The corporate media in the United States are ignoring valid news stories, based on university quality research. It appears that certain topics are simply forbidden inside the mainstream corporate media today. To openly cover these news stories would stir up questions regarding “inconvenient truths” that many in the US power structure want to avoid.

For example, current research indicates that public schools in the United States are more segregated today than they have been in more than four decades.

According to a new Civil Rights report, published at the University of California, Los Angeles, schools in the US are 44 percent non-white, and minorities are rapidly emerging as the majority of public school students in the US.

Latinos and blacks, the two largest minority groups, attend schools more segregated today than during the civil rights movement 40 years ago. Millions of non-white students are locked into “dropout factory” high schools, where huge percentages do not graduate.

The most severe segregation in public schools occurs in the Western states, including California – not in the South, as many people believe.

Most non-white schools are segregated by poverty as well as race. Schools in low-income communities remain highly unequal in terms of funding, qualified teachers, and curriculum.

Other taboo stories include civilian death rates in Iraq and questions on 9/11.

Researchers from Johns Hopkins University and a professional survey company in Great Britain, Opinion Research Business (ORB) report that the United States is directly responsible for over one million Iraqi deaths since our invasion six and half years ago.

In a January 2008 report, ORB reported that, “survey work confirms our earlier estimate that over 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have died as a result of the conflict which started in 2003 … We now estimate that the death toll between March 2003 and August 2007 is likely to have been of the order of 1,033,000.”

A 2006 Johns Hopkins study confirmed that US aerial bombing in civilian neighborhoods caused over a third of these deaths and that over half the deaths are directly attributable to US forces. Iraqi civilian death levels in the summer of 2009 likely now exceed 1.2 million.

Former Brigham Young University physics professor Dr. Steven E. Jones and some 700 scientific professionals in the fields of architecture, engineering and physics have now concluded that the official explanation for the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings is implausible according to laws of physics.

Especially troubling is the collapse of WTC 7, a 47-story building that was not hit by planes, yet dropped in its own “footprint” in 6.6 seconds in the same manner as a controlled demolition.

To support this theory, Jones and eight other scientists conducted chemical research on the dust from the World Trade centers. Their research results were published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal Open Chemical Physics Journal, Volume 2, 2009.

The authors write, “We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.”

Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide, which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction and is used in controlled demolitions of buildings.

Each of these taboo news stories is based on solid scholarly research. These stories represent the failure of the corporate media in the US to keep the American people democratically informed on important issues. This lack of coverage of critical and potentially political news stories is what many thousands of people in the US are now calling a Truth Emergency.

Political activists at all levels must support full news transparency as an important component of building a non-exploitative world based on democracy, truthfulness, and human rights.

Peter Phillips is Professor Sociology at Sonoma State University, President of Media Freedom Foundation http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/ and the former director of Project Censored http://www.projectcensored.org/. Daily non-corporate independent news is now online at: http://mediafreedom.pnn.com/13160-validated-independent-news .

Voters tried to tell him that they approved of the budget the Assembly had passed earlier, the one that he vetoed.

Voters sent a clear message that they wanted a balanced budget solution that includes revenue increases.

In fact, according to an April 30 Field Poll (www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2306.pdf):

• 74 percent of California voters support increasing tobacco taxes;

• 73 percent of California voters support an oil extraction tax;

• 63 percent of California support raising the state income tax for top earners.

Every other oil-producing state in the union taxes the extraction of oil from its lands – including Texas and Wyoming. Even Sarah Palin raised the oil severance tax in Alaska to 25 percent in 2007.

The California Budget Project estimated a 9.9 percent oil severance tax would bring it at least $1 billion to state coffers. If oil prices rose again above $100 a barrel, then we could see $2 billion in revenue per year. Given the high likelihood of such increases, an oil severance tax would be a significant long-term boon to the state's coffers, since oil companies can't exactly shift production out of state, since oil is only going to become more valuable over time.

And that money could help prevent the most egregious human services cuts that were agreed to in the budget deal – the cuts to Healthy Families that will cost 500,000 children their health care coverage, the cuts to In-Home Supportive Services that people need to survive.

Voters don’t want drastic cuts to the programs Californians depend on. Voters don’t want to close schools and parks. And voters don’t want $2.5 billion a year in more corporate tax breaks for a handful of the world's largest corporations. Or to lose billions in federal funds because of stupid cuts.

Californians expect choices to be made that keep teachers in the classroom, keep public safety personnel on duty, keep infrastructure projects moving, keep our hospitals operating and our cities and county governments open to serve us.

Californians expect revenue increases to come from the corporate chief executive officers who receive astronomical profits from doing business in California.

