The New York Subway System Today!
A new law has been passed that will prohibit the drinking of coffee, or eating on the subway trains. This law also prohibits passengers from moving from one carriage to another while the train is in motion. Anyone found doing any of the above, can get a ticket or charged for these violations.
Imagine, New York City. A place where foreigners come to experience the Big Apple, spend their money, visit our museums, and theaters, and have to comply with these ridiculous regulations on our transportation systems.
First it was the X Rated Video Stores or Book-Shops that were legally shut down. Then the National Parks & The Piers came into focus for sanitization. Then the streets are now policed day and night, by over zealous cops, harassing Black & Latino youths mostly, for standing in groups, walking with a bottle that may be construed as having alcohol, and being FRISKED on a regular basis on the grounds of suspicion.
Even the New York City Greenwich Village Piers have their own Police/Security guards that harass our youths every day. They claim that the youths are 'making too much noise while there As for the bathroom facilities, you have spies watching you all the time while you are relieving yourself there too!
What next are we going to experience in the so called FREE LAND OF America?
OM Shanti.
Derryck.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Cannabis & What Teenagers Need To Know:
Cannabis: what teenagers need to know !
Panorama explores the latest scientific research on the effects ofcannabis on the human mind. In particular, the programme will look atthe growing evidence of links between cannabis and psychotic illness inyoung people.
British youngsters are using Cannabis earlier and smoking more of itthan any previous generation. Most don't even think of it as a drug, andthe popular perception is that it has no serious long-term effects.However, the truth is that, until very recently, very little was knownabout how cannabis actually affects developing brains.
The programme meets young people who have developed psychotic illnessesafter heavy cannabis use and speaks to the psychiatrists who have foundlinks between users' genetic makeup and the risk of developing mentalillness.
Featuring the work of scientists who have used the latest technology tolook inside peoples' heads and see - quite literally - how cannabischanges the way people think. It meets the scientist whose unpublishednew research suggests that cannabis can cause long-term chemical changesin users' brains and supports the idea that it can be a "gateway" makingusers more likely to take other drugs.
Watch the programme trailer: http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/40629000/rm/_40629476_trail_vi.ram
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/pn/-/1/hi/programmes/panorama/default.stm------------------------------------------------------------
GET MORE FROM PANORAMA
Panorama explores the latest scientific research on the effects ofcannabis on the human mind. In particular, the programme will look atthe growing evidence of links between cannabis and psychotic illness inyoung people.
British youngsters are using Cannabis earlier and smoking more of itthan any previous generation. Most don't even think of it as a drug, andthe popular perception is that it has no serious long-term effects.However, the truth is that, until very recently, very little was knownabout how cannabis actually affects developing brains.
The programme meets young people who have developed psychotic illnessesafter heavy cannabis use and speaks to the psychiatrists who have foundlinks between users' genetic makeup and the risk of developing mentalillness.
Featuring the work of scientists who have used the latest technology tolook inside peoples' heads and see - quite literally - how cannabischanges the way people think. It meets the scientist whose unpublishednew research suggests that cannabis can cause long-term chemical changesin users' brains and supports the idea that it can be a "gateway" makingusers more likely to take other drugs.
Watch the programme trailer: http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/40629000/rm/_40629476_trail_vi.ram
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/pn/-/1/hi/programmes/panorama/default.stm------------------------------------------------------------
GET MORE FROM PANORAMA
Where Have All The HIV & AIDS Advocates Gone?
May 12-2005.
TO: greggg@gmhc.orgCC: jdavo@msn.com
Hello Everyone!
I read your concerns with some trepidation. I also agree with most of what you have outlined below, specificly the concern for the seeming lack of advocacy by HIV + people. And the seeming lack of HIV positive Decision Makers and Providers within our communities. This reality has always bothered me, ever since the advent of HAART medications. I know for a fact that some of us have concentrated our advocacy work (In House) so to speak. We sit on The City & State Levels, as advisors, planners and frontline people, where certain decisions regarding Funding for HIV Prevention & Related Services are made.
But we are very few, in comparison to the volume of VISIBLE ADVOCATES we had prior to the advent of HAART medications. And I feel (just like you said), that we have become (by & large) very complacent. We are now almost totally reliant upon the decisions of those who are not HIV positive. Is not personally impacted by this pandemic in any real way. And we are saddled with organizational bureaucrats, who seem bent on CONTROLLING the HIV Positive population, equated to that of A Correctional Facility/Prison!
Of course this attitude differs from culture to culture. The politics invariably hinges upon who is in control of the financial resources for research, funding Service Oriented Providers, and the cultural stigmas that are still evident internationally about HIV and AIDS. And yes, we have also a very big problem with personal responsibility within our communities. Some of us are back into unsafe sexual activities (Big Time): Others cannot wait to attend the next Sex Party Revelry: Drinking & Drugging seem to be on the rise within our communities: And last but not least, BARE-BACKING seem to be the next best thing to indulge in these days!
