Oh, no! Not ME!!!

Actually, this is a copy of the video I created by going to this website, and allowing it to use my Facebook info, to create this personalized attack. You, too, can do the same.

After all, if you seek to know the truth, if you don't like be lied to, if you have a compassionate outlook on life, if you prioritize people over corporations, then, you, too, are a part of those this psuedo-Mormon (as convenient) heartless propagandist attacks. It is a badge of honor to be so attacked.

In some ways. But as the video states, he's not just ridiculous, he's dangerous.

Because he broadcasts widely and loudly, and too many people believe he's telling the truth. Because they just don't have time to study what's really going on in the world of politics and power and media.

When I first posted this on Facebook, two of my daughters called my husband to find out why Glenn Beck was attacking me and if I was okay...

After you laugh, think about it. Which side is he really working for, and shouldn't people be better informed, especially in these times.

So, do your part, and spread the word. Or video.

More on Birth Defects in Fallujah

Posted on Mark Crispin Miller's News from the Underground, in response to CBS and BBC reports on March 5, 2010 on a marked increase in birth defects in Fallujah:

From Barbara Bellows-Terranova:

In the reporting on the rise in birth defects in Fallujah, both by CBS and the BBC, a “spokesman for the US military”, Michael Kilpatrick is quoted as saying “No studies to date have indicated environmental issues resulting in specific health issues”.

But he is also the same person who in January 2001 was brought out to defend the US military’s use of depleted uranium in the weaponry used in the NATO “peacekeeping mission” in Kosovo and Bosnia, in the midst of furor in Europe over the sudden increase in leukemia and other cancers in soldiers from European partner nations who had served in these operations. (http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2001/s010110b.htm).

By this time, complaints from Saddam Hussein about the increase in birth defects in Iraq following the 1991 Gulf War, where depleted uranium was first used in U.S. weaponry (with Dick Cheney as Secretary of Defense), had already been ignored.

But our European partners could not be so easily put aside. In response, the United Nations called for the World Health Organization to investigate, to see if there was any connection between the weapons, which left vaporized particles of DU in the atmosphere, where they were taken into the body by inhalation, digestion and exposed and open wounds, and health consequences.

The report was completed and handed over in November 2001, but was suppressed under pressure http://www.robedwards.com/2004/02/who_suppressed_.html. It was eventually leaked by its primary author, Dr. Keith Baverstock, in February 2004.

See my own article regarding this information with all the linked evidence here: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Honor-Vets-by-Learning-Abo-by-Barbara-Bellows-Te-081111-169.html

It’s time to get to the truth about the horrendous damage that’s being done by the weapons used by the U.S. military.

Barbara Bellows-TerraNova

The Words of Howard Zinn

"To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places-and there are so many-where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction. And if we do act, in however small a way, we don't have to wait for some grand utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory."

NPR Balancing Historical Truth with Petty Slurs

I have been an NPR listener, and almost always a local station member, since 1974, but I was deeply disappointed yesterday afternoon to hear the coverage on All Things Considered of the legacy of the historian Howard Zinn, who passed away this week.

I have heard Professor Zinn speak many times, and was particularly moved a few years ago by a broadcast of "Voices of a People's History of the United States" - a presentation of readings by well-respected actors of writings or teachings of historical figures, from Zinn's companion book to his A People's History of the United States.

That is what makes a great historian -- the willingness to search for the less told stories, so that we get a deeper insight to history. Otherwise, the easy "history" that is passed forward is the one that is written by those in power -- the "winners".

There was a time that public broadcasting could be trusted to bring the same quality to journalism that we need in our historians - the willingness to look deeper and give us greater insight.

But the story on Howard Zinn, "Historian Howard Zinn Remembered" would have been more accurately titled, "Historian Howard Zinn Denegrated" because NPR brought in an extremist conservative pundit, David Horowitz, to make unusually rude remarks about Zinn, particularly in a segment that should have been honoring the professor. Mind you, Horowitz didn't even present a logical reason for his position of complete disdain for the Professor, who was not merely an intellectual, but was a long time civil rights and peace activist, courageous and caring. Horowitz did not provide a logical retort to the information Zinn has highlighted and/or taught. It was a cowardly slur, not logical criticism -- just mean-spirited grumbling from a petty hack.

Your "Comments" section provides the opportunity to "Report Abuse". Well, I'm reporting it. NPR, once a noble public radio broadcaster, has shown that it has become a dark, fearful character, willing to sell out to the bullies, to throw one of the Best under the wheels, undoubtedly in the name of "balanced" reporting.

Shame on you. There is no need to balance the truth.

Is NPR still intimidated by Kenneth Tomlinson, or whoever else has taken that role?

