Sharing the type of news you are unlikely to come across in the mainstream media.
Tuesday 27 December 2011
Wednesday 21 December 2011
Secret sources of BPA
So you've thrown away the can opener, stopped eating foods that come in plastic packages, and use only BPA-free containers at home.
Believe it or not, you could STILL have super-high levels of this endocrine-disrupting chemical -- because it's in positively everything, up to and including the newspaper you read this morning.
One more reason to go online for your news!
New tests find that common paper products contain up to 1 MILLION times the BPA of food containers -- with the highest levels found in newspapers and paper tickets.
You might think this isn't worth worrying about since you don't eat paper -- but BPA can actually enter the body through your skin. One study last year found that 30 percent of the BPA from paper receipts remains on the skin two hours after exposure -- and you can't even wash it off.
Because those same BPA-laced receipts are then tossed in with the recycling, this chemical is now found in just about every product made from recycled paper: business cards, napkins, paper food wrappers and toilet paper.
Throw in all the sources you already know about -- especially plastic food containers and canned goods -- and you could be exposed at every waking moment... from your morning newspaper to the can of beer at the end of the day.
Stop waiting for the government to act on this one -- if all these industries insist on using BPA, insist on buying other products instead. Hit 'em in the wallet hard enough, and eventually they'll get the message... or they'll be out of business.
Either outcome is acceptable to me.
Showing my "can-don't" attitude,
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
Tuesday 20 December 2011
Sunday 11 December 2011
Out of the Backyard: New Latin American and Caribbean Bloc Defies Washington
By: Benjamin Dangl, Toward Freedom | News Analysis
Truthout
Rain clouds ringed the lush hillsides and poor neighborhoods cradling Caracas, Venezuela as dozens of Latin American and Caribbean heads of state trickled out of the airport and into motorcades and hotel rooms.They were gathering for the foundational summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), a new regional bloc aimed at self-determination outside the scope of Washington’s power.
Notably absent were the presidents of the US and Canada – they were not invited to participate. "It's the death sentence for the Monroe Doctrine," Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega said of the creation of the CELAC, referring to a US policy developed in 1823 that has served as a pretext for Washington's interventions in the region. Indeed, the CELAC has been put forth by many participating presidents as an organization to replace the US-dominated Organization of American States (OAS), empower Latin American and Caribbean unity, and create a more equal and just society on the region’s own terms.
The CELAC meeting comes a time when Washington’s presence in the region is waning. Following the nightmarish decades of the Cold War, in which Washington propped up dictators and waged wars on Latin American nations, a new era has opened up; in the past decade a wave of leftist presidents have taken office on socialist and anti-imperialist platforms.
The creation of the CELAC reflected this new reality, and is one of various recent developments aimed at unifying Latin America and the Caribbean as a progressive alternative to US domination. Other such regional blocs include the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) which has successfully resolved diplomatic crises without pressure from Washington, the Bank of the South, which is aimed at providing alternatives to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and the Bolivarian Alliance of Latin America (ALBA), which was created as an alternative to the Free Trade Area of the Americas, a deal which would have expanded the North American Free Trade Agreement throughout Latin America, but failed due to regional opposition.
The global economic crisis was on many of the leaders’ minds during the CELAC conference. "It seems it's a terminal, structural crisis of capitalism," Bolivian President Evo Morales said in a speech at the gathering. "I feel we're meeting at a good moment to debate ... the great unity of the countries of America, without the United States."
The 33 nations comprising the CELAC make up some 600 million people, and together are the number one food exporter on the planet. The combined GDP of the bloc is around $6 trillion, and in a time of global economic woes, the region now has its lowest poverty rate in 20 years; the growth rate in 2010 was over 6% - more than twice that of the US. These numbers reflect the success of the region’s social programs and anti-poverty initiatives.
