January 21, 2003

Miscellaneous Subjects #172: Various News of Interest

Hello everyone

Since I'm leaving for a few days, I'm sending you a couple compilations I have already prepared to keep you all posted on the latest.

Love and Light will prevail!

Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator

This compilation is archived at

"A 13-member religious leaders' mission to Iraq returned to the United States January 3 after witnessing the 20-year legacy of suffering of Iraqi civilians - especially children - and burdened with the knowledge that war would further deepen that suffering. Terming preemptive war immoral, illegal and theologically illegitimate, the group contends that a war against Iraq would result in widespread suffering and death for innocent people and would make the U.S. less secure, not more secure."

-- Taken from National Council of Churches's webpage


1. U.S. Considers Using Iraq's Oil to Pay for Occupation
2. Urge Congress to Reject Sharon's Request
3. Union of Concerned Scientists: Take Action to Cut Global Warming
4. Don't Buy Tuna with New "Dolphin-Safe" Label
5. Toxic ammo is tested in fish areas: US Navy uses depleted uranium in coast waters

See also:

U.S. Plans for Interim Military Rule in Postwar Iraq (Jan 17)

A Lesson In U.S. Propaganda (Jan 3)
Why, since Desert Storm, have more than 160,000 of its US veterans been provided medical or disability benefits – over twice the rate of other wars? What were they exposed to on the battlefield? And how many Iraqi soldiers and civilians died? (Like the Pentagon, Saddam Hussein prefers to keep the matter closed.) Was the bombing of civilian infrastructure a deliberate strategy to foment revolution? If so, it was a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Were outright war crimes committed by our side, as journalist Seymour Hersh reported in April 2000? As with the purpose of the factory at Abu Ghreib, such questions do have answers, and those answers might be found – and our democracy would be the stronger for it. Far from coming up with any truths, however, President Bush, in his campaign to re-invade, has only offered us new fabrications. There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein works with al Qaeda, or that his weapons are – like North Korea's – a clear and present danger, or that the president himself does not plan to attack in any case. As we approach the anniversary of the start of Desert Storm, we should be ready for another war, and less inclined than ever to believe in it.

US weapons dossier may remain a secret (Jan 9),,3-537103,00.html
DONALD RUMSFELD, the US Defence Secretary, has suggested that Washington may present little or no evidence of Iraq’s quest for banned weapons even if President Bush decides to go to war. Mr Rumsfeld said that disclosing such details to the world or even to the United Nations Security Council could jeopardise any military mission by revealing to Baghdad what the United States knows. (...) His remarks are likely to unsettle potential US allies and complicate the task of assembling a diverse coalition for any attack on Baghdad. Moderate Arab states have said that any military action would need the authorisation of the UN if they are to open their military bases and airspace to the US and British military. But the prospects of a second UN resolution, to follow the 15-0 vote that authorised the present inspection regime in Iraq, would be hampered if the US was unwilling to share its intelligence. With the US military build-up continuing apace, American officials disagree with Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, that the chances of war are receding. One said that the time for conflict was approaching “sooner rather than later”. Downing Street has indicated that it would prefer a second UN resolution before starting military strikes. But the prospect of a speedy vote is unlikely, partly because of the five incoming members who will change the dynamics of the 15-member body. Spain, Germany, Angola, Chile and Pakistan have taken over five of the ten rotating seats from Colombia, Ireland, Mauritius, Norway and Singapore. The incomers are regarded as posing tougher nuts to crack for American negotiators at the UN than those they are replacing. Gerhard Schröder, the German Chancellor, made his opposition to an Iraq war the centrepiece of his re-election campaign, although he has recently tempered his rhetoric and is trying to mend fences with Washington. CLIP

What Would Martin Luther King Jr. Say and Do?
Dr. King is dead, and there is nothing that he can say or do about the U.S. manufacture of AIDS.

The Worst Performances of the Mainstream Media. For more than a decade now, the P.U.-litzer Prizes have gone to some of America's stinkiest media performances each year. The competition was fierce as ever in 2002. Many journalistic pieces of work deserved recognition. Only a few could be chosen.

A Smallpox Shot?,9171,1101021223-399994,00.html
The vaccine works but carries real risks. How to tell if you should take it.

