March 29, 2002
Media compilation #59: Deep Throat Sorely Missing
Dear journalist
Thank God we have the Internet to hear about the following information, because the conventional corporate-owned media simply don't mention any of this.
One is left to wonder why it is so...
Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator
http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000
"That George Bush Sr, former head of the CIA and president, is by any measure of international law one of the modern era's greatest prima facie war criminals, and his son's illegitimate administration a product of this dynastic mafia, is unmentionable."
- Quoted from John Pilger's article #1 below
"(...) we had president Bush placing a call to Majority Leader Senator Tom Daschle asking him NOT to investigate the events of September 11, And then, hot on the heels of the president's phone call was another phone call from the vice president asking that Tom Daschle also not investigate the events that lead to September 11. My question is, What do they have to hide? (...) Now, the $48.1 billion increase that Secretary Rumsfeld requested was interesting because basically what he said was we can afford it. Notwithstanding the fact that the Pentagon has lost 2.3 trillion dollars that we very well cannot afford to have lost."
- Quoted from Congresswoman Cynthia Mckinney in #3 below)
CONTENTS
1. John Pilger: Compliant press preparing ground for attack on Iraq
2. (US) Rep. McKinney - A hero in the demand for inquiry into 9-11
3. WHAT BRINGS US TOGETHER: HAVE WE REACHED A CRITICAL TURNING POINT?
SEE ALSO:
WHAT I'VE LEARNED ABOUT U.S. FOREIGN POLICY: The War Against The Third World
http://www.addictedtowar.com/dorrel.html
Addicted to War (EXCELLENT!)
http://www.addictedtowar.com
1.
From: http://pilger.carlton.com/print/100275
A compliant press is preparing the ground for an all-out attack on Iraq. It never mentions the victims: the young, the old and the vulnerable.
John Pilger
21 Mar 2002
The promised attack on Iraq will test free journalism as never before. The prevailing media orthodoxy is that the attack is only a matter of time. "The arguments may already be over," says the Observer, "Bush and Blair have made it clear . . ." The beating of war drums is so familiar that the echo of the last round of media tom-toms is still heard, together with its self-serving "vindication" for having done the dirty work of great power, yet again.
I have been a reporter in too many places where public lies have disguised the culpability for great suffering, from Indochina to southern Africa, East Timor to Iraq, merely to turn the page or switch off the news-as-sermon, and accept that journalism has to be like this -- "waiting outside closed doors to be lied to", as Russell Baker of the New York Times once put it. The honourable exceptions lift the spirits. One piece by Robert Fisk will do that, regardless of his subject. An eyewitness report from Palestine by Peter Beaumont in the Observer remains in the memory, as singular truth, along with Suzanne Goldenberg's brave work for the Guardian.
The pretenders, the voices of Murdochism and especially the liberal ciphers of rampant western power can rightly say that Pravda never published a Fisk. "How do you do it?" asked a Pravda editor, touring the US with other Soviet journalists at the height of the cold war. Having read all the papers and watched the TV, they were astonished to find that all the foreign news and opinions were more or less the same. "In our country, we put people in prison, we tear out their fingernails to achieve this result? What's your secret?"
The secret is the acceptance, often unconscious, of an imperial legacy: the unspoken rule of reporting whole societies in terms of their usefulness to western "interests" and of minimising and obfuscating the culpability of "our" crimes. "What are 'we' to do?" is the unerring media cry when it is rarely asked who "we" are and what "our" true agenda is, based on a history of conquest and violence. Liberal sensibilities may be offended, even shocked by modern imperial double standards, embodied in Blair; but the invisible boundaries of how they are reported are not in dispute. The trail of blood is seldom followed; the connections are not made; "our" criminals, who kill and collude in killing large numbers of human beings at a safe distance, are not named, apart from an occasional token, like Kissinger.
A long series of criminal operations by the American secret state, identified and documented, such as the conspiracy that oversaw the "forgotten" slaughter of up to a million people in Indonesia in 1965-66, amount to more deaths of innocent people than died in the Holocaust. But this is irrelevant to present-day reporting. The tutelage of hundreds of tyrants, murderers and torturers by "our" closest ally, including the training of Islamic jihad fanatics in CIA camps in Virginia and Pakistan, is of no consequence. The harbouring in the United States of more terrorists than probably anywhere on earth, including hijackers of aircraft and boats from Cuba, controllers of El Salvadorean death squads and politicians named by the United Nations as complicit in genocide, is clearly of no interest to those standing in front of the White House and reporting, with a straight face, "America's war on terrorism".
