little red cookbook | fair and balanced thought is free

Better than CNN: The Agonist | Cursor | BuzzFlash
Act: VOTE IN 2004 | 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action | Take to the Streets

Saturday, April 26, 2003

Yes folks, I've added comments. So feel free to post your reactions, thoughts, or any additional info...I trust you guys not to let this descend into too much counterproductive mud-slinging (as opposed to productive mud-slinging)...:-)

posted by Jenny at 9:28 AM |

Depleted uranium will affect Iraq for generations to come

The above is an Al-Jazeera Q&A with Major Doug Rocke, former chief of the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium project. A nuclear physicist, he was tasked with depleted uranium cleanup in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and now suffers from exposure to the substance. Test indicate he has 5000 times the normal level of radiation in his body; among other related physical afflictions, he has had 15 surgial operations to his liver as a result of his infection by the uranium syndrome. This article is packed with information, a must-read, in my opinion. Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark has also spoken out against the use of depleted uranium his international appeal can be read here at the Depleted Uranium Education Project.

The Guardian also has a short primer on depleted uranium up, which I found helpful. The truthout caption to this picture cites that use of depleted uranium during the recent invasion of Iraq was far higher than in 1991, after which incidences of cancer in Iraqi children rose sharply.

And speaking of the DoD's history of pollution and environmental degradation, it's recently been announced that the use of Agent Orange during Vietnam was much higher than previously thought. (Kudos to Monsanto, by the way, who brought us Agent Orange.)

posted by Jenny at 6:56 AM |

Predictably, Human Rights Watch is protesting the imprisonment of minors at Guantanamo Bay.

NEW YORK - April 24 - The detention of children at Guantanamo poses grave risks to their well-being, Human Rights Watch said today, in response to the U.S. military's acknowledgement that at least three children, ages 13 to 15, are among the detainees at Guantanamo. In a letter sent today to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Human Rights Watch urged the United States to strictly observe international children's rights standards regarding the detainees.

"Secretary Rumsfeld called those detained at Guantanamo the "worst of the worst,"" said Jo Becker, child rights advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "It's hard to believe that a 13 year old could fit that category."

A Pentagon spokesperson has said that the children are being questioned to obtain possible intelligence.

"Simply providing the United States with military intelligence does not justify the detention of children," said Becker. "If these children have committed offenses, they should be provided with counsel and adjudicated in accordance with standards of juvenile justice. Otherwise, they should be released immediately."

The conditions at Guantanamo pose particularly serious risks to children. Child detainees should never be held together with adults, but because there are so few children, they are held for long periods in virtual isolation. They have no access to lawyers, limited or no access to their families, and are subject to interrogation.

Human Rights Watch raised a particular concern that isolated conditions are especially conducive to suicidal behavior. Studies have shown that children held in adult jails, where they are more likely to be held in separate, secure housing and spend substantial periods of time in isolation, are up to eight times more likely to commit suicide than those held in facilities specifically for juveniles.

"There have already been as many as 25 suicide attempts reported at Guantanamo," said Becker. "Children at Guantanamo are at even higher risk, particularly because of their relative isolation."

Human Rights Watch noted that the children held at Guantanamo may have participated in armed conflict in Afghanistan as child soldiers with the Taliban or Al-Qaeda.

Under international humanitarian law, under no circumstances should children under the age of 15 be recruited or used to participate in hostilities. A treaty ratified by the United States in December 2002 establishes a higher age of 18 as the minimum age for any compulsory recruitment or participation in armed conflict. It also obliges governments to assist in the demobilization and rehabilitation of former child soldiers.

"The use of children as soldiers is an appalling abuse," said Becker. "These children are entitled to rehabilitation, not indefinite detention."

A copy of the letter sent to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld can be found at: http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/04/us042403ltr.htm

posted by Jenny at 6:35 AM |

This Guardian article on a nascent European consciousness, spurred on predominantly by the actions of the United States over the last couple of years, makes for interesting reading. From my perspective living among Germans, I'm not sure if I agree wholeheartedly, but it's something to consider.

posted by Jenny at 5:39 AM |

Chicks received death threats

I'm not surprised, but then again, all they did was make one anti-Bush statement...one! Death threats? This reminds me of the guy who gloated over the bulldozing of Rachel Corrie...(who, incidentally, never wrote me back after emailing me tersely to start a "conversation".)

posted by Jenny at 5:35 AM |

Diaries of a Homophobe

Does it offend you that your freedoms are being violated? Good. My freedoms are violated by having to pay for treatment for AIDS--a disease that almost no one who became sexually active after 1990 should be getting. It's not that hard to dramatically reduce the spread of AIDS--but you have to be willing to not use dirty needles, use condoms, and change sexual partners less often than you change socks. For many homosexual men and heroin addicts, that seems to be more willpower than they can muster.

Seething yet? There's plenty more where that came from, courtesy of Clayton Cramer, a "conservative-with-a-libertarian-slant", who calls for a full reinstatement of sodomy laws after living in "Babylon West" (northern California). His actual Usenet postings are at the following locations (thanks to Atrios): 1, 2, 3, 4

Update: Speaking of such "non-bigots" (right), commentary on Rick Santorum can be found here...

posted by Jenny at 1:54 AM |

Friday, April 25, 2003

Draw your own conclusions from the latest Dixie Chicks magazine cover.

posted by Jenny at 2:51 PM |

As early as 1993, a March of Dimes poll found that forty-three percent of Americans would engage in genetic engineering "simply to enhance their children's looks or intelligence."

...

"Ultimately," says Michael West, CEO of Advanced Cell Technology, the firm furthest out on the cutting edge of these technologies, "the dream of biologists is to have the sequence of DNA, the programming code of life, and to be able to edit it the way you can a document on a word processor."

