Major Tectonic Boundaries: Subduction Zones -purple, Ridges -red and Transform Faults -green
Major Tectonic Boundaries: Subduction Zones -purple, Ridges -red and Transform Faults -green
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
NEWSFLASH
As nine more detainees were freed from Guantánamo, Amnesty International today reiterated that the Guantánamo detentions are a travesty of justice. The US administration must either bring to fair trial or release, with full protections against further abuse, the 270 detainees still held there.
The nine men were the first to be released from the naval base this year. Among them is Al Jazeera cameraman Sami al-Hajj, held without charge at the Guantánamo Bay prison for almost six years. Amnesty International remains particularly concerned for his health and well-being after his years of indefinite detention and other alleged abuses, including in the context of his prolonged hunger-striking.
Sami al-Hajj was repatriated with two other Sudanese nationals held at Guantánamo, Yacoub al-Amir and Walid Ali. Sami al-Hajj was taken straight from the plane to hospital on a stretcher.
A fourth detainee, Saïd Boujaâdia, was returned to Morocco, where he is reported to have been taken into custody by the judicial police in Casablanca. Amnesty International will continue to monitor his situation and calls on the Moroccan authorities to ensure that his treatment fully complies with international law. He should be given access to legal counsel and independent medical care, and either charged promptly with recognizable criminal offences and brought to fair trial, or released.
Five detainees were also transferred to Afghanistan, according to the Pentagon. Amnesty International has no further details on these detainees at this stage. It similarly calls on the Afghan authorities to ensure that all treatment and any trials of returned detainees fully comply with international law and standards, and in no way perpetuates the unlawful treatment that the Guantánamo detainees have faced.
“The USA government should abandon its trials by military commissions, which are not independent of the same branch of government that has authorized and condoned abuses against detainees and which may rely on information coerced under ill-treatment,” said Amnesty International.
As well as denying those held at Guantánamo and elsewhere the right to challenge their detentions in an independent and impartial court, in line with the centuries old right to habeas corpus, the US authorities have subjected detainees to treatment and conditions that violate the absolute
prohibition on torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Investigations into such abuses have been inadequate.
“The USA government must permanently close the Guantánamo detention facility, and put an end to the secret detention programme operated by the CIA. The USA must bring all its detentions everywhere into full compliance with international law and standards,” said Amnesty International.
“There must be full accountability for all human rights violations, including the international crimes of torture and enforced disappearance.”
See also:
Who are the Guantánamo detainees? CASE SHEET 16. Sudanese national: Sami al Hajj, 11 January 2006, AI Index: AMR 51/207/2005,
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/013/2006/en.
| What Is Arising Now |
| What is arising now is not a new belief system, a new religion, spiritual ideology, or mythology. We are coming to the end not only of mythologies but also of ideologies and belief systems. The change goes deeper than the content of your mind, deeper than your thoughts. In fact, at the heart of the new consciousness lies the transcendence of thought, a newfound ability of rising above thought, of realizing a dimension within yourself that is infinitely more vast than thought. |
A New Earth Eckhart Tolle Pages 21-22 |
Published on Thursday, May 1, 2008 by The Council on Hemispheric Affairs
One of History’s Great Atrocities: The Corporate Theft of the Public’s Natural Right to Water
by Ashley Powdar
The Growing Debate on who will Control the World’s Water Supply
The current 1.1 billion people worldwide without access to potable water only opens one of the smaller windows on the injustices and the multiple casualties being wrought by private water-related industries. In fact, many are clueless to the magnitude of the victims — present and projected — of the growing water crisis as well as to the inhumane implications of the role of the private sector in regards to treating water as a commodity that can be owned and sold for profit. As of now, 2.6 billion people are at high risk for not having access to potable and an additional 1.8 million children die each year from water-related diseases.
In the mix of chaos, despair, and confusion, which most affects the poorer elements of society, it is important to note the private corporations’ role, which some critics have identified as being among the major culprits in causing the crisis. Within recent decades, water privatization firms such as Suez, Vivendi, and RWE have bought control of a number of communities’ municipal water services, and then drastically increased the price of water; with some of them failing to effectively purify the water resources they had come to monopolize.
An Innate Right
The heightened trend towards water privatization has gone almost undetected by the general public for well over a decade, despite the huge ramifications it is having on many lives. Public water advocates argue that it is a necessity of life and no individual or corporation has the right to seize ownership and place a value on the resource. Water is for life, not for profit. Author Vadana Shiva resolutely states that “water is a commons because it is the basis of all life. Water rights are natural rights and thus usufructuary rights, meaning that water can be used, but not owned.” Water privatization has caused considerable strife around the world, specifically in less industrialized nations. Major water companies, with the help of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), continue to divest communities of their natural right to water, thus undermining the essence of democracy as well as contributing to an insidious form of global
deprivation.
Water is a Means to Life
At a 2 percent water loss from the body, one is thirsty. At 5 percent, one is dehydrated, and at 11 percent, one is immobilized. It is estimated by WaterAid that in less industrialized countries, one child dies every 15 seconds from the lack of water. This disturbing figure has the potential to grow into an even harsher reality with much greater numbers at risk in the next 20 years, given that the global water supply is predicted to be depleted by 30 - 40 percent.