That George Bush Sr, former head of the CIA and president, is by any measure of international law one of the modern era's greatest prima facie war criminals, and his son's illegitimate administration a product of this dynastic mafia, is unmentionable.
The rest of the answer to the incredulous question raised by the Pravda editors in America is censorship by omission. Once vital information illuminates the true aims of the "national security state", the euphemism for the mafia state, it loses media "credibility" and is consigned to the margins, or oblivion. Thus, fake debates can be carried on in the British Sunday newspapers about whether "we" should attack Iraq. The debaters, often proud liberals with an equally proud record of supporting Washington's other invasions, guard the limits.
These "debates" are framed in such a way that Iraq is neither a country nor a community of 22 million human beings, but one man, Saddam Hussein. A picture of the fiendish tyrant almost always dominates the page. ("Should we go to war against this man?" asked last Sunday's Observer). To appreciate the power of this, replace the picture with a photograph of stricken Iraqi infants, and the headline with: "Should we go to war against these children?" Propaganda then becomes truth. Any attack on Iraq will be executed, we can rest assured, in the American way, with saturation cluster bombing and depleted uranium, and the victims will be the young, the old, the vulnerable, like the 5,000 civilians who are now reliably estimated to have been bombed to death in Afghanistan. As for the murderous Saddam Hussein, former friend of Bush Sr and Thatcher, his escape route is almost certainly assured.
The column inches now devoted to Iraq, often featuring unnamed manipulators and liars of the intelligence services, almost always omit one truth. This is the truth of the American - and British-driven embargo on Iraq, now in its 13th year. Hundreds of thousands of people, mostly children, have died as a consequence of this medieval siege. The worst, most tendentious journalism has sought to denigrate the scale of this crime, even calling the death of Iraqi infants a mere "statistical construct". The facts are documented in international study after study, from the United Nations to Harvard University. (For a digest of the facts, see Dr Eric Herring's Bristol University paper "Power, Propaganda and Indifference: an explanation of the continued imposition of economic sanctions on Iraq despite their human cost", available from eric.herring@bristol.ac.uk)
Among those now debating whether the Iraqi people should be cluster-bombed or not, incinerated or not, you are unlikely to find the names of Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, who have done the most to break through the propaganda. No one knows the potential human cost better than they. As assistant secretary general of the UN, Halliday started the oil-for-food programme in Iraq. Von Sponeck was his successor. Eminent in their field of caring for other human beings, they resigned their long UN careers, calling the embargo "genocide".
Their last appearance in the press was in the Guardian last November, when they wrote: "The most recent report of the UN secretary general, in October 2001, says that the US and UK governments' blocking of $4bn of humanitarian supplies is by far the greatest constraint on the implementation of the oil-for-food programme. The report says that, in contrast, the Iraqi government's distribution of humanitarian supplies is fully satisfactory...The death of some 5-6,000 children a month is mostly due to contaminated water, lack of medicines and malnutrition. The US and UK governments' delayed clearance of equipment and materials is responsible for this tragedy, not Baghdad."
They are in no doubt that if Saddam Hussein saw advantage in deliberately denying his people humanitarian supplies, he would do so; but the UN, from the secretary general himself down, says that, while the regime could do more, it has not withheld supplies. Indeed, without Iraq's own rationing and distribution system, says the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, there would have been famine. Halliday and von Sponeck point out that the US and Britain are able to fend off criticism of sanctions with unsubstantiated stories that the regime is "punishing" its own people. If these stories are true, they say, why does America and Britain further punish them by deliberately withholding humanitarian supplies, such as vaccines, painkillers and cancer diagnostic equipment? This wanton blocking of UN-approved shipments is rarely reported in the British press. The figure is now almost $5bn in humanitarian-related supplies. Once again, the UN executive director of the oil-for-food programme has broken diplomatic silence to express "grave concern at the unprecedented surge in volume of holds placed on contracts [by the US]".
