Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Nobel Peace Prize Winner Marches Against Bush
Yet another large march against Bush occurred a couple weeks ago when he was down in Latin America trying to push the pro business, free trade policies that have been helping the rich and hurting the poor for decades. Argentinian Nobel Peace Prize winner, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, was among the protestors.
Untangling the Iraq War Debacle
this is a great article on how, even if we grant the Bush Admin all benefit of doubt in their intentions with the Iraq War (a very generous gift), we still must admit we've made errors on a grand scale. there are many links to other news articles here as well, and corroborating stories can be found in many other sources as well for these citations. read on please...
It wasn't just the intelligence, it was the War
Posted by Cenk Uygur at 10:37 AM on November 14, 2005.
Even if you believe that all the pre-war misinformation was just an honest mistake, the war was still counterproductive and wrong.
Throughout the last three years we have been given three principle reasons for the Iraq War by the White House.
We had to launch a pre-emptive strike to make sure we hit Iraq before they hit us with their arsenal of WMD.
Iraq is tied into the Global War on Terror that was brought to our shores on 9/11.
By bringing democracy to Iraq we will stabilize the region and make it friendlier to US interests, thereby defeating terrorism in the long term. All of these reasons might have sounded good at some point, but time has proven that they are all terribly wrong.
The first reason for the war seems the most comical in hindsight. At different points, the administration warned the American people about nuclear attacks, drone planes spraying us with chemical and biological weapons and imminent strikes against the United States. Let alone the hidden mustard gas on turkey farms (I'm not kidding). Condoleezza Rice told us that we could not wait for actual evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction because, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
As we all know now, Iraq did not have a plan to invade the US, or any drones, or nuclear weapons made in Niger, or even a single weapon of mass destruction. Whether you think that was an enormous fraud perpetrated upon the American people or you think it was unprecedented negligence leading to a terrible but honest mistake, the conclusion is beyond obvious - we were wrong.
We weren't just wrong on the intelligence - we were wrong to invade. We launched a pre-emptive strike against a non-existent threat. I don't remember the Iraqi people, let alone the American people, receiving an apology for this grave error. In the best case scenario, the administration invaded a country - invaded a country - based on an error.
If the intelligence was not manipulated by the administration for the express purpose of taking us into war, then they have committed the largest error in US history. Someone has to take responsibility for this act of colossal negligence. Usually the person ultimately responsible for this type of decision is the President. Has he ever accepted responsibility for this historic error?
The second reason given for the war was that Iraq was somehow involved with the Global War on Terror before we invaded the country. President Bush said on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, in his famous "Mission Accomplished" speech, "We've removed an ally of al-Qaeda." Really?
Then why did the 9/11 commission conclude that there was "no credible evidence" whatsoever that Iraq had anything to do with al-Qaeda before the invasion? The commission reported there was no "collaborative relationship" between al-Qaeda and Iraq. How much clearer did they have to be?
In fact, before the Iraq war, the Pentagon gave the White House three different opportunities to take out the only person who might have been related to al-Qaeda in Iraq. All three times, the White House refused to order the air-strikes because it might undercut their reason for going to war. That person's name was Abu Musab Zarqawi.
The Bush administration, after specifically turning down all of those opportunities to strike Zarqawi, then claimed we had to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein was giving shelter to Zarqawi. By the way, of course, this Saddam-Zarqawi link has also been debunked and discredited.
So, by letting Zarqawi go so that we could theoretically have a better case against Saddam, we wound up handing al-Qaeda a huge present in Iraq (according to most sources Zarqawi started working with al-Qaeda after the Iraq war began). After Saddam was toppled, Zarqawi was free to go on a campaign of terror he never came close to mustering under Saddam's rule.
Now, that al-Qaeda has been unleashed in Iraq by our gross negligence -- again, it is horrific negligence if you are being charitable and accepting that the Bush administration didn't want any of this to happen -- President Bush has the nerve to say that we should have gone into Iraq in the first place because it is now the central front in the war on terror.
At one point Vice President Cheney tried to justify the war by saying that through defeating Iraq, "we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Could you imagine if after Pearl Harbor, FDR launched an invasion of China because it was in "the geographic base" from which our enemies launched their attack, namely Asia?
Then, if he sent Truman to the talk shows to argue that starting a second war against a country that was not part of World War II was a great idea. That we should be busy fighting the Chinese instead of fighting the Japanese and the Germans. I imagine they would have been thrown out of office immediately. But since Iraqis look like "the terrorists" we think we're fighting, I guess attacking the wrong country these days while we're in the middle of the war on terror is no big deal.
Or could you imagine if President Clinton said after the Oklahoma bombing that we were going to invade Iraq because of the global war on terror? Iraq was as tied to 9/11 as it was to the Oklahoma City bombing. But since it was mainly Saudis who carried out the terror on 9/11 and white people who carried out the terror in Oklahoma City, invading Iraq in one case makes sense but doesn't in the other?
Knowing what we know now, isn't it obvious that there would have been a much smaller, if not nonexistent, presence of al-Qaeda in Iraq if we had not invaded? That there would have been far less acts of terror in Iraq and throughout the Middle East if we had not invaded? Even the CIA has acknowledged that we have created more terrorism through the invasion than we have stifled. Given these obvious mistakes, couldn't we at least expect our elected officials to admit we have made a grave error in launching this attack, even if they still hold on to the delusion that it was all an honest mistake?
Perhaps they are holding on to the third reason for invading as the one thing that will come to the rescue of their folly. I don't remember any grand speeches about democracy in Iraq before the invasion. Nonetheless, let's be charitable again and say that was their secret intent and that they thought we were too dense to comprehend such a global worldview (I believe the neocons did actually believe this, so I don't think we're being too charitable in thinking they had the intention of deceiving us for what they viewed to be our own good).
So, whatever became of this democracy? Now that we have had two and a half years of "tremendous progress" in the Iraqi political process, we should have less terrorism in Iraq, right? Apparently not, US government analysts told the Los Angeles Times recently that they realize the insurgency has not weakened as "democracy" has taken hold in Iraq.
General George Casey indicated to the Senate recently that the Iraqi insurgency might last a decade and that the US could leave before the insurgency is defeated. The Washington Post reported several months ago that inside administration sources have quietly given up on the idea of democracy in Iraq. Why that didn't make headlines everywhere I will never know. But that is a matter of the disheartening negligence of the American media, as opposed to the disheartening negligence of American politicians, which is the matter presently at hand.
The White House has given up on democracy in Iraq! What else is left then?
Apparently, the orchestrated leaks to the Washington Post were supposed to dampen the expectations of what could be accomplished in Iraq. Believe me, they were dampened already.
But this should have come as no surprise because the Washington Post also reported earlier that the White House at one point authorized the United States to rig the Iraqi elections -- or as they say, "influence the outcome of the Iraqi election by covertly helping individual candidates for office." There is disagreement on whether this plan was actually put into effect in the past January elections, with Seymour Hersh reporting in The New Yorker that it was. But again, being charitable, with all of the flowery talk about how the real reason for the invasion of was to bring democracy to Iraq, the White House at one point authorized a covert plan to influence the Iraqi elections, so that the people we supported won the elections rather than whoever might win without our "influence." Is it me or does that sound like colossal hypocrisy?
More importantly, it tells you that this White House never believed in bringing democracy to Iraq in the first place. On top of this, they have already admitted that they will not accomplish that goal or defeat the insurgency before we leave. We will leave Iraq a bloody mess without even coming close to any of the stated goals of the invasion.
There is nothing left. This war is indefensible. Yet, the administration has not admitted that they are responsible for a single mistake in the war, let alone the colossal mistake of invading in the first place.
It makes you despair of democracy. This invasion was so thoroughly wrong and so thoroughly botched that it not only makes you worry about democracy in Iraq, but it makes you worry about democracy here as well.
Evan Derkacz is a New York-based writer and contributor to AlterNet.
It wasn't just the intelligence, it was the War
Posted by Cenk Uygur at 10:37 AM on November 14, 2005.
Even if you believe that all the pre-war misinformation was just an honest mistake, the war was still counterproductive and wrong.
Throughout the last three years we have been given three principle reasons for the Iraq War by the White House.
We had to launch a pre-emptive strike to make sure we hit Iraq before they hit us with their arsenal of WMD.
Iraq is tied into the Global War on Terror that was brought to our shores on 9/11.
By bringing democracy to Iraq we will stabilize the region and make it friendlier to US interests, thereby defeating terrorism in the long term. All of these reasons might have sounded good at some point, but time has proven that they are all terribly wrong.
The first reason for the war seems the most comical in hindsight. At different points, the administration warned the American people about nuclear attacks, drone planes spraying us with chemical and biological weapons and imminent strikes against the United States. Let alone the hidden mustard gas on turkey farms (I'm not kidding). Condoleezza Rice told us that we could not wait for actual evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction because, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
As we all know now, Iraq did not have a plan to invade the US, or any drones, or nuclear weapons made in Niger, or even a single weapon of mass destruction. Whether you think that was an enormous fraud perpetrated upon the American people or you think it was unprecedented negligence leading to a terrible but honest mistake, the conclusion is beyond obvious - we were wrong.
We weren't just wrong on the intelligence - we were wrong to invade. We launched a pre-emptive strike against a non-existent threat. I don't remember the Iraqi people, let alone the American people, receiving an apology for this grave error. In the best case scenario, the administration invaded a country - invaded a country - based on an error.
If the intelligence was not manipulated by the administration for the express purpose of taking us into war, then they have committed the largest error in US history. Someone has to take responsibility for this act of colossal negligence. Usually the person ultimately responsible for this type of decision is the President. Has he ever accepted responsibility for this historic error?
The second reason given for the war was that Iraq was somehow involved with the Global War on Terror before we invaded the country. President Bush said on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, in his famous "Mission Accomplished" speech, "We've removed an ally of al-Qaeda." Really?
Then why did the 9/11 commission conclude that there was "no credible evidence" whatsoever that Iraq had anything to do with al-Qaeda before the invasion? The commission reported there was no "collaborative relationship" between al-Qaeda and Iraq. How much clearer did they have to be?
In fact, before the Iraq war, the Pentagon gave the White House three different opportunities to take out the only person who might have been related to al-Qaeda in Iraq. All three times, the White House refused to order the air-strikes because it might undercut their reason for going to war. That person's name was Abu Musab Zarqawi.
The Bush administration, after specifically turning down all of those opportunities to strike Zarqawi, then claimed we had to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein was giving shelter to Zarqawi. By the way, of course, this Saddam-Zarqawi link has also been debunked and discredited.
So, by letting Zarqawi go so that we could theoretically have a better case against Saddam, we wound up handing al-Qaeda a huge present in Iraq (according to most sources Zarqawi started working with al-Qaeda after the Iraq war began). After Saddam was toppled, Zarqawi was free to go on a campaign of terror he never came close to mustering under Saddam's rule.
Now, that al-Qaeda has been unleashed in Iraq by our gross negligence -- again, it is horrific negligence if you are being charitable and accepting that the Bush administration didn't want any of this to happen -- President Bush has the nerve to say that we should have gone into Iraq in the first place because it is now the central front in the war on terror.
At one point Vice President Cheney tried to justify the war by saying that through defeating Iraq, "we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Could you imagine if after Pearl Harbor, FDR launched an invasion of China because it was in "the geographic base" from which our enemies launched their attack, namely Asia?
Then, if he sent Truman to the talk shows to argue that starting a second war against a country that was not part of World War II was a great idea. That we should be busy fighting the Chinese instead of fighting the Japanese and the Germans. I imagine they would have been thrown out of office immediately. But since Iraqis look like "the terrorists" we think we're fighting, I guess attacking the wrong country these days while we're in the middle of the war on terror is no big deal.
