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/.

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.

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.

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 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!

'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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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:

(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)

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."

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.

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.