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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

¡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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.