| March 2005 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
Monday, March 14
How to Fight Back in the Universities: Starting a Progressive Policy Promotion Think Tank in Your University
by
Trish Nelson
on Mon 14 Mar 2005 11:21 AM CST
 How to Fight Back in the Universities: Starting a Progressive Policy Promotion Think Tank in Your University
OpEdNews.com
by Rob Kall
Now the right wing is trying
to shut down one of the last bastions of free speech and independing
thinking - the university classroom. They (the fascist idiots) want
professors to get permission from state legislators before they discuss
anything controversial.
I think
this is a good time to tap the resources of universities to build the
strength of progressives and the left.
A little background:
The
right wing almost totally out-arms the Democrats and progressives with
one weapon — a weapon which has proven to be the most effective and
powerful in American politics. The right has literally dozens of “think
tanks” that are really policy promotion organizations and these
[receive] hundreds of millions of dollars in funding annually. These
operations have produced the most devastating effects in the form of
won elections and seduced special interest groups.
[There
is a] need for progressives to develop counterparts to this unholy
plethora of right wing policy promotion organizations, euphemistically
called “think tanks” like the Heritage Foundation, Judicial Watch, Cato
Institute, PNAC, etc.
(click here to read the entire article)
Rob Kall is editor of OpEdNews.com. Read over 150 of his articles at Rob Kall's article archive.
Sunday, March 13
State Reps. Rants and Horbach Soft on Meth
by
Linda Thieman
on Sun 13 Mar 2005 01:59 PM CST
 State Reps. Rants and Horbach Soft on Meth
by Jon Gaskell, Pointblank Des Moines
Iowa
House Speaker Christopher Rants (R-Woodbury) and Rep. Lance Horbach (R-Tama) worry that meth makers' civil liberties will be violated if Iowa requires
ID to purchase the main ingredient used to make the devastating drug.
In Iowa,
where...80 percent of all state residents support moving all sales of
meth's main ingredient into pharmacies and under the microscope, it's
meeting some resistance with a handful of lawmakers. Their chief concern, they insist, is our civil liberties being trashed.
They find the idea of making people who are purchasing something that
has helped to addict and imprison tens of thousands of individuals show
I.D. or fill out a form to be, of all things, unlawful.
Never
mind that debates at the capitol so far this session have included
discussions regarding the designation of special habitual drunk-driver
license plates and a proposal to ban gay marriage, the last thing these
lawmakers would ever want to happen is our civil liberties being messed
with.
Arkansas and Oklahoma cut off the supply to anyone who wasn't interested in jumping through a few hoops. It worked wonders.
They are obviously grasping at straws. And it's pathetically transparent.
I mean
how can one not be on board regarding legislation that will essentially
force people to kick the habit or move elsewhere, begin the process of
clearing some space in our prisons and jails and go a long way toward
nipping in the bud what is slowly but surely becoming a major public
health issue as more and more infants are born addicted to this
dangerous drug? If you have half a brain and are not merely bowing to
the people who line your campaign war chest, you cannot.
Still
we're forced to listen to the likes of State Rep. Lance Horbach
[R-Tama], who points out that meth heads will still find
pseudoephedrine at pharmacies and on the Internet (Essentially making
his argument: "Why fight it?"), as well as Speaker of the House Chris
Rants [R-Woodbury], an allergy sufferer who also happily picks up
checks from pseudoephedrine manufacturers and grocery store and
convenience store representatives. Rants remains undecided on whether
or not he will get behind the push to cut off pseudoephedrine, as he
doesn't want the state to go "overboard."
(Click here to read the complete article.)
Visit KCI: The Anti-meth Site (formerly known as Koch Crime Institute)
Friday, March 4
Gay Marriage Ban Moves Forward in Iowa
by
Linda Thieman
on Fri 04 Mar 2005 06:38 PM CST
 Gay Marriage Ban Moves Forward in Iowa
The Advocate
An Iowa
house committee has approved a proposed amendment to the Iowa
constitution banning same-sex marriage. Critics said state law already
bans same-sex marriage and saw the proposed constitutional amendment as
political grandstanding. Supporters said they are worried about
"activist judges" who could potentially strike down the law.
"If you
follow the news at all, it's not unusual for courts to rule those laws
unconstitutional," Republican representative Danny Carroll, the main
supporter of the measure, said Thursday. "The institution of marriage
is serious."
[Is
it just me, or is the world turned upside down? If a court might
rule an anti-gay marriage law unconstitutional because it violates our
rights, let's just change the constitution so we don't have any rights
to begin with. Problem solved!]
The
house judiciary committee approved the proposed amendment 13-6,
clearing the way for debate in the full house. Republican leaders said
they have the votes to approve the measure in the house, but its future
in the current legislature is cloudy. The senate is tied at 25-25, and
a similar proposed amendment was rejected last year when Republicans
held firm control of the chamber. Republicans tend to favor the ban on
gay marriage in greater numbers than Democrats.
[Yeah,
Republicans are good at getting their knickers in a twist and avoiding
ACTUAL problems. Distract the constituents with hot-button issues
so they won't notice the state has fallen into the toilet.]