...

One sociologist told The New York Times we'd crossed the line from parenting to "product development," and even if that remark is truer in Manhattan than elsewhere, it's not hard to imagine what such attitudes will mean across the affuent world.

Here's one small example. In the1980s, two drug companies were awarded patents to market human growth hormone to the few thousand American children suffering from dwarfism. The FDA thought the market would be very small, so HGH was given "orphan drug status," a series of special market advantages designed to reward the manufacturers for taking on such an unattractive business. But within a few years, HGH had become one of the largest-selling drugs in the country, with half a billion dollars in sales. This was not because there'd been a sharp increase in the number of dwarves, but because there'd been a sharp increase in the number of parents who wanted to make their slightly short children taller. Before long the drug companies were arguing that the children in the bottom five percent of their normal height range were in fact in need of three to five shots a week of HGH. Take eleven-year-old Marco Oriti. At four foot one, he was about four inches shorter than average, and projected to eventually top out at five foot four. This was enough to convince his parents to start on a six-day-a-week HGH regimen, which will cost them $150,000 over the next four years. "You want to give your child the edge no matter what," said his mother.

Scary as hell...and incredibly well-written. I like the way McKibben contextualizes this with consumer culture. I like a lot of things about the way this article is framed--just not the tidings it brings.

Go read it!

posted by Jenny at 2:43 PM |

An oligarchy of private capital... cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society (because) under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information. -Albert Einstein

If you're a political/corporate watchdog or just an everyday consumer (that means you), then it's a good idea to start following Oligopoly Watch, which chronicles "the latest maneuvers of the new oligopolies and what they mean." It seems a bit thicketlike from the outset, but once you've familiarized yourself with the entities at play, it's not so intimidating--and it's pretty much essential (urk, essentialism) to understanding the way the world is going...

posted by Jenny at 9:40 AM |

BBC Chief Attacks US Media War Coverage

Predictably, he went after Fox News and Clear Channel...a great read but, as Jake reminds us, he also had his own (corporate) interests in mind, among other things...

posted by Jenny at 9:36 AM |

When will Americans stop fetishizing the breast to the point that a breast-feeding mother is made into a sexual object?

Well, bean's post speaks to my note on "terrorist breastfeeding" the other day. And the comments are quite interesting to boot...

posted by Jenny at 9:31 AM |

Well, that Russian intelligence website hasn't disappeared yet...here are some of their "random thoughts" on the war in Iraq and the power of the dollar.

posted by Jenny at 9:26 AM |

Like father, like son?

The neocons are backing Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran and son of the U.S.-backed Shah who waits in the wings as the United States contemplates how to initiate regime change in the country, also beaming subversive TV via satellite to Iran from a studio in Hollywood. Although he calls for democratization and nuclear disarmament, skeptics fear that he will exert the greed and oppression which marked his father's regime.

posted by Jenny at 1:20 AM |

Thursday, April 24, 2003

New Fox Reality Show to Determine Ruler of Iraq

Ha, made you look! But given the Onion's sometimes prophetic power, I wouldn't be laughing too hard...

Update: Props to Bre for the tip!

posted by Jenny at 7:48 AM |

Blogging has been a bit slow today; do accept my apologies. Am at the beginning of a new semester, and things always get slow this time of the year...

posted by Jenny at 7:40 AM |

Stateside fast-food fans should check this out:

No one likes to think about what goes into fast food. But stories about fatty fries and potentially carcinogenic ingredients are only half the story. A second important threat to public health lurks just beyond the fryer -- the enormous amounts of antibiotics used to make the burgers, bacon and nuggets.

About 13 million pounds a year are fed to chickens, cows and pigs to make them grow faster or to compensate for unsanitary conditions. That's about four times the amount used to treat sick people.

Why is the use in animals a threat to public health? Because the overuse of drugs on factory farms creates antibiotic-resistant bacteria that are difficult to treat. These bacteria can make food-poisoning episodes last longer or recovery from surgery less certain. As bacteria become more resistant, people can no longer be sure that prescribed drugs will actually work.

To be fair, the overuse of antibiotics by people is also a cause of these "superbugs." However, programs to educate doctors and patients have reduced inappropriate use in human medicine. On the agricultural side, there has been little progress despite calls for major reductions from the American Medical Association, the Institute of Medicine and the World Health Organization.

Companies such as McDonald's and Burger King are partly responsible for antibiotic overuse. The fast-food industry's demand for a cheap and uniform product has been a major driver in the emergence of the crowded, stressful and unsanitary factory farms that lead to the overuse of antibiotics. But just as they helped create the problem, they can also help create the solution. Burger King and McDonald's together command 61 percent of the fast-food burger market, a position from which they can exert enormous influence.

...

Experience shows that fast-food companies and meat producers can protect the public health without increasing costs to consumers. The European Union banned growth-promoting antibiotics in 1998 with no reported effect on retail prices. Denmark documented a 50 percent drop in antibiotic use and corresponding declines in the levels of resistant bacteria in chickens and pigs on the farm. Both Burger King and McDonald's operate in Europe and likely work with meat producers who already meet these stringent standards.

More.

posted by Jenny at 1:35 AM |

Oooooh, busted.

It seems that the White House Press Corps may finally be waking from their propaganda-induced winter sleep. Look at this confrontation between Ari Fleischer and two reporters at yesterday's press briefing (scroll down about halfway)--skippy credits Roger Ailes's commentator ras-nesta for the tip.

Q One more question about France, if I may. Is the U.S. contemplating some reduction in the consultations the U.S. has with France, some smaller role in talking things over with the French, and working around the French in international bodies? What is it that the U.S. is contemplating?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think when it comes to Iraq you've heard this expressed very directly. There's a coalition that is involved, that has been involved, that shed blood and lost lives to help provide for the freedom of Iraq. And that coalition is on the ground and is taking the actions to help the Iraqi people to a better future. Our focus is on our mission, and that's what we're doing.

