hour joyride in your car.

What could be done? Some scientists are looking at digestive aids for cows. Scientists at the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research are developing new plant breeding techniques which can improve the efficiency of cow digestion. German scientists have recently invented a pill to cut bovine burping. Our vegan staffer has an even better idea: put down that burger while you still have a planet!

SOURCE: Grist, www.grist.org, July 19, 2007

Whole Grains Cut Inflammatory Disease

Have you noticed how many mainstream magazines now cover the holistic health beat? The following item from the venerable Consumer Reports could just as easily have come from Prevention, or Andrew Weil's Newsletter, or even OPEN EXCHANGE:
People who eat lots of whole grains are less likely to develop rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, and other inflammatory conditions, according to researchers reporting in the June edition of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Investigators followed more than 27,300 postmenopausal women for 17 years. Those who ate at least four to seven servings of whole grains a week were about 35 percent less likely to die of an inflammatory disorder than those who rarely or never ate them.

Researchers speculate that the phytochemicals in whole grains may limit cell damage caused by inflammation. Other research has linked whole grains to reduced risk of heart disease and certain cancers.

SOURCE: Consumer Reports, September 2007.

Managing Parkinson's Naturally

Parkinson's disease gradually destroys brain cells that produce dopamine, a neurotransmitter that coordinates muscle movement. Conventional medicines work by managing PD's symptoms—stiffness, tremors, loss of balance and mobility. Andrew Weil, MD, reports on promising research that suggests natural remedies may also play a role in prevention as well as management.

Dr. Weil asserts, "I believe PD is mostly due to environmental injury [especially pesticide exposure] to sensitive parts of the brain.... Reduce your exposure to agri-chemicals by eating organic foods, avoiding pesticides, and using a home water filter, especially in an agricultural area."

Reducing inflammation is a key to lowering Parkinson's risks. Losing weight and moderate to vigorous exercise are proven inflammation fighters. Dr. Weil also quotes studies confirming the benefits of caffeine, especially when combined with the antioxidants in green or white tea. Low dose aspirin, the supplement Coenzyme Q10, and the spices turmeric and ginger all have proven anti-inflammatory properties. And don't overlook diet. "I recommend an anti-inflammatory diet containing a wide variety of fresh, whole foods that's rich in fruits and vegetables and low in saturated and trans fats."

SOURCES: Dr. Andrew Weil's Self Healing, August 2007
www.parkinsonaction.org.

Heart-Healthy Benefits of Tai Chi

Based on ancient Chinese exercises, Tai Chi is a gentle, non-impact workout suitable for all ages and levels of health. Despite it's martial arts origin, many current practitioners emphasize the spiritual and health benefits of regular practice. It's not uncommon to see a person in the park moving his limbs rhythmically in wide circles, almost a slow-motion ballet—that's tai chi.

The editors of Heart-Healthy Living extol the praises of Tai Chi for reducing stress, lowering blood pressure, and improving cardiovascular fitness. "A pilot study conducted by Johns Hopkins School of Medicine showed that practicing Tai Chi lowered blood pressure nearly as much as moderate-intensity aerobics such as brisk walking.... In another study, published in the journal Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, low-risk coronary artery bypass patients who completed a year-long Tai Chi program after conventional rehabilitation showed improved results in their cardio-respiratory system." And Harvard is now studying the health effects of adding Tai Chi to a therapy program for patients with chronic heart failure.

You'll find local Tai Chi classes listed in OPEN EXCHANGE's Martial Arts and Health & Healing categories.

SOURCE: Heart-Healthy Living, Fall 2007.

Dishwashing Poison?

Have you ever read the warning label on your favorite automatic dishwashing detergent? We did and almost lost our lunch! "WARNING: Poison. Do not let young children touch soap. If ingested contact your local poison control center." Huh? Our food plates are drenched in this stuff! And what are we doing to the fish and our water supply?

So how do we clean our dishes?

Fortunately, Consumer Reports sent secret shoppers to stores around the country to test dozens of "green" household cleaners.

Unfortunately, CR found that many manufacturers couldn't back up their environmental claims. For example, Seventh Generation's "biodegradable" dishwashing gel contains a petroleum-derived agent that doesn't readily biodegrade. In response, the company said they'd remove the claim and review its product line and labeling. But let's give them points for admitting their error.

Fortunately, CR did find that Earth Friendly Product's Wave automatic dishwasher gel and Planet Ultra Dishwashing Liquid were certified green by reputable independent groups.

Unfortunately, there goes our last excuse for letting those dishes pile up in the sink!
SOURCE: Consumer Reports, September 2007.