They may not want to hear him but the American people do
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
The Inconvenient Truth -- Sacrifice & Change Is Required.
an excerpt from:
Focus on carbon 'missing the point'
read the entire article at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6922065.stm
The focus on reducing carbon emissions has blinded us to the real problem - unsustainable lifestyles, says Eamon O'Hara.
Is it not time to recognise that climate change is yet another symptom of our unsustainable lifestyles, which must now become the focus our efforts? Yet governments, and those organisations who have now assumed the role of combating climate change, subscribe to the notion that climate change is our central problem and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is the cause of this problem.
Undeniably, climate change is a serious problem but it is only one of a growing list of problems that arise from a fundamental global issue.
These problems all clearly have a common origin, yet the search for solutions has invariably focused on targeted treatments rather than addressing the root cause.
Global warming - the latest in this list of environmental woes - is a particularly worrying development, not only because it is potentially catastrophic, but because it is going to be incredibly difficult to control.
...However, by focusing on the need to reduce CO2 emissions has reduced the problem to one of carbon dioxide rather than on the unsustainable ways we live our lives.
This oversight has led to the assumption that if we reduce emissions then our problems are solved, hence the focus on carbon sequestration, renewable energies and environmental technologies.
...The large-scale transition to renewable resources might provide a safer alternative to oil and gas and other finite resources, but it will not remove our energy and resource dependency, which will continue to expand in line with economic growth.
Ultimately, our problem is consumption, and the environment is not the only casualty.
The modern Western lifestyle also has an inbuilt dependency on the cheap resources and the low carbon footprint of developing countries, which has compounded global injustice.
...The world simply does not have the resources, renewable or otherwise, to sustain Western lifestyles across the globe.
...Every day we wait, another 30,000 children needlessly die; between 100-150 plant and animal species become extinct; 70,000 hectares of rainforest is destroyed and another 150m tonnes of CO2 is released into the atmosphere.
...We urgently need to think about the more fundamental concept of sustainability and how our lifestyles are threatening not only the environment, but developing countries and global peace and stability.
In my view, we need to embrace this as an opportunity and not see it as a responsibility. Living a more sustainable lifestyle does not have to be a burden, as some people fear.
It could be a liberating and rewarding experience to participate in creating a better world. After all, how good do we really have it at the moment?
How many people are tired and weary of modern living? The endless cycle of earning and consumption can be exhausting and does not necessarily bring happiness and fulfillment. Can we do things differently, and better?
If we don't, then we are heading for certain disaster, regardless of whether or not we manage to reduce our emissions.
Eamon O'Hara is a Brussels-based policy adviser for the Irish Regions Office, which represents Irish interests in the European Union
Focus on carbon 'missing the point'
read the entire article at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6922065.stm
The focus on reducing carbon emissions has blinded us to the real problem - unsustainable lifestyles, says Eamon O'Hara.
Is it not time to recognise that climate change is yet another symptom of our unsustainable lifestyles, which must now become the focus our efforts? Yet governments, and those organisations who have now assumed the role of combating climate change, subscribe to the notion that climate change is our central problem and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is the cause of this problem.
Undeniably, climate change is a serious problem but it is only one of a growing list of problems that arise from a fundamental global issue.
These problems all clearly have a common origin, yet the search for solutions has invariably focused on targeted treatments rather than addressing the root cause.
Global warming - the latest in this list of environmental woes - is a particularly worrying development, not only because it is potentially catastrophic, but because it is going to be incredibly difficult to control.
...However, by focusing on the need to reduce CO2 emissions has reduced the problem to one of carbon dioxide rather than on the unsustainable ways we live our lives.
This oversight has led to the assumption that if we reduce emissions then our problems are solved, hence the focus on carbon sequestration, renewable energies and environmental technologies.
...The large-scale transition to renewable resources might provide a safer alternative to oil and gas and other finite resources, but it will not remove our energy and resource dependency, which will continue to expand in line with economic growth.
Ultimately, our problem is consumption, and the environment is not the only casualty.
The modern Western lifestyle also has an inbuilt dependency on the cheap resources and the low carbon footprint of developing countries, which has compounded global injustice.
...The world simply does not have the resources, renewable or otherwise, to sustain Western lifestyles across the globe.
...Every day we wait, another 30,000 children needlessly die; between 100-150 plant and animal species become extinct; 70,000 hectares of rainforest is destroyed and another 150m tonnes of CO2 is released into the atmosphere.
...We urgently need to think about the more fundamental concept of sustainability and how our lifestyles are threatening not only the environment, but developing countries and global peace and stability.
In my view, we need to embrace this as an opportunity and not see it as a responsibility. Living a more sustainable lifestyle does not have to be a burden, as some people fear.
It could be a liberating and rewarding experience to participate in creating a better world. After all, how good do we really have it at the moment?
How many people are tired and weary of modern living? The endless cycle of earning and consumption can be exhausting and does not necessarily bring happiness and fulfillment. Can we do things differently, and better?
If we don't, then we are heading for certain disaster, regardless of whether or not we manage to reduce our emissions.
Eamon O'Hara is a Brussels-based policy adviser for the Irish Regions Office, which represents Irish interests in the European Union
They Don't Want You To Believe in Global Warming
... but they know it's true. The following article points out how the Bush Administration and their corporate sponsors are already planning to profit from global warming.
an excerpt from:
White House sees black gold in melting sea ice
an excerpt from:
White House sees black gold in melting sea ice
The Bush administration is worried about missing out on a bonanza of oil and other resources in the Arctic unless Congress approves a treaty that helps determine who has rights to the area's wealth.
Arctic sea ice has decreased nearly 20% in the last two decades as the Earth's climate warms, making access to the area easier. The eight countries bordering the region, including the USA, are now staking competing claims
The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the Arctic seabed and subsoil hold as much as 25% of the world's undiscovered oil and gas. Other resources such as nickel and diamonds also are present.
The melting ice also has led to increased traffic from ships seeking a shorter route between Europe, Asia and the Western Hemisphere.
All Arctic border countries except the USA have signed a 1982 treaty that establishes guidelines for where maritime boundaries should be drawn and a commission for resolving disputes. A two-thirds majority of the Senate is necessary to approve the law.
Ratification of the treaty "is a top priority for us," said John Bellinger, the State Department's top lawyer. "We've been watching as other countries are actively pursuing their own interests."
The treaty stipulates that countries can extract natural resources within 200 miles of their coast. Countries can claim more if they prove their continental shelf extends further into the sea.
Monday, July 30, 2007
25 Of My YouTube Favorites
Scroll through the film reel to view 25 of my favorite YouTube videos.
to view all of my favorites go to:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=pamlyn
Thank you to all of the wonderfully creative people who put together may of these videos as well as to the friends that introduced me to many of them.
Enjoy!
to view all of my favorites go to:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=pamlyn
Thank you to all of the wonderfully creative people who put together may of these videos as well as to the friends that introduced me to many of them.
Enjoy!
Saturday, July 28, 2007
What lies beneath the floods
With love and prayers for my dear friends in Britain.
an excerpt from:
What lies beneath the floods - Independent Online Edition > Climate Change
an excerpt from:
What lies beneath the floods - Independent Online Edition > Climate Change
As the filthy flood waters begin to subside, they are revealing a scene of devastated homes. Now there are warnings of a mounting health risk from toxic chemicals and fatal bugs left behind in the wake of the deluge
By Jonathan Brown
Published: 25 July 2007
The filthy brown flood waters may have been subsiding yesterday but the tide of human misery they have left in their wake was relentlessly swelling.
Few aspects of everyday life across huge swathes of central England have been unaffected by the unprecedented deluge of last weekend. It will be many weeks before normality returns.
The grim task of sifting through possessions was already under way yesterday. A steadily mounting pile of soaked and soiled items seemed to stand guard at every front door, waiting to come under the calculating eye of the insurance loss adjustor.
For more than 350,000 people in Gloucestershire the most pressing issue was not the loss of possessions, many of them prized. The biggest problem remains the lack of clean water after the county's main treatment plant was knocked out.
And it emerged last night that in the event of the flooding of Walham power station which escaped being hit by waters from the Severn by two inches in the early hours of yesterday ministers had drawn up plans to carry out evacuations inn Cheltenham and Gloucester. Yesterday in communities which only a few days ago were coping with little more than the inconvenience of the wretched British summer, residents were told it could be up to two weeks before they are reconnected to the mains water supply.
