|
Profile
Letters
Web Tools
Order Form
 |
|
On this page I share events that are happening to
lives in this world. The intention is to enhance awareness and bring
discomfort to promote a willingness in you to step out and make a
difference, no matter how small or large. It is critical to get
information so that informed decisions can be made. Then it is imperative
to take some form of action to bring about change. It is a citizen's duty
to do so.
|
Refugees find
"hell down under"
by
Heather Tyler, Middle East Times
(December 28, 2001) If he
was handcuffed to an armed guard, Iraqi doctor Aamer Sultan might have
been permitted to receive his human rights award in Sydney, Australia.
But on the day he was awarded the Human Rights Equal Opportunities
Australia Highly Commended certificate, Dr. Sultan remained imprisoned
behind multiple barbed wire fences in the bleak detention center of
Villawood, tucked away behind an industrial estate on the outskirts of
Australia's largest city.
Sultan has languished in
detention for the past two and a half years while his applications for
asylum have been repeatedly rejected. The Federal Court's decision to
reject his latest appeal borders on the Kafkaesque.
He is a passionately angry
man, now despairing of the Australian detention and immigration system
that he says has robbed him of hope, self-confidence, dignity and
self-respect.
Gruesome conditions
The crisis situations in
detention centers all around Australia are similar. Riots may be
quelled by water cannons, living conditions are reported to be squalid
and cramped, inmates attempt suicide, and boredom and despair are
rife.
Any inmate, man or woman,
who has even to visit a dentist outside the Villawood detention center
must be handcuffed like a criminal.
The desperate have sewed
their own lips together with needles and cotton thread in hunger
strikes. Children witness these scenes.
Sultan says many detainees
are already traumatized by torture and persecution in their country of
origin. In detention, the stifling routine, lack of privacy, and harsh
treatment by guards, exacerbates their suffering.
Detainees are subjected to
many daily musters and nightly head counts, disturbing their sleep. He
says he is permanently changed by his experience. There has been too
much time for self-analysis, not enough opportunity to make life
meaningful.
"The violation is so great,
you break and change. Right from the beginning they shout at you,
handcuff you, call you a liar," Sultan says bitterly.
"Finally, it seems Australia
does not want Mideast refugees, either by legal arrival or illegal
means. All methods of valid arrival are blocked, which forces people
to consult people smugglers. The total number of people trying to
reach protection in Australia... is not an invasion of millions.
"But it is the government
which has forced people to take these desperate means of illegal
arrival. The government is highly skilful in manipulating officials to
falsify documents and paperwork of arrivals to keep the status quo
[i.e. the same number of people to be accepted, currently 12,000 a
year].
"The only aim of the
government is to keep asylum seekers alive. Nothing more matters. The
authorities don't like death statistics. Because the detention system
is run on private enterprise lines, deaths make it unprofitable. So
they take the bottom line and keep people alive, but that is all. They
don't care about the methods or ethics or quality of life."
Story continued
|
|
WTC
Victims Don't Need More Charity
Geov
Parrish,
WorkingForChange.com
October 30, 2001
Somebody's got to say it, because a lot of people are thinking it but
few are willing to appear heartless or uncompassionate or crass by
putting it in words. So call me cruel, but here goes:
The
amount of money pouring in to the survivors and families of the
victims of last month's World Trade Center attack is obscene. They
don't need any more.
It's
obscene because while this outpouring of generosity and compassion
appears to know no limits, many of the people directly affected by the
events of September 11 are getting no help at all. And doubly obscene
because while this has happened, donations that would be put to
immediate use for the needy and desperate around the country -- food
banks, shelters, kids' programs -- have slowed to a trickle as donors
focus on New York.
While a
number of politicians and commentators have properly been awestruck by
our country's compassion, and the level of generosity that is possible
when the wealth of this country is focused on a crisis, that
generosity hasn't been spread evenly. This was apparent even in the
first 24 to 48 hours, as food poured in from around the country, far
more food than the citizens of Manhattan could eat. Or, as it turned
out, distribute: a friend of mine who helps run a food bank in
Brooklyn tells of having nothing to serve her clients, while only a
few miles away, literal mountains of donated food were wasting away in
lower Manhattan.