In addition to the necessity of water for survival, water acts as a principle force behind some of the most important socio-cultural, religious, and political aspects of society. Since the establishment of waterways as a major means of international transportation in the 15th century, water has also been a facilitator in communication as well as a mainstream factor in the exchange of goods and services. Water has both brought nations together and diversified economies for centuries. During this period, water has been the primary, most vital vehicle for communication among countries, societies and cultures. Thus it is reasonable to say that water has been the fundamental, initiating actor in technological innovation, cultural awareness and economic diversification.
Water also plays a central role in religious practices. For many faiths, water represents purity and rebirth. In Christianity, water is used for baptism, a sacred practice in which the individual is immersed in water to symbolize the rebirth as a follower of Christ. In Islam, the five daily prayers of the latter cannot be performed without the cleansing of body parts in water. In fact, water is a sufficiently sacred substance as it is mentioned in the New International Version of the Bible 442 times.
Water also has shaped the economic prosperity of many nations. If a nation has a coastline, there is abundant opportunity for viable trade and markets — as water can introduce a variety of new foods, expand agricultural production, and increase the prospects of tourism. Furthermore, water acts as a strategic resource for countries because it allows for geopolitical control over adjoining regions, as well as has the potential to enhance and make visible a state’s infrastructure. Due to the political connectivity of water, this scarce resource has caused numerous border wars between neighbors as well as countless water-related fatalities. There have been numerous instances where conflict has resulted from countries, organizations, and/or communities threatening to take control of a region’s main water resources and severely impeding the bulk of the local population’s access to the resource. These incidents have ranged from Israel’s partial ex
parte control Jordan River running through the Middle East, to South Africa’s withholding of water resources from its black population during the Apartheid period (1948 - 1994), to Washington’s interest in the Guaraní Aquifer in the Triple Frontier region in South America.
The “Blue Gold” of the 21st Century
The World Bank and IMF are among the principle factors behind the implementation of water privatization. The commodification of water began in earnest in the 1990’s in various developing regions of the world in an effort to address a number of water-related issues varying from its scarcity to a woeful mismanagement of the resource. To begin, the World Bank and IMF, along with multinational enterprises, argued that by placing a value on water, the general public was less likely to abuse, waste, and indiscriminately consume large amounts of the increasingly scant product. It has been found by a vast array of non-profit organizations that the average European uses 200 liters of water every day whereas North Americans use 400 liters of water a day. This can be compared to the average person in the developing world who uses 10 liters of water every day for drinking, washing, and cooking purposes. Independent environmental journalist Carmelo Ruiz Marrero
explains the role played by pro-privatization international lending agencies by stating that “water is wasted because people get it for free or for artificially low prices. Therefore, if its price reflected its true ecological and economic cost, people would avoid its abuse and overuse.”
Pro-privatization defenders maintain that in addition to poor water management by the general population, there is a serious lack of good management practices on a national level, which introduces the next argument. Critics of the status quo contend that the state has ill-served its citizens by not providing a clean, efficient water supply. Marrero explains that “the state has failed as administrator of the resource, not only because of its corruption, incapacity, and lack of investment in the infrastructure, but also through its promotion of paternalistic cheap water for all cultures that has resulted in waste and overexploitation.” Supporters of privatization argue that the government’s inability to comprehend and properly execute the methods needed to widely and effectively distribute water to the community inexorably results in an inadequate water supply for the general public. Their argument is that by inviting experienced international
corporations into the country, water allocation, purity, and affordability will be made more efficient.
The third argument is that population growth will soon outweigh the ecosystem’s ability to provide abundant water supply for every individual, thus resulting in a very unsettling conditions of water scarcity. Because of this, social conflicts are likely to arise among communities, nations, and regions. Although this argument already has begun to prove to be self-fulfilling, private water companies can be seen as exacerbating social tensions by failing to properly assess the many different factors of water consumption. Marrero maintains that “this argument tends to grossly simplify complex social dynamics surrounding use of natural resources by assuming that extreme economic inequalities and differences in consumption patterns do not exist, and if they do, they are of no consequence.”