Oh, and that whole “the rich are leaving California” mythology was debunked two weeks ago by a Public Policy Institute of California analysis of the census (www.kcra.com/money/20017385/detail.html). In fact, the study concludes that the poor are leaving California, not the rich. Which is just what the Republican Yacht Party wants.

Years of shortsighted political pandering to oil companies and big corporations have left the state with truly staggering budget problems.

Tough choices have to be made, but Californians demand and deserve better.

A budget that preserves services all Californians need and positions our economy for recovery is the only solution.

This new budget preserves billions of dollars in tax cuts for oil companies and the state’s biggest businesses.

It will have drastic impacts on California’s economy.

It will:

• Drain $24 billion from California's economy, stunting the state's recovery efforts;

• Drive up the unemployment rate by more than two percent, plunging California further into recession;

• Deny 300,000 students a college education and increase class sizes in our public schools, making California less competitive;

• Decimate public safety and the public services that maintain our quality of life and attract businesses;

• Result in a loss of billions in federal funds.

It does not matter to Californians what the Republican Yacht Party and the governor promised Grover Norquist.

The last time I checked, he neither lives nor votes in California.

I do.

Rebecca Curry lives in Kelseyville.

This is in response to your "Open Letter" regarding the prosecution of Bismark Dinius, posted and available to the public on the Lake County website as of Friday, July 17 (www.co.lake.ca.us/Assets/DistrictAttorney/Press+Releases/January+2008/July+17$!2c+2009+-+Dinius+Sailboat+Case+Open+Letter.pdf ). In that letter you claim to take your "responsibilities as District Attorney seriously." You claim to believe "in a system of justice that does not presume people to be guilty." You claim to "work tirelessly to find the truth." Let’s examine those claims.

The very first sentence of your letter asks "Why do so many people support drunken sailors on the lake at night with their running lights off?" Near the end of your letter you assert that Chief Deputy Perdock collided "with a sailboat operated by drunken sailors at night without their running lights." So much for the presumption of innocence.

A widespread perception of injustice has resulted in considerable public scrutiny of, and investigation into, the facts surrounding this case. Most of the information that has been turned up by the press and others directly contradicts the official version of the "facts" produced by Lake County law enforcement. You did not seek out, let alone turn up this information yourself. Indeed, for many months your office failed to turn over to Mr. Dinius’s lawyer exculpatory evidence that you did have. Now, rather than integrate all of the exculpatory evidence into an honest appraisal of the case, you simply dismiss that evidence as "wrong, false and misleading," or as "rumors and misinformation." You pick the bits of evidence you like and you belittle the rest. So much for your search for the truth.

That is one of the reasons that intelligent people around the world, recoil in astonishment and horror at what you are doing. In a country which holds itself out as having the finest and fairest justice system in history you, as representative of the legal and moral authority of the state, have never made an honest evaluation of the most fundamental legal and moral question at issue here. That question is, did Mr. Dinius cause Lynn Thorton’s death?

Your case, as you yourself describe it, boils down to this – that a drunk Mr. Dinius caused Ms. Thorton’s death because he put her in harm’s way. He put her in harm’s way, you contend, by (1)　failing to turn on his sailboat’s running lights, and (2) not maneuvering the sailboat out of the way of Chief Deputy Sheriff Perdock’s speedboat, both of which he would have done had he been sober. The intellectual dishonesty in your arguments is breathtaking.

As to the running lights, the eye-witness testimony is inconclusive, and you know it. What is significant, however, is testimony by some of the witnesses that law enforcement officers refused to take their statements that they saw the lights on. Those are the witnesses who became known as a result of public outcry and scrutiny. For the better part of three years you prosecuted this case on the false premise that with only favorable witnesses you could prove the running lights were off. And, of course, you ignore the evidence from the forensic investigator who examined the lights and concluded they were on when the collision occurred.

Even more significantly, you dismiss the undisputed testimony that the sailboat’s cabin lights were on. That, you argue,"does not satisfy the legal requirement for running lights." Of course, you have to make this technical argument because your case depends upon a drunk Mr. Dinius having failed to take some legally required action. But cabin lights, as you know full well, are far brighter and far more visible than running lights. Even assuming the sailboat's running lights were not on, and even assuming Mr. Dinius had a legal duty to turn them on but drunkenly failed to do so, how could running lights possibly have avoided a collision that the far more visible cabin lights did not prevent?

As to maneuvering out of the way, why do you contend it the responsibility of the sailboat driver to avoid the speedboat? You claim to have been "reading the law and the rules regarding water vessels." Surely you came across the very basic rule that a power boat (being more maneuverable) is obligated to stay clear of a sailboat. Is the rule different on Clear Lake? On Clear Lake does might make right of way?