In the meantime they must queue for bottled water or fill containers at 900 bowsers in Gloucester, Cheltenham and Stroud. The council also issued an urgent plea for portable lavatories.
There were warnings of a mounting health risk from thousands of gallons of sewage and toxic chemicals that have spilled into homes, gardens and streets in recent days. The Health Protection Agency urged people to keep out of the water to avoid contact with potentially fatal microbes such as E.coli. The agency also warned of a sharp rise in stress-related illnesses as a result of the flooding.
A pregnant woman stranded in the floods lost her twins despite being airlifted to hospital. The woman gave birth to the premature twins in her Tewkesbury home moments before RAF rescue helicopters arrived. She was taken by one helicopter, and her babies were carried in another, to Cheltenham General Hospital where the babies died. The woman was 21 weeks pregnant and her family had called 999 on Saturday morning, but floods blocked the ambulance.
Tewkesbury, cut off by the flooded Severn and Avon rivers, yesterday remained little more than a ghost town with hotels ordered to close to guests, many of them stranded tourists, because of the lack of flushing lavatories. Joe Bishop, a manager at the Bell Hotel, where water continued to lap around the historic building, said staff had worked round the clock to stay open.
"The water level is going down a bit but we've run out of water, food, beer and linen and we've been told to close as a hotel. We've still got quite a few guests so I don't know where they are going to sleep tonight," he said.
Read the rest of this article at:
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2798519.ece
For more please watch the following video
Getting to the ( lack of ) Heart of the Problem
" Another email responding to an offer from Argentina to DOS officials
reads 'All, The (sic) word here is that doctors of any kind are in the 'forget about it' category. Human assistance of any kind is not on our priorities list....It’s all about goods, not people, at this point.' "
reads 'All, The (sic) word here is that doctors of any kind are in the 'forget about it' category. Human assistance of any kind is not on our priorities list....It’s all about goods, not people, at this point.' "
CREW RELEASES REPORT DETAILING INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE OFFERS IN WAKE OF HURRICANE KATRINA
July 27, 2007
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/2965127 Jul 2007 // Washington, DC – Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) released the most comprehensive matrix available to date detailing all offers of assistance from around the world in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster.
CREW’s matrix is based on 25,000 Department of State (DOS) documents it received as a result of a lawsuit filed under the Freedom of Information Act in December 2005 for records relating to the federal government’s handling and acceptance of international offers of aid after Hurricane Katrina.
The matrix includes all international offers, whether they were rejected or accepted and the reasons why, if available. The documents reveal a number of disturbing responses to offers from 145 countries and 12 international organizations from around the world.
For example, an email from Jeffrey Goldstein, a U.S. Embassy official in Estonia, to several DOS officials, states:
It is getting downright embarrassing here not to have a response to the Estonians on flood relief. And now I see from the staff meeting notes that the task force may disband soon. We know that what the Estonians can offer is small potatoes and everyone at FEMA is swamped, but at this point even “thanks but no thanks” is better than deafening silence.
Another email responding to an offer from Argentina to DOS officials reads “All, The (sic) word here is that doctors of any kind are in the 'forget about it' category. Human assistance of any kind is not on our priorities list....It’s all about goods, not people, at this point.”
Another email describes how the transport of Israeli relief supplies loaded on a C-130 aircraft was delayed for over 48 hours on the tarmac while Israeli officials waited for clearance from the U.S. government. The unidentified author states: “I’ve been on the phone with the [Israeli] attache every couple of hours since noon . . . they’re patient, but not amused by our delay, obviously.” The documents do not reveal if or how the issue was resolved.
Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director said today, “A review of the State Department documents reveals distressing ineptitude. Countries were trying to donate desperately needed goods and services, but as a result of bureaucratic bungling and indifference, those most in need of these generous offers of aid never received it.”
***
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a non-profit legal watchdog group dedicated to holding public officials accountable for their actions.
Contact: Naomi Seligman Steiner 202.408.5565 nseligman@citizensforethics.org
Friday, July 27, 2007
What's The Message?
Jack Cafferty of CNN recently asked his viewers: "What message does the $592 million U.S. Embassy in Baghdad send to the Iraqi people?"
My guess would be that the average Iraqi citizen isn't thrilled especially if they are among the thousands of Iraqi refugees that had to leave their homes, jobs, family & country because of the war. In fact, I would suggest that the Iraqis may feel the same way about the US Embassy in Iraq as the thousands of displaced and homeless gulf coast residents felt when they found out that FEMA contributed a large portion of the $185 million used to rebuild the New Orleans Superdome.
Of course, once the embassy is complete the Bush administration will try to use it as a symbol of the Iraq recovery and "democracy". I'm sure that the Republicans are praying that the embassy is ready before the 2008 presidential election so Rove & a savvy PR firm can stage a feel good moment like the reopening of the New Orleans Superdome. Hopefully Bono will decline if he is invited.
Don't get me wrong, I had to reach for the kleenex when the New Orleans Saints marched on the field of the rebuilt Superdome that Monday night. Of course, I once cried over a scene in the Muppet Movie but the drama of that night was enough to make even macho arm-chair quarterbacks blink back the tears. I, and football fans across America, cheered for the Saints that night and for the rest of the season. On Monday night, September 24, 2006, I truly hoped that the reopening of the Superdome was a sign that New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast was on mend. But the next day I had to ask myself was rebuilding the Superdome the best use of FEMA funds when post-Katrina debris still had not be removed from much of the region.
So back to the question, "What message does the $592 million U.S. Embassy in Baghdad send to the Iraqi people?"
It sends a message that the US government cares more about the confront of his high-level officials than it does about restoring the lights, water and safety to the Iraqi people.
Now I have a question. "What message does the $592 million U.S. Embassy in Baghdad send to the soldiers in Walter Reed, the people in the Gulf Coast, the American people and the people of the world?"
My guess would be that the average Iraqi citizen isn't thrilled especially if they are among the thousands of Iraqi refugees that had to leave their homes, jobs, family & country because of the war. In fact, I would suggest that the Iraqis may feel the same way about the US Embassy in Iraq as the thousands of displaced and homeless gulf coast residents felt when they found out that FEMA contributed a large portion of the $185 million used to rebuild the New Orleans Superdome.
Of course, once the embassy is complete the Bush administration will try to use it as a symbol of the Iraq recovery and "democracy". I'm sure that the Republicans are praying that the embassy is ready before the 2008 presidential election so Rove & a savvy PR firm can stage a feel good moment like the reopening of the New Orleans Superdome. Hopefully Bono will decline if he is invited.
Don't get me wrong, I had to reach for the kleenex when the New Orleans Saints marched on the field of the rebuilt Superdome that Monday night. Of course, I once cried over a scene in the Muppet Movie but the drama of that night was enough to make even macho arm-chair quarterbacks blink back the tears. I, and football fans across America, cheered for the Saints that night and for the rest of the season. On Monday night, September 24, 2006, I truly hoped that the reopening of the Superdome was a sign that New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast was on mend. But the next day I had to ask myself was rebuilding the Superdome the best use of FEMA funds when post-Katrina debris still had not be removed from much of the region.
So back to the question, "What message does the $592 million U.S. Embassy in Baghdad send to the Iraqi people?"
It sends a message that the US government cares more about the confront of his high-level officials than it does about restoring the lights, water and safety to the Iraqi people.
Now I have a question. "What message does the $592 million U.S. Embassy in Baghdad send to the soldiers in Walter Reed, the people in the Gulf Coast, the American people and the people of the world?"
Thursday, July 26, 2007
A Voice from the Past
" Has the President committed offenses, and planned, and directed, and acquiesced in a course of conduct which the Constitution will not tolerate? That’s the question. We know that. We know the question. We should now forthwith proceed to answer the question. It is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision. "
-- Statement on the Articles of Impeachment delivered July 25, 1974, House Judiciary Committee by Congresswoman Barbara Jordan
republished in the article " Thirty-Three Years Later: A Statement on the Articles of Impeachment"
Read the entire speech at:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/26/2782/
Thank you Phyllis Stenerson for sharing Barbara Jordan's message via CommonDreams.org .
Barbara Jordan was one of my role models and is one of the reasons that I believe that persons of strength, character, and wisdom can make a difference.