Your audience, and Howard Zinn, deserve an apology. And NPR deserves some quiet time with "The Voices of A People's History of the United States". You can find it at Democracy Now. Maybe then it will remember what kind journalism it was created to provide.

My Offering of The Charter for Compassion

The Wrath of a One-Breasted Woman, Bereft of Advice

You think a mother Grizzly is bad? Watch out.

For I am a One-Breasted Woman. An Amazon who sacrifices her breast for a higher purpose. One who refuses to wear a phony bag or strange, surgically-implanted, tissue to make a facade of symmetry -for my real symmetry had to shift. And out of that shift poured the determination to live more fully, say what I know, and shed light on lies and hypocrisy.

Since my mastectomy, I have written a book of poetry/monologues on my breast cancer experience called One, A Perfect Imbalance, and Strides: Lessons I Learned While Riding Horses (both unpublished), I have returned to theatre after a 26-year gap, and appeared on many stages inUtah (including The Vagina Monologues and Nickel and Dimed, based on the Barbara Ehrenreich book), I have written the Know Bush emails, eventually circulating to an address list of almost 5,000 and beyond, and wrote and performed on stage Know Bush: Launching Facts That Shock and Awe, A One Person Patriot Act, both in 2004; I have created a website where I've posted more articles, and I've become a "Trusted Author" at OpEdNews.com. I have gone to New York City twice, and I have seen 6 Broadway shows. I have even seen my daughter onstage, dancing and singing, on the stage with the freshly-Tony-awarded revival cast of Hair.

This daughter, who was five when the breast cancer was diagnosed, is now 18, and is brilliant, compassionate, and inspired by my bold, outspoken ways.

I have lived life more vitally. For me, the breast was certainly worth it.

So I am furious at the discussions I've heard this week about mammograms. How dare they tell us to endanger the lives of women in their forties! What about the repercussions on their children?! They make it sound like the anxiety of false positives isn't worth it. But they offer NOTHING! They've even taken away self-examination.

Even while we live in a world that's been further contaminated by such carelessness and lies as the filth from mountaintop-removal sludge, overpopulated livestock production and slaughter,cell phoneradiowaves, nuclear waste, and vaporized depleted uranium particles from military strikes eternally circulating through air currents, water and soil. . .

The dangers of cancer are cancer are increasing, even when we are blind to it, and we must be able to respond, to detect it, and stop it from striking the vital organs. I have always said that breast cancer should be easy. It's a sack outside the main frame and can be removed, taking the cancer with it. But now they are limiting our ability to detect it. They offer no solutions. It makes me snarl.

In an effort to make sense of this – for my friends, for my daughter (who now bears the weight of family history) and stepdaughters - I sought out the advice of someone I trusted, someone who also forced me to rethink mammograms: Devra Davis, the Director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and author of The Secret History of the War on Cancer.

Dear Dr. Davis:

According to my Google search, you have not yet posted a response to the recent announcement about the recommendations for mammograms.

In 1997, at the age of 45, I found a large lump that had suddenly appeared on my left breast. A mammogram followed, as well as an ultrasound, and a lumpectomy. There was calcification in the ducts and the surgeon could get no clean margins. I found a woman oncologist at the University of Utah, who took a great deal of time with me to explain things, and with my only a child, my daughter, only 5 years old, I went ahead and had the recommended mastectomy. While the 12 lymph nodes they removed were clean, it was found that the ducts had been breeched and the cancer was no longer just "in situ", so I also underwent chemotherapy. Again I returned to the woman oncologist, as the young male doctor that I was assigned bluntly told me I had to have heavy-duty chemo with a port and the hair loss, etc. The woman, Dr. Sondra Buys, now at the Huntsman Cancer Institute (still U of U), took an hour with me and carefully wrote down 4 options, narrowed it to 2, and let me choose, then affirmed she would have made the same decision. I stayed with her and got a lighter chemo, one that was much safer for my heart, and without the hair loss.

There has been no reoccurrence, and my daughter is now a student herself at the University of Utah, while I have done so much more with my life since then than I may have done without the urgency the cancer-scare brought to my life.

Meanwhile, I have had two friends die of breast cancer that was found while they were in their forties, and another whose breast cancer has metastasized, with a tumor now growing on her spine.

Naturally, I have believed that I am alive because we stopped the cancer in an early stage.

So I spent years encouraging mammograms and pointing out the statistic I'd read that 75% of breast cancer victims do not have it running in the family.

Then I read your book. I stopped encouraging mammograms because of what you said about the radiation. I also stopped talking about breast cancer. I didn't know what to say.

Then came the announcements this week. They made me angry -- because so little was said about the radiation being the legitimate reason to cut back, and so much was said about the anxiety of false positives, and the impracticality of only saving one life for every 1900 mammograms. And nothing was said about the devastation of children losing their mothers. Nor did I hear discussion about educating the public more about the risk factors other than family history (like alcohol useor carrying extra weight), or what other options there might be (and I listen to NPR almost all day at my job).