Moreover, on what basis do you claim it was even possible for the sailboat to evade the speedboat? You assert that "everyone on the sailboat says it was under sail and moving." How fast was it moving? You yourself insist it is impossible to prove how fast Chief Deputy Perdock was going, and you say that despite Chief Deputy Perdock’s own admission that he was going 30 mph and his own admission that the speedometer needle was straight up (which would put his speed at 50 mph). Despite those admissions you maintain that as to Chief Deputy Perdock’s speed, "[a]ll we have are estimates, guesses and speculation." Yet, there is even less evidence as to how fast the sailboat was moving. How can you contend that the sailboat was moving fast enough to have been maneuvered out of the way of the racing speedboat, even by a stone-cold sober driver?

This brings me to another reason why intelligent observers around the world are aghast at your prosecution of Mr. Dinius. Assuming, as you insist, that Mr. Dinius did something to put Lynn Thorton in harm’s way, what about Chief Deputy Perdock? If, as you argue, it was reasonably foreseeable to the driver of a sailboat that speedboats would be racing about Clear Lake in the dark at grossly reckless speeds, was it not equally foreseeable to a speedboat operator (a high ranking law enforcement official, no less) that sailboats, even poorly lit or unlit sailboats, would be present on the lake? If illegal operation of powerboats is foreseeable to sailors, why is illegal operation of sailboats not equally foreseeable to powerboaters?

In short, your evidence and reasoning that Mr. Dinius caused Ms. Thorton’s death because he was drunk is flimsy at best. But if, flimsy as it is, it is sufficient to support your prosecution of Mr. Dinius, what credible explanation do you have for charging Mr. Dinius but not charging Chief Deputy Perdock? The excuse you have repeatedly given, that you can’t prove how fast Chief Deputy Perdock was going, just doesn’t pass the smell test. Whatever his exact speed, it was obviously and indisputably way too fast. It was recklessly fast. It was fatally fast. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

In your letter you state, "We have a serious problem in Lake County with boaters of all types operating while under the influence." Maybe so, but the evidence in this case is that the problems you have are motorboaters going too fast, and differening standards of justice for those who are in power and those are not. You express your hope that "this tragedy will cause boaters to think of the consequences and dangers of boating under the influence." What about the consequences and dangers of unsafe speed?

It is a fundamental precept of American justice that when the state brings its authority and resources to bear against an individual it must do so fairly and evenhandedly. It is fundamental that the integrity of our system requires avoidance of actual injustice. It is fundamental that continued respect for, and therefore the very survival of, our system compels the avoidance of even the appearance of injustice.

By any objective measure, the evidence supports the conclusion that Chief Deputy Perdock is at least as potentially culpable as Mr. Dinius, if not more. Yet, you chose to ignore Chief Deputy Perdock and to prosecute only Mr. Dinius. In the absence of equally serious charges against Chief Deputy Perdock, your prosecution of Mr. Dinius for the death of Ms. Thorton not only appears unjust, it is unjust.

You would have us believe that your search for truth led you to seek dismissal of the manslaughter charge against Mr. Dinius. Yet, you persist with a different charge that requires proof of essentially, if not exactly, all the same elements. Your continuation of this case on a lesser charge is nothing but a vindictive attempt to salvage whatever you can from three years of fundamentally dishonest prosecution.

Your handling of this case brings the Lake County judicial system, and by association the entire California judicial system, into worldwide disrepute.

Ryan Werner lives in San Francisco. He's a member of the California State Bar.

Congressman Mike Thompson. Courtesy photo.

There are a lot of questions about the health care bill in Congress. Here are answers to some of the most commonly asked questions about the bill that passed the Ways and Means Committee.

Question: Has Congressman Thompson read the bill?

Answer: I have read and was involved in drafting the bill I voted on. For weeks before the introduction of H.R. 3200, members of the Ways and Means Committee, myself included, met daily to go through the bill line by line and section by section. As a group, we spent 86 hours going over this legislation.

Question: Will health reform force all Americans out of their private insurance plans and into a one-size-fits-all government plan?

Answer: No. H.R. 3200 builds on the current system of employer-based coverage, it doesn’t replace it. If you are happy with your current plan, you can keep it. H.R. 3200 includes a public plan that individuals will have the option of purchasing, along with a variety of other private plans. This public plan will be required to be financially self-sustaining, as private plans are, covering its costs through premiums and co-pays.

Question: Does page 16 of the bill require me to join the public plan if I lose my private insurance coverage?

