January 14, 2013

Foreclosed Homeowners Re-Occupy Their Homes

San Francisco – Carolyn Gage was evicted from her foreclosed home in January. Earlier this month, she moved back in.

“I’ve been in here for 50 years. I know no other place but here. I left and it was just time for me to come back home,” said Gage, who is in her mid-50s.

Gage’s monthly payments spiked after her adjustable rate mortgage kicked in, and she could no longer afford the payments on her three-bedroom house in the city’s Bayview Hunters Point district. She says she tried to modify her loan with her lender, Florida-based IB Properties, but to no avail.

When Gage initially left about 10 months ago, she took some personal items with her, but left most of the furniture and continued paying for some utilities.

“It didn’t feel right for me to move. I just left my things because I knew I was going to return to them eventually,” she said.

She had to re-activate a few utilities when she returned, like the water, but found the process fairly easy.

Walking back into the house was an emotional moment for Gage, but a joyous one.

“I was like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz; there’s no place like home,” Gage said. “It’s a family home; I plan to stay there.”

Gage was one of about two dozen homeowners who gathered Tuesday for a community potluck on Quesada Avenue for residents facing foreclosure and are refusing to leave their homes.

Homeowners expressed outrage at the way predatory lenders have targeted their community.

Residents of the Bayview are starting to see how the African-American community was especially victimized in the foreclosure crisis.

Gage believes that single women and elders in the black community were targeted for predatory loans. At the peak of the housing boom she was solicited for an adjustable rate loan to do some home improvements, even though she told the loan agent that she was on disability and did not have a steady income.

According to a report released last week by the Center for Responsible Lending, African Americans and Latinos were consistently more likely than whites to receive high-risk loan products. About a quarter of all Latino and African-American borrowers have lost their homes to foreclosure or are seriously delinquent, compared to under 12 percent for white borrowers.

Bayview residents Reverend Archbishop Franz King and Reverend Mother Marina King, who are founders of the St. John Coltrane African Orthodox Church, are also facing foreclosure. Their eviction date is set for Dec. 22.

King expressed deep anger and sorrow at the situation facing the black community in the Bayview.

“First redevelopment moved us out of the Fillmore and now we’re losing our properties too? It’s like there’s nowhere for us to go,” he said.

Grace Martinez, an organizer with Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) who helped to arrange the event, commented that banks have become increasingly hostile to their efforts. “They call the police on us; they laugh at us.”

Vivian Richardson, a homeowner on Quesada Avenue whose house was also foreclosed on, also has no intention of leaving. Her current eviction date is set for Dec. 31, but she, like many of her neighbors, is asking her lender to reduce the principal on her loan in order to make the monthly payments more affordable.

Richardson has been attempting to modify her home loan for the past two years. Earlier this month, tired of the lack of communication from the lender, Aurora Loan Services based in Delaware, she worked with ACCE to coordinate an e-mail blast to Aurora’s chairman.

On Nov. 3, over the span of one to two hours, approximately 1,400 emails were sent and more than 100 phone calls made, imploring Chairman Theodore P. Janulis to stop Richardson’s eviction. A spokesperson from the bank called her an hour after the blast and asked her to send an updated set of financial information so that they could review her case.

Two weeks have passed and she has yet to hear anything further. The bank spokesperson commented that Richardson’s case is still being reviewed internally and they hope to get back to her by the end of next week.

However, Richardson has lived in her house for 13 years and plans to stay regardless of the bank’s decision.

“I will defend the home,” she said.

On Dec. 6, there will be a national day of action, “Occupy Our Homes,” where people across the country facing predicaments similar to Gage and Richardson may follow their lead.

Partly inspired by the Occupy movement, the day of action is supported by various community organizations like Take Back the Land and ACCE. The call to action is for people to move back into their foreclosed properties and to defend the properties of families facing eviction.

Martinez commented on the growing anger people are feeling. “The idea is, ‘I want what’s mine.’” She said many homeowners had trusted the banks and ultimately, “People were buying into a lie.”