In an interview with Telesur, Evo Morales said the space opened by the CELAC provides a great opportunity to expand the commerce of Latin America and the Caribbean in a way that does not depend on the precarious markets of the US and Europe. In this respect he saw a central goal of the CELAC being to “implement politics of solidarity, with complementary instead of competitive commerce to resolve social problems…”
While the US is the leading trading partner for most Latin American and Caribbean countries, China is making enormous inroads as well, becoming the main trade ally of the economic powerhouses of Brazil and Chile. This shift was underlined by the fact that Chinese President Hu Jintao sent a letter of congratulations to the leaders forming the CELAC. The letter, which Chávez read out loud to the summit participants, congratulated the heads of state on creating the CELAC, and promised that Hu would work toward expanding relations with the region’s new organization.
The US, for its part, did not send a word of congratulations. Indeed, Washington’s official take on the CELAC meeting downplayed the new group’s significance and reinforced US commitment to the OAS. Commenting on the CELAC, US Department of State spokesman Mark Toner said, “There [are] many sub-regional organizations in the hemisphere, some of which we belong to. Others, such as this, we don’t. We continue, obviously, to work through the OAS as the preeminent multilateral organization speaking for the hemisphere.”
Many heads of state actually saw the CELAC meeting as the beginning of the end for the OAS in the region. This position, held most passionately by leaders from Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba, was best articulated by Venezuelan President, and host of the CELAC meeting, Hugo Chávez. "As the years pass, CELAC will leave behind the old OAS," Chávez said at the summit. “OAS is far from the spirit of our peoples and integration in Latin America. CELAC is born with a new spirit; it is a platform for people's economic, political and social development, which is very different from OAS.” He later told reporters, “There have been many coup d'états with total support from the OAS, and it won’t be this way with the CELAC.”
However, the presidents involved in the CELAC vary widely in political ideology and foreign policy, and there were differing opinions in regards to relations with the OAS. Some saw the CELAC as something that could work alongside the OAS. As Mexican chancellor Patricia Espinosa said, the OAS and the CELAC are “complementary forces of cooperation and dialogue.”
A test of the CELAC will be how it overcomes such differences and makes concrete steps toward developing regional integration, combating poverty, upholding human rights, protecting the environment and building peace, among other goals. The final agreements of the two day meeting touched upon expanding south to south business and trade deals, combating climate change and building better social programs across the region to impact marginalized communities. In addition, the CELAC participants backed the legalization of coca leaves (widely used as a medicine and for cultural purposes in the Andes), condemned the criminalization of immigrants and migrants, and criticized the US for its embargo against Cuba.
Various presidents at the CELAC spoke of how to approach these dominant issues. Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega said the CELAC should “monitor and rate” the US anti-drug efforts. As long as the US continues its consumption of drugs, Ortega said, “All the money, regardless of by how much it’s multiplied, and all the blood, no matter how much is spilled” won’t end the drug trade.
Yet there are plenty of contradictions within the CELAC organization itself. The group is for democracy but includes the participation of Porfirio Lobo from Honduras, the president who replaced Manuel Zelaya in unfair elections following a 2009 military coup. The CELAC is for environmental protection, yet its largest participant, Brazil, is promoting an ecologically disastrous agricultural model of soy plantations, GMO crops and poisonous pesticides that are ruining the countryside and displacing small farmers. The group is for fairer trade networks and peace, yet various participating nations have already signed devastating trade deals with the US, and corrupt politicians at high levels of government across the region are deeply tied to the violence and profits of the transnational drug trade.
These are some of the serious challenges posed to Latin American and Caribbean unity and progress, but they do not cancel out the new bloc’s historical and political significance. The creation of the CELAC will likely prove to be a significant step toward the deepening of a struggle for independence and unity in the region, a struggle initiated nearly 200 years ago and largely led by Latin American liberator Simón Bolívar, whose legacy was regularly invoked at the CELAC conference.
In 1829, a year before his death, Bolívar famously said, “The United States appears destined by Providence to plague America with miseries in the name of Freedom.” Yet with the foundation of the CELAC under the clouds of Caracas, the march toward self-determination is still on.
BENJAMIN DANGL
Benjamin Dangl has worked as a journalist throughout Latin America and is the author of the new book, Dancing with Dynamite: Social Movements and States in Latin America (AK Press). For more information, visit DancingwithDynamite.com. Email Bendangl(at)gmail(dot)com.