By ignoring or suppressing these facts, together with the scale of a four-year bombing campaign by American and British aircraft (in 1999/2000, according to the Pentagon, the US flew 24,000 "combat missions" over Iraq), journalists have prepared the ground for an all-out attack on Iraq. The official premise for this -- that Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction -- has not been questioned. In fact, in 1998, the UN reported that Iraq had complied with 90 per cent of its inspectors' demands. That the UN inspectors were not "expelled", but pulled out after American spies were found among them in preparation for an attack on Iraq, is almost never reported. Since then, the world's most sophisticated surveillance equipment has produced no real evidence that the regime has renewed its capacity to build weapons of mass destruction. "The real goal of attacking Iraq now," says Eric Herring, "is to replace Saddam Hussein with another compliant thug."
The attempts by journalists in the US and Britain, acting as channels for American intelligence, to connect Iraq to 11 September have also failed. The "Iraq connection" with anthrax has been shown to be rubbish; the culprit is almost certainly American. The rumour that an Iraqi intelligence official met Mohammed Atta, the 11 September hijacker, in Prague was exposed by Czech police as false. Yet press "investigations" that hint, beckon, erect a straw man or two, then draw back, while giving the reader the overall impression that Iraq requires a pasting, have become a kind of currency. One reporter added his "personal view" that "the use of force is both right and sensible". Will he be there when the clusters spray their bomblets?
Those who dare speak against this propaganda are abused as apologists for the tyrant. Two years ago, on a now infamous Newsnight, the precocious apostate Peter Hain was allowed to smear Denis Halliday, a man whose integrity is internationally renowned. Although dissent has broken through recently, especially in the Guardian, to its credit, that low point in British broadcasting set the tone. If the media pages did their job, they would set aside promoting the careers of media managers and challenge the orthodoxy of reporting a fraudulent "war on terrorism"; they owe that, at least, to aspiring young journalists. I recommend a new website edited by the writer David Edwards, whose factual, inquiring analysis of the reporting of Iraq, Afghanistan and other issues has already drawn the kind of defensive spleen that shows how unused to challenge and accountability much of journalism, especially that calling itself liberal, has become. The address is http://www.medialens.org
It is time that three urgent issues became front-page news. The first is restraining Bush and his collaborator Blair from killing large numbers of people in Iraq. The second is an arms and military technology embargo applied throughout the Gulf and the Middle East; an embargo on both Iraq and Israel. The third is the ending of "our" siege of a people held hostage to cynical events over which they have no control.
2.
From: "Deborah Mokma" <dmokma@jeffnet.org>
Subject: FWD (US) Rep. McKinney - A hero in the demand for inquiry into 9-11
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002
We have a hero in the demand for inquiry into 9-11. Congresswoman Cynthia Ann McKinney from Georgia has begun demanding that the Bush/Bin Laden connection and the bizarre fabrications making up the official story around the 9-11, WTC attacks, be FULLY INVESTIGATED.
She has suffered much hate mail from this, and she needs our support.
In just five years, Cynthia Ann McKinney, Georgia's first African-American Congresswoman and the only woman serving in the state's congressional delegation, has emerged as an internationally renowned advocate for voting rights, human rights and the strengthening of business ties between Africa and the United States. She is known as a passionate, intelligent, charismatic and effective member of the House of Representatives.
As a Georgia state legislator from 1988 to 1992, Congresswoman McKinney gained national attention because of her determined struggle for a fair and just reapportionment plan in Georgia. Elected to the U.S. House of Representatives by a decisive margin in 1992, McKinney has continued that struggle. Her new district, the Fourth Congressional District of Georgia, was redrawn as a result of recent US. Supreme Court decisions challenging the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act.
The New York Times reported this week the Senate committee voted unanimously to dramatically widen the 9-11 inquiries. This doesn't mean it's a done deal, it could still be glossed over. HOWEVER, with committed people of conscience like Rep. McKinney pushing and pushing behind the committees, WE COULD HAVE A REAL INQUIRY.
Here's a courageous person in government who deserves our support for standing up and speaking out.