Or could you imagine if President Clinton said after the Oklahoma bombing that we were going to invade Iraq because of the global war on terror? Iraq was as tied to 9/11 as it was to the Oklahoma City bombing. But since it was mainly Saudis who carried out the terror on 9/11 and white people who carried out the terror in Oklahoma City, invading Iraq in one case makes sense but doesn't in the other?
Knowing what we know now, isn't it obvious that there would have been a much smaller, if not nonexistent, presence of al-Qaeda in Iraq if we had not invaded? That there would have been far less acts of terror in Iraq and throughout the Middle East if we had not invaded? Even the CIA has acknowledged that we have created more terrorism through the invasion than we have stifled. Given these obvious mistakes, couldn't we at least expect our elected officials to admit we have made a grave error in launching this attack, even if they still hold on to the delusion that it was all an honest mistake?
Perhaps they are holding on to the third reason for invading as the one thing that will come to the rescue of their folly. I don't remember any grand speeches about democracy in Iraq before the invasion. Nonetheless, let's be charitable again and say that was their secret intent and that they thought we were too dense to comprehend such a global worldview (I believe the neocons did actually believe this, so I don't think we're being too charitable in thinking they had the intention of deceiving us for what they viewed to be our own good).
So, whatever became of this democracy? Now that we have had two and a half years of "tremendous progress" in the Iraqi political process, we should have less terrorism in Iraq, right? Apparently not, US government analysts told the Los Angeles Times recently that they realize the insurgency has not weakened as "democracy" has taken hold in Iraq.
General George Casey indicated to the Senate recently that the Iraqi insurgency might last a decade and that the US could leave before the insurgency is defeated. The Washington Post reported several months ago that inside administration sources have quietly given up on the idea of democracy in Iraq. Why that didn't make headlines everywhere I will never know. But that is a matter of the disheartening negligence of the American media, as opposed to the disheartening negligence of American politicians, which is the matter presently at hand.
The White House has given up on democracy in Iraq! What else is left then?
Apparently, the orchestrated leaks to the Washington Post were supposed to dampen the expectations of what could be accomplished in Iraq. Believe me, they were dampened already.
But this should have come as no surprise because the Washington Post also reported earlier that the White House at one point authorized the United States to rig the Iraqi elections -- or as they say, "influence the outcome of the Iraqi election by covertly helping individual candidates for office." There is disagreement on whether this plan was actually put into effect in the past January elections, with Seymour Hersh reporting in The New Yorker that it was. But again, being charitable, with all of the flowery talk about how the real reason for the invasion of was to bring democracy to Iraq, the White House at one point authorized a covert plan to influence the Iraqi elections, so that the people we supported won the elections rather than whoever might win without our "influence." Is it me or does that sound like colossal hypocrisy?
More importantly, it tells you that this White House never believed in bringing democracy to Iraq in the first place. On top of this, they have already admitted that they will not accomplish that goal or defeat the insurgency before we leave. We will leave Iraq a bloody mess without even coming close to any of the stated goals of the invasion.
There is nothing left. This war is indefensible. Yet, the administration has not admitted that they are responsible for a single mistake in the war, let alone the colossal mistake of invading in the first place.
It makes you despair of democracy. This invasion was so thoroughly wrong and so thoroughly botched that it not only makes you worry about democracy in Iraq, but it makes you worry about democracy here as well.
Evan Derkacz is a New York-based writer and contributor to AlterNet.
US Press Freedom Slipping
This is an interesting article. Not sure how well the survey questions were created or how well the surveys were administered, but still it's interesting that the US, supposedly the beacon of freedom for the world, is so far down on the list.
Coca Cola In Trouble Again: Found Guilty!
Coca Cola is in trouble again. Big surprise. This time they were found guilty on a number of counts of monopoly charges in Mexico, specifically trying to pressure small business owners with bully tactics. And of course, Coke issued the standard corporate denail even after being found guilty twice. Always Coca Cola, always the real unethical thing? Hmmm...the CNN story is below, just another in a very long list of human, environmental, and labor rights violations by the corporate giant.
Also, having been in Mexico for a couple of months, I can attest to the magnitude of Coke's beverage power here. If you go into a tienda, you have to avoid Coke, Fanta, & Fresca (for soda), and probably some other names for juices. There is sometimes an alternative orange soda brand, but that's usually about it for soda alternatives. Additionally, Fresca and tequila is a very popular drink here, and it's served at basically every bar, most likely without a Fresca alternative (I think I've seen a lemon lime alternative a couple times in tiendas though). It would be one thing to accept benefits to an economy when business ties are friendly, it's entirely another to help the economy at the expense of the rights of individuals,which is what Coke has been found guilty and observed by independent investigators to be doing for quite a long time.
Mexico shop owner beats Coca Cola
MEXICO CITY, Mexico (AP) -- Mexico has imposed its biggest anti-monopoly fines ever, totaling about US$68 million (euro58 million,) against Coca Cola and dozens of its distributors and bottlers.
The battle was won by one woman who got tired of being told what to sell at her one-room store in an impoverished Mexico City neighborhood.
In a country where David-vs.-Goliath battles usually end with David getting crushed, Raquel Chavez's victory is no small feat.
The fines -- one batch amounting to about US$15 million (euro13 million) and another for US$53 million (euro45 million) -- will not be formally announced until a mandatory appeals period ends, but regulators and a Coca Cola representative confirmed them to The Associated Press.
It is no coincidence that the battle -- which resulted in some of the highest antitrust fines Coke has ever faced -- was waged in Mexico, with the highest per-capita soft drink consumption in the world.
Even Chavez, 49, expected to lose when a Coke distributor told her to get rid of Big Cola, an upstart brand that arrived in Mexico recently from Peru, or risk having Coke stop selling to her.
"I told them, 'You can't refuse to sell to me. That's unconstitutional'," Chavez told The Associated Press. "I didn't really know if it was unconstitutional, but I said it anyway."
Coca Cola denied that it has engaged in monopolistic practices.
"We respect the ... decisions," spokesman Charley Sutlive said. "However, we have used the appeal processes open to us to present arguments that our business practices comply with Mexican competition laws, and to demonstrate that our commercial practices are fair."
Coke, whose share of the Mexican soft drink market hovers around 70 percent, is a must-have item for small stores. Chavez still sells it. But she also resented being told what she could sell.
"You may call the shots everywhere else, but I'm the boss in my store," she told the distributor.
She put her three children through college with her 20-hour days at her store, called "La Racha," which means a streak of luck, and takes pride in the business.
In 2003, her customers began asking for "Big Cola," which had begun cutting into Coke's market with lower prices. Coke told her to get rid of the brand, but she refused.
"I am a common citizen who demands her rights, who won't allow herself to be stepped on, that's all," the vigorous, fast-talking Chavez said as she sat on an upturned Coke crate outside her shop.
The shop is tucked into the corner of a one-story brick building in the working-class Iztapalapa neighborhood. Its counters are protected against thieves with steel mesh.
Doing business here is tough. Chavez has been held up at gunpoint or with knives several times since she opened the store in 1992. But nothing had prepared her for the fight with Coca Cola.
First, she didn't know which government agency to turn to. Then, Chavez found the Federal Competition Commission offices on the swanky west side of town. After two months of inaction, she blew up at the anti-monopoly agency.
"I told them, 'What are you good for? What purpose do you serve?"' she said. "Are you here to protect Coke, or to defend us?"
They finally accepted her complaint, investigated it, and found evidence of similar incidents -- some documented by Big Cola, which later joined the case. Two years later, on July 4, the commission ruled in a closed-door session that 15 Coke bottlers had violated anti-monopoly laws in the case, and fined them about US$15 million.
"I was sure we would lose, because in Mexico for so long, people got away with anything," Chavez said.
Dark days
Just a few weeks later, on August 12, a similar case that had been held up in hearings for years was suddenly resolved -- again, with a ruling against Coke, this time against 54 distributors who were ordered to pay about US$1 million (euro860,000) each, the maximum fine allowed.
A copy of one of the rulings obtained by The Associated Press showed that some Coke distributors had threatened to remove company-supplied refrigerators and displays from shops that sold other brands.
They also allegedly shifted competitors' merchandise away from prime locations in some stores, bought it all up and dumped it, or offered Coke merchandise in return for not selling the other brands.
Alfredo Paredes, the communications director for Big Cola's parent company, Ajemex, credits the rulings with "giving us a sense of reassurance ... that these small business owners will no longer be subject to intimidation."
Chavez won't get any of the money -- the fines go to the government -- though her victory didn't come cheap.
For three months, she lost all her Coke deliveries. "I thought we were going to go out of business," she said.
Chavez was forced to buy Coke from wholesale centers and lug home dozens of cases in her 1979 Dodge Dart.
"My husband just watched me," she said. "He was mad."
Things have changed since those dark days.
Her husband now waits on customers as Chavez proudly shows off her court papers. Almost on cue, a bright red Coke truck pulls up and smiling, courteous Coke employees unload Chavez's twice-weekly delivery. They say she's a good customer.
"I thought that we would lose this case, and when we did, it was going to be like 'Look, little ant, we crushed you,' because the powerful always win," she said. "Now I feel proud. Maybe now people will start standing up for themselves."
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Also, having been in Mexico for a couple of months, I can attest to the magnitude of Coke's beverage power here. If you go into a tienda, you have to avoid Coke, Fanta, & Fresca (for soda), and probably some other names for juices. There is sometimes an alternative orange soda brand, but that's usually about it for soda alternatives. Additionally, Fresca and tequila is a very popular drink here, and it's served at basically every bar, most likely without a Fresca alternative (I think I've seen a lemon lime alternative a couple times in tiendas though). It would be one thing to accept benefits to an economy when business ties are friendly, it's entirely another to help the economy at the expense of the rights of individuals,which is what Coke has been found guilty and observed by independent investigators to be doing for quite a long time.
Mexico shop owner beats Coca Cola
MEXICO CITY, Mexico (AP) -- Mexico has imposed its biggest anti-monopoly fines ever, totaling about US$68 million (euro58 million,) against Coca Cola and dozens of its distributors and bottlers.
The battle was won by one woman who got tired of being told what to sell at her one-room store in an impoverished Mexico City neighborhood.
In a country where David-vs.-Goliath battles usually end with David getting crushed, Raquel Chavez's victory is no small feat.
The fines -- one batch amounting to about US$15 million (euro13 million) and another for US$53 million (euro45 million) -- will not be formally announced until a mandatory appeals period ends, but regulators and a Coca Cola representative confirmed them to The Associated Press.
It is no coincidence that the battle -- which resulted in some of the highest antitrust fines Coke has ever faced -- was waged in Mexico, with the highest per-capita soft drink consumption in the world.
Even Chavez, 49, expected to lose when a Coke distributor told her to get rid of Big Cola, an upstart brand that arrived in Mexico recently from Peru, or risk having Coke stop selling to her.
"I told them, 'You can't refuse to sell to me. That's unconstitutional'," Chavez told The Associated Press. "I didn't really know if it was unconstitutional, but I said it anyway."
Coca Cola denied that it has engaged in monopolistic practices.
"We respect the ... decisions," spokesman Charley Sutlive said. "However, we have used the appeal processes open to us to present arguments that our business practices comply with Mexican competition laws, and to demonstrate that our commercial practices are fair."
Coke, whose share of the Mexican soft drink market hovers around 70 percent, is a must-have item for small stores. Chavez still sells it. But she also resented being told what she could sell.
"You may call the shots everywhere else, but I'm the boss in my store," she told the distributor.
She put her three children through college with her 20-hour days at her store, called "La Racha," which means a streak of luck, and takes pride in the business.
In 2003, her customers began asking for "Big Cola," which had begun cutting into Coke's market with lower prices. Coke told her to get rid of the brand, but she refused.