Source: https://www.truth-out.org/foreclosed-homeowners-re-occupy-their-homes/1322246348

China’s Black Market Boosts Deadly Ivory Trade

By Chinanews.com

PLEASE SIGN AND SHARE PETITION AGAINST IVORY POACHING: https://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/774/846/056/

Elephant tusks are highly sought after for use in Chinese sculpture, name seals andjewelry, and according to a survey conducted by the Convention on International Tradein Endangered Species (CITES), rising demand in China’s black market has becomethe most powerful drive for the illegal international ivory trade.

This year China surpassed Japan as the top consumer market for illegal ivory productsin the world, and over half of the country’s enterprises engaged in the processing andsales of certified elephant tusks have their fingers in the pie, reported SouthernWeekend.

Since 2008, when China was approved as a buyer of government-owned ivory fromSouth Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe, ivory laundering has become an openindustry secret.

Ivory laundering

The Elephant Trade Monitoring System (ETIS), which tracks global ivory and elephantproduct confiscations for CITES, shows a trend in the illegal trade of ivory that hasbeen growing since 1998 as a direct result of emerging demand in China.

An insider revealed that 100 kilograms of elephant tusks is only enough for two monthsof work by two skilled ivory carvers, so it is easy to calculate the general amount of rawelephant tusks that a factory uses by its number of carvers.

Theoretically, the legal amount of elephant tusks is only 62 tons till 2017, but in thepast seven years the number of ivory carving factories has increased from 9 to 36, andivory product sales offices have grown from 31 to 137.

So where do the other tusks come from? The answer is smuggling, mostly from Africa.Moreover, in the local unregulated ivory market, the majority of the buyers areforeigners.

According to the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), the year 2009 saw a recordnumber of seizures of illegal ivory being smuggled into East Asia, a trend that hascontinued over the past two years.

When some of it enters China, it usually has to be laundered. The process is simple: each certificate for legal ivory product is printed with a picture and a number, but doesnot contain information about its weight, which creates a loophole.

Suppose an enterprise only has 50 kilograms of legal elephant tusks for the year,which can be used to make 10 large ivory products and some small ones. The company may still make the same number of ivory products, but will mix in illegallysourced elephant tusks. In this way, the illegal sources become laundered and”certified.”

This approach has been condemned by many officials and animal activists who say itwill lead to further increases in demand, which results in the poaching of thousands ofelephants each year. In their opinion, a complete ban is the only way to the stop killingof innocent wildlife and end the deadly ivory trade for good.

 

Source: https://english.peopledaily.com.cn/102774/7675836.html

Lieberman Says U.S. Needs Chinese Style Internet Kill Switch

Bullying in the Workplace - Case Study

By Helene Richards and Sheila Freeman.

These stories come from real people in real pain. You may be shocked at what goes in in some workplaces, perhaps even in your own. Or if you have been a victim yourself you will acknowledge and identify with these stories.

Workplace Bullying Case Studies

“When I started there, I was told that someone had been acting in the position and had expected to get the job. This person continually undermined me and turned other staff against me. I endured twelve months of hell, and felt as if I was sinking in quicksand.” (Mavis)

“I went on stress leave but the thought of returning filled me with such dread that I never went back.” (Ian)

“You always find reasons, excuses for it. It’s the old clichéd question of why anyone puts up with violence: you always think you can change him, you always feel it’s your fault, if you don’t provoke him, everything’s fine…” (Sandra)

“The misery took over my whole life. I turned nasty and bitter, and treated my wife and kids like whipping posts. After many visits to a psychologist, I was able to think of all the positive things in my life, you know, the family, my age and experience in relation to future job prospects … lots of things that put the situation into perspective. Now I look back and think, well, I wouldn’t want to go through that experience again, but in the end it was just a job I lost.” (Michael)

“I had lost my identity and self-esteem, and there was a lot of unresolved anger that I had to let go of before I could channel my energies into the future.” (John)

“I practically turned myself inside out to gain his approval but went nowhere in the company. He ignored my input at meetings, sneered and talked through my presentations. Friends in the business passed on quite vicious rumours about me. I know he started them, but have no proof. At my annual appraisal, all he said was, ‘I suggest that you look for another job.’” (Simone)

“He was out to get her. He started a campaign of whispers and innuendo. At meetings he always made her seem inefficient or unreasonable, hinted that hormones made her behave irrationally, that she was hysterical, menopausal. Little things, all done so carefully that it wasn’t easy to say he was behind it. But he was.” (Robyn)

“I felt as if I was in a long, dark tunnel.” (Sue)

