In light of the recent media circus surrounding the execution of Saddam Hussein, I think America needs the following reminder. Please spread this message as far and wide as you can.

James Madison wrote, "A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy, or perhaps both."  The increased suppression of scientific dissent in America in recent years proves the accuracy of Madison's observation.

In a recent diary, I described the lack of adequate and accurate public information on radiation hazards. Unfortunately, the nuclear-proliferation-for-profit crowd has a long history of trying to suppress public dialogue about nuclear safety rather than support their own positions with facts presented openly. Scientists who offer contrary facts and opinions soon find that they have themselves become "radioactive," as one whistleblower described it to me.

Op-ed Banned in Minnesota

In the classic movie, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, mainstream newspapers refuse to publish reports of idealistic Senator Jefferson Smith's battle against Congressional corruption. Thus, it falls to an informal network of concerned citizens and newspaper boys to get out the truth.  Today, fiction became reality as word came that a Minnesota newspaper, the Pioneer Press, has refused to publish an op-ed supportive of Coleen Rowley, Democratic candidate for the 2nd District.

Clearly, the Press, which announced support for incumbent John Kline, fears that the gap between idealist Rowley and Stepford Republican Kline has narrowed to the extent that any favorable publicity for Rowley could result in a upset.

Let's send the message to the Pioneer Press and likeminded papers that their strategy of suppressing differing opinions is a loser. With permission from the authors, please distribute this article and the banned op-ed, below, as widely as possible via blogs, email and commentary, and help the integrity candidate win on November 7!

President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela made two remarkable speeches at the United Nations just four days apart on September 16th and 20th.  In the typical fashion of the mainstream media most every substantive point that Chavez made was ignored, which comprised most of his speaking itinerary, focusing on global economics and how to correct the increasing appalling gap between rich and poor internationally.

In the typical fashion of the tepid "excuse me" current Democratic Party, where the style favored by Joe Lieberman along with Fox pundits Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity is preferred to that of heretics such as Jim Hightower and Al Franken, two leading figures of what sadly passes these days for Republican Party opposition surfaced to denounce Hugo Chavez in conveying a warped interpretation of U.S. unity.

Perhaps it was understandable why Congressman Charles Rangel of New York City and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco sharply denounced certain Chavez remarks.  

They should have been greatly embarrassed since it took a leader of a South American nation to make the case that certain bona fide Democratic Party progressives used to make in what looms as an increasingly distant and scarcely observable past.

"Today, President Bush said the United States is still under the threat of attack, and will continue to be right up until Election Day."

-- Jay Leno 8/29/2006

Once again, Republicans have defined the debate for the upcoming elections -- and it's one we've seen before.

Republicans: "The Iraq war is central to the greater fight against terrorism."

And the Democrats latch on: "The Iraq war detracts from the greater fight against terrorism."

So there you go. Iraq and the fight against terrorism -- together once again. And the only thing the American people will hear over and over and over again is: "Iraq and the war on terror... Iraq and the war on terror... Iraq and the war on terror..." The details are easily clouded and thus relatively inconsequential.

This plays perfectly into the overall issue of 'fighting terrorism', the falsely perceived strength of Republicans. And it will be the defining debate for this election cycle. More importantly, Monsieur Rove will continue with his long-time, frightfully successful strategy of taking his opponent's strength (in this case, the Republican's failure in Iraq) and driving it straight through their political heart (In this case, reframing the Iraq War as the central beam supporting the greater "War on Terror".)

And the Democrats are obliging them by jumping right on board. Of course Dems think they're setting the stage by attacking the Republican's weak spot (Iraq) but instead, they are highlighting and accentuating the Republican frame that the United States is in 'constant peril' and a 'critical state of danger' from various, innumerable, faceless, international 'Islamo-facist' bedevilers.

In short, the Dems are supporting the frame that makes the Republican fear-mongering so damn effective in coercing the American electorate.

The truth will out: in his press conference today, Bush literally admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

"A reporter yelled out, "What did Iraq have to do with the 9-11 attack?" and Bush yelled, "Nothing!'"

I don't have the tech ability -- but somebody who does: please, please record that exchange and set it loose on YouTube.

In his latest column for the New York Times, Paul Krugman discusses the way John McCain is cozying up with Jerry Falwell and the Religious Right. It used to be that McCain was an avowed enemy of these people and thought that they had no place in the Republican Party. His campaign against them was a campaign against them just as much as it was a campaign against Bush. But now, John McCain has flip-flopped. From being an enemy of the Religious Right, he had blatantly sucked up to Jerry Falwell, the very man who was the symbol of the evils John McCain was supposedly against.

You see, the problem is that John McCain is not knowledgeable when it comes to Iraq. So, the logical question is, what else is he not knowledgeable about? Apparently, he is not knowledgeable about social issues, either. So, instead of thinking for himself, he forfeits his credibility as a maverick and drinks at the halls of power with Jerry Falwell instead.

It is always better to say right out what you think without trying to prove anything much: for all our proofs are only variations of our opinions, and the contrary-minded listen neither to one nor the other."~~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

I said I'd never do it -- say what I think about that terrible morning of September 11, 2001. I've seen what happens to those who question the elaborate, tangled explanations the Bush administration offers about what happened, how it happened, who did it, and why they did it. It doesn't matter if those who dare speak truth to the lies are professors, investigative reporters, eyewitnesses, scientists -- "conspiracy theorist" is immediately tattooed on their foreheads. They are jeered at, ridiculed, spat upon and swift-boated right out of the room. They are banished to the outskirts of civilized society.

A recent Zogby poll has been getting a fair amount of press because 72% of soldiers say they want to come home.  That is understandable, and not all that newsworthy.  What is stunning to me is why the soldiers think they are Iraq.