Hello,

I read the article "Disinformation and depleted uranium" by Tadit Anderson with interest, as I've just completed a course in radiation protection for biomedical use here in France. As usual for the articles posted at the Free Press, I found it very well-written and agree with the author's conclusions about the cynical use of this radioelement (although I have not followed the Ohio discussions about this issue).

I simply wanted to correct a tiny error that made it in, relative to two quotes (but it relates to a very common misconception):

"when the particles are embedded in living tissue, it can do considerable damage to the adjacent cells and their molecular components including the genetic codes of the nucleic acids which will release cancers and cause birth defects."

and

"U.S. soldiers who have been medically harmed by their exposure to "depleted" uranium weapon contamination, have contributed to medical harm to their partners, and have by their contamination experienced a high level of genetic birth defects among their children."

How about some "Glimmers of Sanity" in the U.S.?  In your editorial (Nov.30) you discuss the fraudulent outcome of the elections in the Ukraine, but inexplicably, there has been very little mention of  mounting allegations of fraud and abuse surrounding the presidential election at home. While on election night, national exit polls showed Kerry winning the election by 51% –48%, they were widely discredited, once the tallies for Bush, surprisingly, increased. But according to republican pollster Dick Morris, "Exit polls are almost never wrong…to screw up one exit poll is unheard of. To miss six of them [in Florida, Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado] is incredible…and invites speculation that more than honest error was at play here."

Flash back to 1984. Walter Mondale is pronounced the loser in that election several hours before the polls even OPEN much less before they close.

A later lawsuit by Democrats is WON because they are able to DOCUMENT that network coverage skewed the election results well in advance of poll closing in western MI, NM, IL (where lines were still in place).

Other data since then have indicated money was paid by the Reagan/Bush campaign to black ministers in New Jersey to NOT deliver voters to the polls in several precincts (as virtually admitted to by Ed Rollins in 1988, after NJ GOP Gov. Christie Whitman's campaign had been accused of that: "Oh, yes." said Rollins to a dinner group. "That was quite common up there. It's called "walking around money.;" the total context of his phrasing made it clear it had been practiced prior to the 1988 campaign; NJ reporter Ed Baumeister also noted that off-duty police officers had apparently been used to intimidate African-American voters in some precincts in NJ in 1988--and, by all indications, in 1984, since the practice seemed to have already been "in place" by 1988.)

To the Editor:
      I believe that John Kerry should reconsider his concession in light of  mounting allegations of fraud and abuse in the presidential election in the United States. In many states and especially in the swing states of Florida and Ohio, thousands of affedavits have been filed regarding voting irregularities and an outright effort by partisan election officials to surpress the vote. There is already a  recount underway in Ohio and if Kerry withdrew his concession, his action would add legitimacy and weight to the proceedings in such a way that the mainstream media would be forced to report on the story .  So far, inexplicably, they have basicaly refused to cover it.  If they did, and if the American people were informed about what could amount to massive election fraud in election 2004, we might see them spilling into the streets the way people  in the Ukraine have. They might decide not to tolerate the assult on their democracy that a rigged election represents.  

Katie Jacob
Birmingham, MI

Liberal Arts faculties at most universities are politically and philosophically one-sided, while partisan propagandizing often intrudes into classroom discourse. It is appropriate for faculty to want open-minded students in their classes, not disciples." This dire quote about academia is on the webs ite of a group called Students for Academic Freedom, a Washington D.C.-based group supported by rig conservative activist David Horowitz. What the quote doesn't say is that the group only approaches this issue from one side and that the group's mission is to win the war of words on this issue using a tactic called "framing."

In a 1993 scholarly article one of framing's chief theorists, Robert Entman, defined framing as, "to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described." Like a picture frame, framing shows some parts of the world outside the window, but not all. Framing is successful when it becomes part of the media discourse.