I did hear that health insurance companies might use this as a way to stop paying for mammograms. I also heard Democratic Senator Dick Durbin say that this was a panel put together by the Bush administration (and I am extremely aware of the deadly dismissing and/or censoring of scientific evidence done by Bush/Cheney and the corporate lobbyists brought in to wreak havoc throughout federal agencies, and have written about it myself), implying the timing of the release was chosen to further frighten the public and Congress about health care reform.

So, Dr. Davis, I am turning to you. As I Googled, I looked for other options for detecting early breast cancer, and I discovered that just days before the USPSTF recommendations were announced, the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute revealed a new breast cancer screening device, called SoftVue, which uses sonic signals, rather than radiation, and is supposed to be more accurate, less expensive, and, most important, less invasive, than current technology.

Is this the solution? I looked in the index of your book for the two doctors mentioned in the announcement, Ann G. Schwartz, and Peter J. Littrup, but they weren't there.

What are women supposed to do?

Thank you so much for your work and courageous writing and public statements. I look forward to your response.

Barbara Bellows-TerraNova



Meanwhile, until I get a reply, dear readers, ASK QUESTIONS. I will return to this when I know more.

The Council of Conscience Crafts the Charter for Compassion

See Peace, Especially Today

Adding My Voice

Years ago I knew a woman in the process of liberation, exploding with a joy for a grander life than once she'd imagined.

In one of our conversations, she introduced me to a dance school in which children learned to go inside themselves to understand what and how to express themselves. It was, perhaps, one of the most significant conversations I've had in the last 18 years, for that brought an excellance of magnificent artistry into our lives.

She also gave my newborn daughter an Irish blessing.

Then I didn't see her again.

Until Facebook. Now I find I can count on her to pay attention and speak with that same explosion of spirit.

So, when she identifies me, "tags" me, in a note she's posted, I know to pay attention.

So I read her "Using the National Organization for Marriage To Promote Marriage Equality" and jumped right in.

Take a couple of minutes to do something to further marriage equality!

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is the organization that did that "storm is coming" ad that aired on TV (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AzLrn5JVIo) which tried to show how same-sex marriage would destroy society and civilization as we know it. NOM is also under review as being funded by the LDS (Mormon) Church.

Right now on their website they are running a petition called Two Million For Marriage in which they're asking Congress: Don't Mess With DOMA. As you all know, DOMA is what keeps same sex couples (even couples legally wed in the 6 states that allow same-sex marriage) from receiving federal recognition, benefits, protections and rights. The Right is afraid that when DOMA falls that all state laws and constitutional ammendments banning same-sex marriage will fall as well. So this petition is going out to the writer's Senators and Representatives, Rep Nancy Pelosi, Senator Harry Reid, and President Obama asking them not NOT support any efforts to repeal DOMA.

We should hijack their petition and alter it to ask our Representatives, Senators, Pelosi, Ried and Obama to SUPPORT ending DOMA! Feel free to edit their letter yourself. Below I pasted my version of the letter.

The petition is located at: http://www.twomillionformarriage.com/c.mkLRJ5MQKtH/b.5281187/k.D2DF/Petition/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?msource=EC0907SANTOR

And I went to that petition, and edited their letter (original below my version) and came up with the following:

July 29, 2009
To: Nancy Pelosi, Harry M. Reid, Barack Obama, Your Federal Senator(s), Your Federal Representative(s)
From: Barbara Bellows-TerraNova

I am writing today because I wanted to be sure that you heard from the tens of millions of Americans who firmly believe that marriage should be recognized as a commitment of union between two loving people, regardless of gender.

Too often, we have been silent, ignoring the damage done to our gay friends and family members by the narrow-minded intolerance of those who are irrationally threatened by people they don't understand, who have gone beyond human decency to attack a legitimate minority population. Today, I am writing to strongly urge you to encourage you to oppose the misbegotten federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Thirteen years ago, Congress panicked, seeing the increasing fervency of the religious right, and betrayed American citizens when they adopted DOMA, and President Clinton, in one of his many hypocritical moves, signed it into law, allowing states to rule according to petty local religious prejudices to use their power to enforce their cruelty, heartlessly rejecting relationships that often demonstrated more commitment and integrity than the officially sanctified marriages, where domestic abuse, psychological cruelty, sexism, lying and cheating have created a society in which, ironically, more Americans are lefting desperately needing the kind of federal assistance these same people frequently vote against.

This is simply common sense, recognizing the legitimacy of love and commitment shared over decades between partners who deserve to have their relationships sanctified by the state on an equal basis with heterosexual couples.