Water Privatization in the Western Hemisphere
Mexico
Less industrialized countries have borne the brunt of the most severe effects of water commodification. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the corporate ownership of water has only aggravated an already dire situation-both in terms of compromising the democratic, innate rights of citizens and endangering the environment. For example, during the Fox Administration in Mexico, water privatization often left Mexican citizens — specifically the poorest sector of the population — deprived of water resources as well as a deteriorating infrastructure. By 2002, precisely a decade after the Mexican government constitutionalized the jurisdiction of foreign-based corporations over what formally had been municipal water services, 28 of the country’s 30 states had been affected by privatization practices; this represented roughly 70 percent of the nation’s water supply. Once President Fox had created the Program for the Modernization of Water Management
Companies (PROMAGUA), an agenda geared towards the commodification of the nation’s water supplies, Mexican citizens began to feel the harsh consequences of private ownership of water — and at an exceedingly expensive price. During the 2004 World Water Forum in Kyoto, Japan, Maude Barlow, a highly regarded Canadian field expert in the subject of water privatization, described the actions of one very irate Mexican citizen in the midst of confronting a panel of executives and specialists in water policy:
“Representatives of an international civil society network appeared at a meeting of chief executive officers at the World Water Forum in Kyoto, Japan, in March. The group took over the microphones and offered a series of testimonials about the impact of water privatization around the world. Toward the end of the event, a water activist from Cancun, Mexico, stepped to the microphone and held up a glass of pitch-black, putrid-smelling water. He explained that he had taken the water from his home tap in Cancun, where French company Suez runs the municipal water system. He then requested that the moderator pass the glass of black, smelly water up on stage to the CEO of Suez, inviting him to drink it.”
Water decentralization critics maintain that once these foreign companies, such as Vivendi and Suez, came into Mexico, they increased water prices by at least 60 percent and those who could not pay were cut off from services altogether. Furthermore, as the price of water escalated, its quality continued to deteriorate. The technology and filtration practices used to purify water reservoirs often cause serious damage to the environment while contaminating the surrounding air and soil, and displacing local wild life.
Stockton
Since the decentralization of water became a trend throughout Latin America in the early 1990’s, local communities in the United States and Canada have succumbed to it. But many other locals were prepared to fight for what they felt was rightfully theirs. In 2003, the city council of Stockton, California signed an agreement with water companies Thames and OWI to privatize the municipal water services for a period of 20 years, with the value of the contract approaching $600 million dollars. Similar to the citizens of Mexico, Stockton residents resisted once they discovered what was being signed away in their name. Despite the residents’ plea to be involved in the decision-making process, the city government continued to ignore the general consensus to oppose the privatization of the city’s water services. One resident attempted to reason with city council members, insisting that “I’m ashamed that we’ve followed this path and have gone down the
road at making something happen that was not consensus building, not citizen-involved. It was basically handed down as a dictate. This is not the principle of an All-America City.” Despite an overwhelming opposition by the Stockton’s citizens, the city government overrode the group’s dogged opposition and its water resources were privatized. However, the persistence of the residents soon proved successful. In March of 2007, an overwhelming vote granted the residents their long-standing wish to keep water a free, equally accessible resource. The major reversal could turn out to be a pivotal moment in the history of water privatization in the United States. Not only did it prove that private firms failed to purify and deliver water any better than the previous public services, but it was the second time that the largest commodification project in the region was defeated by the electorate.
Walkerton
Similar to the lack of popular participation in the decision to privatize Stockton, California’s water systems was the experience of Walkerton, Canada, which was subjected to a comparable lack of transparency in the management of the community’s water resources. In May of 2000, the lack of proper water management techniques resulted in the death of seven Walkerton residents and left at least 2,000 ill (half of the population). The culprit behind this tragedy?-the city’s private water sector. It had failed to report indications of contamination, not only because it would hinder the corporation’s revenue, but more alarmingly, it was not required to report such details. Canada continues to remain a lucrative location in the eyes of privatization companies, as the country contains approximately 408 publicly owned water systems. The tragedy of Walkerton only reflects the greater global struggle for water democracy-a struggle that has resulted in many
casualties ranging from the elderly to the youth, and from the healthy to the disabled.
Cochabamba
Perhaps the most infamous water privatization case involved the residents of Cochabamba, Bolivia, where the community overwhelmingly spoke out against Betchel. The giant U.S. multinational had gained responsibility over the region’s water resources. In October of 1999, the Drinking Water and Sanitation Law was passed, which permitted foreign water corporations to privatize Bolivia’s municipal water systems. Water prices in the Cochabamba region soon reached a disturbingly high level-the average Bolivian, who hardly earned a $100 a month, had to pay $20 alone for water services; the choice for many residents soon became whether to feed and house their families or purchase water. Through protest and perseverance, the local community rose up and soon won the battle, but not without dire costs. Seventeen year-old Victor Hugo Daza was killed by the police during the uprisings, not to mention hundreds injured. After the uprisings, Oliver Olivera, a
Bolivian water activist, stated to the supporters of water privatization that “you have blood on your hands.” These six simple words that were heard throughout the world further attested to the severity of the situation and the distance people were willing to travel to obtain their innate rights to an essence of life.
The Price of a Bottle
The next time a consumer purchases a bottle of water, think of its true cost. There are several patterns of water privatization, but none are as offensive as the bottling of water. In fact, most people are unaware of the veritable scandals existing behind the bottled water industry. Characteristically, these multinational water companies go into less industrialized countries, where they monopolize water reservoirs (most often, these public reservoirs are the only available water resources that a given community might have), and sell the water back to the community at a price that invariably is far too expensive for its residents to pay. Water commodification is a global movement. In Africa, where privatization and lack of access to water is most prevalent, over half of the population earns less than one dollar a day; one can imagine the burden of trying to afford a bottle of water that is often priced a little higher than a dollar. Furthermore, women and
female children are most affected, as they are forced to travel an average of five miles a day to fetch available water — often times this water is not even potable. The time-consuming task of searching for water impedes women from obtaining jobs to help feed their families and hinders female children from attending school on a regular basis. It is stated that 40 billion working hours are spent carrying water each year and 26 percent of women’s time around the world is spent on physically obtaining the water. In addition, it is estimated that 443 million school days are lost each year due to water privatization and the consequences it has on individual lives.
