To the Editor:

I am a college student and have begun to make decisions that will affect the rest of my life as well as my children's lives. When I think about the state of our world I can't help but feel the weight of my personal responsibility to push for change, not only for my sake but for the sake of my future family. Scientists agree that at the very least we need to cut our global warming pollution 80 % by 2050 in order to avoid the most devastating effects of global warming. Right now, the elections are nearing, and I know that we need the candidates to make this their goal. I know that Steve Stivers and Mary Jo Kilroy, who are running for Congress, have talked about global warming quite a bit, but neither has committed to cutting our global warming pollution 80 % by 2050. Why would I vote for someone who isn't going to fight for a safer world and for our country's future?

Stephanie Smith
Columbus, Ohio

The Wall Street bailout that was supposed to save the economy from collapse is a flop.

Only weeks ago, the media hype behind the $700 billion bailout was so intense that it sometimes verged on hysteria. More recent events should not be allowed to obscure the reality that the news media played a pivotal role in stampeding the country into a bailout that was unwise and unjust.

Exceptions in the news coverage underscore the fact that other perspectives were readily available when the Bush administration began pushing its bailout proposal in late September. "Many of the nation's brightest economic minds are warning that if the Wall Street bailout passes, it would be a dangerous rush job," McClatchy Newspapers reported on Sept. 26. For instance, economist James K. Galbraith called the warnings of economic disaster in the absence of a swift bailout "more hype than real risk." He added: "A nasty recession is possible, but the bailout will not cure that."

When the House of Representatives rejected the bailout on Sept. 29, all media hell broke loose. During the next few days, journalists and

I get the impression that a great many people are upset by all the news about McCain-Palin supporters who believe Obama is an Arab, a Muslim, a terrorist, and a baby killer. I find it the most encouraging thing that's happened in eight years.

Why? Because these sorts of lies and fear-mongering are nothing new. What's new is that the U.S. corporate media is covering them. The most unaccountable, antidemocratic communications cartel outside of China has decided to cover in a major way a story it has brushed aside since September 12, 2001.

Of course, we understand why. The victim of these particular lies is a corporate-friendly senator who appears likely to be elected president of the United States. On top of that he isn't actually a Muslim or a foreigner, so you can still be bigoted and defend him on the basis of those boring old leftwing things: facts. But the media's willingness to cover the hate speech and to point out the connections between hateful speech and hateful actions makes Obama more likely to win the election and makes us all safer, wiser, and better informed.

As Goes Ohio...Election Protection Conference
Bob Fitrakis and Steve Rosenfeld on pre-Election Day Board of Elections Monitoring Project

Link: Fitrakis & Board of Election Monitoring

Keynote Address - Mark Crispin Miller delivers the keynote speech at the As Goes Ohio...Election Protection Conference, held Sept. 24 and 25 in Columbus.

Miller is a professor of media studies at New York University and author of the books: "Loser Take All," "Fooled Again, How the Right Stole the 2004 Elections" and "The Bush Dyslexicon." He is known for his writing on American media and for his activism on behalf of democratic media reform.

YouTube Link: Mark Crispin Miller Keynote (second one from left)

Mark Crispin Miller Interview:

The 'Trinity' of Reform

The chances of independent candidate Ralph Nader winning the presidency are as remote as ever in this, his fourth try. But he has important things to say about vital matters that mainstream contenders virtually ignore.

Democrat Barack Obama professes to be – and undoubtedly is – a strong supporter of organized labor. Like most other Democratic office seekers, he’s endorsed the proposed Employee Free Choice Act, which is designed to reverse the steady decline in labor’s fortunes,

But neither Obama nor any of labor’s other Democratic allies has called for the step beyond enactment of the Free Choice Act that is essential if labor is to grow and prosper. Ralph Nader demands it: “Repeal Taft-Hartley!”

That’s the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 -- aka in labor circles as “the slave-labor bill” – which was passed by Congress over the veto of President Harry Truman in response to the great labor militancy that followed World War II. Nader says its passage was “one of the great blows to American democracy.” He calls it an employer-written law that has “fundamentally infringed on workers’ human rights” -- most importantly, their right to unionize.