Is Africa Facing a Bigger Threat Than Colonialism?

The impact of the G8 New Alliance For Food Security and Nutrition (New Alliance) does everything but accomplish what its title suggests. If anything, its false, repressive, spurious existence is a threat to food sovereignty and agro-ecology in Africa and elsewhere.  In other words, predatory capitalism under the pretense of  reducing poverty.

Oxfam found that "both the New Alliance and related policy reforms actually risk marginalizing small-scale agriculture, undermining land tenure security, and endangering the right to food of the most vulnerable people."

Simply put, New Alliance's agenda is the corporate takeover of Africa's food. African governments are reforming laws to benefit multinational corporations like Monsanto in return for western aid and investment. Farmers would be restricted from saving and swapping seeds, and many who buy them would end up in debt. Meanwhile, traditional seed varieties could be lost forever. The law actually says "farmers that use seed varieties claimed under new intellectual property rights by individuals and companies anywhere in the world risk hefty fines or even imprisonment."



According to Lauren McCauley,

“Under the specious claim of delivering "aid to Africa," western governments are backing an initiative—described by some as another form of "colonialism"—that is effectively enabling the corporate takeover of African nations by some of the world’s biggest food and agriculture companies."

Why do we allow the parasitic wealthy and powerful--those who live off the blood, sweat and tears of others, who talk openly about the horrors of third world overpopulation--free reign to decide what's in the best interest of third world people? They have clearly stated that we must reduce that population.  It's insane! Or, perhaps, most of us agree with these predators...as long as it's not us. 

“What small scale farmers need is investment in infrastructure that links them more locally and regionally...Where control and ownership over the means of farming, buying and selling food and the culture of food is held by farmers (and people)—not outside elites." -- Dan Iles, food sovereignty campaigner with Global Justice Now

Links:

Mycotoxins: The Cost of Achieving Food Security and Food Quality

Mycotoxin contamination of foods in Africa: Antinutritional factors

G8 New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition Not Supportive of Small-Scale Food Producers

Corporate influence through the G8 New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition in Africa

Read more...

Evil People Have Plans! Good People Have Donuts and Word Jumbles.

Clear thinking comedian Lee Camp tells it like it is.

Evil people have plans.



Message to homophobes.



We Can't Control The Monsters We Create



What do Glen Beck and Hugh Hefner have in common?



Stamp out happiness!

Read more...

Avoiding the Internet Cocoon

#1 on my wishlist:
Although mainstream views are much more palatable therefore less likely to be suppressed, and while it takes one hundred times the effort to find attention or acceptance for out of the mainstream views, it's very important not to cocoon yourself with the like-minded.

I find that people with mainstream views, finding acceptance more readily, therefore more confident to espouse their beliefs, may even search out "radical" points of view to disparage, bolstering their belief system at the same time.

However, when you limit yourself to a single source, or a cocoon of thought, you prevent yourself from getting to the truth of the matter. If you get your information from a group or configuration of varying ideas and sources, and cross-check all the information that you get, taking the time to engage in back-and-forth discourse, you not only strengthen your ability to back up your own set of beliefs, or debunk them, you open yourself up to a wealth of knowledge to draw from enabling the creation of new ideas.

I repeatedly mentioned the people who "matter" yesterday while blogging the Antichrist out of my system; here is an example of what I meant by referring to those that matter. The other side of the equation... equally important to the path to the truth. I'm fairly certain they would disagree completely that they are the only ones who matter, and may argue that the ones who get all the special treatment are the ones who really "matter". I'll address that later, but they do have a point.

Keep in mind, I am an anonymous blogger and there is a certain luxury of being able to hide your identity, and if you choose to do that, as I have, it's even more important that you do not abuse the privilege by engaging in bashing others who do identify themselves. I am not putting these people down by singling them out. Not at all. Both the left and the right skew the statistics to support their "agenda" or point of view.

However, just because a person inserts a picture and a name does not mean it's that person. It's very easy to take on the identity of someone else on the Internet. Unless you see that person on TV, or hear them on the radio or they are affiliated with a major company, like Andrew Sullivan, for example, there is no way of knowing whether that person is who he or she says they are.

How high is the U.S. poverty rate?

Here is some wisdom, from the non-libertarian, non-right-wing, never-asked-to-contribute-to-the-WSJ-Op-Ed-page Lane Kenworthy:

Poverty comparisons across affluent nations typically use a “relative” measure of poverty. For each country the poverty line — the amount of income below which a household is defined as poor — is set at 50% (sometimes 60%) of that country’s median income. In a country with a high median, such as the United States, the poverty line thus will be comparatively high, making a high poverty rate more likely...