Protect the Krisna Valley in Hungary
VÉDJUK MEG KRISNA-VÖLGYET ÉS A SZENT TEHENEKET!
A 270 hektáros Krisna-völgy jelenleg 300 szerzetesnek és kisgyermekes családnak, és 52 szentként tisztelt tehénnek valamint ökörnek a lakóhelye. Az egyházügyi törvény módosítása után kialakult rendezetlen jogi helyzet miatt azonban 2012. január 1-én ők mindannyian elveszíthetik otthonukat, életterüket, s az ország egyik legkiemelkedőbb ökogazdasága és turisztikai célpontja bezár.
A Somogyvámos határában lévő Krisna-völgyet 1993-ban kárpótlási jegyekért, saját erőből és adományokból vásárolták a hívők. Az első lakók a telet az akólban, szalmabálák között dideregve töltötték. Főzni, meleg ételhez jutni nem tudtak, mert a palackban megfagyott a gáz. De nem adták fel. Lemondásuknak és eltökéltségüknek köszönhetően az elhanyagolt birkalegelők és az ugaron fekvő területek néhány év alatt virágzó kertekké, lombos ligetekké és dúsan termő biogazdasággá változtak. Krisna-völgy az elmúlt években több, mint félmillió hazai és külföldi kisiskolást, egyetemistát, családot és turistát látott vendégül, s osztotta meg tapasztalatait velük. A vegyszermentes növénytermesztésre és szennyvíztisztításra, és a megújuló energiaforrások használatára épülő, önellátó Krisna-völgyi gazdaság világviszonylatban is elismertséget jelent Magyarországnak.
Védjük meg az ország egyik legfontosabb biogazdaságát és turisztikai célpontját! Mentsük meg a családokat, a szerzeteseket és a szent teheneket! Csatlakozz Te is a december 13-án 14.00 órai kezdettel a Parlament melletti téren (Kossuth tér 4., a Közigazgatási és Igazságügyi Minisztérium előtt), a Krisna-völgyi tehenek jelenlétében tartandó békés demonstrációhoz, melyben cselekvésre kérjük az ország vezetőit!
You can sign the petition here:
http://www.petitions24.com/krisna
Interview in Hungarian:
http://www.krisna.hu/w/?q=node/4256
Kérünk, fejezd ki Te is szimpátiádat petíciónk aláírásával: http://www.peticiok.com/krisna
További információk: www.krisna.hu
Mérő Mátyás (Madhupati dász) 06-1-212-62-70
Is war with Iran inevitable?
By Susanna Rustin
The Guardian
As tensions between Iran and the west escalate, and US politicians call for regime change, Susanna Rustin talks to former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Iranian-British academic Abbas Edalat, founder of the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran, about Iran's nuclear programme and the likelihood of war.
Malcolm Rifkind: I do not advocate a military attack on Iran, but the International Atomic Energy Agency says Iran is failing to comply with agency requirements and UN security council resolutions and it is very difficult for the international community to say it doesn't matter. If Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapons capability, that has massive implications.
Abbas Edalat: Sixty years ago the British government was demonising the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh, and it is doing the same to the Islamic Republic. When sanctions failed then, it organised with the US the 1953 coup and brought back the Shah. And in Iraq the same unfounded allegations of weapons of mass destruction that we are seeing now were used to justify an illegal war. Western intelligence sources are feeding fabricated evidence to the IAEA, whose new head [Yukiya Amano] was disclosed by WikiLeaks to be a hardline supporter of the US. But the IAEA's latest report [last month] is disappointing for the western alliance because it says Iran has not diverted its declared nuclear material [to weapons].
MR: Many of us who believe the Iraq war was disgraceful also believe Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. If it does, it is likely that Saudi Arabia and possibly Egypt and Turkey will follow. Even Russia and China have supported pressure on Iran. You are wrong if you think Iran has only the west to deal with.