Kurt Nimmo's website, Another Day in the Empire (Heavy Duty Political Satire)

Bush's Master Plan for the Internet (Jan 2)
(...) Of course, converting the internet into a big Carnivore system is one thing, while denying you access is quite another. Bush's centralized system will make this a reality. Get labeled a malcontent, a "security risk," or even a "cyber-terrorist" and you can be easily barred from Bush's "secure, trusted, robust, reliable, and available infrastructure."(...) Dubya wants to essentially authorize a Department of Approved Internet Use within the Ministry of Homeland Security.

Cyber-Liberties in Jeopardy

How Monopoly Control of the Internet Threatens Free Speech

Israel holding 1,000 Palestinians without trial


Forwarded by "Mark Graffis" <>

U.S. Considers Using Iraq's Oil to Pay for Occupation

Published on January 10, 2003 by the Long Island, NY Newsday

U.S. considers seizing revenues to pay for occupation, source says

by Knut Royce

WASHINGTON - Bush administration officials are seriously considering proposals that the United States tap Iraq's oil to help pay the cost of a military occupation, a move that likely would prove highly inflammatory in an Arab world already suspicious of U.S. motives in Iraq. Officially, the White House agrees that oil revenue would play an important role during an occupation period, but only for the benefit of Iraqis, according to a National Security Council spokesman.

Yet there are strong advocates inside the administration, including in the White House, for appropriating the oil funds as "spoils of war," according to a source who has been briefed by participants in the dialogue. "There are people in the White House who take the position that it's all the spoils of war," said the source, who asked not to be further identified. "We [the United States] take all the oil money until there is a new democratic government [in Iraq]."

The source said the Justice Department has urged caution. "The Justice Department has doubts," he said. He said department lawyers are unsure "whether any of it [Iraqi oil funds] can be used or has to all be held in trust for the people of Iraq."

Another source who has worked closely with the office of Vice President Dick Cheney said that a number of officials there too are urging that Iraq's oil funds be used to defray the cost of occupation. Jennifer Millerwise, a Cheney spokeswoman, declined to talk about "internal policy discussions."

Using Iraqi oil to fund an occupation would reinforce a prevalent belief in the Mideast that the conflict is all about control of oil, not rooting out weapons of mass destruction, according to Halim Barakat, a recently retired professor of Arab studies at Georgetown University.

"It would mean that the real ... objective of the war is not the democratization of Iraq, not getting rid of Saddam, not to liberate the Iraqi people, but a return to colonialism," he said. "That is how they [Mideast nations] would perceive it."

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost of an occupation would range from $12 billion to $48 billion a year, and officials believe an occupation could last 1 1/2 years or more.

And Iraq has a lot of oil. Its proven oil reserves are second in the world only to Saudi Arabia's. But how much revenue could be generated is an open question. The budget office estimates Iraq now is producing nearly 2.8 million barrels a day, with 80 percent of the revenues going for the United Nations Oil for Food Program or domestic consumption. The remaining 20 percent, worth about $3 billion a year, is generated by oil smuggling and much of it goes to support Saddam Hussein's military. In theory that is the money that could be used for reconstruction or to help defer occupation costs.

Yet with fresh drilling and new equipment Iraq could produce much more. By some estimates, however, it would take 10 years to fully restore Iraq's oil industry. Conversely, if Hussein torches the fields, as he did in Kuwait in 1991, it would take a year or more to resume even a modest flow. And, of course, it is impossible to predict the price of oil.

Laurence Meyer, a former Federal Reserve Board governor who chaired a Center for Strategic and International Studies conference in November on the economic consequences of a war with Iraq, said that conference participants deliberately avoided the question of whether Iraq should help pay occupation or other costs. "It's a very politically sensitive issue," he said. "... We're in a situation where we're going to be very sensitive to how our actions are perceived in the Arab world."

Meyer said officials who believe Iraq's oil could defer some of the occupation costs may be "too optimistic about how much you could increase [oil production] and how long it would take to reinvest in the infrastructure and reinvest in additional oil."

An administration source said that most of the proposals for the conduct of the war and implementation of plans for a subsequent occupation are being drafted by the Pentagon. Last month a respected Washington think tank prepared a classified briefing commissioned by Andrew Marshall, the Pentagon's influential director of Net Assessment, on the future role of U.S. Special Forces in the global war against terrorism, among other issues. Part of the presentation recommended that oil funds be used to defray the costs of a military occupation in Iraq, according to a source who helped prepare the report.