Using a relative measure, the U.S. poverty rate is higher than Romania’s and only slightly lower than Mexico’s (see here). Similarly, Mississippi’s relative poverty rate is the same as Connecticut’s.

So when you hear that the U.S. poverty rate is about 20 percent, keep this in mind. Here is more, including links to research. Here is a response from Paul Krugman. Note that Krugman's initial Op-Ed stresses how the measured rate has not fallen over (some periods of) time, but his response simply cites a ranking of the U.S. among other wealthy nations, based on an absolute poverty rate. Have the time series comparisons been jettisoned or should we stand by them?

Here is more useful information. It's also worth noting that poverty rate numbers do not take into account food stamps, housing subsidies, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and Medicaid, among other benefits. Not to mention black market income and underreported income (often for EITC reasons); yes it is worth referring back to consumption data which show that the poor do quite a bit better than income data alone would indicate. That said, a very good case can be made that we overinvest in fighting the poverty of the elderly and underinvest in fighting the poverty of children.

The bottom line: Be very suspicious when you hear talk about the poverty rate. The real question, as stressed by James Heckman, is what rate of return we can hope to achieve from feasible interventions in favor of poor, young children. That's a much harder question to argue. Heckman of course finds a high rate of return, so I suspect the key question centers around what is "feasible" given the imperfections of politics. It's worth noting that many federal anti-poverty programs have in fact failed, or so changed that we don't even call them anti-poverty programs any more. At the end of the day that calls for "better action" rather than inaction, but softening people up with overly pessimistic and uncritically presented numbers will probably make a good program less rather than more likely.

So, at the end of the day, or more like the beginning in my case, I've found two more interesting blogs. Lane Kenworthy's blog, who I believe could easily fit into my cocoon of thought, and Marginal Revolution, who presents the other side. I do grow tired of reading and listening to things that agree too much with my own point of view, sometimes. I have to remind myself that reading a variety of viewpoints and keeping an open mind is so important to the creative process.

Read more...

Government of the Antichrist, By the Antichrist, For the Antichrist.

Artist: Mr. Fish
No, I haven't lost my mind, however, this thought of the Antichrist, right here, right now, has emerged, so, instead of letting this insanity fester, I'd rather blog it out of my system. In other words, I want to broadcast my insanity, in hopes that the shame (Yes, even though I'm anonymous ...I've told a few people about this blog so that I may very well be standing naked only thinking I'm fully clothed) will allow me to exercise the power of reason once more. I'm just going to throw this line of "reasoning" out there and see if it sticks to something that prohibits this ghastly thought from returning. Here it goes:

Some, including Pope John Paul II say President George W. Bush is the Antichrist.

"...people close to the pope claim that amid these concerns, the pontiff wishes he was younger and in better health to confront the possibility that Bush may represent the person prophesized in Revelations. John Paul II has always believed the world was on the precipice of the final confrontation between Good and Evil as foretold in the New Testament."

Granted, the Pope did not utter the word, Antichrist, nevertheless, he came as close as he could without actually saying the word. Now, why would a smart, educated man like Pope John Paul II call Bush the "Antichrist", when men who appear to be far more evil - Joseph Kony, Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, Idi Amin, etc. - exist and have existed for as long as man has walked the earth?

Sounds a little harsh. After all, President Bush doesn't threaten to put "we the people" through shredders, throw us in torture chambers, cut off the limbs of our children, brothers and sisters. He doesn't force us to bow down in his presence, forbid us to say nasty things about him, starve us to death or anything like that. So, how could the Pope, of all people, even consider President Bush to be the Antichrist?

While there is no question that the aforementioned men and countless others have etched the essence of their evil into existence for all eternity to gasp in horror, two questions come to mind. The first question, what is the extent of this person's power and influence? The potential magnitude of his evil doings? The second question, how conspicuous is the evil doing?

Pervasive evil is never apparent right away. In fact, many of these men charmed themselves into power, but it didn't take long for the people governed by these egregiously evil men to realize how egregiously evil they were. With the exception of Adolf Hitler, in modern history, the command these men had over others was limited to the country or nation they ruled. Their ability or capacity to perform or act effectively did not extend past their own borders for the most part.

In contrast, President Bush's power far exceeds the fifty states he was elected to lead. In addition to spreading his idea of "freedom" and "democracy" across the oil-enriched part of the globe, the President has taken it upon himself to increase the authority of the Executive Branch as much as possible. Although, the President has made some bold statements regarding his authority, he mostly operates under the radar, circumventing laws and expanding presidential power subversively, using signing statements, instead of the veto, for example.