"I am a common citizen who demands her rights, who won't allow herself to be stepped on, that's all," the vigorous, fast-talking Chavez said as she sat on an upturned Coke crate outside her shop.
The shop is tucked into the corner of a one-story brick building in the working-class Iztapalapa neighborhood. Its counters are protected against thieves with steel mesh.
Doing business here is tough. Chavez has been held up at gunpoint or with knives several times since she opened the store in 1992. But nothing had prepared her for the fight with Coca Cola.
First, she didn't know which government agency to turn to. Then, Chavez found the Federal Competition Commission offices on the swanky west side of town. After two months of inaction, she blew up at the anti-monopoly agency.
"I told them, 'What are you good for? What purpose do you serve?"' she said. "Are you here to protect Coke, or to defend us?"
They finally accepted her complaint, investigated it, and found evidence of similar incidents -- some documented by Big Cola, which later joined the case. Two years later, on July 4, the commission ruled in a closed-door session that 15 Coke bottlers had violated anti-monopoly laws in the case, and fined them about US$15 million.
"I was sure we would lose, because in Mexico for so long, people got away with anything," Chavez said.
Dark days
Just a few weeks later, on August 12, a similar case that had been held up in hearings for years was suddenly resolved -- again, with a ruling against Coke, this time against 54 distributors who were ordered to pay about US$1 million (euro860,000) each, the maximum fine allowed.
A copy of one of the rulings obtained by The Associated Press showed that some Coke distributors had threatened to remove company-supplied refrigerators and displays from shops that sold other brands.
They also allegedly shifted competitors' merchandise away from prime locations in some stores, bought it all up and dumped it, or offered Coke merchandise in return for not selling the other brands.
Alfredo Paredes, the communications director for Big Cola's parent company, Ajemex, credits the rulings with "giving us a sense of reassurance ... that these small business owners will no longer be subject to intimidation."
Chavez won't get any of the money -- the fines go to the government -- though her victory didn't come cheap.
For three months, she lost all her Coke deliveries. "I thought we were going to go out of business," she said.
Chavez was forced to buy Coke from wholesale centers and lug home dozens of cases in her 1979 Dodge Dart.
"My husband just watched me," she said. "He was mad."
Things have changed since those dark days.
Her husband now waits on customers as Chavez proudly shows off her court papers. Almost on cue, a bright red Coke truck pulls up and smiling, courteous Coke employees unload Chavez's twice-weekly delivery. They say she's a good customer.
"I thought that we would lose this case, and when we did, it was going to be like 'Look, little ant, we crushed you,' because the powerful always win," she said. "Now I feel proud. Maybe now people will start standing up for themselves."
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Friday, October 14, 2005
A couple easy things you can do to help...
It's hard to keep up with the news here, but here are a few interesting things worth noting...
Take a pledge to not shop at Walmart this holiday season. Instead, support businesses that are trying to make a real difference in the local communities where their businesses operate. The US takes so much from the world, partly in the form of Walmart. As an individual, this is one way you can help give something back as a thank you for everything we receive every day from all over the world. Read a bit more about the pledge here, and then sign it! :)
Also, as a big surprise, the Bush admin is pushing for more lax environmental laws to serve us up more pollution for profit. Read more here.
Finally, there are a whole buch of stories on www.alternet.org, www.indymedia.org, and www.commondreams.org if you are interested in some different perspectives on the news.
Take a pledge to not shop at Walmart this holiday season. Instead, support businesses that are trying to make a real difference in the local communities where their businesses operate. The US takes so much from the world, partly in the form of Walmart. As an individual, this is one way you can help give something back as a thank you for everything we receive every day from all over the world. Read a bit more about the pledge here, and then sign it! :)
Also, as a big surprise, the Bush admin is pushing for more lax environmental laws to serve us up more pollution for profit. Read more here.
Finally, there are a whole buch of stories on www.alternet.org, www.indymedia.org, and www.commondreams.org if you are interested in some different perspectives on the news.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Israeli High Court Finally Rules Against Using Palestinian Civilians as Human Shields
A lot of times in the news we see Palestinian bombings of Israeli structures and people. This is horrible, as are many of the actions taken by the Israelis.
Here is one example:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051006/ts_nm/mideast_shields_dc
Here is one example:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051006/ts_nm/mideast_shields_dc
Stop Torture and Denial of Lunch Breaks
Here are two quick online petitions you can sign. The first is to tell Bush not to veto a bill (as he has threatened to do in the past) in order to allow torture of prisoners of war and detainees.
http://action.truemajority.org/campaign/torture
The second is to tell Wal-Mart (big surprise that they're in court again) to stop denying lunch breaks to some of its workers or to compensate them accordingly.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/974105653.
http://action.truemajority.org/campaign/torture
The second is to tell Wal-Mart (big surprise that they're in court again) to stop denying lunch breaks to some of its workers or to compensate them accordingly.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/974105653.
Saturday, October 01, 2005
White Farmer Feeds Black Live Man to Lions
it´s amazing that things like this happen in the world. this article is worth reading, as it hints at how much progress still needs to be made with racial relations in south africa. of course, we have a ton of progress to make in the US as well.
thanks to anagha for passing the article along.
thanks to anagha for passing the article along.
Friday, September 23, 2005
¡En México! :)
I have arrived safe and sound in Guanajuato, México, a city of great history and culture. I am already enjoying exploring the winding maze of alleyways and a few of the beautiful plazas. I wrote in my journal for the first time since the night after my return from Antigua, Guatemala. The leisurely feeling of traveling is wonderful, and I felt it strongly as I sat and wrote in the Plaza de la Paz, surrounded by flowers, sunlight, and many people, locals and tourists alike. This weekend I will likely visit some museums, basilicas, and the Hidalgo market. Guanajuato City was the birth of the Mexican revolution with the ¨Cry for Independence,¨ and so I hope to check out some of the historical monuments and learn more of the stories soon.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Coke: What Would Jesus Do?
No no no...I'm not talking about our lord and saviour snorting white powder. I'm talking about the oh so tasty beverage. Believe me, the second sentence is sincere. I love the taste of Coke, that is, if I can manage to remove the foul taste of death and torture from my mouth while sloshing it down. With the recent murder of the lead organizer in Coke's subcontracted bottling factories in Colombia, Coca Cola's recent threat to suppress the free speech of an artist in India who has "painted the truth" about the company, and the present "morality"-driven political climate in the US, the call to investigate Coke and the free-market should sound even stronger than before.
Before you read on, please realize that I'm not claiming to be perfect. I support my unfair share of sweatshop and unethical products every day. Not only is it difficult not to support unethical products just by living in the US, I also sometimes compromise my values and go for the unnecessary chocolate bar that isn't fair trade, or what have you. However, what I am saying, is that we can do our best to minimize our support for such practices, support some fair trade businesses some of the time (and conservatives should love this market driven solution), and educate ourselves and take informed, appropriate, non-violent political action to change the world we live in, such as pressuring our politicians into regulating businesses only to the extent that they are acting ethically. I recognize the potential of market-based competition, the entrepreneurial spirit, and the global capitalist system in general. However, there are downsides. Businesses have simply proven over and over again that, while they are willing to act ethically in many regards, they are also willing to actively pursue large scale, unethical practices that hurt many people, particularly the poor and otherwise disadvantaged. So, we must show them how to act correctly, monitor them to the extent necessary, and take away the latitude they have consistently abused. It's been done many times successfully before; we can do it again.
Regardless of our religious, political, or economic views, we must face the moral cost of our Coca Cola and other unethical products. What are they worth to us? Will we help fund the sacrifice of children's, women's, and adult's rights so we can have a drink or shirt we like? Will we pay the price of labor organizers' lives for the caffeine kick or the latest trend? We have to ask ourselves these important questions, and then do something about it. These questions should be especially salient to Christians, who have faith in what they view as a "truth" or morally higher way of life. Yet, many of those same people will cast aside the immorality of supporting sweatshop labor, or almost as worse, refuse to read about issues that might cause them moral dilemmas and go on supporting them all the while.
Large groups of conservative Christians, although certainly not all Christians nor even all conservative Christians, brought great political power to the last presidential election. They strove to define morality in their terms, and over 20% of Bush's voters cited this version of "morality" as a main reason for voting for Bush. But the issue of Coke, or many other sweatshop products such as chocolate, clothes, and diamonds for that matter, are exactly the type of issues that should be especially important to anyone who claims to care about a higher morality, the sanctity of life, family values, and many other issues. A person who claims to be pro-life and pro-family, but then buys a Coke or another product and thus supports forced abortions in sweatshops, murder of protestors and organizers, the destruction of families from sweatshop labor, and a number of other atrocities, is a person who is compromising their values. Indeed, a largely unregulated economic system, strongly supported by Bush and many of his supporters, is a prime reason for the compromising of such values.
Some individuals did not have enough information to know they were compromising their values by voting for Bush, and indeed, some people may be forming counter arguments as they read this. After all, I'm not presenting any facts here, just opinion. It's fine to argue, but I've talked to so many people who can't tell me the first thing about sweatshops, or even know that they exist, and they claim to be moderate, rational, and fair in their arguments. How can you be any of those with such massively incomplete information? I recognize I still have much to learn about economic systems, but I have learned enough to see their impacts on people and can make a moderate, fair, and rational argument for why they should be regulated to the extent necessary to insure basic human rights. Many inviduals ignored moral inconsistencies and willingly compromised their values to vote for Bush. Many others were given introductory information about the ramifications of Bush's free market ideology, weak support for an argument of a "just" Iraq war, and views on the environment, but based on assumptions or an unwillingness to learn more, avoided information that would let them know they were compromising their values. These individuals are just as guilty as those who willingly compromised them.
What Bush-voters should have done, if they were really anti-abortion, for example, would have been to write in a candidate who was both pro-life and who woudl actively pursue business regulations to stop sweatshop factories from forcing young girls into abortions (or from being required to take birth control for that matter). That would have been sticking to values. A person who compromised their values and voted for Bush based on religious reasons, but ignored Bush's numerous contributions to the degredation of "God's people and Earth," have no moral or even logical religious ground for their vote in my eyes.
Could you imagine Jesus justifying a vote for Bush like so many other people did?
"I'll vote for Bush because he is against abortion. Even though his preferred economic and political systems will let businesses sacrifice the rights and lives of many people, those links are more indirect than abortion so it's ok to let them slide."
And if you can imagine that, which must be pretty difficult, could you further imagine that Jesus would not say anything about Bush's practices and policies after the election was over? How many people who voted for Bush are willing to stand up and oppose sweatshops and fight for the rights of those who are most exploited in our world? Jesus supposedly gave his life for the sins of all humankind, but how many people in your church are willing to do something as simple as buying fair trade, boycotting a sweatshop company, writing a letter to those companies or our government officials, or put the time and effort into reading about these issues so they can take other appropriate action to stand up for what is so obviously right?
Finally, could you imagine Jesus saying this?:
"Eh...I'm only one person. I don't really think my actions will make much of a difference. I know it's wrong, but I'll just buy the Coke."
If you have questions about things you can do, please ask me and I'll do my best to share my limited knowledge with you, or to point you in a direction that will be able to help you more. Thanks for reading. Comments welcome.
Before you read on, please realize that I'm not claiming to be perfect. I support my unfair share of sweatshop and unethical products every day. Not only is it difficult not to support unethical products just by living in the US, I also sometimes compromise my values and go for the unnecessary chocolate bar that isn't fair trade, or what have you. However, what I am saying, is that we can do our best to minimize our support for such practices, support some fair trade businesses some of the time (and conservatives should love this market driven solution), and educate ourselves and take informed, appropriate, non-violent political action to change the world we live in, such as pressuring our politicians into regulating businesses only to the extent that they are acting ethically. I recognize the potential of market-based competition, the entrepreneurial spirit, and the global capitalist system in general. However, there are downsides. Businesses have simply proven over and over again that, while they are willing to act ethically in many regards, they are also willing to actively pursue large scale, unethical practices that hurt many people, particularly the poor and otherwise disadvantaged. So, we must show them how to act correctly, monitor them to the extent necessary, and take away the latitude they have consistently abused. It's been done many times successfully before; we can do it again.