Q But, I mean, in general with relations with France, over any number of issues? I mean, obviously, this has been a difficult moment in U.S.-French relations. How should we anticipate this will be reflected in U.S.-French relations?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think it's been the history of U.S. relations with France, on some issues we agree, on other issues we disagree. Typically, there are, indeed, more that we agree on than we disagree. The disagreements can sometimes become pointed.

I noted with interest France's statement about sanctions and whether the sanctions should be lifted in the United Nations. It's important to note that France has recognized the Iraqi situation has changed as a result of Saddam Hussein's regime now being gone. With it being gone, the President believes that economic sanctions on Iraq are no longer needed. They shouldn't be merely suspended, they should be out-and-out lifted. And that's a difference of opinion between the United States and France on how to get the job done. We're pleased that France has made some moves in this direction; they've got a little more to go.

Q You're saying they've turned the corner, they just haven't gone quite far enough?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'll leave it as I put it.

Q Why won't you answer the question about --

MR. FLEISCHER: Greg.

Q Hold on. We're entitled to follow up, Ari -- this isn't homeroom.

MR. FLEISCHER: Greg.

Q Why won't you answer the question about whether or not -- he said there are going to be consequences --

MR. FLEISCHER: David, there are other qualified reporters in here, too, who can follow-up.

Q I didn't say they were not qualified, Ari. I'm saying you're running it like it's homeroom, like we can't follow-up when you're refusing to answer a question that's been posed twice to you, directly. The Secretary of State said that there would be consequences. Why won't you say what they might be?

MR. FLEISCHER: Greg.

Q Do you want to elaborate on what those consequences would be?

MR. FLEISCHER: I addressed it earlier. You heard what I said about consequences.

Q You didn't address it, which is the point. But you can't tolerate that kind of dissent.

I'll bet Russell Mokhiber loved this, especially since Ari gave him the runaround on Tuesday:

Mokhiber: MSNBC reported this week that Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal rivals that of France and Britain. Given that arsenal, does the President support Syria's call to make the Middle East a region free of weapons of mass destruction?

Ari Fleischer: The United States has always supported the Middle East as a region free of weapons of mass destruction. Lester.

Mokhiber: If I could follow up. Does Israel have nuclear weapons?

Ari Fleischer: That's a question you need to ask to Israel. Lester.

How rich. But how would he have answered six months ago when asked if Iraq had WMD?

posted by Jenny at 12:18 AM |

Wednesday, April 23, 2003

Just plain scary

I've started reading an article at Mother Jones about Australian refugee internment camps, which sound a whole lot like concentration camps, in their living conditions, if not in their purpose. I'm just on the preview page and the hair on my neck is starting to rise. And, as you'll note in this excerpt from the opening paragraphs, Australia's chief partner in the "coalition of the willing" is also economically involved: Wackenhut, an American corporation, operates these camps. Here's the beginning--do proceed on and read the article.

The dingo fence marches to the north, a wire barrier twice the length of the Great Wall of China. To the west and northwest are the vast forbidden zones, legacies of nuclear testing in the 1950s. It is 100 degrees in the shade as the guard, a hefty guy in his 30s, wheels up in a truck, takes my measure, and says it is all but over, that the last person will be gone in two months. He works for Wackenhut, the American corporation that operates Australia's refugee internment camps. Leaving is never easy. One man was sedated by an intramuscular injection, a ball was placed in his mouth lest he cry out, then he was taken to the plane, arms taped to the chair, and flown back home. He also most likely left with a bill since the Australians commonly charge those who fail to qualify for asylum $60 to $70 a day for their imprisonment, a charge that can run more than $100,000 per person. Sometimes the flights end badly with the person being murdered upon arrival back home. In the camp, there were the incidents where men and women protested the conditions by sewing their lips together, others where men dug shallow graves, lay down in them, and had all but their faces buried. Sometimes people cut themselves with knives, drank shampoo, or leapt from treetops to attempt suicide. There were also the cases of teenage girls who regressed into incontinence.

I am standing outside a prison in Woomera, Australia. The name means "spear-thrower" in an aboriginal language and signifies the town's original reason for being: From 1947 to 1982, it was a secret community hidden in the vast desert of South Australia, about 200 miles north of Adelaide, where American and British military men and scientists tested rockets with the cooperation of the Australian government. Now it is down from a peak of 5,000 souls to 250 -- not counting prisoners and guards -- and is a gas station, a hotel with floors named after rockets, a lot of empty houses, a few shops, and a prison in the parched outback, the heart of the planet's driest continent.

Update: Gregory Palast chronicled Wackenhut's record of poor guard selection and prison conditions in its United States facilities as early as 1999--interesting, and perhaps comparable to DynCorp? Apparently Palast wrote this article in response to the UK awarding contracts to the company for British prisons.

posted by Jenny at 1:31 PM |

The American political scientist Robert Kagan has developed a bizarre image: Europeans come from Venus and indulge in the dream of perpetual peace, while Americans are from Mars, and faced with the hard realities of the wolf's den of international politics, they stand and fight, all against all. Anyone who knows European history knows about the many wars we've had here. The Americans had no Verdun on their continent. In the US there is nothing comparable to Auschwitz or Stalingrad or any of the other terrible symbolic places in our history. --Joschka Fischer

Here's a fascinating interview with German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, conducted by Spiegel and translated into English for the Times. He gets a pretty thorough grilling here, and stands up to most of the questions with what seem like honest and direct answers. I am impressed by his frankness--and he says a lot of things I agree with, especially in regards to democratic maturity and a plurality of voices. Unfortunately, he hasn't restored my faith in the Security Council, although he still holds out hope that progress can be made there.