“I wanted to go to sleep and not wake up.” (Marita)

“I had a physical and mental breakdown – a persistent skin rash, absolutely no energy. Everything was grey. There was no colour or joy in my life. I could barely raise a smile. I lost hope for the future. My wife left me.” (Henry)

“I was most hurt by the malice and vindictiveness shown by my colleagues.” (Margaret)

“I am experiencing emotional abuse from my male manager. He is a control freak, must have everything his way and he is a very domineering personality. He likes to be in control of everything and I am nervous around him.” (Paula)

“When I reported her behaviour to our supervisor, I was told I was being over-sensitive. He also suggested I should just “stay in my office”. I began to believe it was my fault. I started having panic attacks and thought I was going crazy. Eventually I had to leave, and haven’t worked since. I will never be the same happy, confident person I was before she bullied me.” (Carla)

Tracy’s Story

“I am a 43-year-old primary school teacher in Australia and my life was turned upside down when I transferred to a remote country school some seven years ago. I have been teaching for over twelve years, worked for many private companies, and have always received glowing references. While at University, I received many letters from the Dean congratulating me on my performance and eventually topped my final year. I had never been bullied in the workplace so I had no idea what was going on until I became so ill that I could no longer face going to work.

Some of my experiences were:

  • Told by a colleague/superior that it wouldn’t matter if I was dead (done in private, of course)
  • Physically pushed three times (the pusher apologised, but can three times in ten minutes be an accident?)
  • Isolated – staff involved would never sit with me during morning tea, lunches, meetings, courses, etc. My name was omitted from birthday acknowledgements. All other staff names on whiteboard in staff room and on work trays were in black, only mine was in red. When we were asked to bring a plate for morning teas or special lunches, no one ate any of mine. I volunteered to help on many projects only to find later that the projects had been completed without my help.
  • Humiliated often: dunce hat put on my head during school performance; coerced to skip in front of whole school; yelled at during meetings; singled out for arriving late to a meeting (others arrived late but no comment made); at a staff night out and after dinner we went to a bar and the Principal said, ‘Come on, Trace, let’s find you a man.’ (Needless to say I am single); ridiculed or ignored about complaints/concerns about students; at school performances or meet-the-parent nights, one member of staff introduces staff with a bright, bubbly tone but the tone always changed significantly when I was introduced; office staff sending children with offensive messages; lunch thrown in the bin.
  • Psychological games to make me feel as though something was wrong with me: told by Principal, ‘We’re going to toughen you up, Trace - now we’re going to up the anti’ (things heated up for me after this); while I was questioned individually about child sex abuse, the remainder of staff were asked to do the same during a staff meeting; I was repeatedly talked over as though what I had to say was irrelevant; teachers constantly interrupted my dealing with playground matters and would take over the matters; told that nobody would want to work with me during a lunch time disco; jobs were taken from me without notification or justification.
  • Denied appropriate resources to do my job effectively: told 30 pieces of art paper was my quota for the year; denied key to store personal belongings; automatic financial assistance for an emotionally disturbed boy in my class withheld, etc.
  • I am a vegetarian and my love of animals was well known. During a lunch, twp bullies sat beside me (unusual, I thought, then I got it) and vividly described a frog dissection. During a dinner, one bully described the removal of a road-kill kangaroo’s testicles. My bullies knew of my pet house rabbit, a much-loved little friend – in one day, one bully described vividly three times how she had cut her finger whilst chopping up a rabbit, while another bully laughed hysterically.

This is only a sample of the behaviour I had to put up with on a daily basis for six years. A few years ago, a doctor asked me if I was depressed. I dismissed this though, looking back, if I had addressed the problem then, perhaps my symptoms would not be so bad today.

I have major depressive illness now, with anxiety attacks so bad that I lay and groan on the floor or bed. I have night-time enuresis that worsens when highly stressed. I have tried to commit suicide, have become a recluse, and am a shadow of my former confident self. I am still fighting for worker’s compensation – my confusion and bewilderment has now turned to fury and anger upon being enlightened about bullying.”