Similarly, the money that has come in has been unevenly distributed.
Families of dead firefighters and police officers have been
compensated for their tragedy to a stunning level; each are now
millionaires several times over, recipients of generosity from the
federal government, state and local governments, private donors, and,
of course, whatever existing insurance policies also kicked in. Not to
minimize either the tragedy or these peoples' heroism, but after all,
they were only doing their jobs; it was only the circumstances that
were remarkable. Meanwhile, small business owners in lower Manhattan,
even those whose businesses were ruined, haven't been nearly so lucky.
Even less noticed have been the residents of the area, who in some
cases are now homeless in the worst housing market in the country.
And
that's just among the victims. The bigger issue, in New York and
around the country, is that those services and people already
dependent on peoples' generosity before September 11 have, with winter
coming on, been left out in the cold. I know a number of nonprofits
here in Seattle and around the country who are saying that in the last
six weeks, their normal level of donations has fallen off by half or
more. They are struggling to retain staff and keep their services
going. And the cruelest irony is that the economic blow delivered by
September 11's attacks, placed on top of an already struggling
economy, has caused and will continue to cause the demand for those
services to rise. And the economic decisions being made by Congress
further ensure that after the coming budget cuts, there won't be much
help coming from what's left of the government's safety net. These are
the folks we'll be relying upon.
Story
continued
|
|
The Chemical Threat to Kids
Jennifer
Bogo,
E Magazine
October 3, 2001
We've all
seen it: a mother crouched on the floor, arms outstretched, cooing to
her baby as he lopsidedly plops first one hand, then the other, on the
carpet, dragging his chubby knees behind him. His short journey
complete, he rolls onto his well-padded bottom and proudly explores
the inside of his mouth with his fingers in an endearing show of
gurgles and drool.
Now look
a little closer -- not at the baby, but at the carpet. Clinging to the
fibers could be any of the 75,000 synthetic chemicals developed and
released into the environment since World War II. Fewer than half have
been tested for potential toxicity to human beings, fewer still for
children. And that child just put any number of them into his mouth.
This
scenario doesn't even include the particulates floating through the
atmosphere, narrowing his small airways, or the peaches he was just
fed, which contain residues of an organophosphate pesticide. Add in
more details -- his mother working in a dry cleaner during her
pregnancy, his dad failing to kick that smoking habit -- and a truly
alarming picture can emerge.
Stacked Odds
Over
time, the nature of childhood illness has evolved from epidemics like
scarlet fever, smallpox and measles to chronic and disabling
conditions like cancer, asthma, neurological impairment and hormone
disorders. Though genetic predisposition certainly plays its part,
Kenneth Olden, director of the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences, likens the gene code's influence over illness to
merely loading the health risk gun. "The environment," he says, "pulls
the trigger."
Environmental causes have been implicated in ailments from autism and
attention deficit disorder to violent behavior, prompting widespread
alarm among parents and activist groups and an unprecedented flood of
research from the scientific community. "The more we learn about
chemicals," says Dr. Gina Solomon, assistant clinical professor of
medicine at the University of California-San Francisco, "the more we
learn that very, very early in life is the most susceptible period."
Story
continued
|
White Poison: The Horrors of
Milk
Shanti
Rangwani,
ColorLines
December 3, 2001
Got
milk? If not, then thank your lucky stars. Because if you do,
medical research shows that you are likely to be plagued by
anemia, migraine, bloating, gas, indigestion, asthma, prostate
cancer, and a host of potentially fatal allergies -- especially if
you are a person of color.
Ignoring this, the government declares that milk is essential to
good health, subsidizes the milk industry to the tune of billions
of dollars, and requires milk in its public school lunch programs.
And celebrity shills sporting milk mustaches tell us that milk is
rich in proteins, calcium, and vitamins -- and very cool to boot.
They
forget to tell you about the dangers lurking in that
innocuous-looking glass of white. Once criticized only by
naturopaths and vegans, now the health effects of milk are being
decried by many mainstream doctors. The supposedly hip milk
mustache is actually a creamy layer of mucus, live bacteria, and
pus.