-- Statement on the Articles of Impeachment delivered July 25, 1974, House Judiciary Committee by Congresswoman Barbara Jordan
republished in the article " Thirty-Three Years Later: A Statement on the Articles of Impeachment"
Read the entire speech at:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/26/2782/
Thank you Phyllis Stenerson for sharing Barbara Jordan's message via CommonDreams.org .
Barbara Jordan was one of my role models and is one of the reasons that I believe that persons of strength, character, and wisdom can make a difference.
Recognizing Architects of the Revolution
In a June 27th blog post I wrote, How will history remember the reign of King George Bush? Will Patrick Leahy, Russ Feingold, John Kerry and Arlen Specter be remembered as firing a few of the opening salvos of the revolution?
Well in a letter to the John Kerry mailing list, Vanessa Kerry points out that people are finally acknowledging John Kerry's role in pointing out the madness of King George. And for his courage in leading the dissent, the Democratic party has tried to hide John Kerry in the backroom. Shame on them!
Many of the 2004 Kerry/Edwards supporters can still vividly recall the nastiness of that campaign. I for one, am still trying to make peace with the radical evangelical right who hijacked my faith and used it to try to equate a vote for Kerry as a vote against the Christian faith. I would love to hear what all of those churches that ran off Kerry supporters have to say about the man they portrayed as the "Christian President". Time tells all.
Thanks Vanessa for writing us and thank your dad for standing on America's frontline, again!
plk
Well in a letter to the John Kerry mailing list, Vanessa Kerry points out that people are finally acknowledging John Kerry's role in pointing out the madness of King George. And for his courage in leading the dissent, the Democratic party has tried to hide John Kerry in the backroom. Shame on them!
Many of the 2004 Kerry/Edwards supporters can still vividly recall the nastiness of that campaign. I for one, am still trying to make peace with the radical evangelical right who hijacked my faith and used it to try to equate a vote for Kerry as a vote against the Christian faith. I would love to hear what all of those churches that ran off Kerry supporters have to say about the man they portrayed as the "Christian President". Time tells all.
Thanks Vanessa for writing us and thank your dad for standing on America's frontline, again!
plk
* * * * *
Dear Pamela,
I campaigned for my dad back in 2004 on a lot of campuses, and of course, one of the main subjects that many young people talked to me about was Iraq. People in college have had and continue to have friends in Iraq, or know someone who joined the Reserves to pay for college and ended up in Baghdad; I have friends who have served this way also. Knowing this, I've always been especially proud of what my dad did last year, when he stepped out ahead of his party and started demanding we set a deadline to get the troops out of Iraq.
Now his position has become the unified Democratic position, and I have noticed that a lot of reporters in the last week or so are realizing that fact: John Kerry's position is now the Democratic position. And I just wanted to share a few of those articles with you.
Over the weekend, the AP wrote an article about how nervous Republicans are getting over Iraq, and included this part about my dad, John Kerry, and his efforts last year to set a deadline to withdraw troops from Iraq:
Democratic strategists fretted about the impact on senators seeking re-election and challengers to Republicans in swing states.
The plan drew the support of 13 Democrats.
"Now it's the unified Democratic position," Kerry correctly e-mailed his supporters last week."In May, Republicans were dismissing even tough questions about the escalation. Now, they're falling all over themselves to distance themselves from the president"
And the Boston Globe remarked: "Another of his bold moves -- leading the filibuster against confirming Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito -- now looks very smart to liberals, after Alito provided crucial votes to eviscerate liberal positions on school desegregation, late-term abortion, and campaign finance restrictions."
And the Chicago Tribune does a good job of putting this political fight in the context of my dad's life:
Few living American politicians have had their lives so defined by war as Kerry. His wartime service and wartime protest stoked his political career in Massachusetts. His military background burnished his credentials among Democrats seeking a nominee to run against an incumbent president during wartime in 2004. And now, in a quieter time, his hair gray and reading glasses perched on the bridge of his nose, he finds himself again opposing his government's conflict.
"It's very dismaying to me at this stage of my life and career and being in the Senate, seeing us repeat those mistakes," said Kerry (D-Mass.). "It's very disturbing. We are owed something better than that."
This fight is far from over, of course, but people like us, who believe that we have to get a new course in Iraq, need to keep up the pressure. It will make a difference as we are beginning to see. My dad will write soon with more everyone can do to help; but I wanted to share those articles and let you know he is continuing to fight everyday and making a difference.
Thanks,
Vanessa Kerry
John Kerry For U.S. Senate
129 Portland Street, Suite 500,
Boston, MA 02114-2014
info@johnkerry.com
www.johnkerry.com
More on the Politics of Food Safety
As a follow-up to the post The Politics of Food Safety , the following videos represent the varying ways that the US and Chinese governments are responding to this crisis in food safety and consumer confidence.
It is important to keep in mind that while these videos primarily address the safety of Chinese exports, the issue of food and product safety is not isolated to a particular country. In this age of consumers with an insatiable appetite for low priced consumer goods and service, the risk that producers and manufacturers will take shortcuts to meet demand is great in every nation. The current food safety controversy should be a lesson to all consumers worldwide that they should take an active and informed role in protecting their safety.
In the following video Lou Dobbs discusses why the US farm bill which called for country of origin labeling more then four years ago has not been put into action.
The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations is currently holds a hearing, "Diminished Capacity: Can the FDA Assure the Safety and Security of the Nation's Food Supply? -- Part 2." Rep. Jay Inslee (WA-01) gives opening remarks.
The following is a segment from a BBC news report about the adulterated food and drugs being manufactured in China for both domestic and global markets.
Chinese response to their internal food safety issues has been switft and harsh. China executed a former drug and food safety chief on Tuesday, July 10th for corruption. This is supposed to serve as a warning to officials amid a series of health scandals. His execution marked the first time China has imposed a death sentence on an official of his rank since 2000.
It is important to keep in mind that while these videos primarily address the safety of Chinese exports, the issue of food and product safety is not isolated to a particular country. In this age of consumers with an insatiable appetite for low priced consumer goods and service, the risk that producers and manufacturers will take shortcuts to meet demand is great in every nation. The current food safety controversy should be a lesson to all consumers worldwide that they should take an active and informed role in protecting their safety.
In the following video Lou Dobbs discusses why the US farm bill which called for country of origin labeling more then four years ago has not been put into action.
The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations is currently holds a hearing, "Diminished Capacity: Can the FDA Assure the Safety and Security of the Nation's Food Supply? -- Part 2." Rep. Jay Inslee (WA-01) gives opening remarks.
The following is a segment from a BBC news report about the adulterated food and drugs being manufactured in China for both domestic and global markets.
Chinese response to their internal food safety issues has been switft and harsh. China executed a former drug and food safety chief on Tuesday, July 10th for corruption. This is supposed to serve as a warning to officials amid a series of health scandals. His execution marked the first time China has imposed a death sentence on an official of his rank since 2000.
"Pickling The Poor"
a political cartoon by Mark Fiore
This look at the FEMA toxic trailer situation may make you laugh until you cry ... then get mad and demand that FEMA is finally held accountable.
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/pickling.html
for more information visit:
Heckuva Job, FEMA! (or Toxic Tin Cans, Pt. 3)
FEMA Knew of Toxic Gas Trailers
AlterNet: Blogs: PEEK: FEMA Administrator Forced to Appear Before Congress
Grilling FEMA Over Its Toxic Trailers
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Setting the Record Straight
A great deal of evil has been done in the name of "Christianity" but not by this man and not by this ministry. ABC's 20/20 broadcast coverage of Dr Frederick K. C. Price and the Crenshaw Christian Center was an unwarranted attack on a man that walks the walk and talks the talk.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Zimbabwe's women 'face brutality'
excerpt from:
BBC NEWS | Africa | Zimbabwe's women 'face brutality'
Women who oppose Robert Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe are suffering increasing violence and repression, a study says.
BBC NEWS | Africa | Zimbabwe's women 'face brutality'
Women who oppose Robert Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe are suffering increasing violence and repression, a study says.
Amnesty International claims that female demonstrators can be subjected to arbitrary arrest, beatings and in some cases torture in police custody.
The human rights group, which interviewed dozens of activists, urged the country's authorities to "stamp out any discrimination against women".
Zimbabwe is in the grip of its worst ever economic crisis.
Shops are running out of even the most basic items and inflation is approaching 5,000%.
Life expectancy for women is just 34 years - among the lowest in the world.