I urge you to strongly stand up for human rights and oppose the illegitimate federal Defense of Marriage Act. Our country and families are in the midst of crisis -- in the financial markets, in education, in health care. Now, of all times, let the healing begin!

As the late, "most trusted" Walter Cronkite wrote in his column, "The Marriage Debacle", published February 26, 2004:

"There are many of us Christians who recall our Sunday-school teachers and later our ministers dwelling upon the sympathy and respect -- indeed, the tolerance -- for others that, they taught, was basic to our Christian religion. As the prophet Isaiah summed up this need for tolerance: 'Come, let us reason together.'

"We who believe this are compelled to ask: Where is the tolerance, where is the Christian spirit in the effort to criminalize the personal choices of our fellow citizens, personal choices that do not physically threaten others? Where is the Christian tolerance in the conceit of those Christian leaders who dare suggest that they alone can be trusted to properly interpret the lessons of their Bible, and who would impose that belief on this nation's highly diverse peoples by threatening to throw them in jail if they don't agree with the CCR's version of God's wishes?

"Besides wishing to criminalize individual behavior, the more radical members of the Christian right would like their proposed federal law to dictate what individual churches could do in regard to recognizing or performing same-sex marriages. This is another abomination. Shouldn't that decision be made by the individual church or denomination? What possible excuse is there for government intervention in this decision except an unreasonable, unchristian intolerance for freedom of worship?

"Where is the Christian tolerance in those right-wing Christian leaders who would impose their religious beliefs on the entire diverse population of the United States, even to the extent of a Constitutional amendment curtailing our rights of religious freedom?

"As the CCR leadership presses this matter, which they depict as a moral issue, they threaten a religious war that will split our nation at a time in our lives when unity would be helpful in attacking far more critical problems on which the future of our nation depends -- our foreign policy, the economy, education, medical care and the environment, to name a few.

"In the difficult days ahead, the tolerant among us -- Republican, Democratic or Independent, Christian, Muslim, Jewish or nonbeliever -- are going to have to try to preach another morality, and that is the morality of tolerance."

Sincerely, Barbara Bellows-TerraNova

Gotta love Facebook for reviving friendships that bring out the best in us.

* * *

Their original (NOT MY THINKING):

Subject: Don’t let Massachusetts force same sex marriage on the whole country.

I am writing today because I wanted to be sure that you heard from the tens of millions of Americans who firmly believe that marriage can only be the union of a husband and wife.

Too often, we remain silent, watching events in Washington from a distance. Today, I am writing to urge you to oppose any effort to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Just thirteen years ago, Congress overwhelmingly adopted DOMA, and President Clinton signed it into law, protecting the rights of states to enforce their own marriage laws, and not allowing four judges in one small state to force their views on same-sex marriage upon the entire nation.

Forty-four states have now adopted laws re-affirming the definition of marriage as the union of a husband and wife. Out of thirty states where a constitutional amendment on marriage has gone to the people, the amendment has passed all 30 times, usually by overwhelming margins.

This is simply common sense, not bigotry, recognizing the shared wisdom of humanity across all cultural, religious, and ethnic lines. Marriage connects a child to both her mom and her dad, giving her the birthright of love and support from her own parents that every child deserves.

I urge you to strongly oppose any bill that would repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Our country and families are in the midst of crisis -- in the financial markets, in education, in health care. Now, of all times, don't mess with marriage!

Obama Speeks to the NAACP's 100th Anniversary Convention

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Remembering Walter Cronkite's Wisdom

Faith Ringgold's "Freedom of Speech"

As seen and photographed on June 9th, 2009 at the Metropolitan Art Museum in NYC.

From the Met's website:

Since the 1960s, Ringgold, an ardent feminist and political activist, has used her art to address gender and racial problems in America and Europe, from a personal, sometimes autobiographical, human level. Her naive, folksy style makes these works visually approachable, while her frequent use of written texts within the works makes their often biting social commentary eminently clear. Periodically, Ringgold has employed the image of the American flag, a powerful symbol of freedom and democracy, to challenge current injustices.

In Freedom of Speech, the artist interprets the meaning of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights as it applies to the civil rights of all people. Across the red stripes of the flag are the words of the First Amendment (ratified in 1791) protecting freedom of speech, the right to religious practice, peaceable assembly, and lawful redress of grievances. In opposition to these noble ideals, however, Ringgold writes an array of names and words over the white stripes and stars that reference serious breaches of these freedoms. Painted in October 1990, Freedom of Speech was commissioned by the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia as a poster design for an exhibition commemorating the 200th anniversary of the Bill of Rights, which was celebrated in 1991.

This 4th of July, I honor the best intentions and dreams that are expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and continue in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as "We, the People" evolve.

But I also continue to be aware of those who have used their power for greed, not principles, and I promise to pay attention and not be silent.

Thus am I patriotic.