AE: A couple of days ago the prime minister of the United Arab Emirates said they don't think Iran is building nuclear weapons. I think the international community has seen the catastrophic illegal invasion of Iraq and does not want that repeated. And you didn't mention the coup of 1953, for which Britain has never apologised. What is happening now is a re-run. Russia has said the latest sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran are illegal. The west is playing a game of hypocrisy and deception. President Obama wrote last year to the leaders of Brazil and Turkey, urging them to persuade Iran to deposit 1,200kg of low-enriched uranium in Turkey. Three weeks later Turkey and Brazil brokered a deal exactly on those terms. Did the White House welcome this breakthrough? No, it proposed new sanctions at the UN.
Susanna Rustin: Is there evidence last week's attack on the British embassy in Tehran was approved by the authorities?
MR: It is inconceivable an invasion of a foreign embassy by a large crowd could happen without government connivance.
AE: This allegation is contradicted by US vice-president Joe Biden, who said he has no evidence the attack was orchestrated by the Iranian leadership. When did it happen? Just after the UK imposed sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran.
MR: Most reasonable people will say, fortunately we have the IAEA. You say it is pressured by the US; that's an insult. Its latest report said Iran is taking action in its nuclear programme that is only consistent with a military purpose. We acknowledge mistakes were made in the past – you referred to the Mosaddegh affair and I can only give my personal view. I think that was a foolish mistake.
SR: Should the British apologise?
MR: I don't believe in demands for apologies. The question is why Iran, which has more oil and gas than almost any country, needs to give such a huge priority to nuclear energy. WikiLeaks quoted King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia calling for the head of the serpent – that was his phrase – to be cut off, meaning he wanted a military attack on Iran.
AE: There is no shred of evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. There is a fatwa by the supreme leader against weapons of mass destruction. And you quote King Abdullah, but the overwhelming majority of Arab people approve of Iran's nuclear programme.
SR: Does the discredited evidence of WMD in Iraq make tackling Iran harder?
MR: Much more difficult – the main beneficiary of the Iraq war was the Iranian government. Iraq traditionally was a sort of buffer but that has now disappeared because of the stupid policy of the US and Tony Blair's government.
SR: What do ordinary Iranians think?
AE: Sanctions will only unite them. Almost all the evidence in the most recent IAEA report is old, and Mohamed ElBaradei [former IAEA director] always said he had no confidence in allegations from the intelligence services of Israel and the US. The New York Times in 2004 questioned the provenance of the laptop from which these documents came.
MR: So everyone is wicked except Iran! Every piece of evidence is dismissed as fabrication. It's very depressing. Iran is a great country and ought to be playing a much more important role in the world. Instead, it has made itself a focus of antagonism. It is probably trying at the moment to produce the enriched uranium and missile technology that would enable it to stop for a period, then go to the final stage in months. Iran missed an opportunity when Obama came to power. He was willing to open up dialogue that could have led to normalisation of relations. And the Iranian government threw it back. The regime likes external enemies because it helps rally support at home.
AE: Old habits die hard, Sir Malcolm.
MR: Yours as well as ours!
AE: But we have not invaded another country for 250 years. When Iran was under attack by the western-backed invasion from Iraq, it did not respond in kind with chemical warfare. In October last year Sir John Sawers, the head of MI6, publicly said that the west should use covert operations to block Iran's nuclear programme. Since then two Iranian scientists have been assassinated. Why do you think Iranians believe MI6, Mossad and the CIA were behind that?
MR: I chair the Intelligence and Security Committee and can categorically say the UK does not support assassinations. The US, on occasion, has given authority for that to happen, so have the Israelis.
SR: Were the US or Israel behind the assassinations?
MR: I don't think the Americans were, I've no idea about the Israelis.
SR: How do you expect the situation to develop?
MR: It depends on the Iranian government. If the IAEA concludes at any stage there is no reason for concern, there is no way international action could be taken.
AE: The US House foreign relations committee has produced a bill that would prevent Obama having dialogue with Iran for the first time in history. The current hawkish policy of western governments will lead to military conflict. And that will be a catastrophe.
For comments:
Cameron made "bad" Euro deal, says Clegg
By Channel 4 News
The UK emerged from last week's Brussels summit with a "bad deal", says Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who fears Britain will now become "isolated and marginalised" within the EU.
The UK emerged from last week's Brussels summit with a "bad deal", says Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who fears Britain will now become "isolated and marginalised" within the EU.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg admitted today he was "bitterly disappointed" by the outcome of last week's European Council, when David Cameron wielded Britain's veto.