Incidentally, I found this link on Daniel Drezner's blog, and he receives Fischer much more skeptically than I do, citing Wolfowitz's denial of their September 2001 encounter (cited by Fischer in the interview) as well as the possibility that he's been two-timing the Turks on their application for EU membership.

Bottom line, I trust Fischer a heck of a lot more than I trust Wolfowitz, but given the fact that he's a leading politician, I wouldn't put some dishonesty past him--as a matter of fact, sadly, I would expect it of him. I also wouldn't put it past Wolfowitz to have said such things (i.e., "the United states should liberate a whole row of countries from their governments, if necessary by the use of force") behind closed doors, particularly on the heels of September 11th, when the US was still on friendly terms with Germany. At any rate, I don't see how Fischer is ducking any questions in the Spiegel interview--maybe somehow this reflects the fabled disciplinary chasm between IR folks like Daniel and Internaional Studies folks like me...

posted by Jenny at 12:12 PM |

Hey, I just took the Monty Python character quiz! My results:

Well, u-- um, can we come up and have a look?

What Monty Python Character are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

posted by Jenny at 11:51 AM |

Terrorist breastfeeding

This just in, via Tom Tomorrow.

Wolfe began to nurse the baby again, using her own bib and blanket. She says the man got out of his seat, walked over to hers and stood staring at her. She says she approached him afterward and twice asked if he had a problem with her feeding her son.

"He marched past me and to the very back of the cabin to talk to the flight attendant," she wrote. "He told her, 'This woman just assaulted me.' ... He then explained that the asking of two questions by a 'foreign national' in international airspace made him feel the victim of terror and as such he wanted to file an assault charge."

She says the flight attendants also began to call her and her travelling party "foreign nationals in international airspace on an international flight during a time of war." And she was informed both of the complaint and that it could be upgraded to a Level 3, which meant possible mandatory detainment by U.S. authorities for 24 hours, RCMP involvement and criminal charges for an act of war upon an American.

...

In the end, Wolfe says things were resolved when she signed a document promising that she would neither break Continental's rules about such things, nor speak to American passengers. To echo Sterken: Holy cow. After all, the U.S. is the same country that brought us the cheesy search for America's hottest person, made the semi-pornographic Maxim magazine a runaway success and recently became home to the niche airline Hooters. Named for the (in)famous restaurant chain, each flight features two well-endowed girls in tight T-shirts who give a whole new meaning to the concept of twin-engine props - and empty calories.

Yes, but Hooters exists to satisfy the pornographic gaze--controlled by its purveyors. A woman taking her body into her own hands, feeding her son with her breasts instead of using them to hypnotize wings-eaters through a skin-tight tee...well, we just can't have that.

posted by Jenny at 2:49 AM |

More racist generalizations in Congress...this time from Republican representative Barbara Cubin of Wyoming:

"My sons are 25 and 30. They are blond-haired and blue-eyed. One amendment today said we could not sell guns to anybody under drug treatment. So does that mean if you go into a black community, you cannot sell a gun to any black person, or does that mean because my -- "

So all blacks are categorically drug users?

Interesting.

More at the Daily Outrage.

posted by Jenny at 2:42 AM |

Via Skippy...Bruce Springsteen has issued a statement of support for the Dixie Chicks:

The Dixie Chicks have taken a big hit lately for exercising their basic right to express themselves. To me, they're terrific American artists expressing American values by using their American right to free speech. For them to be banished wholesale from radio stations, and even entire radio networks, for speaking out is un-American.

The pressure coming from the government and big business to enforce conformity of thought concerning the war and politics goes against everything that this country is about - namely freedom. Right now, we are supposedly fighting to create freedom in Iraq, at the same time that some are trying to intimidate and punish people for using that same freedom here at home.

I don't know what happens next, but I do want to add my voice to those who think that the Dixie Chicks are getting a raw deal, and an un-American one to boot. I send them my support.

posted by Jenny at 2:32 AM |

Your conspiracy theories are justified?

Here are a few articles on "America's secret theocrats", an organization referred to ambiguously as the "Family", the "Fellowship", and the "Foundation", which I found at the cursor. The "Fellowship" is a secretive group that brings together world leaders and elected officials through religion, leasing out its residences to religious members of Congress. Officially hosting the National Prayer Breakfast, which 3,000 dignitaries from many nations attend each year at $425 a head, Harper's writer Jeffrey Sharlet asserts the "Family" has negotiated not only diplomatic events such as Carter's worldwide call to prayer with Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat and the resolution of peace between Congo and Rwanda; in the 1960s, the group forged relations between the US government and anti-Communist, dictatorial factions in postcolonial Africa. They also supported Brazilian and Indonesian dictators Costa e Silva and Suharto, and built friendships between the Reagon government and other Latin American war criminals. The Sharlet article is thorough as it is scary. You can also check out some center-conservative criticism of it here.

As wacky and outlandish as all of this sounds, I think I believe it, or at least parts of it, and can't help thinking of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and wondering what Umberto Eco knows about all of this...

posted by Jenny at 2:02 AM |

"Let the sky god build his own damn house"

This short post at LMB, featuring the seething NYT article on the Bush tax cut, made me grin.

posted by Jenny at 1:34 AM |

Blatant co-optation

Via Tom Tomorrow, whose comment was, "In the unlikely event that any Democrat ever had the courage to stand up and ask, 'At long last sir, have you no shame?'--I think all they'd get in response is a smirk. 'Nope. Not one damn bit.'"

WASHINGTON, April 21 — President Bush's advisers have drafted a re-election strategy built around staging the latest nominating convention in the party's history, allowing Mr. Bush to begin his formal campaign near the third anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks and to enhance his fund-raising advantage, Republicans close to the White House say.