He said that the study, undertaken by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, concluded that "the cost of the occupation, the cost for the military administration and providing for a provisional [civilian] administration, all of that would come out of Iraqi oil." He said the briefing was delivered to the office of Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of Defense and one of the administration's strongest advocates for an invasion of Iraq, on Dec. 13.

Steven Kosiak, the center's director of budget studies, said he could not remember whether such a recommendation was made, but if it was it would only have been "a passing reference to something we did." Asked whether the Pentagon was now advocating the use of Iraqi oil to pay for the cost of a military occupation, Army Lt. Col. Gary Keck, a spokesman, said, "We don't have any official comment on that."

NSC spokesman Mike Anton said that in the event of war and a military occupation the oil revenues would be used "not so much to fund the operation and maintaining American forces but for humanitarian aid, refugees, possibly for infrastructure rebuilding, that kind of thing."

But the source who contributed to the Marshall report said that its conclusions reflect the opinion of many senior administration officials. "It [the oil] is going to fund the U.S. military presence there," he said. "... They're not just going to take the Iraqi oil and use it for Iraq's purpose. They will charge the Iraqis for the U.S. cost of operating in Iraq. I don't think they're planning as far as I know to use Iraqi oil to pay for the invasion, but they are going to use it to pay for the occupation."


Forwarded by "Mark Graffis" <> on Jan 10, 2003

From: (


Urge Congress to Reject Sharon's Request


A high-ranking Israeli delegation headed by Sharon's bureau chief Dov Weisglass and Israeli Defense Ministry director-general Amos Yaron held talks on January 6, 2003, with Bush Administration officials regarding Israel's request for additional U.S. military assistance and loan guarantees. The Sharon Government is seeking an additional $12 billion from Washington, including $4 billion in special assistance to cover military expenses related to responding to the conflict with the Palestinians and the anticipated war with Iraq and $8 billion in U.S.- backed loan guarantees over a five-year period to help Israel recover from its current economic crisis.

The Sharon Government has been anxious to secure a public commitment for additional aid from the Bush Administration to counter domestic criticism in Israel for the sorry state of its economy under Sharon. However, the Administration, although sympathetic, does not seem willing to commit to a response at this time. Department of State Spokesman Richard Boucher explained on January 7, "I would not expect us to be able to react that quickly to specific dollar figures or requests. So we have had discussions with the Israelis, and I am sure we will continue and discuss it with them as we consider what we can do."


The U.S. already provides a total of $2.7 billion in military and economic assistance to Israel each year. Israel is also slated to receive an additional $200 million in fiscal year 2003 to help that country "combat terrorism." In effect, Israel is already receiving over $3 billion in U.S. tax dollars every year. Saddling the American taxpayer with a spending increase of $12 billion in additional military assistance and U.S. loan guarantees for Israel at this time makes bad economic sense for all Americans. On the foreign policy level, granting Sharon's request fails to account for the long-term political and strategic implications for U.S. national interests at this critical juncture in the Arab world if the U.S. appears to be supporting hard-line Israeli policies.


NAAA-ADC is strongly opposed to giving Israel an additional $12 billion in U.S. tax-payers' money at this time. Please, join us in sending a clear message to the Congress that America's priorities at this time should focus on helping Americans and putting the American economy back on track. Go to or visit to make your voice heard now.

Together, we will make a difference.

NAAA-ADC, the government affairs affiliate of the American-Arab
Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)
4201 Connecticut Ave., N.W.,
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20008
Tel: (202) 244-2990
Fax: (202) 244-3196


From: Union of Concerned Scientists Action Network
Date: January 09, 2003
Subject: Take Action to Cut Global Warming

Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) will soon introduce groundbreaking legislation requiring cuts in US emissions of the heat-trapping gasses that cause global warming. The bill stands in sharp contrast to President Bush's "too little, too late" policy of voluntary-only cuts in global warming pollution from power plants, and his decision to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty to curb global warming. As the world's number- one emitter of global warming pollution, the United States must do better. Please urge your Senators to co-sponsor the McCain-Lieberman global warming bill.