(Tracey, NSW)

 

Source: https://www.sheilafreemanconsulting.biz/case-studies.htm

Bullying In The Workplace On The Rise

By on Monday 4 January 2010 23.23 GMT

• Cases have doubled in last six months, survey shows
• Lawyers say economic downturn is to blame

The recession has seen a big increase in bullying at work, the Guardian has learned. One in 10 employees experience workplace bullying and harassment, according to the conciliation service Acas, while a survey by the union Unison reports that more than one-third of workers said they were bullied in the past six months, double the number a decade ago.

“The fact that bullying has doubled in the past decade is shocking,” said Dave Prentis, the general secretary of Unison.

Fraser Younson, head of employment at the law firm Berwin Leighton Paisner, said: “In the last year or so, as running businesses has become more difficult, the way managers interface with their staff has become more demanding. Managers are chasing things up, being more critical. If they are not trained to deal with increased levels of stress, then we are seeing them do this in a way that makes staff feel bullied.”

Samantha Mangwana, an employment solicitor at Russell Jones & Walker, said: “We are getting a very high level of cases. Most of the people who come to us with a problem at work talk about bullying. It frequently arises in people’s line-manager relationship.”

Employment lawyers say allegations of bullying have become a frequent feature of claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination.

Support groups are struggling to cope with the rise in cases, with one helpline recently forced to close.

“We have been overwhelmed by a huge rise in complaints over the last two years,” said Lyn Witheridge, who ran the Andrea Adams Trust bullying helpline until last year. “We had to close the charity and the helpline because we couldn’t cope with the number of calls – they more than doubled to 70 a day.

“The recession has become a playground for many bullies who know they can get away with it. Under pressure, budgets have got to be met. Managers are bullying people as a way of forcing them out and getting costs down.”

News of the increase comes amid a number of high-profile employment tribunal cases, including a News of the World sports reporter, Matt Driscoll, who was awarded almost £800,000 by an east London tribunal after he suffered “a consistent pattern of bullying behaviour” from staff, including Andy Coulson, now David Cameron’s head of communications.

Last month two yeomen were sacked from the Tower of London after an inquiry revealed a campaign of bullying against Moira Cameron, the first female yeoman warder in the tower’s 1,000-year history.

“We see some cases of bullying in discrimination where the employer invokes what we colloquially call the ‘bastard defence’,” said Mangwana. “Their defence is that they were a bastard to everyone, so it’s not discriminatory.”

Academics have long warned of the link between economic conditions and bullying, with studies in the 1980s and 1990s predicting that workplace competition and the threat of redundancy were most likely to cause an increase. The decline of trade unions and of collective action has also been cited as a factor.

Experts also believe that press coverage of bullying cases has raised awareness, encouraging more employees to take advantage of what has been described as an “explosion” of individual employment rights over recent years.

Although “bullying” is not a legal term, cases of bullying at work have arisen through employment law, health and safety and protection from harassment legislation. But news of the rise in bullying cases across different jurisdictions, which research suggests contributes to the 13.7m working days lost every year as a result of stress and depression, has prompted criticism that the government has failed to adequately address the problem.

“The increase in tribunal claims this year is part of a lurch towards the American culture of litigation, but that is not necessarily the answer,” said Witheridge. “More should be done to resolve bullying disputes without litigation, and for people to be treated with the dignity they deserve at work, while also being strongly managed.”

The government said it was working to tackle the problem. Lord Young, the employment relations minister, said: “Workplace harassment and violence is unacceptable and the government is committed to addressing these problems.”

Source: https://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/jan/04/bullying-workplace-recession

China Villagers Defy Government In Standoff Over Death

By Chris Buckley

BEIJING (Reuters) - Villagers in southern China on Thursday defied authorities and continued protests over a death in custody and land dispute in the latest outburst of simmering rural discontent that is eroding the ruling Communist Party’s grip at the grassroots.

Many hundreds of residents in Wukan Village in Guangdong province held an angry march and rally despite moves by authorities to halt a land project at the centre of the months-long unrest and detain local officials involved.

“The whole village is distraught and enraged. We want the central government to come in and restore justice,” said one resident who described the scene.

He and another resident, both speaking on condition of anonymity, said villagers remain enraged over last weekend’s death in custody of Xue Jinbo, 42, who was detained on suspicion of helping organize protests against land seizures.

“We won’t be satisfied until there is a full investigation and redress for Xue Jinbo’s death,” said the second resident.