'Important resource'
Female activists quoted in Amnesty's report, Between a Rock and a Hard Place - Women Human Rights Defenders at Risk, described receiving brutal treatment at the hands of the police.
"Detained women human rights defenders have been subjected to sexist verbal attacks, and denied access to food, medical care and access to lawyers," the report said.
The US healthcare debate in a nutshell
John Edwards speaks about health care during the CNN/YouTube Democratic debate, July 23, 2007
For more clips by John Edwards and my thoughts on the debate go to:
Pam's Coffee Conversation
For more clips by John Edwards and my thoughts on the debate go to:
Pam's Coffee Conversation
CNN/YouTube Debates: So How Did John Do?
Pretty well.
Of course the mainstream media wants to boil everything down to a Clinton vs. Obama contest. But there was much, much more to this debate. Americans were finally ask the questions that they wanted answered in the way that they wanted the questions asked. Of course, the questions were all pre-screened and limited to the videos that CNN wanted to include. But viewers were able to get the idea that Americans care passionately about education, healthcare, the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, race relations, taxes, social security, same-sex marriage and yes, the war in Iraq. Overall this debate was fun to watch and informative.
What you probably won't hear a lot about in the mainstream coverage of the debate is:
John Edwards answers questions during a live webcast immediately following the Democratic Debate in Charleston, S.C. on July 23, 2007.
Of course the mainstream media wants to boil everything down to a Clinton vs. Obama contest. But there was much, much more to this debate. Americans were finally ask the questions that they wanted answered in the way that they wanted the questions asked. Of course, the questions were all pre-screened and limited to the videos that CNN wanted to include. But viewers were able to get the idea that Americans care passionately about education, healthcare, the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, race relations, taxes, social security, same-sex marriage and yes, the war in Iraq. Overall this debate was fun to watch and informative.
What you probably won't hear a lot about in the mainstream coverage of the debate is:
- John Edwards was nervous but very honestly answered a question about the role is faith will and will not play in his governing decisions;
- Barak Obama gracefully fielded a question about criticisms that "he isn't black enough";
- Chris Dodd was very candid about his feelings on the role that race played in the post hurricane Katrina relief effort;
- Dennis Kucinich emphasized the need for peaceful resolutions to conflict and stated that he supports repaations for slavery;
- Joe Biden did not bite his tongue about a video that featured an individual referring to an assault weapon as "his baby" and did a great job of presenting his past accomplishments;
- Bill Richardson advocated a $40,000/year minumum wage for teachers and clearly indicated the "No Child Left Behind" needs to be scrapped;
- Hillary Clinton addressed the Pentagon's accusations that she is "unpatriotic" for asking if they have a withdrawal plan -- any withdrawal plan. And for one of the first time I think we saw Hillary being Hillary and not trying to be Bill. Yes, Hillary we really do like YOU and,
- And Mike Gravel was, well, Mike Gravel.
John Edwards answers questions during a live webcast immediately following the Democratic Debate in Charleston, S.C. on July 23, 2007.
Pakistani students display a radical Islam
..and this is our ally in the "war against terrorism". Hopefully, the next group of appointees to the State Department will be individuals that have an understanding and insight into the Islamic world.
plk
excerpt from
Pakistani students display a radical Islam - Print Version - International Herald Tribune
plk
excerpt from
Pakistani students display a radical Islam - Print Version - International Herald Tribune
By Somini Sengupta
Monday, July 23, 2007
ISLAMABAD: Hameeda Sarfraz, 19, lively eyes sparkling out of a black burka, was describing the boons of the afterlife.
"In heaven you get everything without hardship," said Sarfraz, daughter of a bus driver. "In heaven, if a martyr feels hungry, food appears, the best quality food, and you won't even know where it came from."
Sarfraz, an alumna of the now bullet-ridden Jamia Hafsa Islamic school for girls, said she deeply regretted missing her chance to be a martyr. She fled through the back door of the school July 3, just hours after a gun battle began between Pakistani special forces and militants holed up in the neighboring Red Mosque, the parent institution of Jamia Hafsa.
Sentiments like hers are the fruits of a radical Islam that has blossomed in this country - not just in the lawless tribal areas that American intelligence officials describe as an enduring sanctuary for Al Qaeda but in its capital, in a mosque and school compound that until recently enjoyed the blessings of the state.
The young adherents present a portrait of adolescent passion that one might find anywhere, except that they are Pakistani girls mostly from poor rural families and their passion is directed against the government of President Pervez Musharraf. Some among Jamia Hafsa's alumnae say they still wish to die in the cause of militant Islam.
Read the entire article at:
Monday, July 23, 2007
Another Reason To Boycott Walmart
So are Americans willing to sacrifice those "everyday low low prices" for product safety?
excerpt from
Despite outcry, many Americans can't live without China goods - Yahoo! News
excerpt from
Despite outcry, many Americans can't live without China goods - Yahoo! News
Even as protests grow about US imports from China, many Americans may find it hard to manage without the range of products that dominate or in some cases monopolize the marketplace.
Economists and consumers say that Chinese-made products have become so ubiquitous it may be next to impossible to wean Americans off low-cost imports.
Peter Morici, economist at the University of Maryland, said he does not see the China export juggernaut slowing despite the range of concerns in the US.
"The trade deficit with China keeps rising," he said. "If there is a consumer movement out there it has yet to come to any consequence."
Morici said the notion of a boycott having any major impact is "hard to fathom." "The only way this would work is if it spread to Wal-Mart, which is China's biggest merchant," he said. "If people said they wouldn't go to Wal-Mart because of Chinese products that would change things."
Sunday, July 22, 2007
FEMA Tells Toxic Trailer Residents to "Open The Windows"
I have started a petition asking the Committee on Oversight & Government Reform to recommend that FEMA Executives be charged with criminal negligence and conspiring to endanger public safety.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/fema-executives-should-face-criminal-charges-for-distributing-toxic-trailers
and the following articles are the reason why.
excerpt from
AlterNet: Blogs: PEEK: FEMA Administrator Forced to Appear Before Congress
David Paulison, the Administrator of FEMA, was made to answer for the toxic tin cans in which FEMA has housed thousands of victims of Hurricane Katrina and other disasters.
Residents of the toxic trailers came to Capitol Hill to testify about the horrors they have endured while living in the toxic tins cans. Lindsay Huckabee, a mother of three, recalled tearfully how her children's health problems were so extensive and frequent that she has become desensitized to seeing her daughter covered in blood from her daily nosebleeds. She also testified that every baby born to residents of her FEMA trailer park since Katrina has become asthmatic. Paul Stewart testified that FEMA "treated him like a criminal" and attempted to replace his toxic trailer with a used, dirty trailer replete with a bed full of bugs. Following this incident, he was forced to sleep in his truck over the weekend because FEMA could only deal with him come Monday. Eventually he spent $50,000 of his own money to buy a formaldehyde-free trailer.
Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), scolded Paulison, telling him that FEMA's lawyers "need some adult supervision." Paulison then refused to apologize to the victims when directly asked to do so, repeatedly citing uncertainty over whether formaldehyde was really the cause of their problems.
The Sierra Club's April 2006 tests first brought attention to the problem, something Paulison acknowledged was a "wake-up call." Of course this wake-up call hasn't actually prompted FEMA to take any substantive action -- other than lawyering-up and then telling hurricane victims to simply open their windows.
* * * * *
A recent Time.com article reported that, "Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FEMA doled out over 120,000 mobile homes to residents of the Gulf Coast. Many of those trailers have walls and cabinets made up of particleboard, which contains formaldehyde that can sometimes emit gas in hot, humid weather such as that found in Louisiana and Mississippi. The effect on humans (especially children) range from "burning sensations in the eyes, nose, and throat; nausea; coughing; chest tightness; wheezing; skin rashes and allergic reactions." As early as March 2006, FEMA began to receive complaints about formaldehyde odors.