He warned that Britain could be left "isolated and marginalised" in the wake of the summit.
"I'm bitterly disappointed by the outcome of last week's summit, precisely because I think now there is a danger that the UK will be isolated and marginalised within the European Union," Mr Clegg told BBC1's Andrew Marr Show.
"I don't think that's good for jobs, in the City or elsewhere. I don't think it's good for growth or for families up and down the country."
He said he would now be doing "everything I can to ensure this setback does not become a permanent divide".
'Spectacularly misguided'
Mr Clegg spoke by telephone to the prime minister at 4am on Friday, as talks ended in Brussels.
The Lib Dem leader said: "I said this was bad for Britain. I made it clear that it was untenable for me to welcome it."
He said Tories welcoming the outcome of the summit were "spectacularly misguided".
At prime minister's questions last Wednesday, Conservative backbenchers urged David Cameron to show "bulldog spirit" in Brussels.
But Mr Clegg said today: "There's nothing bulldog about Britain hovering somewhere in the mid-Atlantic, not standing tall in Europe, not being taken seriously in Washington."
He warned the UK was "retreating further to the margins of Europe".
Read more: Will UK be left out in the cold?
'Not good for Britain'
Earlier, in today's Independent on Sunday, a source close to Mr Clegg said there had been "a spectacular failure to deliver in the country's interest" at the Brussels summit.
"Nick certainly doesn't think this is a good deal for Britain, for British jobs or British growth," the source said.
"It leaves us isolated in Europe and that is not in our national interest. Nick's fear is that we become the lonely man of Europe."
The source said Mr Clegg "couldn't believe it" when, on Friday morning, he was informed of the course of events and how Mr Cameron had sought to negotiate with fellow EU leaders.
'Reasonable requests'
Speaking on BBC Radio Nottingham, Conservative Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke, a pro-European, described the outcome of the summit as "disappointing".
"There will be a big statement made by the prime minister on Monday, where I shall be sitting listening, and I shall be discussing what we are going to do now," Mr Clarke said.
Meanwhile, Foreign Secretary William Hague, writing in The Telegraph, gave his backing to Mr Cameron.
"Our requests were moderate, reasonable and relevant, given the potential spill-over from fiscal to financial integration," wrote Mr Hague.
"We did not go to Brussels seeking a row. We went in search of agreement. It is a matter of regret that no agreement that was acceptable to all 27 EU countries could be reached.
"But it is better to have no change to the EU treaties than a change that did not protect our interests."
How soda can slowly kill you
Breaking news: Sugar is bad for you!
I know, I know -- you'd have to be soft in the head to think this stuff won't damage your heart… but judging by the always-rising sales of sugary drinks, that message hasn't exactly sunk in with the masses.
Now, a new study confirms -- surprise, surprise! -- that sugar will wreck your insides even if you're perfectly slim on the outside… and that women in particular face the highest risks.
Soda, bottled teas, juice drinks, energy drinks, and those crazy "coffee" concoctions from Starbucks -- you name it, researchers say women who drank just two a day over five years were 400 percent more likely to have high triglycerides than women who didn't drink the stuff, no matter what they weighed.
What's more, those two daily drinks threw glucose levels so far out of whack that these women -- yes, even the thin ones -- were already facing a higher risk of diabetes.
But I don't need to see yet another study on this -- just the ingredients labels on those drinks: A single can of soda contains TEN teaspoons or sugar, while a small bottle of that garbage contains 16.
How can that NOT wreck your insides?
Don't think you can get yourself off the hook by switching to diet soda -- because if there's anything worse for you than sugar, it's the chemical sweeteners used in low-calorie drinks.
And the worst of the worst is the most common artificial sweetener of all: aspartame. This lab-created monstrosity has been linked to cancer, dementia, premature birth, migraines, seizures, and more.
In other words, if you're at all interested in keeping healthy, avoid both sugary drinks and diet drinks.
Coffee, tea, seltzer, water (filtered by reverse osmosis) and even booze are all much better options.
Getting bitter over sweets,
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)