“If you say he wasn’t beaten to death, then you can show us the body,” another villager who had his face hidden from the camera by the hood of his jacket told Hong Kong’s Cable TV.

“If there really isn’t any injury on the body, then why would you not return the body to us?”

Rural land in China is mostly owned in name by village collectives, but in fact officials can mandate its seizure for development in return for compensation, which residents often say is inadequate and does not reflect the profits reaped.

The government of Shanwei, a district including Wukan, said on Wednesday a “handful” of Communist Party members and officials accused of misdeeds over the disputed land development were detained and that the main land development project had been suspended, the official Xinhua news agency reported.

In a bid to allay suspicions that other villagers detained over protests in September had been abused, the local government put online footage of four suspects being visited by relatives and reassuring them of their wellbeing.

FURY

But for the two residents interviewed it was not enough to defuse fury over the death of Xue, whom villagers believe was the victim of police brutality — a charge the government denies, citing an autopsy that found he died of heart failure.

Wukan has been surrounded by police and anti-riot units.

China’s leaders, determined to maintain one-party control, worry that such outbursts might turn into broader and more persistent challenges to their power.

But they usually stay local and Beijing’s grip remains strong, said Kenneth Lieberthal, an expert on Chinese politics.

“Is there a risk of disruption? Yes, absolutely. Is this a place just waiting to explode? No,” said Lieberthal, director of the John L. Thornton China Center at the Brookings Institution, a Washington D.C. think tank.

“The chances of long-term, systemic instability are very, very small. The chances of some major disruption — like 1989, but on a much larger scale — are considerably greater, but still the odds are they can avoid it,” he said.

Wukan, with its clannish unity and big stake in rising land values, is an example of the kind of slow-burning discontent that is corroding party power at the grassroots.

Residents say hundreds of hectares of land was acquired unfairly by corrupt officials in collusion with developers. Anger in the village boiled over this year after repeated appeals to higher officials.

Although China’s Communist Party has ruled over decades of economic growth that have protected it from challenges to its power, the country is confronted by thousands of smaller scale protests and riots every year.

One expert on unrest, Sun Liping of Tsinghua University in Beijing, has estimated that there could have been over 180,000 such “mass incidents” in 2010. But most estimates from Chinese scholars and government experts put numbers at about half that in recent years.

The Chinese government has not given any unrest statistics for years.

The real worry for Beijing is not the sheer number of such protests, but their tendency to become more persistent and organized - both features on display in the unrest in Wukan, where there were torrid riots in September.

 

Source: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/china-villagers-defy-government-standoff-over-death-141649453.html;_ylt=AuxeBhruiTXMTq4kB4qFQ9HOfMl_;_ylu=X3oDMTNxdjlzdmg1BG1pdANUb3BTdG9yeSBXb3JsZFNGBHBrZwMxNmZiZDA5Yy0yODEzLTNlMTYtYTFiOC0xYWY3NWM2ZGVlNDkEcG9zAzYEc2VjA3RvcF9zdG9yeQR2ZXIDOWM4ZGViZTAtMjcyNy0xMWUxLTlmNmUtNWFkNTVkYzhlYWFk;_ylg=X3oDMTFwcGsyZXJqBGludGwDZ2IEbGFuZwNlbi1nYgRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdAN3b3JsZARwdANzZWN0aW9ucwR0ZXN0Aw-;_ylv=3

27 Years: No Deaths from Vitamins, 3 Million from Prescription Drugs

By Anthony Gucciardi

Over the past 27 years — the complete time frame that the data has been available — there have been 0 deaths as a result of vitamins and over 3 million deaths related to prescription drug use.

In fact, going back 54 years there have only been 11 claims of vitamin-related death, all of which provided no substantial evidence to link vitamins to the cause of death. The news comes after a recent statistically analysis found that pharmaceutical drug deaths now outnumber traffic fatalities in the US. In 2009, drugs exceeded the amount of traffic-related deaths, killing at least 37,485 people nationwide.

The findings go against the claims of mainstream medical ‘experts’ and mainstream media outlets who often push the idea that multivitamins are detrimental to your health, and that prescription drugs are the only science-backed option to improving your health. While essential nutrients likevitamin D are continually being shown to slash your risk of disease such as diabetes and cancer, prescription pharmaceuticals are continually being linked to such conditions. In fact, the top-selling therapeutic class pharmaceutical drug has been tied to the development of diabetes and even suicide, and whistleblowers are just now starting to speak out despite studies as far back as the 80s highlighting the risks.