...

The president is planning a sprint of a campaign that would start, at least officially, with his acceptance speech at the Republican convention, a speech now set for Sept. 2.

The convention, to be held in New York City, will be the latest since the Republican Party was founded in 1856, and Mr. Bush's advisers said they chose the date so the event would flow into the commemorations of the third anniversary of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.

More.

posted by Jenny at 1:20 AM |

Check out the Cowboy's post on Arcata, California (pop 16,000), the first city in the United States to outlaw voluntary compliance with the Patriot Act. I love it!

posted by Jenny at 1:00 AM |

Tuesday, April 22, 2003

I've been collecting some links to post for Earth Day. There are more to come--I think I will devote an entire post to DuPont and Alcoa, for example, but for the time being I think this is a good start:

News

Just a sample of the many environmental issues developing every day which, sadly, have been largely overshadowed in mainstream reporting (where they are already underrepresented) since the onset of the "second Gulf War".
Envirolink News
Environmental Media Services
Animal Concerns
Lab Animals Are First Victims of Chemical War
Monsanto: heading for disaster?
Relief on the Way to Humans, Animals in Iraq
Privatizing Water: What the European Commission Doesn't Want You to Know
Bear Bile Farming at Record High in China
War Lets Bush Aim at Environment

Activism

The above stories of animal cruelty and environmental degradation give only just an inkling of the widespread, systematic exploitation of nature at the hands of industry and government (and everyday consumers like ourselves). Here are some organizations devoted to campaigns, boycotts and other forms of environmental advocacy.
OCA Monsanto History, Facts | Monsanto Products to Boycott
Proctor & Gamble Animal Testing | P&G Product List
Stop Canada's Seal Hunt
International Fund for Animal Welfare
World Society for the Protection of Animals
WWF
Greenpeace
Sierra Club
The Nature Conservancy
League of Conservation Voters
Organic Consumers Association
And more (extensive corporate research, boycott info included)...

posted by Jenny at 4:37 PM |

Last week, Dave Johnson posted these observations:

I am glad to see more weblogs writing about this issue of forming an organization that works to move people toward a more progressive perspective. It is so important to spread the word, and get people talking about the need for this. If you look at why the right has become so powerful and successful you see that they have a well-coordinated and well-funded web of organizations that pump out carefully crafted, coordinated right-wing propaganda to the masses, following long-term strategies, slowly moving public attitudes to the right, thereby generating UNDERLYING SUPPORT for their overall ideology. This is not about just PR and advertising for particular current issues, this is about the long-term ever-ongoing push of their overall ideological framework -- slowly pushing the public ever onward to the right with a steady drip, drip, drip of messaging. The messages are pounded out day after day, through books, magazine articles, talking points read by talk show hosts, TV pundits, newspaper commentaries, and many other outlets. The resulting shift of general underlying public attitudes then translates into ready-to-go support for their issues, their organizations, and finally, into votes for their politicians. THIS is how they have done it, and this is how we can do it, too.

The solution - the way to win our country back - is to develop an infrastructure of our own that works to change underlying public attitudes in a general way, thereby supplying support that strengthens and reinforces progressive and moderate organizations, issues, and leaders in general.

...

Imagine a public environment where people trying to bring environmental or peace issues to the public's attention, or running for office, don't have to start from scratch explaining why it is good to support strengthening community, protecting the environment, helping the poor, etc.! Imagine if each of us didn't have to constantly be on the defensive, fighting the widespread ideological nonsense spouted by Rush Limbaugh, before we even get a chance to start talking about what we believe in. Wouldn't it be nice to have an organization doing that for you? Working in the background to improve the public's attitudes about progressive/moderate ideals? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to be PROUD to say you're a "liberal" or a "moderate" or a "lefty?" It isn't up to the Democrats or the Greens or moderate Republicans to change people's underlying attitudes - politicians RESPOND to the public, and it is a mistake to blame them for what is going on or rely on them to fix it. (emphasis added)

Well, on many levels, right on. As an article by Farai Chideya pointed out recently, "the revolution must be monetized"--the opposition to the current state of affairs needs financial organization and responsible management. That's the problem with we "progressives"--the word itself encompasses so many strata of our society, so many different realms, and often conflicting interests and viewpoints. I've done a lot of talking and quoting on the need to move beyond protest celebrations, public festivals of opposition, as it were, however joyous and creative they are, and to begin reaching out to those who oppose us. Simultaneously, we must also make consumer choices which reflect the ideals we claim to represent, and these consumer choices must be executed in such a way that offending corporations register them in their board meetings for what they are--protests and votes of no confidence in corporate authority. (I had an epiphany the other day that the money I pay to AOL, a Bush campaign contributor, might have served to help the Republican government more than the taxes I cough up every four months.) This is where organization comes in. Organization is the key to offering new programs to our brainwashed society, to providing clout on the political landscape.

But there's a question, or a concern, gestating in my mind in regard to all of this--once we organize, once we build up our own information network...what's to stop that from becoming a propaganda machine? Is there any way to prevent hierarchy from emerging, to prevent power from being corruptible? Just because we're the "good guys", does this mean we are immune to the perversions permeating the Republican Party, the Southern Baptist Convention, etc., etc.?