Former Chairman of Pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Frank
Oski, M.D. even has a book called Don't Drink Your Milk which
blames every second health problem kids suffer on hormone-ridden
commercial milk. Sixty percent of ear infections in kids under six
years of age are milk-induced, and milk consumption is the number
one cause of iron-deficiency anemia in infants today according to
the American Association of Pediatrics.
Story
continued
|
|
The United States and Middle East:
Why Do "They" Hate Us?
(revised, 12 Dec. 2001)
By Stephen R. Shalom
The list below presents some
specific incidents of U.S. policy in the Middle East. The list
minimizes the grievances against the United States in the region
because it excludes more generalized long‑standing policies,
such as U.S. backing for authoritarian regimes (arming Saudi
Arabia, training the secret police in Iran under the Shah,
providing arms and aid to Turkey as it ruthlessly attacked
Kurdish villages, etc.). The list also excludes many actions of
Israel in which the United States is indirectly implicated
because of its military, diplomatic, and economic backing for
Israel.
Whether any of these grievances
actually motivated those who organized the horrific and utterly
unjustified attacks of September 11 is unknown. But the
grievances surely helped to create the environment which breeds
anti-American terrorism.
1947-48: U.S. backs Palestine
partition plan. Israel established. U.S. declines to press Israel
to allow expelled Palestinians to return.
1949: CIA backs military coup
deposing elected government of Syria.1
1953: CIA helps overthrow the
democratically‑elected Mossadeq government in Iran (which had
nationalized the British oil company) leading to a quarter‑century
of repressive and dictatorial rule by the Shah, Mohammed Reza
Pahlevi.
1956: U.S. cuts off promised funding
for Aswan Dam in Egypt after Egypt receives Eastern bloc arms.
1956: Israel, Britain, and France
invade Egypt. U.S. does not support invasion, but the involvement
of its NATO allies severely diminishes Washington's reputation in
the region.
1958: U.S. troops land in Lebanon to
preserve "stability".early
1960s: U.S. unsuccessfully attempts assassination of Iraqi leader,
Abdul Karim Qassim.2
1963: U.S. supports coup by
Iraqi Ba'ath party (soon to be headed by Saddam Hussein) and
reportedly gives them names of communists to murder, which they do
with vigor.3
1967‑: U.S. blocks any effort in the
Security Council to enforce SC Resolution 242, calling for Israeli
withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1967 war.
1970: Civil war between Jordan and
PLO. Israel and U.S. discuss intervening on side of Jordan if
Syria backs PLO.
1972: U.S. blocks Egyptian leader
Anwar Sadat's efforts to reach a peace agreement with Israel.
1973: Airlifted U.S. military aid
enables Israel to turn the tide in war with Syria and Egypt.
1973‑75: U.S. supports Kurdish
rebels in Iraq. When Iran reaches an agreement with Iraq in 1975
and seals the border, Iraq slaughters Kurds and U.S. denies them
refuge. Kissinger secretly explains that "covert action should not
be confused with missionary work."4
1975: U.S. vetoes Security
Council resolution condemning Israeli attacks on Palestinian
refugee camps in Lebanon.5
1978‑79: Iranians begin
demonstrations against the Shah. U.S. tells Shah it supports him
"without reservation" and urges him to act forcefully. Until the
last minute, U.S. tries to organize military coup to save the
Shah, but to no avail.6
1979‑88: U.S. begins covert aid to
Mujahideen in Afghanistan six months before Soviet invasion in
Dec. 1979.7 Over the next decade U.S. provides training
and more than $3 billion in arms and aid.
1980‑88: Iran‑Iraq war. When Iraq
invades Iran, the U.S. opposes any Security Council action to
condemn the invasion. U.S. soon removes Iraq from its list of
nations supporting terrorism and allows U.S. arms to be
transferred to Iraq. At the same time, U.S. lets Israel provide
arms to Iran and in 1985 U.S. provides arms directly (though
secretly) to Iran. U.S. provides intelligence information to Iraq.
Iraq uses chemical weapons in 1984; U.S. restores diplomatic
relations with Iraq. 1987 U.S. sends its navy into the Persian
Gulf, taking Iraq's side; an overly‑aggressive U.S. ship shoots
down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290.