So what can us Advocates, (who are still active do to encourage involvement)? I say, bring these realities to the fore, via The Internet: The Public Media: The Tabloids: And in any way that will grant us publicity. By doing so regularly, maybe-just maybe, from the conscience of some of us, will emerge some consideration, for a return to the movement of advocacy.
Or change some of our reckless behaviour!
Om Shanti.
Derryck S. Griffith.
Political Educator & Advocate.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/derryckgrifith
TO: greggg@gmhc.orgCC: jdavo@msn.com
Hello Everyone!
I read your concerns with some trepidation. I also agree with most of what you have outlined below, specificly the concern for the seeming lack of advocacy by HIV + people. And the seeming lack of HIV positive Decision Makers and Providers within our communities. This reality has always bothered me, ever since the advent of HAART medications. I know for a fact that some of us have concentrated our advocacy work (In House) so to speak. We sit on The City & State Levels, as advisors, planners and frontline people, where certain decisions regarding Funding for HIV Prevention & Related Services are made.
But we are very few, in comparison to the volume of VISIBLE ADVOCATES we had prior to the advent of HAART medications. And I feel (just like you said), that we have become (by & large) very complacent. We are now almost totally reliant upon the decisions of those who are not HIV positive. Is not personally impacted by this pandemic in any real way. And we are saddled with organizational bureaucrats, who seem bent on CONTROLLING the HIV Positive population, equated to that of A Correctional Facility/Prison!
Of course this attitude differs from culture to culture. The politics invariably hinges upon who is in control of the financial resources for research, funding Service Oriented Providers, and the cultural stigmas that are still evident internationally about HIV and AIDS. And yes, we have also a very big problem with personal responsibility within our communities. Some of us are back into unsafe sexual activities (Big Time): Others cannot wait to attend the next Sex Party Revelry: Drinking & Drugging seem to be on the rise within our communities: And last but not least, BARE-BACKING seem to be the next best thing to indulge in these days!
So what can us Advocates, (who are still active do to encourage involvement)? I say, bring these realities to the fore, via The Internet: The Public Media: The Tabloids: And in any way that will grant us publicity. By doing so regularly, maybe-just maybe, from the conscience of some of us, will emerge some consideration, for a return to the movement of advocacy.
Or change some of our reckless behaviour!
Om Shanti.
Derryck S. Griffith.
Political Educator & Advocate.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/derryckgrifith
Youth's Blog Stirs Uproar Over Ex-Gay Group:
Youth's blog stirs uproar over 'ex-gay' camp
Larry Buhl, PlanetOut Network Thursday, June 16, 2005 / 05:45 PM
SUMMARY: A youth's online postings about being sent to a rigid "ex-gay" program has troubled LGBT leaders and sparked daily protests at the ministry's Tennessee headquarters.
Editor's Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly placed Love in Action in Alabama, rather than Tennessee. We regret the error.
Sixteen-year-old "Zach" is apparently enduring a rite of passage still too common for gay youth: His parents say he must change. When they enrolled him last month in a Christian camp-like program to turn him straight, he documented his fears in his online diary, or blog.
The PlanetOut Network could not confirm Zach's identity or his story, but the blog has sparked a firestorm of protest against the program, known as Refuge, and renewed scrutiny of similar "ministries."
A residential program run by Memphis, Tenn.-based Love in Action (LIA), Refuge "ministers to adolescents struggling with broken and addictive behaviors, such as promiscuity, alcohol and drug addiction and homosexuality," according to its Web site.
An estimated total of 150 people -- including parents, children, psychiatrists and other concerned Memphis residents carrying signs that have slogans such as "This is Child Abuse" -- have gathered over eight consecutive days outside LIA headquarters. On Thursday LIA held a press conference in response to the protests.
For LIA, homosexuality is not an orientation but a set of behaviors that lies at the root of all dysfunction. And homosexual desires can supposedly be reprogrammed, through Refuge, at a cost of $2,000 for two weeks, or $4,000 for six weeks. Patterned after teen drug and alcohol programs, Refuge minimizes contact with familiar things that it claims encourage homosexual behavior: no secular music, no more than 15 minutes per day behind a closed bathroom door, no contact with any practicing homosexuals, no masturbation, no secular music, and -- for reasons not explained -- no Calvin Klein underwear.
The rules above were posted on Zach's blog, which has been inactive since June 3. The policies were confirmed by Alex Polotsky, a spokesman for Queer Action Coalition, a Memphis group formed to provide alternative information for struggling youth. "Nobody can be straight enough in the program," said Polotsky, whose group staged the protests outside LIA. "We're outraged at the treatment youths receive [in Refuge]."