Mainstream medical health officials were recently forced to speak out over the danger of antipsychotic drugs, which millions of children have been prescribed since 2009. U.S. pediatric health advisers blew the whistle over the fact that these pharmaceuticals can lead to diabetes and even suicide, the very thing they aim to prevent. What is even more troubling is that half of all Americans will be diagnosed with a mental condition during their lifetime thanks to lack of diagnosis guidelines currently set by the medical establishment, of which many cases will lead to the prescription of antipsychotics and other similar medications.

Covering up the side effects

In order to protect sales, the link between suicide and antipsychotic drugs was completely covered up by Eli Lilly & Co, the makers of Prozac. Despite research stretching as far back as the 1980′s finding that Prozac actually leads to suicide, the company managed to hide the evidence until a Harvard psychiatrist leaked the information into the press. The psychiatrist, Martin Teicher, stated that the American people were being treated like guinea pigs in a massive pharmaceutical experiment.

Greedy and oftentimes prescription-happy doctors are handing out antipsychotic medication like candy to adults and young children alike. In 2008, antipsychotics became the top-selling therapeutic class prescription drug in the United States and grossing over $14 billion in sales.

Antipsychotic drugs are not the only dangerous pharmaceuticals. The average drug label contains 70 side effects, though many popular pharmaceuticals have been found to contain 100 to 125. Some drugs, prescribed by doctors to supposedly improve your health, come with over 525 negative reactions.

Ritalin, for example, has been linked to conditions including:

  • Increased blood pressure
  • Increased heart rate
  • Increased body temperature
  • Increased alertness
  • Suppressed appetite

Perhaps the hundreds of negative side effects is part of the reason why the FDA announced last year that it is pulling more than 500 cold and allergy off the market due to health concerns. Prescription drugs kill more people than traffic accidents, and come with up to 525 negative side effects. Avoiding these drugs and utilizing high quality organic alternatives like whole food-based multivitamins and green superfoods will lead to a total health transformation without harsh side effects and an exponentially increased death risk.

 

Source: https://naturalsociety.com/27-years-no-deaths-from-vitamins-3-million-prescription-drug-deaths/

Military Given Go-Ahead To Detain Us Terrorist Suspects Without Trial

By

Civil rights groups dismayed as Barack Obama abandons commitment to veto new security law contained in defence bill.

Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.

Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles and disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing. The legislation has also been strongly criticised by libertarians on the right angered at the stripping of individual rights for the duration of “a war that appears to have no end”.

The law, contained in the defence authorisation bill that funds the US military, effectively extends the battlefield in the “war on terror” to the US and applies the established principle that combatants in any war are subject to military detention.

The legislation’s supporters in Congress say it simply codifies existing practice, such as the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists at Guantánamo Bay. But the law’s critics describe it as a draconian piece of legislation that extends the reach of detention without trial to include US citizens arrested in their own country.

“It’s something so radical that it would have been considered crazy had it been pushed by the Bush administration,” said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. “It establishes precisely the kind of system that the United States has consistently urged other countries not to adopt. At a time when the United States is urging Egypt, for example, to scrap its emergency law and military courts, this is not consistent.”

There was heated debate in both houses of Congress on the legislation, requiring that suspects with links to Islamist foreign terrorist organisations arrested in the US, who were previously held by the FBI or other civilian law enforcement agencies, now be handed to the military and held indefinitely without trial.

The law applies to anyone “who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaida, the Taliban or associated forces”.

Senator Lindsey Graham said the extraordinary measures were necessary because terrorism suspects were wholly different to regular criminals.

“We’re facing an enemy, not a common criminal organisation, who will do anything and everything possible to destroy our way of life,” he said. “When you join al-Qaida you haven’t joined the mafia, you haven’t joined a gang. You’ve joined people who are bent on our destruction and who are a military threat.”

Other senators supported the new powers on the grounds that al-Qaida was fighting a war inside the US and that its followers should be treated as combatants, not civilians with constitutional protections.

But another conservative senator, Rand Paul, a strong libertarian, has said “detaining citizens without a court trial is not American” and that if the law passes “the terrorists have won”.