After one trailer was tested, an April 2006 e-mail sent from a FEMA attorney to another staffer concluded, "The end result %u2014 well above OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standards... Tester himself developed eye-watering symptoms of exposure." Yet, in response to complaints, FEMA's legal department advised that testing "would imply FEMA's ownership of the issue." Another read, 'Do not initiate any testing until we give the OK... Should [tests] indicate some problem, the clock is running on our duty to respond to them.' "
* * * * *
Please consider signing this petition and sharing it with your friends.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/fema-executives-should-face-criminal-charges-for-distributing-toxic-trailers
Thank you
Feingold Wants Your Suggestions For Bush Censure Resolution
http://feingold.senate.gov/%7Efeingold/releases/07/07/20070722.html
FEINGOLD CALLS FOR CENSURE OF PRESIDENT, ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS OVER IRAQ & ATTACK ON RULE OF LAW
Feingold to Introduce Resolutions Censuring President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Other Administration Officials
July 22, 2007
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold announced today that he will introduce two censure resolutions condemning the President, Vice President and other administration officials for misconduct relating to the war in Iraq and for their repeated assaults on the rule of law. Feingold called the resolutions appropriate and necessary steps for Congress to rebuke an administration that is responsible for some of the worst misconduct and the worst abuses of the law in American history.
“Censure is about holding the administration accountable,” Feingold said. “Congress needs to formally condemn the President and members of the administration for misconduct before and during the Iraq war, and for undermining the rule of law at home. Censure is not a cure for the devastating toll this administration’s actions have taken on this country. But when future generations look back at the terrible misconduct of this administration, they need to see that a co-equal branch of government stood up and held to account those who violated the principles on which this nation was founded.”
Feingold will work with his colleagues, as well as seek input from his constituents and the American people, as he crafts the final language of the resolutions. The first resolution will condemn the President and others for misconduct relating to the war in Iraq including:
- Overstating the case that Saddam Hussein had WMD, particularly nuclear weapons, and falsely implying a relationship with al Qaeda and links to 9/11.
- Failing to plan for the civil conflict and humanitarian problems that the intelligence community predicted.
- Over-stretching the Army, Marine Corps and Guard with prolonged deployments.
- Justifying our military involvement in Iraq by repeatedly distorting the situation on the ground there.
The second resolution will focus on the administration’s attack on the rule of law with respect to, among other things:
- The illegal NSA warrantless wiretapping program.
- Extreme policies on torture, the Geneva Conventions, and detainees at Guantanamo.
- The refusal to recognize legitimate congressional oversight into the improper firings of U.S. Attorneys.
In March 2006, Feingold introduced a resolution censuring the President for authorizing and misleading Congress and the public about the illegal NSA warrantless wiretapping program. In January 2007, the administration finally brought its wiretapping program within the FISA statute.
“At my town hall meetings, online, and everywhere I go, I hear the American people demanding that the President and his administration be held accountable for their misconduct, both with regard to the disastrous war in Iraq and their flagrant abuse of the rule of law. Censure is a relatively modest response, but one that puts Congress on record condemning their actions, both for the American people today and for future generations,” Feingold said.
Feingold is encouraging people to email suggestions of what to include in the censure resolution. People can email Senator Feingold at Russell_Feingold@feingold.senate.gov or visit his webpage at http://feingold.senate.gov.
http://feingold.senate.gov/%7Efeingold/releases/07/07/20070722.html
Living Through Change
Change is not always expected or pleasant. Some changes like the sudden death of a loved one, the end of a relationship, the loss of financial security or, watching a love one slowly lose their physical and/or mental abilities are unpleasant and painful.
These are the changes that can make a person of faith question all that they believe. Of course, many people of faith do not want to admit that they ever have questions. In fact, one of my mother's favorite sayings is "you should never question God". So naturally most of life I felt guilty because I questioned everything, especially God.
Over the years, I have accepted that it is my nature to try to seek reason, meaning and purpose in life and in change. And this how I make peace with change.
plk
Joy in the Journey: Being Content in Your Circumstances
by John Paul JacksonMuch is changing in the Body of Christ right now. I am sure that all of you have felt the strains, twists and tears of these changes.
It is very much a birthing process: There is pain, confusion, effort, frustration. We are feeling the agony; many of us are experiencing great uncertainty as we prepare for huge life changes. Once we leave the womb and are born into this new season, we cannot return to the old season, no matter how warm and welcoming we remember it being. What was safe before is not safe now. Depending on our circumstances and our approaching level of change, we can be terrified. At the very least, we can be horrifically overwhelmed.
In this process, if we are not anchored to God and what He’s told us, we could be swept away by the torrent and lose faith that God is in control, that He is looking out for us.
The Importance of Living in Your Change
This is why it is important for us to truly embrace these changing times. It is here in transitional states, when we have no clue, no savings account and nothing to fall back on, that we grow in Him in leaps and bounds, more than we might have been able to grow in the past 10 years. As you’ve probably heard before, the night is the darkest just before the dawn. We usually learn more from 10 days of agony than 10 years of contentment.
So it is important to actually experience change. How does it feel? Why does it feel like that? For a moment, ignore the dark, and figure out what is actually good about the situation you’re in. Make a list. Write it down. Increase your faith and hold on, because change is coming, and if you do not lose your faith, you will emerge victorious and resplendent on the other side. When God changes His children and their life perceptions, He will always bring them promotion, financial increase, deeper relationships and/or an abiding peace that all is well in His hand.
Contentment in All Circumstances
Paul instructed us to be content in whatever circumstances we found ourselves in (Philippians 4:11–13). This isn’t restricted to just being peaceful when you’re broke or not complaining when you’re sick; it’s true of right now. When was the last time you took a moment to realize your happiness? If you cannot find one thing to be happy about in your life right now, I’d venture to say that the problem’s with you and not because your circumstances are so dire.
If we get caught up in always looking forward to what’s coming, we’ll see a lot of the skyline but miss the many miracles and beautiful things that are happening in our lives right now. Life truly is beautiful, even in the dark.
At the end of my life, I’d like to be able to look back and say that I’ve loved this journey. That it was worth it. That I remember the details, the little nooks and crannies that made it an adventure. That I remember what it smelled like, tasted like, felt like and how it handled. This is what it means to be content in your circumstances.
We normally don’t realize how much we’re missing until we’ve successfully navigated our change. All of a sudden, the change has happened; it’s over, and we’re left with the difference. I don’t know about you, but I want to be left with satisfaction, too. I want to be left with the details and the reasons and the overwhelming awareness of God’s hand in the small things. I want to know His presence in the whispers and His laughter in the midst of the storms. This is what happens when we embrace change and don’t just try to survive it.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Petition to Have Criminal Charges Brought Against FEMA For Toxic Trailer Cover-up
After reading the following article please consider signing the petition asking the Committee on Oversight & Government Reform to recommend that criminal charges be brought against FEMA executives.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/fema-executives-should-face-criminal-charges-for-distributing-toxic-trailers
an excerpt from
Grilling FEMA Over Its Toxic Trailers -- TIME
If you think FEMA should face criminal charges take action:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/fema-executives-should-face-criminal-charges-for-distributing-toxic-trailers
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/fema-executives-should-face-criminal-charges-for-distributing-toxic-trailers
an excerpt from
Grilling FEMA Over Its Toxic Trailers -- TIME
Grilling FEMA Over Its Toxic Trailers
By Gilbert Cruz/Washington
The bloody noses started almost immediately. Paul Stewart, a former police officer and first lieutenant in the U.S. Army, completely lost his home when Hurricane Katrina made landfall in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. That December, the Federal Emergency and Management Agency (FEMA) gave Stewart and his wife a trailer to live in. The first night they slept in it, she woke up with blood coming out of her nose. Then he started developing troubling respiratory symptoms — burning eyes, coughing, a constantly scratchy throat. One morning, they awoke to find CiCi, their pet cockatiel, half-dead. All the symptoms pointed to formaldehyde poisoning.
Before too long, it became clear that those symptoms also pointed to yet more evidence of FEMA incompetence in dealing with the aftermath of the devastating storm. In fact, if anyone thought that FEMA's reputation for its handling of Katrina couldn't get any worse, they only had to listen to Stewart and others testify at Thursday's hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Dozens of pages of internal FEMA e-mails released by the committee revealed the agency's deliberate ignorance of field staff who were concerned about formaldehyde gas being emitted in trailers housing displaced residents. The documents revealed an agency that seemed more concerned with preventing potential lawsuits than with the health of those living in their mobile homes. "Recently discovered documents make it appear FEMA's primary concerns were legal liability and public relations, not human health and safety," said Virginia Rep. Tom Davis, a Republican. FEMA administrator R. David Paulison, who received stern questioning from both sides of the aisle, admitted that, "in hindsight, we could have moved faster to address [concerns]."
Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FEMA doled out over 120,000 mobile homes to residents of the Gulf Coast. Many of those trailers have walls and cabinets made up of particleboard, which contains formaldehyde that can sometimes emit gas in hot, humid weather such as that found in Louisiana and Mississippi. The effect on humans (especially children) range from "burning sensations in the eyes, nose, and throat; nausea; coughing; chest tightness; wheezing; skin rashes and allergic reactions." As early as March 2006, FEMA began to receive complaints about formaldehyde odors. After one trailer was tested, an April 2006 e-mail sent from a FEMA attorney to another staffer concluded, "The end result — well above OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standards... Tester himself developed eye-watering symptoms of exposure." Yet, in response to complaints, FEMA's legal department advised that testing "would imply FEMA's ownership of the issue." Another read, "Do not initiate any testing until we give the OK... Should [tests] indicate some problem, the clock is running on our duty to respond to them."
Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat and committee chair, referred to FEMA's attitude as "sickening" and further said, "The nearly 5,000 pages of documents we've reviewed expose an official policy of premeditated ignorance." He also criticized the testing standards that FEMA and the Environmental Protection Agency used before they eventually came to the incorrect conclusion, as Paulison stated in May 2007, that "the formaldehyde does not present a health hazard." Trailers were left with windows ajar, air conditioning on and all vents open for days before interior air levels were tested for the gas — conditions that did not nearly approximate actual living conditions. It was only almost a year and a half after the first complaint — and with the looming prospect of a congressional hearing — that FEMA decided to act. Just yesterday, the agency announced that it was teaming up with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct testing of the air quality in its trailers.
Read the entire article at:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1645312,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
* * * * *
To read transcripts of testimonies before the Oversight Committee:
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1413
If you think FEMA should face criminal charges take action:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/fema-executives-should-face-criminal-charges-for-distributing-toxic-trailers
Two to Watch
Here are trailers from two movies to look for.
First Talk To Me starring Don Cheadle
The real-life story of Ralph Waldo "Petey" Greene an outspoken radio personality in the 1960s.
Alternet blogger David Corn writes an excellent review of this movie in his post, " Talk to Me': A Political Movie that Lacks Politics". Even though this movie is not as political as the real Petey Greene you still get the point
and if you appreciated An Inconvenient Truth you'll want to see
The 11th Hour a documentary produced and narrated by Leonardo DiCaprio.
The film explores how we've arrived at this moment -- how we live, how we impact the earth's ecosystems, and what we can do to change our course. Featuring ongoing dialogues of experts from all over the world, including former Soviet Prime Minister Mikhail Gorbachev, renowned scientist Stephen Hawking, former head of the CIA R. James Woolsey and sustainable design experts William McDonough and Bruce Mau in addition to over 50 leading scientists, thinkers and leaders who discuss the most important issues that face our planet and people.
First Talk To Me starring Don Cheadle
The real-life story of Ralph Waldo "Petey" Greene an outspoken radio personality in the 1960s.
Alternet blogger David Corn writes an excellent review of this movie in his post, " Talk to Me': A Political Movie that Lacks Politics". Even though this movie is not as political as the real Petey Greene you still get the point
and if you appreciated An Inconvenient Truth you'll want to see
The 11th Hour a documentary produced and narrated by Leonardo DiCaprio.
The film explores how we've arrived at this moment -- how we live, how we impact the earth's ecosystems, and what we can do to change our course. Featuring ongoing dialogues of experts from all over the world, including former Soviet Prime Minister Mikhail Gorbachev, renowned scientist Stephen Hawking, former head of the CIA R. James Woolsey and sustainable design experts William McDonough and Bruce Mau in addition to over 50 leading scientists, thinkers and leaders who discuss the most important issues that face our planet and people.
Search for A Scapegoat
Keith Olbermann anchor of MSNBC's 'Countdown' address George W. Bush's on-going search to cast the blame anywhere except where it rests.
A Change in The Public Discourse on Poverty
In her article Poverty Focus May Not Pay Off Politically Liz Halloran points out, " Nearly two years ago, as a shocked nation watched impoverished residents of New Orleans beg for help in Hurricane Katrina's wake, there were stirrings about the need for a new war on poverty ". However for many years prior to that John Edwards and Barak Obama were well acquainted with and speaking out on the growing economic divide in America. In fact, John Edwards tried to raise awareness of what he called "two Americas" during the 2004 US presidential campaign. At that time very few viewed the struggles of those in poverty as an important issue. There was still a prevailing attitude in America that blamed the poor for their own misfortune. Now that more and more of America's middle-class is slipping into the ranks of the "working poor" the issue of poverty is gaining attention but it is still not considered an important issue.
As Liz Halloran's article points out:
"The most recent statistics available from the U.S. Census Bureau show a steady creep in the nation's poverty rate--from 11.3 percent in 2000 to 12.6 percent in 2005. In 2000, 31.1 million Americans were living in poverty, according to the census. By 2005, that number had increased to 37 million. During that period, poor people living in suburbs began to outnumber those in urban areas, and poverty rates in metro areas in the Midwest and South climbed significantly, a recent Brookings Institution analysis showed."
While the President kept telling Americans that the economy was in great shape and the stock market was booming, the number of personal bankruptcies and home foreclosures exploded. There are discussions about the attack on the middle-class and increased discussion of poverty. Now the poor are not just in the inner cities and rural areas. They are also in the suburbs and the small towns of America's heartland. The poor are not just the faces broadcast from the New Orleans convention center, the homeless that we try to ignore on big city streets or, the faces seen in documentaries on Appalachia. The poor are often our neighbors, our friends or may be ourselves.
But do American's really care about those struggling in our society? If John Edwards' ranking in the political polls is any indication, not enough.
And if the time comes that much of today's middle-class has slipped into poverty, the tax payer base has declined, the housing market has slumped and when a nation of consumers can no longer afford to consume, what will we care about then?
plk
an excerpt from:
E. J. Dionne Jr. - Making The Poor Visible - washingtonpost.com
Read the entire article at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071901968.html
John Edwards may be running third in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, but he has already changed the national conversation on a crucial issue. Poverty is no longer a hidden subject in American politics.
Since the late 1980s, Democrats have been obsessed with the middle class for reasons of simple math: no middle-class votes, no electoral victories.
But focusing on the middle class is one thing. Keeping the poor in the political closet is another. Must appealing to the self-interest of the middle class preclude appealing to its conscience?
Democrats have lost enormous ground by allowing a myth to take hold that Lyndon Johnson's Great Society was a failure. "In the 1960s, we waged war on poverty, and poverty won" is one of the most powerful bits of rhetoric in the conservative arsenal.
Edwards took on this falsehood directly in his speech Wednesday in Prestonsburg, Ky., at the end of his tour of impoverished regions. "We accomplished a lot," he said of LBJ's time, "civil rights laws, Medicare and Medicaid, food stamps and Head Start and Title I aid for poor schools. The Great Society and other safety-net programs have cut the number of people living in poverty in half."
Edwards understands that unless the country is given hard evidence that government can succeed, it will never embrace government-led efforts at social reform.
Quietly, a new anti-poverty consensus -- reflected in the dueling speeches Edwards and Obama gave this week -- is being born.
It stresses personal and parental responsibility while also addressing economic changes that are promoting inequality. It seeks to deal with the growing isolation of the poor, the need for early intervention in the lives of poor children and the importance of increasing the economic rewards for what is now low-wage work. Mostly out of public view, anti-poverty scholars and activists have used their time in the political wilderness to figure out what actually works.
* * * * *
Restoring America's Promise -- a speech by John Edwards
Originally posted to Pam's Coffee Conversation on 8/15/2005
... In the following article John Edward reminds us of the importance of securing the future of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. While I am certainly not happy with the privatization strategies proposed by the current administration, I have not heard the Democrats bring a better proposal to the table. As regular readers of this blog know, I strongly advocate reforming the Social Security system in order to ensure that assistance is available to those in need for decades to come. Fiscal mismanagement and fraudulent abuses demand that the current Social Security system be overhauled. This should be a non-partisan issue for everyone man & woman of good conscience who cares about their neighbors in need. Ensuring the future of SS, Medicare & Medicaid will take strong leadership that honestly goes before the American public and asks each of us to make the necessary sacrifices for the good of our society.
August 10, 2005
John Edwards is a former senator from North Carolina and was John Kerry's vice presidential candidate in 2004. Visit Edwards' new website at www.oneamericacommittee.com .