Exodus International, an umbrella organization for nearly all regional "ex-gay" ministries, provides funding and marketing support for groups such as LIA, Lifeguard Ministries, New Hope Ministries and others. Although "reparative therapy" for homosexuality has been denounced by the mainstream psychological community as tantamount to abuse, "ex-gay" ministries offer hope to conflicted parents (usually devoutly religious and conservative) who are unwilling or unable to accept their kids' sexuality or seek traditional counseling.
Youth (and adults) who enter "ex-gay" programs may suffer from genuine self-destructive behaviors that go far beyond their struggle with same-sex attraction, said Wayne Besen, who wrote the book "Anything But Straight" about the "ex-gay" movement.
"To get help they have to swallow the lie that it's because they are gay that they're having these problems. It works by confusing people. It doesn't matter to them that they don't get results. They get a lot of money from people who really believe this stuff."
"Love in Action seems to be the worst of these reckless religious activities," said Craig Bowman, executive director of the National Youth Advocacy Coalition.
These programs are dangerous because they systematically work on a young person's psyche using junk science as a foundation."
Jack Drescher, M.D., a New York-based psychiatrist and chair of the American Psychiatric Association Committee on LGBT Issues, told the PlanetOut Network that such programs do far more harm than good for impressionable teens. "They may delay the child's coming out for many years, but by the time they are ready to come out, there's been a lot of psychological damage."
Shawn O'Donnell spent eight years in and out of therapy to change his sexual orientation. As a depressed and suicidal 18-year-old, O'Donnell was referred by his pastor to a three-year residential program, New Hope Ministry, located 10 miles from San Francisco. O'Donnell said it only made his issues worse.
"It was hell, very controlling.
We couldn't be alone. We were always told to pray harder, and it made us feel ashamed that we weren't using the program correctly," he recalled.
Peterson Toscano spent 17 years and $30,000 to get straight as an adult, but nothing worked. Now a "performance activist" in Connecticut, Toscano has toured the United States and Europe with a satirical theater piece about his two years in LIA. "'Ex-gay' programs use the term 'gay lifestyle,' which to them includes unsafe sex [and] emotionally dependent relationships," Toscano said.
"They know they can't really turn anyone straight, but they can make them not live the 'gay lifestyle.' They are purposely deceiving people."
Though relatively few people participate in 'ex-gay' programs, Drescher believes their influence goes far beyond changing individuals. "They are a pawn in the culture war," he said. "They support the idea that homosexuality can be changed, therefore it is a lifestyle and not worthy of civil rights legislation."
Drescher pointed to an 'ex-gay' convention called Love Won Out, organized by the anti-gay Focus on the Family and held in Texas to coincide with the state legislature's biennial sessions.
"The timing is not a coincidence," he said. "Their purpose is to shape public policy."
END:
Larry Buhl, PlanetOut Network Thursday, June 16, 2005 / 05:45 PM
SUMMARY: A youth's online postings about being sent to a rigid "ex-gay" program has troubled LGBT leaders and sparked daily protests at the ministry's Tennessee headquarters.
Editor's Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly placed Love in Action in Alabama, rather than Tennessee. We regret the error.
Sixteen-year-old "Zach" is apparently enduring a rite of passage still too common for gay youth: His parents say he must change. When they enrolled him last month in a Christian camp-like program to turn him straight, he documented his fears in his online diary, or blog.
The PlanetOut Network could not confirm Zach's identity or his story, but the blog has sparked a firestorm of protest against the program, known as Refuge, and renewed scrutiny of similar "ministries."
A residential program run by Memphis, Tenn.-based Love in Action (LIA), Refuge "ministers to adolescents struggling with broken and addictive behaviors, such as promiscuity, alcohol and drug addiction and homosexuality," according to its Web site.
An estimated total of 150 people -- including parents, children, psychiatrists and other concerned Memphis residents carrying signs that have slogans such as "This is Child Abuse" -- have gathered over eight consecutive days outside LIA headquarters. On Thursday LIA held a press conference in response to the protests.
For LIA, homosexuality is not an orientation but a set of behaviors that lies at the root of all dysfunction. And homosexual desires can supposedly be reprogrammed, through Refuge, at a cost of $2,000 for two weeks, or $4,000 for six weeks. Patterned after teen drug and alcohol programs, Refuge minimizes contact with familiar things that it claims encourage homosexual behavior: no secular music, no more than 15 minutes per day behind a closed bathroom door, no contact with any practicing homosexuals, no masturbation, no secular music, and -- for reasons not explained -- no Calvin Klein underwear.
The rules above were posted on Zach's blog, which has been inactive since June 3. The policies were confirmed by Alex Polotsky, a spokesman for Queer Action Coalition, a Memphis group formed to provide alternative information for struggling youth. "Nobody can be straight enough in the program," said Polotsky, whose group staged the protests outside LIA. "We're outraged at the treatment youths receive [in Refuge]."