“We’re talking about American citizens who can be taken from the United States and sent to a camp at Guantánamo Bay and held indefinitely. It puts every single citizen American at risk,” he said. “Really, what security does this indefinite detention of Americans give us? The first and flawed premise, both here and in the badly named Patriot Act, is that our pre-9/11 police powers were insufficient to stop terrorism. This is simply not borne out by the facts.”

Paul was backed by Senator Dianne Feinstein.

“Congress is essentially authorising the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens, without charge,” she said. “We are not a nation that locks up its citizens without charge.”

Paul said there were already strong laws against support for terrorist groups. He noted that the definition of a terrorism suspect under existing legislation was so broad that millions of Americans could fall within it.

“There are laws on the books now that characterise who might be a terrorist: someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect according to the department of justice. Someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist,” Paul said. “If you are suspected because of these activities, do you want the government to have the ability to send you to Guantánamo Bay for indefinite detention?”

Under the legislation suspects can be held without trial “until the end of hostilities”. They will have the right to appear once a year before a committee that will decide if the detention will continue.

The Senate is expected to give final approval to the bill before the end of the week. It will then go to the president, who previously said he would block the legislation not on moral grounds but because it would “cause confusion” in the intelligence community and encroached on his own powers.

But on Wednesday the White House said Obama had lifted the threat of a veto after changes to the law giving the president greater discretion to prevent individuals from being handed to the military.

Critics accused the president of caving in again to pressure from some Republicans on a counter-terrorism issue for fear of being painted in next year’s election campaign as weak and of failing to defend America.

Human Rights Watch said that by signing the bill Obama would go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.

“The paradigm of the war on terror has advanced so far in people’s minds that this has to appear more normal than it actually is,” Malinowski said. “It wasn’t asked for by any of the agencies on the frontlines in the fight against terrorism in the United States. It breaks with over 200 years of tradition in America against using the military in domestic affairs.”

In fact, the heads of several security agencies, including the FBI, CIA, the director of national intelligence and the attorney general objected to the legislation. The Pentagon also said it was against the bill.

The FBI director, Robert Mueller, said he feared the law could compromise the bureau’s ability to investigate terrorism because it would be more complicated to win co-operation from suspects held by the military.

“The possibility looms that we will lose opportunities to obtain co-operation from the persons in the past that we’ve been fairly successful in gaining,” he told Congress.

Civil liberties groups say the FBI and federal courts have dealt with more than 400 alleged terrorism cases, including the successful prosecutions of Richard Reid, the “shoe bomber”, Umar Farouk, the “underwear bomber”, and Faisal Shahzad, the “Times Square bomber”.

Elements of the law are so legally confusing, as well as being constitutionally questionable, that any detentions are almost certain to be challenged all the way to the supreme court.

Malinowski said “vague language” was deliberately included in the bill in order to get it passed. “The very lack of clarity is itself a problem. If people are confused about what it means, if people disagree about what it means, that in and of itself makes it bad law,” he said.

 

Source: https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama

 

 

Monsanto’s Carcinogenic Roundup Herbicide Contaminating Water Supply

By Anthony Gucciardi

New research has confirmed what myself and other health-conscious individuals have been saying about Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup — the carcinogenic chemical it contains known as glyphosate has been found to be contaminating the groundwater in areas where it is being applied.

What does this mean? It means that toxic glyphosate is now polluting the world’s drinking water through the widespread contamination of aquifers, wells and springs.

The explosive study that confirmed the contamination effect of Monsanto’s Roundup was published in Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry last month, in which researchers discovered that 41% of the 140 groundwater samples taken from Catalonia Spain were actually above the limit of quantification.

This means that glyphosate was actually not breaking down rapidly, despite Monsanto’s claims that the chemical would do so. Without the key ability to readily break down, it is apparent that glyphosate is polluting groundwater in alarming quantities, enough to pose a significant threat to the purity of drinking water wherever it is used.

It is also important to note that due to its resistance to biodegradability, glyphosate may be lurking in nature for a very long time. But is there really cause for concern?

Glyphosate is carcinogenic, genotoxicity, neurotoxicty, hepatoxicity, and nephrotoxicity.