Regardless of our religious, political, or economic views, we must face the moral cost of our Coca Cola and other unethical products. What are they worth to us? Will we help fund the sacrifice of children's, women's, and adult's rights so we can have a drink or shirt we like? Will we pay the price of labor organizers' lives for the caffeine kick or the latest trend? We have to ask ourselves these important questions, and then do something about it. These questions should be especially salient to Christians, who have faith in what they view as a "truth" or morally higher way of life. Yet, many of those same people will cast aside the immorality of supporting sweatshop labor, or almost as worse, refuse to read about issues that might cause them moral dilemmas and go on supporting them all the while.
Large groups of conservative Christians, although certainly not all Christians nor even all conservative Christians, brought great political power to the last presidential election. They strove to define morality in their terms, and over 20% of Bush's voters cited this version of "morality" as a main reason for voting for Bush. But the issue of Coke, or many other sweatshop products such as chocolate, clothes, and diamonds for that matter, are exactly the type of issues that should be especially important to anyone who claims to care about a higher morality, the sanctity of life, family values, and many other issues. A person who claims to be pro-life and pro-family, but then buys a Coke or another product and thus supports forced abortions in sweatshops, murder of protestors and organizers, the destruction of families from sweatshop labor, and a number of other atrocities, is a person who is compromising their values. Indeed, a largely unregulated economic system, strongly supported by Bush and many of his supporters, is a prime reason for the compromising of such values.
Some individuals did not have enough information to know they were compromising their values by voting for Bush, and indeed, some people may be forming counter arguments as they read this. After all, I'm not presenting any facts here, just opinion. It's fine to argue, but I've talked to so many people who can't tell me the first thing about sweatshops, or even know that they exist, and they claim to be moderate, rational, and fair in their arguments. How can you be any of those with such massively incomplete information? I recognize I still have much to learn about economic systems, but I have learned enough to see their impacts on people and can make a moderate, fair, and rational argument for why they should be regulated to the extent necessary to insure basic human rights. Many inviduals ignored moral inconsistencies and willingly compromised their values to vote for Bush. Many others were given introductory information about the ramifications of Bush's free market ideology, weak support for an argument of a "just" Iraq war, and views on the environment, but based on assumptions or an unwillingness to learn more, avoided information that would let them know they were compromising their values. These individuals are just as guilty as those who willingly compromised them.
What Bush-voters should have done, if they were really anti-abortion, for example, would have been to write in a candidate who was both pro-life and who woudl actively pursue business regulations to stop sweatshop factories from forcing young girls into abortions (or from being required to take birth control for that matter). That would have been sticking to values. A person who compromised their values and voted for Bush based on religious reasons, but ignored Bush's numerous contributions to the degredation of "God's people and Earth," have no moral or even logical religious ground for their vote in my eyes.
Could you imagine Jesus justifying a vote for Bush like so many other people did?
"I'll vote for Bush because he is against abortion. Even though his preferred economic and political systems will let businesses sacrifice the rights and lives of many people, those links are more indirect than abortion so it's ok to let them slide."
And if you can imagine that, which must be pretty difficult, could you further imagine that Jesus would not say anything about Bush's practices and policies after the election was over? How many people who voted for Bush are willing to stand up and oppose sweatshops and fight for the rights of those who are most exploited in our world? Jesus supposedly gave his life for the sins of all humankind, but how many people in your church are willing to do something as simple as buying fair trade, boycotting a sweatshop company, writing a letter to those companies or our government officials, or put the time and effort into reading about these issues so they can take other appropriate action to stand up for what is so obviously right?
Finally, could you imagine Jesus saying this?:
"Eh...I'm only one person. I don't really think my actions will make much of a difference. I know it's wrong, but I'll just buy the Coke."
If you have questions about things you can do, please ask me and I'll do my best to share my limited knowledge with you, or to point you in a direction that will be able to help you more. Thanks for reading. Comments welcome.
Coke is in the Unethical Spotlight Yet Again
In addition to its numerous unethical behavior around the world, including depletion of water sources in India, the provision of toxic soil to India's farmers and toxic beverages to their people, buying sugar from child sweatshop sugar cane farms, and its implication in multiple assassinations, torture, and false imprisonment of labor unionizers in its Colombia bottling plants, Coca Cola has added another black mark to the list.
Coke is now threatening an artist with a lawsuit in order to suppress his free speech over an all too truthful picture he painted recently (see image at right). See the full story here.
Also, the leader of the union that has been fighting for rights in Coca Cola's subcontracted bottling sweatshops in Colombia has recently been assassinated. I heard a member of this union speak about the pain and suffering that these workers are going through on a daily basis, and how all of their rights, freedom, and lives are at put at risk just by asking for decent working conditions. The Colombian government and Coca Cola are the main beneficiaries of the crimes and murders of these organizers. Time will bring the truth.
For a brief look at Coke, check out the 2-page Coke Fact Sheet here.
You can take action quickly and easily by sending a free fax to Coca Cola here.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Grandma accused of looting makes her case
I wouldn't be surprised if this was a case of racism, or if more cases like this are happening.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Tyco two get up to 25 years' jail
Rich Tyco execs are finally sentenced to prison...
------------
BBC Story
------------
Two former bosses of US manufacturer Tyco have been sentenced to up to 25 years in jail for stealing more than $150m (£82m) from the company. Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/4261836.stm
Published: 2005/09/19 17:03:44 GMT
© BBC MMV
------------
BBC Story
------------
Two former bosses of US manufacturer Tyco have been sentenced to up to 25 years in jail for stealing more than $150m (£82m) from the company.
Former Tyco chief executive Dennis Kozlowski and finance chief Mark Swartz were taken from the court in handcuffs.
They were also ordered to repay most of the money, which they spent on expensive jewellery, luxury apartments and giant $2m Mediterranean parties.
The pair, who denied the charges, were convicted in June at their retrial.
Their first trial collapsed in April 2004 after a juror received a threatening phone call and letter. Both were heard in New York.
Appeals planned
Judge Michael Obus sentenced the pair to between 8 1/3 years and 25 years.
The judge ordered them to pay $134m in restitution. In addition, Kozlowski was fined $70m and Swartz $35m.
Kozlowski, 58, and Swartz, 44, have said they will appeal against the verdicts.
During the trial, the court heard that the former bosses took the money through secret loans that were then simply forgotten, as well as unauthorised bonuses.
Examples of their lavish lifestyle quoted in court included a $2m toga party on a Mediterranean island for Kozlowski's wife's birthday and an $18m apartment in Manhattan.
Tyco employs 250,000 people in 2,000 locations around the world and sells electronic, healthcare, and plastics supplies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/4261836.stm
Published: 2005/09/19 17:03:44 GMT
© BBC MMV
Cash for Your Old Cell Phone
Go to the Cell for Cash site and find out how to quickly and easily get rid of your old cell phone, and get some cash in the process. This saves the cell phone from being thrown away and contaminating our planet.
You can also donate your old cell phone to a number of women's shelters and other places that use them for emergency phones. A simple search of "donate your cell phone" on the net will turn up a number of alternatives.
You can also donate your old cell phone to a number of women's shelters and other places that use them for emergency phones. A simple search of "donate your cell phone" on the net will turn up a number of alternatives.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
A Tool to Write a Letter to Your Newspapers
First read Governor Dean's comments on Supreme Court Justice nonimee John Roberts, then use this simple online tool to send a quick letter to a bunch of newspapers.
Clinton Speaks Great Words
While I don't agree with everything that Bill Clinton did as president, he certainly is a well informed and well spoken voice of reason and compassion in times of crisis. Check out a ten minute video clip of his interview with BBC news on their site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Oppose Arctic Drilling as a Narrowminded Solution
In the wake of Katrina, there have been increased calls for drilling for more oil (presumably in Alaska but perhaps also elsewhere). Instead of looking to destroy more of the precious resources on the planet, why not use the technology that we already have? We have effective hybrid cars, solar power, wind power, and so many other alternatives. Certainly, we can increase production and sales of all of these things as fast as we could produce oil from arctic drilling.
Here is a link that will automatically send letters to President Bush and your state reps. The letter was written by a group of faith, but if you are not a person of faith, you can simply change the opening line and the line in the third paragraph that mention god.
Here is the link.
Also, when you have sent the letter elctronically, they will offer to give you the letters in print format. Simply click the ok button and print them out...they're already preaddressed and formatted. Just sign, address the envelope, and mail away. In about 5 minutes you will have taken action. Please do so.
Here is a link that will automatically send letters to President Bush and your state reps. The letter was written by a group of faith, but if you are not a person of faith, you can simply change the opening line and the line in the third paragraph that mention god.
Here is the link.
Also, when you have sent the letter elctronically, they will offer to give you the letters in print format. Simply click the ok button and print them out...they're already preaddressed and formatted. Just sign, address the envelope, and mail away. In about 5 minutes you will have taken action. Please do so.
Timeline: Surge of Iraq violence
To experience this violence as a civilian must be horrific. I can't imagine living in such fear. I think it's horrible that the "insurgents" are killing innocent civilians. Although our unjust and pre-emptive war in no way justifies such killing, perhaps the effects are illustrating what can happen when you try to forcefully impose a government system on another country. I don't support Saddam's repressive leadership, but I also don't support our "war" against Iraq. As much as we tried negotiating with him, we could have tried more. Additionally, perhaps if the US stopped demonstrating to the world how undemocratic it can be, we would be an inspiration for others to not only start their own movements for democracy, but also to garner worldwide support when we actually take democratic approaches to solving social problems.
-----BBC Article (Intro-----
Insurgents in Iraq have been launching almost hourly attacks on Iraqi and US military targets as well as civilians in a relentless wave of violence.
-----BBC Article (Intro-----
Insurgents in Iraq have been launching almost hourly attacks on Iraqi and US military targets as well as civilians in a relentless wave of violence.
The BBC News website shows where and when the attacks have been reported (all times given are Iraqi local time, which is four hours ahead of GMT). (full story)
Free socially conscious clothing gift certificate! :)
Read below for a chance to win a $300 gift certificate to all sorts of socially conscious clothes and products...it's very simple and doesn't require you signing up for an email list serv if you don't want.
-------------------
Co-op America
-------------------
What can you do to end corporate abuse of workers, communities, and the environment? Support Green Businesses. Everyday, they're changing the marketplace to benefit people and the planet.
-------------------
Co-op America
-------------------
What can you do to end corporate abuse of workers, communities, and the environment? Support Green Businesses. Everyday, they're changing the marketplace to benefit people and the planet.
Co-op America brings together consumers and businesses to grow a just and environmentally sustainable economy. Our first ever People's Choice Award for Green Business of the Year aims to get the word out about these fabulous green businesses and challenge corporate America to follow their positive examples.
Vote & Win Prizes!
Vote now for your favorite Green Business and get entered into a raffle to win $300 worth of gift certificates for sweatshop-free clothing, yoga gear, Fair Trade coffee and crafts, organic bedding and bath items and much more!
Tell a friend! Tell all of your friends! Help make this award a national celebration for a green economy and brighter future!
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
'Stiff upper lip' hampers memory
'Stiff upper lip' hampers memory
Keeping a stiff upper lip during an emotional event can impair your memory, research suggests. Those who battled to hide their emotions paid a cognitive price and were less able to recall the upsetting episode than others, a study found.
The work described in New Scientist involved more than 200 volunteers.