Exodus International, an umbrella organization for nearly all regional "ex-gay" ministries, provides funding and marketing support for groups such as LIA, Lifeguard Ministries, New Hope Ministries and others. Although "reparative therapy" for homosexuality has been denounced by the mainstream psychological community as tantamount to abuse, "ex-gay" ministries offer hope to conflicted parents (usually devoutly religious and conservative) who are unwilling or unable to accept their kids' sexuality or seek traditional counseling.
Youth (and adults) who enter "ex-gay" programs may suffer from genuine self-destructive behaviors that go far beyond their struggle with same-sex attraction, said Wayne Besen, who wrote the book "Anything But Straight" about the "ex-gay" movement.
"To get help they have to swallow the lie that it's because they are gay that they're having these problems. It works by confusing people. It doesn't matter to them that they don't get results. They get a lot of money from people who really believe this stuff."
"Love in Action seems to be the worst of these reckless religious activities," said Craig Bowman, executive director of the National Youth Advocacy Coalition.
These programs are dangerous because they systematically work on a young person's psyche using junk science as a foundation."
Jack Drescher, M.D., a New York-based psychiatrist and chair of the American Psychiatric Association Committee on LGBT Issues, told the PlanetOut Network that such programs do far more harm than good for impressionable teens. "They may delay the child's coming out for many years, but by the time they are ready to come out, there's been a lot of psychological damage."
Shawn O'Donnell spent eight years in and out of therapy to change his sexual orientation. As a depressed and suicidal 18-year-old, O'Donnell was referred by his pastor to a three-year residential program, New Hope Ministry, located 10 miles from San Francisco. O'Donnell said it only made his issues worse.
"It was hell, very controlling.
We couldn't be alone. We were always told to pray harder, and it made us feel ashamed that we weren't using the program correctly," he recalled.
Peterson Toscano spent 17 years and $30,000 to get straight as an adult, but nothing worked. Now a "performance activist" in Connecticut, Toscano has toured the United States and Europe with a satirical theater piece about his two years in LIA. "'Ex-gay' programs use the term 'gay lifestyle,' which to them includes unsafe sex [and] emotionally dependent relationships," Toscano said.
"They know they can't really turn anyone straight, but they can make them not live the 'gay lifestyle.' They are purposely deceiving people."
Though relatively few people participate in 'ex-gay' programs, Drescher believes their influence goes far beyond changing individuals. "They are a pawn in the culture war," he said. "They support the idea that homosexuality can be changed, therefore it is a lifestyle and not worthy of civil rights legislation."
Drescher pointed to an 'ex-gay' convention called Love Won Out, organized by the anti-gay Focus on the Family and held in Texas to coincide with the state legislature's biennial sessions.
"The timing is not a coincidence," he said. "Their purpose is to shape public policy."
END:
Blogs Lauded In Freedom Awards:
June 19-2005:
Blogs lauded in 'freedom awards!
The best weblogs on the net which have defended freedom of expression have been recognised in the Freedom Blogs awards, voted for by the public. The seven best blogs out of 60, shortlisted by Reporters Without Borders, represent six locations.
Winners included Shared Pains, an Afghan blog which comments on daily political and social life there. Blogs, diary-like websites where people publish thoughts or news, are popular because they are easy to use and free. Also highlighted in the winners' list is Mojtaba Saminejad. He is an Iranian whose blog, published in the Farsi language, earned him a two-year prison sentence in June 2005.
The other Iranian bloggers nominated in the separate Iran category all voted for him too, as a sign of solidarity. In oppressive regimes, they are the only source of information so deserve be highlighted Julien Pain, Reporters Without Borders The Asia category was won by the Malaysian blog, Screenshot, published in English. Its editor, Jeff Ooi, was threatened with imprisonment in October 2004 for allowing a comment on his blog which "insulted Islam", according to the authorities.
English bias
It is the first time the awards have run, but Julien Pain from Reporters Without Borders (RSF) told the BBC News website that the campaign group wanted them to be an annual event. RSF tracks press freedom across the globe. While there is a huge debate in the US and Europe about whether bloggers should be afforded "journalist" status, with the protections and respect that go with that, the problems facing bloggers in oppressive regimes are much more pressing.
FREEDOM BLOG WINNERS Asia: Screenshot (Malaysia, published in English) Joint winner Africa and Middle East: Shared Pains (Afghanistan, Farsi) Joint winner Africa and Middle East: Al Jinane (Morocco, French) Europe: ICT lex (Italy, Italian) Americas: Press Think (US, English) Iran: Mojtaba Saminejad (Iran, Farsi) International: Netzpolitik (Germany, German)
"Blogs are great a tool in repressive regimes. In countries like China and Nepal, setting up a blog is the only way to be a real journalist," said Mr Pain. "We wanted to attract attention to how important blogs have become in terms of freedom of expression," he added. "In oppressive regimes, they are the only source of information so deserve be highlighted."
