Better to use formula than risk preventing your next pregnancy by breastfeedingWilliam Saletan wrote a tongue-in-cheek letter to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt. In it, he commends HHS's proposal to allow pharmacists and other health workers to refuse to "facilitate any abortifacient chemical or activity." Saletan writes, "I commend the language of the draft, which would define abortion as 'any of the various procedures -- including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.'" But he suggests that the proposal doesn't go far enough. Why not add breastfeeding, which "like oral contraception ... alters a woman's hormonal balance, thereby suppressing ovulation, fertilization, and, theoretically, implantation." He adds, "As research uncovers additional causes of miscarriage or preimplantation embryo loss, I look forward to further legislation against caffeine consumption, exercise, and other abortifacient activities among premenopausal women."

With polls showing increased public support for more U.S. offshore oil drilling, John Wihbey cautions, "the framing" of poll questions "is paramount and the media's interpretation crucial." For example, when asked, "Do you prefer more drilling or more investment in alternative energy?," most people choose the latter. But some polls cited in support of increased drilling didn't offer alternatives; one simply asked if respondents would support drilling to "attempt to reduce the price of gasoline." While the trend is clear -- high gas prices have increased support for drilling -- "it remains unclear what mix of remedies the public actually wants." The assumption that new drilling would reduce gas prices is also questionable, meaning that some poll questions may be "built on false premises, a pipe dream held out to a desperate and cash-strapped public." Wall Street Journal blogger Keith Johnson admitted that new drilling "is unlikely to have a near-term 'practical' impact on oil flow, though it could have a 'psychological' one on trading. 'Crude is priced in the futures market, and future price expectations are what moves the market,'" he explained.

Image from the Lincoln Group's websiteWondering what the Lincoln Group, the public relations firm that planted U.S. military-written propaganda in Iraqi newspapers, is up to now? It recently won a six month, $14.3 million U.S. Army contract, to promote the Army's "Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization campaign" in Afghanistan. The campaign is designed to separate the "bomb makers and users from the support of the populace," and to encourage Afghans to "take responsibility for their communities and report suspicious activities." The firm will develop "a broad-based information campaign about IEDs using billboards, radio messages, hour-long TV programming, video compact discs, posters, flyers and newspaper ads." An Afghanistan-based firm, CentenaGroup, received higher marks for its proposal, but Lincoln Group won the contract because it bid in at a lower price.

The British government's media regulator, Ofcom, issued a split ruling on "The Great Global Warming Swindle," a film commissioned and broadcast by Channel 4. Ofcom found that Channel 4 broke impartiality guidelines and the film misrepresented statements by former British government scientist David King, in a scene with global warming skeptic Fred Singer. Ofcom also found that the film unfairly treated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and MIT professor Carl Wunsch. However, Ofcom ruled that the program did not "cause harm or offence" by "materially" misleading viewers. Ironically, Ofcom said that its impartiality rules did not apply to the majority of the film, because the rules require balance on "matters of political or industrial controversy" and human-induced climate change has "been almost universally accepted by governments around the world." Ofcom received 265 complaints about the film, including "a detailed 'group complaint' from scientists and concerned individuals that ran to 176 pages and accused Channel 4 of seriously misleading viewers."

Following a raid on a meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa that's been condemned as "inhumane" and "a Kafkaesque travesty of justice," U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is trying a new approach -- asking undocumented immigrants to deport themselves. Until August 22, immigrants in five cities who "got caught and ignored a judge's order to leave but avoided other trouble with the law" can take part in ICE's new "Operation Scheduled Departure." An ICE official said the program "allows them to leave on their own terms." ICE may also help cover immigrants' transportation costs. Many immigrant rights and reform advocates are skeptical. ICE calls "Scheduled Departure" a "compassionately conceived enforcement initiative." But the director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights says the program was designed "to put a happy face on what have been really brutal actions." He adds that those targeted by the program "are desperately trying to stay in the United States, because they have U.S.-born children ... they have spouses, they have jobs, many of them have homes."