James Gross, Stanford University, and Jane Richards, the University of Texas at Austin, published their study in the Journal of Research and Personality. (full story)
----------------
To me, this is just another small piece to a much larger case for raising more gender-androgenous children, and I don't mean in the biological sense. We should all be able to access our emotions with relative ease, but many boys are still raised to shut them off. On the other end, sometimes being to put your emtions aside temporarily can help to function in a given situation in life, such as work or school. If someone is overly affected by emotion, they might not be able to function when they need to. I think there is a healthy balance somewhere in the middle.
The extra cost to oil, and one of the reasons it's going up.
We should all remember that when we fill up our gas tanks or use gas-powered energy in our homes, we aren't just paying for gas, we are paying for the murder of innocent people and destruction of the environment. Whenever possible, carpool, take public transportation, use rechargeable batteries, buy a hybrid car, and use alternative forms of energy with appliances and in the home to save resources and to lessen your support for these horrors.
This story, about a man named Ken Saro-Wiwa, is just one of many in a long list of complaints of oil companies. Saro-Wiwa was a famous novelist and nonviolent environmental activist in Nigeria. After speaking out strongly against the Shell oil company, which makes up about 80% of the country's economy, Ken was executed along with other nonviolent activists by the military government, probably with the support of Shell.
I heard Saro-Wiwa's son speak at the Northeast Regional Amnesty International Annual Conference a few years back. He also mentioned that, after his father's murder, Shell put up a page about social responsibility on their website, where they mentioned about 50 writers that have helped shape Nigeria. Despite Saro-Wiwa's success, fame, and awards, he was suspiciously left off the list.
You can read a bit more about this issue at: www.thepriceofoil.com.
You can also read another article about Shell's environmental crimes in Nigeria, which have an impact on the people who reside near the spills and plants.
Finally, you can read a perspective from a long time consumer advocate, that is, a person who is looking out for the general public's best interests when for-profit companies seek to ignore or override them. This is the work that Ralph Nader did for a long time that made him so famous and respected. In any case, this article provides some evidence that at oil companies have been wanting to shrink their supply of gas in the US for awhile so as to increase profits, while at the same time publicly blaming environmental activists for pressuring them into reducing their gas supply. There is probably more on the net about these issues to see how legitimate the article is, but it's definitely worth reading. Check it out here.
To me, it is highly believable that the oil companies have tried to spin responsibility onto activists. The same thing happened in the apparel industry. Activists would try to pressure companies into reforming their labor practices and pay a living wage (e.g. stop raping little girls in the workplace, forcing workers to have abortions, not letting girls go to school and work, makign workers work three 24-hour shifts in a week, and paying them so little their families couldn't afford food and basic necessities, etc. etc. etc.). Once the exploitative production factories were exposed, the retail companies, such as Nike or the Limited Company, wouldn't fix their problems and allow people to have a decent job. Instead, they'd often "cut and run," meaning they'd cut their losses, stop doing business with the subcontracted company, and move somewhere else so benefit from a newly exploitable labor force. Then they would publicly blame activists for making them have to shut down.
From everything I have read on sweatshops, let me tell you this honestly. Companies can afford to pay enough to their workers and still remain competitive in the global economy. They wouldn't even have to pass the entire cost onto the consumer, it could most likely be split. Sure, they would lose profit margins, and perhaps wouldn't be the number 1, 2, or 3 company in the world, but they would still make a ton of money on markup. One of the biggest drains on company expenses is corporate executives' salaries and the huge amounts of money spent on advertising throughout the false "seasons" they've created to make everyone feel like they always have to have the newest and trendiest clothes. If the execs would take paycuts, and the companies would pay more to the workers (still less than it would cost to employ people in the US, even with benefits), things could be changed for the lives of many. However, we all know this won't happen under market forces alone; hence, this is another example where government, and in this case, strong international regulations, must be put in place to keep for-profit companies from abusing people in their quest for greater profit margins.
For now, US residents will continue to face the pleasure of slightly cheaper products, but at the cost of atrocities so sickening that all pleasure should be taken away for anyone who knows about them and remains conscious of them. Please search online for fair trade and otherwise socially and environmentally friendly products. There are plenty of links on this blog and can be turned up fairly easily with internet searches as well. If a shirt costs you an extra 5 dollars, avoid drinking Coke and eating chocolate (two more products that are extremely exploitative) for a few days, and you'll have the money in no time.
Thanks to Anagha for passing some of the links along.
Comments welcome.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
A Letter to All Who Voted for George W. Bush from Michael Moore
I don't always agree with Michael Moore, but I would say this letter is mostly fair. For those of you who voted for Bush, I think you have an extra responsibility to keep him in line when he is doing things to hurt the public, like appointing people without adequate experience to positions of enormous responsibility for public safety. If you simply vote for Bush, and then let him do harm without trying to stop him, you are even more responsible than a person who voted against Bush and does nothing.
Anyhow, for those of you who voted for Bush, I'm sure you have a response to me and the below letter. Please feel free to post it here and debate, and for those on all sides, please keep it clean and truthful. Thanks.
--------------
Letter
--------------
Sunday, September 11th, 2005
A Letter to All Who Voted for George W. Bush from Michael Moore
To All My Fellow Americans Who Voted for George W. Bush:
On this, the fourth anniversary of 9/11, I'm just curious, how does it feel?
How does it feel to know that the man you elected to lead us after we were attacked went ahead and put a guy in charge of FEMA whose main qualification was that he ran horse shows?
That's right. Horse shows.
I really want to know -- and I ask you this in all sincerity and with all due respect -- how do you feel about the utter contempt Mr. Bush has shown for your safety? C'mon, give me just a moment of honesty. Don't start ranting on about how this disaster in New Orleans was the fault of one of the poorest cities in America. Put aside your hatred of Democrats and liberals and anyone with the last name of Clinton. Just look me in the eye and tell me our President did the right thing after 9/11 by naming a horse show runner as the top man to protect us in case of an emergency or catastrophe.
I want you to put aside your self-affixed label of Republican/conservative/born-again/capitalist/ditto-head/right-winger and just talk to me as an American, on the common ground we both call America.
Are we safer now than before 9/11? When you learn that behind the horse show runner, the #2 and #3 men in charge of emergency preparedness have zero experience in emergency preparedness, do you think we are safer?
When you look at Michael Chertoff, the head of Homeland Security, a man with little experience in national security, do you feel secure?
When men who never served in the military and have never seen young men die in battle send our young people off to war, do you think they know how to conduct a war? Do they know what it means to have your legs blown off for a threat that was never there?
Do you really believe that turning over important government services to private corporations has resulted in better services for the people?
Why do you hate our federal government so much? You have voted for politicians for the past 25 years whose main goal has been to de-fund the federal government. Do you think that cutting federal programs like FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers has been good or bad for America? GOOD OR BAD?
With the nation's debt at an all-time high, do you think tax cuts for the rich are still a good idea? Will you give yours back so hundreds of thousands of homeless in New Orleans can have a home?
Do you believe in Jesus? Really? Didn't he say that we would be judged by how we treat the least among us? Hurricane Katrina came in and blew off the facade that we were a nation with liberty and justice for all. The wind howled and the water rose and what was revealed was that the poor in America shall be left to suffer and die while the President of the United States fiddles and tells them to eat cake.
That's not a joke. The day the hurricane hit and the levees broke, Mr. Bush, John McCain and their rich pals were stuffing themselves with cake. A full day after the levees broke (the same levees whose repair funding he had cut), Mr. Bush was playing a guitar some country singer gave him. All this while New Orleans sank under water.
It would take ANOTHER day before the President would do a flyover in his jumbo jet, peeking out the window at the misery 2500 feet below him as he flew back to his second home in DC. It would then be TWO MORE DAYS before a trickle of federal aid and troops would arrive. This was no seven minutes in a sitting trance while children read "My Pet Goat" to him. This was FOUR DAYS of doing nothing other than saying "Brownie (FEMA director Michael Brown), you're doing a heck of a job!"
My Republican friends, does it bother you that we are the laughing stock of the world?
And on this sacred day of remembrance, do you think we honor or shame those who died on 9/11/01? If we learned nothing and find ourselves today every bit as vulnerable and unprepared as we were on that bright sunny morning, then did the 3,000 die in vain?
Our vulnerability is not just about dealing with terrorists or natural disasters. We are vulnerable and unsafe because we allow one in eight Americans to live in horrible poverty. We accept an education system where one in six children never graduate and most of those who do can't string a coherent sentence together. The middle class can't pay the mortgage or the hospital bills and 45 million have no health coverage whatsoever.
Are we safe? Do you really feel safe? You can only move so far out and build so many gated communities before the fruit of what you've sown will be crashing through your walls and demanding retribution. Do you really want to wait until that happens? Or is it your hope that if they are left alone long enough to soil themselves and shoot themselves and drown in the filth that fills the street that maybe the problem will somehow go away?
I know you know better. You gave the country and the world a man who wasn't up for the job and all he does is hire people who aren't up for the job. You did this to us, to the world, to the people of New Orleans. Please fix it. Bush is yours. And you know, for our peace and safety and security, this has to be fixed. What do you propose?
I have an idea, and it isn't a horse show.
Yours,
Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
mmflint@aol.com
Bush (finally) takes storm responsibility
US President George W Bush has said he takes responsibility for government failures in dealing with the effects of Hurricane Katrina. (full story)
----------------
Commentary
----------------
It's the respectable thing to do. He doesn't have to take all of the responsibility, but he should take a large portion of it. He missed the letter of request for emergency relief from Governor Blanco because he was on vacation, and then blamed the states for a slow reaction. He appointed a person with no disaster relief experience to one of the highest disaster relief positions in the government. He has slashed funding for disaster relief in the affected area despite government warnings that it was the 3rd largest disaster threat to the US. He has slashed social services in all sorts of ways during his entire presidency to make climbing out of poverty an even more difficult challenge for countless people. Finally, he was playing golf during the storm instead of preparing to help save lives afterwards.
Despite all of this, it is plausable to think Bush never would have accepted responsibility without all of the news groups that have actually sought the truth and political pressure from activist groups and individuals. Once again, these are the groups responsible for bringing out the truth.
----------------
Commentary
----------------
It's the respectable thing to do. He doesn't have to take all of the responsibility, but he should take a large portion of it. He missed the letter of request for emergency relief from Governor Blanco because he was on vacation, and then blamed the states for a slow reaction. He appointed a person with no disaster relief experience to one of the highest disaster relief positions in the government. He has slashed funding for disaster relief in the affected area despite government warnings that it was the 3rd largest disaster threat to the US. He has slashed social services in all sorts of ways during his entire presidency to make climbing out of poverty an even more difficult challenge for countless people. Finally, he was playing golf during the storm instead of preparing to help save lives afterwards.
Despite all of this, it is plausable to think Bush never would have accepted responsibility without all of the news groups that have actually sought the truth and political pressure from activist groups and individuals. Once again, these are the groups responsible for bringing out the truth.
Eleven kids found in cages in home
The Associated Press
Updated: 12:39 a.m. ET Sept. 13, 2005
WAKEMAN, Ohio - Sheriff’s deputies found 11 children locked in cages less than 3½ feet high inside a home, but a couple denied they had abused or neglected the children.
A judge on Monday put the children — who range in age from 1 to 14 and who have various disabilities, including autism — in foster homes.
The children were found in nine cages built into the walls of the house near this small city in northern Ohio, according to the Huron County Sheriff’s Office. They had no blankets or pillows, and the cages were rigged with alarms that sounded if opened, Lt. Randy Sommers said.
The children told authorities they slept in the cages — 40 inches high and 40 inches deep — at night. Doors to some of the cages were blocked with heavy furniture. (full story)
------------
Commentary
------------
Just so you know, adoption isn't the savior that it is seemingly always purported to be. Many children who are adopted live very happy lives. However, many others find themselves abused, neglected, or even given away. Yes, given away.