1981, 1986: U.S. holds military
maneuvers off the coast of Libya in waters claimed by Libya with
the clear purpose of provoking Qaddafi. In 1981, a Libyan plane
fires a missile and U.S. shoots down two Libyan planes. In 1986,
Libya fires missiles that land far from any target and U.S.
attacks Libyan patrol boats, killing 72, and shore installations.
When a bomb goes off in a Berlin nightclub, killing three, the
U.S. charges that Qaddafi was behind it (possibly true) and
conducts major bombing raids in Libya, killing dozens of
civilians, including Qaddafi's adopted daughter.8
Story continued
|
|
Homeland Security, Homeland Profits
By Wayne Madsen
Special to
CorpWatch
December 21, 2001
|
|
|
|
WASHINGTON, DC -- Recent moves to beef up intelligence
gathering in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks
have civil libertarians concerned that law enforcement
agencies will entangle many law abiding citizens and social
justice groups in their surveillance missions. Intelligence
networks are setting their sights on the Internet, which up to
now has had no clear privacy guidelines. Under the provisions
of the inaptly named anti-terrorism act, "USA-PATRIOT," the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), National Security
Agency (NSA), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and a number
of other smaller law enforcement agencies are looking for ways
to monitor the Internet and mine useful intelligence from it.
And new technology makes it easier than ever to spy on the
Internet.
Although law enforcement and intelligence agencies claim they
are merely looking for information to counter future acts of
terrorism, the definition of "terrorism" is being expanded to
cover non-violent groups that have traditionally used the
Internet to marshal resistance to corporate-inspired
globalization. Politicians are already painting dissent as
"unpatriotic" and therefore somehow linked to terrorism.
Meanwhile, a phalanx of software companies, consultants, and
defense contractors stand to reap billions of dollars over the
next few years by selling surveillance and
information-gathering systems to government agencies and the
private sector.
Story continued |
|
|
Arms Around
the World
It
was the early 1990s and then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton
was on the campaign trail making promises: "I expect to review our
arms sales policy and to take it up with the other major arms
sellers of the world as a part of a long-term effort to reduce the
proliferation of weapons."
Ah,
campaign promises. But the economy was in the doldrums, and the
prospect of cutting arms sales -- sugar daddy to one of the
nation's largest industries -- didn't thrill either labor or
corporate America. What's more, the Gulf War had just ended the
previous year, and it was the best extended commercial an arms
salesman could ask for. (Indeed, some arms manufacturers
incorporated bombing videos into their promotional materials.)
Countries were clamoring for the high-tech weapons that made for
such good TV.
So,
once elected, Bill Clinton did what he does best: He took
advantage of the opportunity. Rather than insert human-rights
concerns into the arms-sales equation, as did his Democratic
predecessor President Carter, Clinton decided to aggressively
continue the sales policies of President Bush, himself no slouch
when it came to selling U.S. arms.
Story
continued
10 Worst
Corporations Of 2001 Named By Multinational Monitor
Magazine
|
|
WASHINGTON -
December 31 - Abbott Laboratories, Argenbright, Bayer,
Coke, Enron, Exxon Mobil, Philip Morris, Sara lee,
Southern Co. and Wal-Mart have been named the 10 worst
corporations of 2001, in Multinational Monitor magazine's
annual listing.
"These behemoths
have ripped off the public, polluted the environment,
abused their workers and debased our culture," said Robert
Weissman, editor of Multinational Monitor. "They appear in
our lives everyday, disguised as 'respectable members of
the community.' They deserve public opprobrium, and, in
many cases, government sanction."
Multinational
Monitor is a Washington, D.C.-based monthly magazine that
tracks the activities of multinational corporations. It
was founded by Ralph Nader.
Abbott
Laboratories made the 10 worst list for its TAP
Pharmaceuticals, a joint venture with Japanese Takeda
Pharmaceuticals. TAP was forced to pay $875 million to
resolve criminal charges and civil liability in connection
with allegations of major Medicare reimbursement
fraud. |
Story continued
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