Water Democracy
Once the attendant injustices of water privatization became evident to the international community, activists, environmentalists, and average citizens alike have been arguing for a greater local presence in the decision-making process affecting water use. Also, advocates have been urging the World Bank, IMF, WTO, as well as national governments to discard their privatization scenarios, as, due to their high cost, they more often than not cause dissension among communities. There are alternatives. Advocates for democratizing water, Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke, assert that there are three essentials the public must control in order to secure their water from any conglomerate monopolization. First, they stress the need for conservation. The population is predicted to exponentially increase while the ecosystem’s water supply is likely to decrease by at least 30 percent. Therefore, preservation is a vital measure to take in order to safeguard this precious
resource. Second, they emphasize the importance of equity in regards to water allocation.
Although some nations are blessed with abundant access to fresh water, others are burdened with an egregious lack of this fundamental source of life. Third, in order to institutionalize conservation and equity, water democracy must be obtained at all costs. Water management, its proponents maintain, should be in the hands of the people, not under control of corporations whose principle desire is to generate revenue. It is also notable that accountability, transparency, and consensus are vital in the management of water. Water is for life, not for profit. If the commodification of water continues — thus possibly undermining the basic right to life, it is not absurd to conclude that other vital resources might only become available on a for-pay basis. The coming water crisis must be dealt within a transparent, democratic process or else the globe will fall victim to a series of potentially violent and life threatening consequences. Barlow and Clark state
that “In the 21st century, our water is becoming a commodity. Some want to profit from it and others are ready to go to war over it, but every form of life must have it.” The overarching question will be, “who will control this source of life?”
This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Associate Ashley Powdar.
The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization.
JAKARTA (AFP) — The future of a major US Navy research laboratory in Indonesia is in doubt amid allegations, dismissed as "crazy" by US diplomats, of espionage and secret experiments.
Negotiations between Washington and Jakarta over the renewal of the operating contract of US Naval Medical Research Unit-2, or Namru-2, have stalled over a range of issues including diplomatic immunity for its US staff.
Established in Indonesia in 1970 and charged with researching infectious diseases of military importance, the facility employs 19 Americans and more than 100 Indonesians and is based in Indonesian health ministry grounds.
Its operations have attracted suspicion from a number of quarters in the world's largest Muslim country, from anti-US religious hardliners to outspoken Health Minister Siti Fadilah Supari and Defence Minister Juwono Sudarsono.
"We'll conduct some checks on their presence in Indonesia," Vice President Jusuf Kalla said after Friday prayers last week.
Supari, whose ministry has worked with the US laboratory on projects including malaria research and bird flu early warning systems, has thrown fuel on to the diplomatic fire.
"Until today there have been no significantly useful results for the people (from Namru-2's research)," she said last month.
"Problems with contagious diseases such as malaria and dengue fever are still relatively the same... My people ask me why is there a health laboratory working together with a foreign military?"
Some parliamentarians have demanded the laboratory's operating contract, which expired in 2005, be torn up and its facilities taken over by Jakarta.
Parliamentary foreign affairs commissioner Mutamimul Ula called Thursday for an "investigation into allegations that Namru-2 staffers were involved in intelligence operations."
"There is this flavour of intelligence activities... This can't be avoided in the eyes of the public. It is part of the defence organism of a foreign country," Ula said.
The controversy and the delays in the renewal of the contract appear to be causing a degree of angst among US officials in the departments of health and state, reflecting the importance Washington attaches to the facility.
Namru-2 has been a major point of US-Indonesian cooperation over the years, including times when relations over other issues were strained. US President George W. Bush mentioned the facility in a joint statement with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono when he visited Jakarta in 2006.
Apparently stung by the latest whirlwind of allegations, some of which stretch back several years, the US embassy has issued a statement entitled "The Truth About Namru-2."
"There's been rumours over the last 10 years that we had to respond to," US embassy deputy chief of mission John A. Heffern told AFP.
"It's just crazy," he said of the allegations of spying and secret experiments, adding that Namru-2 was "totally unclassified, totally transparent."
"If the Indonesian ministry of health wants the raw data, it's totally open to them," he said.
"Hopefully we will resume our negotiations. This doesn't help."
Sticking points in the negotiations have included the US's insistence that all American staff at the laboratory be given diplomatic immunity.
Complicating matters is a separate dispute between Washington and Jakarta over bird flu samples.
Jakarta is insisting on "the recognition of sovereign rights of states over their biological resources," and fears the flu samples will be used by foreign companies to make vaccines, which will be too expensive for Indonesians.
US officials have slammed the position, with US Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael Leavitt recently stressing the importance of international cooperation to tackle the bird flu threat.