In 2000 in Iran, for instance, the regime shut down almost all independent newspapers. "Real journalists could not publish anymore so had to find other ways to keep working. They turned to blogs and started their own. "Then others, like people with other jobs, realised that they could do it too. They had information that the journalists didn't. "One blogger in Iraq went to jail because he criticised his local government about a very local problem, for instance." Groups, such as the Committee to Protect Bloggers, have been set up to rally global blogger support for those who are repressed for what they say.
English bias
There is no doubt blogs have caused ripples across the net. Many people are confused about why blogs have exploded in the way they have. "Blogs make things so much easier for non-technical people to publish. Anyone can be a publisher now," explained Mr Pain. "The real difference is that it is really easy for everyday people to do it. That is a revolution. Everyone can take the opportunity to be online publishers and speak out. "We are talking about 50-year-old Iranian journalists with no HTML skills, who would not be able to do real website.
The real problem, he said, was that the main blog tools that make self-publishing easy tended to be Anglo-Saxon and English-language based. Blogging took off in Iran when Hossein Derakhshan, who blogs under the name Hoder, integrated Farsi into blogging tools. "Iranians want to talk first to Iranians, then the rest of the world," said Mr Pain. But Mr Derakhshan does not live in Iran anymore, and now publishes in English. RSF said it was important for people still in countries like Iran to blog and reach out to and inform people who speak their own language.
RSF is trying to help bloggers set up their sites in Nepalese, for instance. They are having enormous difficulties because the blogging tools are just not able to handle the kinds of characters used in Nepalese. Mr Pain said RSF that working with organisations like Civiblog, which describes itself as a blogging tool for the "global civil society", could help alleviate the problem.
China is the most sophisticated in terms of web censoring tools and systems in place. Last week, the Chinese authorities said that all blogs had to register with them or face being shut down. And in a widely criticised move, Microsoft's MSN China site said it was starting to censor blog entries with certain terms in them. Microsoft said the company abided by the laws, regulations and norms of each country in which it operates.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/technology/4099802.stm
Published: 2005/06/17 07:48:59 GMT
Blogs lauded in 'freedom awards!
The best weblogs on the net which have defended freedom of expression have been recognised in the Freedom Blogs awards, voted for by the public. The seven best blogs out of 60, shortlisted by Reporters Without Borders, represent six locations.
Winners included Shared Pains, an Afghan blog which comments on daily political and social life there. Blogs, diary-like websites where people publish thoughts or news, are popular because they are easy to use and free. Also highlighted in the winners' list is Mojtaba Saminejad. He is an Iranian whose blog, published in the Farsi language, earned him a two-year prison sentence in June 2005.
The other Iranian bloggers nominated in the separate Iran category all voted for him too, as a sign of solidarity. In oppressive regimes, they are the only source of information so deserve be highlighted Julien Pain, Reporters Without Borders The Asia category was won by the Malaysian blog, Screenshot, published in English. Its editor, Jeff Ooi, was threatened with imprisonment in October 2004 for allowing a comment on his blog which "insulted Islam", according to the authorities.
English bias
It is the first time the awards have run, but Julien Pain from Reporters Without Borders (RSF) told the BBC News website that the campaign group wanted them to be an annual event. RSF tracks press freedom across the globe. While there is a huge debate in the US and Europe about whether bloggers should be afforded "journalist" status, with the protections and respect that go with that, the problems facing bloggers in oppressive regimes are much more pressing.
FREEDOM BLOG WINNERS Asia: Screenshot (Malaysia, published in English) Joint winner Africa and Middle East: Shared Pains (Afghanistan, Farsi) Joint winner Africa and Middle East: Al Jinane (Morocco, French) Europe: ICT lex (Italy, Italian) Americas: Press Think (US, English) Iran: Mojtaba Saminejad (Iran, Farsi) International: Netzpolitik (Germany, German)
"Blogs are great a tool in repressive regimes. In countries like China and Nepal, setting up a blog is the only way to be a real journalist," said Mr Pain. "We wanted to attract attention to how important blogs have become in terms of freedom of expression," he added. "In oppressive regimes, they are the only source of information so deserve be highlighted."
In 2000 in Iran, for instance, the regime shut down almost all independent newspapers. "Real journalists could not publish anymore so had to find other ways to keep working. They turned to blogs and started their own. "Then others, like people with other jobs, realised that they could do it too. They had information that the journalists didn't. "One blogger in Iraq went to jail because he criticised his local government about a very local problem, for instance." Groups, such as the Committee to Protect Bloggers, have been set up to rally global blogger support for those who are repressed for what they say.