President Bush, unlike other evildoers, wants "we the people", at least "we the people" who matter - those with any type of political clout - to live it up, have a good time, and shop until we drop. Suffering is the last thing he wants "his" people, the ones who matter, to associate with him.

And, that's the way it "appears" to most of us. If anything, President Bush may have made some mistakes, however, he was only doing his best to keep us safe and out of trouble. Maybe Bush is not the bulb with the highest wattage readily perceived by the eye, but the man's heart is in the right place. Right? Well, how about, does it exist in the first place? None of the evidence thus far suggests that President Bush has a heart.

Keep in mind, the worst kind of enemy is the deceitful kind who operates in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way, but in actuality, is committing atrocities that appear to be the fault of someone or something else, and all the while, laying the groundwork for that which causes harm, misfortune, and destruction to become infectious and spread sort of like a cancer or disease, without marked symptoms, but ready to become active upon the slightest unavoidable change.

The seeds have been sown, and the harm, misfortune, and destruction have more than started to spread; it's just that it hasn't spread to the people who matter, us. An infinitesimally small part of our population, our soldiers, and their families, have box seats to witness and feel the horror that is taking place under this administration. Fortunately, for President Bush, most of the horror takes place in another world as far as we're concerned...another galaxy.

A much larger part of our population also suffers the effects of this Administration's actions directly, but have no voice...the poor, the "near poor", the uninsured...the segment of the population that "doesn't matter". This part of our population is growing at an alarming rate, however, and those of us who sit back in judgment, saying they brought it upon themselves may have to think twice as they find themselves joining the ranks of the marginalized.

Combine insidious with "all powerful" and the Pope's thinking starts to make a little bit of sense. Going to war with Iraq; overturning habeas corpus; authorizing and encouraging torture; domestic spying; imprisoning over 2500 children, held since 2001 as “enemy combatants”; Katrina; denying American children health care; expanding the gap ever wider between the haves and the have not’s; simultaneously cutting funding for veterans while cutting taxes on our wealthiest citizens; his callous attitude toward capital punishment...even his AIDS plan, President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is duplicitous.

Consider this quote from President Bush's speech in November of 2001:

"This new enemy seeks to destroy our freedom and impose its views.

What are we doing over in Iraq? Our idea of freedom may not be the same as another nation...what right do we have to destroy their way of life to impose our views of freedom, democracy?

We value life; the terrorists ruthlessly destroy it.

Is sending young "men" and "women", barely out of school, over to fight a war, based on lies and greed, that is certain to either kill them, injure them beyond repair or psychologically damage them, valuing life? Is killing and injuring thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians, including children, valuing life? Is holding the record for executing the most people as Governor valuing life? Is smirking while commenting on ordering a person to death valuing life? Is letting a bunch of people drown just because they don't happen to have the right color skin, and the status and wealth of white suburban America valuing life?

We value education; the terrorists do not believe women should be educated or should have health care, or should leave their homes. We value the right to speak our minds; for the terrorists, free expression can be grounds for execution. We respect people of all faiths and welcome the free practice of religion; our enemy wants to dictate how to think and how to worship even to their fellow Muslims.

I guess No Child Left Behind is an example of the way we value education, education for the sons and daughters of the people who can afford affluent surroundings, that is. Our system of school finance is one of the most unequal among industrialized nations, having major consequences for the educational achievement of students from low-income families and "No Child Left Behind" reinforces that 100%.

This enemy tries to hide behind a peaceful faith. But those who celebrate the murder of innocent men, women, and children have no religion, have no conscience, and have no mercy.We wage a war to save civilization, itself. We did not seek it, but we must fight it -- and we will prevail."

Aha! "Celebrate" is the key word here. President Bush doesn't celebrate the murder of innocence, in public. President Bush just doesn't give a damn. He's completely indifferent.

"Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is not a response. Indifference is not a beginning; it is an end. And, therefore, indifference is always the friend of the enemy, for it benefits the aggressor -- never his victim, whose pain is magnified when he or she feels forgotten. The political prisoner in his cell, the hungry children, the homeless refugees -- not to respond to their plight, not to relieve their solitude by offering them a spark of hope is to exile them from human memory. And in denying their humanity, we betray our own.
[...]
The end of evil and the notion of redemption begins when indifference ends."-- Elie Wiesel

Well, I'm not convinced President Bush is or isn't the Antichrist because I wouldn't know the Antichrist if I tripped over him, however, I understand why Pope John Paul II wondered whether President Bush may indeed be the Antichrist. He may not be the devil or Lucifer or born of a jackel, but he stands for everything Christ condemned and brutally destroys everything Christ epitomized. I'd call that Anti-Christ, wouldn't you?

Read more...