"The United States has very important relationships here in Indonesia, that involve joint work in laboratories in various levels of research, and we have pledged to continue that," Leavitt said after meeting Yudhoyono last month.
Indonesia has the highest number of human bird flu victims, with 108 people known to have died in the sprawling archipelago from the disease.
The World Health Organisation, which has designated Namru-2 as a Collaborating Centre on disease research, has warned that Indonesia is putting its own population in danger by failing to share its samples.
When the locals cried green-wash, the elite developer cried class envy. Welcome to Paradise Valley.
By Fred Haefele
Read more: Environment, Opinion, Global Warming
Image: Ameya Preserve
Rendering of home at Ameya Preserve.
Neither did it help that Ameya had a way of getting ahead of itself, and was prone to make claims it couldn't substantiate; for example, it was news to Thomas Hoving to learn he'd accepted Ameya's invitation, and it was news to the Corporation for the Northern Rockies to read that they'd already endorsed Dokken's project. More to the point, locals objected to a large-scale development built in a fire-prone drainage; they objected to the fact these were second, third or even fourth vacation homes; they objected to what seemed like Dokken's selective environmentalism.
Park County wildlife ecologist Peter Feigley, who smelled green wash early on, questioned Ameya's principles on the blog Luxist. "How many homes do the prospective clients [already] own, and how large are they? Think of how much jet fuel and gasoline is wasted by the ultra wealthy and their families, bopping around between their various homes and resorts." Feigley would go on to describe Ameya as "a sham; targeting wealthy and naïve, if not arrogant, individuals."
For Dokken, this proved too much. When you cracked on the ultra-wealthy, you were cracking on his people, and he couldn't let such a remark go unchallenged. He fired off a letter to Park County planner Mike Inman in which, among other things, he berated his critics for "class envy," claiming remarks like Feigley's were directed "at people who have had more success in life than the letter writers and blog writers ... Perhaps they were smarter. Perhaps they worked harder. Perhaps they managed their money better ..."
There followed a brief communal gasp. Had the locals just been scolded for not respecting their betters? Had Dokken been drinking? Whatever the case, everyone knew what really happened: A millionaire finally used the C-word.
Still, the fact that the high-end real estate market fairly suppurates with descriptors like "elite," "privileged" and "exclusive," underscores an unpleasant truth; the people who can afford to buy up the most beautiful spots in the West have no intention of leaving their aristocratic values back home. This would also seem to underscore Dokken's contention that the development of areas like the Paradise Valley is inevitable, and if he doesn't do it, some less visionary person will.
Be that as it may, Dokken seems to want it all; he wants to make money doing something that seems, environmentally speaking, indefensible, but he wants to be well thought of, too. Following his now infamous letter to the Park County Planning Board, he quickly wrote the Enterprise that he "deeply regretted (his) choice of words." He went on to state that "a careful reading of the remainder of the letter ... revealed an outline of environmental initiatives ..." that would, essentially, authenticate his commitment to conservation.
Mostly, a careful reading of the letter brings forth a number of statements that seem in direct opposition to the term as most people understand it. Consider: "Ameya Preserve will be the first carbon neutral community in the U.S. ... addressing the potentially greatest issue of our day in the single most responsible manner." On any green scale, how is the clearing, excavation and paving of elk habitat to build baronial-size, seldom-used luxury homes to be viewed as "responsible," no matter how they are powered, how many organic farming projects, easements or carbon switcheroos are in the works?
In any event, Dokken was hard-pressed to put the genie back in the bottle. For weeks, the Enterprise printed responses like the following:
"It is difficult to forgive Mr. Dokken for insinuating ... that we are stupid enough not to recognize a land speculator when we see one."
"One piece of advice for you, Mr. Dokken. Don't get stuck in a snow drift, coming out of your 'preserve' ... you may find that nobody wants to stop and help you."
And finally: "Years from now, we will look back on the loss of these public sections with regret. The developer and his clients are the only ones who will be happy."
The coming summer promises interesting times for Ameya. While many elite developments have been hit hard by the slumping market (the Yellowstone Club and Idaho's Promontory, among them), interest in Ameya appears to continue unabated; in spite of local opinion, the development goes apace. In the past month, Dokken sold 4,000 acres of Ameya land to neighbor and fellow millionaire candy-magnate Giorgio Perfetti. The deal helped eliminate most of Dokken's debt, and helped move his project along toward final approval. Interestingly enough, Perfetti wanted to buy the land because he didn't want to watch it get developed.
The real genius to Ameya Preserve is that it foresees that global warming might take the fun out of being rich. What if they wouldn't let you jet to two vacation homes per week? But at Ameya, some of the wealthiest people in the world would get to feel that, with no noticeable change in their habits or behavior, they could still be part of the solution. In this way, what Dokken offers most closely resembles the medieval sale of Indulgences; instead of examining or changing behavior, well-heeled sinners simply paid the fine, went right on sinning. After all, they could afford it.
Not one word mentioned about the indigenous population of Montana, which leaves in one of the WORST of all Reservations.
Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice.The Wonk Room has previously described Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson as "the environment's Alberto Gonzales." After years of scandal as White House Counsel and Attorney General, Gonzales finally resigned after it was revealed that numerous U.S. attorneys were fired without cause under his watch.
Now it seems the EPA is following the Department of Justice's efforts to rid itself of staffers who are not "loyal Bushies."
The Bush administration forced its top environmental regulator in the Midwest to quit Thursday after months of internal bickering about dioxin contamination downstream from Dow Chemical's world headquarters in Michigan.
In an interview with the Tribune, Mary Gade said two top political appointees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency headquarters in Washington stripped her of her powers as regional administrator and told her to quit or be fired by June 1.
As a congressional investigation revealed this week, the EPA's regulation of toxic chemicals like dioxin has been corrupted by interference by the White House. But this case is even more egregious:
For the past year, Gade has been locked in a heated dispute with Dow about long-delayed plans to clean up dioxin-saturated soil and sediment that extends 50 miles beyond its Midland, Mich., plant into Saginaw Bay and Lake Huron. [. . .]
Though regional EPA administrators typically have wide latitude to enforce environmental laws, Gade drew fire from officials in Washington last month after she sent contractors to test soil in a Saginaw neighborhood where Dow had found high dioxin levels.
She said top lieutenants to Stephen Johnson, the national EPA administrator, repeatedly questioned her aggressive action against Dow, which long ago acknowledged it is responsible for the dioxin contamination but has resisted federal and state involvement in cleanup plans.
When Johnson appointed Gade to her position in 2006, he praised "her impressive environmental career," saying, "Mary is well-prepared to lead the Agency's largest regional office."
UPDATE: In 2000, Mary Gade wrote optimistically about environmental policy in a Bush administration:
To the question of politics — or, I hope, the lack thereof. A successful twenty-first-century environmental policy will require a leader who can reach across partisan lines and bridge political differences on what should be the ultimate nonpartisan issue. It also will require a President who recognizes that environmental issues don't respect national borders and who can credibly address these complex issues on the international stage. I confess, I'm a Republican and a supporter of Texas Governor George W. Bush. I believe Governor Bush in two terms has put together a stronger bipartisan record on conservation and the environment than Al Gore has in twenty-plus years in Washington, D.C., precisely because Bush puts action and results above talk and posture.
UPDATE II: Via Daily Kos user LakeSuperior, Michigan Environmental Council President Lana Pollack calls Mary Gade "woman of unquestioned credentials and integrity who was doing her job enforcing our environmental laws":
If Mary Gade were indeed forced out because she was willing to enforce environmental laws against Dow Chemical, then it is a travesty.
Christeen Skinner blinks at the screen of her computer and takes another slurp of coffee. It’s half past seven in the morning and she’s preparing for a crucial meeting with the chief executive of the High and Mighty fashion chain.
Apart from the black cat dozing on her lap, the only clue to Christeen’s occupation as a 21st century astrologer is a copy of an Ephemeris that lies open at a page marked “Mercury March 25th”.
“The financial crisis has ensured that I’m busier than ever,” says Christeen. “People in the City need to know what is just around the corner. I can help with that.”
Christeen is one of a growing, albeit secretive, network of astrologers who work for seemingly conservative British institutions such as high street banks, City investment funds and retailers. Desperate to avoid financial meltdown in the ongoing ‘credit crunch’ and to spot fashions and consumer trends before they start, these institutions have turned to the stars to divine the future.
“Most academics distrust astrology and regard it as mumbo-jumbo,” she says. “The thing is, it works. Nobody’s sure how it works but it does. Most of my clients are businesspeople who are very canny. If it didn’t work for them, then why would they use it?”
Monsanto Agrees to Purchase Cargill International Seed Operations In Central And Latin America, Europe, Asia, Africa
ST. LOUIS, June 29 /PRNewswire/ -- Monsanto Company (NYSE: MTC) and
Cargill, Incorporated, announced today that they have signed a definitive
agreement for Monsanto to purchase Cargill's international seed operations in
Central and Latin America, Europe, Asia and Africa for $1.4 billion.
The acquisition includes seed research, production and testing facilities
in 24 countries and sales and distribution operations in 51 countries in the
five regions. Cargill's international seed businesses specialize in the
development and marketing of corn, sunflower and rapeseed seeds and also
market soybean, alfalfa, sorghum, wheat and hybrid rice seed in these markets.
The acquisition does not include Cargill's seed operations in the United
States and Canada or Cargill Agricultural Merchants in the United Kingdom.
"The potential for our existing biotechnology traits outside North America
is roughly double the acreage potential within North America. The Cargill
international seed businesses give us quicker access to these global markets.
We can accelerate commercialization through established distribution channels
that will bring these and our future agronomic and quality traits to more
farmers around the world in the varieties they want to grow," said Monsanto
President Hendrik A. Verfaillie.
"The biotechnology revolution is rapidly changing the international seed
industry, and Monsanto has been a key player in this arena," said Ernest S.