Hardt and Negri's Empire opens with the following quote from William Morris: "Men fight and lose the battle, and the thing that they fought for comes about in spite of their defeat, and then it turns out not to be what they meant, and other men have to fight for what they meant under another name." I think that this statement hits the nail on the head. I'm not aware of one revolutionary group that didn't lose something by moving into the mainstream. And I'm not talking about corporate co-optation of revolutionary ideals, such as Nike's use of feminism and nature to sell sneakers on the heels of Gloria Steinem and Greenpeace. I'm talking about organization itself; it is a necessary evil which leads, perhaps inevitably, to stagnation and political corruption--in some measure, to the betrayal of some of the ideals which brought people together in the first place. The German Green Party, now over a decade old, illustrates this point well. While the Greens continue to push the envelope on much earth-friendly legislation from within the governing coalition, they are often criticized for losing much of the edge they had at their inception, and the party is now viewed as splintered between "realists", more inclined towards compromise with other, more conservative groups, and "fundamentalists", who stick to the ideals that undergirded the party in the late 1980s. When transferring from a fluid social movement to a political party in an established parliamentary system, something was lost.

This is not to say that we should shirk all forms of organization, or that we should give up trying. I think the argument that structure begets oppression has served as a cop-out for many progressives, particularly academics. But as we seek to build up our own groups, I think it's important that we maintain a spirit of pluralism--i.e., not relying upon one progressive institution, but rather many, working under a common aegis of human rights, social equity, and environmental protection--and, perhaps most importantly, the knowledge that no one, and no group, is immune to the corruption of power, particularly in a party monolith, and the tendency within organizations to hierarchichalize (?) formerly egalitarian movements. It's also important for us to keep in mind that a group, organization, institute, what have you doesn't have to last a long time to be effective--eventually our new models will become old, and it will be time to move on to new entities and experiences. Many of us human beings have a tendency to cling to the institutions in our life, refusing to accept that life itself is transient, and times change. Thus, to conclude all this rambling, I propose an air of healthy detachment--a devotion to serving others through organizations, but a detachment from the organizations themseves, wherever possible. It is when we allow the organization to become an ideologue, and we forget what brought us to it in the first place, that the trouble starts.

With those caveats in mind, I too am thrilled to see talk in the blogosphere about organizing, about boycotting, about moving beyond simply reveling in the aesthetics of protest (which are very important, too) to the nitty-gritty of social change: conversations with conservatives, unpreaching to the unconverted. There are many organizations already working to change the political landscape of the United States (and beyond); it is time to add our voices and inform ourselves in creative, socially-responsible ways.

posted by Jenny at 7:09 AM |

Progressive Reagan love fest?

Harold Meyerson of The American Prospect casts Bush as the most dangerous president ever, seeking historical parallel's to Dubya's politically cataclysmic administration. Check it out.

posted by Jenny at 4:56 AM |

Credit Card Companies Close Muslim Accounts

Via bean (at Alas):

Say that you are one of those fortunate people who manage to pay off most of their credit cards every month. Then imagine your surprise when one of your cards is cancelled for no apparent reason. That's exactly what Farooq Firdous experienced. Last summer, Firdous, a Pakistani who got his green card in 1997 after 11 years of legal residence in the U.S., received a phone call from an American Express representative regarding a credit card he held. The rep requested that he send the company a mountain of paperwork: three years of tax returns, six months of bank statements and a job verification letter.

His wife, Yasmin Khan, who is Indian, received a separate phone call that same day for her own AmEx credit card. In each case, the rep told them they had 15 days to submit the paperwork or their cards would be cancelled. Firdous and Khan called back later – twice – to ask reps if they could send the request in writing. They refused.

Firdous and Khan were confused because they always paid off their cards on time. Firdous called the company back again. "I told them strictly, 'You're probably discriminating against minorities with Muslim names,'" he recalls. He and his wife refused to submit the documentation, which on at least three different occasions company reps said they needed for "security reasons."

A few weeks later, each received a letter saying his or her credit card was cancelled: "You did not provide the banking information, financial statements, income tax return, and/or identification documents requested." The letters also stated that the reasons for cancelling the account included "information received from a consumer reporting agency," hinting that credit problems might be to blame.

But Firdous' credit is excellent, according to the credit report he subsequently obtained. (After his AmEx card was cancelled, he immediately applied for and received a Citibank Mastercard.) The status of his closed AmEx account reads "Paid/Never late."

The government's post-9/11 infringements on civil liberties have been well documented and debated. But what happens when private companies take the fight against terrorism into their own hands? If you're Pakistani, or Muslim, or both, you might just find your credit cards cancelled, despite the good credit you've worked hard to build.

City Limits has found 12 cases in which Muslims, nearly all Pakistani- Americans, with good credit, all of whom claim they made no unusual or exorbitant charges or late payments, had their American Express credit cards cancelled. We found no cases of non-Muslims' credit cards being cancelled outright, or even non-Muslims who were asked to send in paperwork for existing accounts.

posted by Jenny at 3:28 AM |

Monday, April 21, 2003

Ouch

The New York Times is coming after Bush...so much for those post-Iraq media lovefests! All the pointed observations in this text hit home. I always find it especially odd thinking back on the days when Bush was seen as the Great Uniter of the two parties...what on earth would Bob Bullock say now?

posted by Jenny at 10:14 AM |

Hesiod is seething (and, well, rightly so) on Florida's seeming "No abused or neglected child left alive" policy...

posted by Jenny at 10:08 AM |

Sugar industry threatens to scupper World Health Organization

Via Kynn:

The sugar industry in the US is threatening to bring the World Health Organisation to its knees by demanding that Congress end its funding unless the WHO scraps guidelines on healthy eating, due to be published on Wednesday.

The threat is being described by WHO insiders as tantamount to blackmail and worse than any pressure exerted by the tobacco lobby.

In a letter to Gro Harlem Brundtland, the WHO's director general, the Sugar Association says it will "exercise every avenue available to expose the dubious nature" of the WHO's report on diet and nutrition, including challenging its $406m (£260m) funding from the US.

The industry is furious at the guidelines, which say that sugar should account for no more than 10% of a healthy diet. It claims that the review by international experts which decided on the 10% limit is scientifically flawed, insisting that other evidence indicates that a quarter of our food and drink intake can safely consist of sugar.