Answer: No one will be required to join the public plan. If you lose your insurance, you will be able to shop for a new plan at an online exchange that includes information on all insurance options. This exchange will bring together information that is currently scattered giving consumers the opportunity to quickly and effectively compare plans to make informed decisions about what coverage works best for them. The provision on page 16 merely requires individuals joining a private insurance plan after 2013 to do so through the exchange.

Question: Are members of Congress exempt from changes that are being proposed for the rest of the country?

Answer: No. Members of Congress receive the same health care options as other federal employees, with a choice of plans from private insurers that vary by benefits, premiums and co-pays. This legislation would affect federal employees in the same ways that it affects everyone else who gets their health insurance through their employer.

Question: Will proposed legislation provide free health care to illegal immigrants?

Answer: No. Section 246 of H.R. 3200 explicitly prohibits the payment of affordability credits designed to help low and moderate incomes families purchase insurance to anyone who is not lawfully present in the United States.

Question: Will all small businesses be forced to provide coverage to their employees?

Answer: This bill exempts small businesses with a payroll of less than $250,000 from the requirement to provide health insurance for their workers. Businesses with payrolls above $250,000 that do not provide coverage will be charged a payroll tax that will gradually increase with the size of their payroll. The current version of the bill has this tax will start at 2 percent for payrolls above $250,000 and increase to a maximum of 8 percent for payrolls above $400,000, however, there are currently discussions to raise this exemption to $500,000. Proceeds from this tax will go to offset the cost of coverage for individuals purchasing insurance through the exchange. Small businesses that opt to offer insurance will receive tax credits to offset the cost of insurance.

Question: What does this bill do to stop fraud and abuse in Medicare?

Answer: This bill strengthens existing compliance and enforcement tools for Medicare, increases funding to support these efforts and creates new, tougher penalties for individuals who submit false claims or applications to Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that for every $1 we invest in fighting waste fraud and abuse we will produce $1.75 in savings.

Question: Can our nation afford health care reform?

Answer: The truth is that the rising cost of health care for all Americans is a problem that will not fix itself and that we can’t afford to not address. Today, our nation spends one out of every $6 we earn on health care. If we don’t take action to slow the increase in costs, within a decade we will spend one out of every $5 on health care, and within 30 years this will rise to one in every $3. These facts make it clear, the longer we wait, the more it will cost to fix our broken health care system.

Question: How much will this bill cost?

Answer: There is no question that there will be significant costs to implement this legislation. The CBO’s latest estimate puts the price tag at $1.042 trillion over 10 years. Here is how we are going to pay for the bill. First, we are going to address inefficiencies in Medicare and Medicaid and crack down on fraud, waste and abuse in these programs to save $465 billion over the next ten years. Second, we will need to raise $583 billion in revenues to cover the rest of the cost. The Ways and Means Committee proposes to do this through a surcharge on the wealthiest 1.2 percent of income earners, who have enjoyed a tremendous advantage for the last eight years because of the Bush tax cuts (the average reduction in federal taxes for the top 1 percent in these tax cuts was $44,622). The Senate is considering other ways to raise these funds, and it is unclear how this issue will be dealt with in the final bill.

Question: Will this plan lead to rationing of health care? Will Congress be legislating what care my doctor can or must give me?

Answer: No. I believe that medical decisions should be left between patients and their doctors. Section 1401 explicitly forbids any studies or research called for in H.R. 3200 from being used to either mandate or deny care to a patient in any public or private plan. This research will gather data about what procedures are most effective to give doctors more information to consider when treating patients, not to replace your doctor’s judgment with that of a bureaucrat from a private insurer or the government. The bill protects the ability of doctors to do what they think is necessary to help their patients without having to constantly worry about whether they will be reimbursed by an insurance company, which is why this bill has earned the strong support of the American Medical Association.

Question: Why is this bill being “rushed” through Congress?

Answer: Universal health care was first proposed by Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. President Harry Truman called for it in 1945. Former Representative John Dingell Sr. introduced a bill to provide universal health care in 1947 and his son, Representative John Dingell Jr., has reintroduced a bill every Congress since 1955. So, this is not a new issue and it was supported by both President Obama and Sen. McCain in the November presidential election. This particular legislation has been crafted, reviewed and revised repeatedly since the 111th Congress began, and it has been changed to reflect the considerable input from those in the health care community, members on both sides of the aisle and constituents. This bill is not being rushed – it is long overdue.

Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena) represents Lake County in the US House of Representatives.