Micek, Cargill chairman and chief executive officer. "This agreement combines
Cargill's excellent germplasm and international research, marketing and
distribution network with Monsanto's leadership in biotechnology."
Monsanto and Cargill expect that Cargill businesses in Central and Latin
America, Europe, Asia and Africa will continue to market Cargill seeds.
Cargill is a leading global producer of tropical corn seed and germplasm
with significant sales in the Central and Latin American, Asian and African
markets. It has a leading position in oilseeds globally and is one of the few
seed companies with a long-standing presence in Asia and Central and Latin
America. Its international seed business employs approximately 2,200 people.
The sale of Cargill's seed businesses in Central and Latin America,
Europe, Asia and Africa follows an earlier agreement between Monsanto and
Cargill to form a global joint venture to create and market products improved
through biotechnology for the grain processing and animal feed markets. In
addition to this initial agreement, Monsanto and Cargill are exploring future
opportunities to expand their partnership into other areas of agriculture and
food.
Monsanto is a life sciences company, committed to finding solutions to the
growing global needs for food and health by applying advanced bioscience and
biotechnology to agriculture, nutrition and health. It makes and manufactures
high-value agricultural products, pharmaceuticals and food ingredients.
Cargill, based in Minneapolis, Minn., is an international marketer,
processor and distributor of agricultural, food, financial and industrial
products with nearly 79,000 employees in more than 1,000 locations in 72
countries and with business activities in 100 more.
ST. LOUIS: Monsanto Co. reported Thursday that its first-quarter earnings nearly tripled because of surprisingly strong herbicide and seed sales in Latin America. It boosted its earnings forecast for the year, sending its shares up by 8.5 percent.
The world's biggest seed company earned $256 million (€173.52 million), or 46 cents per share, during the first fiscal quarter ended Nov. 30 — almost triple its profit of $90 million (€61 million), or 16 cents per share, during the same period last year.
Revenue during the first quarter surged 36 percent to $2.1 billion (€1.42 billion), from $1.54 billion (€1.04 billion) in the prior-year period.
The results beat expectations on Wall Street, where analysts had predicted a profit of 35 cents per share on revenue of $1.87 billion (€1.27 billion), according to a poll by Thomson Financial.
Monsanto's stock rose $9.45 (€6.41), or 8.5 percent, to $120.92 (€81.96) Thursday after rising to a 52-week high of $123 (€83.37) in earlier trading. Its shares have traded as low as $49.10 (€33.28) over the past year.
Unexpectedly strong Latin American sales of the herbicide Roundup caused Monsanto to increase its year-end profit forecast to between $2.50 (€1.69) to $2.60 (€1.76) a share from between $2.20 (€1.49) to $2.40 (€1.63) a share.
Analysts polled by Thomson Financial expect Monsanto to deliver profits of $2.59 (€1.76) per share this year, near the high end of Monsanto's new guidance.
CEO Hugh Grant said he was impressed with the jump in Roundup sales, but the company still plans to reap most of its future profit growth from developing new genetically engineered seeds.
"While we're delighted with the work of the Roundup teams globally, our success in seeds and traits will ultimately determine how we meet our 2008 commitments and our 2012 targets," Grant told analysts during a conference call Thursday morning.
Rising sales of Roundup in Brazil and Argentina mean the herbicide will deliver roughly $1 billion (€0.68 billion) in gross profit by the end of the year, up from the $950 million (€643.94 million) the company estimated just over a month ago, said Chief Financial Officer Terrell Crews.
The company said total seed and genomics sales rose to $836 million (€566.66 million) from $680 million (€460.92 million) in the year-ago quarter. Agricultural sales rose to $1.26 billion (€0.85 billion) from $859 million (€582.25 million) a year ago.
Gizmag
Posted: 2008-05-02 17:48:20
Odysseus' radical Z-wing configurationMay 2, 2008 Aurora Flight Sciences has revealed the design of the aircraft it hopes will achieve the ambitious goals set out in DARPA's ambitious Vulture program: sustained uninterrupted flight for over five years at altitudes of 60,000-90,000 feet. Known as Odysseus, the solar-powered concept aircraft is as radical as the mission it is designed to accomplish, combining three self-sufficient “constituent aircraft” in a unique Z wing configuration that spans almost 500 feet (150 meters). The modular design provides several advantages - the shape of the aircraft can be adjusted to maximize the solar collection properties during the day and spread flat for aerodynamic efficiency at night-time, when energy stored in onboard batteries is used to drive the aircraft's electric motors. Because each of the constituent vehicles is capable of autonomously docking at altitude, the design also facilitates the replacement of one section of the plane whilst it is still aloft, meaning continuous flight can be maintained even if something goes awry.
Designed to fly in the stratosphere, Odysseus will be used for surveillance and reconnaissance, communications relay and environmental monitoring with the potential for roles in global climate change research and regional-scale telecommunications.