"Taxpayers' dollars should not be used to support misguided, non-science-based reports which do not add to the health and well-being of Americans, much less the rest of the world," says the letter. "If necessary we will promote and encourage new laws which require future WHO funding to be provided only if the organisation accepts that all reports must be supported by the preponderance of science."

The association, together with six other big food industry groups, has also written to the US health secretary, Tommy Thompson, asking him to use his influence to get the WHO report withdrawn. The coalition includes the US Council for International Business, comprising more than 300 companies, including Coca-Cola and Pepsico.

posted by Jenny at 5:30 AM |

Here is an image database of artifacts from the Iraqi Museum, published in the 1970s. I felt especially sick about it today upon reading that the Akkadian king's mask pictured in my high school textbook, which I had always wanted to see in person, was among the pieces which disappeared.

posted by Jenny at 4:46 AM |

McBacklash

From the LA Times, via SauteWednesday:

These are not happy times in the home of the Happy Meal.

McDonald's stock price has been in free fall. The company has announced plans to close several hundred restaurants. Its share of the fast food market is declining. At the end of last year, McDonald's reported its first-ever quarterly loss.

Sales of Happy Meals themselves have declined three years in a row, and a survey by Restaurants and Institutions Magazine ranked McDonald's 15th in food quality at hamburger chains, behind -- among others -- In-N-Out (my favorite fast-food burger), arch-rival Burger King (how humiliating) and White Castle (whose small, square burgers are really inedible paperweights).

Things are so bad that McDonald's last month signed up Paul Newman to help save its bacon ... er, burger ... er, salad with a new, so-called "Premium Salad" line that will be served exclusively with Newman's Own dressings. Locally, residents in Glassell Park are opposing construction of a new McDonald's in their neighborhood. In Alabama, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a federal lawsuit last month, accusing a McDonald's franchisee of violating the Americans With Disabilities Act by refusing to promote a 32-year-old mother of two because she has a dark purple birthmark covering her face. I have to admit that I'm taking great pleasure in all Ronald McDonald's difficulties. I don't like McDonald's. I've never liked McDonald's. And no, I'm not a food snob who refuses to eat anything less refined than foie gras. I love hamburgers. And hot dogs. And pizza. Not to mention barbecue ribs, submarine sandwiches, fried chicken, pastrami sandwiches, tuna fish and various other kinds of food that are both (a) American and (b) consistent with the basic McDonald's formula.

Ask almost any McDonald's customers why they go there, and you're likely to hear some variation of, "It's cheap, quick, convenient and consistent." A few might even say they like the food -- especially the French fries. I like McDonald's fries too. But I think a Big Mac has about as much in common with a real hamburger as Salisbury steak does with a prime porterhouse.

Well, I'll admit that I like McDonald's fries, too, but dammit, how many preservatives, chemical concoctions and animal leftovers can one company cram into one tiny piece of pseudopotato? As someone who thought that the Mickey-D's monolith would never flinch in response to global protest, I am somewhat gleeful to see the golden arches crumbling, bit by bit.

posted by Jenny at 4:31 AM |

And if you're worried about getting food to dispossessed and malnourished Iraqis:

Fastfood giants Pizza Hut and Burger King have set up their first franchises inside war-torn Iraq, even as many aid convoys waited on the borders for the war to officially end.
The arrival of the two restaurants - sited inside giant trailers on a British military base near Basra - won a rapturous welcome from soldiers, whose limited range of rations lost their appeal many weeks ago.

...

Another officer, who was directly involved in the franchise process, said: "It's an Americanism, we usually have them off the base, but because it is still a war zone we have to give them protection."

Permission to open the restaurants was granted through the British Army and they will be run by existing franchise holders from Kuwait, with a percentage of any profits going to charity.

But soldiers waiting for a brewery franchise to be awarded are set for a disappointment as military chiefs have already vetoed any alcohol being sold on the base, which is home to almost 8000 British soldiers.

The Kuwaiti franchise holders provided staff and raw materials and the Army escorted them into Iraq, although it is understood it will not provide constant escorts for the supply runs.

posted by Jenny at 2:20 AM |

I'm loving Drezner's blog. Look at this law professor's work on the sex-based inequities of public toilets:

Lines for public bathrooms, one of the last supposed vestiges of “separate but equal,” regularly show the facilities are anything but. “What’s most often equalized is square footage,” Case says. But because urinals are smaller than stalls, “men are almost always offered more excreting opportunities than women,” which likely accounts for longer women’s lines—not women simply taking longer. And more of the space in women’s bathrooms, she notes, is filled with vanity tables, fainting couches, and baby stations.

The project—after several years she’s collected hundreds of surveys for a planned law-review article—was spurred by Case’s research into the history of constitutional arguments for equal protection of the sexes. Believing the law rarely should distinguish between males and females, she advocates “a model akin to the typical airline toilet,” providing ultimate privacy without segregation (though she’s learned that many women prefer a same-sex environment).

The survey also gives men and women “a sense for how the other half lives,” Case says. For instance, when she visited a New York children’s museum, a male companion saw a poster in the boys’ room asking, “Who can ‘go’ faster? It takes men about 45 seconds to urinate (pee). It takes women about 79 seconds to urinate. How do you compare to the average? Ready, Get Set, GO!” No such poster, Case confirmed, was in the girls’ room.

And, now that you're interested, you might as well take her toilet survey...and who says UChicago people are obsessed with theory?

posted by Jenny at 2:10 AM |

And, while acquainting myself with Daniel Drezner's "untenured" perspective (some of my friends will love that, what better therapy than blogging for untenured faculty), I ran across this piece of news:

Even as the U.S. military grapples with the largest peacekeeping effort in a generation, the Army is shutting down its only institute devoted to such operations, prompting protests from inside and outside the Pentagon.