Please send cards of thanks and support to:
Congresswoman Cynthia Ann McKinney
124 Cannon Building Washington, DC 20515
ph 202 225 1605 fax 202 226 0691
http://www.house.gov/mckinney/
-- Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney reads her essay/commentary on the "war against terrorism" in an interview with Dennis Bernstein broadcast on Flashpoints on 3/25/02 -- http://www.flashpoints.net [audio at:] http://www.flashpoints.net/realaudio/fp20020325.ram [go to minute 30:00]
Complete text of her (excellent) essay/commentary can be found at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/portside/message/2198
This is an excerpt, followed by Dennis Bernstein's questions and her response:
(...) And so, with no concern at all for the effects on others of US supported terrorism the US, with its bombs and military, embarked on a world-wide crusade against terrorism that Bush said likely will last as many as 20 years. The list of target countries is long, with Afghanistan, Somalia, Tanzania, Kenya, Sudan, the Philippines, and Iraq offering the starters. But what of the fact that Henry Kissinger and the current new US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, both once lobbied Washington, DC on behalf of a US oil company, Unocal, and a softer policy toward the Taliban?
Whose war is this really?
In November 2000 Republicans stole from America our most precious right of all, the right to free and fair elections. In an organized manner, Florida Governor Jeb Bush and his Secretary of State Katharine Harris created a list of convicted felons, 57,700 to be exact, to "scrub" from the state's voter roles. The names were created from Florida records and from lists provided by 11 other states, the largest list coming from Texas. We now know that most of the people on that list were innocent of crimes. The list was a phony. And worse, the majority of those rightful voters were people of color, and likely Democratic voters. Of the thousands who had their votes scrubbed, 80% are African Americans. Had they voted, the course of history would have changed. Harris declared Bush the victor by only 537 votes. President Carter has said that the Carter Center would not certify the 2001 election had they been asked to do so
Consequently an administration of questionable legitimacy has been given unprecedented power to fight a war against terrorism. ...
Moreover, persons close to this administration are poised to make huge profits off America's new war. Former President Bush sits on the board of the Carlyle Group. The Los Angeles Times reports that on a single day last month, Carlyle earned 237 million dollars selling shares in United Defense Industries, the Army's fifth-largest contractor. The stock offering was well timed. Carlyle officials say they decided to take the company public only after the September 11 attacks. The stock sale cashed in on increased Congressional support, a hefty defense spending including one of United Defense's cornerstone weapons program.
Now is the time for our elected officials to be held accountable. Now is the time for the media to be held accountable. Why aren't the hard questions being asked?
We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11. Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, delivered one such warning. Those engaged in unusual stock trades immediately before September 11 knew enough to make millions of dollars from United and American airlines, certain insurance and brokerage firms' stocks. What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11? Who else knew and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered.
September 11 erased the lines between "over there" and "over here." The American people can no longer afford to be detached from the world, as our actions abroad will have a direct impact on our lives at home. In Washington DC, decisions affecting home and abroad are made, and too many of us leave the responsibility of protecting our freedom to other people whose interests are not our own.
From Durban to Kabul to Atlanta to Washington, what our government does in our name is important. It is also now clear that our future, our security, and our rights depend on our vigilance. [end of essay]
DB: Well, Congresswoman Cynthia Mckinney, it is great to have you with us on Flashpoints. I wanted to follow up on that very powerful commentary with just a few questions that come off speeches you have made from the House floor on related information. First of all, why do you oppose the Rumsfeld 48.1 billion dollar increase in the military budget? What is most troubling about this for you?
CM: It was incredible sitting in the room on the day that secretary Rumsfeld gave his presentation to members of the Armed Services Committee. Of course I serve on the House Armed Services Committee, and every year the Secretary of Defense comes before that Committee with a statement on the budget.
Now, the $48.1 billion increase that Secretary Rumsfeld requested was interesting because basically what he said was we can afford it. Notwithstanding the fact that the Pentagon has lost 2.3 trillion dollars that we very well cannot afford to have lost.
DB: Lost it? Where did they lose it?
CM: That's a darn good question. You would think that Arthur Anderson is their accountant over there. They have lost 2.3 trillion dollars, and they don't know where to find that money. And of course the Secretary acknowledged the fact 2.3 trillion dollars remain unaccounted for, but in his testimony to the House Armed Services Committee, the Secretary said that the US can afford it. Now, he also said that we have a responsibility in this brave new post September 11 world, to make sure that we can adequately defend ourselves. And what he used as a justification for this unprecedented hike, the biggest hike in a generation, was the fact of the events around September 11. But as you know, and I know, it wasn't the military that failed. It was a failure of people who had information to act.