Democratic
representative Vicki Lensing said she was worried the proposed
constitutional amendment would overturn decisions by some local
governments to recognize domestic-partnership arrangements for issues
such as health care. "I don't want to undermine that," Lensing said.
The outcome of the debate won't be clear for years, regardless of the
outcome of this year's debate.
A
proposed constitutional amendment would have to be approved during the
current two-year general assembly, and an identical measure would have
to be approved by the legislature elected next year. If the proposal
wins that approval, it would then go on the ballot during the general
election of 2008, timing that has heavy political overtones because
that's a presidential election year.
(Click here to read the complete article.)
Your Right to Buy Supplements is at Risk!
by
Linda Thieman
on Fri 04 Mar 2005 11:05 AM CST
  
Your Right to Buy Supplements is at Risk!
Nutritional Health Alliance
Pending Bills in Congress Could Take Away Your Health Care Rights to Buy Vitamins and Herbs
Our Health Freedoms are Under Siege!
Legislators and the FDA continue their relentless assault.
Why are vitamins under siege?
Natural supplements seem to be warding off attacks from all angles
lately. Of course, the most vicious assault, threatening to revoke our
right to take safe, natural vitamins, is coming from legislators
working to impose adverse event reporting (AER) on nutritional
supplements. If these legislators succeed, you’ll need a prescription to get your daily multivitamin - because all vitamins will be regarded as drugs. Absurd? It gets even more bizarre.
Recent
media reports warning that vitamin E may have side effects have
completely dominated headlines, poisoning the mind of the public.
In truth, legitimate studies have proven that vitamin E is not only
essential for overall health, but possesses amazing cardiovascular
health-enhancing properties.
With
the recent smear campaign against vitamin E, to go along with the
ongoing AER threat against all vitamins, it appears that powerful
forces are successfully orchestrating multi-pronged attacks to prevent
Americans from taking health-enhancing supplements. Their
impending victory, and the subsequent decline of America’s health, will
funnel billions of additional dollars into the pharmaceutical and
health-care industries.
At the
heart of this maelstrom is the Federal Drug Administration (FDA), which
may ultimately have supreme power over all pharmaceutical drugs and
nutritional supplements. But do we really want the FDA controlling our
vitamins?
Dishonest FDA
What on
earth is the FDA doing? The agency’s mission statement reads, in part:
“The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring
the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs,
biological products...[and] our nation’s food supply...”
This is
the very same FDA that dropped the ball on at least two painkillers,
Vioxx and Celebrex, and countless other synthetic drugs. The same FDA
that banned L-tryptophan, a serotonin-producing amino acid nutritional
supplement that showed incredible promise in treating both anxiety and
depression. The same FDA regulating a food supply that has made obesity
an American epidemic. The very same FDA that is now trying to take away
your vitamins.
The FDA
mission statement continues: “The FDA is also responsible for...helping
the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use
medicines and foods to improve their health.” So where is the FDA
statement refuting the recent media stories on vitamin E, which were
inaccurate and based on flawed scientific method? Is the FDA protecting
our health or dooming us to sickness?
We the People Demand Vitamins!
Fight back! America is about people having the power. When we see our rights as free Americans compromised, we must fight.
Write to
your U.S. Senators and your U.S. Representative today before it’s too
late! No time to write? You can still join the fight.
Visit www.NHA2004.com
and take advantage of the revolutionary new technology that enables
online visitors to rapidly and easily compose letters, e-mails and
faxes to Congress. Don’t let the FDA take away your vitamins and health
care rights! For health, freedom and liberty, join the NHA today!
The
NHA online technology for letter writing lets YOU CHOOSE between
several openings, text options, and closings. A really nifty
tool! Go here!
Thursday, March 3
Democrats Wimp Out on First Amendment. Surprise!
by
Linda Thieman
on Thu 03 Mar 2005 08:33 AM CST
 Democrats Wimp Out on First Amendment. Surprise!
by John Nichols, AlterNet.org
Judging
from the lackluster showing against the Broadcast Decency Enforcement
Act, it seems that most Democrats – who are supposed to take civil
liberties more seriously than the Republicans – believe that censorship
is what America is all about.
What is the issue on which congressional Democrats are least likely to take a bold – and appropriate – stand?
...Freedom
of speech? Yes. When the House voted in mid-February on the so-called
Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, only 36 Democrats took the side of
the First Amendment. They were joined by one independent, Vermont
Socialist Bernie Sanders, and one Republican, Texas renegade Ron Paul.
The vast
majority of House Democratic Caucus members – they're the ones who are
supposed to "get" the First Amendment at least a little bit better than
their Republican colleagues – sided with House Majority Leader Tom
DeLay, R-Texas, and his merry band of crusaders for censorship.
Don't
let the bipartisan support for this measure cause you to think that
this was an inconsequential measure. The draconian assault on the
rights of artists and communicators to express controversial views was
broadly opposed by unions representing the creative community. Under
the provisions of the measure, an individual talk-show host, filmmaker,
musician or on-air commentator could be fined as much as $500,000 for
producing an image or expressing a point of view that is considered
"indecent" by censors at the conservative-controlled Federal
Communications Commission.
(Click here to read the complete article.)
|
|