Each autonomous section of the plane has three high efficiency electric brushless motors turning Low Reynolds number propellers giving the aircraft the ability to cruise at 63 m/s during daytime and 45 m/s during nighttime and carry a payload of 500kg. The onboard batteries are designed to be recharged each day via double sided cells optimized for energy collection efficiency at high latitudes, and adding to the redundancy built in to the plane's architecture, Odysseus' electronics are adapted from spacecraft designs which have already proven their reliability in missions lasting several years.
One of three contractors recently chosen for the Vulture program (along with Boeing and Lockheed Martin), Aurora Flight Sciences will develop a half scale demonstrator followed by a full scale prototype aircraft in 5 years.
The company was formed in 1989 by the former head of the Daedalus Project, Dr. John S. Langford, and several colleagues from M.I.T. and Harvard. BAE Systems (sensors and concept of operations), C.S. Draper Laboratories (ultra-high-reliability electronic controls), and Sierra Nevada Corporation (the rendezvous and docking system) will also contribute to the Odysseus program.
Science Daily
Posted: 2008-05-02 17:52:03
"The frequency and the shape of the pulses generated by stun guns are designed to incapacitate the target by electrically overwhelming his or her control of these muscles," state Dr. K. Nanthakumar and colleagues. "In principle, these pulses are designed to act only on skeletal muscles and to not affect internal organs such as the heart." The evidence that stun guns do not stimulate the heart is based on "...theoretical studies [that] suggest that stun guns cannot deliver the amount of energy required to stimulate the heart or cause ventricular fibrillation."
Dr. Nanthakumar and collegues point out that most theoretical and some experimental studies reveal that cardiac stimulation does not occur with stun gun discharges. However, experimental studies on pigs by 3 independent groups of investigators found that "a stun gun discharge can stimulate the heart" depending on the location of the stun gun barbs. Barbs that are located such that they form a vector across the heart have greater effect than those focused on the abdomen. In one study, swine blood pressure was abruptly lost after discharge of a stun gun, and another study "reported the deaths of 2 animals caused by ventricular fibrillation immediately after the stun gun discharge....This suggests that sufficient current density was produced by the stun gun to stimulate the heart, which according to theory should not and could not occur."
The researchers caution against applying data from pigs to humans, although "most of the basic mechanistic concepts in cardiac fibrillation and defibrillation are derived from animal studies, not humans."
Recently, there have been several deaths after the use of stun guns, including Robert Dziekanski in Richmond, British Columbia, a Montréal, Quebec man and 24 year-old Chicago, Illionois resident, Kevin Piskura. More than 300 deaths following stun gun use have been documented, 20 of them in Canada.
Regarding arrhythmias long after the discharge of the stun gun, Dr. Nanthakumar, Dr. Paul Dorian and colleagues conclude "...there is no conclusive evidence to show whether stun gun stimulation (under certain electrophysical conditions) can result in cardiac arrhythmias late after stun gun discharge. With regards to deleterious effects on the heart during the discharge they state "In our view, it is inappropriate to conclude that stun gun discharges cannot lead to adverse cardiac consequences in all real world settings."
Science Daily
Posted: 2008-05-02 17:52:03
"The frequency and the shape of the pulses generated by stun guns are designed to incapacitate the target by electrically overwhelming his or her control of these muscles," state Dr. K. Nanthakumar and colleagues. "In principle, these pulses are designed to act only on skeletal muscles and to not affect internal organs such as the heart." The evidence that stun guns do not stimulate the heart is based on "...theoretical studies [that] suggest that stun guns cannot deliver the amount of energy required to stimulate the heart or cause ventricular fibrillation."
Dr. Nanthakumar and collegues point out that most theoretical and some experimental studies reveal that cardiac stimulation does not occur with stun gun discharges. However, experimental studies on pigs by 3 independent groups of investigators found that "a stun gun discharge can stimulate the heart" depending on the location of the stun gun barbs. Barbs that are located such that they form a vector across the heart have greater effect than those focused on the abdomen. In one study, swine blood pressure was abruptly lost after discharge of a stun gun, and another study "reported the deaths of 2 animals caused by ventricular fibrillation immediately after the stun gun discharge....This suggests that sufficient current density was produced by the stun gun to stimulate the heart, which according to theory should not and could not occur."
The researchers caution against applying data from pigs to humans, although "most of the basic mechanistic concepts in cardiac fibrillation and defibrillation are derived from animal studies, not humans."
Recently, there have been several deaths after the use of stun guns, including Robert Dziekanski in Richmond, British Columbia, a Montréal, Quebec man and 24 year-old Chicago, Illionois resident, Kevin Piskura. More than 300 deaths following stun gun use have been documented, 20 of them in Canada.
Regarding arrhythmias long after the discharge of the stun gun, Dr. Nanthakumar, Dr. Paul Dorian and colleagues conclude "...there is no conclusive evidence to show whether stun gun stimulation (under certain electrophysical conditions) can result in cardiac arrhythmias late after stun gun discharge. With regards to deleterious effects on the heart during the discharge they state "In our view, it is inappropriate to conclude that stun gun discharges cannot lead to adverse cardiac consequences in all real world settings."
Ah, dah, the heart IS a muscle.
Anatomy 101.
EIGHTH GRADE SCIENCE!!