Since its founding, America has been known as the land of opportunity, the place where, if you work hard and play by the rules, you can get ahead. Today, though, America is not living up to her great promise. Thirty-six million of our fellow citizens are living in poverty. Millions of men and women are working two or three jobs and still struggling to make ends meet. That's not right.
In a nation of our wealth, it is wrong for people who work hard to have to live on the margins. As Democrats, we believe that every person who wants to work should have the opportunity to go as far in life as he or she is able. We believe that every American has the right to affordable, quality health care and a secure retirement. President Lyndon Johnson created Medicare and Medicaid to ensure that health care wasn't just a luxury for the rich, and President Roosevelt created Social Security so that millions of seniors could do more than just get by. As Democrats, we have always fought for these rights and will continue to do so.
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the creation of Medicare and Medicaid and the 70th anniversary of the creation of Social Security. These programs have lifted millions of Americans out of poverty and kept millions more from falling into it.
Social Security is one of our nation's most successful domestic programs. Yet Republicans want to dismantle it as part of their radical agenda to help the wealthy at the expense of America's working families. This is unacceptable. Seniors should not be punished so the administration can help out its friends on Wall Street. Privatizing Social Security would be a major setback in the fight against poverty. We cannot and will not allow this to happen.
In the same vein, we must keep Medicare and Medicaid strong. These critical initiatives provide millions of seniors and low-income families with essential health services. Since Medicare was created in 1965, poverty among America's elderly has dropped dramatically. Today, Medicare provides health insurance to more than 40 million Americans, and Medicaid provides insurance to more than 50 million people, including more than one in four children. Given the enormous burden of today's health care costs, Medicare and Medicaid are vital tools in the fight against poverty.
When President Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law 40 years ago, he followed through on a commitment he made to help America's less fortunate. Johnson realized that America was not living up to its name as the land of opportunity. He declared a War on Poverty, calling on Congress and all Americans to work together to restore the great American promise.
Johnson made eradicating poverty a centerpiece of his agenda. That's the kind of leadership we need today from Washington, but sadly we are not seeing it. Today's Republican leaders promote policies that reward and protect wealth over work. The rich keep getting richer at the expense of working families. And to make matters worse, we are continually fighting Republican efforts to dismantle programs that do so much to alleviate poverty, like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
Decades later, we must continue Johnson's war on poverty. Too many Americans are struggling to get by. They're not asking for handouts. They want to work hard and make a decent living so their kids can have better opportunities than they did. They want to know that when they their kids are sick, they'll be able to take them to the doctor. They want to know that when they retire, they will not have to worry about choosing between food or medicine. Millions of Americans rely on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security for help. They work hard for America. And America needs to work for them. That is why it is so important we keep these programs fully funded and intact.
Poverty is all around us. It doesn't have to be that way, though. Instead of ignoring the problem, we can reach out to the people struggling with it. It is time America lives up to its title as the land of opportunity. It is time work is rewarded instead of wealth. Every American who works hard should be able to live comfortably, afford good health care and be able to enjoy retirement.
Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security have been instrumental in allowing millions to live the American dream. These programs show that when we are determined and focused on dealing with poverty, we are able to make a difference. Let us honor the legacies of these programs by continuing the fight against poverty. With the will and the resources, we can make a difference in the lives of millions of Americans.
--
A Change in The Public Discourse on Poverty
In her article Poverty Focus May Not Pay Off Politically Liz Halloran points out, " Nearly two years ago, as a shocked nation watched impoverished residents of New Orleans beg for help in Hurricane Katrina's wake, there were stirrings about the need for a new war on poverty ". However for many years prior to that John Edwards and Barak Obama were well acquainted with and speaking out on the growing economic divide in America. In fact, John Edwards tried to raise awareness of what he called "two Americas" during the 2004 US presidential campaign. At that time very few viewed the struggles of those in poverty as an important issue. There was still a prevailing attitude in America that blamed the poor for their own misfortune. Now that more and more of America's middle-class is slipping into the ranks of the "working poor" the issue of poverty is gaining attention but it is still not considered an important issue.
As Liz Halloran's article points out:
"The most recent statistics available from the U.S. Census Bureau show a steady creep in the nation's poverty rate--from 11.3 percent in 2000 to 12.6 percent in 2005. In 2000, 31.1 million Americans were living in poverty, according to the census. By 2005, that number had increased to 37 million. During that period, poor people living in suburbs began to outnumber those in urban areas, and poverty rates in metro areas in the Midwest and South climbed significantly, a recent Brookings Institution analysis showed."
While the President kept telling Americans that the economy was in great shape and the stock market was booming, the number of personal bankruptcies and home foreclosures exploded. There are discussions about the attack on the middle-class and increased discussion of poverty. Now the poor are not just in the inner cities and rural areas. They are also in the suburbs and the small towns of America's heartland. The poor are not just the faces broadcast from the New Orleans convention center, the homeless that we try to ignore on big city streets or, the faces seen in documentaries on Appalachia. The poor are often our neighbors, our friends or may be ourselves.
But do American's really care about those struggling in our society? If John Edwards' ranking in the political polls is any indication, not enough.
And if the time comes that much of today's middle-class has slipped into poverty, the tax payer base has declined, the housing market has slumped and when a nation of consumers can no longer afford to consume, what will we care about then?
plk
an excerpt from:
E. J. Dionne Jr. - Making The Poor Visible - washingtonpost.com
Read the entire article at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071901968.html
As Liz Halloran's article points out:
"The most recent statistics available from the U.S. Census Bureau show a steady creep in the nation's poverty rate--from 11.3 percent in 2000 to 12.6 percent in 2005. In 2000, 31.1 million Americans were living in poverty, according to the census. By 2005, that number had increased to 37 million. During that period, poor people living in suburbs began to outnumber those in urban areas, and poverty rates in metro areas in the Midwest and South climbed significantly, a recent Brookings Institution analysis showed."
While the President kept telling Americans that the economy was in great shape and the stock market was booming, the number of personal bankruptcies and home foreclosures exploded. There are discussions about the attack on the middle-class and increased discussion of poverty. Now the poor are not just in the inner cities and rural areas. They are also in the suburbs and the small towns of America's heartland. The poor are not just the faces broadcast from the New Orleans convention center, the homeless that we try to ignore on big city streets or, the faces seen in documentaries on Appalachia. The poor are often our neighbors, our friends or may be ourselves.
But do American's really care about those struggling in our society? If John Edwards' ranking in the political polls is any indication, not enough.
And if the time comes that much of today's middle-class has slipped into poverty, the tax payer base has declined, the housing market has slumped and when a nation of consumers can no longer afford to consume, what will we care about then?
plk
an excerpt from:
E. J. Dionne Jr. - Making The Poor Visible - washingtonpost.com
Read the entire article at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071901968.html
John Edwards may be running third in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, but he has already changed the national conversation on a crucial issue. Poverty is no longer a hidden subject in American politics.
Since the late 1980s, Democrats have been obsessed with the middle class for reasons of simple math: no middle-class votes, no electoral victories.
But focusing on the middle class is one thing. Keeping the poor in the political closet is another. Must appealing to the self-interest of the middle class preclude appealing to its conscience?
Democrats have lost enormous ground by allowing a myth to take hold that Lyndon Johnson's Great Society was a failure. "In the 1960s, we waged war on poverty, and poverty won" is one of the most powerful bits of rhetoric in the conservative arsenal.
Edwards took on this falsehood directly in his speech Wednesday in Prestonsburg, Ky., at the end of his tour of impoverished regions. "We accomplished a lot," he said of LBJ's time, "civil rights laws, Medicare and Medicaid, food stamps and Head Start and Title I aid for poor schools. The Great Society and other safety-net programs have cut the number of people living in poverty in half."
Edwards understands that unless the country is given hard evidence that government can succeed, it will never embrace government-led efforts at social reform.
Quietly, a new anti-poverty consensus -- reflected in the dueling speeches Edwards and Obama gave this week -- is being born.
It stresses personal and parental responsibility while also addressing economic changes that are promoting inequality. It seeks to deal with the growing isolation of the poor, the need for early intervention in the lives of poor children and the importance of increasing the economic rewards for what is now low-wage work. Mostly out of public view, anti-poverty scholars and activists have used their time in the political wilderness to figure out what actually works.