English bias
There is no doubt blogs have caused ripples across the net. Many people are confused about why blogs have exploded in the way they have. "Blogs make things so much easier for non-technical people to publish. Anyone can be a publisher now," explained Mr Pain. "The real difference is that it is really easy for everyday people to do it. That is a revolution. Everyone can take the opportunity to be online publishers and speak out. "We are talking about 50-year-old Iranian journalists with no HTML skills, who would not be able to do real website.
The real problem, he said, was that the main blog tools that make self-publishing easy tended to be Anglo-Saxon and English-language based. Blogging took off in Iran when Hossein Derakhshan, who blogs under the name Hoder, integrated Farsi into blogging tools. "Iranians want to talk first to Iranians, then the rest of the world," said Mr Pain. But Mr Derakhshan does not live in Iran anymore, and now publishes in English. RSF said it was important for people still in countries like Iran to blog and reach out to and inform people who speak their own language.
RSF is trying to help bloggers set up their sites in Nepalese, for instance. They are having enormous difficulties because the blogging tools are just not able to handle the kinds of characters used in Nepalese. Mr Pain said RSF that working with organisations like Civiblog, which describes itself as a blogging tool for the "global civil society", could help alleviate the problem.
China is the most sophisticated in terms of web censoring tools and systems in place. Last week, the Chinese authorities said that all blogs had to register with them or face being shut down. And in a widely criticised move, Microsoft's MSN China site said it was starting to censor blog entries with certain terms in them. Microsoft said the company abided by the laws, regulations and norms of each country in which it operates.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/technology/4099802.stm
Published: 2005/06/17 07:48:59 GMT
Friday, June 17, 2005
Consumers Please Boycott Walmart Stores:
Boycott Walmart Stores!
Boycott International a program of 1world communication:
1world communication has decided to launch Boycott International in recognition of the power of individuals in situations where governments have chosen to, or are unable to, influence companies that exploit children and/or violate basic human rights of their workers.
Global trade and lending organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund have made it harder for organizations in any one country, or even governments to protect the interests of their citizens from the greed of multinational corporations. The assets of some of the largest corporations exceed those of many nations.
Only as a united global community can we stop them from destroying the environment, violating the most basic human rights of their workers, and exploiting children as a source of cheap labor.
The pages of Boycott International (BI) will serve as a clearinghouse of information. Occasionally BI will call for a boycott of a company not yet subject to an actual one but, due to it’s gross violations of human rights, we believe should not be patronized.We have chosen Walmart as the target of our primary call for a boycott because of the company’s unfair labor practices around the world.
Not only does this chain mistreat many employees that work for them, it also sells goods made by suppliers that grossly violate the rights of their workers around the world. Despite protests and a law suit they have refused to correct these problems.
The following article will give you some examples of how Walmart does business.
Special Note:
Walmart as an organization believes that selling merchandize to the consumer at a low price, is the best offer one can get. But at the same time, they fail to tell consumers that if a retailer is going to sell his merchandise cheaply, he has to pay wages cheaply. And doing that will make it impossible for workers to make a decent livlehood, pay rent, buy clothing, save for his child/chidren's college education, and put something away for a rainy day.
Walmart buys most of it's stock from China at a very cheap rate, undercutting the agreed upon fair trade agreement that China as a partner has signed. This is a blatant violation of fair trading practices. You see friends, China has a very large reservoir of labour to access. Plus that state subsidizes most of the local industries, in keeping with the communist system of state control.
And China does not allow Trade Unions to operate within it's borders. That conflicts with socialist thinking of collective ownership of the mode of production!
Therefore, taking strong action like boycotting Walmart stores, is just a start in the right direction.
Om Shanti.
Derryck S. Griffith.
Political Educator & Advocate.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/mimbari2003
Boycott International a program of 1world communication:
1world communication has decided to launch Boycott International in recognition of the power of individuals in situations where governments have chosen to, or are unable to, influence companies that exploit children and/or violate basic human rights of their workers.
Global trade and lending organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund have made it harder for organizations in any one country, or even governments to protect the interests of their citizens from the greed of multinational corporations. The assets of some of the largest corporations exceed those of many nations.
Only as a united global community can we stop them from destroying the environment, violating the most basic human rights of their workers, and exploiting children as a source of cheap labor.
The pages of Boycott International (BI) will serve as a clearinghouse of information. Occasionally BI will call for a boycott of a company not yet subject to an actual one but, due to it’s gross violations of human rights, we believe should not be patronized.We have chosen Walmart as the target of our primary call for a boycott because of the company’s unfair labor practices around the world.
Not only does this chain mistreat many employees that work for them, it also sells goods made by suppliers that grossly violate the rights of their workers around the world. Despite protests and a law suit they have refused to correct these problems.