Somewhere between 10 and 25% of all children who are adopted are "returned" to the adoption agency either before the paperwork is finalized (disrupted adoption) or afterwards (dissolved adoption). Older children and children with more abusive histories are the most likely to be returned. Most of these children end up in foster homes. While foster homes can be a wonderful alternative to an abusive home, abuse has been well documented in foster homes for a long time as well. For more about disrupted adoption, check out a short discussion in Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia.
This gets me to thinking about abortion. I wonder if, when a fetus is aborted, it has a soul. If it has a soul, what is to say that the soul is not recycled to another fetus? If that is the case, then it would seem that a "life" has not really been killed because it will be allowed to live on. If the soul is not allowed to continue, then of course it is unfair that that soul didn't get to continue in life. But I guess all of that is speculation. Anyhow, if the soul is recycled to another fetus, then I would much rather have it recycled than to have to live through an unwanted childhood if that was going to be the case.
Katrina's Fund Raising Frenzy: Too Much and Not Enough
This article emphasizes a point that is largely ignored by those who give money to disaster relief causes. Sure, giving money is beneficial to an extent. But when all is said and done, if we don't alleviate the more widespread poverty and racism in the US, the people who don't have the means to escape disaster will continue to exist en masse.
Give your energy, your compassion, and your support for demanding justice, not just the contents of your wallet or purse. You can do this by learning about poverty and racism in the US and all over the world for that matter. Take it slow...pick an issue that you don't know much about, and read an article or two from different sources each day. Be wary of sources that come from those with vested interests in retaining a poor labor force or those whose commentary is tainted, overtly or covertly, of stereotypes and prejudice.
If we choose not to expend the energy or make the commitment, our financial donations will stand more as a way for us to avoid responsibility than to actually help people in need. We need to do the right thing--continue to educate ourselves and challenge our public and private leaders when they lead people to disaster.
Give your energy, your compassion, and your support for demanding justice, not just the contents of your wallet or purse. You can do this by learning about poverty and racism in the US and all over the world for that matter. Take it slow...pick an issue that you don't know much about, and read an article or two from different sources each day. Be wary of sources that come from those with vested interests in retaining a poor labor force or those whose commentary is tainted, overtly or covertly, of stereotypes and prejudice.
If we choose not to expend the energy or make the commitment, our financial donations will stand more as a way for us to avoid responsibility than to actually help people in need. We need to do the right thing--continue to educate ourselves and challenge our public and private leaders when they lead people to disaster.
Nations Tiring of Losing Out on Lopsided US Trade Agreements
The idea of "free trade" has long benefitted the US above and beyond its trading partners, even its more developed ones. The US had taken a number of dreadfully immoral and unjust economic and military endeavors to ensure that we win out big with trade agreements. Of course, trade is spun to the public as a great exercise of freedom and democracy.
Read this article and many others, and support Fair Trade, not free trade. All you have to do to learn more about fair trade is search for it online. But if you're not sure, you can start here.
Read this article and many others, and support Fair Trade, not free trade. All you have to do to learn more about fair trade is search for it online. But if you're not sure, you can start here.
Bush Support Eroding as Christians Condemn Iraq Involvement
Thanks to the unraveling of the Bush Admin's false claims for the war in Iraq, and also to Christians who actually speak up for compassion and justice despite the false lure of a "just war" in Iraq, more conservative Christians are finally coming around to condemn Bush's lies. Perhaps this deserves an ironic "Thank God!"
All the President's Friends
This article names a few more of Bush's nominees to positions of high ranking positions. It seems the federal departmental agencies are growing thinner of the experience needed to run them every week. It is even sadder that Bush's political favors come at the expense of the public, in the form of a less protected environment, more poorly run treasury, and failed or nonexistent disaster relief.
Not 'Refugees,' but Americans
"While [Hurricane Katrina] raged, the president attended a fundraiser and played golf. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice went shoe shopping in New York."
Yes...they were very concerned indeed.
Yes...they were very concerned indeed.
Bush Lies Exposed in Katrina Aftermath
Read this article to see a few lies that the Bush Admin has been trying to spoon feed to the public. Just another example of how Bush and his Admin are more concerned about their jobs and public image than the American people. That should be considered high treason.
U.S. Leads the World in Sale of Military Goods
The US leads the world by far in selling of military goods and military funding gifts. Time and time again, the US has poured military money into oppressive regimes that have systematically murdered their people, all the while advertising our funding support as necessary for peace and justice. Certainly, this has been bipartisan, although a detailed breakdown of party responsibility through each debacle would be very interesting.
How can we expect other countries to limit their nuclear, biological warfare, and other arms development when we are the biggest military traffickers in the world, and moreover when we have used military might, both ourselves and through often unscrupulous partners, more than any other nation in the world?
How can we expect other countries to limit their nuclear, biological warfare, and other arms development when we are the biggest military traffickers in the world, and moreover when we have used military might, both ourselves and through often unscrupulous partners, more than any other nation in the world?
Monday, September 12, 2005
Bush Appointee Resigns
Bush has long been appointing people to high ranking offices with no experience in the field necessary for the job. Michael Brown, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) finally resigned after he was revealed to be just another result of political nepotism. Gotta love the president forbeing willing to sacrifice people's lives for political favors. Yeah, he really cares about us.
Here's a BBC article on this nonsense.
Here's a BBC article on this nonsense.
Understanding Differences Between Liberals and Conservatives
You may have watched a debate, or heard some differing perspectives on an issue, and you were confused by why the people disagreed. It seemed like they both had good intentions and wanted what was best for society.
Indeed, both liberals and conservatives often have intentions that they believe are what is best for society. There are plenty of conservatives with big hearts, and plenty of liberals who are ill-informed, and vice versa. Moreover, there are continuums of how liberal or conservative a person is (e.g. moderate, strong, extreme, and many points in between). Finally, Republicans are generally conservative, but not always, and Democrats are generally liberal (except for Southern Democrats who are often conservative). However, on any given issue a Republican may vote more liberally and a Democrat may vote more conservatively. For instance, a conservative might argue against a government program one day, but might support a fair housing program the next day.
However, there are important fundamental differences in how liberals and conservatives view people in society, and for what they perceive as the best means for achieving a greater good. For example, because conservatives put a high faith in personal achievement and an unregulated market economy, they often side with big business interests at the expense of people's safety and basic rights. They think by allowing for a free market economy, the profits will eventually trickle down to all people and violations of people's rights will be weeded out by the market. Sometimes this happens, other times it doesn't. For example, the Fair Trade movement is an attempt to weed out unfair labor practices through a market-based solution. Of course, government regulations and strong enforcement would halt those conservative-supported sweatshops in their tracks to begin with. As another example, with high standards of social equality and justice, liberals will often feel it is fair to stop giving financial tax breaks to the wealthy when that government money could go to programs for the poor, sometimes the very people working in the companies of those rich people that are paying them poverty wages while receiving tax breaks. Look at the table below to see a few of these core differences (click the table to enlarge it).
Contrary to what conservatives will often tell you, liberals are generally not a fan of big government. Hang out in some liberal circles and you will hear plenty of distrust of government officials and dislike for the system. Furthermore, conservatives are willing to support bigger government bureucracy and spending, so long as it is consistent with their other views (for example, massive military spending and supporting institutions). However, most liberals do favor some government programs, often social welfare programs, to make sure that people are taken care of when traditional societal institutions are unable to provide for them for whatever reason (e.g. the family is without resources or simply fed up, the church is unable or unwilling to help, high rates of poverty exist despite plenty of time for profits to "trickle down" to the poor, etc.).
Accordingly, liberals view social problems as a complex mix of personal choice and outside factors. Take the example of a drug addicted individual who is homeless and mentally ill. A conservative will likely blame the person for failing to achieve and not recognize the forces that have acted on this person (unless of course we are talking about a drug addict who is a conservative radio show host...ahem). While a liberal will certainly still place some responsibility on the person for having made choices leading to addiction, she or he will also view the person's situation, for example, a long history of being sexually abused as a child, lack of adequate mental health services due to slashes in funding (probably by conservatives), lack of affordable housing (partly due to the failure of the private market to provide sufficient opportunity for everyone), substance abuse as possible self-medication for an untreatable disease, and an array of other contributing factors.
For those of you who watched the presidential debates last November or can stomach listening to our president, you can see clear examples of oversimplication (e.g. global warming doesn't exist, Iraq might have the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction so we must destroy them pre-emptively, etc.). During the debates, Kerry's arguments, while not always solid or based in accurate information either, were attempting to deal with the complexity of the issues. Indeed, anyone who has ever begun to look at social policy can appreciate it's complexity and how difficult it is to bring the greatest good or to undo social injustice. Basing policy in black and white ideas will lead to policies that overlook important nuances necessary for effective responses.
Finally, there are of course alternatives to the oft-sickening and morally hypocritical Republicans and the oft-inept and watered-down Democrats. It is always possible to just declare yourself as an Independent and vote based on the issues. If you want to learn more about one third party that is trying to bring some greater truth to the political forum, check out the Green Party's website.
Indeed, both liberals and conservatives often have intentions that they believe are what is best for society. There are plenty of conservatives with big hearts, and plenty of liberals who are ill-informed, and vice versa. Moreover, there are continuums of how liberal or conservative a person is (e.g. moderate, strong, extreme, and many points in between). Finally, Republicans are generally conservative, but not always, and Democrats are generally liberal (except for Southern Democrats who are often conservative). However, on any given issue a Republican may vote more liberally and a Democrat may vote more conservatively. For instance, a conservative might argue against a government program one day, but might support a fair housing program the next day.
However, there are important fundamental differences in how liberals and conservatives view people in society, and for what they perceive as the best means for achieving a greater good. For example, because conservatives put a high faith in personal achievement and an unregulated market economy, they often side with big business interests at the expense of people's safety and basic rights. They think by allowing for a free market economy, the profits will eventually trickle down to all people and violations of people's rights will be weeded out by the market. Sometimes this happens, other times it doesn't. For example, the Fair Trade movement is an attempt to weed out unfair labor practices through a market-based solution. Of course, government regulations and strong enforcement would halt those conservative-supported sweatshops in their tracks to begin with. As another example, with high standards of social equality and justice, liberals will often feel it is fair to stop giving financial tax breaks to the wealthy when that government money could go to programs for the poor, sometimes the very people working in the companies of those rich people that are paying them poverty wages while receiving tax breaks. Look at the table below to see a few of these core differences (click the table to enlarge it).
Contrary to what conservatives will often tell you, liberals are generally not a fan of big government. Hang out in some liberal circles and you will hear plenty of distrust of government officials and dislike for the system. Furthermore, conservatives are willing to support bigger government bureucracy and spending, so long as it is consistent with their other views (for example, massive military spending and supporting institutions). However, most liberals do favor some government programs, often social welfare programs, to make sure that people are taken care of when traditional societal institutions are unable to provide for them for whatever reason (e.g. the family is without resources or simply fed up, the church is unable or unwilling to help, high rates of poverty exist despite plenty of time for profits to "trickle down" to the poor, etc.).Accordingly, liberals view social problems as a complex mix of personal choice and outside factors. Take the example of a drug addicted individual who is homeless and mentally ill. A conservative will likely blame the person for failing to achieve and not recognize the forces that have acted on this person (unless of course we are talking about a drug addict who is a conservative radio show host...ahem). While a liberal will certainly still place some responsibility on the person for having made choices leading to addiction, she or he will also view the person's situation, for example, a long history of being sexually abused as a child, lack of adequate mental health services due to slashes in funding (probably by conservatives), lack of affordable housing (partly due to the failure of the private market to provide sufficient opportunity for everyone), substance abuse as possible self-medication for an untreatable disease, and an array of other contributing factors.