Since its creation in 1993 at the Army War College, the Peacekeeping Institute has struggled against a military culture that sees itself as a war-fighting machine that should leave peacekeeping to others....

The Peacekeeping Institute, in Carlisle Barracks, Pa., will close Oct. 1. A Jan. 30 Army news release said its functions and mission will be absorbed at the Army's Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) at Ft. Monroe, Va.

A spokesman for the training command, however, said Monday that it has no plans to accept the institute's charge.

"I can tell you that no functions from the Peacekeeping Institute are being transferred to the Center for Army Lessons Learned, nor are they being transferred to TRADOC," said spokesman Harvey Perritt.

Lt. Col. Gary Keck, a Pentagon spokesman, said that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld supports closing the institute. He added, however, that the decision to close the institute was the Army's.

...

An Army spokesman denied that the shutdown signals any reduction in the importance placed on peacekeeping but said it is emblematic of the "hard choices we have to make" in operating in as efficient a manner as possible.

Out of a $81 billion annual Army budget, the Peacekeeping Institute ran on $200,000 a year.

Here's the link to the Peacekeeping Institute.

posted by Jenny at 2:05 AM |

Israel seeks pipeline for Iraqi oil

As Tom Tomorrow might say, "your cynicism is justified."

Plans to build a pipeline to siphon oil from newly conquered Iraq to Israel are being discussed between Washington, Tel Aviv and potential future government figures in Baghdad.

The plan envisages the reconstruction of an old pipeline, inactive since the end of the British mandate in Palestine in 1948, when the flow from Iraq's northern oilfields to Palestine was re-directed to Syria.

Now, its resurrection would transform economic power in the region, bringing revenue to the new US-dominated Iraq, cutting out Syria and solving Israel's energy crisis at a stroke.

It would also create an end less and easily accessible source of cheap Iraqi oil for the US guaranteed by reliable allies other than Saudi Arabia - a keystone of US foreign policy for decades and especially since 11 September 2001.

Until 1948, the pipeline ran from the Kurdish-controlled city of Mosul to the Israeli port of Haifa, on its northern Mediterranean coast.

The revival of the pipeline was first discussed openly by the Israeli Minister for National Infrastructures, Joseph Paritzky, according to the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz.

...

US intelligence sources confirmed to The Observer that the project has been discussed. One former senior CIA official said: 'It has long been a dream of a powerful section of the people now driving this administration [of President George W. Bush] and the war in Iraq to safeguard Israel's energy supply as well as that of the United States.

'The Haifa pipeline was something that existed, was resurrected as a dream and is now a viable project - albeit with a lot of building to do.'

The editor-in-chief of the Middle East Economic Review , Walid Khadduri, says in the current issue of Jane's Foreign Report that 'there's not a metre of it left, at least in Arab territory'.

To resurrect the pipeline would need the backing of whatever government the US is to put in place in Iraq, and has been discussed - according to Western diplomatic sources - with the US-sponsored Iraqi National Congress and its leader Ahmed Chalabi, the former banker favoured by the Pentagon for a powerful role in the war's aftermath.
...

James Akins, a former US ambassador to the region and one of America's leading Arabists, said: 'There would be a fee for transit rights through Jordan, just as there would be fees for Israel from those using what would be the Haifa terminal.

'After all, this is a new world order now. This is what things look like particularly if we wipe out Syria. It just goes to show that it is all about oil, for the United States and its ally.'

Akins was ambassador to Saudi Arabia before he was fired after a series of conflicts with then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, father of the vision to pipe oil west from Iraq. In 1975, Kissinger signed what forms the basis for the Haifa project: a Memorandum of Understanding whereby the US would guarantee Israel's oil reserves and energy supply in times of crisis.

Kissinger was also master of the American plan in the mid-Eighties - when Saddam Hussein was a key US ally - to run an oil pipeline from Iraq to Aqaba in Jordan, opposite the Israeli port of Eilat.

The plan was promoted by the now Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and the pipeline was to be built by the Bechtel company, which the Bush administration last week awarded a multi-billion dollar contract for the reconstruction of Iraq.

The memorandum has been quietly renewed every five years, with special legislation attached whereby the US stocks a strategic oil reserve for Israel even if it entailed domestic shortages - at a cost of $3 billion (£1.9bn) in 2002 to US taxpayers.

Thanks, as always, to Sean-Paul for bringing this to light.

posted by Jenny at 1:45 AM |

Amp has been doing some thought-provoking reading...and posting the links on his blog. A few choice selections:

The Safeway Grill--Safeway employees in Oregon are being held for hours at a time in tiny rooms, harrassed and coerced into signing confessions of theft they didn't commit. One to read before heading to the grocery store...

Who says feminism is dead?--Kristin Aune debunks the myth that feminism is irrelevant, and extinct. I'd like to take articles like this (although I wish it were longer, and addressed the problems with "identity politics" that gave feminism/s such a bad rap) and combine them into a reader, and then email it to everyone who is sending me those anti-feminist, pro-war forwards...

And, last but not least, a lengthy, detailed and rather scary post on Israel's WMDs...with references to the recent Syrian Security Council resolution on eliminating such weaponry in the Middle East. The supposed lowdown on Israel's nuclear arsenal, as well as its arms trade with China and, arguably most chillingly, Israel's alleged attempts to create a "Weapon of Mass Genocide (WMG) -- a bioweapon targeted at Arabs which would leave Jews unaffected". Is this possible? I doubt it. But if they have actually considered it and tried it out, I might have to start constructing some carefully-worded parallels to Nazi Germany, something many of us are loath to do in conjunction with Israel.

posted by Jenny at 1:37 AM |