To learn more before taking action or to customize the letter, please visit:


Dear Senator,

It is time to take responsibility for this human-caused problem that poses serious threats to the quality of life for our children and grandchildren. The good news is that the United States has the technological ability to cut our emissions of global warming pollution by producing more electricity from clean renewable sources, limiting carbon pollution from dirty coal-fired power plants, increasing energy efficiency in the public and private sectors, and making cars that go further on a gallon of gas. As the world's number- one emitter, we have a duty to implement these solutions. Unfortunately, our country's reliance on voluntary emission-reduction measures has failed to bring cuts in global warming pollution. In fact, US emissions are nearly 12 percent higher than they were in 1990.

The McCain-Lieberman bill would put us on the right track by cutting US global warming pollution to 2000 levels by 2010, and 1990 levels by 2016. The bill caps the total global warming pollution that the electric utility, commercial, industrial, and fuel sectors can produce in a given year. Companies can buy and sell their emission permits, ensuring that they will meet the cross-sector limit through the least expensive emission cuts.

The McCain-Lieberman bill excludes the public and small business from the required cuts in global warming pollution. It also uses government funds generated by the sale of emission permits to offset increases in electricity rates for consumers and provides aid to workers such as coal miners who might be negatively affected by the bill. By encouraging investment in clean technologies that support increases in renewable energy production and vehicle fuel efficiency, the bill would create new jobs and boost the economy. The bill complements necessary efforts to increase vehicle fuel economy standards and set a strong national standard requiring utilities to increase generation of clean renewable electricity.

The United States should act as a leader in the fight to curb global warming instead of trailing behind the international community. Please demonstrate your commitment to addressing the most serious environmental problem of our time by co-sponsoring the McCain- Lieberman global warming bill. I look forward to hearing from you about your support.


[your name will be inserted]


From: Joe <inishglora@y...>
Date: Wed Jan 1, 200
Subject: Don't Buy Tuna with New "Dolphin-Safe" Label

The Bush Admin is at it again.

Government eases ''dolphin-safe'' requirements on labeling tuna


WASHINGTON (AP) Tuna caught along with dolphins may be labeled ''dolphin safe'' if it can be certified that no dolphins were killed or seriously injured during the catch, the Commerce Department said Tuesday. The ruling opens the way for Mexico and Ecuador to ship tuna to the United States.

The decision to soften the requirements for using the ''dolphin- safe'' label brought immediate criticism from environmentalists who say current international safeguards are insufficient to ensure that tuna was caught without harm to dolphins.

The action by the department's National Marine Fisheries Service came after the agency determined that while thousands of dolphins continue to be killed during tuna fishing, the losses pose no significant threat to the species.

The marine fisheries service said tuna caught by encircling dolphins may immediately be imported into the United States and bear the ''dolphin-safe'' label as long as observers aboard the fishing vessels certify that no dolphins were killed or seriously injured during the catch.

"Americans can continue to have confidence that when they purchase tuna with the dolphin-safe label that dolphins are being protected," said Bill Hogarth, the agency's director.

Under the old definition, any tuna caught using dolphins as targets were automatically barred from bearing the consumer-friendly label on cans sold in the United States.

Dolphin commonly swim with schools of tuna. Various reports have said between 2,000 and 3,000 dolphins are killed annually in connection with tuna fishing in the eastern Pacific. Dolphin fatalities numbered in the hundreds of thousands decades ago, prompting new international efforts and the emergence of the ''dolphin-safe'' label to better protect the mammals.

But some environmentalists said the Bush administration was sacrificing dolphins for the sake of free trade and succumbing to pressure from Mexico, which has lobbied hard for a change in the "dolphin-safe" label requirements.

Mexico is a major source of tuna, but has been prevented from full access to the huge U.S. market. Under the old requirement, its fishermen usually were in violation of the dolphin-safe standard because they targeted dolphins in their pursuit of tuna.

"The claim that chasing and netting dolphins is safe for dolphins is fraudulent," said David Phillips, director of the marine mammal program at the Earth Island Institute, a leading advocacy group for increased protection of dolphins. He accused the Bush administration of "selling out dolphins to reward Mexican tuna millionaires."