We know that there were several warnings that were given prior to the events of September 11. From people in Germany to people in the Cayman Islands to people even, now we learn about the owners of the pilot school. People were calling in to the FBI and the CIA and they were giving information that was critical.
Even prior to these warnings we had the trial itself from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. And we had the trial from the American embassy bombing... And now the US government is being sued by survivors of the embassy bombings, because it is clear that America had warnings and did nothing. Did nothing to protect the lives of the people who serve in our foreign service and who serve us in other ways in our embassies around the world. Now the US government is being sued, and we're gonna have to pay for that, as those families are now paying every day with the loss of their loved ones
There was adequate warning. There were people who failed to act on the warning. And that's what ought to be investigated. But instead of requesting that Congress investigate what went wrong and why, we had president Bush (painful for me to say that, but) we had president Bush placing a call to Majority Leader Senator Tom Daschle asking him NOT to investigate the events of September 11, And then, hot on the heels of the president's phone call was another phone call from the vice president asking that Tom Daschle also not investigate the events that lead to September 11.
My question is, What do they have to hide? And why is it that the American people are being asked to make tremendous sacrifices now in our civil liberties. And the fact that we got this request for an unprecedented hike in -- the hike alone of 48.1 billion dollars is more than any one of our allies spend total on their defense.
And then the other issue that saddens me is the fact that the former President, president Bush's daddy, sits on the board of the Carlyle Group. And so we get this presidency, of questionable legitimacy, requesting a nearly unprecedented amount of money to go into a defense budget for defense spending that will directly benefit his father.
Where are the brakes on transparency and corruption that I see happening as a result of the fact that the president's father stands to make money off of the very requests that the president has made, on what I would call a specious argument saying that we need to increase defense spending because of Sept 11, when we now know that there was enough warning that we didn't have to even experience September 11 at all; at least that's the way it is now beginning to appear.
DB: How would the father make money on this budget?
CM: The father sits on the board of an organization called the Carlyle Group. Now when we had Frank Carlucci come to testify at the House International Relations Committee shortly after George W was sworn in,
DB: former Defense Secretary
CM: former Defense Secretary -- and we have a requirement that organizations that come before our committee, the House International Relations Committee, have to disclose Federal contracts. And so I requested of our chairman, Chairman Hyde, whether or not the Carlyle Group would be subjected to that requirement, since everyone else has to do it. And of course the Carlyle Group was NOT required to make any disclosure as to the Federal contracts that it had. That in itself means that they are skirting the rules of the House.
Notwithstanding that, the fact that the father sits on the board of the Carlyle Group, which is one of the highest level defense contractors in the country. I think they're number 11 or 12 in defense contracts. And they have at least one program, the Crusader, which doesn't work, it's a weapons system that doesn't work, has experienced tremendous cost overruns, and yet it continues to be funded, and we can only think that it's the heavy hand of very well-placed lobbyists that make sure that weapons systems that are, that have a connection with the Carlyle Group get funded. And even building contracts: bases abroad, all of the bases that we are now looking at, new bases going into Uzbekistan. The positioning of troops in former Soviet Georgia -- those troops are going to have to be housed, fed, and the weapons systems are going to have to be contained, and all of that is money. And sadly the Carlyle Group will benefit from this increase in funding that has been requested by the president.
Interestingly also, and probably the scariest of all, was the new mission, as identified by the Secretary, for our Armed Services. And that is that a major role now for the US military will be to occupy an opponent's capital and displace its regime.
Now, if that's the mission -- and we've been told that there are as many as 60 countries around the world that host terror cells that we need to go in and flush out -- then basically what we're talking about is expanding US military presence all over the planet. And that is a frightening experience and a frightening thought for me because I know that if we provide weapons they get used. And if our troops are there, they are going to use those weapons and those weapons that we provide might even be used against our own troops; we have to be very careful about that.
But interestingly the Secretary said that they intend to "drain the swamp", and it's interesting to me that it appears to me that this new mission of our military to go into a capital and take it over was started in Washington DC.
DB: Final question, Congresswoman McKinney. These are mighty powerful thoughts you’re expressing here. I'm wondering how much support you have in Congress, and perhaps you have heard from people who are quite unhappy with your voicing these kinds of very strong, controversial thoughts
CM: It's always good to hear from people who think like you. I definitely hear from people who don't think like you. And that's healthy. It's a part of the American process. But just as it's healthy for me to hear from people who don't think like me, it's also very healthy for people like me to have a voice and to be willing to speak. And it's totally inappropriate, I believe, for my patriotism to be questioned, my feelings of attachment and loyalty for America to be questioned
DB: Has it been questioned?