Water has led the way for the growth of California. Just add water, and you get a state with half its 38 million person population in its seven southernmost counties – the most arid part of our 100 million acres. Just add water, and you get an agricultural landscape that produces more than half the nation's fruit, nuts, and vegetables. This freedom to expand, to convert desert to both suburb and breadbasket, has been a hallmark of California’s growth and success. But freedom today doesn’t necessarily translate into freedom tomorrow – there’s no free lunch.

When I travel the Second Senate District, people constantly talk about water. They note that water is intertwined with our valuable vineyards, and is the lifeline for the people. They stress that water is key to our declining fisheries, and that the rains and water table feed our superlative forests. And they express their real fears that Southern California is still on the prowl for our rivers and valleys to quench the thirst of growing cities and established agriculture.

This need for water creates an everlasting drought in California. While we speak in terms of “average” rainfall, we hide the fact that two out of three years are “below average.” When we speak of “water needs” for agriculture and cities, we suggest that California can’t be as productive without endless diversion of water from the northern and Sierra rivers to the deserts of the state.

We must get beyond the concept that there is only so much water, and that the cities, farms and fish must fight it out. Rather than continue with this struggle, we must tap the well of ideas to find the abundance that we Californians are so lucky to have.

Cities and farms must support water conservation in their zoning, choice of plants, application methods and water sources. In agriculture, this may mean selecting plant varieties and rootstocks that are less thirsty, and monitoring the soil to restrict over-watering. In cities, this may mean giving up traditional lawn mixes for less water intensive grasses, and developing gardens that reflect the native ecosystem. Rain barrels, cisterns and thrifty appliances all help as well – provided that cities and counties allow them.

I have been concerned about water and growth for a long time. As an Assemblywoman, I introduced AB 2924 in 2002. That measure would have required local government approval before water could be shipped out of the Russian, Eel or other watersheds to the north. While that bill failed to become law, I subsequently introduced a new and improved bill, AB 858, requiring study of any proposed diversion of greater than 500 acre-feet per year, which was signed by then-Gov. Gray Davis.

The state still struggles to develop groundwater laws, following the lead of forward-thinking counties like Napa. While the state still is hesitant to suggest curbs to water use, the State Water Resources Control Board has placed a significant conservation goal in this drought year for the Sonoma County Water Agency. The state is still unsure about “fixing” the Delta with a peripheral canal, and rumors still persist that the Eel and other North Coast rivers are at the heart of plans to move yet more water south.

Why let our permanent drought achieve crisis status, when we know it will persist in California for the foreseeable future? Why do we cling to a landscape of lawns in the desert? Why can’t the use of water be rationally shared, rather than continued as a competition between old users, new users, groundwater users, and the state and federal governments fulfilling contracts written in a fog of abundance?

Where the state fails (generally due to veto), the counties need to act. Groundwater, water conservation and land use all may come under the purview of counties and local, special districts. Agricultural practices can be made more thrifty with help from University Extension and the farm advisor. Gardens can be more efficient with permission from cities and support from the community and master gardener network. And stream flows and the wildlife dependent on them can be protected by land trusts, parks, water districts and effective zoning.

Freedom is why people come to and stay in California. But we are not free to waste water, to take others’ resources or devastate the environment for personal or corporate convenience. And when others do that, it limits our own freedom. Fortunately, we still have the freedom to innovate – and that will be our solution.

Patricia Wiggins (D-Santa Rosa) represents California’s 2nd Senate District, made up of portions or all of six counties: Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Solano and Sonoma. She chairs the legislature’s Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Good luck with that. Bankruptcy looks like the only growth industry among the few remaining media chains which own most of our news sources and are scrambling to see who can get rid of the most actual notebook-carrying reporters.

But the real problem for The Onion sale is that the actual news, as compared with the fake news, seems far less probable these days, and far more worthy of hysterical laughter.

A governor resigns, incoherently, 18 months before her term is up and her political party anoints her as a good candidate for president.

A city council announces it has no interest in televising its proceedings and the citizens don't start a recall, or at least loudly squeak in indignation.

Another governor admits, with gag-inducing greeting card sentimentality, to lying about an extramarital affair without offering to resign. His constituents don't question that.

A group of privileged white men question the integrity of a Latina judge candidate who acknowledges that life experiences have a role in shaping everyone.

A public employee uses on-duty time and public money for his commercial pilot flying lessons and no one in his department notices until he nearly crashes the helicopter.

Another governor, elected on campaign promises to straighten out the state's fiscal mess, apparently forgets that for six years until the middle of budget talks, when he demands top-to-bottom reforms before the budget can be settled.

How can satire compete with any of that?

Sophie Annan Jensen is a retired journalist. She lives in Lucerne.