Kitty Block, an attorney for the Humane Society of the United States, said it was "unconscionable" that "for the first time in over a decade dolphin-deadly tuna will be sold in the United States," misleading consumers about the dolphin-safe designation.

It was not immediately clear how much of an economic impact Tuesday's action will have, although it is expected to result in increased shipments of Mexican tuna into the United States.

Environmentalists noted that some major tuna processors, including StarKist, Bumble Bee and Chicken of the Sea, have pledged that they would not buy tuna caught by targeting and netting dolphins. Still, the government's new stamp of approval on some tuna caught that way, could change that.

During a telephone news conference, Hogarth expressed confidence in the reporting system to ensure that tuna labeled "dolphin safe" actually was caught without harming any dolphins.

Observers are required on each fishing vessel, and they must report any dolphin fatalities or injuries. If dolphins are harmed, that tuna is closely tracked to make sure it is not labeled "dolphin safe," he said.

But environmentalists say that, with millions of dollars in tuna sales at stake, the observers can be bribed or otherwise pressured to "look the other way" when dolphins are harmed. Hogarth said the United States will seek better enforcement of the international dolphin conservation program.

Mexico had signaled that if it did not get wider access to U.S. markets through an easing of the dolphin-safe label requirements, it might pull out of the international dolphin protection program altogether.


On the Net:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Dolphin/tunadolphin.html

Earth Island Institute body.cfm


Here you can see a picture of the new label logo. There is also a list of companies and retailers who said they will not buy the new tuna. It's a Greenpeace article from Dec.23, 2002


From: "The Palmers" <>
Date: Jan 9, 2003
Subject: Toxic ammo is tested in fish areas: US Navy uses depleted uranium in coast waters

Since I currently hold two views, Earthly and Divine, I am doing what I need to do on all levels to get the truth out into the light for all to see... It is too difficult to know what I know, and keep it concealed, I feel a responsibility to share this with all who will listen and may find the compassion within, to address these matters. Though I may play a small role, it is never insignificant, or I would not feel so deeply compelled to do it! I sent this message below to my two female State Senators. They have nothing to act upon, if we do not give them something to put into action!






Toxic ammo is tested in fish areas U.S. Navy uses depleted uranium in coast waters

Activists may go to court

January 9, 2003

The Navy routinely tests a weapon by firing radioactive, toxic ammunition in prime fishing areas off the coast of Washington, raising concerns from scientists, fishermen and activists.

The Navy insists the use of depleted uranium off the coast poses no threat to the environment. Depleted uranium, known as DU, is a highly dense metal that is the byproduct of the process during which fissionable uranium used to manufacture nuclear bombs and reactor fuel is separated from natural uranium. DU remains radioactive for about 4.5 billion years.

Cmdr. Karen Sellers, a Navy spokeswoman in Seattle, also said there are no hazards to the servicemen and women on board the ships, adding that "all crew members are medically monitored" to ensure their safety.

But a coalition of Northwest environmental and anti-war activists say they are considering seeking an injunction to halt the tests.

"The Navy is willing to put us all at risk, including its own sailors, to improve its war-fighting capabilities," said Glen Milner, of Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action, one of the groups weighing a suit to stop the Navy tests. Milner received information on the Navy's tests of depleted uranium ammunition off the coast in a memo released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

No major studies apparently have been done on the effects of such weapons in the ocean. Where depleted uranium munitions have been used in combat on land, such as in Iraq during the Gulf War, or in tests on land, such as Vieques island in Puerto Rico, they not only give off relatively small amounts of radiation, but produce toxic dust that can enter the food chain.

Seattle environmental attorney David Mann asked, "How can the Navy fire depleted uranium rounds and spread radioactive material into prime fishing areas off our coast?"

Sellers, however, said that only 400 to 600 rounds would be fired during a typical test at sea. And even though these tests have been going on since 1977, she said Navy environmental experts say that the DU dissolves very slowly in the ocean.

"It would be too diluted to distinguish from natural background uranium in the sea water," she said.

The weapon in question is the Phalanx, also known as a Close In Weapons System. Such a system is on virtually all U.S. Navy combat ships. It includes radar and rapid-fire 20mm guns. The guns are capable of firing up to 3,000 or 4,500 rounds per minute of depleted uranium, a superhard material prized for its armor-piercing ability.