The following article will give you some examples of how Walmart does business.
Special Note:
Walmart as an organization believes that selling merchandize to the consumer at a low price, is the best offer one can get. But at the same time, they fail to tell consumers that if a retailer is going to sell his merchandise cheaply, he has to pay wages cheaply. And doing that will make it impossible for workers to make a decent livlehood, pay rent, buy clothing, save for his child/chidren's college education, and put something away for a rainy day.
Walmart buys most of it's stock from China at a very cheap rate, undercutting the agreed upon fair trade agreement that China as a partner has signed. This is a blatant violation of fair trading practices. You see friends, China has a very large reservoir of labour to access. Plus that state subsidizes most of the local industries, in keeping with the communist system of state control.
And China does not allow Trade Unions to operate within it's borders. That conflicts with socialist thinking of collective ownership of the mode of production!
Therefore, taking strong action like boycotting Walmart stores, is just a start in the right direction.
Om Shanti.
Derryck S. Griffith.
Political Educator & Advocate.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/mimbari2003
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
US Supreme Court-Patients May Not Smoke POT Legally!
Supreme Court: Patients May Not Use Pot Legally!
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press WriterTue Jun 7, 2:10 AM ET
Anyone who lights up a joint for medicinal purposes isn't likely to be pursued by federal authorities, despite a Supreme Court ruling that these marijuana users could face federal charges, people on both sides of the issue say.
In a 6-3 decision, the court on Monday said those who smoke marijuana because their doctors recommend it to ease pain can be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws, overriding medical marijuana statutes in 10 states.
While the justices expressed sympathy for two seriously ill California women who brought the case, the majority agreed that federal agents may arrest even sick people who use the drug as well as the people who grow pot for them.
The ruling could be an early test of the compassion Attorney General Alberto Gonzales promised to bring to the Justice Department following the tenure of John Ashcroft.
Gonzales and his aides were silent on the ruling Monday, but several Bush administration officials said individual users have little reason to worry. "We have never targeted the sick and dying, but rather criminals engaged in drug trafficking," Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman Bill Grant said.
Yet Ashcroft's Justice Department moved aggressively following the Supreme Court's first decision against medical marijuana in 2001, seizing individuals' marijuana and raiding their suppliers.
The lawsuit that led to Monday's ruling, in fact, resulted from a raid by DEA agents and local sheriff's deputies on a garden near Oroville, Calif., where Diane Monson was cultivating six pot plants.
"I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Monson, an accountant who has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants.
Javier Pena, the DEA agent in charge of the San Francisco field division, said Monday his agency took part in the raid only at the request of local authorities.
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said Monday that "people shouldn't panic ... there aren't going to be many changes."
Local and state officers handle nearly all marijuana prosecutions and must still follow any state laws that protect patients.
The ruling does not strike down California's law, or similar ones in Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state. However, it may hurt efforts to pass laws in other states because the federal government's prosecution authority trumps states' wishes.
It was unclear whether any medical marijuana users ever have been arrested by federal agents. They typically are involved only when the quantities are substantial.
Tom Riley, spokesman for the White House drug policy office, said federal prisoners convicted of marijuana possession had on average more than 100 pounds.
Growers of large amounts of medical marijuana and people who are outspoken in their use of it could face heightened scrutiny.
"From an enforcement standpoint, the federal government is not going to be crashing into people's homes trying to determine what type of medicine they're taking," said Asa Hutchinson, a former DEA administrator. "They have historically concentrated on suppliers and people who flaunt the law. There should not be any change from that circumstance."
Allen St. Pierre, executive director of NORML, which favors legalization of marijuana, said the benchmark for federal intervention has been 50 plants.
But he said the larger point is that the ruling could stymie efforts in other states to pass laws allowing for the use of medical marijuana.
The Bush administration, like the Clinton White House before it, has taken a hard stand against state medical marijuana laws, arguing that such statutes could undermine the fight against illegal drugs. John Walters, director of national drug control policy, defended the government's ban. "Science and research have not determined that smoking marijuana is safe or effective," he said.
St. Pierre said the decision points up a large difference between the administration and the public. "The disconnect is so wide here," St. Pierre said. "In no circumstance where voters have the opportunity to weigh in have they said no to medical marijuana." Justice John Paul Stevens, an 85-year-old cancer survivor, said the Constitution allows federal regulation of homegrown marijuana as interstate commerce. But he noted the court was not passing judgment on the potential medical benefits of marijuana.
And Congress could change federal law if it desires, Stevens said, although that is not considered likely.
The case is Gonzales v. Raich, 03-1454.
The ruling in Gonzales v. Raich is available at:
http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050606raich.pdf
SPECIAL NOTE:
If the highest court in the land (The Supreme Court) ruled that smoking marijuana is a Federal offense. Then who can be guaranteed safe from prosecution by the law, regardless of the individual state's laws?