The New York Times notes that, "in an effort to cast himself as independent of the influence of money on politics, Senator Barack Obama often highlights the campaign contributions of $200 or less that have amounted to fully half of the $340 million he has collected so far. But records show that one-third of his record-breaking haul has come from donations of $1,000 or more: a total of $112 million, more than Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama's Republican rival, or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his opponent in the Democratic primaries, raised in contributions of that size. Behind those larger donations is a phalanx of more than 500 Obama 'bundlers,' fund-raisers who have each collected contributions totaling $50,000 or more. Many of the bundlers come from industries with critical interests in Washington. ... Given his decision not to accept public financing, Mr. Obama is counting on his bundlers to help him raise $300 million for his general-election campaign and another $180 million for the Democratic National Committee. An analysis of campaign finance records shows that about two-thirds of his bundlers are concentrated in four major industries: law, securities and investments, real estate and entertainment."

In a new book, Pulitzer-prize winning reporter Ron Suskind charges that in the autumn of 2003, the White House ordered the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to forge and back-date a handwritten letter from the head of Iraqi Intelligence to Saddam Hussein, to fabricate a link between the Iraqi regime and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. In the book, The Way of the World, Suskind explains that the letter was to be backdated to July 2001, and say that "9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq -- thus showing finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda, something the Vice President's Office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq." White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto dismissed the charge, saying "Ron Suskind makes a living from gutter journalism. He is about selling books and making wild allegations that no one can verify, including the numerous bipartisan commissions that have reported on pre-war intelligence." Suskind also gave an interview about his book on National Public Radio.

A New York Daily News headline following the September 2001 anthrax attacksBruce Edwards Ivins, a top anthrax researcher at the U.S. Government's biological weapons research laboratories, died of an apparent suicide last Tuesday, just as the Justice Department was about to charge him with responsibility for the September 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people in the United States. Glenn Greenwald has written an important piece for Salon.com in which he demonstrates, with copious evidence, that a major government scandal lurks behind the anthrax story.

Ivins may have acted alone in carrying out the anthrax attacks. (I don't want to presume his guilt or anything else about this case until we see further details about the government's evidence against him.) However, Ivins most certainly did not act alone in falsifying information so the attacks could be used as a pretext for war.

"If the now-deceased Ivins really was the culprit behind the attacks," Greenwald writes, "then that means that the anthrax came from a U.S. Government lab, sent by a top U.S. Army scientist at Ft. Detrick. Without resort to any speculation or inferences at all, it is hard to overstate the significance of that fact. From the beginning, there was a clear intent on the part of the anthrax attacker to create a link between the anthrax attacks and both Islamic radicals and the 9/11 attacks."

According to a survey of 252 U.S. chief marketing officers, nearly one in five "say their organizations have bought advertising in return for a news story." The survey was conducted on behalf of the public relations firm Manning, Selvage & Lee (MSL) and the trade publication PR Week (which doesn't appear to have reported on the results). "The survey also found that 10 percent of senior marketers said their organizations have had an implicit / non-verbal agreement with a reporter or editor that anticipated favorable coverage of their company or products in exchange for advertising," states an MSL press release. MSL's Mark Hass called the widespread use of pay for play "troubling," as "without full disclosure and transparency, media lose credibility and their value as an unbiased source of information." More than half of survey respondents also disagreed with the statement that marketers are "following ethical guidelines in new media more than they did a year ago."

Reviewing the continued campaign by climate change skeptics, David McKnight, an associate professor at the University of New South Wales (Australia), notes that there several reasons why companies such as Exxon have had some success playing the global warming denial card. "First, the implications of the science are frightening. Shifting to renewable energy will be costly and disruptive. Second, doubt is an easy product to sell. Climate denial tells us what we all secretly want to hear. Third, science is portrayed as political orthodoxy rather than objective knowledge, a curiously postmodern argument," he writes. While the tobacco industry is often referred to as the template for the fossil fuel industry's campaign, McKnight argues that there is an important distinction. "There are no 'smoke-free areas' on the planet. Climate denial may turn out to be the world's most deadly PR campaign," he concludes.