The Defense Department says the military uses the munitions "because of DU's superior lethality against armor and other hard targets."

Although depleted uranium emits radiation, a second, potentially more serious hazard is created when a DU round hits a hard target. As much as 70 percent of the projectile can burn on impact, creating a firestorm of ceramic DU oxide particles. The residue of this firestorm is an extremely fine ceramic uranium dust that can be spread by the wind, inhaled and absorbed into the human body and absorbed by plants and animals, becoming part of the food chain.

Once in the soil, DU can pollute the environment and create up to a hundredfold increase in uranium levels in ground water, according to the U.N. Environmental Program

The Defense Department said DU munitions are "war reserve munitions; that is, used for combat and not fired for training purposes," with the exception that DU munitions may be fired at sea for weapon calibration purposes."

Another Navy spokeswoman described those firings at sea as "routine" and says they occur regularly off both the East and West coasts.

"If the firing is with DU, it's probably with what we call the Close in Weapons System, and it is routine," said Lt. Brauna Carl, a Navy spokeswoman in Washington, D.C., and a former gunnery officer who has worked with DU weapons.

When asked if the tests of DU rounds posed any health hazards, she replied, "God, I hope not. All I know is I haven't started glowing."

But Milner says, "It just makes sense that if DU can contaminate land and get into the food chain, then it would do the same thing in the sea."

Robert Alverson, president of the Fishing Vessel Owners Association in Seattle, said he was "very troubled" to hear that the Navy was using depleted uranium off the coast of Washington. "I don't like what I'm hearing," he said.

The Navy memo obtained by Milner described a June 2001 operation by the USS Fife, an Everett-based destroyer. The memo said the Fife would conduct gunnery operations with depleted rounds in what was described as areas W237C and W237F.

These areas are designated Navy Warning Areas and are about 25-100 miles off the coast between Ocean Shores and Ozette, south of Neah Bay, according to Milner.

"These are certainly prime fishing areas" for some salmon, flounder and other bottomfish, Alverson said. "It is folly to be testing anything in this area that might contaminate the natural food supply."

"How would the Navy feel about eating fish caught there?" he asked. Alverson said even the perception that fish might be contaminated could scare consumers and have dire consequences.

"If any species ever turns up with radiation, it would be devastating to the fishing industry," he said.

Leonard Dietz, a research associate with the private, non-profit Uranium Medical Research Centre in Canada and the United States, said that the degree of environmental contamination the DU rounds will cause in sea water depends on what kinds of targets were hit and how much DU was fired.

"Corrosion of the DU by sea water would occur over a long time," said Dietz, who with Asaf Durakovic, director of the center, and research associate Patricia Horan, published a landmark study on inhaled DU that showed Gulf War veterans still had DU in their urine nine years after the war.

"The end result is that the ocean becomes a dumping ground for the spent DU penetrators and they add to the (natural) uranium content of sea water," he said.

The Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action is one of five peace and environmental organizations already involved in a federal lawsuit against the Navy for violations of the Endangered Species Act over the Trident D-5 nuclear missile upgrade at the Bangor submarine base.


The Pentagon has sent mixed signals about the effects of depleted uranium, saying there have been no known health problems associated with the munition. At the same time, the military acknowledges the hazards in an Army training manual, which requires that anyone who comes within 25 meters of any DU-contaminated equipment or terrain wear respiratory and skin protection, and says that "contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption."

Some researchers and several U.S. veterans organizations say they suspect depleted uranium of playing a role in Gulf War Syndrome, the still-unexplained malady that has plagued hundreds of thousands of Gulf War veterans.


See also:

Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action

US forces have trained on Vieques for 60 years (Jan 11)
The United States Navy is to stop using the Puerto Rican island of Vieques for military training exercises. Vieques' 8,000 residents have long objected to the use of their island as a bombing range, especially as depleted uranium (DU) shells have been linked to rocketing cancer rates there.

Chronic Casualties (Jan 5)
Years after serving in the Persian Gulf War, Dr. James Stutts of Berea still fights crippling symptoms, the cause of which he can't fully explain. There are tens of thousands like him.


If you would like to subscribe to the Earth Rainbow Network automated listserver and regularly receive similar compilations covering a broad range of subjects, including each new Meditation Focus issued every two week, please click on this SUBSCRIPTION page.