If the Federal authorities want to arrest anyone on charges for that offense, and he/she is a known grower and user of marijuana, then who is to stop them from doing so, or planting more marijuana on that person's property, in order to make a bust?
How can we be assured as a people that in the future this law will not be used willy nilly to arrest people on terrorist charges, using the marijuana Federal Law to validate federal actions in this regard. eg, promoting the sale of marijuana?
Om Shanti.
Derryck S. Griffith.
Political Educator & Advocate.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/derryckgrifith
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press WriterTue Jun 7, 2:10 AM ET
Anyone who lights up a joint for medicinal purposes isn't likely to be pursued by federal authorities, despite a Supreme Court ruling that these marijuana users could face federal charges, people on both sides of the issue say.
In a 6-3 decision, the court on Monday said those who smoke marijuana because their doctors recommend it to ease pain can be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws, overriding medical marijuana statutes in 10 states.
While the justices expressed sympathy for two seriously ill California women who brought the case, the majority agreed that federal agents may arrest even sick people who use the drug as well as the people who grow pot for them.
The ruling could be an early test of the compassion Attorney General Alberto Gonzales promised to bring to the Justice Department following the tenure of John Ashcroft.
Gonzales and his aides were silent on the ruling Monday, but several Bush administration officials said individual users have little reason to worry. "We have never targeted the sick and dying, but rather criminals engaged in drug trafficking," Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman Bill Grant said.
Yet Ashcroft's Justice Department moved aggressively following the Supreme Court's first decision against medical marijuana in 2001, seizing individuals' marijuana and raiding their suppliers.
The lawsuit that led to Monday's ruling, in fact, resulted from a raid by DEA agents and local sheriff's deputies on a garden near Oroville, Calif., where Diane Monson was cultivating six pot plants.
"I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Monson, an accountant who has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants.
Javier Pena, the DEA agent in charge of the San Francisco field division, said Monday his agency took part in the raid only at the request of local authorities.
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said Monday that "people shouldn't panic ... there aren't going to be many changes."
Local and state officers handle nearly all marijuana prosecutions and must still follow any state laws that protect patients.
The ruling does not strike down California's law, or similar ones in Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state. However, it may hurt efforts to pass laws in other states because the federal government's prosecution authority trumps states' wishes.
It was unclear whether any medical marijuana users ever have been arrested by federal agents. They typically are involved only when the quantities are substantial.
Tom Riley, spokesman for the White House drug policy office, said federal prisoners convicted of marijuana possession had on average more than 100 pounds.
Growers of large amounts of medical marijuana and people who are outspoken in their use of it could face heightened scrutiny.
"From an enforcement standpoint, the federal government is not going to be crashing into people's homes trying to determine what type of medicine they're taking," said Asa Hutchinson, a former DEA administrator. "They have historically concentrated on suppliers and people who flaunt the law. There should not be any change from that circumstance."
Allen St. Pierre, executive director of NORML, which favors legalization of marijuana, said the benchmark for federal intervention has been 50 plants.
But he said the larger point is that the ruling could stymie efforts in other states to pass laws allowing for the use of medical marijuana.
The Bush administration, like the Clinton White House before it, has taken a hard stand against state medical marijuana laws, arguing that such statutes could undermine the fight against illegal drugs. John Walters, director of national drug control policy, defended the government's ban. "Science and research have not determined that smoking marijuana is safe or effective," he said.
St. Pierre said the decision points up a large difference between the administration and the public. "The disconnect is so wide here," St. Pierre said. "In no circumstance where voters have the opportunity to weigh in have they said no to medical marijuana." Justice John Paul Stevens, an 85-year-old cancer survivor, said the Constitution allows federal regulation of homegrown marijuana as interstate commerce. But he noted the court was not passing judgment on the potential medical benefits of marijuana.
And Congress could change federal law if it desires, Stevens said, although that is not considered likely.
The case is Gonzales v. Raich, 03-1454.
The ruling in Gonzales v. Raich is available at:
http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050606raich.pdf
SPECIAL NOTE:
If the highest court in the land (The Supreme Court) ruled that smoking marijuana is a Federal offense. Then who can be guaranteed safe from prosecution by the law, regardless of the individual state's laws?
If the Federal authorities want to arrest anyone on charges for that offense, and he/she is a known grower and user of marijuana, then who is to stop them from doing so, or planting more marijuana on that person's property, in order to make a bust?
How can we be assured as a people that in the future this law will not be used willy nilly to arrest people on terrorist charges, using the marijuana Federal Law to validate federal actions in this regard. eg, promoting the sale of marijuana?
Om Shanti.
Derryck S. Griffith.
Political Educator & Advocate.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/derryckgrifith
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)