Glyphosate is classified by the the EPA as a Class III toxic substance, and can kill an adult in as little as 30 grams. Even more concerning is the fact that glyphosate, and Monsanto’s Roundup as a whole, have been linked to conditions such as:

  • Hormonal disorders
  • Lymphoma
  • DNA damage
  • Endocrine disease
  • Skin cancer
  • Kidney damage
  • Liver damage

It is clear that even a little glyphosate in your drinking water is dangerous, but we aren’t seeing alittle glyphosate in the groundwater samples. Instead, we are seeing the extreme contamination of otherwise pure water, all for the purpose of spraying crops that you eat with Monsanto’s carcinogenic Roundup.

It is time for Monsanto to stop threatening public health, the environment, and the future of the planet. Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide should be banned for its adverse impact on health and the environment.

Film Review: Consuming Kids - A Must-See Documentary For All Parents

By Tara Green

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uUU7cjfcdM

 

Parents, educators and anyone interested in how children in the US are affected by the media will want to watch “Consuming Kids: The Commercialization of Childhood.” The film, available for viewing online (www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uUU7cjfcdM), traces the connection between the full-scale media immersion children are subject to and rising levels of childhood obesity, hypertension, ADD and other diseases.

Advertising Unleashed

This brief (66 minutes) documentary looks at the explosion in US children’s advertising following deregulation in 1980. The filmmakers delineate how the snowballing effect of increased advertising to children since that time, combined with advances in media technology, resulted in a 40% per year increase, over a thirty year period, in the level of consumer spending directly influenced by children. The film reveals that the annual amount of child-influenced consumer spending in this country reached an astounding $700 billion dollars in 2010.

Filmmakers Adriana Barbaro and Jeremy Earp interview a range of experts including child psychiatrists and family advocates about the effects of advertising on children. They intersperse these interviews with clips of marketing experts discussing how to use psychology to recruit children into brand loyalty. A clip of one child psychiatrist likening these marketing experts to pedophiles seems extreme — but is followed by a clip of a marketing expert talking about “branding and owning children.”

Stalking Children

The film reveals many facets of advertising to children that some parents may be unaware of, including how closely marketers study children and how they reach children without parental knowledge. “Scientific stalking” is how one expert characterizes marketing companies research into child behavior which now ranges from measuring blink rates of toddlers watching media clips to MRI observation of child brain activity while viewing films. Marketers employ child psychology experts who advise them on the different techniques to use to engage the toddler market or the toddler’s slightly older siblings.

Stealth marketing takes place through an organization known as the GIA (Girls Intelligence Agency) which uses product placement at slumber parties. Marketing to children is ubiquitous, with many cash-strapped schools accepting sponsorship from corporations, meaning brand names are present even while children study. Cell phones which many parents buy their children for safety and communication purposes become another avenue for corporations to reach young consumers with games and other content. Many websites offering games for children are actually an opportunity for corporations to learn more about individual children in order to engage in “microtargetting.”

The film notes that advertisers are reaching children at increasingly young ages. Only very high-end stores now carry baby products which do not bear the image of one media character or another, meaning most middle and lower income parents are forced to buy products imprinted with popular characters. Children are especially susceptible to these characters, explains one child psychiatrist interviewed in the film because the familiar faces form touchstones of stability which make children feel secure during changes of growth and development. The psychiatrist expresses his concern that the US is raising “a generation of superconsumers.”

Educational?

The film also debunks the myth of “good media as an antidote to bad media.” Companies which sell videos such as Baby Einstein, filmmakers explain make millions of dollars yet there is no evidence that watching these films increases intelligence. In fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no screen media at all for children under two. There is evidence that prolonged and regular exposure to media can result in concentration difficulties.

Protecting Children

The filmmakers note that among industrialized nations, only the US lacks any regulations protecting children from this kind of aggressive advertising. The consequences of rampant advertising are visible in the physical and emotional health of a child as they participate less frequently in active, creative play and more often in passive screen time. As one child advocate interviewed in the film notes “We have laws about child safety, putting helmets on kids, tobacco marketing to kids, but somehow we think it’s OK to make children fair game to marketers who want to profit from them, irrespective of the impact on their health and well-being.”

Source: https://www.naturalnews.com/034398_consuming_kids_film_review.html#ixzz1gcRa8Jxl