For those of you who watched the presidential debates last November or can stomach listening to our president, you can see clear examples of oversimplication (e.g. global warming doesn't exist, Iraq might have the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction so we must destroy them pre-emptively, etc.). During the debates, Kerry's arguments, while not always solid or based in accurate information either, were attempting to deal with the complexity of the issues. Indeed, anyone who has ever begun to look at social policy can appreciate it's complexity and how difficult it is to bring the greatest good or to undo social injustice. Basing policy in black and white ideas will lead to policies that overlook important nuances necessary for effective responses.
Finally, there are of course alternatives to the oft-sickening and morally hypocritical Republicans and the oft-inept and watered-down Democrats. It is always possible to just declare yourself as an Independent and vote based on the issues. If you want to learn more about one third party that is trying to bring some greater truth to the political forum, check out the Green Party's website.
Mandatory Psychiatric Testing for School Children
I definitely missed out on this one, as it's an old issue. However, from what I've read so far, the Bush Admin intentionally tried to keep this policy under the radar.
The goal of mandatory testing is supposedly to screen all school aged children for mental illness in order to improve the efficienty of the mental health delivery system. While some may think this is a good idea, there are serious dangers to it. Ridalin is already horribly overprescribed, and the US in general is a drug-driven country. Medication is sometimes necessary, but requiring it when it is unneccessary is dangerous, as side effects for some psychotropic (psychological) medications include heightened risks for heart problems and suicide among many others.
In any case, here is my understanding of the federal legislation that the Bush Admin tried to slip by us. If you find any contradictory or other information that will help increase our knowledge of this issue, please post it in a comment.
In 2002 Bush created the New Freedom Commission for Mental Health, which recommended that schools take the responsibility of identifying mental illness in children. Although it did not create a requirement for schools to do this, in late 2004 the Bush Admin, with enough support from the house and senate, was pushing through legislation to put tens of millions of dollars toward a plan for testing all school children without parental consent.
Due to the efforts of a coalition of activists and celebrity parents, Bush and congress were pressured into ammending the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) to specifically prevent against forcing medication on children as a requirement for attending school. The relevant clauses read as follows:
Still, this does not prevent mandatory testing. In January of 2005, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) introduced The Parental Consent Act (HR 181), which is intended "To prohibit the use of Federal funds for any universal or mandatory mental health screening program."(25) PROHIBITION ON MANDATORY MEDICATION-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The State educational agency shall prohibit State and local educational agency personnel from requiring a child to obtain a prescription for a substance covered by the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) as a condition of attending school, receiving an evaluation under subsection (a) or (c) of section 614, or receiving services under this title.
`(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall be construed to create a Federal prohibition against teachers and other school personnel consulting or sharing classroom-based observations with parents or guardians regarding a student's academic and functional performance, or behavior in the classroom or school, or regarding the need for evaluation for special education or related services under paragraph (3)
As of today, the bill is still in the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Education Reform. You can view the status of the bill at any time by viewing the bill in the free Thomas Legislative Database.
Just so you know, when a bill has been in subcommittee this long, it is quite possible that it will never continue in the legislative process. This happens when a committee either cannot reach a compromise on the proposed bill, or when they universally decide to take no action on it and let it die with the legislative year.
I do have one comment on the criticism of this bill. I am an advocate of mental health services. When provided by trained professionals who are well informed and sensitive to their clients' needs, a balance of therapy and medication has been a wonderful and empowering step for many individuals. For some illnesses, medication is not needed, but generally speaking, therapy is almost always beneficial.
The problem I have with mandatory testing, and certainly for mandatory treatment, is twofold. First, I am skeptical of drug treatments for children except when absolutely necessary, as their developing bodies are more prone to complications that could lead to long term negative effects. Second, as many critics have argued, the initiatives proposed and championed by the Bush Admin would have significantly benefited pharmaceutical companies, and this benefit should make us question Bush's motives given his otherwise disdain for funding social service initiatives. Why would a conservative who champions less government spending and who has called for and supported slashes in all sorts of social service funding suddenly decide to increase government spending on mental health? Perhaps he just had a well intentioned heart with a misguided plan. Perhaps instead or in addition to this, the pressure from his big business cronies was driving his politics.
Please feel free to respond with your comments here.
How to Opt Out of Credit Card Mailings and Other Annoyances
The Federal Trade Commission recently required credit companies and the major crediting agencies to provide easy ways for consumers to opt out of unsolicited mailings. View the press release.
You can stop Equifax and the other crediting agencies from selling your information to credit card companies and other lenders by phone at (1-888-5-OPTOUT), or you can fill out a very short online form here.
You can also put yourself on a 5-year opt out list from the Direct Marketing Association, another company that provides your information to companies. The online form costs $5, but you can also mail it in for free. I think this one takes a few months to go into effect, so do it now! This site also includes a link for the Federal Do-Not-Call registry, which allows you to simply and easily remove your name from unsolicited telemarketing sales calls (but not market research surveys). Click here to view all of these options.
In addition to being less annoying, I would guess it is probably safer to not have your private information being sold left and right. Unless you really want the offers, it might be a good idea to opt out from everything. You can always search for offers when you would like them. Credit card companies certainly won't mind giving you the introductory promotion if you are promising them your business.
You can stop Equifax and the other crediting agencies from selling your information to credit card companies and other lenders by phone at (1-888-5-OPTOUT), or you can fill out a very short online form here.
You can also put yourself on a 5-year opt out list from the Direct Marketing Association, another company that provides your information to companies. The online form costs $5, but you can also mail it in for free. I think this one takes a few months to go into effect, so do it now! This site also includes a link for the Federal Do-Not-Call registry, which allows you to simply and easily remove your name from unsolicited telemarketing sales calls (but not market research surveys). Click here to view all of these options.
In addition to being less annoying, I would guess it is probably safer to not have your private information being sold left and right. Unless you really want the offers, it might be a good idea to opt out from everything. You can always search for offers when you would like them. Credit card companies certainly won't mind giving you the introductory promotion if you are promising them your business.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
Better for Babies Shopping Site
This site has care products for babies and parents, and also some random hemp items that are good for the environment, and thus, of course, us!. Actually, the hemp prices are some of the cheapest I've seen in my short time searching for them. Check it out!
Rwandan Genocide Comes to Huant a Silent Catholic Church
I know appalingly little about the Rwandan genocide. Apparently the Catholic and Christian churches, at times, played a role in aiding the hatred that fueled the genocide, and at other times, directly in the killings.
Here are a few paragraphs from one recent news story:
Some Rwandans and human rights organizations believe that the Catholic Church should at least say something about its senior leaders that were openly close to or involved in MRND, the ruling party at time of the genocide.
“Powerful members of the church were active partners in a government that planned and executed a genocide”, says Rwandan historian and commissioner in the Rwandan National Human Rights Commission Tom Ndahiro. “The church says its clergy that participated in the genocide did so as individuals, but we haven’t even heard it condemn them in their individual capacities.”
In their report on the genocide ‘Leave none to tell the story’, New York based Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Fédération Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l’homme (FIDH) observed that in the run up to the genocide, the Rwandan leadership had “benefited enormously from the support of the Catholic church".
...
The Organisation for African Unity (now the African Union) report on the genocide noted that: “since the end of the genocide, several parties have apologized for failing to stop the massacres, including President Clinton, Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the Prime Minister of Belgium and the Anglican Church”, but pointed out that “no apology had yet come from the French Government or the Catholic Church”.
Two years after the genocide, the Pope Jean Paul II said clergy should accept responsibility as individuals. He denied any role or responsibility for the church. Critics of the Vatican argue that while the church has denied any institutional blame, it has paid legal fees for its clergy suspected of genocide, aided fugitives and discouraged its members from cooperating with genocide tribunals.
“The church denounces prosecutions or investigations of its clergy as politically motivated, yet it chooses to remain silent when they are convicted”, says human rights activist Ndahiro. “We haven’t heard calls encouraging its followers to assist the courts”.
You can read the rest of the story here.
There is additional info on this issue on the web. If you find some other articles that help educate on the issue, please post them here.
Here are a few paragraphs from one recent news story:
Some Rwandans and human rights organizations believe that the Catholic Church should at least say something about its senior leaders that were openly close to or involved in MRND, the ruling party at time of the genocide.
“Powerful members of the church were active partners in a government that planned and executed a genocide”, says Rwandan historian and commissioner in the Rwandan National Human Rights Commission Tom Ndahiro. “The church says its clergy that participated in the genocide did so as individuals, but we haven’t even heard it condemn them in their individual capacities.”
In their report on the genocide ‘Leave none to tell the story’, New York based Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Fédération Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l’homme (FIDH) observed that in the run up to the genocide, the Rwandan leadership had “benefited enormously from the support of the Catholic church".
...
The Organisation for African Unity (now the African Union) report on the genocide noted that: “since the end of the genocide, several parties have apologized for failing to stop the massacres, including President Clinton, Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the Prime Minister of Belgium and the Anglican Church”, but pointed out that “no apology had yet come from the French Government or the Catholic Church”.
Two years after the genocide, the Pope Jean Paul II said clergy should accept responsibility as individuals. He denied any role or responsibility for the church. Critics of the Vatican argue that while the church has denied any institutional blame, it has paid legal fees for its clergy suspected of genocide, aided fugitives and discouraged its members from cooperating with genocide tribunals.
“The church denounces prosecutions or investigations of its clergy as politically motivated, yet it chooses to remain silent when they are convicted”, says human rights activist Ndahiro. “We haven’t heard calls encouraging its followers to assist the courts”.
You can read the rest of the story here.
There is additional info on this issue on the web. If you find some other articles that help educate on the issue, please post them here.
Friday, September 09, 2005
UN Study shows that inequality is key to the fight of global poverty
Inequality 'key to poverty fight'
When rich country leaders talk of fighting poverty, the emphasis is often on improving economic growth in their poorer neighbours. But according to a new report from the United Nations, that alone will fail to produce meaningful poverty reduction.
Instead, it says, countries need to focus on reducing inequality - between rich and poor, between men and women and between regions.
Rich states also need to give more aid and improve its quality, the UN says.
Going backwards
Each year, the United Nations Development Fund (UNDP) releases its huge Human Development Report, designed around a list which rates countries not by economic power but by a series of indicators reflecting quality of life.
Since 2000, it has also covered progress towards the UN's Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which include halving poverty, cutting child mortality and providing clean water and sanitation.
This year's report shows that for 450m people, conditions have deteriorated over the past fifteen years.
Of the 18 countries in that category, 12 are in sub-Saharan Africa, their plight the result partly of the HIV/Aids pandemic.
Unequal development
Inequality is a key factor in whether the MDGs are being achieved, the report says.
| | The poorest 10% of Brazilians are poorer than their counterparts in Vietnam, a country with a far lower average income Kevin Watkins, HDR author |
On one level, international inequalities play a part, with the poorest 40% of the world's population sharing only 5% of global income.
But the report's author, Kevin Watkins, says that inequalities within countries are just as big a problem.
"Anybody questioning whether income distribution matters might reflect on the fact that the poorest 10% of Brazilians are poorer than their counterparts in Vietnam, a country with a far lower average income," he says.
Brazil is ranked 63 on the Human Development Index, while Vietnam is number 103.
The report also points to success in Bangladesh at reducing infant mortality - well ahead of similar efforts in high-growth countries such as China and India.
And females are often getting a worse deal than males, it says, limiting the positive effects of economic development.
In India, for example, half again as many girls die between the ages of one and five as do boys.
Responsiblities for the rich
Elsewhere, the report says that poorer countries need to work harder on issues such as corruption - and richer countries have to strengthen their commitment to keep their end of the development bargain.
Aid needs to be better targeted, more predictable, with fewer strings and better co-ordination between donors.