* * * * *
Restoring America's Promise -- a speech by John Edwards
Originally posted to Pam's Coffee Conversation on 8/15/2005
... In the following article John Edward reminds us of the importance of securing the future of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. While I am certainly not happy with the privatization strategies proposed by the current administration, I have not heard the Democrats bring a better proposal to the table. As regular readers of this blog know, I strongly advocate reforming the Social Security system in order to ensure that assistance is available to those in need for decades to come. Fiscal mismanagement and fraudulent abuses demand that the current Social Security system be overhauled. This should be a non-partisan issue for everyone man & woman of good conscience who cares about their neighbors in need. Ensuring the future of SS, Medicare & Medicaid will take strong leadership that honestly goes before the American public and asks each of us to make the necessary sacrifices for the good of our society.
August 10, 2005
John Edwards is a former senator from North Carolina and was John Kerry's vice presidential candidate in 2004. Visit Edwards' new website at www.oneamericacommittee.com .
Since its founding, America has been known as the land of opportunity, the place where, if you work hard and play by the rules, you can get ahead. Today, though, America is not living up to her great promise. Thirty-six million of our fellow citizens are living in poverty. Millions of men and women are working two or three jobs and still struggling to make ends meet. That's not right.
In a nation of our wealth, it is wrong for people who work hard to have to live on the margins. As Democrats, we believe that every person who wants to work should have the opportunity to go as far in life as he or she is able. We believe that every American has the right to affordable, quality health care and a secure retirement. President Lyndon Johnson created Medicare and Medicaid to ensure that health care wasn't just a luxury for the rich, and President Roosevelt created Social Security so that millions of seniors could do more than just get by. As Democrats, we have always fought for these rights and will continue to do so.
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the creation of Medicare and Medicaid and the 70th anniversary of the creation of Social Security. These programs have lifted millions of Americans out of poverty and kept millions more from falling into it.
Social Security is one of our nation's most successful domestic programs. Yet Republicans want to dismantle it as part of their radical agenda to help the wealthy at the expense of America's working families. This is unacceptable. Seniors should not be punished so the administration can help out its friends on Wall Street. Privatizing Social Security would be a major setback in the fight against poverty. We cannot and will not allow this to happen.
In the same vein, we must keep Medicare and Medicaid strong. These critical initiatives provide millions of seniors and low-income families with essential health services. Since Medicare was created in 1965, poverty among America's elderly has dropped dramatically. Today, Medicare provides health insurance to more than 40 million Americans, and Medicaid provides insurance to more than 50 million people, including more than one in four children. Given the enormous burden of today's health care costs, Medicare and Medicaid are vital tools in the fight against poverty.
When President Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law 40 years ago, he followed through on a commitment he made to help America's less fortunate. Johnson realized that America was not living up to its name as the land of opportunity. He declared a War on Poverty, calling on Congress and all Americans to work together to restore the great American promise.
Johnson made eradicating poverty a centerpiece of his agenda. That's the kind of leadership we need today from Washington, but sadly we are not seeing it. Today's Republican leaders promote policies that reward and protect wealth over work. The rich keep getting richer at the expense of working families. And to make matters worse, we are continually fighting Republican efforts to dismantle programs that do so much to alleviate poverty, like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
Decades later, we must continue Johnson's war on poverty. Too many Americans are struggling to get by. They're not asking for handouts. They want to work hard and make a decent living so their kids can have better opportunities than they did. They want to know that when they their kids are sick, they'll be able to take them to the doctor. They want to know that when they retire, they will not have to worry about choosing between food or medicine. Millions of Americans rely on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security for help. They work hard for America. And America needs to work for them. That is why it is so important we keep these programs fully funded and intact.
Poverty is all around us. It doesn't have to be that way, though. Instead of ignoring the problem, we can reach out to the people struggling with it. It is time America lives up to its title as the land of opportunity. It is time work is rewarded instead of wealth. Every American who works hard should be able to live comfortably, afford good health care and be able to enjoy retirement.
Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security have been instrumental in allowing millions to live the American dream. These programs show that when we are determined and focused on dealing with poverty, we are able to make a difference. Let us honor the legacies of these programs by continuing the fight against poverty. With the will and the resources, we can make a difference in the lives of millions of Americans.
--
Friday, July 20, 2007
The Politics of Food Safety
The recent US bans on some Chinese food products has brought the issue of food safety to the forefront. The following videos take a close look at the political issues involving food safety in the US. This is not just a China-US trade issue. Since we all live in a global community we all must ask ourselves just how much we know about the products that we are consuming.
This week Lou Dobbs has done several segments on the efforts by food lobbyists to weaken or do away with the "country of origin" food labeling law. He also clearly points out lax the US government has been in enforcing food safety laws.
Here is an excerpt from the July 18, 2007, Lou Dobb's Tonight broadcast transcript:
DOBBS: We have been reporting on this broadcast for years on the need for country-of-origin labels, enacted into law, in fact, more than four years ago, but never enforced.
President Bush today, well, created a government panel, high- level panel, to ensure the safety of food and other products coming into this country, the White House said. The administration denies this plan is aimed primarily at China, despite the recent series of dangerous imports from China.
The creation of this new panel comes as existing federal agencies are fighting cutbacks and doing very little to protect American consumers. The Food and Drug Administration is planning in fact to close seven of its 13 laboratories. You can see why we need a high- level panel to look into all of this.
And the Consumer Product Safety Commission has been without a permanent chairman for about a year. The appointment of this new panel comes at a time when we are all increasingly concerned about the safety of the food we eat and the products we are buying, the imports from all around the world.
A Consumers Union poll fact in fact shows 92 percent of Americans want to know where their food comes from. Now, there's a law on the books that calls for country-of-origin labeling of meats and other foods. But implementation has been delayed because of pressure from special interest groups, food industry lobbyists, and others.
We first reported on this issue almost four years ago. And, as Kitty Pilgrim now reports, the lobbyists, well, they are still trumping the public interest.
View a clip of the broadcast:
Thanks to friends at YouTube who are also watching this issue here are two other videos.
The following video is from the Center for Science in the Public Interest on the PBS Newshour.
Critical problems with food imports from China
and finally
from the Center for American Progress Associate Director for International Economic Policy Jonathan Jacoby joined CNBC to discuss US-Chinese trade relations and the growing role of China on the world stage. 5/14/07
For more on the US Trade Deficit please see: http://www.americanprogress.org/issue...
Ideas fuel progress The Center for American Progress http://www.americanprogress.org/
This week Lou Dobbs has done several segments on the efforts by food lobbyists to weaken or do away with the "country of origin" food labeling law. He also clearly points out lax the US government has been in enforcing food safety laws.
Here is an excerpt from the July 18, 2007, Lou Dobb's Tonight broadcast transcript:
* * * * *
DOBBS: We have been reporting on this broadcast for years on the need for country-of-origin labels, enacted into law, in fact, more than four years ago, but never enforced.
President Bush today, well, created a government panel, high- level panel, to ensure the safety of food and other products coming into this country, the White House said. The administration denies this plan is aimed primarily at China, despite the recent series of dangerous imports from China.
The creation of this new panel comes as existing federal agencies are fighting cutbacks and doing very little to protect American consumers. The Food and Drug Administration is planning in fact to close seven of its 13 laboratories. You can see why we need a high- level panel to look into all of this.
And the Consumer Product Safety Commission has been without a permanent chairman for about a year. The appointment of this new panel comes at a time when we are all increasingly concerned about the safety of the food we eat and the products we are buying, the imports from all around the world.
A Consumers Union poll fact in fact shows 92 percent of Americans want to know where their food comes from. Now, there's a law on the books that calls for country-of-origin labeling of meats and other foods. But implementation has been delayed because of pressure from special interest groups, food industry lobbyists, and others.
We first reported on this issue almost four years ago. And, as Kitty Pilgrim now reports, the lobbyists, well, they are still trumping the public interest.
* * * *
Read the full transcript of the broadcast at:
View a clip of the broadcast:
Thanks to friends at YouTube who are also watching this issue here are two other videos.
The following video is from the Center for Science in the Public Interest on the PBS Newshour.
Critical problems with food imports from China
and finally
from the Center for American Progress Associate Director for International Economic Policy Jonathan Jacoby joined CNBC to discuss US-Chinese trade relations and the growing role of China on the world stage. 5/14/07
For more on the US Trade Deficit please see: http://www.americanprogress.org/issue...
Ideas fuel progress The Center for American Progress http://www.americanprogress.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)