CM: You would be surprised at the hate mail that I get in the Congressional office.
DB: What do people say to you?
CM: I wish I had a piece right here and I'd read it to you. We got one piece that told me that I needed to go back to Africa and take Jesse with me. it seems that the people who write in find it impossible to omit the fact that I'm black. And so the racial aspect of the hatred also comes out. I can accept people who disagree. But I don't know that we need thought police in our universities, because our universities are supposed to teach freedom of thought. And I don't know that we need thought police and speech police inside the US Congress, because the Congress is supposed to represent Americans of all stripes and all ideologies. And I know that there is a very powerful peace movement in this country. I hear from them, I know they're out there. I'd love to hear a little bit more from them.
DB: Well, we have very much appreciated hearing from you today. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, reading her essay "Thoughts on our war against terrorism", and then speaking with us on Flashpoints here on Pacifica radio. We thank you so much for your time and your good information and commentary.
CM: Thank you very much and I look forward to talking with you again.
THIS IS ALSO OF GREAT INTEREST! ...
3.
WHAT BRINGS US TOGETHER: HAVE WE REACHED A CRITICAL TURNING POINT?
New large-scale national study offers profound insight into our core commonalities
March 14, 2002 -- POINT REYES STATION, CA -- Fund For Global Awakening (FFGA), a California-based not-for-profit organization, announces the release of a groundbreaking research study of American values, attitudes and beliefs: the In Our Own Words 2000 Research Program (IOOW 2000). This large-scale, landmark research suggests many ways in which our society may be approaching a turning point in its development. An ever-increasing proportion of the population is embracing a more encompassing understanding of themselves, a deeper spiritual awareness, a universal connectedness, and a belief in working toward a greater common good.
“America is a society whose strength is based in part on the hopes and aspirations that arise from a longing for enlightenment and compassion,” notes FFGA Director Alex Kochkin. “What choices will Americans make to tap our enormous potential? The IOOW 2000 results provide a very reliable and realistic picture of America today – and where we may be heading next.”
The information gathered in the IOOW 2000 Research — the result of two years of intensive work carried out by an accomplished professional research team — demonstrates a profound sense of connection that is shared by a diverse population of Americans. The immediate and practical benefits derived from these findings include well-defined ways to reach people based on positive values and attitudes not available through other research systems or through conventional communications strategies. Its analysis of eight American types offers startling insight into our society:
- Embracing Traditional Values
- Cautious and Conservative
- Disengaged from Social Concerns
- Persisting through Adversity
- Connecting through Self-Exploration
- Seeking Community Transformation
- Working for a New Life of Wholeness
- Centered in a Material World
(A typology system measures multiple traits — values, beliefs and motivations — and determines to what extent they exist within a population. Typologies assume that these traits are relatively consistent, change very slowly over time, and form attitudes and lifestyles that drive behavior. The goal of a typology is not to pigeonhole people, but to help us understand key differences and commonalities among types.)
Applying this typology, IOOW 2000 Research examines key values, attitudes and beliefs concerning forgiveness and tolerance, ethics and leadership, compassion and service, expectations for the next decade, technology, media, healthcare, and other vital contemporary concerns. The study identifies many key issues of strategic importance to American society and to individuals in positions of leadership. The insights derived from the IOOW typology are of great value in developing communications and positioning strategy.
IOOW 2000 Research demonstrates ways to reach a robust group of individuals seeking a positive, compassionate and enlightened future embodying new ways of transcending conflict and retribution. Now more than ever, these core values need to be supported and brought to the forefront of our awareness. The sponsors of this study hope that many U.S. organizations and policy-making bodies will be guided by the inspiring insights of the American public that are given voice in this study.
Fund For Global Awakening (http://www.ffga.org) is a public charitable non-profit organization based in Marin County, California, and is not limited or influenced by any religious beliefs, political or economic interests.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Nancy Demel
In Our Own Words 2000 Research Program
Tel: 415-663-8211
Fax: 415-663-8261
E-Mail: ioow@ffga.org
Internet: http://www.inourownwords.org