And trade and security are also key issues, with the current trade round needing to live up to its development rhetoric - instead of, as at present, seeing agricultural subsidies actually increase.
Peace-making and peace-building efforts also need to be a higher priority, the UNDP says, noting that poorer countries are much more likely to descend into civil war than richer ones.
"What is clear is that poverty is part of the cycle that creates and perpetuates violent conflict - and that violent conflict feeds back to reinforce poverty," the report says.
There is a direct incentive for rich countries to help break the cycle: the risk of creating safe havens for terrorist and criminal groups.
To do so, the UNDP argues, rich countries need to cut back on flows of small arms and give more aid to conflict-prone countries - countering a tendency to concentrate aid on "success stories".
Resource wars
But they also need to get tough on natural resource mismanagement, the UNDP argues.
The call follows a string of UN reports into the Democratic Republic of Congo, where a desire to capture mineral and other resources among neighbouring countries and their client militias has perpetuated civil strife which has killed more than 3 million people.
Transnational companies based in rich countries need to be more transparent in their dealings, the UNDP says.
"The international legal framework proposed by the British government-sponsored Commission on Africa to ensure that corrupt pracitices by transnational companies overseas are prosecuted at home - as already practised under US law - should be developed as a priority," it says.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Why can't the US take care of its own victims?
I think this is a very interesting article. Why does the US not have the money to pay for relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina? A big part of the reason certainly seems to be that the devestation was just so massive it would have been difficult to have that kind of money stowed away. But still, perhaps a small percentage of our budget to develop nuclear weapons would suffice? During the entire Bush presidency, spending has drastically gone up for the military in general, which accounts for almost half of our $1.2 trillion federal budget. Anyway, here is the BBC story headline and link:
The Red Cross is appealing for people overseas to contribute money to its Hurricane Katrina Appeal. But why does the world's richest nation need handouts?
Also, look online to see plenty of stories about how the Bush Admin has consistently cut spending on disaster relief, at times in the affected areas. Among other things (like not responding to Governor Blanco's request in advance for expidited emergency assistance), this shows another failure on their part to take care of the American people. A good place to start reading about this is here.
The Red Cross is appealing for people overseas to contribute money to its Hurricane Katrina Appeal. But why does the world's richest nation need handouts?
Also, look online to see plenty of stories about how the Bush Admin has consistently cut spending on disaster relief, at times in the affected areas. Among other things (like not responding to Governor Blanco's request in advance for expidited emergency assistance), this shows another failure on their part to take care of the American people. A good place to start reading about this is here.
Katrina's real name
Perhaps this editorial is a tad overly causal, but good to think about as we decide how to deal with future natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina. props to sam for sending it.
An awesome NJ program to help make your home more energy efficient.
The NJ Clean Energy Program is a recent initiative by the state to make strides towards environmental sustainability by encouraging us to make our homes more energy efficient.
In short, it provides huge discounts on the cost* for the installation of solar electric power technology on your house. There are also discounts for more efficient air conditioners, and a number of other possibilities such as better lamps and hot water generators.
For the solar roof, the government buys back the unused power that is saved from your new roof, which I've been told by one of the project founders can make you about $1,000 per year or more. It is estimated that the initial investment can be paid off in about 7 years, after which point you begin to earn revenue on your house.
Read more about how you can get involved.
Don't own a house or air conditioner? Pass this information on to your family and friends who do!
Also, if any of you have any experience with the program, please post any information you think might be helpful to people who are thinking of getting started. Kelly...any thoughts?
*It is also possible to have all of these things installed for free if your annual income is below 175% of the federal poverty line. This is a positive step by the state in recognizing that federal poverty criteria are not adequate measures of true poverty.
In short, it provides huge discounts on the cost* for the installation of solar electric power technology on your house. There are also discounts for more efficient air conditioners, and a number of other possibilities such as better lamps and hot water generators.
For the solar roof, the government buys back the unused power that is saved from your new roof, which I've been told by one of the project founders can make you about $1,000 per year or more. It is estimated that the initial investment can be paid off in about 7 years, after which point you begin to earn revenue on your house.
Read more about how you can get involved.
Don't own a house or air conditioner? Pass this information on to your family and friends who do!
Also, if any of you have any experience with the program, please post any information you think might be helpful to people who are thinking of getting started. Kelly...any thoughts?
*It is also possible to have all of these things installed for free if your annual income is below 175% of the federal poverty line. This is a positive step by the state in recognizing that federal poverty criteria are not adequate measures of true poverty.
Find out your impact on the Earth
Take this short quiz (about 12 questions) and get a rough estimate of what your impact is on the environment (otherwise known as your ecological footprint).
Find out how many planets we would need if everyone lived like you. Then find out ways to reduce your footprint. :)
Find out how many planets we would need if everyone lived like you. Then find out ways to reduce your footprint. :)
An easy way to support fair working conditions, the environment, and animal well-being.
Yesterday I shopped at Vegan Unlimited, an online store that sells goods that were made without harming animals and with an eye towards fair working conditions for those who produce them and for the environment which we all share.
Although I have to admit I'm not vegetarian, I have been making efforts to reduce my meat consumption lately. Primarily, my concern is environmental sustainability, but certainly I am no fan of animal suffering as well.
If anyone has relatively brief but informative links to send on sustainability as it relates to vegetarianism, please post them here so we can all read. :)
Although I have to admit I'm not vegetarian, I have been making efforts to reduce my meat consumption lately. Primarily, my concern is environmental sustainability, but certainly I am no fan of animal suffering as well.
If anyone has relatively brief but informative links to send on sustainability as it relates to vegetarianism, please post them here so we can all read. :)
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Latest Myths and Facts on Global Warming
Setting the Record Straight on Climate Change
4/15/2005
4/15/2005
A vast majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and that it poses a serious threat to society. They also agree that it is being caused largely by human activities that release greenhouse gases, such as burning fossil fuels in power plants and cars and deforesting the land. These highlights -- and the full full report -- lay out some common myths and misunderstandings regarding climate change.
MYTH: Global warming can't be happening, since winters have been getting colder.
FACT: Winters have been getting warmer. Measurements show that Earth's climate has warmed overall over the past century, in all seasons, and in most regions. The skeptics mislead the public when they bill the winter of 2003-2004 as record cold in the northeastern United States. That winter was only the 33rd coldest in the region since records began in 1896. Furthermore, a single spell of cold weather in one small region is no indication of cooling of the global climate, which refers to a long-term average over the entire planet.
MYTH: Satellite measurements of temperature over the past two decades show a much smaller warming in the atmosphere than is measured by thermometers at the surface. This contradicts global warming predictions based on climate models.
FACT: Recent research has corrected problems that led to underestimates of the warming trend in earlier analyses of satellite data. The new results show an atmospheric warming trend slightly larger than at the surface, exactly as models predict.
MYTH: The global warming over the past century is nothing unusual. For example, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), roughly from A.D. 1000 to 1400, was warmer than the 20th century. This indicates the global warming we are experiencing now is part of a natural cycle.
FACT: Ten independent scientific studies all have found a large 20th-century warming trend compared to temperature changes over the past millennium or two. Uncertainty exists as to exactly how warm the present is compared to the MWP. Some studies have received valid criticism for possibly underestimating the magnitude of longer-lasting, century-scale temperature changes, such as the warming during the MWP. However, other studies, using different methods, still find no evidence of any period during the last 2,000 years that was warmer than the 1990s. Most importantly, any uncertainty about whether the present is warmer than the MWP has little effect on the finding that humans likely have caused most of the warming over the past 50 years. A separate body of studies has provided the main evidence for this finding. (See the Myth on causes of warming.)
MYTH: Human activities contribute only a small fraction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, far too small to have a significant effect on the concentration of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
FACT: Before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of CO2 emitted from large natural sources closely matched the amount that was removed through natural processes. That balance has now been upset by human activities, which since the Industrial Revolution have put twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere as can be readily removed by the oceans and forests. This has resulted in the accumulation of CO2 to the highest levels in 420,000 years.
MYTH: The Earth's warming is caused by natural factors like increased sunlight and sunspots or decreased cosmic rays, not by greenhouse gases (GHGs).
FACT: Modeling studies indicate that most of the warming over the past several decades was probably caused by the increase in human-produced GHGs. Climate models have difficulty reproducing the observed temperature changes over the past 150 years unless they account for the increase in GHGs as well as natural factors, such as sunlight and volcanic eruptions, and changes in the amount of human-produced sulfate particles, which cool the planet. Satellite measurements of the intensity of sunlight exhibit little or no trend over the past 25 years, when there was rapid warming on Earth. The purported correlations between the amount of cosmic rays and Earth's temperature are the result of flawed analysis methods.
MYTH: The warming observed during the past century was caused by urbanization (urban heat island effect).
FACT: Urbanization does increase temperatures locally, affecting thermometer readings in certain areas. But the temperature data used in trend analyses are adjusted to remove any bias from urbanization. In any case, urbanization has an insignificant effect on global temperature trends.
Read the full report, The Latest Myths and Facts on Global Warming.
MYTH: Models have trouble predicting the weather a few days in advance. How can we have any confidence in model projections of the climate many years from now? 
FACT: Climate prediction is different from weather prediction, just as climate is different from weather. Models are now sophisticated enough to be able to reproduce the observed global average climates over the past century as well as over other periods in the past. Thus, scientists are confident in the models' ability to produce reliable projections of future climate for large regions. Furthermore, climate assessments typically consider the results from a range of models and scenarios for future GHG emissions, in order to identify the most likely range for future climatic change.
MYTH: The science behind the theory of global warming is too uncertain to draw conclusions useful to policy makers.
FACT: The primary scientific debate is about how much and how fast, rather than whether, additional warming will occur as a result of human-produced GHG emissions. While skeptics like to emphasize the lower end of warming projections, uncertainty actually applies to both ends of the spectrum--the climate could change even more dramatically than most models predict. Finally, in matters other than climate change, policy decisions based on uncertain information are made routinely by governments to ensure against undesirable outcomes. In the case of global warming, scientists have given society an early warning on its possibly dangerous, irreversible and widespread impacts.
MYTH: Global warming and increased CO2 would be beneficial, reducing cold-related deaths and increasing plant growth ("greening the Earth").
FACT: If society does not limit further warming, the beneficial effects probably will be heavily outweighed by negative effects. Regarding cold-related deaths, studies have indicated that they might not decrease enough to compensate for a significant increase in heat-related deaths. Even though higher levels of CO2 can act as a plant fertilizer under some conditions, they do not necessarily benefit the planet, since the fertilization effect can diminish after a few years in natural ecosystems as plants acclimate. Furthermore, increased CO2 may benefit undesirable, weedy species more than others.
MYTH: Society can easily adapt to climate change; after all, human civilization has survived through climatic changes in the past.
FACT: While humans as a species have survived through past climatic changes, individual civilizations have collapsed. Unless we limit GHGs in the atmosphere, we will face a warming trend unseen since the beginning of human civilization. Many densely populated areas, such as low-lying coastal zones, are highly vulnerable to climate shifts. A middle-of-the-range projection indicates the homes of 13 to 88 million people would be flooded by the sea each year in the 2080s. Many ecosystems and species already threatened by other human activities may be pushed to the point of extinction.
MYTH: CO2 is removed from the atmosphere fairly quickly, so we can wait to take action until after we start to see dangerous impacts from global warming.
FACT: Global warming cannot be halted quickly. CO2 and other GHGs can remain in the atmosphere for many centuries. Even if emissions were eliminated today, it would take centuries for the heat-trapping GHGs now in the atmosphere to fall to pre-industrial levels. Only by starting to cut emissions now can humanity avoid the increasingly dangerous and irreversible consequences of climate change.
Copyright © 2005 Environmental Defense.
All Rights Reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)